The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-04-20 00:00:00

COI
6ITTINOIII API

Parson., y. Moroi -
Beverage v. Crodejt
Doe, ke. v. Dowling
NlrJrola. v. Webber
Dent v. Bounce
Bedford'''. Bedford
Manua r. Ralph
'Naive' v. Gi.thri
Harmon v. Shearn
London Common Jul
Could v. Cre'ker
Payn v. Gurney
Sparkball r. Kearney
Wilkins v. R.rwiit,"
Wright V. Evans
Frost e. Brsikut
Willienta v. Cook
?Cotton y. Bentley
Barns V. Crosfurd
Slntson v. Le Cren
Benjamin v. Gylby
Lutvythe v. ill'Oregor
Tayka v. Trott

Onion v. Ittrhy, report
Pritchett v. Honey:

bourne, part I:est-'d
Ripley v. St.ckley
Itar..r t. Mau°

PREROGATIVE COURT, WIDNESDAY, APRIL 19.

I.79TICKE v. BADWEN.
Sir Joint NICROLL proceeded to deliver the judgment of the
Court in the above cause. The Learned Judge observed that it had
been argued at length during the 3lichaelinas Term ; and had
stood oter, at the recommendation of the Court, to give the parties
concetned an opportunity of entenng intoan amicable arrangement.
None, however, having been effected, it tetanal his duty to prod
flounce the decision of the Court. The quests:en plate respecting
the validity of a will, executed in 1007 by Stephen Usticke, vain
died in the year 1823; it wait get up by Frances Plisebeth Badwen
or Usticke, and opposed by the brother of the deceased. The ie.
strument was attested by three witnesses, and the other formal:tint
of the Law had been complied with, The ground of opposition
rested on another will, executed by the deceased in the month of
January 1821, similarly attested, but subsequently cancelled by the
testator; and it was contended by the brother of the deceased, the
heir at law. that this latter deed revoked the one previously made.
and left the property to the disposition of the law, as if the deceased
had died intestate. The questions therefore which the Court had
to consider were,—lat„ whether by the cancellation nf the latter wills
the former did remain unreroked ? and 2d. whether the facts met
circumstances of the case implied an intention, on she part odd,*
deceased. entirely to revoke and set aside tbe firm will ? With re.
speed to the first question, the practice of the Eeterateatical Courns
had been different from that of the Common Law Courts. In the
former, eviderce had been required in order to whew that the tea.
tator, by cancelling a subsequent will. intended to revive that
which bad preceded it ; whereas, ii( the Law Courts, it had been
held that a former will remained unrevoked Upon the cancellation
of a latter deed. The Learned Judge then proceeded to illustrate
the practice of the Court, by a reference to various cases of that
character which had undergone a very ample discussion ; but he
thought it right to remark, that as to most of these it was impose
bible to ascertain the exact grounds on which they had been decided
by their respective Judges, as no reports of their judgments were
to be found. The only exception was in the case of Healer v. He.
flier, decided by Sir George Lee, who had laid it down that when
a second will was destroyed, scene act of revival was necessary in
order to set up the firm will; and that republication or an express
act of the testator could only render the first will operative. With-
out meaning disrespect to the memory of that most able Judge, be
(Sir J. Nicholl) thought that the soundness of the dictum might
be doubted, especially from what passed in the Court of Delegate.,
in the case of aloare v. 31oure, where the question et* the testator's
intention came under consitreration. There (said the Learned
Judge) it was affirmed that that intention alight be proved
by various means other than by express declarations ; because
in many instances the facts of the case proved the intention more
conclusively than any declaration whatever. Still, however, it was
not held in the Ecclesiastical Count', that the mere existence of a
former will.in an uncancelled state, coull necessarily and alone give
effect to a will, where it was clearly proved, by the subsequent will,
although cancelled, that the testator's intentions had entirely
changed. On looking into the precedents of the Common Law
Courts, he had not been able to find a case in which the cancelling
of a second will was held to imply the revocation of the first. The
presumption, at least, was held to be favourable to the revival of
the previons deed ; and it lay with the opposing party to rebut that
presumption by facts and circumstances. If a man had two wine
in his possession, one of which he destroyed while he kept the other,
