The Express.
London, England, 1848-02-03 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

NrH percs.—Before Sir F. Pollock, C. 8., and • special Suzy.
THE QUEEN V. GOOCH, COT:els; AND ANOTHLR.—
REvaNtre Causs.—The Attorney-General, Sir F. Thesiger,
Q.C., Mr, Watson, Q.C., and Mr. Lewes were counsel for
the crown. Mr. Berjeant Talfourd, Mr. Martin, Q.C., Mr.
Robinson, and Mr. Jones for the defendants. This was a
proceeding by ecire facia on a hood for 3,000 L, passed to
the crown by the defendants, who are wool importers,
carrying on bueinees in the Steelyard, Upper Thames street.
The object in executing the bond was that the crown should
be secured in all duties payable by the defendants, who were
also proprietors of a bonded warehouse. So far back as 1841
and 1842 it was alleged that they had removed from their
warehouse large quantities of wool without having paid the
full amount of duties thereon, and in that way the
bond executed by them and their sureties was,
as asserted on behalf of the crown, forfeited. It
appeared the practice as to the payment and assessment of
duties by wool importers was, that after making an entry :of
all wool imported by them, they put their own valuation
upon it. Wool whose value exceeded is pee lb. was subject
to ld. per pound duty, but under that value it was subject
only to one halfpenny per lb. Alter the entry was made by
the importer, and before the duty in respect to it was settled
finally, it was the duty of one of the customs officers to in-
spect the article, and if he disapproved of the value set upon
it by the imparter the duty payable was fixed according to
the officer's opinion. If, however, the officer was of opinion
that the wool was undervalued, he might adopt the valuation
of the importer with an increase of ten per cent. It was ad-
mitted that the defendants had not refused to sub-
mit the wool imparted by, them to the customs
officer, and that they had paid the duty fixed
by him, but it was alleged that in five different
instances they had misled him, and that they bed wilfully
put a lower valuation upon wool imported by them to such
an extent as to defraud the revenue of 4171. 17s. 3d. It ap-
peared they had on those five occasions sold a quantity of
wool to the Messrs. Brooks as the best merino, liable to the
higher duty of ld. per lb., whereas they entered it as en
article of inferior quality, end paid only Id. per lb. duty.
They deceived the officer (according to the testimony of a
clerk in their service from 1840 to 184-5) by tearing off the
bales the marks which indicated the ships by which cargoes
of superior wool were imported, and substituting marks
similar to those of ships which conveyed only inferior wool.
—On behalf of the defendants it was submitted that as
they had not prevented or deprived the customs officer of
every opportunity of examining the wool and ascertaining
its real value, they were not in point of law liable. They
had paid all duties to which they were subject, according
to the practice in that department ; and if the
higher duty with respect to the wool in question
had not been paid, or the proper value had not been put
upon it, that was not the fault of the defendants, but that of
the servants of the customs.—The Lord Chief Baron left it
to the jury to say whether the defendants had entered the '
w.ol at a valuation lower than its real value, for the purpose
at evading the payment of the higher duty to which it would
if fairly valued be liable, His lordship also intimated that
the detault or negligence of the officer in no respect affected
the crown in the right to recover, in that proceeding, if the
jury were of opinion that the defendants had so acted as to
enable them to avoid the payment of the duties.—The jury,
after consulting for a very short time, found a verdict for the
crown, and a bill of exceptions was tendered by the defend-
ants' counsel to his lordship's summing up.

PREROGATIVE COURT
Before Mr a 7. l'ar-

FOWLtS AND ANOTHER V. DAVIDSON AND ANOTHER.
—A DIS7VTED WILL.—The arguments in this cue has,e
occupied several days. It is a cause for proving, in solemn

form of law, the will of Mr. John Ranken, of Finsbury-
circus, dated the 22nd of June, 1844, with three cabals
thereto, dated respectively the 22nd of July 1844, the 29th
of August, 1844, and 24th of March, 1845. The deceased
died on the 19th of April, 184.5, a bachelor, without a pa-
rent, brother or sister, uncle or Cunt, leaving Miss Janet
Davidson, his lawful niece and only next of kin, and the
only person entitled in distribution to his personal estate and
effects in case he had died intestate. The suit was promoted
by four of the executors named in the will against Miss
Davidson, who was named as an executrix, but whose ap-
pointment was revoked by the first codicil. On the 27th of
May the court decreed probate of the will to the exe-
cutors, reserving to Miss Davidson probate of all the
scripts, if she should be entitled to them. The per-
sonal property was sworn to be under 30,000!.
