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

LAW INTELLIGENCE

COURT OF CHANCERY.—FEB. 23.
(Before the Lord Chancellor.)
IN BE 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 bad 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 ate two conclusions ; first, that the
object of the petition was insane or non compos; secondly,
that the insanity was of such to 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 Coutt 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.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—FEB. 23.
:Sittings at Nisi Prins, in London, before Mr. Justice
Talfourd and a Common Jury.)
WILLIAMS V. RODWAY.-BREACH OF PROMISE OF

MARRIAGE.
This was an action to recover damages for a breach of
promise of marriage • and the defendant in his pleas, de-
nied the making of the promise ; and denied that a rea-
sonable timefor performing it had elapsed before action
brought. - •
Mr. Sergt. Allen, in opening the case to the jury, said
that the plaintiff, Miss Ana/Williams, was the daughter
of a builder, carrying on busines at Notting-hill ; she
was now about 24 years of age, and was possessed of con-
siderable personal charms. Some years ago she accepted
a situation as lady's maid to Lady Erskine, and lived
with her ladyship, in Wales, for about four or five years,
and whilst in that situation her conduct was in all re-

spects satisfactory to her ladyship. In the beginning o
Nov., 1851, her father, who is a widower, had fallen
into difficulties, and the plaintiff consequently left her
islietubba.tioTn home
jateoohmaßnage his house and busi-
ddeftenndtant,
hap
pyloauinntgiffman
kept
wasa
and
douwt
a3soa
fearfulbak er ' s shhoeapn, in Windmill street,
her cousin, and
neTde Tottenham eYnT' h am-court-road,
peersanon of age,
asome subesetta,
that her father would be unable
wenttotomaereetlasotimone
engagements, and -she left- andhome,ert
the defendant's sister, and she did to
go on a visit to
been there about•a month, the defenod.
t, Whenb she had
named- Izzard, who advised h
that opportunity of going to see herher arhenlastioniss,terin
hercountry,
position,and and
de plaintiff;manage d duringthe took
the
defendant's house, and
attended to his, business.. Durinc, this time, occupiedtheoffer
and promise of marriage, upon which' the action was
founded,b ad pas
s ed werebe m t
weaed ;
between the
tb
e although
parties,
p yoie,nitthitveheiscase no letters
believed he should
most
be able to show, in the
manner, the pro-
mise made by the defendant, and that the understanding
that
the marriage was to take place
existed between
them for a considerable period of - tine Of course a
promise of this kind was not likely to be made in the
presence of third persons, and in the present state of the
law,. lie had not the power to call the plaintiff herself •i , s
a witness. The jury therefore would not expect direct
stestimony on this point, but they would find sufficient to
how that the defendant intended at that
the plaintiff. Her father called upon him, and he re-
ceived him •in the kindest manner, and as a person under
such circumstances would do. It could not be shown
that the defendant, on any occasion, said " Yes, I will
marry your daughter;" •but he had made statements
On one
clearly showed that that was what he meant.
occasion he said he understood his father objected
to the marriage, but he should do as he liked. The
marriage was fixed to take place in October, and, pre-
vious to that time, the plaintiff's father said he was,
breaking up his establishment, and they had better see
what part of his furniture they would like, and they, in
accordance with this, selected a number of articles. On
one occasion they all went to Windsor to see the plain-
tiff's brother, who was assistant to a linendraper, and he
gave the plaintiff a pattern for a wedding dress ; and
afterwards he sent up a sky-blue silk dress and a lace
veil, for the purpose of being worn at the wedding. Thera
would, under the circumstances, he apprehended, be no
difficulty or doubt as to the promise ; and as to the second
plea; that sufficient and reasonable time had not elapsed
to perform the promise, he apprehended there would
likewise be no difficulty.. The contract, he understood'
was not issued
until to marry in October ; and the writ
until the middle of January ; and this, he apprehended,
was quite sufficient time. The question, he apprehended,
pprehended'
purpose
they come to be one of damages, and for this u
