The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-11 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JU :V E 10.
MILLER V. TRAVERS.

The arguments in this matter, the particulars o
which we have formerly reported, were concluded,
and the judgment postponed.
WRIGHT v. TATHAM.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE of the Court of Com-
mon Pleas delivered the judgment in this case, which
hud been heard before them. The question in dis-
cuss:jun was whether a new trial should be granted
of an issue directed by the Court of Chancery, 'to
try whether the late Mr. Marsden, of Hornhycastle,
was of sound mind at the time he made a will by
which be bequeathed his estates to the plaintiff. The
first ground relied upon in support of the motion for
a new trial had been, that all the witnesses in whose
presence the will was executed had not been ex-
whined at the trial ; and the second point was, that
the verdict was not consistent with the evidence„
and therefore not satisfactory to the Court by which
it had been directed. Upon the first point, the
Court was of opinion that it was not necessary
that all the three witnesses should have been ex-
amined on the trial. With respect to the second
point, the Court considered that, under the circum-
stances of this case, the verdict of the Jury was as
satisfactory as those circumstances made it possible.
The defendant had, in the first instance, insisted that
upon the trial there was evidence of general incoms
petency on the part of Mr. Marsden, and that he
was not in such a state of mind as that any
will made by him could be a valid disposition of his
property to the exclusion of his heir-at-law ; and as
a second branch of this part of his case, the de-
fendant contended that the testator was a person
easily influenced by the authority of persons who
were about him ; that such authority was so exer-
cised in this instance as to amount to coercion ; and
that the will being executed while he was in such a
state, could not be supported. The Court was of
opinion that there was no sufficient evidence of
fraud or coercion on di? part of Mr. Wright. Tire
' general incompetency of the testator was, then, the
only remaining ground with which the Court had to
deal; and there were certain collateral facts in the
case which mainly influenced the opinion they were
about to pronounce, and these facts might be di-
vided into three classes. The first consisted of
his correspondence with various persons, the second
of his acts and conduct on several occasions, and
the third of the circumstances attending the prepa-
ration and execution of his will. The letters
had been said to have been written by dic-
tation of Wright; but this assertion remained
without proof. With respect to the acts performed
by the testator; he had executed twenty-three deeds,
between 1782 and 1819, and some of these were of
a very important kind, one of them being a mart-
gage of his estate for 27,0001., and others of a na-
ture in which the interests of others parties were
involved, and who would hardly have been content
to deal with him if there had then been any sus-
picion that he was not competent to the manage-
ment of his affairs. The will of the testator had
been prepared by Mr. Bleasden, a gentleman of
great skill in his profession, and who had at this time
retired from practice, though he had formerly been
Mr. Marsden's solicitor. He had before made three
other wills for him, the instructions for which were
given by the testator, and some of them were in his
Owl) handwriting. Considering, the weight and
bearing of these three heads of collateral evidence
upon the ease, the Court was of opinion that a new
trial ought not to be granted. The Court however
thought that the party making,this motion ought
not to be visited with costs.

COURT OF .KING'S BENCH, JuNF 10.
THE KING V. TIIE LORD MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF

LONDON.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL showed cause against
a rule obtained pn the part of Mr. Michael Sealei,
calling on tl e Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the
city of London to show cause why a writ of man-
damus should not issue, directed to them, to swear
Mr. Scales into the office of Alderman of the Ward
of PorteAten. The Learned Counsel said that the
rule had been obtained en an affulavit, which stated
that on a vacancy of Alderman of the Ward cit.
Portsoken, the Lord Mayor isined a precept for
.the election of an Alderman of that Ward; that an
election had taken place i that two persons, ot
whom Mr. Scales ,Avas one, were ca ndidates ; that
Mr. scales was returned, by a majority of votes, to
the Court of the Lord Mayor and 4ldertnen; that
he thereupon claimed to be sworn in, but that obe
jections were taken to his admission, and he had
not been sworn in. Mr. Sxales then set forth
in his affidavit certain acts of Common Coon.,
cif, and he also referred to the Act of the 11th
Geo. 1., which stated the particular mode of election
of an Alderman. It was enough to say that the acts
of Common Council recited that in former times
the cpttrse *as for four persons to be returned
by the Ward, aitd afterwards two ; and ,they
set forth 'the various modes of election, in which
the Court of the Lord MayOi an ti Aldermen had
exetelse.d in former times the same jurisdiction on
ti,a sulijeet of edinision, I.lr, Saelet also stated an