The Express.
London, England, 1859-07-05 00:00:00

RWIRFIR IP. LORD CURLM6FOILD.-EXTRAORDINARY CASE•

(Continued from yesterday's Expresa.)

- •
yr. Kennedy proceeded to ray diet the Master of the Rolls
end the Lords Juatices on appeal had given a judgment con-
trary to that of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas. The
Chaeorri judges held that It was not competent for counsel
to enter into agreements which should be binding on their
clients, and that decision had been bailed with Quivers:a
satisfaction by the country at liege. Mrs. Swinfen now
sought to recover damages for the wrong she had suffered at
the defendants hands. The defendant had throughout sup-
pressed the truth—his effilsvit was most shuttling and
prevaricating. He had been obliged to confirm that
be had negotiated not only without the authority of his
client, but under the !alliance of the detestable
earwigging of the judge. It would he understood that
be had the greatest raptor for the judges of the land, and
his observations made in the discharge of • painful duty had
relaters only to this particular case. It was the duty of
Misjudge to have kept biota( aloof. He would take it in
the most favourable point of view as to the motives of Mr.
Justice Creswell ; but if he thought that Csptain Santee's
mum was good he should not have advised him to compro-
mise it. But Sir Creswell Cromwell might be called, and
he might my that all this was not true. In that ease be
would apologise to him, and be glad to do It. It was not he
who cad that Mr. Justice Creswell had made this com-
munication. It wee the defendant who said so, and it was
against the defendant he now used it. If the judge did it
for Mrs. Swinfen's benefit, and oouniel swallowed the bait,
' and foroed upon her to accept • benefit which aka could not
accept without • fraud on Captain Swinfen, they the
judge and the counsel did wrong, and bit client
did right in refining it. She was too huehminded to aocept
such • compromise. There was • thing above pounds, Mil-
lie and pence, sad • person might say " I would rather
bisbeggar and honest, than that you should obtain for me
as advantage by fraud." If she had availed herself of •
fraud and it wm discovered Captain pwinfen might have
filed • bill to recover the 1,0001. a-year beck, and all three of
the parties—judge, counsel, end client—might be indicted for
• conspiracy. If the defendant entered into this compromise
under the inflames of any personal motive whatever he was
guilty of frond. They did not charge the defendant with any
peenavry motive that was out of the question ; but
there were other motives which were not out of the
mastics. It was supposed by some that counsel were the
may persons who were irresponsible for acts of this kind, bet
there was no authority for that.
The Lord Chief Baron—That is • question for me, and I
will reserve that and all such questions. We need not dis-
cuss it here.

