A ROMANTIC CASE.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 809, 25 January 1877, Page 3

A ROMANTIC CASE.

[By Telegbaph.]

( From a correspondent of the Press. ) DUNK-DIN, January 24. The case of Bobertson v Ross was re Burned to-day. , Margaret Robertson, wife of the plaintiff. detailed overhearing an interview between her husband and Bugler, in the Glasgow Pie House. Bfce heard Boss tell her husband that it (the deed) was his will. It was the same as the one in the Registry Office, with the exception that instead of everything goiDg to himself it was to go to Mrs Boss. Heard Ross say, " Now old man ,1 have written at the bottom of the will ' Satisfied.' Give us your name, say you are satisfied, and we will be all right." My husband replied, *' Not until you make my will as I wish it." Boss pleaded five or six times to get my husband to put his name to it, but he always gave the same answer. I fancied they had got my husband to put his name to it against his will, and I thought it my duty to prevent it. I opened the door and went into the room. Ross got up at the opposite side of the table and called me a great many bi>d names. I told them I had heard all the deeds read, and all that had been said, and that I would advise them, as a true fiieud, to drop such work, for I was afraid they would be sorry for it, Wm Christie, clerk in the registrar of land office, Dunedin, stated that on the 29 b day of May, 1869, he was in Mr Macfarlano's shop settling an account, and Roes was there at the same time. He (Ross) said " Will you oblige me by taking across this deed to the registry office and have it registered." Witness superficially examined the deed, and saw it was "registerable," and forthwith got it registered. His suspicions were aroused ]by seeing the members vt the family looking for this deed, of which they Beemed to know nothing, and he went to Ross some months after the deed was signed, and got a memorandum from him to the effect he (witness) had nothing to do with the execution of the deed.

Mrs Napier, Ross's fellow voyager on the passage out, reluctantly admitted that she did all she could to forward the match be tween Ross and Jennie Robertson.

Alexander Inglis, draper, another of Robertson's sons-in-law, gave important evidence. From the commencement of their acquaintance, which dated from Bobs' marriage the latter was continually inciting the witness against the present Mrs Robertson. Ross said she had got a will, which she carried about in her bosom, making all the property over to her. One Sunday after dinner defendant said to witness, " I am going to tell you a secret, but you must pledge your word that you will never speak about it until the old man is dead." Witness promised secrecy, and Ross forthwith said," He had cutout old Mag " (by which term he meant Mrs Robertson), and had ootlefther a copper." Witness asked him how be had managed that, and Ross replied " I told the old man his boundaries were not correct and got him to give me all hia papers," adding that after he (Ross) had got the papers he went to Mr Stsmper, the soli citor and told him that he had a brother, to whom he wished to give the property, and Mr Stamper was to make out the deed. Ross said that after the deed was obtained from Mr Stamper he copied it himself. He said to witness "old Mag has got a will but I have got a deed" Vk itness represented to Ross that it was very wrong for him to do such a thing, that Mr-n Robertson had a right to a living out of the property, and recommended him to give it back, pointing out that he was robbing the family too. Ross said he would not rob the family, but would giTe them share about. Witness wanted bim to make out a deed to that effect which would include Mrs Robertson, and which might lay over until the old man died, but Ross declined. Ross came to witness's shop one d*y and said to him, "You are a deceiver." Witness retorted he wished to defend the family. He had said to many people he would spend a £IOOO after the old man's death to get the property back to the family Thomas Robertson had expressed a similar intention.

At the close of plaintiff's case Mr Macas--Bey applied to have plaintiff's replication to defendant's pleas amended. The counsel for the defendant objacted, on the grounds of surprise, and that new matter was introduced. His Honor said he would like to consider the question, and the Court was adjourned till the following day. The principal point of the proposed amended replication is that the plaintiff is ignorant, and defendant in reality a ski lied lawyer, who, if be had been admitted as a solicitor in this colony, and had made a deed while the other executing party was ignorant, would, of itself, be sufficient to upset the document.