The National Register.
London, England, 1815-12-24 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL' RECISTE

INTELLIGENCE.
HIGH COURT OF DELEGATES.-SERJEANTS' - INN,-
CHANCERY-LANE.
HENIIHAW AND HADFIELD. V. ATKINSON.

LA.'

For many days this important cause has been under discussion
before the Adjunct Commission of Review, composed of the
following learned judges.—Barons Wood and Richards, and
Justicesßailey and Dallas; Drs. Phillitnore, Daubigny, Burnaby
and Gosling
It is a question as to the validity of the will and codicils of
the late Mr. Henshaw, of Oldham in Lancashire, who ,died
worth near One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pounds, bequeath-
ing the greater portion of his property to purposes of Charity,
and a specific legacy, amounting to upwards of 20,0001. to Mr.
John Atkinson, of Salford, near Manchester. His will was dis •
puted by Mrs. Ilenshaw, his widow, and Mrs. Hadfield, his
next of kin; and the ground on which it was impugned was,
that the testator, at the time when he disinherited his family,
was, though not absolutely lunatic. yet in such a state of men-
tal imbecility, as precluded the free exercise of those faculties
he had forme ly possessed in a very strong degree;. and it was
alletlged that the defendant, Atkinson, having obtained an un-
due influence over him, had availed himself of that ascendancy
to the extent of p.evailin .4 upon him to make the teStainentary
dispsisitions in fa .or- of himself and certain charities. The
same question was a- ;tied last spi ing before an equal number
of Judges. ‘iri • ), divided in opinion. gave'no .judgment.
It was now te-arguAl b Dr. Swabev, Dr. Jenner, Mr. Warren,
and Mr. Widi tins, on the part of M s Ilenshaw, the widow,
and Mrs. Hadikid, die n2xt of kin ; and by Stodhart, Dr.
Lushington, M. lart, and Cross, on the part of M. At-
kinson : the arguments occupied six entire days. In support
of the will and codicils it w.is now contended, that Mr. 1-lenshaw
was, at the time he executed then, to the perfect enjoyment of
his faculties—that he had, for a considerable period, manifested
a disposition to found a blue-coat-school—that he had expressed
such his intention to certain of his acquaintances, and conse-
quently, that as far as related to his charitable bequests, his will`
and codicils were the result of his own mind carrying into effiyet
a previou.ly deter mined intention. With respect to his legacy
to the defendant, it was insisted, that he had derived advantages
from his advice and assistance in the management of his con.
cerns—that the influence Atkinson had obtained over him was j.
that fair influence which long services and tried friendship had
earned, and that the legacy to him, large as it was, was not 1.
more than was commensurate with his deserts. The compe-
tency of Mr. Henshaw to make the disposition of his property
as-he had done, was inferred by his having been able, till within !
a short period of his death, to arrange partnerships, and a varl-
et y of matters of importance connected with the business by I
which he had acquired his wealth. On the other side it was
strongly argued, that Mr. Atkinson had acted the part of a false :
friend and interested adviser; that he hadpersuaded the deceased !
to alter those testamentary dispositions by which he had be-
queathed
his property to his wife and family, and to devote the j
mass of his fortune to the endowment of eleinosynary institu•
tiuns, leaving Mrs. Henshaw the slender pittance of :20!)I. a year;
that he had urged him to do so, not by a single testament, but
by a series of embeds, and with the intentioa of keeping him in
a course of testamentary disposition, in order that he might
seize some favourable opportunity, when the testator was in
the humour, of procuring a bequest to himself. The learned
Counsel for Mrs. Henshaw' in language the most energytic,
dwelt upon the conduct of Mr. Atkinson in obtruding himself
into the family of the testator. and diverting him from those
benevolent intentions towards his family, which, till his inter-
ference had uniformly actuated him. They represented to the
Court the artful and insiduous proceedings of the defendant,
in deporting himself as a friend towards Mis. Henshaw, dining
at her table, and expressing his regard for her, when at the
same time, he must have been conscious, that by his persuasion
her husband by what he had left her, had comparatively disin-
herited her. They argued from the voluminous evidence be-
fore the court, and by the last act of the testator, which was se,f-
destclielion, the impaired and weakened state of bi 4 iutollectb.

