The Sun.
London, England, 1852-03-29 00:00:00

//,1

n
-- __.

er".

case, Into facts, and expressed an opinion that traverse wee
not matter of right, bat every Chance.l)or since his .Lor„d-,
sonhvuiepaer'sagrtieanniiite.,.weiexhi.rhessAd3enbdenabnnybceLasliolteraddtituoEgektoxoppnirn7oog4inn
evs:"Doaitithilieuo:mohiasedtrhlnidd
cau-
tious judges who had ever occupied a seat on the bench; and
in!Hall's case (2-Vesey, jun.) he ,held that the Tight was
not confined to the person found lunatic, but extended to
third parties having interest; and even where the applica-
tion was made by a stranger not havifig an interest, as in
Ward's case (6 Vesey, 579), the Chancellor did not decide
against such a person's right, bat nie,rely:.obiserved that the
Court would regard such applications: withnalousy• Lord
Rosslyn, in Ferne's case, was also of opinion in favour of the
traverse being of right. Lord Eldon,:• as already remarked,
had expressed his opinion overand over again: • 'Lord Lynd-
hurst was never called on to express any -opinion:. on the
paint, and Lord Brougham had ride expressed a judicial
opinion. Lord Cottenham in "Ex parte Bridge" was in
favour of the right, and Lord Truro, in two cases which
came before him, decided that it was a matter of right. But
none of these judges had the advantage of hearing the whole
question so comprehensively and learnedly argued or being
asaisted as he (the Lord Chancellor.). Was on the present oc-
casion. It seemed to him thatit would be difficult to deny
that these authorities were entitled to the greatest weight, and
tie)top
itwni
entirely
orlienqecuic,riereredu,iwninui
itc3h.h,• deliberation
ermt
expressed
11t &ceson opinions
ot hre
part of ' arty judge who should Venture to•optiOse his single
s
in favour of the right
within the full meaning and sentirsi:ri:enh.roaatfte:til.lsauted_h:Aaasetc'etitbof:s.rhito:ailadmrhieganyhtet.
idifferent
bo tfehte
the
ezd right was WresillY
Had he been called upon to decide the question without the
on
to
benefit of the learned argument
arrived at the same conclusion—that
given by the 6th section of t icke statute of Edward and
that the statute of George IV. did not alter the character of
that
guru:
question
.;n
abhquoutwe thenswtiao
was that
otfh ea
rightvq ear
yest
being acknowledged—and in that opinion the
erere
cicgirhLsietpadtrtrd2oosntraiar
0 Justices:esewrse;
ct
Ito ne
impossible to deny that in alt the. oases of thii nature which
had come before the Court, attention bad been in some de-:
gree directed to the question whether the traverse should
issue. But the:, it was said that this was inconsistent With
the position taken On the other side. Of course you must -
first decide, in order to come to a satisfactory conceuin.
whether the issuing is of right or not. Beicatir,
if it was of right, then the consideration , whio3
the Court would give in such cases would ,be
with a very different view, if the traverse- -were
held to be not strictly of right. He thought that it was
proper that a reasonable control should be in the power or the
Court. For example, should a case be presented, Where the
Chancellor at once saw unmistakeable signs of madness, no
man could imagine that it would be a proper case in which a
traverse should issue; for there there would be prima fade •
proof against theassertion that the applicant had been "un-
truly" found lunatic under the inquisition sought to be tra-
versed. In some of the cases, particularly, those before Lords
Hardwicke and Eldon, - matters appeared to be entered into
which seemed to carry the inquiry beyond this extent. It
was not surprising that there should be some evidence of this
kind, as parties were left to their own discretion,, and affida.
vits were made entering into the question of sanity or in-
sanity; for the affidavits being made, the Court could not
prevent them being filed. He could not admit that there
was any authority laid down by Lord Eld n which bound
him to go into the evidence which had been adduced before
the jury, when be found that Noble Lord over and over again
deliberately stating that traverse was a matter of right.
That now brought him to the consideration of what
was the proper discharge of the duty which de-
ni oon
doubt l i like
tvboul v e d
presenton f
otrh eleavGeretaot
tr aSveealrse . inThaenre caopupldliabaet
that the first duty was to make such inquiry as should sa-
tisfy his mind that the application was a bona fide one; that
Mrs. Cumming really desired the traverse, and that she was
capable of an act of volition. He did not mean to say that
if he had found on seeing Mrs. Cumming that she was not
actually the petitioner, he would not have allowed the tra-
verse. That point was not now before the Court, and on it
he offerred no opinion. In the case as presented the Court
would decide that the traverse was a matter of right. In
his interview with Mrs. Cumming he had represented to her
what would be the effect of the traverse,and he had also fully
explained all the consequences in respect of costs, and he had
found her rational, collected, and dispassionate. Redid not,
of course, now allude to the general state of her miner;
but, on the question of traverse or no traverse, be was bound
to say that she was as composed and rational as any rea-
sonable person with whom he had ever conversed. She was
most desirous to traverse, even though the remainder of
her property should be sacrificed. Being therefore satia-
ted on that point, he was of opinion that the traverse was
of right, and that the Court were bound to allow it.
But before he parted with this case he must say that it was
one which the Court had heard with much pain. This pro-
perty is of small amount, and even with care—and he saw
no signs of care—could ill afford the costs of these proceed-
ings. Unless it was managed with the strictest economy,
the whole of it will be swallowed up in the proceedings pro-
fessedly taken for the purpose of protecting it. It would be
a lasting reproach to the parties on both sides- net excepting
the counsel by whom they are advised, if these proceedings
are allowed to be carried on in such a manner as to exhaust
this poor lady's property. Let them seriously think of this.
This lady is now very infirm in health and aged, being 76 years
old. He repeated that it would be a lasting disgrace to
all parties concerned, and it would be a reproach too on
the law, if through these proceedings the few years which
will be left to her must be spent in poverty. Here had no
less than eight counsel been engaged in supporting and op-
posing this application, three on the one side and five. on
the other. He now made an order that only the costs of
two counsel on each side should be allowed; and he would
make an order that future expenses to be incurred in these
proceedings be cut down to the lowest possible point, for
he was determined to preserve what remained of this lady's
property, if it is in the power of the Great Seal to pre-
serve it.

A portion of the audience by which the Court was filled
lewdly applauded the Noble and Learned Lord on concluding
his judgment, but of course so indecent an expression of feel-
ing in a court of justice was instantly suppressed.
The Lord Justice KNIGHT BRUCE and the Lord Justice Lord
CRANIVOITH expressed severally, but, briefly, their full con-
currence in the view taken of the petition by the Lord Chan-
cellor, and the order was made accordingly.
Mr. BETIIELL asked their Lordships to stay the proceed-
ings in the lunacy.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the Court as then constituted
had nothing to do +, ith that question. The application must
be made elsewher..