By the will he gave Miss Davidson a considerable
portion of his property absolutely, and, in the event of sur-
viving her aunt, Mrs. Katharine Geddes, appointed her re-
siduary legatee, and to succeed to every kind of '
property,
whether heritable, real, or personal, 'not otherwise disposed
of. By the fret codicil he reduced Miss Davidson's bequest
to a life interest, and constituted the four children of the late
Mr. Win. Young residuary legatees, in lieu of Mill David-
son, with benefit of survivorship.
An allegation having been given in pleading in commen
form the execution of the will, an allegation was afterwards
admitted on behalf of Miss Davidson, an appeal asserted to
the Privy Council, who, at the hearing, affirmed the judg-
ment of this court, and remitted the cause, when the court
decreed to proceed according to the tenor of former acts.
This allegation consisted of twenty-six articles, and.
after pleading the death of the deceased, and the
amount of property of which ho died possessed,
went on to allege that Mir Davidson was the cnly surviving
child of her parents ; that the deceased in this cause had
one brother and three sisters, all of whom died unmarried.
excepting Mrs. Geddes and the mother of Miss Davidson;
that Hrs. Geddes had only ens child, who died when four
months old, and that subsequently, with the consent of her
father—the mother having died and the father married a
second wife—Mrs. Geddes adopted her niece, Miss Davidson.
who ever afterwards continued to reside with her at View-
forth, Culiose ; that in 1812, Miss Davidson having been
sent to • boarding-school in Edinburgh, the ex-
penses were defrayed jointly by Mr. Geddes and
Mr. Ranken ; that after leasing school the latter made her
ass allowance of 501. per annum for the expenses of drew,
until she assured him that 351. was quite sufficient for the
purpose, which sum he regularly paid her until 1830, when
Mr. Geddes died, and Mrs. Geddes insisted upon defraying
all her niece's expensed ; that the deceased frequently visited
his sister and niece at Culro,s; that he corresponded with
the latter, and also with the former, in reference to her ;
that in December, 18!3, Mrs. Geddes and her niece visited
London, and resided with the deceased until the following
July, when they, accompanied by him, departed for Scot-
land; that during their stay an London Mr. Rankest
showed marked attention and attachment to his niece,
and often declared to her that her aunt and herself should
be his heirs ; that on Thursday, the 11th July, 1814, the
deceased, accompanied by his sister, his niece, and a servant,
quitted London fur Scotland, and arrived at Derby, by the
railwa,y, at about five o'clock ; that the heat being excessive,
and both the windows clime, Miss Davidson, with the con-
sent of her aunt, asked permission of the deceased to put
down the windows, which were accordingly lowered two or
three inches, but in a short time afterwards were again
closed by him ; that on arriving at Derby Mrs. Geddes was
taken ill, and, on the morning. of the following day, desired
to have the attendance of a meuical man, and on the deceased
being informed of it he started up in bed in a wildand hurried
manner, saying that his niece had killed her with the
draught in the carriage, that she would not live, and that he
himself was very ill ; that although the medical men did not
at first consider Mrs. Geddes' illness to be of an alarming
nature, yet it terminated fatally on the 21st of that month;
hat from the commencement of Mrs. Geddes' illness the de-
ceased laboured under an insane delusion, which could not be
removed, that it was wilfully and purposely caused by Miss
Davidson, either by poison or by letting down the windows
of the railway carriaoe, and that she had attempted
to poison himself, with the idea of becoming possessed of his
property ; that the medical attendant in vain endeavoured
to convince the deceased of the absurdity of such ideas ; that
he declared to Mr. Cuff, the landlied of the hotel at Derby,
that he suspected his niece of wishing to poison him, and
that he would thenceforth take nothing to eat or drink but
aodawater and eggs, as she could put nothing in them ; that
a post mortem examination was made of Mrs. Geddes, tho
result of which showed that she died from natural causes
only, but the deceased persisted in saying that she was
poisoned ; that the deceased on his arrival at Edinburgh
was taken ill, and laboured under congestion of blood in
the head, but attributed his illness to poison administered
by his niece, and to the time of his death continued to be
of unsound mind, so far as related to Min Davidson ; that
he remained in Scotland until December 1844, during which
he was constantly harping on these insane delusions ; that
his friends in vain endeavoured to convince him of his erro-
neous impressions, and recommended that it would be better
for a time at least, that he should live separate from his
niece, and that on his intimating this to her in October of
that year she left the house which had been her home for
upwards 0f.33 years, and took up her abode in Edinburgh ;
that a sheet time before quitting Scotland, he cede/mound
to persuade his cousin, Lieut.-Col.Wardlaw, that his niece had
poisonei her aunt, and attempted to cut him oilier the purpose
of possessin g homelier his property, that he had therefore made
• will in favour of persons he had never seen or heard do
and concluded by saying with a laugh that a bird had
whispered into his ears that Mies Davidson was going to
break his seal by proving him mad; that in October, 1844, a
consultation was held on his case, and that the medical men
decided that the deceased was insane and of unsound mind;
that after his return to London many attempts were made
without success to convince him of 'his delusions, but he
communicated to Mr. Hutchinson that he and his niece were
still excellent friends, and he continued to correspond with
her; that Mr. Ranken, so far as related to Miss Davidson,
was insane and of unsound mind, and incapable of making
and executing the codicils in question.
