The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-28 00:00:00

CJWATS e•, they ahead ill tie List.

ROLLS COURT.
The ifa.t.i of the Roll. will hear Csaws„ farther Direction•, and Peti-
tla.,, by tow en', ou Saturday neat, id nine in the morning. Cane■ end
Pei it tan. mutt Le set down by two o'clock in the afternoon of I:, ide y nest.
The Master of the Rolls will sit every evening, this wee►, at els o'clock,
eicept Saturday.

COIT*T OF XING'S BENCH.
:Jevons sPIECIAL JURIIIII, TIM DALT, at rev COVII(WW.
Sanderson v. Ne.tor I Fentrick v. Tbnrnton I Devey v. Whittoker.

1..11%110V COMMON JUIIIOI.
Genes, v. Ba!tour Henley v. Gardiner Simpson v. Leberen
HuLLard v. Ilia tr la.tln v. itarnttam Samuel v. Levy
Wi.ltin.an v. ii.elietain I love v. <lmps..in Itenjtunin v. (.y'by
tierviste v. finvonh.vy Price v. Brown Lntwyche v. M'Oregor
IT Vie v. Its...i.vii-'v Gainstm r. Gee Taylor v. Trent.
Opprnbelm V. Juvic mn Tanner v. Williams Berrid., v. Crompton
flatland y. Poem Wilkins v. 11J•dter Hllea•l Y. John While-
Glb.tin v. Smith on Weight v. Evans heat
Jettnlng •v. itelre FroNt v. Floyntri I Same v. Jaa.Whiteturtid
Juneb v.Arkinst:dl Merton v. Yientley

LO, 00,1—.NOT/COS.
The following Cuipier (which were bronet.t down far trial on the last
Sittings in Tern:, oill be in the List of Canes on Saturday neat, if not.
i:leA bef.we.
Riedel v. Thenhain Chrtety v. Gething fluttivant v. Gil '.on
I.liinoor V. in,hry Oreharde.Connlnglutm Toddy and others v.
01,pelikviia v. Ji.).aori Raffivant v. Gibbon Combmim.
Talky v. Wilton Same v. Same

COURT Or COMMON PLEAS.
T11I• TAT, ATTEN—LIINTOW ■TRCIAL JURTER.
)(a.m." v. %ash!), I Hallam v. Trevitt I Pagan) v. ()Radall
Madan v. tidun Painy.len.re V. Moral
Exchange

io•nov C031310N JORIr
MIN v. MOW! Bedford and another v.
14Scour v, elurnMe 111tebell
Bedford I. Tlionyson Cotton v. Buzzard

Imes V. Cleddp
sander. v. Mon
Stever% V. t.

Biggs v. COT,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MONDAY, Fzz.27.

[Sittings in Loudon before the LOUD Cum". JurricE.l
TAUT O. 'MOREY.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of 4001.
111 r. DEN MAN conducted the plaintiff's case, and Alt. OLTAXLY
the defendant's.

It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff is a widow lady,
fal years of age, and proprietress of the Old Talbot Yeti!, Nelson-
wrote, 11'hItechapel. The defendant is a young man. little more
than twenty-one. Since she death of her husband the plaintifrs
business had been frequently under the direction and subject to the
advice of the defendant's father. In the month of January ion
the plaintiff went to the Batik and drew out 4:io/. lint. of which
she peed to the defendant's father, being indebted to him that sum,
and the remainder, which was the cause of the present action, she
advanced to the defendant, for the purpose of setting him up in
husinees. The question now was, whether the money was a gift
to the defendant or a loan only. The defendant had lodged with
the plaintiff. two days after he received the money, a promissory
note. In the month of 6eptember the plaintiff was taken very
and confined to her bed. The defendant celled on her at that time,
and a box was produced, from which he extracted the promissory
note, leaving in its place a written undertaking, by which to render
himself liable for the interest only, and that only during the
1 plaintiff's life. A woman named Amy proved that on the de-
fendant's leaving the house she followed him, observing " You
have got the proinissery note., for which 1 shall be held responsible;
but recollect lam a witness to the transaction." Defendant only
replied, "It is all right." On the part of the defence it was proved
1 by the dmendsot's mother that she plaintiff had been urged to the
present proceeding, against her inclination, by het relations. Wit.
ness Was present when the undertaking of the defendant was read to
I her, to the terms of which she consented.

