28.—A terrible gale raged throughout the country. At Norwich, between ten o’clock and noon, the thermometer rose from 36 degrees to 47 degrees; at two o’clock it registered 45 degrees. The wind blew from the west, veering occasionally to the north and to w.n.w., but during the height of the gale it blew west by north. Great damage was done to buildings, trees were uprooted, and “locomotion was extremely difficult and laborious, and, indeed, quite out of the question to those of the fair sex whose fashionable expanded dresses, assuming the properties of parachutes, compelled them to undertake a species of aerial voyage for a distance of a few yards, or exposed them to the still more unpleasant predicament of having their parachute garments inverted.” There were many disasters along the coast, and several lives were lost.
MARCH.
9.—A Special Committee of the House of Commons sat to decide various questions arising out of the elections at Norwich in 1859. The first point to be decided was whether Lord Bury’s claim, by virtue of the election in July, was not nullified by the bribery which was proved to have been made by his agents when he was returned with Mr. Schneider in April; and secondly, whether, in the event of such disqualification, Sir Samuel Bignold or Colonel Boldero had a valid claim. There were three petitions: (1) against the return of Lord Bury and the qualification of Sir Samuel Bignold, on the ground that both had been guilty of bribery at the April election, and the seat was, therefore, claimed for Colonel Boldero (signed by Josiah Fletcher, S. Jarrold, and J. J. Kempster); (2) alleging the disqualification of Lord Bury, and claiming the seat for Sir Samuel Bignold (signed by J. G. Johnson and R. Kerrison); and (3) alleging the disqualification of both Lord Bury and Sir Samuel Bignold, and claiming the seat for Colonel Boldero (signed by P. Back and G. C. Stevens). No appearance was put in in support of the first petition. The Committee declared that Lord Bury was not merely disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons during the then Parliament, but the last election was void, in consequence of his lordship having been found, since that return, guilty of bribery by his agents. A writ was then issued for another election, and on March 28th the following candidates were nominated: Mr. W. Forlonge (C), Aynhoe Park, Northamptonshire; Mr. W. D. Lewis, Q.C. (C); Sir William Russell (L), and Mr. Edward Warner (L). The polling took place on the 29th, and the result was officially declared on the 30th, as follows: Warner, 2,083; Russell, 2,045; Forlonge, 1,636; Lewis, 1,631.
24.—Died at his residence, Hillington Hall, aged 73, Sir William John Henry Browne ffolkes, Bart. He represented the county, and afterwards the Western Division, as a supporter of Liberal principles from 1830 through the Reform era, but lost the seat on the redaction of the Conservative party in 1837, when Mr. Bagge and Mr. Chute were returned. As a magistrate, country gentleman, and landlord, Sir William was highly esteemed. He was Chairman of Quarter Sessions at Swaffham, and chairman of the Norfolk Estuary Company. He was succeeded by his grandson, William Howell, then in his twelfth year, and eldest son of Martin Brown ffolkes, who was killed by lightning in July, 1849.
24.—The Rev. J. W. L. Heaviside was installed Canon of Norwich Cathedral, in succession to Canon Wodehouse, resigned. Mr. Heaviside was a professor at Haileybury College, an examiner in mathematics for the University of London and for the Council of Military Education, and a brother of Mr. Heaviside, formerly master of the Norwich School of Art.
29.—At the Norwich Assizes, before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a special jury, was tried a libel action, in which Mr. Samuel B. Cory, solicitor, Yarmouth, was the plaintiff, and Mr. T. W. Bond, publisher of the “Norfolk News,” Norwich, the defendant. The libel was contained in a letter written to the newspaper by a Mr. Fabb, who alleged, among other things, that Mr. Cory had laid informations in certain game cases, with the object of putting the fees into his own pocket. Mr. Fabb, it was understood, had indemnified the “Norfolk News.” The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with one farthing damages, as to that part of the libel above quoted, and for the defendant as to other portions of the libel, on the ground that they had been justified as true. The effect of the verdict was that plaintiff had to pay his own costs and half the costs of the defendant. In a second action, Mr. Fabb sued Mr. Cory for malicious prosecution, and obtained a verdict for £30 damages.
30.—Died, in her 63rd year, at Cheltenham, while on a visit to her son-in-law, the Rev. J. F. Fenn, Lady Bignold, wife of Sir Samuel Bignold.
APRIL.
2.—An important will case, Wright v. Wilkin, commenced at the Norfolk Assizes, before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a special jury. It was brought in the form of an action for ejectment to recover possession of certain tenements and lands held by the defendant, Thomas Martin Wilkin, solicitor, of Lynn, under the will of an old lady named Mary Mann. The plaintiff, who was heir-at-law, alleged that the will was obtained from an infirm and weak-minded person by fraudulent practices and contrivances. The will had already been disputed, and in that trial a verdict was given in favour of Mr. Wilkin; this action was brought because there had come to the knowledge of the plaintiff facts and circumstances which had been entirely withheld from the former jury. The trial lasted until the afternoon of the 3rd, when the jury found for the defendant, subject to argument upon certain points reserved. These were stated in the Court of Queen’s Bench on April 9th, and were to the effect that the devise to the defendant was defeated by his neglect to comply with a condition of the will, namely, that the devise was conditional on the devisee paying off certain legacies within twelvemonths in case the personal estate should be insufficient for that purpose. It transpired that the personal estate was insufficient, but the defendant did not pay one of the legacies within the time stipulated. It was also contended for the plaintiff that the devise to the defendant was void, inasmuch as it was a contrivance to defeat the Statute of Mortmain, several of the legacies being for charitable purposes, and that the defendant had misled the testatrix by not telling her that, under 43rd George III., she could leave as much as five acres of land for the repair of the church. Lord Chief Justice Cockburn granted a rule nisi. In the Court of Queen’s Bench, on November 27th, the Lord Chief Justice said the rule must be discharged, as the words in the will were not intended to impose a condition, the non-observance of which would involve forfeiture. Mr. Justice Crompton and Mr. Justice Blackburn concurred. The rule was discharged.