Before the Sarsfield Colclough Vs. the Rossborough Colclough's the Rossborough's had to fight another law case to recover that which the considered their birth right. Lives these days seem quite tame, the 'sins' of Vesey, Adam and Caesar staining their descendants, it all makes good reading. I've always thought that living the good life is boring and the shenanigans of the 18 century Colclough might be grist to that mill, I suspect that the |Colclough women might not have  agreed:

Transcript of Arguments in the House of Lords
and Judgment. Page 1. 16th June 1856.
Boyse v Rossborough. Boyse v Colclough.
Counsel for Appellants Sir F.Thesiger Q.C. M.P. Mr Roll.Q.C. and Mr Cairns Q.C. M.P.
Solicitors. Messrs Gregory, Skirrow, and Rowcliffe.
Counsel for the Respondents, Mr Solicitor General, Q.C.M.P. Mr Whiteside,
Q.C.M.P.and Mr.Smythe,
Solicitors Messrs Powell and Kernaghan.

Sir F. Thesiger. My Lords, this is an appeal against certain orders and a decree by the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in a case of Rossborough and Wife, Boyse and wife, the
orders being, first an order of the 31st January 1852,directing the trial of an issue
devisavit vel non, to try whether a paper writing of the 6th August 1842 was the last
will and and testament of Caesar Colclough, the husband of the Appellant, another
order of the 30th of July 1853, altering the former order, by inserting the words “and
the defendant’s counsel not objecting”. an order of the 18th April 1853, refusing a
new trial, with costs, and an order or decree on further directions of the 19th April
1853, declaring the last Will of Caesar Colclough to be null and void, and ordering the
Sheriff of Wexford to put respondents in possession of the estate, for the Master to
take an account of the rents and profits which accrued six years prior to the filing of
the bill, viz the 7th September 1843, and that the Appellant and her husband should
pay the sum which the Master shall report to be due, and also to pay the costs,
including the costs of the issue, and of the accounts directed to be taken. (The case
having been argued at great length by Counsel on both sides) on July 15th 1856.
The Lord Chancellor, My Lords, I need hardly say that I do not propose to your
lordships to give a decision at the present moment, or indeed to express any decided
opinion upon this case- I wish rather just to point out what I consider to be the
several points that are to be decided. Having just glanced at what all
these subjects are, I can only say that the case is one involving a great number of
point of great nicety and difficulty, and a very great number of authorities have been
referred to, and before I can finally advice your Lordships as to the course which I
think ought to be taken in this very complicated, difficult, and important case, I must
request time of your lordships to look into and examine all the authorities very
minutely. I therefore move on that the further consideration of this case be
postponed. Order of Judgment of House of Lords, dated 13th March 1857.
After hearing counsel, as well on the 16.17, and 19 days of June last, the
3.4,7,10,11,14, and 15 days of July last, upon the Petition and appeal of TB of etc JSB
of etc, his wife complaining of two orders of the Court of Chancery in Ireland
and praying their lordships, “to reverse the said orders of etc., and the said
decree etc., or to grant to the Petitioners, such other relief in the premises, as to this
House, in their Lordships great wisdom should seem meet”, as also upon the joint
and several answers of John Thomas Rossborough, now Colclough. and Mary Grey
Wentworth Rossborough Colclough his wife, put into the said appeal, also as to
Supplemental appeal. And answer, of same parties.
It is ordered and adjudged by the Lords spiritual and temporal in Parliament
assembled, that the said order of the 31st January 1852,complained of in the 1st
herein before mentioned appeal, be, and the same is hereby affirmed, and that the
said order of 18th April 1853, and the said order of the 19th April 1853, also
respectively complained of in the 1st herein-before mentioned appeal, and the order
of the said Court of the 2nd of July 1853, awaiting the said decree of the 19th April
1853 and the order of the 19th June 1854, which was complained of in the said
supplemental appeal, be, and the same are hereby reversed. And it is declared, that
there ought to have been a new trial of the issue, directed by the said Court of the
31st January, 1852.
And it is further declared, that the said sum of £21,961-19-10, invested by the said
Appellant, Jane Stratford Boyse under an order of the said Court of Chancery in
Ireland, of the 5th July 1854, in the purchase of three and one quarter per cent stock,
and transferred into Court, to the credit of the said causes as directed by the said
order, ought to be retained in Court, without prejudice, until the result of the new
trial shall have been ascertained. And it is furthered ordered that the said causes be
remitted back to the Court of Chancery in Ireland, to carry the said declarations into
effect with such usual or special directions, as the said Court of Chancery in Ireland
may deem it proper to give, for reading on the new trial the depositions taken in the
said Court of Chancery in Ireland, of any witnesses who shall have died since the
trial, directed by the said order of the 31st January 1852,or as any directing the new
trial to take place elsewhere, than at Wexford, the admission of the judges notes of
evidence where the presence of the former witnesses cannot be obtained, or any
other subject whereon the said Court of Chancery may deem such directions
necessary, and to proceed further in the said causes as shall be just and consistent
with these declarations and this judgment.
(Signed) John Geo. Shaw Lefevre, Clerk of Parliament.