Mr. Kennedy would accept his lordship's decision. The
defendant, however, had untertaken the reepossibility with-
oat even awaiting the coming of his client. Whet had
been Mrs. Swinfea's losses by this transaction 7 She had
been obliged to pay the costs of the trial of the attachment,
and of two roles. She had been for three years kept in the
greeted suspense, sad had been twice threatened with
dm-
prfsonmant; sustained, however, by that sympathy which
was evinced when she gained her victory at Stafford, and
when she was met by the whole of Lichfield, high end low,
sad was taken in triumph to her own home. But it was not
for the purpose of obtaining damages that his client was
hen to-day. It was her esthed deem, shared by millions
of Englistussen, that punishment should be dealt out to one
who had betrayed eo sacred a duty, sad had lent himself to
the perversion of justice. Until that was done there could
be neither security to the client nor respect for the proles-
doe to which the defendant belonged. His client would,
by their verdict, accomplish her high and noble purpose—
she would arrest the progress of a growing abuse, and would
defend the insulted nessesiv of the law.
The learned counsel having concluded hie speech, which
occupied four hours in delivery,
Evidence was admitted on both sidle, including the pro-
ceedings in chancery and at common law. 'I he instructions
to the defendant, various dadavite, See., were put in.
Mrs. Patience &detest, the plaintiff, was then culled sad
examined—My husband, Henry John Swinton, went to live
et my father-in-law's, Mr. Soma& Swishes, of Swinfen-ball,
Is 186 L I lived there till his death. He died on 27th July,
1884. He was very infirm. My husband died on the 16th
Jaw, 1864. I seat for Mr. Charles &dater', my father-in-
law's brother, and his wife. On the sth of July, 1864, my
father-in-law made a will, by which ha left the easte to me.
He knew that my husband bad made a will leaving all the
Pr to me. He approved of In 18.54 proceedings
wen lakes by Captain Frederick Hay &rinks, to di sputa the
will. Offers of a compromise were made to an. Tbs trial
commenced at the Stafford Amite', es Satur, the 16th
March. I was under examination three hours area half. I
was cross-examined by 81. Alexander Cockburn. I had read
a copy of the bill in Chancery filed by the heir-at-law before
1 wee examined as • witness. I was asked whether my
father-in-law had fondled me, and said he would marry me,
and whether I had ever said so to others. Wean the pro-
ceedings of the day were over, the judge asked bow long
the case was likely to last. Sir Frederick Thesiger said he
believed he would finish his sue by Monday evening or
Tuesday morning. The judge replied, " Your case' I must
take the jury with me is a tart, and pitch them out on the
harden of the county." I went to the Swan Hotel, sad was
sPerweris sent for to his lordship. Sir. Alexander
sasbadriZr. Whitmore, my other counsel, were there. Mr.
Cale was also there. Sir Frederick Thceiger said he thought
It would be advimble to coinpromiee the caws, as he thought
It would go against me. I said 1 had no desire to compro-
mise the case, and wished it to go to the jury. He premed
me very much, and said the Attorney-General had
Mired 1,0001. • year if I would relinquish the
estate. I said I felt it my duty to uphold the
will. He said he had an intizawkin ftom high quarters
that the case would go mosinst me, and we must tam
something from the wreak. I told him I did not wish to at-
apt that or any other offer, that I would abide by the verdict
of the jury. Sir Frederick urged me to accept the offer, and
I said -1 should like Sir Henry Dumont to be sent for. He
was my huebsed's cousin. I wished him to tome because I
did not think Sir Frederick treated me with thatreepect which
was due to his client. When Sir Henry Durrett came and
Sir Frederick repeated to him what he had said to me, be
suggested we should speak on the matter alone. I sent an
answer the next day. I did so, refusing the offer. On the
Monday morning I weal to Stafford to the court-hours. Sir
Henry Dermal was with me. We met Sir F. Thasiger in
the sate-mai of the must. He said, " I've settled the
eme, I've compromised It, doss the beat I can
for you." Sir Henry Burnet said, "By whose au-
thorny?" Sir Frederick Thaslger sneered, "By yaws."
Sir Henry replied, "The deuce you did ?" and 84
Frederick then left. I never gave my solicitor, or
Sir Hetry Durmast, any suthority to compromise the mat-
ter. Steps were taken to enforce the compromise. mad 1 re-
sisted them. Two of my tenants refused to pay their rents,
amounting to 1,1001. a year. The total rental of the estate
Is 1,7001. a year. The fishing and shooting is worth about
1001. a year ,• and the house and land about 2001. more.
This is in addition to the rental of 1,70V1. I paid my attar.
soy for counsel's feel at the trial 4001.
Cross. examined by Sir F. Kelly—The issue was to try the
state of Mr. Samuel S *Wren's mind when be made his will.
My husband and he were both attended by Mr. Rowley.
Mrs. Rewleyeameto Swinfen the day my busbaed died, and
remained there for some time. Mrs. Leashman also
came due my husband's death, and remained three or four
days. Daring the interval between my busband's end my
father-In-law's death Mr. Simpson sad Mrs. Charlie Swinton
wart there. All four were to be called to prove the °owes-
tency of the testator to make a will Oa the first day Mts.
Rowley, Mrs. Leadsmen, and myself were called. I believe
Mrs. Rowley was crows-examined by the Attorney-General,
Sir Alexander Cockburn. Mrs. Rowley, in bar cross ex•
aminatice, admitted that, on the 18th of June, three days
after my husband's death. ahe hod verities—. Mr. Seriatim
is happily spared the &Mit:limo( this mourafel event through
great- tom of memory, wit being able to dwell for may
roommate on any subj,et." Mrs. Leadsmen edm4tted that,
ea the 20th of June, she had written—" Poor old Mr.
Swiefen is unable to comprehend the extent of his great lose."
The Lord Chief Baron—How old was the testator ?

