The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1861-05-28 00:00:00

self concerned. The learned °emend quoted in support
of his 'moment a lemma from the work of Mr.
Justice Wiilicue, in whieh that learned judge said
that there were few or lilt perems disabled from being
executor.. in fart the executorship differed very eon-
hid:l4l4 frosts ailiniinstraron. in the one eaao the
court hail diseretion, ii In other it hail not. An
adiaiiii.eeder an. Cie Wilier of the court: wheremi all
executor wa: the representative id tbe deceased.
Dr. Swabey, on the same bide, remark“l that the
next of kin were at al• • • not the parties to iiiter-
hi became if the phisititre rights really were
forfeited, it was fur the crown to rud,t the grant of
prekite to him.
The Coati said the !culled counsel had not dealt
with one point that area, in the care. There was a
specific bequest wide!' veld only he got rid of by
releasing it to this man, and the question arose, was he
capable of taking that rekaself If lie was, then lie
wai in a position tube capable of civil rights. and might
take the probate ; if lie was lint, th..n the bequest
still remained good; mei thus case therefore remained
embarrassed by the specific legacy.
Dr. Deane, said the releage was not by the de-
fendant,' but by a third tatty. It was net pretended
that Dr. Smethurst was applying for probate for the
benefit of anyone hut himself ; anil)te contended that
the court was not absolutely boned by the tonne of the
will to appoint I executor. Ile submitted that it
would not be right for the emwn to interfere until the
present claim had been disposed of. It would clearly
be a twit in %i.e. id, it We; to eppoint a MOI
execute,. ; irel it was eilite ii r that :dies It uks when
ale !tallied bie, in I r will had tie idea that hi, WAS •
WIWI) Of that character.
31r. Side:tut Ballantine and Mr. Maraweather
followed on the eater side.
Dr. Phillimore repl:cd. Ile contended that front
the moment Miss Banks died the plaintiff had an itide•
fiasible right to the executorehip, and that his felony
lied not deptived bun of the right. The only gtouud
on which probate could he refured wag that of
neces..ity, as where • Wall had hi cone a public enemy,
Aug load 1,0 hies. 'lawn in the court,. Ewen in the
case of the person named executor he hug a lunatic,
'ewer we always reserved to him in the event of Lis
recovery.
The (loud reserved its decision.

THE YeLVERTON MARII lA. 6 CASE. —The OANO Of
" Longwortli or Yelverton r. Yelverton" came on for
discussion in the Outer House of the Court of Semi,,,,,
Edinburgh. on 8 holiday. le was Cotif ibued on Monday.
and we's spits uall•ont lied, in order that widow counsel
may be heard. The points al present under discussion
are questions of evidence il"no, bang the validity of
various upvcals and cross•appeals taken in the course
of the minuet's proof. These epic de are very
numerous, but the most important of them refer to
statements made by the pursuer shout the time of tho
reneged iolaniage. 'Blew, the defender contg moms, should
lint be admitted. On the other hand, the pursuer
contends that their exclusion would be • great blow to
the can., as they wove, and ere indeed the only
evidence which can 'move, the view she at the time
entertained of the relation in which she stood to the
defender. Sho is accused of heeing comic:AO to be
his midress, whereas them stxtenteuts, if admitted,
would show clesrly that she then believed herself to
be his wife.