Star. — London, England, 1822-11-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 15. THE PORTSMOUTH CAUSE. The LORD Cita:mamma, in the course of his ob servations yesterday upon the letter sent by Lady Portsmouth to Lord Portsmouth, did not threaten to commit her Ladyship at represehted in some reports. His. Lordship only expressed a wish that the circum stance would he explained in Lady Portsmouth's affi davit, and added, that if certain attempts were made to obtain possession of Lord Portsmouth's person, it would be a contempt of Court, such as had in other cases been visited with commitment to the Fleet. The LORD CHANCELLOR this morning ordered that Dr. Ainslie might visit Lord Portsmouth in com pany with any of the four medical men who had for merly visited his Lordship. But Dr. Ainslie must previously have `read all the affidavits in the cause; end for that purpose it was necessary that it should be known how early the affidavits to be sworn on the part of the defence would be filed. Mr. HORNS said, he thought they.would be filed in the course of to-morrow. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, it might be arranged between the parties, whether the cause should be proceeded in on Monday, or on what other day. In the course of the day Dr. Ainslie's consent to visit Lard Portsmouth was obtained, and Sir George Tuthill is to accompany him. CONTEMPT.—LEES V. AINSWORTH. - Mr. WAKEFIELD stated. that the defendant in this I case had not been aware that Miss Lees was a ward of that Court ; and that now he was ready to make a suitable settlement upon her. The Loan CHANCELLOR said, that if he meant only to settle her own fortune upon her, that was no more than the Court would have provided for in any cir cumstances. The case must stand over until Mr. Ainsworth should advise with his fiiends, and ascer tain what settlement he could make besides the Lady's fortune. The ca:e was ordered to stand over accordingly. 'Moe was no interest in the bankrupt petitions which were heard during the rest of the day. VICE-CIIANcr.T.LOR'S COURT, NOVEMBER 13. ItUTI.V U. LATHAM. This was a suit iii,titmed by the plaintiff, Mrs. Rutly, and her four children, for the production of a deed in the possession of the defer.d.int. The circtini• stances of the case are these:—The plaintiff had for merly col,abited with The defendant, and borne . four child' en to him. The defendant, who was a married man, executes! a deed in which he made a provision for the pla'ntiff and her children. This deed was placed in the hands of a third party, who had since delivered is up to the defendant, who insisted on retiiiing it. Mr. BELL, en the part of the defendant, said that his client had put in a demurrer on the ground that the transaction upon which the deed was founded was of an immoral character ; and that the Court would not enforce any agreement which rested upon an Hi moral consideration. Mr. Lovt rr, who was on the same side, cited the case of Priest and Bullock, in Vesey 2, the circtim• stances of which. he said, were similar to those of the present suit. Lord Hardwicke, before whom the cause was argued-, declared that a Court of Eptity would never enforce the execution of a deed made by a married man in favour of a woman with whom he . bad cohabited, if it should appear that the woman knew at the time that he was married. The Vi c-Crtocet.t.oa could not understand the equity of Lord Hardwicke's decision. Surely it could sot be maintained that it was not equitable for a man to make provision for a woman whom he had ruined, after cohabitation had ceased. Ile asked whether it was meant to be asserted that a married man had sever been a party in any of the cases in which. the Court had enforced the execution of deeds drawn bp under similar circumstances to that at present in question? Mr. Lovrry saki he had carefully searched for all the cases of the present description which had come under the consideration of the Court. Most of the cases had come before the Court upon applications to have the deeds cancelled. The Court had always re fused the application, alleging that the plaintiff's . improper conduct rendered him undeserving of relief. In no case, however, from the first to the last, that had come to his knowledge, and he had searched carefully, had the Court ever held that a deed exe cuted by a married man under such circumstances as that in the present case was valid. Lord Hardwicke's decision was quoted by Sir Samuel Romilly and Mr. Bell in the liouse