The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-17 00:00:00

JUDGMENT.-ARCHER V. SLATER.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this case,
which was argued before his Honour shortly before the
recess. The bill was filed for the purpose of removing
out of the way of the plaintiff a decree, which had been
made at the Roils, in the cause of Dickens v. Surridge,
which, as his Honour understood the case, unless removed
would prevent the plaintifffrom obtaining the relief which he
sought by the present Bill, that Bill being filed as an
original one for the purpose of setting aside the decree on
the ground of fraud. The question, therefore, that the
Court had to consider was whether there was sufficient in
the case to support that fraud which was alleged by the
Wakefield,So me
years back, a person
who was seized in
bill. The short outline of the history of the case was
nto a tehde
Thomasfollowing
effect:—Some ct
:
fee of some freeholds and copyholds in two
manors. by will devised those tenements to his wife
Mary Wakefield, for her life, and after her death to
his (laughter. The daughter died shortly after the tes-
tatlr, and Mary Wakefield entered into possession of the
property. Upon her death it descended to Ann Wake-
fit id, the alleged testatrix, and who dying, as it was as-
serted by the plaintiff, intestate, the reversion in fee of the
freehold and copyhold descended to thorn. Ann Wake-
field, however, made A will, by which she devised the
estates in question to two persons, named Archer, the
wheelwright, and Thomas Surridge, upon certain trusts.
In the month of February, 1821, the copyholds were put
up to auction, the present plaintiff being at that time a
minor, and in a state of great poverty ; but some notice was
given in his behalf, that the sale would be disputed, as he was
the heir at law to tho property. His Honour having
stated this much of the general outline of the case, would
shortly advert to some of the statements in the plaintiff's
bill. In that Bill it was stated that the plaintiff had lately
discovered that the will of Ann Wakefield was not a valid
will; that the decree of the Court, establishing it, had
been fraudulently obtained; that Ann Wakefield was an
idiot at the time of executing the will, and therefore in-
competent to make it ; and, lastly, that she had been
induced to execute the paper writing called her will at the
instance and through the contrivance of John Archer, the
wheelwright, and Thomas Surridge. It was then stated
that shortly after the decree was pronounced, a treaty was
entered into to sell the copyheld property to Gabriel
Slater, and that since the plaintiff had become ac-
quainted with his rights he had applied to Slater and the
other pal ties to give up possession of the property, and then
it was asserted that at the time the decree was obtained,
the will was not produced in Court; and then the bill
c,,ne:uded by praying that the decree might be set aside
on the ground of its being fraudulently and improperly ob-
tained. In this state of circumstances, it became the duty
of the Court to look strictly to the evidence that had been
given on both sides. His Honour had read the whole of
that evidence most carefully ; and upon it he felt no heti-
tal ion as to the judgment he ought to pronounce. With
respect to the fraud in obtaining the decree, it was plain
upon the face of the pleadings in the suit of Dickens and
Surridge, that that suit was instituted expressly to have
the wiit established, in consequence of the threats held out
by Wi!ii tin Archer that the sale would be disputed. The bill
answer in that case were in the common form, and the
.1,?, r, c was made on the Bth Dec. 1823, establishing the will.
\V,th respect to the assertion that Surridge had contrived
fraud, it was clear, if he had done so, it was gratuitous
on his part; he could have no object in doing so, because
alt the benefit he derived under the will was a legacy of
en guineas. Then it was said that the testatrix had been
ide to execute the will by the contrivance of Archer and
zitirriti4e ; there was no evidence to show that ; it was clear
that Surridge knew she was going to make a will, but that
was no evidence of contrivance on his part. In fact, the
hole aspect of the will furnished no ground for the frau-
.lulerit contrivance that was charged. Then it was said
that the suit had been fraudulently managed, because the
itnesees had not been cross-examined. With respect to
that, his Honour could not see of what use cross-examina-
tion would have been. The bill was filed for esta-
blishing the will, and the heir-at-law might have had
an issue at any time by asking for it. Then, as to the
conspiracy to obtain a fraudulent decree—a decree could not
obtained in that Court without the assistance of
counsel, and therefore, if it was fraudulently obtained they
must in some degree be implicated. Who were the
•out sel in the present case ? Mr. Lovett drew the bill ;
the present Lord Chancellor drew the answer ; and
\Lister Wingfield was the leading counsel for the heir-at-
Law ; and he, the Vice-Chancellor, could not but think
hat those Learned Gentlemen had done what they consi-
del e.l to he their duty. Then, with respect to the pro-
d.iction of the will in court, it appeared from the evidence of
g•entleman of the name of Muskett, who was in the Pre-
a-,,zativo Office, that an entry was made in the books there,
of art order to produce the will on the 1t th December. The
euie, however, was heard on the Bth ; it must, therefore,
b.• presumed that the intention was to produce the will.
I. is llonour, therefore, was of opinion that the fair ink-
r.,nce to be drawn from all these circumstances was, that
there Has no fraud committed in procuring the decree or
iilg the suit. Then with respect to the will having
::'en executed by a person of unsound mind, what was the
of that? Why, that some persons in the town
in which Ann Wakefield lived, and who casually saw her,
a-ta..,i.fertsal that she was an idiot, because she was deformed.
Tern ,:s to the attestation of the will, it was distinctly
th,,t; the three persons who witnessed the execution
gets: persons of character and integrity, and incapable
of doing what had been attributed to them. Upon the
•,c 11,1 e, therefore, his Honour was of opinion, from first to
14,1, that there was no foundation whatever for the present
stair; it had improperly imputed fraud, because it had im-
otted and not proved. it ; the bill must, therefore, be
snap!, dismissed 1f the plaintiff sued in forma pauperis ;
bus tt h
e did not, it must be dismissed with costs.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, APRIL 16.

COLLARD V. ALLISON.

wa3 an action tried before Lord DENMAN, at the
I„,t sivings at the Guildhall, in which a verdict had been
.rru fir the plaintiff. The action was brought by Mr.
(;„liar , the pianoforte maker, against Mr. Allison, also a
—nk•fore maker, for an infringement on the patent ob-
i by Mr. Stuart, for a new damper for square piano-
f t!F., of which Mr. Collard was the proprietor.
Sir W. FOLLETT applied this day for a rule either to set
thie verdict and enter a nonsuit, or for a new trial.
T..e gtcund of the application was that that which Mr.
S:u:irt claimed as a new invention was in fact no invention
all, lot had been perfectly welt known, and used in grand
p;do.,f,rtes long before, and that, therefore, he was not
ent:tlc.i to a patent, as it was merely an application of a
~i!-khown construction, in which there was nothing novel
%Itatever.— Rule granted.