The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY.—FEB. 23.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
IN RE FUSSELL.-LUNACY.

This is a petition for a commission. It was opened
on Wednesday, the 16th ; the arguments were continued
on Saturday, the 19th, and they were concluded to-day.
The alleged lunatic is Mr. John Fussell, a manufacturer
of hardware at Frome, and who, in addition to other

property, has made a successful speculation in Australian
Land and Bank Shares, and is supposed to be worth
more than 200,0001. The petitioners for the commission
are his two brothers and his nephew. They are opposed
by the wife, who, with his two daughters, are deeply in-
terested in the result, in consequence of Mr. Fussell
having recently executed a will and codicils, which gives
them all his property, in the form of life interest to the
wife, and the reversion of the principal money to the
daughters. The petition, which alleges that Mr. Fussell
is incapable of taking care of his person and property, is
supported by the affidavits of Dr. Winslow and Dr.
Green, and is opposed by those of Dr. Connolly, Dr.
Seymour, and Mr. Morgan.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Glasse, and Mr. Prender-
gast are for the petitioners.
Mr. Rolt and Mr. Sandys, contra, were heard to-day,
and contended at much length that Mr. Fussell, although
in a very delicate state of health, and labouring under
paralysis, was yet perfectly competent to the selection
of persons who were to be entrusted with the manage-
ment of his affairs, although not in a condition from
bodily weakness to manage them himself.
The Solicitor-General, in reply, adverted to an alle-
gation he had been instructed to make in opening the
petition, that the codicils to the will were improper in-
struments, and procured by improper representations,
and not calculated to benefit the family.
The Lord Chancellor said cases like that now under
consideration were equally difficult and distressing. The
Court must arrive at two conclusions ; first, that the
object of the petition was insane or non compos; secondly,
that the insanity was of such ;,a nature as to render it
imperative on the Court, for the protection of person
and property, that it should issue its authority for a
commission. The line of interference under such cir -
stances was difficult to draw. Much mischief might
be done in one case, by a too hasty interference
—much injury might accrue in another by neglect-
ing to exercise it at the proper time. If the pro-
tection of the Court was withheld danger might arise to
the person or the property of the alleged lunatic ; and
yet, if the Court did, on the other hand, interpose, there
was the other danger—that of alarming and exciting the
'object it wished to protect, and thereby producing most
mischievous, if not fatal, results. There were cases—
and this was represented to be one of them—in which
the state of the subject of the petition, and the circum-
stances in which he was placed, were of such a nature
that an inquiry, through the machinery of a commission,
might, probably, much aggravate his delusions. These
were the considerations and consequences his lordship
felt he had to battle with in deciding the question at
issue ;- and, as it required a most careful and attentive
examination of all the documents and evidence in the
matter to • guide him to a safe and satisfactory conclu-
sion, he thought it most expedient to take due time for
that purpose ; and he therefore deferred his judgment on
the petition till that day (Wednesday) week.