The Sun.
London, England, 1830-01-14 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JAN. IS.

DOE, ON THE DEMISE OF LORD TEYNIIAM V. TYLER.
The examination ofplaintitl's witnesses proceeded.
Mr. Charles Jones knew John Hopkins Fox;
went to school with him on the Continent. In the
latter end of 1782 he was an articled clerk to Mr.
Railton, an attorney, in Bartholomew-close. He'
continued to cal! upon witness's mother till 1789,
when his articles expired. When he was out of
his time he took a house in Bride-lane, Fleet-street,
and kept a carriage for a short time. Knew nothing
of his character in his profession. In 1789 (the
period of the recovery which he executed) his
character as an attorney was by no means high. He
was an adventurer. When a lad he was a person
of lax principles. Witness avoided him from the
time of his setting up in his profession.
Mr. Shepherd, a person from the banking-house
of Messrs. Child, proved that Henry, the 12th
Lord Teynham, opened am acount in the house
on the 10th of November, 1789: 600/. was then
paid into his account by Hopkins Fox. A month
afterwards (about the time of the recovery) a sum
of 4001. was drawn out; it appeared to be paid to
his Lordship. This was the only account Lord
Teynham ever had in Child's bank.
A person from the Master's office of the Court
of King's Bench produced a registry, which proved
the admission of John Hopkins Fox, as an attorney,
on the 29th of April, 1789. It appeared that, in
Easter term, 1791, he was suspended from prac-
tising in the Common Pleas, to which he had been
admitted 011 the 25th May, 1789, for debt.
William Pringle, a gardener, residing at Norwood
Surrey, knew John Lord Teynham front 1803 till
1819. His Lordship lived at Sydenham, in a house
belonging to witness's father. He had six servants
in all. John Cook and his wife were two of them.
A horse had been buried in a part of the garden,
and his Lordship refused to eat the vegetables that
grew there, on the ground that their flavour might
be injured by that circumstance.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE—Oh, he thought they might
smack of the horse ?—Yes.
Mr. Serjeant WlLDE—Perhaps, then, they we; e
horse radishes.—(A laugh.)
Mrs. Emma Holebrook, a daughter of the Hon.

Philip Roper, knew theMostyns,—they were cousins
of Henry, the 12th Lord. They were sons of Mrs.
Mostyn, who was sister to Lord Tcynham. One of
them (Benedict) was confined for insanity; the
other was considered weak, but mnried a sensible
woman, and was not in confinement.

Cross-examined—Madness runs in the family.—
Henry Mostyn is only kept out of a madhouse by
the judgment of his wife, who prevents him from
having wine and other liquors.

Miss Charlotte Roper, sister of the present Lord
Teynham, and cousin of Henry, the 12th Lord, was
educated abroad. Went abroad when two years
old, and returned at the time of the Revelation in
1793; was at St. Omer's. Saw Henry, 12th Lord
Teynham, and his brother John, at Margate, in
Hawley-square, on her return. They lived with
Betty, Lady Teynham, their mother, who managed
matters. Witness lodged in John-street, Margate;
oniy went once to Lady Teynham's ; dined there,
and saw the two brothers, and their mother ; there
was nobody else of the party. Henry did not enter
into conversation with witness, nor with any other
member of the party. He appeared low and dejected.
Witness had a passport from Robespierre, to enable
her to come over from France; it was the last that
was granted. This was spoken of, but Henry took
no interest in it. Retired to the drawing•room after
dinner. Henry did not join them. Witness went
to the play the same evening with Lady Betty.
Henry was to have joined them ; he came to the box
and stood at the door for about a quarter of an hour.
He did not enter the box, and went away without
making any apology. Never saw him again, except
once, in London, in Clarges-street, about 1794, or
1795. Went in the evening ; saw his Lordship,
who made a " very awful" appearance. Only saw
him for about ten minutes. He did not address or
converse with witness. There was a rap at the door,
and Mrs. Tyler, who was present, seemed rather
agitated, and said, " Who can that be ?" and at that
moment Lord Teynham rushed out of the room,
looking like a person insane. He did not return.
He had a very awful look. He was melancholy, de-
jected, seemed lost to the world, and had every ap-
pearance of an insane person. Knew Mrs. Cathe-
rine Taylor; her family was attended by a person
named Bacot, who was intimate with them. KHew
Mr. Benedict Mostyn ; saw him at St. Omer's in

1792. He had a very imbecile look, and was weak
minded. Knew Mr. Brand; often saw him at
John Lord Teynham's house, and at his own in
Soho-square.
- This was the case for the plaintiff.

