The Sun.
London, England, 1835-01-26 00:00:00

SCOTT V. BAKER.

The reading of the voluminous pleadings and the opening
of the plaintiff's case in this cause occupied the Court the
greater part of Thursday, and the whole of Friday and
Saturday. The outline of the facts was this :—A very old
single lady of the name of Anna Marshall, to whom the
plaintiff, Mrs. Scott, was niece, and one of her next-of-kin,
being very rich and of very penurious and miserly habits,
made her will in 1826, the last of nearly twenty testa-
mentary instruments, all executed in the course of a few
years, and by it, after giving some trifling legacies, she be-
queathed the residue of her property to the defendant,
Mr. Baker, who had for several years previously been her
confidential solicitor and only adviser. In one of her former
wills the plaintiff had been named her residuary legatee.
Upon her death the will of 1826, after much litigation con-
cerning her general competency to make a will, and the
peculiar circumstances of the case, was notwithstanding ad-
mitted to probate. Whereupon the present bill was filed
to have the defendant declared a trustee of the residue,
principally upon allegations of Miss Marshall's general im-
becility, and also upon imputations that she had fraudu-
lently been practised upon by Mr. Baker, whereby she had
been induced to leave him the bulk of her fortune in dis-
regard of her own relations.

Sir C. WETHERELL commented on the facts in proof.
After the plaintiff's case was closed,
His HoNona said it was not necessary to call on the de-
fandants to open their case. The bill contained a great
deal of observation on the mental weakness of Miss Mar-
shall, and in reading it he was struck with the superabun-
dance of charge of total incompetence to understand any-
thing she did. It alleged that the defendant was guilty of
fraud, imposition, deceit, and circumvention, in taking
undue and improper advantage of her mental imbecility,
and in purposely suppressing information, and deceiving her
as to the amount of her residuary estate. Such was the
general scope of the bill, but from beginning to end the thing
was done in as fair a manner as was possible ; there was no
fraudulent concealment, or withholding of any communica-
tion of the state of her property which she should have
had or required to have. She had merely given that va-
riable fund which she had given many times before. • His
opinion, therefore, was, that the plaintiffs failed in law,
because they had no facts to authorise the application of
the law. The bill must, therefore, be dismissed, and, con-
sidering that fraud had been imputed in the grossest man-
ner without foundation, it must be dismissed with costs.

ROLLS' COURT.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. BULLIN.

In this case Mr. Pemberton moved on Friday to have
the information taken off the file on the ground of irregu-
larity in the proceedings, in consequence of the omission of
naming a relator.
His HONOUR decided that no sufficient reason had been
shown for affirming the motion. The fact was, that for
several years past the same omission had occurred in every
information which had been filed ; and if the present appli-
cation were complied with, the result would be the render-
ing invalid every decree that had been made in such cases.
—Motion refused.

KNATCHBULL V. FEARHAM.

Mr. BICKERSTETH opened this case. It was a bill filed
by three of the members of the Knatchbull family against
the representatives of the late Rev. George Saer, one of the
trustees of the late Thomas Hawkins, Esq., to recover the
sum of 5,0004, of which they had be©n deprived through
a breach of trust on his part. In 1801 the late Thomas
Hawkins settled a fortune of 5,000/. on his daughter, then
on terms of marriage with the late Sir Edward Knatchbull ;
Sir Edward to have only a life interest in it, and then to go
to his children, if any. The sum was to be raised out of
Mr. Hawkins's estate. The trustees were Mr. Bradshaw
and the Rev. George Saer. It was provided in the marriage
settlement that the 5,000/. should be invested in freehold or
copyhold property, the term of which should not be under
fifty years, or in Government securities. There was another
clause in the deed which authorized the trustees to give Sir
Edward Knatchbull power over 2,000/. in the event of his
wishing to appropriate it in any particular way. The mar-
riage of Sir Edward with Miss Hawkins took place in No-
vember of the same year. In the same month the sum of
5,000/., in terms of the marriage settlement, was paid into
the bank of Messrs. Wright and Co., Henrietta-street, in
name of the trustees. In December following, Sir Edward
received, in two different sums, 3,387/. 45., which was laid
out in the purchase of two estates, and the remaining
1,612/. 16s. was invested in the Three per Cent. Consols.
Notice of this was given to Mr. Saer, who was in the county
of Durham at the time, and who concurred in the steps
which had been taken. In 1804 the trustees gave a power of
attorney to Messrs. Hoare to sell the stock, which was ac-
cordingly sold, and the amount paid to Sir Edward. The
trustees, it was true, were not personally benefitted by this ;
but it was in violation of the trust-deed, and was taking
away the property from the objects of the trust. He there-
fore contended that the representatives of the trustees them-
selves being both dead, were liable for the 5,000/., and their
estates must be made to pay the sum to his clients. The
issue of the late Sir Edward and Lady Knatchbull was ten
children, two of whom died in their infancy, and eight of
whom were still alive. Of these three were the plaintiffs,
and five were opposed to the action.
Sir. W. HORNE, for the defendants, contended that the
trustees never had it in their power to compel the payment
of the 5,000/. out of the estates of Mr. Hawkins ; but, in-
dependently of this fact, there was a clause in the trust
deed that the trustees should not be liable for a single
shilling of the 5,000/., which did not go into their own
pockets. It was not even pretended by the other side
that so much as a single shilling of the money had found
its way into their pockets. It had all gone to the Knatch-
bull family, the head of which was now in possession of
those very estates which had been purchased by the largest
part of the money in dispute.

It beinK four o'clock when Sir William concluded his
speech, the further hearing of the case and the decision
were deferred until this day.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

THE KING V. ROBERTS.

This was a warrant arising upon a quo warranto issued
against the defendant, and calling upon him to show by what
authority he held the office of Mayor of the borough of
Carnarvon. The return to the quo warranto set forth, in
substance, the creation of the borough into a town corpo-
rate in the reign of Edward I. ; and alleged that, by special
grant of the Crown, the Constable of the Castle of Car-
narvon was the Mayor of borough.
Mr. J. JERVIS, in support of the return, contended that
the defendant was properly Mayor of the borough.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, OR the other side, put the
case on the question whether the Marquis of Anglesey had
any right to appoint a deputy to the office of Mayor of the
borough, and contended that he had no such right.
The Court allowed the case to stand over.
THE KING V. FOLESHILL.

This was a question as to the manner in which a coal-
mine was to be rated—whether in the parish in which the
shaft by which the mine was worked happened to be
opened, or in the various parishes in which the snrface of
the ground was situated.
The Court had no doubt whatever that the mine ought
to be rated in all the parishes through which it extended,
and not in that alone where the shaft was situated.—Rating
confirmed.