The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-08-17 00:00:00

DISTRIBVIIODI 01? PRIZE-MONEV.

_ .
The T)tre, fur she e;wriaer and N. plow-, on IVedneeday,
she 16111 gaoling, al Nu. 3, New Goers, Itrimel...irrri. Retells
►aar pillar, ....wry Wealaremlay auL Thei.s.lay, for three
sesossilas _ . . _ . _ .

The Wrangler, fur Our deirutiou of the Swedish vessels
los, kr,i*h►J.u, Livs, rod nrgaitu, at der Iteyal
Gayer of# •

LAW tNTEILLICENCE.

COURT OP CHANCERY, Luecourclinr,

Manitair, Auaun

JUDGMENT.
GARAY GORDON N. JAMES GORDON.
The LORD CHANCIMLOR, on enrniug into Court
this mor g. delivered a most elali.irate judgment
in this distrrs.ing and long-protracted cause to the
following effect This cast, in every view. is
certainly one of the must important. and. at the
sane time. nicia distressingly tondol that ever has

come under my consideratiM). 1 have with the
most heartfelt anxiety devoted every attenti to it.
and it is HOW my duty to state the cuticluviuti
have come to on the facts laid before me ; at the

same time 1 most lo.g to be understood as liable to
be corrected if 1 ►hould unintentionally inmate
any of the facts. This bill, it minivans, wts tiled
in the lama h of April. 1809, by the Plaintiff,
against the Defendant, his brother. end two per.
sons claiming on interest under hue, praying that
certain agreements entered into between the Plains
tiff and the Defendant, limps, might he vet aside.

I.ld that ao onssulty btipulated to be granted by the
i'loiustilf to the Defendant, Jamey, aught be decreed

by the Court to be null and void, sod that the Dc-
. .

Pendent. Janieti, •nd the two ailments under him.

might be restrained by an injunction from proceed.
log in • Court of Liar to veinier► the sum of 4,5001„
with interest, from the Plaintiff. Such is the
prayer of the bill, and before 1 go into • detail of
its contents, I must be allowed to say, that much
of the difficulty I have had to encounter has arisen
from the want of proper information in the plead-
ing. o► both sides. It is to be regretted that
such is the case ; but as it now strolls, I will
proceed first by stating the allegations in the bill,
and then the admissions and Loa disclosed in the

answer. According to the platement in the bill the
two Gordon., the Plaintiff and the Defendaot, are

sous of Harry Gordon. deceased—sod it appears
that he the father wade • will in the 'ear 1786,
by which lie devised to Peter Gordon, his Bois.
and the elder brother of the Plaintiff and the
Defendant, the whole of his real and tormet!

