The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-14 00:00:00

—I had never known the plaintiff before then. I saw
her on the- first day of the inquiry. Mr. Parry ap-
peared on the first and second day for my client, then
Mr. Petersdorff. On the 211Angmt the ea-:e on my part
of the promoters ha] b:,en cloyed, bat they hiked of
witnesses in reply. Tne proposal bad boo n inade in the
early part of the inquiry. That proposal had been made
on the part cf Mrs Cumming for the arrangement. That
was made by me e ithoat Mrs. Cumming', knowledge.
It was about the middle of the day on the 22a Sept. that
Mr. James made another proposal to Mr. Petertdorff.
That gentleman anal 1 saw Mrs. Cummings. Her friends
Mr. and Mrs. Hutchinson, took part in the discussion
with us. We saw the parties the next morning at the
Horns. Kennington. Mr. and Mrs. Hutchinson were pre-
sent. It was agreed between Mr. James and Mr. Pet,u-s-
-dorfr that this arrangement should be come to. I think
that on the morning of the 23d it was discussed by me
and Mr. and Mrs. Hutchinson, and then we applied to
Mrs. Cumming, and she authorised it. The arrange-
ment would have been made on the night of the 23d, but
that tho Commissioner wished to see the Lord Chancel-
lor on the subject. The matter was ratified next morn-
ing, in. presence of the Commissioner, Messrs. Peters-
xtf, James, and myself were also present, likewise Mts.
Cumming. She saw Mr. Petersiorff, for the purpose of
his explaining the reasons why he should not carry out
the arrangement.
Re-examined—ln the early part of the business I
made a proposal, which, however, they would not listen
to for a 'moment. I only did so because I thought she
was so ill that she could not lire through the inquiry.
She was in great tribulation, and showed the gr., atest
anxiety to get out. She would have consented to any-
thing in order to get out of confinement. Mr. Ince was
there, and took part in the proceedings.
Mr. Watson contended that the Question of the vali-
dity of the arrangement was not now open to discussion.
There was no evidence of any duress at the time the
arrangement was entered into.
Mr. Justice Eno was of a different opinion. The
plaintiff was brought, on the 223 September, from a
lunatic asylum, in the ordinary vr ty in which lunatics
were brought before a commissioner. On that night she
was allowed to go home. On the 23d she returned to
the same position as that in which she had originally
appeared. She was, therefore, a lunatic under confine-
ment in the presence of the jury when that arrangement
was made. _

Mr. WATSON then contended that the law as to duress
did not apply to a case where a party had executed a dead
by and under the advice of attorney and counsel. The
law of duress applied only to a deed executed by the
party where the obligee of a• bond or the releasee of
an estate, was put by the obligor, or the releasor into
restraint or custody, and by such means possession of
the deeds was obtained. AU the cases showed that
there was a distinction between duress and legal impri-
sonment. A deed was not avoided by the fact that it
was executed while the party executing it was under
legal imprisonment. It was only when the party was
under illegal imprisonment, and while in that situation
executed a deed, that that deed could be impeached.
But even when the imprisonment was illegal the deed
could not be impeached, if at the time of executing it
the party was attended by an attorney and solicitor. He
therefore contended that, as the plaintiff here was freely
communicating with her attorney and solicitor, the
could not now question the deed which, with their advice
and consent, she had executed.
Mr. Justice Eau,: was of a different opinion, and read
' a passage from Viner's Abridgement to the following
effect, that if a man is lawfully in prison, yet, if he
makes an agreement against his will, he may avoid it on
the ground of duress. He thought that the learned
counsel must address the jury on the facts.
Mr. WATSON accordingly did so, and contended that
there was in fact no pretence of duress that could
excuse the plaintiff from executing her agreement. She
was with her friends, aided by her counsel and attorney,
and in the presence of the commissioner who, under the
authority of the Lord Chancellor, was investigating
her condition, and who would not have allowed
her to be coerced into doing anything that was
impraper. The agreemert here was a perfectly
proper one. It gave the plaintiff all her property
fur life, with a power of appointment of one-third of it
after her death, and divided the remaining two-thirds
between her two daughters, persons to whom by all the
ties of natere she was bound to afford a provision. All
the property, such as jewels, &c., of which possession
had previously been taken, had been given up to the
plaintiff, and in every respect the defenants had per-
formed their part of the agreement. There was no pre-
tence, in equity or fairness, for the present claim of the
plaintiff to set aside what she had solemnly agreed to
perform.

