The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-19 00:00:00

NORTIIIIRIV CIRCUIT.

rOISK, oII'ILY 17.
Lronard Wilkinsei, who was convicted on Friday last of the
murder of Nicholas Carter. underwent the awful sentence of the
law this morning. l'reviously to his execniiou he acknowledged
his guilt.

WRIT OF RIGHT.
ANCEI. V. ANGEL.
This important cause came on for trial this morning. Great
curiosity had been excited by the name of a Writ of Right, and
the Court was filled at an eatly hour by well-dressed spectators of
bath sexes. The Grand Assize was exceedingly respectable, and
included some of the most considerable gentlemen of the county.
Counsel for the demandant—Mr. SCAR LETT, Mr. BROUGHAM,
Mr. TINDALL, Mr. PAB►F., Alt. A RCIIBOLO, Mr. WILDE, and
Mr. BAINES.
Counsel for the tenant—The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (who was
specially retained), Mr. Possoeg, Mr. ALDERSON, and Mr.
PAT TISON.
Mr. BAINES, for the demandant, having opened the pleadings,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Grand Assize on
behalf of the tenant, or defendant. He observed, that the defend.
ant, for whom he then appeared, had been in:possession of the pro-
perty claimed by the demandant fora period of nearly forty years ;
not, indeed, an undisturbed possession, because many proceedings
had been instituted, and many actions brought, to wrest the pro-
perty from hint. Hitherto those attempts had been made without
success; whether the event of the present inquiry was to be diffe-
rent from that of the ocher actions which had preceded it, they
would decide when they had heard his statement and the evidence
by which it was to be supported. He confessed that he did not, on
the commencement of the cause, feel exactly at ease—not that he
doubted the justice of his cause, or the weight of die evidence which
would support it, but because the management of it hail been
entrusted to him, a stranger amongst them, whilst he was op-
posed to Mr. Scatted, who, in addition to his great talents
and experience, had had so many opportunities of gain-
ing their personal favour and respect. Ile had, however, too great
a confidence in the character of the tribunal before which lie stood,
to believe that the disadvantage to which he had alluded would
at all prejudice his client. The situation of the defendant was in
one respect a peculiar one. Ile had been in possession of the pro.
petty in question fur a period of forty years. and yet, contrary to the
usual course of proceeding. where the claimant began by establish-
ing a case before the defendant could be called upon to show his
title, in this case, notwithstanding that length of possession, the
claimant remained quiet, and the tenant was first called upon to
expose his title to the property. Ile would now proceed to state
the case,and in doing so, he should do little more than submit a dry
statements of facts. The question which they had now to deters
niine arose out of the will of John Angel, who had principally re.
sided at Stockwell, and died between forty and fifty years ago. He
hod died possessed of very extensive estates in Kent. Surrey. Berk-
shire, and, as it was supposed, in the county of York. The pro-
perty in Yorkshire consisted of certain dues, payable to a light-
house, situate at the mouth of the Humber. Those ducat amount.
ed to about 10,1100/. a year, and it was alleged that at the time of
Iris death the testator had been entitled to three.fouttlio, which
would be about 70001. a year. It Vida that interest in the light-house
of which their verdict to-day would dispose. The testator had been
a man of secluded habits ; some disappointment in early life had in-
duced him to retire from society, but lie had been a man of
acute mind, and by minute attention to his own affairs had succeed-
ed in accumulating the immense property which he had left at his
death. Amongst other pectiliariti.m to which the testator had been
I subject, there had been one which he (the Attorney. General)
hoped wan not very extensively ditiused, and that had been an un-
controllable aversion to lawyers. lle had therefore made his will
himself, and in making it he had most amply atoned to the
lawyers for the aversion with which lie had always regarded them,
for out of that will there had already arisen tour suits in Chancery
and five actions at law. (A laugh.) It was contended by the de-
mandant that the Yorkshire property had not been devised in die
will, and that it therefore went to the heir at law. That heir at
law the demandant imagined to be himself, and on the mewl it
was stated how he made himself out to be the lien at law. It was
stated that the testator had descended from Justinian Angel—that
Justinian had had a brother named Thomas, and that lie (the de.
mantlant) was the great-grandson of Thomas. They (the Counsel
for the tenant) were in the dark as to the demandant i case. Until
within a recent period they knew not who he was ; he had been
in a very obscure situation in life, and whether lie now carried
on that suit himself, or was a mere Instrument in the hands
of others, they bad no means of determining. Thus much,
however, he (the Attorney-General) would say, that he thought it
not improbable that the demandant would show a descent from a
Thomas Angel, The main point would be, whether that Thomas
had been the brother of Justinian. He would, for the sake of ar.
gument, assume that the demandant would make out his descent as
set forth on the record. Still, however, the demandant wouid not
advance one step, because he (the Attorney-General) would show
that Justinian Angel had had an elder brother named William,
and that from the elder branch the tenant was descended. To prove
that, he should begin at the period at which Crowhurst, in the
county of Surrey. where the Angels had most constantly resided,
had first come into the possession of that family. Ile stifild pro.
duce in evidence the deed of feoffinent, by which, in 1615, Sir
Humphrey Lisle conveyed Crowhurat to William Angel. In that
deed they would find mention made of John Angel, the son and
heir apparent of William. He should then show them that John
had married a daughter of Sir Robert Edelph, in the county of
Kent, and that the issue of that marriage had been twenty
children. That would be proved by the copy of a monumental
stone in the church-yard of Crowhurat, which, after mentioning
the 20 children, stated that nine had then survived, and mentioned
their names, William, John, Robert, James, Justinian, Thomas,
and three daughter,. They would observe that William was there
mentioned Its the eldest of the sons, and in order to corroborate that
proof he would produce copies of the register of Crowhurat, which,
when compared with the evidence deduced from the monument,
would show beyond doubt that William had been the senior both
of Justinian and Thomas. He would also show them a deed exe.
cuted by John Angel in 1665, in which he described hit son Wil.