Mr. Bacot recalled by Mr. Serjeant WlLDE—Pro-
duced a box containing various bills and papers be-
longing to John Lord Teynham. They extended
from 1800 to the period of his death in 1824, and
were carefully arranged and labelled in his Lordship's
hand-writing. One receipt was for four guineas
for a book—Dr. Busbys Lucretius. John Lord
Teynham gave witness oral and written instructions
for his will, He said one half the estate was to c.,,0
to his si.ter, and the other to his sister's son, and
that he would not leave the property to the heir to
the title, because that individual had had a good
estate, and spect it, and would do the same with
this property if he got it. His instructions were
proper and collectel Witness knew his Lordship
from an early period of his life, and always con-
sidered him of sound mind.

Several letters from the late Lord Teynham to
Mr. Bacot, on the subject of his will, were read.
One of the insttuctions was for the insertion of a
clause, forbidding his executors to repay any monies
that might have been borrowed on post obit, or
otherwise, by any of his relations conceiving them-
selves entitled to his property. In another letter
he alludes to Mr. Curzon, the present plaintiff, and,
after noticing his claim on the Teynham property,
expresses his (Lord Teynham's) belief of its invali-
dity, and his determination not to leave Mr. Cu- zon,
or his family, any part of the estate.
Mr. Serjeant JONES having briefly replied upon
this evidence,

Mr. Seijeant WILDE. for the defendant, charac-
terised the present action as a speculation which had
been caught up by persons in desperate circum-
stances, for the purpose of endeavouring to wrest
an estate from the rightful possessor, upon the
slightest and most trifling pretences. His Learned
Friend, the Attorney-General, had alluded to the
taint of insanity which was supposed to characterise
the Teynham family; the existence of this cause
would seem to afford a proof that the plaintiff was
not exempt from this family taint, except indeed this
was a subscription cause by the holders of post-obit
bonds, of which the Jury had beard something.
There was not a tittle of evidence to support the
Attorney-General's statement, as to the supposed
conspiracy between Tyler and Hopkins Fox to effect
the recovery. It had been said that Lord Teynham
could have had no motive for cutting off the entail.
Was it not sufficient that Lord Teynham was
afflicted with a complaint which precluded the pro-
bability of his having children, and that lie should
desire to have the power of disposing of the estate
in a manner best calculated to benefit his family ?
The Learned Gentleman went on to repel the as-
sertion that Mr. Tyler had seduced the younger
Miss Roper in the life time of her sister who was
his wife. There was no evidence of this; all that
appeared was, that Mr. Tyler had married two
sisters,—an act which, however unbecoming, unfor-
tunately occurred too frequently. The main ques-
tion related to the state of Lord Teynham's mind
at the time of suffering the recovery in 1789. In
the spring of that year he was found pursuing his
sister who had eloped from London. It cer-
tainly could not be pretended that Lord Term-
ham had not acted with proper feeling and
decision in this case. In the summer of 1789, he
went to Tunbridge Wells, and the evidence of Mrs.
Dowdeswell was conclusive as to his sanity at that
period. At the time of suffering the recovery, Lord
Teynham was found executing deeds, providing for
the payment of family claims. There could be no
pretence for saying that there existed any evidence
of unsoundness in November, 1789, when the act in
question was executed. The will executed by Lord
'Teynham was in itself conclusive as to his sanity.
The bulk of the estate was left to his brother; to
his sister, Mrs. Tyler, he bequeathed 1,0001., as a
mark of remembrance rather than of approbation ;
and so far from Mr. Tyler, who was supposed to have
caused the unsettling of the estate, profiting by it,
he received nothing, and was excluded from all con-
troul over his wife's legacy. If the Jury enter-
tained a moment's doubt as to the validity of the
instrument by which the entail had been destroyed,
it might be said with perfect truth that no estate in
the kingdom was safe.
The LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE observed, that this
was an action of ejectment, by which the plaintiff
sought to recover from the defendant possession of
certain estates in Kent. The only question for the
Jury was, whether or not, in November, 1789,
Henry, the 12th Lord Teynham, was a man of corn
petent understanding to conduct his own affairs. If
they decided this question in the affirmative, their
verdict must be for the defendant. In 1785 Henry,
Lord Teynham, came of age; in the following year
his father died, and he succeeded to the title, and
became tenant in tail of the family property. The law
had provided a mode of destroying the entail, by
suffering a common recovery. In November, 1789,
Lord Teynham took the necessary legal steps to de-
stroy the estate tail. It was unnecessary to say
that he was authorized by law to do so, if he pos-
sessed sufficient understanding to comprehend the
nature of the Act. It was for the Jury to inquire
whether Lord Teynham had brought to the perform-
ance of the act in question such a degree of intelli-
gence and understanding as had been described.
His Lordship was about to sum up the evidence
which applied to a later period of Lord Teynham's
life, when he was interrupted by the Jury, who in-
tireated that they had made up their minds on the
subject, and immediately returned a verdict for the
defendant.
The case occupied the Court until six o'clock.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, kN.

