The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-04-18 00:00:00

TIIE PARGETER WILL CASE.

JONES V. DADLEY.

This case same on in the Court of Chancery on Wed•
nesday last, before the Lord Chancellor. The object of
the suit was ti set aside a devise made by Miss C iroline
E. Pargeter to two gentlemen of the name of Medley.
The testatrix, by her wilt of the Sib of August, 1062,
after devising her residential estate of Foxeote to Mr.
Hadley, sen., for life, with remainder to his son, Mr. J.
I'. BiltilCy, and bequeathing her residuary personal pro-
perty by law applicable to the purpose, to the Unitarian
and Arian ministers of certain neighbouring towns 011
trust to found II CilAiltf for unmarried women on dis-
tressed circumstances, to he called the Pargeter Charity,
devised her residuary real estate. suet bequeathed her
personalty savouring of the realty to the Messrs. Ilisdley
as joint tenants. The plaintiffs, who were the heir-at•
law and next-of-kin of the testatrix, disputed these two
. last g.fts, on the ground that they hat been made to the
Messrs. Hadley ens secret trust jar the same charitable
purpose as the bequest of the residuary personalty, and
were, therefore, opposed to the policy of the Mortmain
Act. It appeared from the evidence that Miss Pargeter
was of a very reserved temperament, and that her way
of living was not such as might have been expeeted from
her tortoise, which turned out to be worth upwards of
J:200,000. Mr. Badley, sen., who was of great age, had
been her medical loon, and long enjoyed her confidence.
Ile and his soa, by their answer, absolutely denied that
they had been asked by the testatrix to execute any secret
trust, or that they were under any obligation to that
elfmg ; and Mr. it 'Unseal, the solicitor, who prepared
the will, corroborated them. It appeared also from the
evidence of the latter that the testatrix Mel shewn great
anxiety to prevent any sue besides her legal adviser from
ascertaining her testamentary dispositions. She had re.
listless with whom she kept up souse intercourse, and
whom Elm noticed in her will. The Master of the Rolls
came to the conclusion that Mr. Badley, sea , had known •
of the testatrix's purposes during her life, AO had either
expressly promised, or by &denim implied, that lie would
execute that porpoise; and, consequently, he set aside
the devise and bequest complained of as contrary to the
fsfortmaiii Act. 'llse Messrs. Malley appealed.
Sir ItounUell Painter, Q c., and Mr. Millar were for
the appellauta; and Mr. Jusseil, tg.C., and Mr. Sargent
were for the plaintiff's.
The Lord Chancellor said there wag no controversy as
to the law applicable to each n case, which had omen laid
down very clearly in " Wallgreve v. Tubbs," 2 K and Q
313, by Sir W. Page Wood, and in "Russell r. Jackson,"
10 Hare, 204, by Sir (.leorge Turner, the principle being
that, where a person has expressly promised, or tacitly
implied, that he will carry out a certain wish of the tea.
tutor, and the property has been left to him on this un-
derstandieg, the Court will not allow him to defend him-
self by netting up Cie Statute of Frauds or Statute of
Wills. The dispute then really turned on the Conclusions
of fact, and the burden of proof rested on the plaintiffs.
There were two 110e51i0ns-1, whether the testatrix in-
tended to create a secret charitable trust ; 2, whether, if
she had thi6 iiitention, the intention were made known to
Pie Messrs. Hadley, or either of them, and the gift ac.
cooled Imp them on this footing. His lordship was of
opinion that the first poiut that there was a certain con-
nection is the testatrix's mind between the devise and
bequest and some charitable object, though whether her
intentions were to inform the Messrs. Itailloy of her
wishes in her lifetime, or to leave bellied her a memor-
andum for their guidance, or simply to confide in their
general sympathy with her objects, was doubtful; but,
011 the second point he considerati that it had not been
made out either that this intention in favour of elnuity
was ever communicated to then), or that the gift was ac-
cepted by them on such as understanding. The denial
by the appellants of any such understanding was clear
and consistent, and had not been shaken by the plaintiffs;
and the evidence of Mr. Kobinson was also against the
supposition that the appellant knew the content, of the
will, or that the testatrix intended suythieg beyond what
appeared on the face of the will. The decree of the
Master of the 11011 s, therefore, must be reversed, and the
bill be dismissed, but without costs.