estates, bequeathing legacies to his three other
sons, Harry, James. and Adam, and also to his
daughter Hannah. He provided, that, if Peter should
die without male issue, that the estates should pass to
his. the testator's, next son—and in the event of his
dying intestate. without heir male, it was to de-
wend to the next son, and so on. The testator
charged the estates with an annuity of 900/. per
amnions, to be paid to his wife. the mother of the
Plaintiff amid time Defendant, Go her life, amid he
appointed her executrix to his will. The testator
di-d in the year 1787, and the will was proved in
Doctors'-Commons, by his wife amid a person of the
name of Margaret Buchanan. It was, however,
afterwards discovered, that the testator had made
another will, of a later date, on ship-board, by
which he constituted his son Peter his sole heir,
and bequeathed to each of his other children 2.0001.
which Peter was to pay, and in consideration of his
so doing, he appointed him his residuary legatee.
Peter of course them. was entitled to the real estate.
It is obvious that if he died without heirs male, and
if he was, us alleged, a natural sou, or. in plain
speaking, a bastard, the family. by the law of the
land, would have no claim whatever 011 the pro-
perty ; but if he was the legitimate sun of his fa-
ther, they would lie clearly entitled to it. Peter.
it appears, did not long survive his father, as he
died in the mouth of October 1787, the "woe year
that the testator died. On his decease the Plaintiff
claimed the property so next heir at law, he being
the second son of the testator, amid bring put into
possession, lie began to exercise the rights of owner-
ship. by receiving the rents and profits of the
estates, which wr.e, however, soon claimed by the
Defendant, James, who alleged that he was time le-
gitimate heir to the property. as Peter and the
Plaintiff were born previou- to the public marriage
of their parents, and of COW'Se that they were ille-
gitimate. The Plaintiff was, as might be expect-
ed, very much astonished at this information, but
on the certificate of the public marriage being pro-
•duced to him, which was dated alter his birth,
he was induced to believe that the siatement
of the Defendant, James, was true ; wider that per-
suasion he entered into articles of agreement with
the Defendant, James, in March. 1789, which Hr-
ticks recited. that the estates were mortgaged for
1,050/. which the Plaititiff was to pry off, and was
to continue in the possession of the property on the
c lotion that he pant to the Defendant, James,
the annual ruin of 4001. for five years, amid after-
wards the sum of 300/. (or 350/. by the way of an.
swim), for his life, and at the •opiraition of ten years,
to pay I he blllll of 4 5901. with interest. in ad-
dition to the annuities, which was to be secured on
the estate-a. I may be allowed here to observe,
that if the Defendant, James, could assert to the
Plaintiff, as he has done, that lie„ Harry, was nut
the legal heir, but that lie, James, was, might 110 t
Harry have said to him. on the very nine prin-
ciple, amid on as good a foundation, if Peter
was not the legitimate child of our father, as
you allege, you cannot possibly be his, Pe-
ter's, heir. Such, in truth. is the natural con-
clusion from the whole premises. The mortgagees
appear to have acted throughout most kindly to
both ;niftier of the family, for according to the al-
legit. of the Defreidani, James, one half are le-
giiimate and the other half are not, and I cannot
help regretting that the persons who appeared out
behalf of the mortgagees had not been examined
in the cause. At the same time I must say. that
the whole transaction. as it relates to the property,
proves that the parties felt some conviction ash) the
Clllllll of the Crown ; that is, they were aware they
were dealing with a property which the Crown
might sweep away from them if Peter was not legi-
timate. It appeared that time annuity was paid up
to the year 1808, and that the Plaintiff had also
;raid the mortgage of 1,090/. oft. In consequence
of au insurrection in time orbital of Grenada, where
the estates in question are situated. the rents amid
prof.* of them became much reduced. But
there being ass estate is the Oohed Slates of
America which belonged to thi testator, the
Plaintiff was iodated to eater into articles of
agreemmmrut with the Defendant. James, ims the
year 1805, by which it woe agreed that it the estates
could he mold. that the Defesidwit, James, we. HI
CCCCIaa Out lentils of the imagt;heee mewl. The

Minting bill then *Wee, that shortly after this

latter agreement. he dears/peered that a private mar.
ridge had takes place between his parents previous
to the public marriage •rwl hoe birth, and that of
his Imbiber Peter. •nd to ODOM (pICIICe of which be
•trplted to the Dekledant. James, to cancel the
deeds of agreement. by which the annuities were
secured ; but the Defendosit. .lames. Instead of
cousplytog with his request. brought au action
inmost the Plaintiff in the Court of Session in
Scotland. to recover four hundred pounds. anti
also a similar acteon in one of the Courts of

I.IW ut %Vv.' eeeeee *ter Hall. for the recovery of the

Novara of the weiwaily. The boll filially state*, that
the private marriage was celebrated by • chaplain
of the arm•. and that the tole reason far • public

- - - -
marriage was a wish expressed by Mrs. Gordusa's
mistime* to have every doubt out their minds re.
moved es to the validity of the first marriage by
their being again publicly married. The Plaint',it
Isa• also set forth o certificate of his being christen.
. .

ed iii St. Peter's Church, Philadelphia, 1.14 the son
of Il4rry and 114ishali Curitiba—awl allegro, that
he never received any tr►u.ulerahon fur the deeds
which lie had executed to the Defendant, Janata,

Mud that walling but the btairmesst of the latter.
that be (the l'ldiutiff) WIWI illegilinsate, would
have 'seduced I to here eercuted them. Such

are the allegations in the bill, auil tt is now
proper we slopuld see how they are answered by
the Defendant. The answer of that gentleman
',hoes the will of his roller, made in the year
1786. when the testator was at Portsmouth,