The LOYD CHIEF JUSTICE shortly summed up, and
The Jury' returned s verdict for the plaintiff —4OO/. costs 40s.

PREROGATIVE COURT, AIoNDAT, Frs.27.

DEW V. CLAEEE.
This cause was resumed to-lay.
Dr. PHILLIMORB appeared on behalf of 31rs. Dew. He com-
mented on various parts of the evidence respecting the brutal treat-
ment of MisaStort and the insanity of bet father, the facts of which
have already been before the public; and he argued from the whole
that the insanity of Mr. Stott was completely proved in respect to
his daughter, :-. well as in several other points, and particularly is
his belief of the virtues of electricity, by which he asserted that he
could almost perform miracles. His faith in this was so great, that
he had proposed, in a number of instances, aceouchenient by
electricity. The Learned Counsel remarked, in concluding his ob-
servations on the general evidence of insanity, that the letter
of Mr. Stott to Mrs. Desormeaux must not be pawed over.lia another
letter to Mr. Golf about his visit to Mr. Wilson, helstates his sus-
picion about a conspiracy to many his daughter to Mr. Dew, and
to oblige him to give bet a considerable fortune. Mrs. Dever-
meaux said that he was possessed of such a notion about plots of the
Jews to get his money. lie charged Sir Thos. Barnett and the
Bishop of Durham as conspirators. The third proposition only
now remained to be proved, which was, to connect the insanity
with the act Itself. The Court had heard three witnesses snore
that by falling in with his delusion they might have possessed
themselves of his property. The solicitor who prepared the wills
had objected tethe introduction of certain words which had been
repeated to every witness with whom the deceased had ever eon.
versed about his daughter. He left Miss Attlee a legacy, in con-
sequence of her exertions to reclaim his daughter. The words of
then* bequests sounded most completely to insanity. if there were
one word sounding to insanity, it was sufficient to nullity the whole
of a will. It was certainly a proof of insanity connected with the
instrument, that he left his property to persons whom he disliked.
A ruirttatement had been made about the action, in the Court of
King's Bench, in 1822. The delimit was made because the plain.
tiff would have been ousted, as not being heir at law. The opposite
side showed by this that they were afraid to trust their cue to the
decision of a British Jury. 'The point to be considered was, that
from an early period, when the daughter could have done nothing
to offend him, the deceased laboured under a delusion respecting
her, which ended in total insanity. If there were any fault on her
part, it could not be suffi cieet to account for his conduct to her for
16 sears. With all the evidence which the Court bad of the ex-
cellence of htr character, in such an ordeal, and of the delusion
Under which her father laboured, from 1802 to 1617, taken in con.
uexion with the other points of insanity, the Learned Gentleman
was convinced that the Court would see the same insane idea per-
vading every part of his life. The Learned Gentleman would not
upbraid hint as unnatural; and the soundest and moat charitable
conclusion was, that his judgment was defective, and that he died
intestate.
Dr. LUSDINOTOW rose to reply to these statements. He
dissented entirely from the general principles which the opposite I
Counsel had attempted to establish. The conclusions drawn from I
the evidence were most extraordinary. The case in the plea main.
. tamped that the delusion of the deceased with respect to his daughter
continued till his death. This seemed to imply that he was at all i
times liable to this delusion. Now it was rot denied that such a
rage might exist. Various persons there were in lunatic asylums
