The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1860-07-31 00:00:00

Lrgal.

_
VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS, JULT 25.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. STUART.)

THE YILLANY OF THR AGAPRMONE OYEB-
TAKEN BY Jusucli.

trOTTIbriE r. tontBlcg.--3CDONENT.
This suit was instituted by Mr. flalph Clarke Nottidge,
of Newton Stowinarket, in the county of Suffolk, u the
administrator of his late sister, Miss Louisa Jane Not-
tidge, who died at the Agapemone on the 21st of August.
ISIII4, against Mr. Henry James Prince, now the head of
that establishment, for the purpose of obtaining the
sums of Three per Cent. Annuities, amounting
together to the sum of 15,7t3 7s. 7d., formerly
. _ _ . _

the property of M6s L. J. NOttidge. The case was
heard on the 4th, sth, 6th, 7th, and Bth of last month,
and the facts and ar•ulments were then fully reported.
Mr. Malins and °Mr. W. Knox Wigram were for
tha . plaintiff; Mr. Bacon and Mr. Smile for the defect-

dant.
I iie Vice-flianoellor.--In the month of June, 18,
the defendant. Henry James Prince, obtained from Miss
Louisa Jane Nottidge the transfer into his own name of
two sums, making together the sum of £5,728 7s. 7.1.
Three per Cent. Bank Annuities. This stock was the
whole of her remaining fortune and the whole means of
hi r e. The defendant claims to he entittil t.i
i: for his own us' an a free gift made to him by
Ibis lady. She died intestate in the year 185.4. Her
brother. who is the plaintiff. has instituted this snit as
her li•gil personal representative, to recover the property
as lier person 1 estate. The bill avers that the alleged
gift to the defendant was obtained by misrepresenta-
tion and deception, and was made under the
influence of • gross delusion, inculcated and
encouraged by himself for his own purposes,
when she was incompetent to manage her own pecuniary
affairs or effectually to apply her mind to business of
any ileseript: . If these allegations are sufficiently
proved the defendant cannot he allowed to retain the
property. Where a gift is made under the influence of
delusion or deception it cannot be valid. Whether the
delusion or deception relates to matters epiritual or
[ matters temporal is immaterial, for if the gift be made
under the influence of the delusion the right of restora-
tion is clear. There is ample evidence that the defen-
dant exercised a powerful and undue dominion over the
mind of Miss Nottidge and his other followers by 10.113111•
Mg a false character. The character which he asaunied,
and which he induced this lady to believe that he really
suatainoil, he has himself described in his cross-exami-
nation in the following terms
" God has developed through me his counsel and pur-
pose, which I have made known to others. I have de-
clared that the Holy Ghost by me did close the day of
gmee and introduce the judgment. I have declared and
mean that the Holy Ghost spoke by me."
To rational minds it may seem surprising that any
hunian being could he found with an understanding so
weak and degraded as to submit to the influence and
guidance of a person who thus speaks of himself. But
it appears that the lady in suest.on, Miss Louisa Jane
Nottidge, and three of her sisters, the daughters of a
respectoble country gentleman of considerable fortune,
submitted themselves entirely to his dictation. He
says—
" The Nottidges called to see me after they had heard
of my ministry. . . . Three of the Mies Nottidges
married. Thee all married after! became acquainted
with them. They all married persons who associated
with me. and whose opinions were the same as mine. I
suppose I must say they married through my instru-
mentality, inasmuch as they married through iny telling
them that it was the will of God that they should
so marry. .. . Their husbands procured their
money with their consent, and they gave it to me. I
think they gave me between £5,000 and £6,000 each, or
thereabouts."