Defendants Brief at 2nd Trial in Wexford
Appendix page 3. Decree directing new Trial of Issue
The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, May 4th, 1857.
Between John Thomas Rossborough, and Mary, Grey Wentworth Rossborough his
wife plaintiffs.
Thomas Boyse and Jane Stratford Boyse, otherwise Colclough defendants,
and John Thomas Rossborough, now John Thomas Rossborough Colclough and Mary
Grey Wentworth Rossborough Colclough, plaintiffs.
The Rev R.Boyse. Executor of John Boyse deceased, and Jane Stratford Boyse
defendant.
These causes coming on this day to be heard before the Right Honourable, the Lord High Chancellor of Ireland, for further directions on the judgment and order of the House of Lords, bearing date the 13th March 1857, in the presence of counsel learned on both sides. Upon opening a debate of the matter, and hearing decreetal order etc., read, and the said judgment and order of the House of Lords read and what was alleged by the said counsel. His Lordship doeth order that the parties do proceed to a new trial at law of the issue directed by the said order of 31st January 1852. And accordingly that a writ of summons pursuant to the provisions of the Act etc., be sued out of Her Majesty’s Court of Queens Bench in Ireland according to the form of the Statute in such case made and provided, to which the defendants at law are forthwith to appear gratis, and admit all matters of form, so that the parties do proceed to a trial at law by a special jury of the County of Wexford at the next Summer Assizes, to which end, the sheriff of the said County,  is forthwith to lay before Edward Litton Esqr, the Master in these causes,  the grand panel of the said County, (here follows directions as to the jury, challenge, and issue, precisely similar to those in the order for first trial) And it is further ordered that Jane Stratford Boyse, one of the defendants in these causes, be Plaintiff at law, and that J.T. Rossborough Colclough and Mary Grey Wentworth Rossborough Colclough, his wife the plaintiffs in these causes be Defendants at law, and that the depositions and also the judge’s notes of the evidence of any witnesses examined in the first of these causes, or on the former trial of the issue at Law, directed by the said order of 31st January 1852, or under the order of the Court Q.B. bearing date 24th January 1852, made in the cause of Boyse and wife, v Rossborough and wife who shall, upon the new trial hereby directed, be proved to be dead or unable to attend to be examined, may be read at such new trial. And it is further ordered that the judge before whom such new trial shall be had, do certify to this Court the verdict which shall be had upon such issue, And it is further ordered that an injunction do forthwith issue to the Sheriff of the County of Wexford, to restore to, and put the defendant Jane Stratford Boyse into possession of the several real and freehold estates of the said Caesar Colclough deceased, situate in the said County in the pleadings mentioned, and in the possession of which the said plaintiffs now are under the said decreeing order of the 19th April 1853. And it is further ordered that the plaintiffs do forthwith hand back, and deliver on oath to the said defendant Jane S Boyse, or her Attorney lawfully authorised, all deeds, documents, title deeds, papers and writing in their or either of their custody or power, relative to the said real and freehold estates of the Caesar Colclough, deceased and which were handed over or delivered to the said plaintiffs pursuant to the said decretal order. And it is further ordered (here follows orders as to the costs to be paid to said Jane Stratford Boyse) And the Court doeth reserve further directions until the return of the judge’s certificate, when such further order shall be made as shall be just. (Signed) H. Sugden, A.R.