•
Mr. Justice ERLE repealed the opinion he had before
expressed, and told the jury that an agreement derived
all its force from the mental consent of the party who
made it. It might be valid as to externals, and yet void
in law if the mind of the party making it had not gone
along with it when made. Where there was an appa-
rent consent and an apparent execution, still if it was
shown that it was obtained under duress, and not by the
free will of the p irty, the agreement would be void. his
Lordship, therefore, put this question to the jurors
vhether the plaintiff's apparent consent fi.r Mr. re-
tersdorfr to sign the agreement on her behalf was ob-
tained by die effect of the restraint sli6 was under, and
without the exercise of her free will ? If the arrange-'
ment had not been made the inquiry would have gone'
on. The jury was empanelled, and the plaintiff knew
that a verdict must be taken. If the jurors now thought
that the plaintiff had consented to this agreement with-
out any exercise of her free will, they would find for the
plaintiff ; if they thought she had consented of her own
free will they would find for the defendants. This ques-
tion was entirely for them.
The jury consulted for a few minutes, and then re-
turn( d a verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 13.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins in London, after Easter Term, before
Mr. Ju.,tice COLTMAT,T and Common Juries.)
VAT...LANCE AND ANOTHER r. THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Edwin James appeared for
the plaintiffs, and Mr. Petersdurff fhr the defendant.
The plaintiffs in this case had acted for a long period as
the attorneys fur the defendant, and the present action was
brought to recover, the plaintiffs' costs and charges for
conducting some Chancery proceedings for the defendant in
1811 and subsequently, and also for charges fur supplying
the Satirist and Age newspapers between April and Novein-
ber, 1811, and fur clerks' time and omnibus hire in taking
the newspapers to the Duke's residence. The charges fur
transacting the Chancery business of the defendaat were
proved to he flir and reasonable. Regarding the other
charges, amounting to about 121., there was no direct evi-
dence of authority given for them by the Duke, but it was
',roved that he had called once during the time that the pa-
,ers were supplied, and had four.d fault with the plaintiffs
for not sending the papers more regularly. It further ap-
peared that is 1813 a judge's order to tax the plaintiffs' bill
of costs ha,i been Whereupon the bill was taxed by the
Master, and in April, 1814, the Duke paid the balance found
due, and got a receipt. The charges for the newspapers had
at this time been incurred, and were not included in this
taxed bill. There were also other items for Chancery pro-
ceedings incurred subsequently to the date of the order of
taxation, and it was these chargel and those for the news-
papers, &c., which the plaintiffs sought to recover. The de-
fence set up was that the plaintiffs could not recover the
charges for newspapers, &c., not having included them in
the bill delivered at the time of taxation, and that the Chan-
cery charges ought also to. have been included in that bill,
as they were incurred during the time of the taxation. In
answer to this the plaintiffs said the Chancery charges were
not then incurred, and that the charges for newspapers, &c.,
were not properly items which could be submitted to taxa-
tion.
His Loinstur, in summing up, left it to the jury to say
whether they thought the course of business between the
Duke of Brunswick and the plaintiffs was such as to autho-
rise them to procure and send the newspapers as they had
(lone, and to render the Duke liable for the charges made.
With respect to the other items, it was proved that they were
fair and reasonable.
The jury, after an absence of two hours, found a verdict
for the plaintiffs—Damages, 8/. 15s.

SHERIFFS' COURT, May 13.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BuRCIIET,L. )
BARNES V. MOORE.
The plaintiff in this action is a surgeon at Thaxtod, Essex,
and the defendant a bricklayer at the same place. The
action was brought to recover the sum of 4/. Bs., fur medi-
cines supplied to the defendant's son.

The deiendant pleaded that he was not liable.
➢lr. PnENns, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that,
although the defendant had pleaded that he was not in-
debted, it was clear that he was, fur the son was a minor,
and resided in the same house with his father.

Mari• Turner, who had been in the plaintiff's service,
proved the delivery of bottles of medicine and boxes of pills
and ointment during a period of seven months.
Mr. ILiwKiss, fir the defendant, contended that there
was no evidence to go to the jury as to the quantity or value
of the medicines supplied, or that it exceeded 355., which
had been paid.

The tipsa-SitlawF thought there was evidence to go to
the jury, although it was not at all clear.
Mr. llAwitnts then addressed the jury, and said he would
prove, beyond all doubt, that the plaintiff had undertaken to
cure thel son for 255. ; besides which, he was surgeon to a
club to which the latter belonged.
Mr. PREYTIS said the son was not entitled to medical at-
tendance at the expense of the club, when his illness had
been brought on by his own imprudence.
The defendant's son was called, and admitted receiving the
medicines, but swore positively that he had bargained with
plaintiff to be cured for 255.
Samuel Cooper was called, and proved that he was the
first who asked plaintiff what his charge would be, and he
said 10s. or 12s. if the young man bad not been to any one
before, but, Vile had, it would be 11., or 255.
The father of the last witness swore that plaintiff had ad-
mitted to him that he had been employed by the son, and
not by the father, and that he had been paid 355., by in-
stalments.
The tricaxn-SnErtirr said, that to make a father liable for
the debts of his son, even for necessaries, it had been held by
Lord Teaterden that there must be a contract, express or
implied; but here there did not appear to be any evidence
that the defendant had any knowledge of the transaction.
The witnesses for the defendant had also sworn positively
that the agreement was made with the son for 255., but it
was singular that 355. 6d. should have been paid.
Verdict for the defendant.

RESSMARERS' AND MILLINERS' SOCIETY.—The
f
annual meeting
0- this society took place yeAerday, at
two o'clock, in the rooms of the Statistical Society,
.12,
St. James's-sqiittre. Lord Ashley presided on the occasion,
and the ruee,ting was more fashionably than numerously
attended.. From the report it Appeared that the receipts
during the past
1,817/. ; that 467 Year have been 1,8391., and the expenditure
persons have been provided with engage-
ments, and that
the general iosition of the charity is highly
satisfactory. Resolutions were proposed during the meet-
ing of the,usual character, and confirmatory of the society's
objects.

ELEVATION OF THE
VICAR OF BATTERSEA. TO THE
BISHOPRIC OF SODOR AND mAJ.T.—Yesterday a numerous
meeting of the principal inhabitants of the parish of Batter-
sea was held at the Infant School-room, for the purpose of
considering the best mode of expressing their regret at losing
their esteemed Vicar, the Hon. and Rev. R. Eden, by his
removal to the see of Sodor and Man. Resolutions expres
sive of the regret of the parishioners at the Vicar's leaving,
him
but congratulating Upon his elevation, were unanimously
carried, as was also a resolution, proposing that all Address
NA a service of plate be presented to lam