A STRANGE CASE.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2630, 22 July 1871, Page 3

A STRANGE CASE.

The Melbourne Aye of a late date reports the following strange case The matters of Mr Thomas Graham, deceased, the wealthy brewer, were again before the Equity Court,:in its ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Mr Graham left a fortune of oyer 1,30,000. Mrs Graham applied for administration, but a caveat was lodged against the application by her daughter Mrs Cozens. The ground of tbe caveat was the very surprising one that Mrs Graham had a husband living in Tasmania when she married Graham. Mrs Cozens is her daughter by the former husband, whose name was Crook. She stated in an affidavit that Crook lived several years as a lunatic after his wife s marriage with Graham. Afterwards another caveat was lodged under still more extraordinary circumstances. Mr Charlaey, the solicitor, lodged' this caveat. He produced a letter to Mr Graham from two brothers named Graham in England, and explained it by the following alleged facts : —“ Mr Graham had a wife living in Pnglaud at the time of his marriage with Mrs Graham formerly Crook. The former marriage was contracted over forty years ago; but Mr Graham deserted bis wife, and came to this country. He bad two sous by his first marriage ; but never made known bis whereabouts to them until after the lapse of a period of time, daring which they grew from children to men of mature age. Within a few months of his death Mr Graham wrote a letter addressed at random to his sons in England, the only direction being that of the pla!ce where he had left them so many years before. No copy cm be fxund among Mr Graham’s paper of the letter which he sent home; and ita contents are only to bo gathered from the reply of his sons. They stated in the loiter that they were both married men, that they were in poor circumstances, and that ihcy felt very grateful to their father for making himself known to them. It also appeared from the letter that Mr Graham had told them he was the possessor of a large fortune, and would make good provision for them in his will. The interference of Mr Charsley was accounted for by the fact that the brothers had placed tbe matter m the hands of an English solicitor, who appointed him as agent. The caveat by Mrs Cozens was withdrawn recently, and it was hinted in court that there had been an arrangement with her. The strange circumstances in connection with tbe case are not exhausted by the narration which has been given. It is stated that Mr Graham married the mother of the brothers Graham at home in the year 1820, and she did no; die until the year 1860. It is also state I that in the year 1829 he married another woman, with whom he embarked for Australia some years afterwards. There were 590 passengers on board the ship whi-ih was wrecked, and only about 40 tsC ised alive, Mr Graham being among them, with a stepson of the wife he had with him. The wife was drowned, together with two children of hers by Mr Graham, In 1840 Graham married Mrs Crook. Here now is a wonderful story giving a fresh illustration of tbe saying that truth is stranger than tic-' tion. The case came before the Equity Court, on .an application by Mr Stephen on beholf of Mrs Graham, for administration to the real and personal estate of her late husband. Mr Bunny, on behalf of Mr Charsley, opposed the application. Mr Stephen’s hypothesis was that the sons who wrote from Home were illegitimate children ; Mr Bunny's that they wore legit mate, and that the woman lost in the ship was not Mr Graham’s wife. After hearing both gentlemen, Mr Justice Molesworth reserved bis decision.”