|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[succession - bigamy] In re Bradbury Supreme Court of New South Wales Dowling A.C.J., and Burton and Kinchela JJ, 15 July 1836 Source: Sydney Gazette, 21 July 1836[1]
In re Bradbury deceased - The Attnorney General said, in this case which had been mentioned before, a woman claimed to come in as the widow of the deceased, whereas it appeared that the real wife was in England. He did not exactly know whether he was in a situation to move that letters of administration should be granted to Dennis and his wife Mary Sheil, of Bungonia, the latter was the only daughter of deceased. They had put a caveat to prevent Mrs. Patrick alias Bradbury, obtaining letter of adminisration, and she had put in a caveat against them. Deceased had made a will some time previous to his death, in favour of his daughter Sheil, but it was stolen from him about three weeks before he died. When he missed the will, he said to a friend it was of little consequence, as he could from another confidential party obtain a copy of it. The female who now claimed as the widow, being most interested; doubts arose upon her manner of obtaining the will. When deceased was about to marry the now claiming widow, the Rev. Mr. Reddall after the banns had been published refused to perform the ceremony, but subsequently the Rev. Mr. Hassall had done it doubtless through some imposition having been practised upon him. A great deal of desultary conversation ensued, from which it would appear that deceased had come to this country some years ago, and had amassed some property. He had left a wife at home (said to be now in the work house at Hammersmith in the neighbourhood of London), by whom he had the daughter Mary Shiel; having married again, subsequently the question was, which reputed widow was to administer. It was ultimately decided by the court, that there must be a fresh application made in a proper form, the previous one having been irregular, and that in the meantime the property be taken possession of by the Registrar. Mr. Windeyer on the part of the (Colonial) widow, applied for costs, but the Chief Justice said, that at present they were not in a condition to make any order.
Notes [1] See also Australian, 22 July 1836. For further litigation, see Sydney Gazette, 27 September 1836. |
|