An Irishman named Dennis Tolam, who died at Cork possessed of considerable wealth, in the year 1769, left a singular will, containing the following testamentary dispositions: “I leave to my sister-in-law four old stockings, which will be found under my mattress, to the right. Item: To my nephew, Michael Tarles, two odd socks and a green nightcap. Item: To Lieutenant John Stein, a blue stocking, with my red cloak. Item: To my cousin, Barbara Dolan, an old boot, with a red flannel pocket. Item: To Hannah, my housekeeper, my broken water-jug.” After the death of the testator, the legatees having been convened by the notary to be present at the reading of the will, each, as he or she was named, shrugged their shoulders and otherwise expressed a contemptuous disappointment, while parties uninterested in the succession could not refrain from laughing at these ridiculous, not to say insulting, legacies. All were leaving the room, after signifying their intention of renouncing their bequests, when the last-named, Hannah, having testified her indignation by kicking away the broken pitcher, a number of coins rolled out of it; the other individuals, astonished at the unexpected incident, began to think better of their determination, and requested permission to examine the articles given to them. It is needless to say that, on proceeding to the search, the stockings, socks, pocket, etc., soon betrayed by their weight the value of their contents; and the hoard of the testator, thus fairly distributed, left on the minds of the legatees a very different impression of his _worth_. MUST NOT MARRY A DOMESTIC SERVANT A curious and peculiarly hard case came before a Vice-Chancellor in London in 1880. The facts are as follows: A Miss Turner devised a large amount of real estate to her father for life, and then to her brother on these conditions: “But if my brother shall marry during my life without my consent in writing, or if he shall already have married, or hereafter shall marry, a domestic servant,” then such bequest to her brother was to be void. It appears the brother came into possession of the estate and died in 1898, leaving a widow and two children. Suit was instituted against the widow and children on the ground that the testatrix’s brother had forfeited his title to the legacy by marrying a domestic servant. It was contended on behalf of the widow that she had been a housekeeper, and not a domestic servant. The Vice-Chancellor, however, was of the opinion that a housekeeper was a domestic servant, and thus the legacy was forfeited. TO SING IN OPERA