The Express.
London, England, 1851-03-12 00:00:00

there was was nothing unlawful or improper in such a 'mover-
ti in. On the contrary, it was allowed and enjoined by the
Homan chunk. 'the same duty woo prescribed to the pm-
testant ckrgyman while attending the sick and the dying. In
the order of our church for the visitation of the rick the
minister e. enjoined Ai follows : " And if he (the sick man)
bath nut before disposed of his goods, let him then be admie
walled to make hie will, and to declare his debt', what he
owetlt, and what is owing unto him ; for the better die-
charging of his ronwienet, and the quietnese of hie exe-
cutors.' And the order then proceeds to enjoin the minis-
ter " not to omit earnestly to move inch sick peroons as are
of ability to he liberal to the poor." It was clearly the
priest's duty to do as be did. Ile went to Mr. Carve on the
Sunday. 11.• then took his int:ructions on the will.
It was a proper precaution to have the will pre-
pared in case of extremity. The exact
the wil descrip-
-1
tion of the rotator', family, appearing on
could only have been obtained for the putpues
of the will • and the two persons who called diet so at the
riqueret of 'Cooke, in order to attest the will. Carte was
found 1./1 the Monday not to be in eatremis, and the
suggestion was then made by Cooke as to the saving of the
legacy duty. Aunt on the part of Carri to the suggestion
was perfectly natural. The deeds aod will were Record-
Ingle prepared. Oa the 'Thursday, when these were roc.-
anted, there were seven rerun ron.sent. Ilamitton
himself admitted in his letter that the documents were then
signed. Breen himself attested them. None disputed
the fairnese ol the transaction. All ACIC-1:11 that M. Carre
we. if soused mired and of firm will. rue,;, when they en-
tered he ...id he 1/11.. not well eno nah, red to
pone the matter Hut this was from an apprehension
that he use not well enough to carry it through. This
1/1., ,sown by his complaint to Hamilton All tti: Wednesday
of his increased weakness. He desired them to have the
document with biro. 'The priest, how.ool r, saw that the
parties understood he was rung to execute the document,
and that they were all there. Cpon that he said, " Let
then, mine up," and the matter was carried out. All the
witness. 4. hail told the court that the tranurtim was ear-
ri,el through with perfect fairness. So far, then, the priest
ofd throe nothrig mmmunion.on than whthe oat was njoined to ministers
our own torder of their church.
The deed and pow e r were taken away ley Cooke
as the potty entitled, as one of thu donor, to the custody
of them, and Marc.. they were required to romplt te the
tranoefion. The will, which wax not required. 1.1101 left.
Ile eapreseion attributed to M. Carr:—" the money will
not gee from me while I live, will it could have no other
meaning than this—" Shall I have power to dew+ of my
property while I live:" The transact...to hail remained un-
challenged till July, 11417. The relatives then inquired of
Coedie as to the particulars of the transaction, and a few
days afterwarla +4.re furnished with a coo, of the deed.
Up to that time Hantiftnn had been endeavouring to eatrart
money from the testator's Marna without success. He had
not the it thought of questioning the deed. I indite!' then that I
its validity would prolably he contest,d he suddenly changed
her plan, and still with • view to fe.roinal profit *vented
metiag up the rase now made public. Next with re-
Karel to the law of the rase. It was clear that, as the plain
tors had failed to estahlieh the fraud, the y could not fall
1..1 upon the it legal right to relief, it any such existed,
inde rend nil) of the fraud. They hail cited numerous au-
thorities, teethe English and fon Pm, to show that mwhere one
person was under the influence of another the latter could
not TIV'CiVI a le nefit from the former while the influence
continued. It was true that, according to the English au-
thorities. persons holding any confidential situation with P-
etard to Another, as that of guardian, agent, trustee, attorney,
wiediralor spiritual attendant, and mold not thrive a bene-
fit from any contract or gift with or from the Arson, with
trued to whom they were so situated: unli see indeed they
called in a third person in the shape of a keel responsible
adviser, who could watch the 111.1171.C..11.1 the transaction.
That principle, 1.11111-/I.T, applied only to CA., where the
party himself, or his family, or friend, net ived the benefit.
No authority timid be shown where the principle had been
applied to a benefit .1, a charity. So the restrietions which
had limn (arid from foreign law w4,ro• all tlineted to the
besefit of the parties themselves. They hail no •ppliratiorie
where the gift was to a charity. 1,, the CAN' of a cheerily
if it could be shown that the binelit was intended by the
donor, the gift would be supported. The question then
became solely a question of intention. Whirr the influence
exerted was I.Cfl.llli, the ;edit,. of all awing validity to the
gift might possibly be theuhted. Ilut the question of policy
was to be dealt with by the legislature. It enuld not be
ratertainict here. it hail been contended that here the
• IClllg u Heroine catholic, he wan MI identified in in-
terest with the charity that a gift to the one was a gift to
the other. Was that an with regard to ministers of the
English cheat h ? Would a gift procured by such
minister from a dying member of his computation
in favour 01 a charity ever he questioned, though the
minister were • rer on much identified with the charity, pro-
vided the iiitent ion mince were ratablishisl, then why should
It he quest •d in the case of a gift pretend ley a Homan
privet For the benefit of a Roman catholic Charity ? The
duty of the Homan priest to 1.1101,11,1 111.11111ti1111.1 to the peer
was m clearly prescribed by the Homan i.attiolit church as
it was by our own. Having admitted the catholic, to equal
rights in point of toleration and of the acquisition of pro-
perty for charities, we were bound to try a question of this
kind by the same rules as were applied to cams of gifts to
a protestant charity, whether procured by a minister or not.
In the case of Niftily a pnoritant charity, wherever opiate's-
ties by the dont+ to gi we could he totabl ishcathe gilt wouldbe
supports:al; sod wherever such intention could not be
proved there woo no need of authority for saying that the
Ott mast tail. Having thus ,ball with the law and the fact
of the row, be would next proceed to clear tiee character of
Ms client. Mr. (*woke, from the find aspersions which had
been cart upon it. As he incest treat this part of the cue
at so enet length, and it was then three o'clock, he would
beif to Ix' allowed to postpone the subject till to-morrow
(this day).
'nu. further argument of the /..11.0• was accordingly
adjourned.

