O'Malley v. O'Reilly

Today's notes come to us courtesy of the 19th century Dublin papers, relating to the probate case of O'Malley v. O'Reilly, wherein a surviving brother of James O'Reilly, Esq. of Dundrum sued the executors of his brother's estate.

Freeman's Journal, 15 May 1873

COURT OF PROBATE.

(Before the Right Hon. Judge Warren and a City Special Jury.)

O'Malley v O'Reilly -- This suit, which has been at hearing since Thursday, was resumed yesterday and concluded.  It was instituted to establish the will of the late Mr James O'Reilly, of Mount Alban, Dundrum, county Dublin, which bore date the 4th November, 1871.  The testator died in November following, leaving property to the amount of about 9,000l.  He was formerly a gentleman farmer in the county Meath, but had lately retired from business, having invested a good deal of money in funds and stock, consisting chiefly of bank and railway shares.  He died unmarried.  By the will referred to the testator left over 4,000l worth of shares in the Royal Bank to the mother of the plaintiffs, who were distant relations, a small legacy to their brother, the Rev John O'Malley, one of the clergymen of Westland row Chapel, and the residue principally to the plaintiffs themselves, and to his brother, the Rev Mr O'Reilly.  The testator died at the age of about sixty years.  The plaintiffs, who are young men, lived with their mother and sisters near Santry, in the county Dublin.  The will was contested by Mr Laurence O'Reilly, M D, of Ratoath, county Meath, a brother of the deceased.  He disputed it partly on the grounds of undue influence, partly upon the alleged circumstance that the testator, on the 5th of November, eleven days before his death, came to the office of the solicitor who prepared the will and tore his signature off it.  A codicil, dated the 4th of May, 1872, was also relied upon by the defendant as revocation of the will, and which disposed of his property otherwise.  This codicil the plaintiffs disputed on the grounds of incapacity and undue influence.
Counsel for plaintiffs -- Sergeant Armstrong, Mr Falkiner, QC; and Mr Murray, instructed by Mr Plunket.  Counsel for defendant -- Mr Macdongoh, QC; Mr Hemphill, QC, and Mr Curtis, instructed by Mr Rooney.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, establishing the will. 

I have a few more clippings related to this case, which I will post individually.