of Lords, in opposition to a Bill similar to the present. The Lord Chancellor alluded to it. without impugning its doctiines, which was backed by the opinion of the present Master of the Rolls. The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, that he had been looking at the case allud.:d to, and thought that it was not analogous to the present. In the former case, immediate relief was prayed, and the Court refused it on the ground that the deed was void at law. In the present case, inirr.e.!iate relief was not prayed, but only that the deed might be ordered to be deli vered up. Before the decision of Lord Hardwicke could be made applicable here, it must be shewn that the deed in question was void at law. It was to be regretted that such a suit had ever been brought be fore the Court. Mr. LOVITT said, that his client was disposed to act with fairness: he had offered to take the childreu and maintain them. The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, that he had no doubt the defendant acted according to his conscience; but he thought few persons would choose to have their consciences measured by his. The principle upon which Lord Hardwicke's judgment proceeded was, that the Court would not encourage immora lity ; but the Court never hesitated to carry into exe cution a deed by which a single man made provision for a woman whom he had formerly cohabited with. It was singular that the Court would encourage those transactions with respect to a single man which they reprobated with respect to a man who was married. There certainly was a shade of difference in the mo rality of the two.cases; but they were both immoral, and he appfehended the Court did not sit there to define shades of. immorality. His Honour then di rected thecase to stand over, on the understanding that the general demurrer would be overruled, with NI Merry to denser oa per*, Is 3 l4 "h ld order that the question t ceased having conceived a strong anim osity to .e, Griffiths, determined to execute a will. s OU might be fully argued. • COUItT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 15. make -aivay his . (the.dtceased's) property from t'eat. SEYMOUR V. GARTSIDI. Gentleman. Now it should seem fr om this, that Mr. Griffiths stood in some degree of relationship . to ; he Mr. C. F. W ILLIAMS moved for a Rule to spew i deceased, - or in some situation that had - authorised cause why the judgment in this case should not be him to expect that this property would be bequeathed arrested. It was an action for a breach of promise .to him. This would be the natural in ference from of marriage by a Gentlem an a g ainst a Lad y , which I the words " make away." The fact, however, was was tried before Mr. Justice Richardson at the last I quite the reverse of all this. The Learned Counsel Assizes for.the county of S omerset, on which a ver- I contended, that there were so many circumstances to diet was given for the plaintiff, with forty shillings damages. The verdict was• taken generally on the induce a suspicion, either of improper infl uence hav ing been exerted to procure this will in its present wholedeclaration, and therefore, though his objet- shape to be made by the deceased, or else that it had tion only applied to one of the counts, yet, if sus- been so made under a state of mind which never tained, it must operate in arrest of judgment. c,.uld be considered as that of a capable testator, that The Collar suggested to Mr. Williams, that if he the Court would not permit probate to pass to the should strceeed, he would only oblige the plaintiff to apply to the Learned Judge who tried the cause parties by whom it had been propounded. Dr. HAGGARD, who had formerly addressed the to amend the4ceord. Court for the parties proponent, shortly replied. Mr. Wiur:tota said, that he would not persist in his Sir Joust Nrcuot.r. observed that the w itness Hinde, motion if this were not a case in which ever y one in the course of his examination, spoke to several who heard it must ,decree earnestly that the plaintiff very important particulars—to the paper Of instruc should fail. His objection was this—that the Court tions having been given by the deceased a .month stated mutual promises by the parties to marry within before the will was prepared, and to the preparation a reasonable time—a general readiness of the plain- of the will a month previous to its execution. It had tiff to marry, and that a reasonable time had elapsed ; been very properly observed by the last