The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-05 00:00:00

TREVIZANT V. FRAZER.

The Counsel in support of the petition in this cause,
and such Counsel as appeared for prirties who did not op-
pose it, were heard yesterday till the rising of the Court,
and the hearing of the Counsel in opposition was reserved
'for to-day.
The prayer of the petition was, that the petitioner, Mrs.
Mortimer, might be at liberty to file a bill, for the purpose
of establishing a certain written agreement with a parole
addition to it, or for-establishing that the, estate of her de-
ceased_ husband, George Mortinier, •of. whom she was exe-
cutrik; was-not liable lo,pat'd sum of 20,0061. to the estate
of 4-he 'late Mr. Farquhar ;"and that a Certain declaration
of her husband, admitting the'deht, 'might not be used as
evidence against his estate. The, bill: in this case was for
the administration of the estate of the late Mr. Farquhar,
of Fonthill Abbey, who, it will be recollected, died intes-
tate in 1826, leaving a personal estate exceeding 700,000/.
On his death, several next of kin, his nephews and nieces,
appeared. Of these, Mr. George Mortimer,' the peti-
tioner's late husband, who lived in Basinghall-street, was
the only one on terms of intimacy and friendship with Mr.
Farquhar ; and it appeared that Mr. Farqhuar had at va-
rious times, from 1821, given him considerable sums of
money, but particularly in April, ,1826, George Mortimer
received from that gentleman an order on the house of Ba-
zett and Co. for 20,000/., which was immediately paid by
a check on their bankers. About that time, Mrs. Morti-
mer now stated in her affidavit that she had had conversa-
tions with her husband, who was in delicate health, on the
subject of his pecuniary dealings with Mr. Farquhar, and
that she expressed to him her uneasiness lest, if Mr.
Farquhar should die without a will, there might be a dis-
pute between her husband and the other next of kin, whe-
ther the advances of money Mr. Mortimer had received
were loans or gifts. She, therefore, urged him to apply
to Mr. Farquhar on the subject. He did so, and the re-
sult was that Mr. Farquhar wrote and sent him the follow-
ing letter :
" Church-street, April 30, 1826.