To this there was a responsive allegation setting forth that
Mr. Geddes, by his will, devised the residue and remainder
of his real and personal estate subject to a life interest to his
wife, to Mr. Ranken the testator in this cause ; that upon
the death of Mrs. Geddes, at Derby, Mr. Ranken became
possessed of about 15,0001. under his brother-in-law's will
that upon the death of Mr. Geddes, in the year 1830, much
dissatisfaction was expressed by his relations at the residue
of the property being bequeathed to the testator instead of
any relation by blood; that after much discussion it was
ultimately agreed between Mr. Hinken and his sister that
the survivor should bequeath the whole or the greater
part of the property which they bad derived from
Mr. Gaeta to come member or members of his
family ; that between the 22nd June, 1844, the
date of Mr. Ranken's will, and the 11th July
that year, the day the parties left for Di rby, the testator
declared to his sister that he had left his property to her, in
the event of her surviving him, absolutely, in order that she
might select such of the family of Mr. Geddes as she thought
fit for objects of her testamentary bounty, as with reference
to their having been excluded under the will of that gentle-
man; that, at such time, it was arranged between the testa-
! for and his sister that on their arrival in Scotland, either the
testator's will should be altered, or that his sister should snake
a will in favour of the relatives of Mr. Goldee ; and that Miss
Davidson was privy to or informed of this arrangement, and
had frequently declared that she knew ter uncle and aunt
had " settled all about the will making before they
left London ;" that the testator, during his sister's
illness at Derby, ascertained from her the names
of each of her late husband's relatives as she wished, that
his property should be bequeathed or returned to ; that Miss
Davidson was informed of this fact by the testator ; that he
shortly afterwards told her he bad altered his will conform-
ably to it, and that he frequently declared, subsequently to
making the first codicil, that he had left Miss Davidson well
off, and that, with her own property, she would have 7001.
per annum; that Miss Davidson, in reference to the altera-
tions in the will, told her uncle that his will, to be valid in
Scotland, should be upon stamped paper ; that Mr. Thomas
Hardie the younger, to whose widow and children the pro-
perty at Cuirass subject to Miss Davidson's life interest, and
also other property to a considerable amount, was be-
queathed by the first codicil, was cousin-german and
one of the nearest relatives of Mr. Geddes, and that the
families of Geddes and Hardie had been on intimate terms;
that the testator and Mr. William Young, the father of Alex-
ander, William, John, and Margaret Young, also legatees
in the fart e,oiicil, were brought up together ; that great
intimacy had alwayssubsisted between them, and that the tes-
tator had rendered pecuniary and other assistance to the
widow and children of Mr. William Young; that whilst
Mrs. Geddes and Miss Davidson were at the house of tho
testator in 1843 and 184-1 differences word between Miss Da-
Tides° and her uncle, which were only kept under and sub-
dued by the mediation of friends, and that the testator com-
plained that she did not give way to him and study his comfort
and wishes sufficiently ; that the testator, being naturally
quick and irascible, was easily affronted, and that
it was at all times difficult to reason him out
of any persuasion which, right or wrong, he bad once adopted
or taken up ; that upon the testator's arrival in Scotland he
performed various acts of business, and conducted himself in
a perfectly rational and sensible manner, as a clear-minded
and acute man of business' and was so treated by all personas
who had intercourse with him ; that for many years he had
carried on a considerable business as a West India merchant,
and conducted his affairs and concerns in all respects with
as much skill and discretion up to the time of his death as ho
had done at any period of his life ; that up to his decease he
was in the habit of receiving and having in his possession
considerable sums of money on account of persons for
whom he still continued to act as agent or attorney ;
that he had about 0001. in his care belonging to Miss Da-
vidson, for which he paid her interest; and that :he con-
tinued to correspond with him up to his &ado Several ex-
hibits were produced in supply of proof of the allegation.