Counsel, that but stated no request, nor that the defendant had this was all which the examiner in the cause could married another person, which he submitted was not correctly allow Mr. Hinde to speak to as of his oiva_ sufficient to sustain the action. knowledge. Upon the whole of the fa cts the Court On reading the count objected to, it appeared that thought it might safely express itself satisfied ' with though there was no allegation of a report, it v. as al the proofs that had been induced . The questicin leged the defendant had refused to marry the plaintiff. arose out of the will of a Mr. Thomas Ruffin, who The COURT held, that this was clearly sufficient died at Hoffenbach, in Germany, on the 4th of May, after verdict, and refused the Rule. HOWLEY V. 'ROUGH. 1819, aged about 54 years. The will .and codicil propounded bore the same date, the 4th .Of 'May, Mr. CHITTY moved for 4 Rule to thew cause why 1819; the deceased having died a few hours after the verdict for the defendant in this case should not executing the instrument. The property of which he beset aside, and a new trial granted. It was an action died possessed consisted of some freehold and lease for assault and false imprisonment, to which there hold estates, to the value of about £l5O per annum, was a plea of the general issue, and also a special' and he had been also, for a few years before his death, plea, stating, that the defendant kept a public-house. in - the receipt of a Government annuity of about and that the plaintiff came there, P.nti conducted . him. £l,lOO a year, which expired with his - life. By the' self so improperly, that the defendant was compelled will in question the deceased gave the whole of his to use force in order to remove him. At the trial, a property in trust to three persons, his ' partiCular fi iend of the plaintiff stated, that he went a ith him, friends . , namely, John Hinde, James Taylor, and on a wet evening, to seek shelter, and having called , i l:l e n c uria ei s y li_eys, in trust for the children of each re for some ret'teshment by way of compens a t ion, be g an tiv . These gentlemen were to convert the to stir the fi re. A boy came in, and said that there i' propertv ; and the produce, after payment of his just was a law of the house, that no one but the landlord debts, sic. was to be divided, one-third to the chit ; should poke the fire ; the plaintiff laughed at this dren of Hinde, one-third to the childten of Taylor, rule, when the defendant came in, called the plain ;sail one-third to the children of Keys. Though these tiff and his friend pickpockets, 'il l s having forcibly individuals were appointed his executorli, they them dragasd him aboirt the room, puhed him into the selves took no direct interest under the will. The street. On the part of the defendant, the boy was codicil gave a legacy of £5O to Mrs. Hinde; and called, who did not materially alter the statement, so iings, to be in value each of them 51.55. to Mr. New that it was not even thought necessary to cross-era- man, deceased's solicitor, and Mr. George Robinson, mine him : yet the Jury found a verdict for the de his ;.wit intimate friend. Both papers were attested fendant—he. believed, induced by some observation by three witnesses; two of them were described as of the Lm il Chief Justice, that a publican might lay domestics, and the third, Forster, was a nurse in Mr. down a-rule that no one should poke his fire-s-a rule Ilinde's family. The deceased appeared to have died which he (Mr. Chitty) thought could not be supported. , „ a bachelor, and without any known relations ;he him- The Latin CHIEF JUSTICI said, that he never cou ld, self having always had an impression that he had no have laid down any such doetrine. He then read relations tila. living. In consequence of some info macros treat over the evidence, from which it appea red :hat the it been conveyed to the Law Officers of the boy gave a different account of the transaction to - Crown, a caveat was entered by the kin's Proctor ; that sworn to on behalf of the plaintiff, in so far as and this suit had been conducted on .the part of the respected the conduct of the plaintiff and has friend. • Crown—as such suits on all occasions were—with. Mr. Cuirrr urged that at all events there *MS . the fairness and liberality with : which that august nothing to justify the forcible removal. If the case interest ought at all times Lobe repreented. - Nothing -went to a second trial, he should be able to sheer that