The Sun.
London, England, 1835-12-01 00:00:00

VICE CHANCERY.-JIIIS DAY.)

DENT V. BENNETT.
The further arguments in this case, which have already oc-
cupied several days, were resumed to-day. The case carne
before the Court upon a motion to dissolve an injunction
which had been obtained ex-park, restraining the defendant
from proceeding in an action at law for the purpose of oh'
taining the benefit of an agreement entered into between a,
gentleman, named Dent, and the defendant. The facts
,S 1
the case were shortly these : Mr. Dent, a gentleman low
years of age, residing at Winterton, in Lincolnshire, had been
in the habit of employing the defendant, who resided at Bar'
ton, as his medical attendant. On many occasions
Mr. Dent had expressed the great obligations he
was under to the defendant for the very skilful manner,
in which he had treated him, and in one instance he had sah's
he deserved 20,000/. Shortly after a very severe illness 01
Mr. Dent's, an agreement, as was alleged by the defendant/
was entered into between him and the defendant, to give t°
the latter within six months after his (Mr. Dent's death) the
sum of 25,0001., in consideration of his having saved his ,life,
and his future medical attendance. Upon the first day on
which this case came before his Honour, the agreement Was
not in Court, and the case was ordered to stand over, in order
that it might be produced. On its production it appeared°
have been written on one side of the half sheet of a letter, on
the other side of which was an address. The 'alleged agree"
ment bore date the 15th Sept., 1829, and with respect to it the
defendant, in his answer, stated that it was written on the 011
and was signed by the testator on the 15th. He also stated,
that in a conversation which he had had with the testator at his
his house on the 14th of September, that he should have no
objection to attend the testator in his medical capacity I.°l.
life, but he thought it would be better that an agreement
should be made between them for that purpose. To this Mr'
Dent said he had not the slightest objection, and desired the
defendant to draw up an agreement for that purpose. Mc'
Bennett then asked the testator for writing-paper, and tilnn
his replying that he had none in the house, the defendant sal"
that he had a letter in his pocket, part of which was 130`
written upon, and, perhaps, that would do to draw the agrees
meet on. To this Mr. Dent replied, that it would do as well
as the best paper in the world. The defendant (Bennett) then
drew up a rough draft of an agreement on part of the letter,
by which he was to receive twenty-five thousand pounds within
six months after the death of Mr. Dent. Upon this being
shown to the latter gentleman, he said that it would do Yeti
well. Mr. Bennett then copied it on another part of the let'
ter, and delivered it to the testator, who locked it up in his
desk, and desired the defendant to bring a witness to see It
signed, as he did not wish his lawyer, Mr. Brown of Barton/
or any of his family to know anything about it, and desired
the defendant to keep it a secret. On the next day kr.
Bennett brought a friend of his of the name of Crowder, lc°
had formerly carried on the business of a tailor, for the pot'
pose of witnessing the execution of the agreement by i‘P.'
Dent. After executing it, Mr. Dent banded it to the ote'
fendant who did not then sign it. Upon the defendant's
returning home, he was obliged to attend a patient who re-
sided some distance, and he therefore requested Mr. Crowder
to witness his signature to it on the next day, with which re"
quest the latter gentleman complied. The defendant a's°
stated in his answer, that he had attended Mr. Dent in
the year 1827, when he was attacked with a very serionst
illness, and but for his attentions he believed that Mr. Dena
could have died. Upon this occasion the testator expresso
the gratitude he felt for what had been done for him, and Se'
peasedly said that he deserved 20,0001. for his services. Mt.
Knight, on behalf of the Plaintiff, commented at consider'
able length, and with great ability on these statements in the,
defendant's answer, observing that it was evident, even ft° „"
the statements of the defendant himself, that the most int"
portant part of this extraordinary transaction had been kept
profound secret from the testator's legal adviser, his family)
and the whole world. The Learned Counsel contended that
the agreement had been obtained from the testator unolerj
undue influence, and without any valuable consideration, an
s
therefore that it was invalid in a Court of Equity. It hat
apparent from the whole conduct of the testator tlin
he never could have intended to confer so great a bei
nefit upon Mr. Bennett as the munificent gift of 25,000.
The defendant in his answer admitted that in the year 103
lie had applied to the testator for a loan of 1501. for the p
nrl
pose of finishing his son's medical education ; and so caret',
was Mr. Dent at that time to secure the repayment to him °'
that amount, that he refused to led him that money unless be
had the joint bond of the defendant, his son, and another re-
sponsible person. This was one of many circumstances that
might be adduced, which clearly showed that Mr. Dent, in'
stead of intending to confer so great a benefit on Mr. Bennett,
was extremely careful in all pecuniary transactions with hill
to adopt those means which would render him secure. P
the 25,0001. had been given by the testator to Mr. Bens
nett for his medical attendance upon him up to the tinse,
of his death, how came it that in the account books et
the defendant, the testator was charged fur journeys, after the
date of the agreement, in the same manner as he had been
previous to the execution. These, and the other circuni;
stances to which he had adverted, the Learned Counsel
submitted were strong facts to show that, if in fact the agoee-
ment was the agreement of Mr. Dent, it had been ob-
tained from him by undue influence. Upon the whole'
therefore, he submitted that the agreement, having been oly
tained under such circumstances, was totally inoperative; on
therefore, the Court would refuse to dissolve the injunction°i
restraining the proceedings in the action, for the purpose
obtaining the benefit of it.
Mr. BETHELL followed on the same side. The defend"
ant's answer Lever f of the most extraordinary Barr
of he had ever witnessed ; but the meat extraordinall,
of the whole was, and he thought that this would for ever
put his Learned Friend, Mr. Richards, to the binds'
that it was consistent with the professional honour of an bo;
nest and respectable surgeon to enter into such an agreementas the present. The defendant had stated that the testa
had expressed his gratitude to him for his attention to 111°
during his illness in 1827. Now what was the fact? WV,'
such were the penurious habits of the testator, that his Os";
citor and his nephew, on account of the defendant's bill in 0
years 1826 and 1827, amounting to upwards of 301.0 1.61
quested the defendent to send in a bill for 21. 10s., stating, ii
the same time, that they would take care he was paid the fn,
amount. Was it probable that a man of such penurious hab"f
—a man who would complain of paying the small amount (4)0
30/. for medical advice, would, without being asked, give `,
any medical man the enormous sum of 25,0001. The thin!
was utterly improbable. The Learned Counsel, after going
through the other circumstances of the case most elaborate
concluded by expressing his conviction that the Court WO
feel itself called upon to sustain the injunction.
Mr. BARBER, with whom was Mr. WIORAM and gf:
RICHARDS, appeared in opposition to the motion.
Mr. KNIGHT repied, and
His HONOUR immediately gave judgment. He could not ble,
express his surprise that any person who had the means of with,"
holding it, should allow such a case to appear before the pint
lie. Nothing, in his opinion, was more useless than allowing
the case to go to a Court of Law, because, in his opinion, 01
agreement was not wortn a farthing ; it was an agreelnenf
which, upon the face of it, advanced materially the interests 0_
the defendant, and was in fact a premium for the acceleratil
of the testator's death. On the whole, his Honour was;is
opinion that the motion must be dismissed, the result of sca"',l,
was that the defendant was restrained from proceeding vvi.
his action at law for the payment of the 25,0001.