-- ---
in which ore these memorable word•—' I give to

my dollar'''. by Hannah my wile, who were born
before the birth of my third sox, a third shore of
my property. mill another t!iiril to my wife Hannah.
and at her demise to be divided among our chil-
dren, whether legitimate or illegitimate.' These
certainly are worths of com.rlerable importance. and

which ignitor he overlooked or decidissg such a case
as this. The Deferolsort admits the drills of his
father, hut after hi. death he discovered from his

moth; the 'wither his brother Ptttr nor the Plaits-

tiff were legitimate, but that he war the eldest legi-
timate mil of his parents, and that the Plaintiff
was well aware it war the case, and that lie urither
knew or believed that a private marriage had taken
place bete/reit his parents, and that on account of
the payment of the •ty being stopped he was
obliged to bring his action in 'Court of Law for the
recovery, as the deeds by which it was secured were
valid instruments. Such were the contents of the bill
•1111 answer, on which it is necessary I should make
n few ohservatiosis. This cause came on to be
beard first before Sir William Grant, the late Mins-
ter of the Rolls, and lie directed an issue to try
whether the Plaintiff was or was not the legitimate
son of the testator, it being an undisputed fact,
that a public marriage was celebrated after the
births of Peter and the Plaintiff. This issue was
most properly directed by that great and Learned
Judge. The Jury found that the testator had
burro privately married to the Plaintiff's mother
before his birth, sod of course decided he was les
getimate. The cause was then set down before
me for further directions. My nptninu is, that if
on the death of a person seised of an estate in fee,
and a disisute arises in his family relative to which
of his offspring are legitimate, and which are
wit, and the parties make a fair and full dia•
closure to each other. relative to what they se-
verally know on the subject, and if a distribn-
lion of the property takes place, as if one of the
family were illegitimate, this Court will not dis-
turb such errausgeseweit, because a circumstance
turned out that was not apprehended. I am
bound by the verdict of the Jury to consider
the Plaintiff as the eldest legitimate son of his
parents, notwithstanding all I have since heard.
My attention hes been repeatedly called by the
Defendaid. James, to that p.m of his answer,
where he swears that lie never knew or be.
!Weed that • private marriage had taken place.
I have no doubt but he acted from his conscieure
in swearing that ; hut it does not follow, although
he has sworn so, that no such marriage did take
place. nor is it a reason that she Plaiiiitlf is not en.
titled to relief. 1 will now allude to the evidetice
in the case. The first is that Oven by the yeller.
able President of the Royal Academy, but as it
only relates to the public marriage. I nerd not state
it. The most interestnig affidavits are the follow-
ing :—a Mr. Thornton deposes that lie knew the
testator mid his w,fe. and that their eldest 6011 Peter
(since deceased) lived with them, and was as much
beloved by them as any legitimate child could be.
Toot be. the deponent. was in the island of Gre-
nade. where he saw the Defeatism. James, who said
lie came to take possession of his brother's (the
Plaintiff's) properly, as he was illegitimate, whirls
caused the deponent to feel strong feelings of au-
ger. and told him, James, that all the children of
Isis parents were legitimate, and iii strong terms re-
buked him for his conduct. on which he seemed
much ashamed, and made no reply. Tlw deponeut
afterwards issformed Adam C 140,141,,, Site younger
bristlier of the Plaintiff and the Defessdaut, of what
hail passed on that occa.iou, who said that lw,
Adam. was in possession of the estates, and would
keep them in trust for the Plaintiff. This took.
place in 1788. The nest Admit is that of the
Rev. Mr. Hogg, who was esamiised in Scotland
under a commission. on which uccasioli lie produced
• letter which lie received from the Defeudisio..lailles,
in which he states, ' I have been long attached to
you fur your virtue, isiteerity. goodness of heart, atc.
but I lament you have bees. exalutesed at all, as you
have hero quite inconsistent in your evidei
Dr. Hogg then in lii* 'valence says, that he was
told by the testator of his haviug been privately
tnirried, and that lie was forced to do so, afraid of
offending Judge Gordon, who wished him to marry
a Miss Erskine, who lived in Aberdeen. she bring
• rich heiress ; and he further deposed. that he had
been informed of the private marriage by the mother
of the testator, by a Mrs. Ogelhy and a Mr. Jo!ns
Gordon, deceased, and that the Defendant, James.
hail told luau that he wasaware of the private mar-
riage. but that the regular semeiotic's& to the
estate would depend entirely on the public suarriege.
Tile nest affidavit is that of Major-General A4looi,
Gordon. the younger brother of the Plisiusiff rod
the Drleedent. James. in which be swears that he
literst his father, the tesitstor, say that fwd be ism
manned his (Me depoussit'a) modtarr privet/4v. the
he would have bed kis twosher`v (Jade* Outdo..)
forturse ; but that UM Learned Judge wee ••
angry ma Imaging of Me marriage. tam he attests