could be more candid or fair than the spirit in which the boy was not in the house on the evening in question. this proceeding had been carries on. An-allegation The COURT, after suggesting that the p robable had been given in propounding the Will in the form amount of damages, bad the plaintiff succeed ed, . of a common coadidit. Some prev i o us proceedings would have been under 201. gave a Rule to shcv had been had, and corbequently dropped—a circum cause, as it might induce the parties to consent to a stance that could not, of course, bar Mt. Taylor from strt.processus. beginning them again. On that. condidit two-wit -Ihe motions for new trials being exhausted, the iesses had been examined ; one of them was .Mary Court went into the consideration of ca s es in the Forster, a subscribing witness to the will, formerWa Crown paper. nurse in the family of the witness Mr. 'Hinde, and so described in the attestation clause. She hAd been a servant with them for upwards of thirteen years.— She had attended the Hindes in England, France, an d Germany, returned with them to England, and . I . tiittesi them above one year before her examination in this cause. She gave a clear account of thetirc tura of the will ; stated that she had known Mr. Rlf.' fin; from his long intimacy with her master, for many years; and related the way in which she was called up in the night of the 4th of May, 1819, to attest the execution by the deceased of his will; and the suddenness of his death, in a few hours afterwards, at Mr. Hinde's house at Hoffenbach. in the Grand Duchy of Darmstadt. The Learned Judge having stated the particulars of her evidence, remarked that it was very tully corroborated by other testimony; and that she came before the Court not only with a character unimpeached, but with the advantage of a thirteen years continuance in one family—a fact which gave to that character additional weight and influence. Mr. Hinde, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Keys, she found in the bed-room of the deceased, and every fact connected with his manner, his conduct, and his actions, strongly indicated perfect capacity at the time of signing and executing his will. He spoke to the two other domestics in French ; to the witness in English. He himself took up his watch, which lay on the bed, and sealed the paper; and then desired these attendants to withdraw. He even desired this witness, as she left the room, to take care of Hiode's children. The Court saw nothing that would at all affect this witness's credit; and if she was to be be lieved, could a doubt remain as to the deceased's full, knowledge and understanding of the act he was per forming, or of its being an act proceeding from his own volition? It was very true, as the Counsel op posing the will had observed, that the executors were present at the time of its execution; and that the in strument itself was in the hand-writing of one of ' them. Now, though this fact was one proper enough to excite the vigilance of the Court, and to call for ample proof of the factum of the will, yet it did not invalidate the act, more especially when there was proof of the reading over, and of an active capacity at the time in the deceased himself. It was also true . that two of the subscribing witnesses were not pro duced; but it was proved to the satisfaction of the Court that due diligence had been used in the endea vour to find them ; and looking to their station—ser vants in a family—and to the distant town in Ger many in which they resided, their non-production did not seem any extraordinary defect. It the case then tested on. the evidence adduced under the can didits, the Court must feel it to be its duty to pro nounce the will sufficiently proved. The only ques tion then was, was . that. evidence so impeached, or THE JUNG V. HALL. This was a quo warrants information calling on the defendant to chew by what authority he exercised the functions of Registrar of the Count of Requests at Bristol. The facts had been submitted to the Court in the form of a special case. it appeared that Mr. Hall was elected to the office in 1818, having nine votes against five which were polled for his opponent. The objection to his return was, that the Statute gave the riqht of voting exclusively to " liduseholders," and that several of the voters for the defendant, though possessing houses and establishments in Bris tol, did not themselves reside within the city ; and the only question was on the meaning of the word " householder." Mr. SELWYN now argued that the term " house holder" implied residence; and Mr. ADAH at great length contended the contrary. The Court took time to consider of their decision. PREROGATIVE COURT, NOVEMBER 11 TAYLOR AGAINST lIIS MAJESTY'S PROCURATOR• GENERAL. A brief abstract of the facts of this cause was given in our Paper of the 7th instant. We were in error in stating that the executors had been induced to sue, as they have done, by reason of their bankruptcy.