The Sun.
London, England, 1821-08-02 00:00:00

son, the nephew of the testator. The due exe-
cution of the instrument would appear by the
evidence of the subscribing witnesses, and that
proof would bring the Court to the brief and
final question in the cause. The will, as ori-
ginally executed, had borne a seal ; that seal,
by time or accident, was now torn off, or other-
wise destroyed ; and the defendant meant to
contend that the seal had been torn off, as a mode
of cancelment, by the testator. In answer to
that allegation, the Solicitor-General submitted,
that a seal was no necessary part of the legal
execution of a will ; and it would be shown by
the evidence called for the plaintiff, that the loss
of the seal must have occurred subsequent to the
death of the testator, and subsequent to the proof
of the will in the Court of Doctors' Commons.
Mr. Joshua Evans, record-keeper of the Prerogative-office,
produced the will in question. It appeared to be the will of
Richard Atkinson, Esq. (of the firm of Muir and Atkinson) •
dated the 23d of December, 1782. One of the executors named,
was Sir Francis Baring, Bart ; the subscribing witnesses were
Messrs. Williams, Hawkins, and Sills.
Mr. W. Williams and Dr. Hawkins proved that they wit-
nessed the execution of the will. At the time of the execution
it had a seal.
Mr. C. Smith said, that the signature "J. Sills" (as sub-
scribing witness) was in the hand-writing of his late partner,
Mr. J. Sills. Mr. Sills was attorney to the testator, Mr. At-
kinson.

-....,-...
The will was then put in.
(It had evidently borne a seal, and the seal had been torn
out; a portion of two sheets being torn away with it.)
Mr. Gwinnett and Mr. Ellis (both of the Prerogative-office)
were clearly of opinion that the seal had been lost subsequent
to the proof of the will in the Commons. No will presented in
such imperfect state would be permitted to be proved without
an affidavit accounting satisfactorily for the mutilation. It was
extremely possible that the will might have been torn subse-
quent to its being lodged in the Prerogative-office : it might
have been torn by any stranger inspecting it. That could not
be easily done at the present day, because it was now the cus-
tom to give inspection in a private office, in the immediate
view of an accredited officer ; but, formerly, the practice was
to carry the wills into the great room, where as many as 200
persons were frequently collected at the same time, and where,
of course, to attend to the conduct of every one was impracti-
cable. Mr. Gwinnett said that he had engrossed the will in
question subsequent to its proof in the office. The• copy
(which was before him) bore the letters L. S. Those letters
were an admission of the regularity of the will ; they were in
his iMr. Gwinnett's) hand-writing; and he certainly should
not have put them upon his copy if the seals had been torn oft',
or if any part of the instrument had been in a defaced or muti-
lated condition.
Mr. SCARLETT, for the defendant, conceded
the due execution of the will,and relied altogether
upon the subsequent cancelment. A seal formed
certainly no necessary part of a will ; but if a
man (either over' cautious or overwise) thought
that a seal was a needful part of his will, and:.(so
thinking) put a seal to his will; and then, after-
wards, tore off such seal -before his death ; then
in that case, the tearing off of the seal would
amount to a cancelment of the instrument. The
short question then would be—he begged to be
understood as imputing no fraud, nor any thing
like fraud, to any one ; but the question would
be—had the seal been torn off this will by the
testator, Mr. Atkinson, in his life-time ?or had
it, since his death, by time or accident, been
destroyed ?
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—Or by design ?

Mr. SCARLETT thought that it could scarcely
have happened by design. The learned gentle-
man cited the case of "Nesbit v. Nesbit," .itt
which the house of Lords had lately decided
that the wilful tearing off of a seal by a testator
amounted to cancelment of his will ; and conclud-
ed by stating various facts, which he proposed to
prove in evidence, and which were to destroy en-
tirely the effect of the testimony given by the
plaintiff's witnesses.
Mr. Kennett Thorpe was then called on the part of the de-
fendant. The whole evidence of this witness completely nega-
tived the instructions of counsel, and so completely tallied with
the case of the plaintiff, that Mr. Scarlett, after a few questions,
folded up his brief, and confessed that he could go no farther.
The Jury of course found a verdict for the
plaintiff, establishing the will.

CRIM. CON.
COYENEY versus YORSTON.

The Plaintiff, who some' time since kept the
0. P. and P. S. Chop House; in Russel-court,
Drury-lane, brought his action against the De-
fendant, a Law-stationer, in Mitre-court, Fleet-
street, to recover damages (which were laid at
1,0001.) for criminal conversation with his wife.
It appeared that the Defendant was in the habit
of attending the 0. P. and P. S. to pass his even-
ings, being fond of theatri.cal amusements, and
much in the habit of going to the Winter Theatres.
Such was the Defendant's liberality, that on one
occasion he gave a grand dinner to the principal
actors and their friends, at Mr. Coveney's. After
that dinner, a great deal of attention was paid by
him to Mr. Coveney's family, particularly to Mrs.
Coveney's sister, who assisted in the Bar. Mr.
Yorston was afterwards the constant companion
and professed friend of Mr. Coveney ; and he
finally, it was stated, took the advantage of the
absence of the Plaintiff to seduce Mrs. Coveney
from her duty. That lady, who was extremely
handsome, and once a votary of Thalia, kept the
bar, and her refinement of manners, and some-
thing peculiarly attractive, made a strong im-
pression on the Defendant, who soon evinced a
marked preference for her society. The Plain-
tiff, unfortunately for himself, but not mat a
propos for the defendant, became embarrassed,
and the defendant advanced him money.—
He was finally arrested, and whilst in confine-
ment the alleged criminal intimacy was supposed
to be carried on. The Lady, under pretence of
paying a visit to her relatives in the country,
went to Cray ford, in Kent, and put up at the
sign of the Bear and Staff. She had not been
more than a quarter of an hour in the house be-
fore the defendant drove up in his gig. He
inquired for his wife, and was conducted to the
Plaintiff's wife. They afterwards, it was alleged,
dined and slept in the same room together.
Mr. SCAR METT, ho was Counsel for the
plaintiff, called Edward Coveney, the brother of
the plaintiff. lie proved the marriage of his
brother with Miss Johnson; the present Mrs.