Dr. Addams, in support of the codicils, contended that
there we, not the least pretence for saying that the deceased
was not a person of the most perfect sound mind memory,
and understanding. Abstractedly from any meabid feeling
that he might entertain to Mies Davidson, he was as
competent to make the codicils at the time they
were executed as he ever had been in the whole
course of his life. It hail been alleged that Mr.
Ranken, during hie residence in Scotland, wound up
the affairs of his late sister, and the answer given to that
was, that he was capable of doing some legal acts. It was •
pity that Min Davidson had been advised so to act, she had
better have stood on the ground that this wee a case of mo-
nomania. The present case was one prima impression. In
"Dewe to Clark," the will being to the prejudice of the
daughter, it was most wisely and kindly set aside. " Green-
wood's" case (reported in the appendix to 3rd Curt.) was the
only one on record at all similar to that now before the
court. There the testator bad taken up the insane
notion that his brother was endeavouring to poi-
son him, and yet Lord Kenyon in his summing up
to the jury, intimated to them that they ought to find in
favour of the will. With regard te the to:emaciate codstdla•

now in question, the gentleman by whom the lint was
drawn up stated, that frum the appearance, manner, and
conversation of the deceased, ho saw nothing to lead him to
doubt that he was of perfectly sound mind. It was true
that upon _interrogatory be stated that he was not aware that
Kr. Retaken entertained the insane notion that Mrs.
Geddes's death was caused by ?oison. The second codicil
confirmed the first; and anything more businesalike or
orderly than the drawing up of the last codicil could not be
conceived. The fulsome terms in which the attach-
ment of the deceased to his niece was pleaded was
enough to satisfy bins (Dr. Addams) that the case was
not very sound. In reply it was pleaded that there
were occasional disputes between them, which Miss Davidson
denied; but the evidence of her own witueu, Mr. Hutchin-
son, proved that they did not hit it off" leg well during
her visit to London. That gentleman stated that she wanted
tact is the management of her uncle, and that he was at
one time a sort of mediator between them to keep matters
smooth. The will had the appearance of having been made
with considerable haste, and upon the face of it it seemed
that the testator was impressed with the idea that his Oster
would be the survivor. The first object of the will was to
give to his sister absolutely that portion of the property
which was left to him by her husband, subject to
her life interest ; it did not, however, become his
unless he survived her, but went over to other
parties. It was natural, therefore, to expect that subsequent
testamentary documents would ho executed. Ile submitted
that there wai no evidence to show that the deceased attri-
buted the death of his sister to his niece, in any ether way
than by letting down the windows of the railroad carriage,
and thus giving her cold. That was the head and front of
his delusions. Several witnesses deposed that he never
hinted in the slightest degree at poison having been adminis-
tered, and that part of the case was wilfully false and untrue.
The word " poison" had been introduced into many of the
articles, and then some of the witnesses produced adopted
the word. There was another part of Miss Davidson's case
which was intentionally false, and on that ground he
should pray for a condemnation in costs. The story told
was, that she hod been turned out of the house at
Viewforth, which had been her home for thirty year, and
went to take up her abode at Edinburgh. The utmost,
however, that the witnesses proved was, that the deceased
said that it was impossible that his niece and he could live
together; that he wished to be much alone ; and thinking
that it would not be right towards her, as she was the lady
of the house, he considered it desirable that she should have
a companion. Mrs. Yeu'g gave the true account of the
matter, when she stated that Miss Davidson left the house
at her own free pleasure—a fact which was confirmed by a
document in the rouse. The deceased told every one that,
however he might have altered his will, Miss Davidson, as a
single woman, would be well cif, for ho had lett her 7001. a
year. Another pert of the case, equeny false, was the plea
of general insanity, and without which he (Dr. Addams)
believed that the allegation would not have been admitted.
Two witnesses were vouched and produced on that article,
one of whom negatived it altogether, and the other stated
that a medical consultation had taken place not on general
insanity but on monomania. This was not a case of such
partialinsanity even as would induce the court to pro-
nounce against the codicils.--Dr. Jenoer followed on the
same side.
