The Sun.
London, England, 1806-12-17 00:00:00

payment of 3 11. into Court, admitted that the Plain-
tiff hail some interest beyond the summa--by, the
li.KecutOrs of Mr. Pitt. •A verdi& was, however,,
• taken for the Defendant upon that issne, stibje6t to
'be altered' by the Court if they shall be of opinion
that such admission must be inferred from the pay-
ment of the money into Court.
The whole case, therefore, is reserved as a point
of law for the Court of King's Bench to determine.

HARWOOD V. HARWOOD..
was an issue from the Conti of Chancery, to
try whether the Defendant had given any, and what,
consideration, for 3.7001. in Exchequer Bills, to the
Plaintiff, in the year 1801.
Mr. GARROW, in opening the'case on the part of
the Plaintiff, requested that the parties shonld be
ordered out of Court before he proceeded; this pre-
liminary being acquiesced in, he said, that he never
felt mere pain than he did in laying this case `before
the Court and Jury. It Might be ObSeryed, that
the parties.were of the same name, but it-was me-
lancholy to know that they were mother. against
son ; and the property now in question was all
that remained, of the wreck 'of the poor Woman's
fortune, which she had been by' her industry accue
mulating for 'years, and all., fOr this Defendant; her
son and only child. Hiving stated the nature of
the issue,- he obserVed, that from the nature of this
case, the Lord Chancellor' had dire&ed, that the
parties theinselees. shotild be examined' upon the
trial. The objeCt of the Plaintiff was not .0 op-
press this young man, but 'to protect -Mai against
himself, and against those whose object was to rain
him. The Plaintiff's husband had been a resped-
able milliner-, residing at Cambridgee's who died
several years ago., leaving—the present
Plaintitl; his:
widow, and the Defendant, an only child. 'His
property,- at the time of his death, did not amount
to more than between 4 arid 5001. but Mrs. Harwood
continued the business, and in• the course of time,
amassed some thousands. She gave this son the best
.edUcation possible, entered. him at the University,
and afterwards as a student. of Lincoln's-Inn, in-,
'tending that he should- be -called to the ,Bar. All
, b
;this time she supplied-him amply with money, and
when he was near coming .Of age, she transferred
some stock from her own name to his, thereby put-
ing it wholly out of her own-power. In some cases,
as in,thepresent, it was uefOrtunate to have so good
a parentefor this young man instantlYembarked in a
trade of the most ridiculous nature. He fell in with.
two persons of the names of 0— and H—, who
pretended they had •found out a method of making
old parchment new again : and the event of this,
'speculation was, that all, h'.s money very naturally.
went for nothing. Having then got a fresh sup-
ply from- his mother, he took -a house near the
Strand, which he furnished, and let out in lodgings,
but this projekt also failed ; and from his driving
about in hackney-coaches, and spending his money
in the most extravagant way, he became affeaed in
.his mind; Dr. Monro was'consulteJ, and it was found
abiolutely necessary that he Should be kept ;n a state
of restraint for some time. His mother gave up
her business, left Cambridge, 'and came to reside
in London, that she might be near him, in order tgl
take care of him. About that time a person of the.
name of Mordecai brought anions against her and
another person, for a libel; and it being suggested
to her, that it was possible he might recover large
4 damages against her, in order to peeserve the little
property she had left, she sold out of the funds;
and vested it in Exchequer Bills, which were ultie
mutely lodged in the hands of her bleker's:banker,
with direetions to be delivered only to her, or her
order. When the Defendant had recovered, and Was
again set at liberty, he applied to his mother to lend
him the Exchequer Bills ici question, idorder, a 5 he
asserted, to purchase Oninium on her account,
.which, he persuaded her, he could turn thelioney,
to more advantage. She accordingly delivered them
over to him e but no pet-Son was present at the
time, and the agreement between them was wholly
Made by themselves alone, so' that it could be
only ascertained froM their evidence: It was'upon
these tondiiions she handed over the property to
him, never having received.' any consideration-
whatever for it. It was afterwards discovered, .that
he made no purchase of otnnium, or any thing
' else, on her account ; and when applied to, to return
them, he was not inclined to give them up. The
proceeds of these Exchequer Bills came into the
hands of a Mr. Wheeler,. a broker ; and Mrs: Ear-
! wood having consulted Mr. Taylor, a .respectable'
Attorney, he thought the best thing to be done for.
' • all parties, was to attach the property in. Wheeler's
hands in the Mayor's Court. It was competent for
the Defendant to come in there, and claim it as his
property ; but hepreferred. going to gaol, by which
means the proceedings in the Mayor's Court were
defeated. He then brought an a&ion i against
Wheeler, who found bail ; and, in consequence ,of
this, the present suit in Chancery was instituted, for
the restitution of the property in question. From
1 the nature of the transaction, there ndtbeing a third

person. present, Mrs. Harwtiod (the,..l.earue.d. Coun-
sel continued) would speak positively to the fa&s,
and would be so far corroborated by the Lady in
whose house she lodged, as to the Defendant's ac-
knowledgment of having got those bills into his pos-
session ; which was accompanied by a declaration
unfit to be used by a child towards a parent, that he
had now got all he.wanted,, his mother might go
to the parish, as he never meant to give her one
farthing of the proceeds.
After some further observations from the Learned
COunsel, these faets were nearly all proved by Mr.
Cockshill, the Plaintiff's Broker, Mrs. Watkins, with
whom she lodged, and the Plaintiff herself.
• Sir VICARY GIBBS, for the Defendant, in the
commencement of an able address to the Jury, ex-
patiated upon the painful duty he had to perform,
and assured the Court that he did not mean to make
any harsh observations upon any of the parties. He
adverted to the whole of the case, as proved on the
part of the Plaintiff, particularly the evidence of Mrs.
Harwood herself; from which he concluded, that if
she had spoken the truth, it was impossible to be-
lieve she could have trusted her son with the property
she now sought to recover.
Mr. Joseph Harwood, the Defendant, was then
sworn and examined. He gave a most extraor-
dinary account of his various dealings in trade
and money traosaetions, and spoke of thousand,