the testator on the !seed with a stick. sad declined
that by G-4 he would dieinhent him ; andLL that
tfli testator slit' t....141.1,i,,, 'diet the sue.ricle tip-
afterwards puhltcly celebrated. at the r.qiii at of
his mother'. relatious. That the devour.. .aw ii,,'
Defendant, Jasitea, in the year 171118. at GillOae•
when he slated ha cause there for the potpioprit•
taking pomeasian of the rotates, 11. the 1'141.110 1...
illegitimate; uis which the depot.ead total him i.e
had come OH u fool's eirnind. as he had taken e.....
session of them, anal would keep them iii l•a•, 1.. r
his elder brother, the Plaintiff. Tile U. t. oda. ,
James, then mid, that the estate's hail totter t,i.
sold. and for the deponent and him to .noises 'i.e
proceeds between them. as the Plaititiff world be
entitled Jo tint estates in Scotland ; ' use •ho• •
the deponent thiswered. 4 You want to make
me as great a scoundrel as plume& ; mail if v.v.
do not leave the Wood forthwith, I 4aill lOrfre
you to do so,' tali which the Dr&ud itr...hiliti-re
left the ishosid, and came to England. .0.1 ._. _T., sinew&
.
davits on the part of the Defendant. it asitioaleitllfest
an actionotrait Itsught in Scotland, ifs vel,,Olii d'el6ka
the Outer, Hoare. before Lord Armaii.d., Utah.
usury. as it hi de ttttt nitiated in the tictit• Coors., in
1908, wisest the claims of the Drfeeidaht, James.
were put th *4 the Pursuer, riot attri.•r.t• the
answer of the Plaintiff as Defender; 4•11 M&lll'it UV.*
0611.100 the wife of the testator, the mother of the
Plaionff and the Derehdeet, was ettnitst..e,l, astie,•
she stated the reesou why the public martial(' was
celebrated, and that the private one would artier
I have taken place only that her retain/p.*4lW Irwasu.
objected to her marrying en officer in the •11611,
and that it was to quiet their fears that the litCOOti
1
marriage took place ; she stated that tile usighast
family bible, in which the first marriage had
Ibees. entered. was lost in a voyage hush Poill.-
delphia to England ; but on their arrival 111 Wk.
country O new bible was purchased. in winch it
was entered, with the births and baptioat of the
children. In a letter written by her to the Plaiii.
tiff site soya, • Why do you conceal your suffetiritt.
i from me ? I am the only surviving parent you
have to blame, anti you. are an innocent victim.
James. my son (meaning the Defendant). It
done his worst. 0 ! may God forgive latin. I have
only to say of him. in the language of Eve. the
mother of us all, Curse him not, 0 G• 4. corm•
not my son ! He has done his worst. but may Guy,
forgive him! I have erred, but not from the p.m.
of honour ; nor have I deviated front virtue.' SOLI,
were some of the contents of her letter which hail
been commented on by the bar. as if her letter
implied that she had cohabited with her list.-
band before marriage. It is but jii.tice tt•r
me to say, that her conduct did hot warrant
any each conclusion. 1 must repeat what I Cut,
merly alluded to, that, when a dispute eri.wr to a
family respecting legitimacy, and that they Oral
together tilt 'heir inheritance. there mod he yowl
faith mid honest intention, and a full •liiicitotite of
all the circutustaticer, otherwise this Court will 18.-
leder,. I sin of opinion that the defeintent. jailit..,
when he was dealing with the Plaintiff. knew that
there was a private marriage, yet be dean with I
' al if the public one was the only marriage to pies
hon. He certainly swears that he did not kin,* of
any such private marriage. But how two tbe pi.-
tified in believing that is the fact ? stud if 1 did be-
lieve it, the natural consequeoce would he. that l
must impute the most infamous perjury to most
respectable witnesses, who have sworn he did know
it, and kept it from the knowledge of the Pli.intitl.
My decided judgment therefore is, thet the eve.-
turns' are hot valid, and cannot stand. If I ISM
wrong in the opinion I have formed, it is email to
the parties to have it corrected."
The prayer of the bill granted.
The Court was crowded to teem..