( !Late in the evening His HoNoun gave leave for the i°;
formants to move on Friday next that the mortgage mo.licto
should not be lent to the Railway Company, but paid 01"
Court on account with the Accountant-General.

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

HORNE AND OTHERS V. BRAMBLE.
Mr. CRESWELL (with whom was Mr. JAavis) stated the_
case. It was an action brought by Messrs. Horne and Co.,
proprietors of the Nimrod coach, which plies between 1.4°1j;
don and Shrewsbury, to recover compensation from Thon3llo
Bramble, a servant of the plaintiffs, who was employed t
drive the coach. The defendant was in the habit of drill
the Nimrod about forty miles from London, and brine.
another coach up the same evening ; and its usual pace °
about nine and a half miles an hour. Although that Wage
rapid pace, it was one which ought to be kept up with perfe
safety, if the coach was driven in a steady and regular teal;
nor ; but the danger arose from the habit which- coachteed
sometimes had of stopping at some places, and then gallopill
furiously to make up their time. The defendant Bramble hag
considerable skill as a driver, but was somewhat intemPeritto,
in whipping his horses unnecessarily, and it appeared that °I,
the 29th March, 1834, the defendant was driving the eoacid
from Redburn to St. Alban's, when he met Mr.
Saunders, a fat mer of Redburn, and another person convrj°
towards him on horseback. It would be proved that the ue..o
fendant was at the time driving very furiously, that he was °Dt
the wrong side of the road, and before Mr. Saunders couldPci
out of his way, the leaders came against his horse, knock%
down horse and horseman, and for the injuries sustained
that occasion by Mr. Saunders, and for the loss of his bersj
which was killed, the proprietors were obliged to pay a statti-s
104/. The defendant was dismissed by the proprietors, :''‘
was subsequently taken into their service again, he havinto
agreed to pay 20s. per week out of his salary towards the cosj
incurred by his employers. Some after misconduct had oblig;
the proprietors to dismiss him, and the present action lie
brought to recover the amount of the expences incurred by t
plaintiff in consequence of the negligence of the defendant.„
William Saunders deposed to the furious driving of the hls
fondant on the day in question. Witness, and Dixon,
friend, were on their right side, and the defendant was on Iv .
wrong side, within about a yard and a half of the footfles
The coach was going at the rate of about fifteen 020 r
an hour. A coach passed about a quarter of an 's°
wl
e
previously, which was going at the rate of about nin,
soa
ten miles an hour. Witness was unable to follow et
upon the bank, and was about to cross to the et",;‘,
side of the road, when the leaders struck him. He was Pt"
70/. by the proprietors for the injury and loss of his horse.
Ernest Dixon corroborated this testimony.
Thomas Beauman, an innkeeper, of Redburn, rezollecti the