The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-07 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 6.

The Court sat at one o'clock, and was occupied in determin-
in.- justifications of bail.—Mr. W. H. Brown was sworn in as
Marshal of the Fleet Prison.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Nov. 6.
IN THE GOODS OF WILLIAM JONES, DECEASED.
On the motion of his Majesty's Advocate, letters of adminis-
tration of all and singular the goods, chattels, credits, and effects
of this gentleman, lately deceased, at Llandilo, in the county of
Carmarthen, were granted to the nominee of his Majesty.
[Our readers will remember that this individual was a man
of eccentric habits, and died very recently, possessed of immense
wealth, and leaving no relatives behind him. The Crown, in
consequence of his intestacy, succeeds to the whole.]
TAYLOR AGAINST HIS MAJESTY'S PROCURATOR-GENERAL.
In this case Mr. Ruffin, the deceased, had executed a will,
dated the 4th of May, 1819: against it,a caveat had been en-
tered in the usual form by his Majesty's Proctor ; and the same
not having been removed, in consequence of which probate
cannot pass the seal of this Court, .111 r. James Taylor and Mr.
Hind, the two executors named in the instrument, have insti-
tuted the present proceeding, calling on the Court to permit

the will to be proved. By reason of the bankruptcy of these
parties, they sue in forma pauperis. As the depositions in
chief were not read in Court, the Judge.announcing that he had
pursued them at chambers, and as the argument of Counsel is
not yet finished, we forbear from any recapitulation of the facts
in this case ; and shall at present state generally that the grounds
upon which the will is opposed on behalf of the Crown are—the
presumed incompetency and unsound mind of the testator, at
the time of its execution ; and the imputed undue influence
exercised by the parties proponent• in obtaining it. The de-
ceased appears to have amassed a fortune of about 16,0001.,
and to have converted this property in the year 1817, when
he retired to the Continent, into an annuity of between 1,0001.
and 1,1001. a year. He is supposed to have died possessed of
about 3,0001. in realty and personalty. His death took place
in May, 1819. A considerable mass of evidence has been
adduced, consisting of commercial and other letters, and checks
in the Bank of England, in the hand-writing of the deceased,
for the purpose of proving his perfect mental capability in and
about the time of executing the last will and testament. In
the correspondence there are, however, other letters, which, to
judge from the opening of his Majesty's Advocate, lit is in-
tended to rely on, with a view of establishing a case of mental
imbecility against the deceased at that and former periods.
The evidence went generally to show that the deceased was a
man of restive and liberal habits, a bachelor, having no chil-
dren, and residing, when in London, mostly at the Horns'
Tavern, Doctors' Commons, and always warmly attached to
the two parties in this cause, who were his old and personal
friends. The argument will be resumed next Court day.
[Should the intestacy of the deceased be established by the
sentence of the Court, the Crown, there being no relatives in
existence capable of taking the property in distribution, will suc-
ceed in this case also.]
LAURENCE, ATTORNEY OF THOMAS, V. MAUD AND