The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-25 00:00:00

TILAKESLEY V. WHIELDON.

Ms HONOUR. gave judgment in this cause. The bill
was tiled for the purpo4e of having it declared that the
pl'aintiff was entitled to a right of entry on certain coal
mines in the county of Warwick. The question turned
principally upon the covenants and agreements relating
ta 'the mines. His Honour made 'a decree for specific
performance of the agreement of the 6th of April, 1838,
and referred it to the Master to settle a conveyance fur
carrying ,the said agreement into effect. In settling
such conveyance the agreement into effect. In settling
uh coflveynncc the [uster was to give to the plaintiff
agent.the right ,to enter upon, the mines at
'rreasliabie tiinen, for the purpose of ascertaining what
orcqats was gotten or worked in each Year, the
)Pla,qrtn4ha.velil;.erty±tO state special circumstances.
of coStS was reserved, with liberty to apply.
*l-""' 4 •

.114 pys„jmilguient in this motion. It was
t1;1 ph twikriegq! to enlarge
,the time for
'Sap era 'cif the money due upou. a Mortgage, which; b'y.
vher:.,N,l4lter'* report of the .stli'at "Juty,lB4l; was -ap-
Poipreel!for tho 3th of January next. Two points were
Naiscd a 4 the bar( firpt, whether the time should be en-
laygedror,not secOndly, i plarged, whether it should
41140. i! the 'terms usually imposed on a mortgager in
sicji easel, or paying the interest due since the report.
lia ITOrtNr's opinion.- was, that the .time should be tn-
liyri,Silintsukon the terms of the mortgager paying the
friterest. hi the present state of the evidence, he would
nitre no Order which '*huld add a single shilling to
this it(l.6rtgage debt. Ire thought the plaintiffs were
not :justified' in playing fast and loose with
the defendants as they had done, and he would therefore
give no costs for that application. The interest which
had 'accrued up to the date of the report, must be paid,
but nothing at all must be added to the mortgage debt.

LITTLE V. GRE VILLE.

Ills Hosoun. gave liidgment in this cause. In this
case there was an application, first against Greville tbr
the payment of money into Court, and for the produc-
tioaof books .; secondly, against the other defendant for
tWappointment of a receiver of the general personal
estate, and also for the appointment of a receiver of the
rents and profits of some property belonging to Mr.
Payne, the deeds of which he had deposited as a security
for the sum of 6,0001., owing from him to the estate of
the testator.. The application against Greville, his
Honour said he had., already disposed of, namely, that
there should be a. receiver appointed ; as to the second
point, the plaintiff was a trustee under the will- of the
, testator, Mr. Priest, and had acted as such trustee
fur several years. It uppeared that he had afterwards
been discharged from being a trustee, and that Mr. Gre-
ville had been appointed in his place. Prima Acie, there-
fore, he bad -no interest at all in instituting this suit ;
but it was sail that, owing to his default in not call-
ing in the debts owing to the estate, that estate had suf-
fered very great loss, and that after he had ceased to be
a trustee, a person of the mime Burbidge had reco-
vered from him the sum of 4,0001. as a lien upon the very
property of which Mr. Payne was the owner. tinder
such circumstances he was clearly entitled to have a re-
ceiVer appointed to get in the debts of the estate,in order
to ascertain whether he was justly liable to the • payment
of thAt 4,0001. His Honour, after remarking at some
length upon the relative position and rights of the par-
•ties, decreed that a receiver should be appointed for the
general persotial estate, the Master to decide as to whe-
ther a legal mortgage bond executed; or to have
power:to settle one ; the costs of the application to be
costs in the cause.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Dec. 23.
GODEIER v. JONES.

