Forgery of a Will

FORGERY OF A WILL.
25,000 POUND ESTATE.

COLONEL SENT TO PENAL SERVITUDE.
LONDON, July 26.

At the Old Bailey yesterday, Frederick Joseph Pilcher was arraigned on a charge of feloniously uttering what purported to be the will of Miss Mary Lilian Kerferd. The accused, whose private address was Princess-terrace, Liverpool, was a colonel in the Territorials, a consulting engineer and naval architect and surveyor, a Commissioner of the Board of Trade, and he had also held some position at the Admiralty. In October, 1907, Miss Mary Lilian Kerferd's mother - a cousin of the accused - died, leaving her daughter a fortune of between 20,000 pounds and 30,000 pounds.
Pilcher was found guilty, and sent to penal servitude for three years.

At the Police Court proceedings last month counsel for the prosecutor stated that after her mother's death Miss Kerferd bought a house at Bray, near Maidenhead, where the accused was a constant visitor. In 1908, when Miss Kerferd was ill, she destroyed a will she had made in 1907, preparatory to making another. But when she died in March, 1909, at the age of fifty-seven, she left only an unsigned document, which was, therefore not a proper will. About a week after Miss Kerferd's death the accused wrote to one of the relatives stating that Miss Kerferd had left a will in his (the accused's) favour, dated May 19, 1898. From that time onwards, said Mr. Muir, the accused dealt in a spirit of the most disinterested generosity towards all who might be likely to dispute the authenticity of the alleged 1898 will on May 14, 1909. This document read: -
"I hereby revoke all wills by me at any time heretofore made. I appoint my cousin, Fred J. Pilcher, to be my sole executor. I hereby give and bequeath to my cousin, Fred J. Pilcher, all my property, real and personal, whatsoever." A Mrs. Hiemandahl, who was named in the unsigned document, said Mr. Muir, made inquiries, and wrote to the accused, telling him that he was a forger. He did nothing in regard to that letter, except to call on Mrs. Hiemandahl and ask her to apologise, but that she refused to do so. Afterwards the accused sent for Miss Kerferd's maid, Dorothy Jones, and at his request she went to his solicitor and made a statement. The maid was mentioned in the unsigned will, and the accused had promised to give her more than Miss Kerferd had intended. The accused, counsel said, instructed the maid what to say to the solicitor, and warned her that if the 1898 will did not go through she would not get anything. After making the statement the maid communicated with Mr. Frank Stokes, one of Miss Kerferd's relatives. A visit was made to Somerset House by Mr. Stokes, Dorothy Jones, and Mrs. Hiemandahl, and the 1898 will was found to be a forgery. On June 6, 1909, probate of the 1898 will was revoked, on the ground that it was a forgery. An administrator was appointed by the Court, and 21,000 pounds of Miss Kerferd's property had been secured. A considerable amount - probably about 5,900 pounds - had been dissipated by the accused before the revocation of the probate. Counsel added that the persons whose names appeared on the forged will as witnesses were both dead. Mr. Walter G. Rowney, of Messrs. G. Rowney and Co., artists' colourmen, stated that he had a brother named Frederick Rowney, who was now dead. The signature "Fredk. Rowney" on the alleged forged will was not in his brother's handwriting. Mr. Horace G. Harwood, of the firm of Stephenson, Harwood, Henderson, and Co., solicitors, of Lombard-street, said that he served the accused with the citation and writ in the High Court proceedings. Afterwards the witness saw the accused at his solicitor's office. The accused then made no statement, but his solicitor told the witness that he denied the suggestion that the 1898 will was a forgery. Chief Inspector Stockley, who effected the arrest, stated, in reply to Mr. Freke Palmer (for the defence) that the accused told him he had no notice whatever of the date of the proceedings in the High Court, and did not know that the case had been heard until after judgment had been given. Mrs. Mary Charlotte Bower, of Liscard, Cheshire, gave evidence that the 1898 will was not written by Miss Kerferd. The writing was something like hers, and was apparently an attempt to imitate it.

Source: The Mercury, Thursday 28 July 1910, page 5