The pialatiff—Sl, my lord.
Cross-exaselastios condoned—She also mid that Mr.
Ilwinfm, the testator, did not know it was his ion who was
bead, and thought it was I. Mrs. Francis Swinfen called
sad Expremod a wish to see the testator clothe 7th of July,
the day the will wee made. I was asked at the trial if she
had not desired to the testator, and I eaid she had, and I
had made no objection. In my aces-S111111(12141i011 I admitted
that Mrs. Taylor, the wee pretended to go up and see as
testator, and cams down sad said he did not vial to tee her.
Mee. Merlin fiwinten was then in the home. She and her
heabend eases to the hall the 23rd of June, and left ea the
20th of July, • week before the testator's death. Mrs.
Charlie Swinfen smut the room when Mrs. Freed. Stein&
expreseni a whit to me the testator Mr. and Mrs. Charles
Swinfen were to hare been called She was ill
on the second trial, and was not called. I sent for
Mr. Simms on my husband's death and cossulted
kits as to my rights and prospecta. That I believe wes the
only time I spoke to him. I anthorieed my solicitor,
Mr. Simpson, to write or to say that the testator was inca-
pable of managing his affairs, or of taking care of his pram.
I had nothing whetever to do with Mr. Eimpeon's preparing
to take out a com plied°. of lunacy on the treader. 1. was
twee of It, and did net object. The parties who interested
themeless in that matter were Mr. Charles /Minim and
Mr. Simpson. They would have been called if Sir F.
Tbesiger had not entered into the compromise. They were
both attesting wits/sem to the will. Dr. Rowley me the
testator daily, and wee not called in with the view el
teatime the &tam of the testater's mind. Dr. Eves', of
Birmingham, wag called in. I did sot Dell bite in. I made
DO objection. I did not object to saytking that was Fo-
rmed. I believe that Dr. Evans gam it as has °Polon that
tee testator was not competent to make • will.
When I went to Sir F. Thesiger's lcdginga about the com-
promise he said that the Attorney-tieneral had oilseed me
1,0001. • year to give up the estate. I can say most die-
tinnily that I did lot hear from some use elm and sot
Sir F. Tbesiger that something had Mien from high
quintets. I have steed the tenants who refund to pay for
double rest for two pare. The amount sued for is 2,2001.
I knew that Mee. Francis Swinfen was the mother of the
laeirmt.law, who would have been entitled to the property If
the will was tavlid. Ebe was not permitted to see the tee-
tater at all. 1 swore in an affidavit In Chancery in Say,
1856, that I hail not interfered to prevent her seeing hint,
and I gave sit:oiler evidence at the trial. In the last few
day, beixothe testators death, treads and a balance at the

beaker's arnountiadtcq7,9oo/. were tratuferred to my name.
That transaction has been questioeed by the neat of kin and
the money has been given up.
Reanamined—l believe that when Mrs. Leashinan sew
the testator on the 16th of lane, he had not been informed
of his son's death, which took place the day before. Mrs.
Rowley said in her cross-rzaralnetien, that the testator did
feel the loss of his ern, and she was mistaken in thinking he
did not. Mr. Charles Swinfee and his wife were almost
strangers to me when I invited them. Dr. Rowley opposed
the commission of lessacy. Dr. Evens was sent for to see U
the testator was in a condition to make a will. He thought
he was not. lie saw the testator twice for about a quarter of
an hour tech time. He was examined on the second
The temente who refused to pay Ise rent were to have been
celled as winnows against me. I did not give them tulles to
quit for that. I had nothing to do with the transfer of the
funds and balsam a* the bank to my name, and I gave up the
money Immediately before any bill was Sled against ma.
At this stage of the proceedings, it being flea o'clock, the
further hearing of the came was adjourned to this morning.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.—Par 4.
(Before Kr. Commissioner Goa(burn.)

