The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1809-04-25 00:00:00

eyz~

--

-7:731"1771

LIW tritELLrcE,CE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Aram e 4.

-

COLONRI. UARWOOO 'WOKS!). JOHN HORN(: TOONF,
ESQ. and SIX FRANCIS BURDETT, BART.
This cause was opened on Friday. The Bill
stated, that the Defendant Mr. Horne, Lad HSSIIIII.
ea the sirnatne of Tooke, in the year 179 H, under
an expectation of inheriting_ the estate of Mr.
William Tooke, of Norwich, who died in isue.
who was then et variance with his relations. The

Plaintiff is heir-at-law, and John Beinitley Tooke.
the grand nephew of the deceased ; that after-
ward* a reconciliation took place. and Mr. Wil-
liam Tooke bequeathed his fortune to his tlephew;s,
recommending to them the acre of ►ime Defendant
Dome Tooke. After the agath of the testator the
Plaintiff and the Defendant Tooke became inti-

mate. Thu Bill alleged that iu July 1803, tho
Defendant Tooke, by undue ihnoence and by tak-
ing the Plaintiff by surprise, induced him to {ire
hin► a promissory unte for 4,0001. which he after-
wards negotiated with Sir Francis Burdett. for an
anunu►ty of 4001. wyear fur his own life. The Bill
prayed that an injunction might issue to stop the
Defendant Sir Francis Burdett, from proceeding
at law to recover the amount of the note, and that

it should be cancelled, no value having been given

Mr. Horne Tooke's answer denied any surprise
or undue intnence, and asserted that the note.
was given to Willem agreement mauls between him
and the Plaintiff in the year 1793. Sir Fraucia
Burdett's answer denied having any knowledge of
the tremsnetiotia between the Plaintiff and Mr.
Horne Tooke; nucl set forth that the tither Defend-
ant applied to him for an annuity of 4001. a-year
for his life, which was valued at six years purchase,
amounting to 2,4001. that the note in question
had been placed to his account, awl he lead given
the Defendant Tooke his bond for the balance,
1,6001.
Sir Samuel. ROMILLY, this day, Counsel for'the
Plaintiff, addressed the Court, end said this was
case where there was not any thing for the Court to
determine, except on the mere oaths of the patties.
It wits a case where there was not any third person
of whose testimony they could avail themselves.
For this reason he would connueirce with the De-
fendaut, Tooke's answer; and he felt confident
tisat it admitted sufficient to convince the Coon
there had not been any legal value given for the
note. The Defendient set out with denyitig that it
was a voluntary gift ; he disclaimed acid appeared
indignant at the idea of its being thought as sue::.
This did away with any pretence of defrece on that
'head. He then set forth that, previous to the year
one thousand eight hundred and seven belied resided
with the late Mr. Wm. Tooke 16 years. Having
a wish to separate from him, he heti/Weil his inten-
tion, at which he seemed much displeased, and
tried to persuade the Defendant to remaies; but,
seeing the Defendant was determined, he said. in
R pet. if he would not give up his time and reside
with him. he would send for his nephew, the Plain-
tiff, who would be glad to occupy his place. The
Defendant positively swears that this was the &et
time he knew the Testator had any relation. He
immediately replied, he merer tread sit at his table
lie eat at it in company, with his risphew, and foe
14 mouths afterwards never did, although daily so-
licited. At length he met the Plaiiitid at the
house of the deceased in the year 178 e. The
Learned Counsel .aid in contradiction to this, the
Plaiatiff had sworn there never had heeu any ac-
tual difference between him and his etude. The
Defendant's answer further set forth, that sow"
time after the year 1781, he and the Plaintiff en.
tered into an agreement to share equally between
them whatever moiety of Williasa Tooke: pro-
peaty he bequeathed to either of them, that it
',Could be equally divided between them. To
consolidate this agreement. which was mule as
strong as expressions from man to man could
make it, the Plaintiff entered into a joint bowl
with the Defendant to a Mr. Vaughan for Sotiol.
for the sole use of the Defendant, which bowl
Mr. Vaughan by his will afterwards bequeathed
to the Defendant.
Sir SAMUCL•ROMILLT contended. that this was
not such an agreement or engagement that a Court
of Equity meld losten to : one party, the met of
kin and heir at law, the other, a mere stranger,
haviag unthing to bring into the market for ex-
change, but the aseendaney he had gained over
William Tooke; and it was impossible that the
Court could ever look upon that as a legal coned-
deretion for the note. He then continued his state-
insist of the Defendant's answer, which set forth,
that William Tooke died in September 1800, soil
bequeathed his property to the Plailatiff,.and
Beeseley Tooke. only leaving the Defendant a
!retire of 5001. That the Plaintiff communicated
with the Defendant, and informed him, in. Won as
he had arranged the accounts, be would ,sale a ath
ham. That on the kith of April 1343, lie met the
Plaintiff by appoiutnaent. at the 'Home of Mr.
Ilettry Gavoler, 82 ;attorney, at kmightskaride, for
the purpose of coming to a settletnew, He in.
formed the Plaintiff, he did not wish or el..sire
to enforce the letter ..of their 0110011 agiee-
ment ; hut that he had three reasons whom
he wished to provide for ; his two natural
daughters, of the name of Hart. and their mo-
ther. That he had been, on that day, inqoeiring
at ate insurance office, and after stetting their ages.
he was informed be could get an annuity of suo!.
a-year for each, for 3,6601. 13s. 4d.--auel if the
Plaintiff would give him that sum, he would fore-
go all claims. The Plaintiff expressed his obligl-
times for the Defendant waviug his light, mid ap-
parently with the greatest satisfaction consented.—
The answer then sets forth, that, on the 9th of July
following, the day the note in question was given,
the Defendant states, on oath, that he was deter-
mined on that day to bring the business to a con-
clusion. He was to sit for his picture, that day,
to Mr. Opie, the painter, at the request of the
Planned% be anent his carriage for the Defendant in
the morning, who pot a stamp in his pocket, on
purpose, if he could not get the money, that he
might get a bill—sod desired the coachman to
drive to the Plaintiff's house, instead of the paint-
er's ; *vitro he arrived there, the Pleintilf wus iu
company with two persons—the Defendant inform-
ed him he wished to week to him in private--they
withdrew into another room, when the Defendant