- - That event, it appears by the sentence of the Judge, occurred a considerable time since. To-day his MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE and Dr. JENNEa were heard on behalf of the Crown. They submitted, that though it might be too much to say that the general state of health, or the habits of the party de ceased, left him at no time capable of making : will under certain formalities ; yet the evidence in the cause was sufficient to shew the fluctuating state of his mind, and a degree of irritation and delusion which all the testimony adduced in support of his testamentary intentions and capability was not suffi cient to get.over. Among the documents exhibited, No. 36 was very important. It was a letter, dated Frap.kfort, Nov.lo, 131rai t 4sliewed how much the deceased (Mr. Ruffin) was then in' want of resources: Why, before be left this country, before he went abroad and got connected with the other parties in this case, and with a Mr. Keys, it was quite clearly proved that he was a man who by industry and good management had amassed ample funds for himself, and who had always showed much sagacity and prti dence in managing those funds. The Court would feel that this rapid alteration from a state of general competency topeediness, although temporary, was a circumstance to which suspicion could not but attach. The same letter spoke of Mr. Griffiths (lately de ceased) with an extraordinary degree of uncalled for bitterness, and of incoherency. The evidence of Mr. Hinde was singular. It went to she* that the de- eras rich a case of it g e t double intl. len t , cIA ...- made out, as to ' t conclusion It was pleaded, on the otheii side, that a commission o f lunhcy was actually taken out against the deceased in July, 1813, bat afterwards superseded in Decem ber, 1815 ; that shortly after the latter period the de ceased entered into improvident and wasteful :pea l . latinns • that he invested all his property in the Funds (15,0001. or 16,00014 in the purchase of a Govern. tent annuity of 1,1001. a year ; that he then went t o Brighton for a few months; then came back to the Horns Tavern, in Doctors Commons, where he re. sided till July, 1817; and then went to Calais on a party of pleasure with some friends, proposing shortly •to return to London; but that when he got over he refused to return, and continued on the Continent ; —ln subsequent articles it was set forth, that the other parties in this cause, who went to the Continent on matters connected with their respective pursuits, there got possession, as it were, of the deceased, a n d treated him as a person who had lost the use of his mental faculties: and that, in point of tact, he Was at the time of executing this instrument in a state of mental derangement. On this plea, two witnesses had been examined—Mr. Lovegrove, the proprietor of the Horns Tavern, and Mr. Newman, the deceased's solicitor ; and several letters and papers, especially from Keys (who appeared to have been dissatisfied with what •the deceased had done for him, subse quently to engaging him for a travelling companion at a salmi Of 2001. a-year ; and who seemed to have intimated in his letters to Mr. Griffiths and Mr. N. tnan, -the deceased's incapacity of mind), . had alys been annexed by way of exhibits. The Court pm. needed to observe, that with respect to Mr.Griffit:li (deceased), who' was appointed the testator's com mittee when the commission of lunacy was taken out, the; e . .was nothing that savoured of in an:ty in the deceased's irritation against him : for it was to be re membered, that it was not Mr. Griffiths who applied for the 'superseder ; and the deceased laboured und-r animpression (which this Court was not quite pra pared to call a' delii,ive one) that he had rJeen wrong fully subjected to the hardship au .i i-,!onverlience such a commission. As to the dec.easeu's going abroad; he did indeed appear to be afflicted with the mania - of travelling into foreign countries that a few years ago was so extremely prevalent; bet his for tune, his unembaira.sed circumstances, his being without wife or relation, rendered such a determina tion as little insane in him as in almost any case that could be imagined. These two witnesses pr thing but insanity in the deceased. As to his it:.