INSOLVENT 1/EBTORS COL RT.-lAacit 10.
gams TYR CNN/ CusliwattoYsli.
IN MK LIFXT. (11.1/ILEN AIINIFY MOUNT.
Mr. Cooke applied in this ease, which has appeared on
suveril occasoms in our paper, fora hearing under the 224th
section of the Protection Act. The insolvent, who is a
lieutenant in the rmth itegimist Owe), had gal-
lantly fought in is arty sill the battles in the late Indian
rampant", He had accepted some at lOmmislation bills for
a brother officer who died, which hills had got into the
hands of discounters, who opplaivel. The ease was adjourned
without protection for two months. The time hail stow ex-
panse', and the present application wits to tome up for a pro-
tecting order.
111. lIINNNIT grunted the application, and a day was
named fur the hearing.
burring Ms. Cosimisinssa f tours.
IN Me. JOHN I;ESF,T.
This insolvent, known as —Captain Lk iitiett," again came
before the court. Mr. Lucas opposed, and Mr. Cooke sup-
ported. Mr. Macrae appeared as counsel for a creditor, but
as he had nut appeanAl an the first occasion the opposition
was MA allowed.
The ease had liven several times he fore the court, and an
objection was made un the present cieeJ-dolltu the insolvenes
deseriptiun, which uhjortion was OVlnulell; and after an
inquiry respecting a claim made liy the intsilteut against a
Mr. reswier the case concluded. The hosilicut, ate had
teen some months in prison. was ordered to be discharged.

ASSIZE INTALLIOENCE.

1 10Ni F. CI ItCUIT.TLLZWES, NIARCU 11,

..—.....
The businem for the runty of Sussex commenced on
Monday. There were fifty prisoners for trial. but, with
the eseeption of some caws of burglary. the whole of the
ehari:es un the gaol calendar appear to be of the orilinary
dew•nptiun. 'l'lw cause list is very meagre indeed, there
being only di entered.
• sys. MOIL—W.. 3. KOKOS Pauli A.lll, A COMO* ITST.
CAA*. It T..—llasAl'tt OT l'hollatot TO M•1111.T.
Action brought by the plaintiff; Wee Sarah
rime*, to reviver damages Inan William Henry Wilson, the
defendant. for the breach of his promise to marry her.
defendant pkmileil that futote the breach was com-
mitted. the plaintiff hail esomrsted him from the promise
he boil made.
S, want Sloe and Mr. Needham were for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. M. and Mr. Willis fur the

def endant.
Mr. Chambers said that by the limn of the pleadings it
devolved upon him. as counsel fur the di fi infant, to make
nut the plea he had put upon the retied. that the plaintiff
had exuserated him from the promise he bad made to marry
her. He admitted that he had made the promise, but he
said that the plaintiff heel of her own accord absolved him
from th.,t program', and hod in fact discharged him from
it, sad if he .huuld evtablish that fait to the eatisfae6m
Mau jury the defendant would be entitled to their verdict.
The plaintiff, Misektow Sandi Cram% was the daughter Ma
gentleman residing in London. He was. unhappily reparated
from Ins w ifs, and No. Crate had in eon...quest,• been to a
great extent deprived of the advantages of a home, and she
had maintained herself in a reopectable manner by the
flefflair of her talents as a governese la the year 1:44 she
became acquainted w ith the defendant, at a time when she
was on a visit in the neighbourhood of Arundel, in which
town his father held an appointment under the Custom,,
and at Iran period he was 20 and .he was In rears of age,
The plaintiff was invited to the house of Ow: defendant's
father, but at this period there did not appear to be any
close itillfilacy between her sad the defendant. After.
wards, beet ler, there was so doubt that an Intimacy did
swiss up between the partiesiandthat • promise of marriage
wro made by the defendant. Ear traumas which it was nut
at this stage of the coo fur him to enter into.
::""rlfanei y of the defendant were averse to the marriage,
and in the month of November of last year the plaintiff,
aecompanied be some of her relations, went to the how, of !
Mr. Hdward Wilson, a brother of the defendant, in Lon-
don, and upon that oreamion she stated distinctly that if he
would my that it was of his own accord that be dared the
match to be broken off, she would raveling", him from his
main sad return his litters, and upon his saying su, the
plaistiff said the released him from the promises( marriage
sod An would think no more about him. Ile ebould prove
Ws ilast by the testimony of the relatione of the defendant
whs wore present upon the occasion, and if it was iota-
Miami to the satisfaction of the jury the iledemban would
as matitisil to their verdict.
M. Jahn Wilson deposed that he wee htlarr to the dc..
hmlbine. Be knew the plaintiff and yelasabosed her being
at a shit at his how four or liar yaw spa His son and
the phiatif were both you'. popes. Aa lanais/7 sub-
sisted between them at that time. Ho arm appro//4 of
the lradrallery, bat be could not say that be eon positively
a= Mit lie Ines breams empardated with the plain-
the wake of his visiting a relative at Petworth
Pasty aim Arvid& In November last. in consequence of
• molten ha had with his son Edward, he went to
Lab" sad as the lath sinus mouth he saw the plaintiff