The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-04-05 00:00:00

BOUGHTON AGAINST KNIGHT."

In the Probate Court on Monday, Sir James Banner sat
specially to sum up the cause of ",Boughton v Knight" to
Bin jury ; a owe which has *coupled the attention of the
coui-t br 13 days.
becomes the possessor of the valuable estate of Henley Ball,
Bo'slitoe Hurt by thTehewipillaionfthlrfis,
kgilnrsmCtarn,l
jesottln.Ktgellhste,
to ShrOpShil.o. The defendants, who are the sons and rela-
tives, oppose, alleging that the deceased MO not of sound
mind, memory, and understanding.
Sit Same) Haman summed un the evidence which
has been adduced in the case to the jury. Ile stated.'
that in the whole of his experience he did not remeno
her a same in which the duties of counsel had been so
well and ably discharged, both on the one side and on
the other; and, on the part of himself and the jury, he
had to express to them his thanks for the assistauce they
had rendered in bringing out the whole facts and cu.- "
cultist:knees connected with this case. Their duty, how%)
ever, was new done. That duty had been on the part of ,
each of them to present the best aspects they could of the
case to the jury ' • hut the duty of the court and the jury
I now was. after having heard the whole of the evidence,
and the arguments on either side, to say on which side
truth and justice lay. The question, in fact, war one
entirely for the jury, and all thr t be could do Was to ,
counsel them on the subject. 'lle v.hole question was
whether Mr. Knight, of Henley Hall, was of sound
mind, memory, and understanding on the 27th of
January, 1869, when he executed this will. The
phrase arum' Milli] comprehended the whole [subject,
but wheat the legal meaning of sound mind was, even ,
with the assistan e of counsel, he could give the jury
but very little assintance, and the best way, in his
opinion, to look at the present case was what did the
libretto sound mind not mean. It did not mean a per•
iectly balanced mind, for if that was so, he feared
that very few people would be capable of making
a will. Prejudices might creep into a man's mind,
events and circumstances might influence his judgment,
that he might make such a will as peophi might
think unnatural and unjust, but they were not there to
consider the justice or injustice of men's wills, but to
ascertain whether the whole tenour and tendency of a
man's mind empowered and entitled him to make •
will. The questions of justice and fairness in making
a will depended on such fine considerations that it
was difficult to define them. The law of England
left every man unfettered in that respect, and he
might wholly or partially disinherit his children and
give hie property to charities or to strangers. What
they had to see to was that effect was given to the
true meaning of the testator's mind, and consequently
in all such cases, and particularly in the present one,
the question was a practical ens. It was one
which did not depend on scientific or legal defini-
tion, but it was a question of degiee, and the jury
would have to say whether as practical men they
believed that at the time this will was executed,
the testator was of sound mind. In dealiag
with the question, allowance must be made for the
differences of individual character, habits of life, dies,s
pursuits, and so forth; they must be disregarded. If
a man set himself against 3 matrimonial life—if his
tastes induced him to withdraw from the society of his
friends and neighbours—or to indulge in freaks and 1
fancies, that would of itself afford no good reason for
saying that such is man was of unsound mind. They I
must, therefore, find out another test, and the test I
which had ever been most relied on in such camp, was
this; did the testator labour under delusions. If he
did so, then to some extent, at least, his mind must be ,
unsound. But though that to some extent put them 1
over the ground, it did not land them at any eater-
factory resting•place, for they had still to consider I
the question what were the delusions whirsh
capacitated a man from making a will. Sir John
Nicholl, in giving his judgment on the celebrated ease of ,
"Dew v. Clark," defined delusions to be "a belief of
facts which no rational person would have bedeved ; "
and these he characterised as insane delusions. But
that was arguing somewhat in a citcle, and the jury
mu-t take their own minds as the standard, and inquire
whether the things the testator had said and done came
within the category of the sayings nod doings which
no rational man would have said or done. But in
another part of his judgment, Sir Jelin Nichol' gave a
more perfect definition of insane delusions. Be says
the true criterion of insane delusions is "when persons
believe things to exist which exist only in their imagi-
nation and of the non-exietence cf which no antument ,
or proof could convince them." That he believed
would be the test by which they would have to try the
present race. He then went over the evidence which h 6d
been adduced in the case, and commented upon all the
circumstances connected with it. As to the German ,
bands visaing the testator's house, and the horses
running about his grounds, considering the relations
in whiOi the testator stood to his servants, be did not
think there was much in that; and the rock shooting
he thought might be brought within the same in-
significant category. Feeding dogs with good meat
was certainly a most extraordinary thing, and induced
one to inquire into the state of the man's mind to do
so. It was so wasteful, and so contrary to man's in-
stincts, that it struck one 88 something out of the way.
Again, it was said that the deceased was eccentric in
his manner of dress; but it appeared that he always
suffered from cold, and thought that the dress he wore
we best suited to him. To all these matters the learned
j ndge said thatshe aid not attach much importance ; but,
ilk addition to them the deceased seemed to be of 8 very
capricious nature, as was evidenced in the fast that he
gave Sir Charles Boughton leave to cut down a hedge,
and afterwards eaid he was a trespasser. These facts
had been brought out one after another by the
counsel for the defendants, so that it became ne-
cessary for the counsel on the other side to say to
the jury, "Does such and such an act prove that the
deceased was insane?" but Sir Jam-s Haunen thought
it would be better for the jury to consider them
in the aggregate, and draw their own conclusion.
Sir James Hannen then referred to the treatment of
the children by the testator, and read some of the cor-
respondence that passed between them and the deceased.
The learned judge also referred to the making of the
will itself, and prefaced his remarks on this head by
stating that it did not seem Sir Charles Boughton was
open to any reproach. He pointed out the various.
methods that the deceased might, if it had been his
desire to keep the estate together without leaving it to
the above named baronet, have left it to various mem-
bers of his family. Sir James( next adverted to the
general bearinj of insanity, stating that in very many
instances persons can transact all their business
properly if it does not turn on the specific hallucina.
tins from which they suffer, and in the asylums per.
sons were allowed to live the life they did outside,
as far as was onnistent with their being kept in con-
finement.

