The Sun.
London, England, 1824-06-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Jurrx 14.
LOCKE V. DENNER.

Sir jotiN Nrcirw. delivered his judgment in this case.—
The deceased was formerly married to a person named Clinch,
who, as a coachmaker, had amassed considerable property,
the whole of which, at his death, he bequeathed to her; she
resided many years at Farnbam, and was a very illiterate
woman ; in the year 1810 she married the Reverend Doctor
Locke, who was in embarrassed circumstances, and who
seemed both at and after the marriage to have had no other
object in view but the possession of her money ; she, how-
ever, had a marriage settlement executed, by which all
her property was placed in the hands of Trustees for her
use, except the sum of 3,0001. or 4,000!., which she gave
to her husband, thereby reserving the same power of disposing
of her property at her death, as if she should die a widow.—
Shortly after her marriage she made a will, by which she
devised all her property to her poor relations. On the 13th
June, 1811, she made another will, giving 5,000/. stock be-
tween her four brothers and two sisters, and the interest of
6,5001. to her husband, for life ; by a subsequent codicil
she revoked the bequest of the interest of 6,5001. to her
husband, and gave him, in lieu, a legacy of two thou-
sand pounds. In May 1816, she executed a will of quite
a different character, giving Doctor Locke all her pro-
perty,
and appointing him sole executor; on the 28th of May,
1819, she revoked the former wills and executed another,
by which her property went chiefly to her relations, as she
did not seem desirous that her property should go towards
the support of a young wife, if ever Dr. Locke should marry
again. In this will Mr. Denner was appointed executor, and in
opposition to it Dr. Locke put in a will, bearing date the 13th
of June, 1819, the very day before the death of the deceased,
in which he is appointed sole executor, with the whole of the
property, except a sew trifling legacies to her relations. Now
the question for the Court to decide was, as to the mode of
procuring the latter document, which was all written by Dr.
Locke, and signed by three of his servants, therefore a greater
burden of proof was necessarily thrown upon Dr. Locke, while
the other document of May, 1819, was signed by respectable
and disinterested persons. The Learned Judge read over a
great portion of the voluminous evidence, and commented upon
it as he proceeded. He observed, it was clear that Mrs. Locke
had been influenced to make some of the wills; and that in one
letter, written by her direction (as she was unable to write)
to her professional adviser, alluding to the will in favour of
her relations, she begged him not to let Dr. Locke know she
had executed such a document, for if he knew of it, he would
compel her to make one more in his favour. It also appeared
that the decased was in a very low state from the 4th of June,
1819, until her death, and that her capacity was too much im-
paired to execute a testamentary document only the day pre-
ceding her death. On the whole, the Learned Judge observed
that he could not help thinking that Dr. Locke had so con-
trived the transaction, as to give it every appearance of fraud ;
he therefore was bound to decree probate of the will of May
1819 to Mr. Denner, and to condemn Dr. Locke in the costs of
the suit.