O'Malley v. O'Reilly, continued

I previously posted an article from the Dublin papers concerning the probate case of Mr. James O'Reilly.  Here is another one.

Freeman's Journal, 27 Jan 1874
O'Malley v. O'Reilly-- This matter came before the court on appeal from the decree made by Judge Warren, bearing date 23rd June, 1873, in the Court of Probate, whereby the document bearing date the 4th of May, 1872, was pronounced to be the last will and testament of James O'Reilly, late of Mount Alban, county Dublin.  The plaintiffs were the executors under the said will, and the defendant was the eldest surviving brother of the deceased.  The defences were that the will in question was not duly executed according to the statute, that it was obtained by undue influence of Mrs. O'Malley, the mother of the plaintiff, and others; also that it was revoked by a codicil dated 3rd of October, 1873, and also that it was revoked on the 5th of November, 1873, by the deceased tearing it with the intention of revoking it, and by causing it to be torn with that object.  The plaintiffs filed several applications raising different issues, the principal of which were that the codicil in question was not executed according to the statute, and that it and the other question of revocation were brought about by undue influence.  The issue on these pleadings was whether the paper writing bearing date 4th May, 1872, was the last will of James O'Reilly.  The case was commenced on the 8th, and occupied the court until the 14th of May, and four other issues were substituted for the one on the record, two of which - namely, the 1st and 4th - were found in favour of the plaintiffs, and the jury was discharged by the learned judge from finding on the second and third.  After the trial, the defendant moved for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection, and that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.  This application was refused by the judge, by order of the 23rd of June; and on the same day the final decree was pronounced, to the effect mentioned.  From this decree the defendant now appealed, principally on the grounds that the issues found at the trial were not the issues raised on the record, that none of the issues so found were material to the case, and that no issue was found which justified the decree.  Defendant's counsel also relied on the grounds raised at the new trial motion - namely, that the findings were against the evidence and the weight of evidence, and were void in consequence of misdirection.  Counsel for the appellant (the defendant below) -- Mr. Macdonogh, Q.C., Mr. Hemphill, Q.C., and Mr. Curtis, instructed by Mr. P. Rooney.  For the respondent (the plaintiff below) -- Sergeant Armstrong, Mr. Butt, Q.C., and Mr. John Murray, instructed by Mr. James Plunkett.
The arguments are at hearing.

The "document bearing date the 4th of May, 1872" is possibly the codicil referred to in the previous post which James O'Reilly's brother Laurence was attempting to establish as his brother's final wishes.  The text of this article would indicate his appeal of the previous verdict had succeeded.  This trial indicates a new decision in favor of the O'Malleys.  As in the previous case, Laurence O'Reilly filed an appeal, so this was not to be the final word on the matter.