- provident speculations—the purchase of a Govern vernment annuity, by sinking the whole of his funded property, was a measure by is , ) means unadvisable or injudicious in a man situated as the Court had just described him to While on the Continent, lie dre.v bills on his barker, wrote shrewd and sensible letters, and was in every respect a man sui juris. He went abroad, not as pleaded in a mere tit of passion, but of his own ac curd, and in the company of two very revectable men, his private 4ienth—Mr. George Robinson and Afr. From the manner in which - that plea sias arawn,lt wodld seem that the deceased, while abroad, was picked up by .three needy aAventurers, also had led him about from place to place in order to plodder him while living, and to secure his perty When dead, to thenistives. But how . did fr case tarts out? Mr. Hinde and Mr. Taylor did not goats-a:W..lller ely in consequence of their bankrupts-, needy-adventurers. Mr. tinkle, indeed, liaa ti.ee - illnifciaqnate enough to be a bankrupt ; but el.tt was-as Jong.Af fr o as the year 1809. A commi,sio 1 had been sued suit against Taylor, but es ea th::t was in 181+r...end-it - became necessary— not in coa.,e quence of rirrXy_loes own-imprudence—but in vw.- sequence.,of Raving "bedii bond tor a very 1.1:-ie sum of money, of, which , f a tai-gather in his was afterwards deficient ; and the commission was actually superseded, ffiese two Gentlemen were ant adventurers, again, but, at the date of - these transac tions the, offiCuil Cotitiactors for the supply of the British Army of Occupation id France ; and there fore -very extensively engaged. The Court, after minute and laborious inseAigation of the whole deuce in tire cause, and alter expressing its conviction that Mr. Hinde anirMr.Vaylor. had acted through out the business as the friends of Mr. Ruffin, and with perfect openness and attention to his interests, and that the deceased himself had executed his last wia in a state of perfect mental capacity and pronounced for the force and validity of the will turd codicil propounded, and decreed probate to the exe cuters named therein, accordingly. kARRIRI). Saturday sennight, W. P. Carey, Esq. of Wood-road, colt^.y of Limerick, to Miss Crotty, niece of the Rev. Dr. Cro:ty, Priest of Castle Connell. In Tuam, P. Egan, Esq. Attorney, to 'Miss Clarke, daughter of P. Clarke, Esq. Surgeon in the Royal Navy. Nov. 5, at Cove, George Alexander O'Leary, Esq. Lieuter -- .t in the Royal Navy, to Mary, youngest daughter of Edward ling, Esq. of the Royal Navy. DIED. Saturday, in Dublin, Miss Isabella Hewitt, second daughter of the lion. James Hewitt, in the eighth year of her age. Nov. 3, at his house, Mount Ophaly, Athy, Robert Joh"- ston, M.D. May 19, at Bombay, aged 31, Mr. Stephen Babington ; anf on the 30th of October, at Paris, aged 29, Mr. David Babingto;'t second and fourth sons of Dr. Babington, of Aldermanbtiry -making four sons who had arrived at maturity which that Cie:, tletnan has lost within the last three years. Lately, at New York, of the yellow fever, Abraham Moores Esq. Barrister at Law, who left England about a year ago. Sunday se'nnight, the remains of the late Captain Usher, ses unfortunuttly lost his life at Marquise, near Boulogne, leery brought over in a French boat, and interred the same Jay in:Se church-yard of Ewell, agar Dover; he was aged 52 years. COAL-MARKET, NOVEMBER 13. ' Burdon 404 6d Boldon 56s 6d— Collingwood 37$ el-- Cozlodge 40$ 6d—Heaton Man 414—Killingworth 41$ Percy East 594—Pelaw Main 428—Tanfield Moor 501- 1 end Bell and Co.'s 415 9d to 494—Wallsend Bewicke 435 92 Wallsend Brown's 41s—Wallsend Green 394—WallsenJ Nor h umberland 415 to 415 6d—Wallsend 495 64 to 43• —WaUsend Russell 44s to 445 3d—Old Walker 394—Cont o 37s 61—Hartley 38a—}den Main 404—Lanibtun Main 3 84 41 —Nesham Main 40s 9d to 41s 3d—Wallsend Liddelfs 395 61-- Wallsend Springwell 404 3d—Wallsen4l Stewart 44s 6d. SO Ships at Market; 71* Ships sold 1 11 enso:d. WAILS. Mit. DU I. Dublin 1 0 Waterford 1 0 Guernsey arid Jersey k _ _ ARR. t" . 14 France 1 0 Harnburgh 0 9 auniers 0 Malta 0 0 Gintenburgh 0 1 Brazil 0 0 I asbon Holland blediterra a an o 0 o 0 O 0 LONDON : 'Printed and publiArd by Lanai. Kw, ridgy plact, *LauploNat. 1 it ; • ;