These passages, from the defendant's own depositions,
are only • very small part • f the evidence, which showa
beyond all doubt that, •by falsely and blasphemously
pretending that he had a direct Divine mission, be im-
posed on these weak women and obtained a gift of the
whole of their fortunes. As to the gift of 1:5,728 by
%lies Louisa Nottidge, which it is the object of the suit
to set ashie, the case is very clear. This unfortunate
lady escaped the degradation of such a marriage as had
been made the means of conveying all the money of
her sisters into the pocket of the defendant. Her com•
plying disport to part with her money, under the in-
fluence of the defendant and at his bidding, with-
out recourse to marriage, is shown by the fact that
lie at imee obtained from bet .1:50 merely by writing
and sending to her a letter in these words :—" The
Lord bath needof ESOto be used for •special purpose unto
his glory. The Spirit would have this made keown
to you. Amen." -His own definition as to the gift to
him of the £5.728 stock is in these terms: —" Louisa,
at the end of 1545, or beginning of 1846, requested me
more than once to acice;4 her money. She believed
that I had special revelations upon particular subjects.
She gave me all her money after she came out of the
lunatic asylum." These statementa from the defen-
dant's own mouth prove the case of a gift obtained by
imposing a belief upon the mind of a weak woman that
lie sustained a supernatural character. This newest-
ful impoeture was the influencing motive for the gift,
and therefore vitiates it entirely. It is needless to in-
quire or speculate whether the defendant was himself
ales the victim of hi* own imposture. The most favor-
able view of his conduct would be that, under the in-
fluence of • disordered imagination, lie really keeled
himself to be auch &supernatural being as lie made these
loliea believe. Even if it were possible to take this
leident view of the defendant's couduct, when the
question is as to the validity of the gift, it is only
necessary te show that it was bestowed under the in•
fluent.* of a delusion. A great deal of the arguments of
counsel on both cities consisted in discussing the doctrine
ef the Court as to the validity of gifts obtained under
iie illalllllCe of • religious or spiritual ascendancy.
grossness of the imposture in the Keret WO has
pet it far beyond mere spiritual influence. But this
gift must have been set aside as obtained antler the
influence of spiritual d ~,,, inion, even if the false chine.
ter assumed by the defendant h.' not been part of the
case. No person who stands in the relation of special
cmifidence to another, so as to acquire habitual influence
over his laded, can accept any gift or benefit from the
person who is under the dominion of that influence,
without danger of having that gift set aside. If it can
be shown that a sufficient protection has been interposed
against the exercise of this influence there may be
a case to sustain this gift; but the principle prevails
where there exists a relation winch naturally creates
influence over the iniad. Therefore the doctrine
extends to the relation of attorney and client, of
guardian and ward, of parent and child. But there
does not Brine from any of these relations an influence so
strong as that of a minister of religion over a person
under his direct spiritual charge. Fortunately the
exalted character of Christian ministers in this country
makes the occurrence of such questions extremely rare.
When Lord Northington, in the case of "Norton v.
itchy" 12 Eden VG), set aside • gift made by a lady to a
Dissenting minister, lie noticed that such questions
seldom occur. But the principle is clearly established
in this court. The strength of religious influence is far
beyond that of gratitude to a guardian, trustee, or
attorney, and the same ground of public utility which
requires this Court to guard against such influences
has its most important application to that influence
which is the strongest. In Roman Catholic countries,
where spiritual influence has its highest dominion,
public feeling has required the interposition of an
absolute and imperative check. The law of France. as
suite., by M. Poither, absolutely prohibits not only all
gifts by a penitent to his confessor, but all gifts to that
religious community, of which the confessor is a
member. In the present case the grossness of the
imposture anti the weakness of the person wbe was
imposed upon make the right of the plaintiff very clear.
It is impossible to overlook one of the results of the
decree, which must be made in favour of the plaintiff.
He sues as legal personal representative, and when the
money is restored it will be distributed among the next
of kin. Two of the next of kin are still under the
dominion of the defendant's influence and victims of his
imposture. Another is Mrs. Thomas, the wife of one of
the defendant's associates, whose marriage was effected
under the defendant's influence. The disgraceful
conduct pursued towards her is detailed in the evidence.
It is needhsts now to consider what her rights are as one
of the next of kin. When the money is restored to the
plaintiff as legal personal representative there will be
sufficient MMUS of wresting the rights of all the
next of kin. In the meantime the duty of the
Court is to declare that the transfer into the name of
the defendant of the several SUMS of stock mentioued in
the bill was improperly obtained and must be set aside.
'Me stock must be tranderred to the plaintiff as legal
jamional representative of Miss Louisa J. Nottidp, and
all the dividends which have accrued due on it since her
death paid to the plaintiff. The defendant must pay
to the plaintiff all the costa of the suit.

The Times has the following excellent remarks on the
above CAW
The founder of the Agapetnone will, we are happy to
say, be *impelled to surrender a portion of his ill-gotten
gains. Vice-Chaneellor Stuart gave judgment yesterday
in the case of " Nottidge v Prince," declaring that the
transfer of stock belonging to the late Louisa Jane Not•
Cage into the name of the defendant was improperly
obtained and must be set aside ; that the stock must be
traesferred to the legal personal representative of Miss
Louisa Nottidge, and all the dividends accrued since her
death must be paid to the plaintiff ; and the defendant
must pay the costs of the suit. It is not a phrase of
course when we say that we congratulate the public on
this judgment. The Court of Chancery has always
distinguished by a breadth of view and a practiad
goisi sense in dealing with the questions which come
before it, and never have these qualities been more con-
spicuous than in the decision of which we are speaking.
It is not too much to say that a judgment which would
have left Prince in possession of the fruits of his blas-
phemous imposture would have been an encouragement
to the vilest kind of men to prey on the weakest kind of
women. The knavery anal credulity which reign in the !
lower sections of the so-called religious world surpass,
at it is. all belief. Let any one make it his business for
a few weeks to examine the tenets, the fancies, and the
; prejudices of the various theological cliques which
divide this community, and he will come to the conclu-
sion that the traile of a religious leader is still one of the
t lucrative to which an adventurer can apply him-
self To save the excitable and ignorant from the grasp
of such men, to help those who cannot help themselves,
and to discourage the worst kinds of hypocrisy, is the
policy of the State, and forms one of those principles
which Equity should engraft on Law.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE, JOLT 25.
( Bef.re Sir 01.1814 WELL CRESHWELL.)
THOMAS ts. THOMAR.—JUDGIIIINT.

This was a petition by a wife for & judicial separation
on tho, gmuud of adultery. The respondent pleaded
that if he had committed adultery the petitioner WAS
cognizant thereof and conniving thereat. The case WAS
tried before his lordship on the 19th inst., and the facts
have already appeared in the Express.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. C.. H. Cooper were counsel
for the petitioner, and Dr. Spinks for the respondent.
His Lordship this morning gave judgment. He said
it had beau argued that the deed of separation which
had been executed, and to which the wife was a party,
was a auffitient ground for dismissing her petition.
Amid he certainly thought at the time of the trial that
it would be a very strange thing if • who, after eitcu.