that circumstance raised a prima
.facie inference and probability
that he intended the paper so preserved to be his genuine will. But
thecase before die Court did nut require to be eked out by inferences
or probabilities, iq order to establish the real intentions of the tee_
tator. It appeared that the deceased, who was the proprietor of a
brewery is Falmouth, had formed an attachment to Frances
Elizabeth Badwen, but which attachment was offensive to
the feelings of his pnee, Sir Michael Newell. who, dying
about that time, bequeathed his property to the deceased, on
the condition that he did not marry ilia Badwen. Soon
after that event the- parties left Faimunth, cohabited together.
and gave themselves out as man and wife. The consequence was,
that, in 1809, Robert Catirke, the brother, brought an ejectment
against the deceased, in order to get possession of the property, on
the ground that he had violated the condition in his uncle's settlement
by marrying Miss Badwen. The case was not brought to trial, it
being generally 'supposed that the marriage had not taken place,
In 1809 a sort of reconciliation took place between the two ore-.
theta; but so little cordiality did there -,eem to be on either side.
that no intercourse subsisted up to the period of the deceased',
death. Between the time of bringing this ejectment and the ream.
ciliation, the will propounded was executed; and even supposing
that no quarrel had taken place between the brothers, it did not
seem improbable that the deceased should have provided for .Lea
Badwen, by giving her a life.interest in his estates, with the residue
of the personality. In that deed an annuity was bequeathed to her,
anti the reversion of the property vested in her sister's son. It
remained unaltered till the year 1821, but the new will was
tot more favourable to his brothers or sisters, than the former
one. As far as respected the disposition of the property. it did nut
appear to be the deceased's intention, at any period, to let in the
heir-at-law' or the next of kin, by dying intestate ; and on the
port of the brother, intestacy could not be relied on. The circum.
reams under which the second will was executed were equally on.
favourable to his claim. The deceased was naturally of an ini.
table temper, and very passionate, although generally reatly to for.
give. Towards the latter end of the year 1820 he had a severe at-
tack of laxity of the bowels, a disorder to which he had been long
subject; and it so happened that the prescription of the phyla.
cian disagreed with him, owingehietly to the state of the weather.
Yet the impression on the mind of the deceased, which remained
till his last hour, was, that the medicine which bad been given to
him was the cause of his death, and so strongly did that delusion
keep hold of his mind, that he imagined the food given to him •
was poisoned, and actually :tent to Falmouth for his provisions.
Under such an impression, he. in 1821, executed another settle.
ment, by which he bequeathed an annuity of 4001. to Miss Bad.
wen ; and subsequently appended a codicil, by which that sum
wits diminished one half. That will he afterwards cancelled alto.
gether, by tearing off his name frcm every sheet of the instrument.
In deciding on the effect of these acts and instruments, the Court
would not be over-alert in preserving the tatter will under such cir-
cumstances, so as to operate as an absolute and total revocation of
a will deliberately executed in 1807, remaining so long without al.
teration, and so constantly recognised by the deceased. The first
will was revoked by an error of fact as to the effect of the medicine,
but that very act tendered it not improbable to suppose that, when.
ever the deceased had freed himself front the false impression, he
would have departed front the revoked instrument, and reverted to
that of 18117. Under all these circumstances, the Court pronounced
for the validity of the will of 1807, propounded by Miss Badwen.
Decreed accordingly.

INSOLVENT AERTORS' COURT, APRIL 19.
Zachariah Oarbut, a mister-builder, IFI.I opposed by 111 r.
PRLNDISORST, on Wulf of Waugh, Esq., and a creditor

.f the name of iloneyman opposed the Insolvent's discharge is
ktsOn. Tic investigation lasted nearly six hours.
It appeared that within the last three plus the insolvent bad
built several houses near Bagnigge Wells, and he was rigidly et-
',mined as to the manner in which' he had disposed of them, to
whom, and for what consideration.

