The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-17 00:00:00

LENT ASSIZES.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—CAAIRRIDGE, MARCH 11.
DOE, ON TI DEMISE OF SEWELL, GENT., ONE, &Ce,AGAINST
ANNE GARFORD, EKINS AND WIFE, SMITH AND WIFE,

AND HART AND wirE.

Sir JAMES SCARLETT (with whom were Mr. RO-
BINSON and Mr. F. KELLY) stated the case for the
lessor of the plaintiff. This was an action of eject-
ment brought by Mr. Sewell, a respeetablo attorney
residing at Chatteris, for the recovery of a black-
smith's shop, and some copyhold lands. The defend-
ants were the widow and co-heir of Garford, the tes-
tor. The testatorwas a gentleman who resided at Dod-
dington, in this county—an illiterate man, but with suf-
ficient shrewdness to conduct the affairs of life,and who
was never once suspected of not possessing perfect
competency of mind to make a will, till some par-
ties, after his death, thought proper to spread that
false and malicious report. He was a farmer, and
possessed of an estate which the widow enjoys for
life, of 1201. a year, besides the blacksmith's shop,
and some land of about 25/. a year, the subject of
the present dispute. His wife had some relations
named Favargue. As long ago as 1812, Garford
made a will, by which he bequeathed the whole of
his estates to trustees, for the benefit of his wife for
her life, with a limitation over to her relations. He
also bequeathed 1/. a week to his brother for life,
which was reduced to 10s. by a codicil of 1817.
In 1827, being attacked with illness, he sent for
Mr. Sewell; but that gentleman being occupied,
sent his clerk, who, by the desire of the testator,
made some slight alterations, but still excluded the
whole of his own relations. The brother to whom
he left the 10s. was now dead ; and he seemed to
have no concern whatever for his own family. The
three defendants, Ekins, Hart, and Smith, were
children of his brother. Towards the Harts he enter-
tained some slight affection, but his opportunities of
seeing them were rendered very 'infrequent by the
interposition of his wife ; and \Olen he had recovered
from his illness, he thought he had not acted uo flinch

apart from his wife as he ought to have done.
Sewell had long been known to testator, who was
in the habit of applying to him frequently for advice,
and towards that gentleman the testator had always
a great feeling of gratitude. In 1827, when the
second codicil was made, he expressed a wish to one
of the witnesses who witnessed the will, to make
some alterations in it. This man was in habits of
intimacy with the wife and the Favargues ; and was
sent by Garford to Sewell to request him to make
the will afresh. Sewell being unwell, sent his clerk,
to whom, in the hearing of this witness, the testator gave
instructions for making the will, the witness (Hall)
making several suggestions. Garford stated that he
would not then say who should•have the residue of his
estates, but would go to Chatteris and there state it.
He did not go till August, and then the original
minutes of instructions had been lost. Garford then
expressed his desire that a will should be made, and
for the first time intimated his wish to do something
for his own family and Sewell. Sewell said he
would not take the instructions, as he was to be the
object of the testator's bounty, and his clerk
(Howell) took them. By this will he bequeathed
his house and home-stall to his wife, and charged
other parts of the estates with the payment of 20/.
a-year to her for life, and after charging other parts
with 100/. to one of the Favargues, and 600/. to the
Harts, he bequeathed the residue of his estate to
Mr. Sewell. The real question was,—did they
conceive the testator competent to make this will
when he made it in favour. of Mr. Sewell ? Did he
know what he was doing, and wish to do as he had
;lone ? If he did, however unjust or capricious it
may seem, though they would not have made it, still
they cannot deprive the testator of the right he had
to leave his property to whom he pleased, ar.d their
verdict must be for the plaintiff.

An immense body of witnesses then gave evi-
dence of general competency, their belief that he
understood perfectly what he was about, and that
they never heard before his death a word breathed
to the contrary, though they had since. One said
" he was not so cunning as a lawyer, but he was no
fool for all that."

Mr. Sergeant STORKS, for the defendants, ad-
duced an equal body of counter-evidence to the effect
that the old man was decidedly incapable of making
or even comprehending a will when made.
The Jury, after some consultation, foxed for the
defendants, thus setting aside the will.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—STAFFORD, I%lAncli 15,

On Thursday last the Commission was opened
here by Mr. Justice PARK and Mr. Baron VAUGHAN.
The calendar contains the names of 105 prisoners,
although last week no less than 04 were disposed
of at an adjourned Sessions. Forty-five causes
were entered for trial, but those hitherto tried have
been entirely destitute of any public interest.
Ann Bailey was indicted, on the inquisition of the
Coroner, charged with the murder of her bastard
child.

The Jury then, by direction of his Lordship, re-
turned a verdict of Not Guilty.
The prisoner, in person and intellect, exhibited a
miserable instance of squalid destitution.