whose insanity showed itself only on some subjects. It had been
maintained that a man might be unsound on oae point, and might
act rationally on all others; but if be was insane on one point he
never could du ore valid act. To say otherwise would be to main-
tain that the human mind is divided into compartments; but it
was the same in the mind as the body; where in the ease of con.
gumption, though the cheat only seemed to be affected, yet the
1.1 whole body was the victim of the disease. lie would not repeat
his arguments about the case of Greenwood; for the two cases
could not be at all assimilated, and evan if they had resembled
ach other, what authority would be derived from it ? Lord
Kenyon's opinion was entirely opposed to the doerrine, whatever ,
Lord Loughborough's might have been. It had been said that the
main issue was, whether at the time of executing the will the de. I
ceased was of unsound mind. This was true ; but what inference was
to be drawn grom it ? Waa-ebege a Wog* word its the will that
sounded to folly ? Disposing of property contrary to the general
feelings of parents is no proof of insaaity. rwinburne, in the 1
passage brought forward meant merely that if any put of a will I
was R proof of insanity the whole was invalid. It was only by
coupling the disinheelson with antecedent circumstances that the
will coukl be proved to have been made under the influence of in.
sanity. It was true, that to believe in atrocious crimes with-
out causes was insanity ; but to magnify small crimes beyond
their due proportion was too subtle a distinction for a Court to
act upon. This would be to make Courts juirlgoi of moral conduct.
Could it be contended, where an offence has been committed, though
the punishment has gone to the highest pitch of barbarity that
this Court is to be constituted judges in such a case? Things tin-
, reasonable are not all insane; fur every thing wrong is unreason.
i able. If it were difficult to prove insanity in the lifetime ,
, of an individual with respect to one act, how inconceivably '
, difficult must it be to determine this during 40 years of a
man's life ! We must go much further i.ctore we could make
this will invalid; we must take care not to fix upon guilt
, the stigma of insanity, and thus encroach upon the province of''
another tribunal. If the deceased always laboured under this per.
verseness for 40 years, he could not have been criminally responsi-
ble for any act committed against the object of this delusion. The
abaente of reason would have excused him at tine bar of his country.
The same principle pervaded civil and criminal law. An argument
of Mr. Er.kine had been adverted to; but on looking at the State
Trials of Lord Kenyon, the true principle in that cause would be
found to be laid down, Chief Justice Mansfield in the case of
Benningham said the question was, whether he possessed a mind
capable of distinguishing right and wrong. It' it were pleaded that
Mr. htott was insane at all times, none of his acts would have been
amenable to any tribunal. The necessary conclusion, was, there-
fore, that 3lr. Stott was insane for 40 years. If his mind
was not sane, it was true that his will was no more valid
than if a testator's hand bad been guided in his sleep; but, if
the ease were reall au. he was incapable of contracting marriage,
and. encoding to his L anted Friend, at the time of Stott leading
his last wife to the altar. if spoken to about his daughter, lie would
have manifested his insanity. To contend for his partial sanity was
to maintain that any lunatic ought sometimes to have thegovern.
meat of himself, for almost all have lucid intervals. It was said
that he might have had lucid intervals. But what was a lucid in-
terval ? It was a thus when the insanity was completely destroyed ;

