The Sun.
London, England, 1830-07-26 00:00:00

ASSIZES.--(RECEIVED THIS DAY.)

OXFORD CIRCUIT.-OXFORD, Jut 24.
PRITCHARD V. AUSTIN.

This was an action brought on a promissory-note for
2001., drawn by the father of the defendant. The action
was brought against the defendant as executor of his late
father. The hand-writing of the defendant having been
admitted,
Mr. Serjeant FtusseLL said, the defence to this action
was, that at the time Mr. Austin, sen. gave this note of
hand he was not in a state capable of managing his affairs.
If he proved this fact, the defendant would be entitled to
a verdict. The Learned Counsel then called a number of
witnesses, who stated that in most of the common affairs
of life old Mr. Austin was perfectly consistent, and
ap-
peared to understand what was right and what was wrong ;
but that for several months before the bill in question bore
date, he seemed to be labouring under a most singular
and ridiculous delusion respecting the fidelity of his wife.
Mr. Austin at this time was more than '7O years of age,
his wife was approaching SO, yet nothing could persuade
him but that she was intriguing with an old man named
Henry Williams, who had turned fourscore years of age;
and he also believed that his eldest son was privy to their
amours, and assisted them in obtaining interviews with
each other. To such an extraordinary pitch did this delu-
sion carry him, that he would get up in the middle of the
night and call in his neighbours to assist him in searching
for the old nun Williams, who, he used to persist in, was
secreted somewhere about his wife's bed-chamber. On
those occasions he would become almost frantic ; he would
take a naked sword and stand over her, threatening her with
destruction for her inconstancy ; at other times, beat her
with a stick, and swore that be would do for Harry Wil-
liams, the destroyer of his peace, either dead or alive. To
such an extent did the delusion carry him, that he would
walk about the streets crying and wringing his hands in
the most pitiful manner, and on two or three occasions
went to the sexton of the parish and offered him money to
dig his grave and bury him ; he also offered money to the
clergyman to put an appropriate tombstone over his grave,
It was also proved, that on the day the note bore date, he
went to a neighbour's house, and said he was going to
give all his property away, he was in a very hurried state,
and said he was going to give a note of hand to Pritchard
(the plaintiff), for his son Tom (the defendant) had sold
his mother, and was a "go between" with her and
Harry Williams. Pritchard was his son-in-law. There
was also a person named Walton, that married another
daughter, and who also received a similar note for
2001., which he (Walton), however, had given up. In
the evening of that day he went home to the
poor old woman, his wife, and with great exultation
called out—" I have done it, I have clone it." His wife
was alarmed and asked what he had done ? "Oh (he
replied), you will know soon enough ; I have done some-
thing for that devil of a Tom for selling his mother."
He supposed tbat Williams had promised his son the whole
of his property for favouring his intrigues with old Mrs.
Austin. The Learned Counsel said a more dutiful or
affectionate son than the defendant never existed, and as
it had been proved that the note which formed the subject
of the present action had been given whilst Austin was
labouring under such unaccountable delusion, both in law,
and agreeable to common sense, the defendant was entitled
to a verdict.
Mr. TAUNTON replied. He said a father had a just
right to make whatever distribution of his property he
thought proper, and if he gave more to one child
than another, that was no reason why he shou:d be ac-
counted mad. He thought there was not sufficient evi-
dence to convince the Jury that he was incapable of
managing his affairs, and therefore the verdict must be for
the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice BOIANQUZT summed up, and the Jury im
mediately returned a verdict fur the defendant.