Sir H. JENNEIL geve judginent in this case, the argu-
ment of whichevee heard in Trinity Term. The deceased
was Mrs. Harriet Lloyd, who died on the 25th of Sep-
tember, 13.'38, .at .the age of 90—an age at which very
extensive .capacity could not. fairly be expected. It was
uncertain whether she had ever been married, but she
had, at any rate, ontlived all her near relations, and the
existence of any relationship at all was disputed in the
cause. The deceased died possessed of property to the
amount of 10,0001., 6001. of which she gained under the
will of a Mr. _Howard. There were also 6001. in Long
Annuities, and 8001. in Exchequer bills ; but these were
given to Mr. Godrich in the lifetime of the testatrix. She
had made several wills. , The one in dispute was dated
on the 13th of February, 1836, to which were annexed
two codicils of the 13th of December, 1836, and the
other of the sth of September, 1838. By a will of 1832
her property was bequeathed to the family of the
,roneses, for whom she then entertained considerable
affection ; and by another . paper of the following year,
Mr. Pries Jones, whom; she called "her favourite ne-
phew," was made her principal legatee. To him she
toad given 5,0001. to enter into business. It was alleged
that his marriage in 1835, and his general conduct, alio-
eeted the 'affections of the deceased, and-that she entirely
dieearded him and his family. On the other side it was
set up that during the latter period of her life the testa-
trix was not of sound mind ; that in a weak and imbecile
state she was taken from her own cottage and lived
in the house of Mr. Godrich ; that an undue influence
we; exercised over her Inind, and that the will now
propounded was the result -of incapacity and control.
The evidence- proved the displeasure of the testatrix
at the conduct of Mr. Price Jones. She would not
see his wife, and she complained or his neglect. She
believed that at Christmas, 1835, he had
given her
This preyed upon her mind,
too much wine, and had
.obtained from her in that
state the sum of 2,09 0/.
against him. Sne had said that he had
and irritated her
Lteraapans:
.. disgusted" her, mid that he should not have any more
n for a
of ..her money. This laid the natural found •
.), bounty. In 1835 a foundation
art proved t
ohane•e in her testamental
actions in which she took an active
.:
of far the Court would have had
city the testatrix. So
validity of this paper
no diffleitlty in pronouncing for the ,
p rties, and was not
-but it had been repudiated by
all
^ aas propounded by
propounded, but the present paper was
that the testatrix
Mr. Godrich. It was shortly after this
went to the house of that gentleman.
For
him, it was
eat clear, and for his children, she entertained a
.
par-
tiality. But though Mr. -Godrich's conduct was
marked with kindness and attention to the deceased,
certain cot-
tages in inducing her to assign over
of
tages in Thistle-grove to him, in consideration_ c
board- and medical attendance for three years, he
This
laid himself
.open to suspicion and to censure. TPi.
brought the case to the February of 1836, in which
month the propounded will was said to be executed. In
it the bulk of the property was given to Mr. Godrich • and
his family. On his part the employment of Mr. Lane, a
perfect 'stranger to the deceased as the solicitor to pre-
pare; draw up, and attest the will, was a false step, and
-.demanded vigilance and caution in looking into the cir-
•eurasteneee of the transaction., Mr. Lane's manner of
'taking the instructions,. by putting leading questions, and
leaving; the acceirsed. to say nothing, was too unsatisfac-
tory Cleat the subsequent execution, the slow and dis-
tiner reading of the will by Lane, the publication of it by
the deceased, the - conversation respecting its contents,
the attestation. arid • testimony of a respectable school-
master who had' beett called in, and the balance of the
wholtieVidence together proved the capacity of the tes•
tatris, iia
--o.gennineness of the transaction, and the vali-
dity of the 'There was nothing to show any undue
influence over het land. by Mr. Godrich. There might
be. and there was a. fair and legitimate influence, but
there was no aPpearatrze of .control or. authority. But
still his conduct . had-in. sonic respects been faulty ; the
11-eignment,,f the cottages and• the transfer of L2OOl. of
'l'll rue Per Cent -ColigoN to him for her board and main-
. tenance for the-remainder-of her life in September, 1838,
oniiy three weelS, before her death, were suspicious cir-
emostances, Piecing Gridrieli in a less favourable posi-
tiwk before the,oAiit. throwing
. . , and a shadow of doubt
over
over - the- testimony of Lane. On the part of the
latter it did not amount to an absolute want of profes-
sional integrity, but there had boon an absence of that
prudence and caution which ought especially to distin-
guish the .
induct ef solicitors in transactions with
14,0111°,4, .1 an age and placed in such a position.
-,msseiefle,i , nduet, and that of Godrich himself,
__,.ef-7;eS vest • , . ass unsatisfactory, could not affect
_ ...-1.1/11.!w'WThrtit4 ill. Notwith •
,t V( ,
.the i V q..14),:i
',...i.....-,),oeheOle ce .is case were surrounded, the Court
' , was' bOettit „ . • .
w
t without hesitation, to pronounce
:.- r.: fee thef4lian ' . two subsequent codicils. Yet the
gi
t19•.,„,te was eti**. conduct .of Mr. Godrich had been
--, iee 'WO purposely refrain from giving costs
Such; teat..
e_ r- e r. • ''',-