• -
The replies of the insolvent were extremely equivocal. In the
comae of the inquiry it was elicited from him that, to the interval
between his commitment to prison and the time he petitioned the
l'ourt. he had disposed of certain property of which his schedule
contained no aemunt. This discovery caused the petition and the
estate paper to be narrowly looked into, when the Commissioners
discovered that the insolvent had negatived that he had done any
po'rh thing, stud moreover that the affidavit he had sworn to obtain
leave In file his petition, aas completely falsified by the verbal testi-
mony he had given to-day.
.Ir. lioneyonans see of the opponents, swore that he had seen
a q
rnttity
of the irisolvent'a stock in trade removed in a clandestine
manner, as also a considerable portion of furniture, of which no
sal i ,fectory account had been given.
After the evidence had been heard on both sides, and Counsel
had addressed the Court on behalf of their respective clients,
The Cuter COMMISSIONER said, that the Court had suffered
the inquiry to mend to an unusual length, althorg s from a die-
covery elicit they had made they had come to a determination
what comae to pursue. Supposing that the petition of the insolvent
was entertained by the Court, he would have a great number of
thtags to explain before the Court could adjudicate upon his ease.
But the contradiction which had appeared between the oral and
documentary testimony of the insolvent, and both under the sanc-
tion of an oath, left the Court no alternative but to dismiss his
petition. . . .

Af a remarking upon several of the discrepancies connected with
tare cam. the Court ordered the insolvent's petition to be dismissed,
and he wu therefore removed to his former custo3y.

CORONERS' INQUESTS.

•Yetterday evening, an inquisition was held at the King's Head
in James-street, Covent-gates, to inquire into the death of James
Hrennand, Esq.
hi tin
After the Jury had viewed the botly,which was lying M his c -
her ut the Tavistock Hotel, under the Piazzas, Covent.garden.
- Ah. George Beaman, surgeon, of No. 23, James-stmt. Covent.
garden, stated, that on Sunday morning last, about half-past nine
Oda*, he was requested to attend the deceased at the Tavistock
Motel. Covent-garden. lie found him sitting on a chair by the
ride of the bed, there was a large wound in his neck, whit h extended
from ear to ear ; it was very deep, but had not divided any artery
of importance ; the wound went between the carotid artery and the
.a Ind-pipe. Witness did everything to preserve existence, but his
spirits appeared to be dreadfully depressed and about four hours
after he comntitted the act, he wrote a letter, of which the following
is a ropy. lie could not apcsk at all :
•• I had not the smallest cause ftr committing this dreadful set.
How it happened I know not ; but I must have done it, and on
tie easy chair ; how I came to have an old razor in my hand to
shave there, really ltvke auspicious ; hut to cut my throat it was not
likely. It works me too much to wri,e, the only thing I can re-
member is—reviving, and finding myself in my mangled state, I
went to the bell, and rang it once.
" I was delirious many times. Just at getting out of bed this
innening ; I endeavoured to conquer it, hut I suppose did not ;
but this occurs 10 me even now by piece.nicel. Till !Met°, !Sea-
man, my only fear is the return of my fever. I will do all 1 can to
tacihtate the recovery of my wounds. They are Out intended or
premeditated MIS of mine.
'• My partners know me to be honourable, just, and worthy.
Let my friends on this side the water speak. To conclude, I have
rot an enemy in the world that I know. Are not these considera-
tions for my regretting my misfortunes, and wishing my return to
tealth t and, most of all, my restoration to my family ?"
Juror—Did the deceased appear absent when you addressed him ?
—He certainty did.