They contended that it was not necessary to prove a deranged
mind ; it was sufficient that the facts of the case presented the
testator before the Court as a man who had been repeatedly
afflicted with paralysis, and as a man with respect to whom his
regular medical attendant had advised that he should be strictly
watched, to prevent that catastrophe which eventually occnrre4
They insisted, that when a testator, thus vacillating between the
extremes of sanity and insanity,. was practiced upon by a person
who had obtained an abiolute controut over him, such as At-
kinson unquestionably had over the testator, the will made,
under such circumstances, was riot the will of the testator, bilk
was f truth the will of the party by whom he was influenced.
The judges assembled on Wednesday morning last by anjournrn
ment, and boingdeliberated from eleven o'clock till three, the
Register of the Court, upon the parties and their Counsel having
been called in, stated, that tlic judges, being divided in opinion
gave no judgment,

. .
. , C01.744T .OF CHANCERY, DMQ. la.
• .
• . WADE v..II,As.ELEY• •
. - •
.-
Thiejlasf Mr. Charles Henry Baseley and Mr. Barker, one of
his assistaists.lu tlt Alopement with Miss Wade, attended the
• Court in pursuant ..'6( .the Lord Chancellor's order, to answer
for a contempt of his L'ordship's authority. The Lord Oran-
cello;, when this case was4ast before him, was pleased to ex-
press that it mi7,ht be his duty to direct a prosecution for a con-
spiracy to be commenced against the parties by the Attorney-
General. In the mean time they were allowed, if they were so
disposed, to tile affidavits as to the respective share they had
taken in the affair. It appears they availed themselves i'vf his
Lordship's permission ; and on this occasion they all had filed
affidavits, which went flatly to contradict the depositions on the
part of those who supported the application to the Court
against them.
Sir A. Piggot, as Counsel for Mr. Baieley, addressed the court
at great length iu extenuation of the c•nduct of his client, and
in an endeavour to prove that there had been no conspiracy to
carry otlthe young lady with intent to inal y her to Baselev. and
obtain her fortune. It was stated, in opposition to the affidavit
of Mr. Broughton. which disclosed all the transactions of flaseley
with respect to carrying away the young lady, that Mr Brough-
ton had written two letters to Mrs. Baseley after her marriage,
:n which he expressed his determination to render her every
assistance, and spoke in the most respectful way of Mr Baseley.
'ln
consequence of the differeneebetween these letters and the
affidavit mails 'hy,Mr. Broughton, it was contended that Mr.
Broughton was not to be believed, and that the Lord Chan,
cellar could not, upon such a statement, )(tweet the Attorney-
General to prosecute the parties.
Sir S. Romillv most ably vindicated the character of Mr.
Broughton. and described him as a gentleman wha had been
anxious, after the matrimonial contract had been made, to con-
ciliate the parties, in older to promote the happiness of Mrs.
Baseley. It was on this ground he wrote the letters in question.
The Lord Chancellor gave a must elaborate judgment ; his
Lcrdship said, in a case of this kind, it was impossible to pre-
vent a portion of the punishment inflicted on the husband
falling on the 'wife ; but if any feeling of that sort were to debt
the end of justice, every needy a tveuturer would say, he might
commit the same °donee with impunity. Every body. reading
the affidavits on i»th sides, would say there had been a con-
spiracy of such a nature existing between the time of the first
and second elopeinnt, as requi, ed the Chancellor to send proofs
before the Attioney General.--:.low that officer woulddeaf with
toe case was another question. With respect to M. Baseify
'and Mr. Barker, then attending, he should not do his duty if by
hesitated one mmncut to say they must both be committed to
the custody of the Warden of the Fleet for cootenpt. With
regard t . the fortune of this younj. lady-, it would be the duty
of the Court to make her owner of every shi/liug •if kw ro.
perty, and to give her the power to dispose of* it. T Oil
Chancellor coneludedby saying, there hadbeen a lg. ost
of the law; and theretore he ordered Mr., Liaselel pad Mr'
Barker to be sent to the Fleet prison, and the AA*. it; to be
' a id before the Attoruc 1 Comet.