The Express.
London, England, 1863-01-23 00:00:00

Rain intdlistnce.

EQUITY COURTS.—JAN. 22.
(Before Vioe-Chaiseellor Sir W. P. Wood.)

TIM FAIL OF EGMONT r. TBt RSV. 811 W. WAIL!, BLIT.
This mit, which has now occupied the attention of the
court for mon than a week, has at last been brought to a
teriniastios. The plaintiff is the sixth Earl of Egmont,
and the object of his suit is to have an issue directed by the
court for the purpose of trviog the validity of an alleged will
of Henry Frederick John James, fifth Earl of Egmont, as
regarded gifts to Sir Edward Terry. Bart., of estates
within the jurisdiction of the court which belonged to the
earl at the time of his death, and that if the plaintiff
should rowed in establishing the iovalidity of the will
as regarded the devise is question, the persons in whom
the estates were now vested may be decreed to convey
them to the plaintiff as the person who, but for the
devise to Sir Edward Tierney, would have been entitled
os the plaintiff redeeming any unsatisfied mortoageos them.
The fare of the case, according to the plain Ors version
of them, may be put thus. Towards the close of the year
1841, shortly after the great fire at the Tower of London,
there returned to his rooms at Webb's Hotel. Piccadilly, •
drunken dissipated man raring by the name of Lovell.
'muscatel with demise and suffering, or at least threatened
with delirium tremens. He had passed many days previ-
ously at the groat fire, hanging about the crowd or myster-
ies ia low public-houses. The landlord of his hotel, in pity
of his condition, called in • neighbouring apothecary to
attend hi n, and upon his report ant for a lawyer named
Jerkiness, who was the only person to the landlord's know-
ledge known to the invalid. Jenltinsoo came, saw the state '
of his freed or acquaintacce. sod summoned two others to ;
his bedside ; the one, another lawyer earned Tierney, the
other • freiguer camel Battanchon. After some create-
tion a will was made by the invalid, by which he gave 1001.
• year to Battanchon, • sum of 500/. to a man named
Biomes., and the remainder of his property, real and per-
acroal. present and rererviorarv, sod of every krod and nature
whatsoever. to the lawyer Tierney. The will made the
braid was removed to lodgings, where be lingered a short
time and died. The recalled Lovell was Henry Frederick
James, fifth Earl of Egmont ; the lawyer Tierney was the
person under whom the present defendants claimed, and the
will thus mole was the document of which the validity was
called in question in the present suit. To tuderstand, how-
ever. the grounds upon which the will was sought to be set
aside it as necessary to go back for greed years in the his-
tory of the Egmont family, to tree the °warden of
Tierney with them, and to show in what manner he acted in
their affairs. Going back, then. to the yea/1817, it &ppm, that
at that period John James, the third earl, was in possession
of the family property, consisting of huge landed estates
both in England and Ireland. This earl had a son, Jolla 4
who succeeded him in the title, and who woe the father of
E,vrl Henry, whose will was now impeached. Earl John was
not on good terms with his father ; he was heavily indebted,
and much pressed by his creditor. lo the year already
meotiosed his son Henry come of age. sod was induced by
him to become responsible for debts to the amount of
200.0001. Thence commenced embarrassments to the son
which were a harass to him throughout his life. Earl
John James died is 1822, and his son John succeeded him
the pourer of the estates and the title. Here commenced 1
the connection between Terry and the Egmont family. I
Earl Joha's embarrassments forced him to the necessity of
borrowing largely, and Tierney being a man '
doubtedly of some wealth and position (be subsequently '
succeeded to • family baronetcy as Sur Edward Tierney), I
himself made 'deuces to Earl John. The creditors, how- I
ever, for the 200.1100/. became more and more pressing. I
Then recovered judgments against their debtors, and to
stave off the effects it wee deemed advisable that the earl I
should vest his estates in trustees in order to satisfy all ;
his creditors. With • view of carrying this into effect, two
deeds were executed on the 2nd of hovember, 1824.
one of those deeds, made between John Earl of Egmont By
d
the one part, his son Henry Frederick John James
(then Viscount Pained), John Godfrey Teed, and
Edward Tierney of the second part, the earl's Irish
crates were vested in the last-named three persons os '
trust, to satisfy the charges on these estates, and to hold
the surplus sad the unsold estates fie the earl absolutely.
The second of these deeds related to the English property,
which. is addition to the parties named to the first, were
record by several of the earl's judgment creditors. The '
44014011 were vested in the tame trustees. who were, after
Wine the charges on them. and indemnifying Henry
Viscount Perceval against the liabilities which he hod in-
eared as surety for his father, and pries the jest debts '
of the latter, to hold the same in trust for Lord Egmont
for life, sad subject to a jointure of 1.000!. a year to his '
mantels, for Lord Percival in tail, with nmainaer to Lard 1
Egmont in fee simple. By the same deeds the truster
were authorised to pay out of the surplus of the Irish ,
estates' .000/. a year to Lard Egmont for life, aad to Lord
Inconel 1,0001. a year during the joint lives of himself and •
his father, sad 2,0004 a year if he should strive his father. '
rt. object of these deeds was to provide the father with
2,000 f. a year for life, and the sou with 1.0001. • year during '
his father's lifetime ; sod whether the estates were sold or !
not, the surplus was to go to the survivor. Tree deeds
were not altogether new to this next, for so far lack as
11i00 a decree was made in a suit of " Wain es. Lord
Ernont," directing that the trusts of them should be car. '