ham to heir apparent, and settled his property upon William id
tail male. end, in default of home, settled it upon the other sons id
succession, mentioning the conies of William and Thomas. The
next step would be to show the niarriage of William to the datighte:
of Thee. Oneson, Esq. of Biefield, and that he should show by the,
marriage settlement, and by the envy of a monument in Crow.
hunt church, which stated that William Angel had married Elizai
bed) tlosson. Front that marriage lied sprung six children, of
whom two sons and one daughter bad died in infancy, leavinN
two (heighten' and one eon surviving them. The names (r' the
datighters hail been Frances and Elizebetle and that of the son
William. Ile should show to them that Elizabeth had died un.
married, and that William had married, but had died without
issue. It was from Frances, therefore, that the tenant claimed hig
descent. It would next be proved that Frailees had married a Mr.
Benediek Browne, at the parish church, of Binfield, aid that would
be shown by the register of the marriage. The next question would
tic, hail there been any issue of that ntarriage ? He look, ti to the
register ef Birdield, and he found that three children had been bap.
tized at Dinfield. Soon after the marriage, Mr. Benedick Btowue
had purchased an estate called Studleigh, at Caine in Wiltshire;
and it would be proved that a fourth child, named B. nr.lick,
had been baptized at Caine. Of those children the eldest had
beet named William, the second Frances, the third Ilene.
dick, and the fourth Catherine. William survived his lather,
Ile administeeell to him, and they would find that in the let.
ter of administration, doted 1737, he was described as the eldest
son of his father. Benedick survived William, and that would be
shown by the letters of administration granted to Benedick un his
brother's decease. From Benedick the tenant was descended. The
property at Studleigh hid been increased by the purchase of the
manor, and leases Would he shown to the Jury executed by Bene.
(tick seer the death of his brother, which mottle show that Benee
dick had been in possession. It would be as well for him (the At-
torney-Genentl) to mention et that petit d a circumstance which
would conic before them in the course of the cause. lie had al-
ready told them that different adventurers had laid claim to the
property in question, and it was no wonder therefore that the re-
gisters from which inforreation could be gleaned had been the ob.
jects of daily search. In consequence, as he supposed. throoghout
three pages of the Caine registers 1041 had been altered ter
Who find been the author of the forgery he could not sly,
but obviously it had not been any one in the interest of
Ills client. The next link in the chain of evidence would
be to show that Benedick had married. It would be shewn
that Benedick, in the life ime of his brother William, had become
connected with a female of the name of Pleydy Brook, who had
become pregnant by him, and that he had married hi r shortly
before her confinement. They had not been married at Caine, in
which parish was Studleigh, where lived, btu at Wilsford,
a parish shout live miles distant. The register would be produced,
and from that it would appear that in 1741 Benediek Brown had
been married to Pleydy Brook. It would be proved also by
the teenseript of the tegisters, which they might know was
yearly returned by each parish to the Bishop of the diocese.
In addition to that, he had au important piece of evidence. In the
year 1741, it had been necessary, before a license could be
granted, for the party applying .o enter into a bond, whist{
remained in the possession of the Bishop of the diocese._
Sow a bond had been searched for, and a bond had bean found,
entered into by Benedick Brown, and bearing date the day before
his marriage. That bond would he produced before them, and
they would then say whether they had any doubt that the niarriag,e
had taken place. The first issue of that marriage had been Bents.
dick Brown, who had been baptized at Caine, and whose baptism
they would find in the parish register. The entry had been written
on a place from which something had been etased, and he believed
that it would be contended on the other side, that in the first entry
the child had been described to be illegitimate, and that such enti
had been erased. That might have been the case. Pleytly Brook
had suddenly disappeared from Caine t the fact of her niurriage had
been unknown, and when she appeared to baptize a child only Emir
or five Weeks old, it was not unlikely that an entry had been made
wide I tied been erased on better information. But that was im-
material, for from that Benedick, the tenant, did not claim. That
Benedick hail died in infancy ; his death woultebe proved ; and it
would be shawls that a second son had been born, who had also
been called Benedick, and who hod been the father of the present
tenant, who had taken the name of Angel, in compliance with the
direction of John Angel, the testator. Such was die evidence oa
which the title of the tenant would rest. Ile desired them to ex-
amine it with the moat scrupulous jealousy, and he doubted nut
that after such examination the es-biome would remain unshaken.

The evidence, which was entirely documentary, was then gone
into. It is unnecessary to go into it, as it was, in fact, an
exact illustration of the statement of .the Attorney-General. The
proof, indeed, was most exact, and the pedigr:e was drawn from
the first ►►'illiam Angel, in 1615, down to the present tenant, with-
out a single link being wanting in the chain.
The tenant's case having concluded,
31r. SCARCE CT submitted that the Counsel on the other side
ought now to admit the seisin of the ancestor. ►►'ithout such ad-
mission the title of the tenant could not he regarded as complete.
The ATTOILNEY-GEN ER AL refused to make any admission.
He had shown the tenant to be in possession, and how he hart
come into possession. It was for the demandant to show n betier
title, and certainly he (the attorney-littict.l) *mild not Luis; hint
by making any admission.
The Court was then adjourned until to-morrow, when the de-
menden' must make out his title.