From Wexford Independent, July 11th, 15th, and 18th 1857.


Great Colclough Will Case. Boyse v Rossborough. (Colclough).
This interesting and important case, in which a fee simple property of nearly
Ten Thousand a year is involved came on for hearing in one Nisi Prius Court on
Thursday (9th inst.) From an early hour the doors of the Court House were
surrounded by an anxious crowd seeking admittance, and when they were thrown
open, the body of the Court became densely filled within a few minutes, seats were
especially erected for the accommodation of Ladies by direction of the High Sheriff,
and such other arrangements entered into, as were calculated to afford satisfaction
to the general public. At half past ten o’clock, the Right Honourable Baron Greene
took his seat on the Bench, when the following Gentlemen were sworn on the Jury,
viz, Peter Roe, Ballinclare, John Walsh, Walshfield, John Nunn, Silverspring, James C.
Moore, Forthside, Edward Sally Flood, Kyle, Henry Braddle Croker, Beanfield, George
Smith, Buckstown, Thomas Davis, Enniscorthy, Joshua S, Davis, Enniscorthy, Harry
Alcock, Wilton, J.G. Keoghen, Enniscorthy, and W.R.Farmer, Bloomfield, Esquires.
Mr. Hassard opened the pleadings.
Mr Christian, Solicitor General stated the case. He said, My Lord and Gentlemen of
the Jury, in this case Mrs. Jane Stratford Boyse is Plaintiff, and the issue you are
empannelled to try by order of the Lord Chancellor, is whether a certain paper
writing, is or is not the will and testament of the late Caesar Colclough.xxxxx
(Mr Christian having concluded his address, witnesses were examined and letters
read in support of the Plaintiffs case, and on the fifth day, Mr Whiteside opened for
the Defendants, and concluded on the sixth day, (Tuesday), having in the course of
his address, read several letters between Caesar Colclough (the Chief Justice) and
Caesar of Tintern (the testator) which correspondence had been found subsequent
to the first trial in an old press in the Abbey (when undergoing repairs) by Richard
Gill of Tintern, and the present writer and which letters etc., had remained
undisturbed since they were placed there by the testator many years previously, and
which had such an effect upon the minds of counsel for the plaintiff, that when Mr
Whiteside was proceeding to examine the Defendants first witness, Mr. Brewster
(for the plaintiff) proposed a compromise, and which was subsequently agreed to by
counsel for the defendants.)
“At this period Mr Brewster sent up a note to the Judge when his Lordship left the
bench, and a rumour immediately pervaded the Court, that the case was likely to be
amicably adjusted. Baron Greene remained away for about half a hour, and when he
resumed his seat, Mr. Brewster rose amid breathless silence and said ”I am happy to
announce to your Lordship, that this case is settled to the satisfaction of both
parties. My client consenting to a verdict for the defendant, with an immediate right
of possession. Baron Greene was glad that this long litigated case was finally settled
to the satisfaction of both parties, besides it will relieve the Court and the jury from a
tedious and troublesome investigation. As regarded himself, however, it was nothing
and it was on public grounds he offered them his congratulations on the issue, which
had been so unexpectedly and agreeable arrived at.”
Counsel for the plaintiff, The Solicitor General Mr.Brewster,Q.C. Mr.Lawson Q.C.
Mr.Thomas Harris, Agent, Ambrose Sullivan.
For defendants, Mr.Whiteside Q.C. Mr.Mc Donough, Q.C. Mr.Napier, Q.C
Mr.Rolleston Q.C. Mr.Lynch, Q.C. Mr. Armstrong,Q.C. Mr.Walsh,Q.C. Mr.W. Ryan
Agents, Messrs. Powell and Kernaghan.