red into effect, In the course of this suit Mr. Teed was dis-
charged from his trusteeship, mad thus the trustees became
reduced to Earl Henry and Mr. Tierney. In 1832 the whole
of the Eogiah mitres, with the exception of the advowsou
of Femora, were se 1, and by the sale about 200,000 i. was
produced. With this money • large part of the swum-
were cleared off, and there remained not much
more than 100,0001. charged cm the Irish property. Things
being in this position, Earl Jobs, who surreal his wife,
died in Ittid. Ey this event his son Henry be.
name operated as well of the title as of the
• family estates, subject only to the unperformed
treats of the creditors deeds. It is necessary here again to
,go bask to 1811 to traos the morainal history of the indivi-
dual who thus became the fifth Lord Egmont. In that
. year he sat for a abort time as a member of the House of
Commons, but a general denies supervening be lost his
freedom from al4olo, and being involved, as already men-
tioned, he quitted the country, dropped his Wei and as-
sumed the name by which throughout life he was after-
wards known—the name already referred to at the oam-
sneocemeet of this statement. For very many years be re-
sided no the Continent ; afterwards he came to England
and lived in a remote part of the country, at a hoar
• known r Borderope.park. Here his household was
superinteaded by • Mrs. Clare, who was said to be a eon-
Demon of his, and with him lead Alexis Battanchon,
the son of his bousehesper. On hie father's death he came
to London and took his seat in the House of Lords. That
earemouy concluded, he left the metropolis, became Mr.
Lovell again, and retired to Burderope. Here he remised
until 1841, in the early part of which year he went to Lisbon
with Mrs. Clefts ; in the latter part of that year, Mrs.
Clare being dead be returned to England, and at its close
be died. From the year 1e26 to the time of his death Earl
Beery never visited Indeed. Tierney had control over sad
entire maarernent of his estates; be got in the rents, he
kept doers the interest, be made allowances for repairs,
be incurred expenditure for improvements at his own
will and pleasure. For the habits of Earl Henry
were the habits of a drunken sot ; the low beer-
shops of country villages, the more infamous
runts of town, were the places at which he de
lighted to pus his hours. Always peered for mosey, he
was always pressing Tierney for smoothie, and yet the
latter, while he doled out a comparatively pasty sum to
his client, found himself able to expend as much as 5,0001.
is • year upon substantial improvements to the property.
Earl Henry, therefore, was led to believe that his property
was of comparatively little value—that it was swallowed up
in mortgages. By his degrading habits entirely estranged
from his family, Tierney alone was his guide and counsellor.
The information which Tieroev should have given when the
earl was winding up his Attire before his death was not'
given, and his will thus conceived in ignorance, and
leatitting the run who should have instructed
him better, ought rot to be allowed to stand.
Although upon the death of Earl Henry the plaintiff
immediately succeeded to his title the right to Earl Henry's
property had devolved rpoo him within a comparatively
recent period ; for the immediate successors to E irl Henry
were the Mires Feroeval, maiden ladies. recently deceased.
Throughout their life time, and sera since, the supposition
star :id by ftir Edward Tierney that the estates were Yahw-
ism pervaded. Paragraphs to that effect, written under the
inspiration of himself or hi, brother. had in fact stated that
the rumour of a fortune left him by Lord Egmont was a
fiction. Recast disclosures had, however, brought to the
pralutiff's knowledge those which he now alleged to
be the facts of the case, and hence this suit
was instituted hem, and • concurrent suit in
Ireland, to try tne validity of the will. To this
ear stated by the plainti>sa the defeodants made
answer to this effect:—This wu one of those eras
in which au individual sought to overture • will
after having stood by contestedly for pearly 90 yams,
after having allowed the recipient the not midi recipient,
to remain inpossession drier lis lifetime, and to deal with
it to disposing el his property upon his death, and after
waiting until nearly all thaw who could explain by-gone
traractions were in their graves. Further than this, it
was a case of which the court would have bawd pothing but
for the abandonment of their duty by those who had for-
merly been the advisers of the late earl. It was said. first,
that Earl Henry was so besotted se to be unable to
undestaad his affairs; secondly, that Sir Edward
Tieroey did not properly instruct him concern.
tog the real state of those affairs ; sad thirdly, it
was insinuated rather than openly alleged that there was
some sort of fraud in the preparation of the will. To deal
with the And of these, these could be no doubt that the
earl did overstep the bounds of sobriety and propriety of
conduct, bat there the matter ended. Tie plaintiff's' ease
rated upon the eviderra of senorita of the very scouring.
of the stable. These witnesses had, so doubt, gone to very
great lengths in their effiLvita. The defendants met this
by contiodictory evidence, and that error of a very
ferent class of witnesses to that of a groom and his fellow,
enveuts -they bad the evidence of ladies who visited Mrs.
Close, whet she resided with the Earl at Hythe, near
Southampro, who proved that the Earl was not habitually
given to baits of interupersos—that be was a well-
enedu,ted. well-informed, acd intelligent gentlemau.
The Rev. tiles Datitheoy, rector of Lydard Torn. Wilts.
lead be well remembered Mrs. Cleans and Mr. Lovell (the
esirl) reed* at Burderope-park, and had visited them
there. He added that many of the gentry of the wish-
boorhood assembled at morning sad piceic penis' at the
park, and that on many of the messier Mr. Lovell was