The Queen's Advocate appeared on behalf of Miss David-
son. The positions of law which he wished to establish
were these : first, that a person might be insane on one
or more particular subjects though he might be
apparently sane on all others, and conduct himself
in a proper manner ; secondly, apparent insanity on some
subjects was not proof of the non-existence of general in-
sanity ; lastly, that where there was delusion of mind there
was insanity. That had been laid down in several cases,
more particularly in " Dewe o. Clark." Where a person be-
lieved that things existed which existed only in his own
imagination, and of the noinesistenee of which neither ar-
gument nor proof could convince him, he wee of unsound
mind. The present case came precisely within that rule,
Mr. Rankers believed that his niece had purposely de-
stroyed her auut, whether by poison or otherwise, and
that she had also administered poison to him, but it
failed in taking effect. The evidence showed that that
impression existed in his mind shortly after the
period of their arrival in Derby, and that it continued
firmly fixed there down to the latest period of his existence.
Me (the Queen's Advocate) differed from his learned friend
Dr. Addams, in the interpretation put upon the case of
"Greenwood," and which terminated in a compromise.
To come, however, to the case itself, Miss Davidson was
the only child of the family, and the deceased and Mrs.
Geddes adopted her as their own. Mrs. Geddes and her
niece resided in Scotland, and the testator frequently went
on a visit to them ; be lived in London, and they came and
spent several weeks with him. It was said that there had
been au interruption of the cordial esteem formerly subsist-
ing between Mr. Ranken and his niece before they
left for Derby, but the only witness produced to
speak to quarrels between them, a servant who]
had been sixteen years in the family, knew nothing
about them, his evidence consisting of mere fancy and in-
ference. Mr. Hutchinson, who though produced by Miss
Davidson, was very friendly to the executors, who were
setting up the will and the codicil, stated that the testator
was uniformly kind to his niece on the last and en preceding
visits. It was true the deceased in his will had reserved to
himself the power of making codicils, but it must be re-
membered that he was a Scotch gentleman, and that this
was the Scotch form. Every kind of property possessed by
the deceased was named in the will, proving therefore that
it had been well considered by him. Not having made a
previous will showed that it had been the testator's inten-
tion that his niece should take the property as heiress at
law. The testimony of the medical gentlemen who saw the
deceased and his slater at Derby tended to prove that be
was at that time of unsound mind, and that he was labour-
ing under insane delusions with regard to Miss Davidson.
Mr. Ranken expressed his opinions over and over again as
to what his niece had done, both with respect to her aunt
and himself, with a view to get possession of his property.
Even the witnesses on the other side stated that they be-
lieved he was unsound on that point. The drawer of the
codicil stated that the testator did not know the names of
the persons to whom he wished to leave the property, nor
how many there were in the family, and that had he
been aware of the delusions as to the niece he
would not have prepared or attested the codicil.
It was fully proved that Mr. Ranken would take
nothing but eggs and soda water, which he required to
be opened in his presence, lest poison should have been put
in them. The alterations effected by the codicil sprung from
the insane delusions, and were connected with them ; indeed
be let his niece know the contents of the codicil, in order that
his life might be safe. The evidence adduced in the ease proved
the continuance of the delusion at the time the other codi-
cils were executed, and, in fact, down to his death. Viewing
the case as a whole, it was too clear to admit of doubt, and
he (the Queen's Advocate) therefore prayed the court to pro.
flounce for the will only, and to reject the three codicils now
propounded.—Dr. Harding was heard on the same side.—
The case was then postponed until the next session.
Assignations were subsequently disposed of.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.
Before D. C. Moylan, Esq., Judge.
TEGO V. VISCOUNT rALSIERSTON.—This was an actiOn
brought by the plaintiff, a coach-wheelwright, against
the Right Hon. Lord Palmerston, M.P., to recover the sum
of 171. 103. for work and labour done fur his lordship.—No
answer being given to the thrice.repeated summons of the
bailiff for his lordship to appear, the case woe ordered to
proceed. There appeared for the plaintiff an attorney's
clerk, whom the judge refused to hear.—Glass, the officer of
the court, said he left the summons with the man 'errant at
his lordship's house in Carlton-gardens. The servant told
him his lordship was in town, and he would give it him im-
mediately.—The Judge to the plaintiff: Hare you had any
communication from his lordship since the summons ?
Plaintiff said he had not, and proceeded to state that he sued
his lordship for work done in making and repairing wheels
for his carnage during the years 1842 and 1843. Had the
orders direct from his lordship's own mouth at his residence
in Carlton-gardens. It was in the early past of 1842 that
his lordship gave the order for one portion of the work.
Had many times applied for payment, but never had a
chance of seeing his lordship. Had written to him and sent
in two or three bills, but had never had an answer.—The
learned Judge, having carefully examined the entries in the
plaintiff's books, made an order on his lordship to pay the
debt and costs on the IGth Inst.