and, if this was the case, their reasoning. entirely fell to the ground.
It would he very dangerous if it could be maintained that a tsars
who had been treated as sound doting his lite 'wild now have his
rapacity impeached. This would resider it necessary for a MINI, in ,
every contract, to make an inquiry into all the circuss.stances of the ,
liteof the ereanct with whom tie made the coatract. Wish respect
to Stott's, religious eztravaganciea, the oils Counsel ilvaies them„
the other admits them, awl they must arrange the point among 1
themselvem; but look to the eothwriaste in every age: to the self.
devotion of the Hinds.° wonin, the fatalism of the Illshcnetans, ,
the miracles of Prince Holicelishe, the extravageneks of the 51e-
thediets, Ranters. and Jumpers, trot it will be obvious that extra.
romance in religion is no Proof of insanity. " Clod forbid !" said
the Crooned Conned, that 1 *humid have to go to the tabernacles
to attempt to reconcile the jumbles of their opinions. We ,
have wily to read the Heine Mtesfonory ilfogneine to see 1
ss what a hopele task that wouki be." Precision in little
rustier' way to be found in all of strmtg minds accus-
tomed to live alone. The conclu=ndrawn from this swill' de-
suby the souraltiess of mind of half the old bacheture and old maids
in the kingdom. A lady has given the meat minute llifeCtiOall in
her will client the are of her lap-dnge. Was that ever considered
es
a motif of Mouthy P Thip geotleman was remarkable for his
courage and firmness in the. presence of distinguished rank and
talents. The characteristic of insanity is fitful boldness and pre.
eillanimity. Look at his letter to Dew. In all cases he acted en.
thwelaetically; he wished to do every thing in the best possible
manner. He finds hie Money in jeopardy, and he resolutely de. ,
termlnes to throw off all 'deference to Drew to prevent the constr. I
queer:es. The Learned Counsel then referred the Court to the
aietiety which he bad toadied on all occasions for the welfare of his
daughter. Though money was one of his gods, he was not persi.
mat ious to his daughter. Ile changed her school repeatedly, not
from a desire of avoiding expense, but for her good. It was me-
lancholy that this airection sometimes manifested itself by acts of ,
hrtual severity. The testimony of Desornieaux had been im.
peached, though corroborated from different quarter. What mo-
tive could there be for her deposing to circumstances which she
would have wished to conceal? The main point of the ease was,
tbat,llea.Dew had given-Man ao just cease of effence. Dower:sr much
thenecesity of arguing this case was to be lamented, it was impos.
sible to leave the averments about the eondstet of Mrs. Deg without
some orintrodietion. Therese* enough in her behaviour to excite
strong feelings of diaplessurefin her father. There was no evidence
of her conduct before her testing school, and all the scenes of de-
pravity alluded to may have taken place before. The Bishop of •
Durham says he cannot speak to the year when he first knew the
individuals in question, and, considering his age, there is much
room for doubt of his accuracy. He spruks of specific charges,
while others speak only of general depravity. It turns out there-
fore that he has forgot the Charges, and all he could say was that
she wax too young to commit what was Imposed to her. De said
he would tut have witnessed the will of the deceased, but it was
because the will disinherited his daughter. It was proved by Mrs.
Rivers teat Mr. Stott was, in her °Melon, a person of sound mind.
Hew important was this. testimooy contrasted with that of other
whaiesses! It was to be observed that the Bishop of Durham never
saw Mrs. Dew but once, and that after she had attained the age of
maturity. Mrs. Dew was dismissed from ID ra. Rivers's school for
gross misconduct. The evidence was sufficient to prove that there
were grounds for the father's disapprobation. The Learned Coon.
eel here referred to different exhibits which he did not wish to read.
Ale. Goff has been relied on se amen of unquestionable integrity.
He has deposed to the early dislike of 51r.13. to his daughter, and lity
stated the constant good conduct of that daughter. Alt... Golf has
admitted the influence of the deceased over him, and the affection
which the deponent entertained toe him. The deceased had left
him one hundred pounds for his conduct to his daughter. How
must he have represented the conduct of that daughter to procure
this legacy ! Was there any probability that the testator would
have left him one hundred pomade, if he had stated to him what he
has now deposed ? The whole of his conduct must have been
marked by great duplicity ; and this Must have been the cause
which procured him the legacy. Every circumstance shows that
his conduct then was quite in conteadiction to the present. Mrs.
DrW, in writing to Goff, admits a vast variety of offence% against
the demised, and entreats an interviell he effecting a reconciliation.
Goff went and received from her that confession, which he now tells
os he does not believe. lie contioued afterwards on terms of af-
fection with the deceased. The high character of Mrs. Dew had
been much dwelt on, and the Learned Counsel did not know that
he ought to pick holes in the testimony on that subject ; bat there
were contradictory opinions, the deponents speaking of different
times. Some people disapproved of a person who was lauded by
others to the skies, and for this reason it was now growing into dis-
use to examine witnesses in criminal cases with respect to charac-
ter. Meters. Bartlett and Wilson had treated the deceased for
many years as a person of sound mind ; it was laid they must have
had sniple opportunities to come to a decision, and that thby came
