The Sun.
London, England, 1838-12-19 00:00:00

LAW-1N TELLIoECE.

COURT OF C--um.-
HANCERY, Dao. 18.
IN THE MATTER OF JEPSON, AN ALLEGED LUNATIC.
An application was made a short time since for a new
commission to inquire into the state of mind of Mr. Jepson,
on the ground that the Jury had not come to a satisfactory
conclusion in a former inquiry, and that there was sufficient
evidence, corroborated by intermediate termediate acts, to lead to the
conviction that he is
capable of managing his own
affairs. His Lordship, after considerable discussion, thought
that a case had been made out to
lunaticjy to
osolrTe further in-
quiry, and directed the supposed
be examined by
a medical gentleman acquainted with cases of unacsoyie.ddedDtro.
Sutherland was accordingly applied to,arpdrehseenptrorec
Gloucester, where the alleged lunatic
huissn.ftder.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL this morning renewed his
plication, and. relied principally on the report of Dr. §-Pu-
therland of the interview he had with Mr. Jepson,
the direction of the Court. The Learned Gentleman hav-
ing read the report, proceeded to observe that it corn_
pletely justified the application for a new commission, when
coupled with the fact that the Jury on the former in-
quiry had not ventured to say that Mr. Jepson was capable
of managing himself or his affairs, but merely that he was
of sound mind.

Mr. STUART, on the same side, read affidavits.
Sir F. Pouocx and Mr. IticHAnns, on the other side,
maintained that the result of the finding of the Jury in
March last was conclusive with respect to Mr. Jepson's sa-
nity, and that the present proceedings were instituted by
Mr. Arthur Jepson from a desire to get possession of Mr.
John Jepson's property, which amounted to a sum of only
7,0001. The first inquiry had cost full 1,306/., and that,
too, without the production of any evidence in favour of
Mr. Jepson's insanity. A:second inquiry would probably
cost twice as much, and it was a matter of very grave
consideration whether the Court, in such a doubtful case,
would be justified in inflicting such a ruinous expense on the
estate, particularly when it was proved that th,-! property of
Mr. Jepson was under the protection of Mr. Maynard,

Colchester, Mr. Phillpotts, and Mr. \lizard, who were
his trustees, and whose affidavits spoke confidently of his
sanity after an acquaintance of a number of years. Mr.
Jepson, since the inquiry in March, had married a lady of
irreproachable character ; he was moving with her in
highly respectable society ; he enjoyed all the comfort and
protection which his fortune entitled him to expect, and
much more than he could possibly obtain if a verdict of a
Jury confined him under the sanction of the Court to the
precincts of a madhouse.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied, and contendedth at
the trustees who had been managing the property were
deeply interest in the result of the inquiry.
The LORD CHANCELLOR asked for the terms of the
settlement made on the marriage of Mr. Jepson.
Sir F. PoLLocx said that the parties were quite willing
to produce that settlement, and all other documents con-
nected with the property.
His LORDSHIP directed them to be produced, and took
time to look into the affidavits before he gave an opinion on
the petition.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH—DEC. 18.
SANDYS V SANDYS, BART.
This was a proceeding adopted with a view to try the
question whether the right to present to certain fellowships
and scholarships in Peterhouse College Cambridge, was in
the plaintiff or the defendant. Sandys, Archbishop of Yotk,
who died in 1585, established these fellowships and scho-
larships, and the College itself has an alternate right of
presentation with the family of the founder. The plaintiff,
who now practices as a surgeon at Kentish-town, claimed
as the representative of the third son of the Archbishop,
and it was alleged that the defendant claimed only as the
representative of the fourth son. The plaintiff made out
his case, and the defendant's Counsel then stated that they
were not at present prepared to contradict, in consequence
of which a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to a
motion on several objections taken in the course of the
evidence.