William Cooper, a broom-mannfie:nrer, late of
Slangham, in Sussex, was opposed by Mr. COO%Sp
on behalf of Mr. John Ireland.

The insolvent came up originally on the 7th of
December last, when he stated, that in 1822 ho
borrowed 2801. from his son, William Cooper, the°
but 18 years of age. He gave no memorandum
for the money at the time, nor was he to pay oaf
interest. In May, 1829, he made over to his son
freehold house, a piece of land, and the whole of his
stock in trade, &c., for 120/. in part payment of the
2801., and then the son, who had up to that time
been merely his father's journeyman, at 1.55. a week
wages, became master, and conducted the business
on his own account. 'I he insolvent then came up to
London, and was shortly afterwards arrested at the
suit of a person named Manley, for 211. 10s., which
Manley had lent him in a public-house. He nos'
came up to be discharged from debts to a consider-
able amount, his son being in possession of all his
property.
William Cooper, the insolvent's son, was called
to prove the loan of 2801. to his father. He stated,
that in 1822, his aunt died, and left him eome pro'
perry, which he disposed of for 2801., though ha
admitted he was then only 18 years of age, and he
never took out letters of administration to his aunt's
property. As soon as he got the money, he de
posited it into the hands of his father for safety;
and in May last, knowing that his father was in ern'
barrassed circumstances, he prevailed on him to a e
sign the house, land, and stock in trade, to him;
this was done, and he was now carrying on the busi-
ness for himself.

The COURT told the son that the assignment W.
illegal, and said, if he would give up the property it
would be better for himself, and enable his father to
obtain his liberty.

The son, who was a stupid-looking fellow, did not
at all feel disposed to accede to such an arrange.
ment.

The COURT ordered the case to stand adjourned.
On the 15th of December, the insolvent came up
again, when the son appeared, and the insolvent'.
counsd, Mr. WOODROFFE, said he was sorry to
find that the son was still as obstinate as before.
After several ineffectual attempts to induce the
son to give up the property, the Court resolved to
give the parties another opportunity to reconsider
the effects of such obstinacy.
This day the insolvent came before the Court
again for a final hearing. Upon inquiry it was found
that the son very foolishly preserved the same obsti•
navy as on the former occasions.
Mr. Commissioner HARRIS, in passing judgment's
observed that the insolvent's son would find to his
cost, that notwithstanding his eagerness to keep the
property, the creditors would be able to get it frau;
him. The insolvent had clearly disposed of his
property most fraudulently,and the judgment of the
Court theiefore was, that he be remanded for
period of 12 months from the date of filing his pc"
tition.