at last to the conclusion that the deceased was insane ; but this wus
not the case, for they did not form any such opinion before 1816, wet
in 1817 they turned round and acid we always. considered him insane.
Mr. Bartlett was not to be trusted, even when speaking of facts,
without very coosiderable allowance and deduction. It is said that
he always used Scripture phraseology, that he used very energetic
expressions in speaking of his daughter. and that he was in the
habit of flogging draytnen and boys. 'There were many witnesses
who had been in habits of intimacy with him, and had never wit-
nessed any such actions. One proof of his insanity was that he
had Yakut: to a servant that one of the boards of his chamber was
darker thin another, in a letter not produced, and 20 years before
the will. lie is said to have used oaths in his prayers, but the vin.
knee and incoherence of his prayers were paralleled every day.
Only walk to the Swedenborgian Chapel, and you will hear these-
qualities carried even to nonsense. But these circumstances oc-
curred 26 years ago, and it would be injustice to treat such testi.
mosy as if it had occut red rccesti facto. It is said that he was insane
on the subject of electricity. Ale. Pinhome says he has heard such
a report, Mts. Ottley evidently did not consider him as of insane
miud, for she consulted him about the marriage of her danghter.
There were no instances to prove insanity. Irascibility was no
proof of insanity. No doubt there were symptoms not easily de-
tected, which a medical man might discover; but Mr. Paternoster
did not detect any such symptoms in the 46 years that he knew
him. Mr. Jacobs, another medical man, who had had frequent
intercourse with him, stated that he never showed any such symp-
toms. It was said that paralysis was a proof of pre-existent in.
sanity. It might sometimes occur in such cases, but no conclusion
could be drawn from it. It occurred not only to irascible and ver-
satile persons, but to the most moderate and self-denying, and the
same thing had happened to their witness the Bishop of Durham.
It war certain that no evidence had been produced in the Court of
King's Bench respecting the sanity of the testator; but it was be-
cause the case was one in which the opinion of a single Judge was
much more to be trusted than that of a Jury : for the greater the
crime the easier it always was to procure conviction from a Jury.
Dr. Janney had left the exhibits untouched, but Dr. Phillimore
had entered into them, and had asserted that they would prove
that the insanity pervaded the mind of the deceased during the
whole of the time to which they referred. The deceased was a
man who went boldly forward to his objects, without regard-
ing the delicacies of the world. The general assertions about
the depravity of his daughter might not be correct: but Mr.
Stott had never spoken of any specific fact which was not
proved in the evidence- Quick transitions from one subject
to another its a letter were no proof of that degree of versa-
tility which appertains to insanity alone. What he said about
his daughter's demerits was expressed with energy, but not by any
means likes madman. The letter which he wrote to his daughter
before his marriage marked a high degree of firmness, but nothing
of insanity.. It would never be considered as insanity when those
who were continually about him, . and whoa, relations with him
depended on his sanity, never entertained the slightest doubt or
suspicion on the subject. It appeared that the deceased had the
penetration to Mresee-the intentions of Mr. Dew a year before the
fact, and it was impossible to account for the conduct of Mr.
Dew, the father, in taking Miss Stott'lnto his family as a go-
verness, and afterwards marrying het to one of his sons, without
supposing that he relied upon his (31r. Dew's) influence over the
deceased for procuring the settlement of his fortune upon her. In
April, 1817, the deceased anticipated this marriage, and probably
even at an earlier period. Allis Dew had entered Dew's family
without her father's approbation, and had gone to Switzerland,
and returned without informing him of it. As to the fact of making
the will, Mr. !hamlets had never dreamed of proving the sanity of
Mr. Stott ? Was it the duty of a solicitor to quarrel with the 'dis-
positions of the testator whose will he drew up ? The whole trans-
action occupied six weeks, and was tin*" delibeeete. The only
plea, therefore, must bit' that bowie in at every moment of his
existence. it might be asserted, its anyasher case as well as this,
that disinheriting persons whom the wisaid consider d as entitled to
property is a proof of insanity. The very dispositions of the will
by which he assigns to her the portion which he thought necessary
for her support, are clear proofs that he was in the perfect exercise
of his huskies. The Learned Gentleman then gave a brief detail
of the facts. This cause was one in which he had to contend against
a strong feeling of prejudice. fie thought the Court would recol-
lect that it was very dangerous to abandon the strict line of prece-
dent, for the sake of particular equity. It was only by adhering to
general principhe that the state of society could be secured. In
Macadam and 31acattain the Lord Chancellor said it was too great
a liberty for a man to pronounce of another man (in such a case as
this) that lie was insane. Nothing would be noire fatal than to
hold a doctrine by which such e eindivithel los this should, when
he has gone to hie grave. have the character of insanity affixed
upon him. It would destroy the booth by which children are In-
duced to look up to their parents as these from whom they are to
receive thyir property, not as a emitter of right but as a
The judgment of the Court will be given on a future

Rift
Jay.