Cororer—l)o you know where he came from ?-lle carried on
bu.hiess in Liverpool in a very extensive way.
Coroner—Was it pecuniary difficulties that caused his destiny).
dency ?—Not at all. From what I have heard, the offal's of the
Loose to which he belonged are good.
Thou.as Poole, chamberlain oldie hotel, stated that the deceased
had been an ir.niate of the establishment about live weeks. On
:::utidoy morning last he took him some hot water to shave. Ile
Soso appeucd composed. an.! said. " Chamberlain, I am going
.into the City to see some 'fiends, and tell the clerk to make out my
bill." A •hart time after the bell rung violently, and when witness
attended the call, he discovered that the deceased's throat was cut,
s.rd himself covered with blood. fie was nearly senseless. 31r.
Beaman was immediately sent for.
The Coroner addressed the Jury, who returned a verdict that the
decenaerl destroyed himself, being at the time in a state of mental
Jelaneement.

Yesterday an inquisition was taken at the Plough tavern, et
Nerilialt„ on the body of Mr. William Fountain, master of one of
the Witney barges In the Grand Junction Canal.
Press Bell stated that he was the lock-keeper of No. 97 Lock, on
the 6r.ind Junction Canal, in the parish of Northolt. On Friday
eveniag, about seven o'clock, he saw the deceased for the first
time.; he saw him standing by the luck ; he asked the witness to
open the lock gate to let his boat pass through ; he was then quite
sober. lie told him he could not comply with his request, as it
was after linen .sod that he could not pass before five o clock next
morning. The deceased then went away, and he saw no more of
him. At five o'clock Charles Gibbs, a bargeman, came to him
and inquired if he had seen any thing of Master Fountain, as he
had disappeared in a most strange manner, and was no where to be
beard 01. Witness told him he had not seen him since the night
efore, and that he was then quite sober. Gibbs then proceeded
n the banks of the canal in search of him, and in a short time
after came back, saying he suspected he was drowned, as he had
seen a man's hat and stick floating on the surface of the canal.
Witness procured the drags and cast them into the water near where
the hat and stick were floating, and on the first pull drew up the
body of the deceased Air. Fountain. They placed him on the
beak, and found that he was quite dead and cold. His dress was
in a state of great disorder, but there appeared no wound about his
Inln vitiate, to questions put by the Coroner, witness said the
pockets of the deceased were not inside out, and that he did not see
any ill looking fellows about the canal that night, or hear any per-
Suns quarrelling. He had no reason to believe he had met his death
by violence from any permit.
t:harli v Gibbs stated be belonged to the same barge as the de.
ceased. and that finding the barge could not pass till five o'clock in
the morning, witness, the deceased, and the clerk went to spend
tie evening at a public-house at Howson, and when they returned
to the barge in the canal, they found she had taken in some water.
Pie decant-it ordered him to the pump, and afterwards went to his
cabin and turned in. Witness saw no more of him after this. In
Air morning, on going into deceased's cabin, and finding him not
there, he became apprehensive that some ill had befallen him and
wut,t to look for him, and seeing a hat in the canal, he informed
the last wit. ess, who procured the drags and brought the deceased
shore. When they came back to the barge from the public-house
111 }Unwell the deceased was perfectly sober.
(;moncr—llow do you account for his being found in the canal,
after you h.id seen him turn in for the night ?
Witness—l cannot answer for it, unless he had got up again fur
a partial...a purpose, and tell overboard.
turoncn—Have you any reason to think he had been robbed and
t,l4trn i, ?
Witness—None 'rheum, Sir.

TIT ['.toner now summed up, and the Jury returned s verdict
01 " AcriJoutally Drowned."

Ha.' IFF or Tit F. Pona.—The following is an account of
t 1... distribution of Fri.lay la.! in 31anehester and its vicinity :
No. of Bacon Oatmeal Peas Herrings
Tickets. lha. lbs. meas, hls.
hltud.hill 41177 .3.118 228110 54 0
(Hallam-road 2328 2397 117211 20 0
/taco& a 1781 2-..%2S 5760 38 0
ili at .ion.street 2280 2611 161180 26 0
Notaboll.atrost 2278 22% 9840 36 2
Glantlton.row 1002 1141 4212 6 0
Ardwiek 246 280 1.28 4 0

,