The bankrupt, James Milne', An. was described as •
featber-merchant, of Suffolk-street, Borough. Thieve,' the
examination meeting, but no aocounta being died, an adjourn-
ment was rendered necessary. The statement of Messrs.
Hart shows liabilities of 8371.; assets, and property held ss
esettrity, 3001.
A brother of the bankrupt having been examined ea to the
paused= of seine of the bankrupt's furniture„which he
agreed to give up,
His Honour, amercing that there were suspicious features
V the case, adjourned the examination sino die, giving pro-
tection for a fortnight.
IN HZ MARC HANT.
The bankrupt wee a draper at id sidatone. This was the
examination meeting. Debt., 2,173/. , wets about 7001.
Mr. Linklater, for the assignees, offered no opposition, and
the bankrupt pared.
IN RI FIREMAN AND ( HARTIER,
The bankrupt,, Henry Freeman and Charles Chattier, bad
kept the Commercial Tavern and Eating-house in Chespoide.
This was the examination meeting.
Mr. G. Lawrence appeared for the assignees.
The bankrupts passed unopposed.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—JuLy 4.
(Before the Chid Commissioner.)

IN RR ROBERT THOMAS ZOR ARD,.-JI:DOMENT.

This COW, which has been before the court on *towel
occasions, came on for judgment.
Mr. Bagley and Mr. Macrae appears! for the opposing
oreditor, Mr. O. W. Reeve.,executor of the late Mrs. Alice
Corri; Mr. Sargood supported.
Originally the case was before thecourt in April last, andthe
=imeinwaswhotbertheineolvent wee justified inputting Mr.
to upwards of 2001. cspense in the Court of Probate.
The lasolvent was a carpenter and tobacconist in St. John's-
wood-terrace, and was executor of a will made by Mrs.
Corri, who lived in the neighbourhood to a very advanced
age, hs April, 1858. The executor of • former will made in
1847, Mr. Reever,ettered a caveat against the will which the
Insolvent attempted to prove, and the matter was tried in the
Court of Probate, when a verdict was given establishing the
former will, on the ground that the testatrix was not of a
testamentary capacity, and the insolvent was condemned in
the costs. The insolvent wee plaintiff in the cause.
The learned Commissioner promoted to give his judgmen',
end occupied nearly three hours in reviewing the facts and
giving Me opinion.
A judgment of six months ender the discretionary clams
from the date of the vesting order, on the 22nd Match last,
was giver,.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

NEW COURT.
(Bak!. the Common Serjeent.)
_ .

Saber! Men-ill, 22, Frenr.h-paiahcr, and Joseph Taylor,
84, bricklayer, were indicted for a robbery, vita violence,
upon gush Bristow.
Mr. Langford promo:Wed, and Mr. Ribton defended the
prisoner Merritt.
The prodoctorix, an infirm old woman, upon the morning
of the 10th of June, at about half-past ten, was pawing
through High-street, Whitc.haiel, when the prisoner
Taylor came up to the side of her and made a snatch at •
big which wee on her arm with such violence that she fell
to the ground, and he dragged her into George-yard, when
the cord hy which the bag was 'upended to
her arm broke and be ran off. Merritt came up and said be
knew the man, and would catch him, end be also yen off,
and both prisoners ware i.e. by too policeman of the 13
division, named Harris and Boone coming from the yard,
Merritt carrying the bog. TM prisoLer Merritt was taken
into custody the same evening, and Taylor on the 17th.
The jury found thew both Godly.
Evidence was thin given of the conviction of the prisoner
Taylor in 1863 and of Merritt in 1867. They were known to
be associate. of and belonging to • png of thieve" infesting
Whttechapel.
They were both sentanosd to four years' penal servitude,