" DEAR GEORGE,—To relieve your anxiety concerning
monies, I tell you that all sums of money you have ever re
ceived from me are gifts, and not loans. This, I think, ought
to satisfy your lady, and convince her I am doing a great deal
for the benefit of your family, as I have always told her.-1
remain, yours truly, 4, JAMES FARQUHAR."
The July following, Mr. Farquhar died intestate, and
Mr. Farquhar Frazer, a Barrister, one of the next of kin,
commenced a very active inquiry touching his Estate, and
ascertained the amount of his advances to Mr. George Mor-
timer. It was stated in Mrs. Mortimer's affidavit that her
husband was at that tirnein a very precarious state of health,
having suffered from a paralytic stroke ; and she also stated
that Mr. Frazer used continually to call at his house in
Basinghall-street, and harass him on the subject of the ad-
vance of monies, urging him to admit they had been loans
and not gifts. And in the course of these conversations she
said Mr. Frazer used to threaten her husband he should
never get a conveyance of Fonthill Abbey, which he had,
purchased from Mr. Farquhar for 19,7001., of which
18,0001. was due at Mr. Farquhar's death. However, these
means did not succeed in obtaining the desired acknowledg-
ment from Mr. Mortimer. Meantime a caveat had been
entered by others of the next of kin against the grant of
letters of administration, and some negotiations on the
subject of the administration, in which Mr. Frazer was
particularly active, took place, and it was stated that Mr.
Frazer, without the consent of Mr. Mortimer, desired his
proctor to prepare a draft declaration that 20,0001. had
been 'advanced by the intestate to Mr. Mortimer, who con-
tended that it was a gif', but that the next of kin contended
that it was a loan. Mr. Frazer had then several communi-
cations with Mr. Mortimer, in which he proposed that him-
self and Mr. Mortimer, and his brother Mr. James Mor-
timer, should take out administration, with the consent of the
other next of kin, if Mr. Mortimer would admit the loan of
the 20,000/. ; and at the same time he alleged as a fact,
that Mr. Farophar had told his partner, Mr. Colvin, the
20,000/. was merely a loan, and he induced some others of
the next of kin to call on Mr. Mortimer, and inform him
they would not withdraw the caveat and assent to his joint
appointment with Mr. Frazer and his brother, unless upon
the terms of his recognising the loan. It was also expressly
sworn that Mr. Frazer told Mrs. Mortimer, in the presence
of Mr, James Mortimer and Mr. Aitkin, the husband of
another of the next of kin, that if he would consent to repay
the 20,000/. no demand would ever be made upon him by
any of the next of kin in respect of any other sums he had
received. Mr. Mortimer, being in very indifferent health,
and anxious to save his family from litigation, at length
consented to these terms ; and in December, 1826, Mr.
Frazer called on Mr. Mortimer, and induced him to
accompany him to the office of Mr. Gale, a solicitor, in
Basinghall-street, who lived opposite his house,. but who
had never been employed by Mr. Mortimer. Mr. Frazer
then instructed that gentleman to prepare the agreement.
The agreement as prepared by Mr. Gale stated the con-
tention, whether the 20;0001. was a loan or a gift ; and
that, to prevent any dispute, Mr. Mortimer consented to
treat it as a loan, provided the next of kin would give him
time for the payment of it by instalments, and the next of
kin engaged to complete the title to Fonthill. But this
arrangement was not to prejudice Mr. Mortimer's right as
one of the next of kin. This instrument was read to Mr.
Mortimer, who objected that it did not contain any under-
taking that no other claim should be made. Whereupon
it was sworn that Mr. Frazer, in the presence of Mr.
James Mortimer, and of Mr.. Lumsden and Mr. Aitkin,
the husbands of two of the next of kin, stated that was en-
tirely unnecessary, inasmuch as it was fully agreed if Mr.
Mortimer would sign such a paper no further claim should
be made, and that administration should be granted to the
three in the manner already mentioned. Accordingly, upon
this representation, the agreement was signed by all the
parties. "Mr. Frazer immediately afterwards called on the
proctor, and desired him to change the draft declaration of
goods, and to enter it in the 20,000/. as a debt due from
Mr. Mortimer ; and he' induced Mr. 'Mortimer to
depose to its truth under the impression that • it.
was necessary for obtaining the joint letters of .admi-
nistration, Shortly afterwards there appeared . to be
some difficulty in procuring the necessary security fur
Mr: James Mortimer : and Mr. Mortimer was in-
duced to forego joining in the administration by some
arrangement with Mr. Frazer and Mr. James Mor-
timer, both of whom renounced sonic claim relative to
Fonthill, which they made as heirs-at-law of Mr. Farquhar ;
and in consequence, on the 16th December, 1826, Mr.
Frazer alone obtained the letters of administration. Soon
'after Mr. Trezevant and his wife, another of the next of
kin, arrived from America, and, as was alleged in the affi-
davit of Mrs. Mortimer, they assented to the arrangements
respecting Mr; Mortimer as soon as they were told of them.
However, Mr. Frazer, and some other; of the next of kin,
id violation of the contract, determined to institute a suit
nominally for the • administration of the estate of Mr. Far.
qnhar, but in reality for the purpose of endeavouring to
obtain from Mr. Mortimer what lie had received during
Mr. Farquhar's lifetime, and the better to conceal the real
object under the colour of an amicable suit, it was managed
that Mr. Trezevant and his wife should be plaintiffs, and
that all the other next of kin should be defendants without
discrimination ; nor did the bill contain the slightest re-
fereneo tq the peculiar case of Mr. MortiMer, which was,
therefore, left quite netegehe4 y his Ruswer, The bill
was filed in July, 1829, and in March, 1830, an orAinary
decree was taken. without any special directions whatever.
However, in the course of working the decree, Mr. Trezevant
with the assistance of FFFpri curied in a charge by
arliich, after imputing forgery and frapd f. 44 'Rtfr.
they churged him with the receipt of 97,0001.-ana More, and
with respect to -which they proposed to *Mine hill). In
May, 1.831, Mr.Mortimdpiit in bid etomirt4tion, itt which,
after deposing to the circumstances under which he was in-
duced to enter into the agreement, he affirmed that all the
sums stated to be loans were in fact gifts, and that he only
oved the 18,1900/.! part of the purchase money. Upon this
the same pafties.prnduee"d an amended state of facts, which
inclusive of the 20,001., amounted 0n1if0.75;060/.., .and
the they wept ink evidenge,to Ripped their stalereeet,Of
facts. Mrs. Mortimer, whose huslaarid was then dead, en-
terea, also into evidence as to all, theitems of charge wept

. ;