The jury, after five minutes' deliberation, found that
when the will Was made the testator, John Knight,
was not of sound mind, memory, and understanding.
The verdict was therefore entered for the defend-
ants, and the que%tion of costs was rer-erved. The
decree of the Court was suspended to give the i laintiffs
an opportunity of movinglor a new trial if they should
think proper to do so.

The Times bee the following leader on the above re-
markable ease :

A sim,ular case, which has occupied the Court of Probate
for the last fortnight, was on Monday decided, no far as the
ver lict of a special jury could determine the issue. It con-
cerned the validity of the will of a Mr. John Knight, who
died lest September at the age of 69. His property consisted
of about 4,62,000 personalty, and a landed estate in Shrop-
shire worth about £1,506 a year, exclusive of his house nod
the park. He had three sons and a daughter. The eldest
son had been sent to sea at an early age, but had
not het n successful, and had since 11.60 been living
on an allowance from his father of £2OO a year, and they
were not on good term. with each other. The second Sou
had once momeed the property, but he and his father
quarrelled In 1866, and for some years he hati been a clerk
on a slimy of between £5OO and £4OO a year. The third son
is a clerryman, and he also had lately become estranged
from his father. To his daughter the teetator had been
notch attached before her marriage, and she died in 1801,
leaviett children. la Lend lie made a will, disposing of his
propertyas follows left £50,000 ton younger Iwott sr who
Inns lived for some years at Melbourne, etleael to his second
son, .x 7,00 to hi, thirdiM, the interest of £1006060 his eldest
eon for life. x-1,500 to Ins slat, r, and few mialler legacies
His daughteral children were entirely omitted. The
remainder of the personalty and all the realty he left to Sir
Charles Boughton, who ion distant relative and the owner
of a large estate adjoining hie own. Sir Cawley was on
friendly, but Lot
:Intimate terms with him; and the Judge
expressed an °pluton that no imputation could fairly be
made upon Sir Charles's conduct, It will be seen, therefore,
that the Testator had practically disinherited his children in
favour of a puraon with no similar claim upon hire, tied they
contested the Will on the ground of Ida alleged mental in-
capacity_ The jury have given a verdict in their favour, but
time has been allowed to those who are interested under the
Will to move for a new trial if they should think proper.
- The allegatiou of Incapacity del not, of course, rent upon
the mere Injustice or eccentricity of the Will. Air the Judge
laid down to the jury, the law does not say that a maul. IP-
coniruten t to make a Will by reason of his being influenced
'• by c. Kit:ions, or frivolous, or mean, or even bad motives."
flit did, a lamentably large number of still. would have to
be net aside. Put a man has a perfect legal right to dM-
ieherit his children, "and to leave his property to strangers
to gratify his spite, or to e,arities to gratify his pride.'"The
point at issue was the familiar proldem of legal sanity. Was
the Testator in sufficient nonunion of his factities to render
II necossary t treat his Will as the expresston of his "real
mind ' it Is ohvbias that the law can interfere no further
to cwrect the undue Influence of mere passion or prejudice
Over a inan's testamentary dispositious than to correct the
Influence of such passions on his conduct during life. The
technical requirement that a man at the time of making Into
will most be of Boland mbid, memory, and undtrstanding
does not mean that his faculties must be healthy and well-
balanced. It means that their disturban-ce must not have
passed that thin partition" which separate, mental and
moral disturbance from meutd derangement To deterniine
this question a mass of evidence was produced which proved
beyond a doubt that the Teatator was a man of most eccentric
BtOi irrational habits. lie had treated his Eons in their
childhood with great cruelty, sometimes stripping them and
flogging them severely for very trivial offences, and had
always shown a most capricious and suspicious temper to-
wards his relettves. It would be difficult to ray that such con-
duct as this was incompatib:e with legal sanity but he acme
to have laboured under something very like delusions. He
fancied that petiple were watching bin,. Ile had a number of
loaded linguine, and was contemalb on the look-oatfor rub-
bers. He once hated hriog appieheuded oils eh 'ego of gmfr.
f]W., arid at amdher time on one of theft He consulted a
solicitor respecting an imaginary conspiracy a;alust him.
At home he behaved lu the wildest manner Uv
inel a special partiality for Gt.rman bawls lie would
have them play In front of Ids home, and make tho servants
dance to the made, w bile the groom and coachman, cantered
roiled the carriage envo on horseback. Ile led his dogs with
roal joints of beef and mutton. He alb noitely fed rata In
his house, and shot them. Ile built flue greenhouses and
'macre" and 'then eitber allowed the fruit to rot or fed
his anffinda with it. He dressed hfreuelf sip fa skies, painted
hie face in red and white stripes, and weld bib o the scullery
with a gun in his hand to frighten his aervaots. It is hard
to say that these wore the acts of a nue All, awl a vela.