Cornelius Lee, the rat-catcher, whose case Iwo
heard yesterday, came up to-Jay for judgment, whet'
the judgment of the Court was, that the insolvent
be remanded for a period of eight months, for frau"
dulently making away with a part, and charging
other parts of his property, with intent to dimiatill
the fund that ought to have been divisible amono
the creditors.

THE MARKETS.

COAL. MAR
4d.

Adair'a
Clutrlotte
Heb'Attrn Main 54 6
tiolywell— 33
Killiugworth 35 0
Orti's Itedhugh 30 0

Pciaw » 31, 0
Percy East .- 31 3
Pontop Windsor 28
Tantie!d _ 31 0
Tanfield Lt
T
Willington

30 3

31 3
-35 6
33 0

N'allsEmillewicke&Co.

0

K ET.—Jan. 13.
Walls d Newmareb«. 965. Pc"
Ditto Northumberland 36 3.
Co,
Ditto t'eareth 34 6
Ditto Perkins and Co.— 35 6
Ditto itiddop. _ _ _ 37 1!
Russell's
Ditto NVaikez 37
Eden Main
Lambton's Primrnse 36 0
Walls End Hetton—.—.... 39 0
Watts End I...ambton* 59 °
Walls End Lyons 36 6
Walls End Stewart's

54 0

Hallieath 29 0

350

Ditto IL.II Rolmon & Co. as 9 I Hartley..,
Ditto Burraton 33 (5 liangennech Coal ;I 0
Walls End Boundary 3d. 7 PembertonLlangenneeh 36 . 0
Dtto Clarke and Co. —34 9 Shildon", 2, 0
Walls End Carr and Co. 34 3 Silkstone 34
Ditto Cramlington.,......, 31 6 Wall's End Elgin 31 o
Ditto Heaton 36 6 Cramlington Trader.... 31 6.
Ditto I lilda 36 0 Walls End small 21 0
ago 3
51,1;,s at market, 16834--sto

ips sold. 47—Uniolel. 141j4•

OUNTRY ttKE'l ICI NO TH

Wheat. I Barley. Oats. Beans:
Per Quarter. s. to s. s. to a. A. to a. t.
Abingdon---- 55 62 32 38 21 32
Andover 55 62 22 34 20 23 -58
Birmingham—. (54 70 32 33 28 30 A
Bridport
Cirencester
Faringdon . 51 86 26 40 26 58 46
Guildford 43 74 24 35 20 30 17,
Henley 5l 83 SO 35 20 30
Hereford....... . 64 84 38 45 :15 40 —r,
High Worth 62 SO 32 42 28 34 -07
Maidenhead —.. 65 84 28 33 22 30 —5,"
;
Oakingham —. 76 30 36 18 32 iLD
Reading .--. 4t 83 22 42 16 32 —40 q,
Salisbury 49 621 21 31 22 32
Southampton :•,4 -78 37 40 28 32 4 ,
Stroud
Tewkesbury
Uxbridge
Vantage 46 73 20 86 16 28
Warminster . 42 72 23 42 20 32 40
Windsor 5l 76 21 36 Hs 31
W0rce5ter.......~.. 70 77 36 40 24 32 54
CHELTENHAM MAR-KEE—Jan. 12.
Per rushel. r, d. to a. 8. Per lb. d. to 4 •
Wheat
Barley
Oats
Ileans 4 9 5 6 Lawb 6 1
Pease 5 0 8 0 Pork 5 6
Hay 3/. 10s. to 31. 15s. per ton.

R KETS.—Jan. 6.

DUMFRIES M.
s. d.
Wheat, Imp. Bush... 6 6 to 7 0 Butter, ItSin
Barley 3 3 3 6 Eggs, dozen
Oats 2 3 2 9 Beef, per lb.
Flour, 141 b.
Oatmeal 1 9 2 0 Veal
Potatoes, cwt.
CATTLE.—The market to-.day was again very 3110411
supplied, the total number being only 10. They tre.r6
in excellent condition, but their appearance did net Oa"
the attention of any of the buyers.
500:0010;4. t
00001