they would look to see what the plaintiff had lostincoonse-
sequance of the defendant breaking his promise. She
had lost the participation in those means which they
should think, upon the evidence, the defendant had; but
this was not all. She had lost those feelings of affection
which, in a man might be easily excited, but which when
once crushed in a woman, could never return, • She had
also in her family and in her own little world, lost caste.
She had been represented as the chosen wife of the de-
fendant, but now she was cast aside as no longer fit to
be his wife ; and for all these causes, she asked, and he
had no doubt she should receive, a temperate, but ade-
quate compensation, at the hands of the jury.
Mr. .Robert Williams, the father of the plaintiff,
stated that in NoVember, 1851, the plaintiff came home,
and she kept his house until the end of the following
July, when she became afraid that he would not be
able to meet some engagement, and that his home would
be broken up ; and she removed her property, and went
to a relation named Izzard. This lady recommended
that she should go upon a visit to the defendant's sister,
and she went there about the end of July. In conse-
quence of a communication from his daughter, plaintiff
went, in company' with his brother
curr E d
manuel,
th to the docca-
e-
fendant's. Nothing particular oce on is
sion, but when he went again defendant said he 'had
saw by
his uncle Emanuel's quizzical appearance, that he
been telling him about his intended marriage. On an-
other occasion, the defendant said he had received a en-
ter from his father, who did not seem pleased at his
tended marriage. He also said he wished the matter
• had been kept quiet until his sister's return to London.
The plaintiff said she would decline the matter rather
than there should be any unpleasantness in the family ;
but he said he was his own master, and he would do as
lie liked. He said he had written. to his friends t
as o in-
form them of it, out of respect, but he should
was
do
tternhe
liked. When they went to Windsor, the pa id
produced in defendant's presence, but it was not
dress. At the
that it was the pattern of the wedding but
beginning of September the plaintiff came home,
she afterwards again returned to the defendant's. About
the end of October he told the defendant if there was
any part of his furniture he liked they might have it ;
and the plaintiff chose some tea things, tea trays, sauce-
pans, &c., and she and the defendant took them away.
There was an easy-chair, which the defendant seemed
to fancy, and witness said he witness give it to him nth and
the defendant said whenever came to visit m
' he should sit in it. Whilst the plaintiff was at home,
the defendant came to see her every Sunday, and gene-
rally once a week besides, and she always let him out,
and occupied 5 or 6 minutes in so doing.
Cross-examined—The .plaintiff finally left the defen-
dant's house on the 12th January, and on the 15th of
that month the writ was issued. He never gave instruc-
tions to the attorney to write, before issuing the writ.
Henry Williams, the plaintiffs brother, and Emanuel
Williams, her uncle, were also examined, and they in
part confirmed the foregoing evidence.
As to the defendant's circumstan
stated that the de-
ces,
ircumstances,"
Robert Izzard,
also a relation, was called, and he
fendant was, in his opinion, in "decent c
and he offered, on a recent occasion, to lend
witness
3001. or 4001. •
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins then addressed the jury on the
part of the defendant, and commenced by
observing that
'the speech of his learned brother, in opening the case,
reminded him of a conversation
told him tha he had hadt
whe could
hould
that
celebrated cook; M. Sayer, who
make a quart of good soup, fit for a meal for a labouring
man, for three farthings ; and he thought that when thhoughey
came to analyse the speech of Mr. Sergt. Allen,
al
they would find plenty of skill, they would find that the
materials were about as substantial as those which com-
posed M. Soyer s three-farthing soup. (A laugh.)
'
It was a rather strange circumstance, that although his
had not
client was burning with affection, yet he
written a single letter to the object
stood
The plaintiff's brother had proved about nothing, and
the uncle, who rejoiced in then namyruel,
said that the plaintiff and defdant were of E
cheerful
at dinner, Now 7 if there was one time at which peoplif