Show blunders of lawyers although the lawyers as a rule are extremely careful in drawing legal documents some very ver fatal blunders have been made by th them e m one of the most eminent conveyancing avi aai lawyers ers that ever graced the english bari barl barance ba ronce lonce in drawing a will made BO so fatal a mistake that it deprived the party whom he was specially and most anxiously instructed to benefit of no less a sum that a year and this merely by the omission of the single word gloucester lord denman made his own will and made a mull of it the late mr air justice crowder also drew his own will but omitted to execute it in proper form form we recollect another rather remar remarkable pryer able abie blunder made by the lawyers which happened comparatively speaking very recently Lincol ns inn was exempted from poor rates as and the bounds were set out in a private act of parliament but from oversight or carelessness the lawyers omitted the garden the consequence was that the buildings thereon were rated to the poor at per annum another blunder and a judicial one rather a curious result not mally many years ago lord chief baron pollock at the monmouth assizes in order to get through the bu business assigned the trial of several criminal cases to sergeant allen alien who vrho accordingly took his bis seat on the bench when he had disposed of some twelve or fifteen cases it was discovered that the learned sergeants nameh name had adnot not been mentioned in the commission and that consequently his powers as a judge were abu abo about as great as those of a crier of the court all the crimi criminals rills had therefore to be retried by the lord chief baron when one of them who had bad been sentenced to fifteen years transportation por tation on on bis his first conviction esca escaped ped with only seven on the second we will nill just mention one more instance in the will of that celebrated millionaire mr arkwright there is a line perhaps more valuable than anyone any one lin line e that tha t was ever before or will ever again be written it is 1 I bequeath to my son in law sir it 11 wigram one million sterling now sir R wigram had married hir air araw I 1 1 9 lits daughter 11 f the te testator was desirous of b benefiting ene fiting the daughter and her husband and therefore made the bequest as above stated I 1 am riot not aware whether the will was drawn by a professional man or not but very pro pio probably babli bably it was now had old mr arkwright I 1 left one million stern ster ling ing to his daughter instead of her husband 1 the bequest would have been materially the same for the husband would have a right to the legacy directly it was paid to the wife the testator however thought proper to give to his son in law whereupon let us see the consequences had the testator be bequeathed leathed the money to lady wigram ehe she being being a daug daughter would have ha had d xa 1 per cent le legacy leacy acy duty t to pay y that would be but having rigi rigs given the legacy to his hia bon son ij ia law who was u not t a blood r relation elation X 10 per cent legacy lut duty y tad bad had to be paid which of course amounted d to t oot thus through ignorance or mistake the sum bua of 0 was absolutely thrown away by a person who was careful of every farthi farthing jig he received |