The Sun.
London, England, 1829-01-24 00:00:00

OF LONDON.

Lord TENTERDEN delivered the opinion of the
Court in this case, which was argued at great length
in the course of the last Trinity Term. His Lord-
ship, from a written paper, recapitulated the princi-
pal facts. The case arose out of the election to the
office of Alderman to the Ward of Vintry, -in 1826.
The Court of Aldermen having refused to swear Mr.
Mr. Winchester into office, on the ground that he
had not been dilly elected, a writ of mandamus was
granted by the Court, and an issue having been taken
upon the return made to the writ, the case came on
for trial at the sittings after last Hilary Term, when
the several questions of law arising upon the case
were reserved for the opinion of the Court. The
facts disclosed upon the trial were these :—Mr.
Winchester, Mr. Edward Archer Wilde, and Mr.
Crooke, were the three candidates for the office
of Alderman, in November, 1826, and the majority
of the votes appearing at the conclusion of the
election to be in favour of Mr. Winchester, that
gentleman was declared to be duty elected.- On the
application of Mr. Wilde, a scrutiny afterwards took
place, when it appeared that Mr. ,Winchester had 30
votes and Mr. \Tilde 27. Mr. Wilde subsequently
petitioned the Court of Aldermen against the electioa,
and stated various objections to its validity, and the
Court having decided in favour of the petition, an
election de novo took place, when Mr. Wilde ob-
tained a majority of votes, and was declared duly
elected. Mr. Winchester, however, contended that
the second election was void, the Court of Aldermen
having no power to direct it; and .he therefore -ap-
plied to the Court of King's Bench for a mandamus
to compel them to swear him into office. Upon
the trial of the issue several questions were raised—
one as to the scrutiny, and the others as to the mode
in which the election had been conducted. The
first was a question of fact, and the others were
questions of law, arising under the Act of the 11th
George I. c. 18. The question as to the scrutiny
was, by consent, reserved for decision by arbitration,
and the questions of law were made the subject of the
special case for the opinion of .the Court. The
Court now decided in favour of Mr. Winchester on
all the points, and that gentleman, therefore, will be
entitled to a peremptory mandamus.

PREROGATIVE COURT, JAN. 23.
TYRELI, V. JENNER.

This was a quettion as to the admission of an
allegation responsive to the libel in a suit respecting
an alleged will of Dr. Jenncr, of Billericay, in Fe-
bruary last, leaving one son, a lunatic, and, two
grand-children. The will was dated in July, 1827,
and under it the bulk of the testator's personal pro-
perty, about 50,0001., devolved to Sir John Tyrell,
Bart., as residuary legatee and executor, whose sis-
ter the deceased had married. This will was op-
posed by the committee of the son, under direction
of the Court of Chancery, on the ground that it
had been improperly obtained from the deceased
when imbecile and under controul. The allegation
alleged a variety of circumstances tending to show
the imbecility, or rather insanity of the deceased,
such as dancing in• the open street (at the ago of
82); using a parasol as if it were a fiddle; con-
ducting himself in a manner unbecoming the cha-
racter of a clergyman ; drinking gin at public-houses
in company with his housekeeper; making use of
Most indelicate language, &c. Upon one occasion
he obtained permission to preach at Runwell church ;
he invited a number of persons from Billericay to
go thither wi h music to accompany the psalms, and
in his sermon used language so gross that the con-
gregation was disgusted.
Sir JOHN Nicnou. should admit the allegation
next Court day, referring it to Counsel, in the mean
while, to compress it still more if possible.
COLVIN AGAINST MASER AND OTHERS.

The KING% ADVOCATE opened this case on be-
half of Mr. David Colvin, who now, as executor,
propounded a will of the late Mr. John Farquhar,
of Fonthill, the letters of administration granted
to Mr. John Farquhar Fraser, nephew and one of
the next of kin of the deceased, granted as in a case
of intestacy in December, 1826, having been re-
called. The deceased died on the 6th of July,
1826, leaving seven nephews and nieces, the only
persons entitled to distribution. On the 7th of
March, 1514, he executed a will in India, nomi-
nating Mr. George Wilson, Dr. Fleming, Mr. Col-
vin, and others, his executors. A copy of this will,
under the seal of the Supreme Court at Calcutta,
was the paper now propounded. The nature of the
question before the Court, which involved a num-
ber of testamentary facts, rendered it necessary to
cite a variety of persons to see proceedings. Ap-
pearanees had been given by Mr. Harry Phillips, with
whom the deceased had had transactions relative to
the Fonthill estate; by Messrs. Mortimer, Lady
Pole, and other nephews and nieces; by all the poor
schoolmasters in Scotland; by the principal of the
Marischal College of Aberdeen, the University of St.
Andrew, the University of Glasgow, &c., all of
whom were parties interested under the will now pro-
pounded. The allegations put in by the executors
consisted of 28 articles, pleading the death of the de-
ceased at the age of 72, and his early history. They al-
leged that Mr.Farquhar was born at Kirkaldy ; that he
finished his education at the University of Aberdeen;
that he was originally intended for the medical pro-
fession,• hut in 1776, at the age o i 22, he entered
the East India Company's army, in the Bombay
service; was wounded ; and then went to Bengal ;
that he was attentive to basiness, and applied him-
self to mathematics and chemistry; that he became
agent to the Government for gunpowder; that by
parsimonious habits he amassed considerable pro-
perty; that he remitted money to Scotland to his
nephews and nieces, particularly to Mr. John
IFarquhar Fraser, to whom he allowed 5001. per
annum ; that shortly after the execution of the will
in question, which was in duplicate, he came to
England, and in 1816 joined the house of Bazett
and Co. ; that he entered into various speculations,
and experienced so many losses, that his property at
the period of his death did not exceed the amount
he brought from India; that he gave directions for
one copy of the will to be forwarded to England,
which was received by Mr. Colvin, and by him de-
livered to the deceased; that in 1816 be proceeded
to Aberdeen, and made inquiries on the subject of
promoting education there; that he expressed his
sorrow at the slight progress of his nephew, John F.
Fraser, in matheniatics, as he had wished to place
him in the army ; that he reduced the allowance to
Mr. Fraser to 4001., when the. latter said he would
have all or none, whereupon the deceased replied,
'"Very well, John, then you shall have none;" that
:'he was displeased with Mr. Fraser, particularly at his
;
giving out that be was to be his heir, which the de-

ceased declared he should .not be; that the deceased
told Mr. Colvin, that he left his property for the
promotion of education in Scotland; that the de-
ceased, when about to proceed to Paris, in company
with Mr. Phillips, called on Mr. Colvin, and brought
the will he had received from India, and wrote a
codicil thereto, devising an estate to his nephews,
the Mortimers, on condition that they took the name
of Ft.rquhar; that in 1822, he eptered into an en-
gagement to pin chase Fonthill, and upon being told,
in answer to his inquiry respecting the effect of the
statute of mortmain on a bequest to a corporate
body, that it would go to his heir-at-law, the de-
ceased said, " That for my heir-at-law—he is a va-
gabond in the back-settlements of America" (alltl-
in'g to the issue of his brother who went thither);
that upon receiving, whilst at Paris, a draught of a
will, made by Mr. Drake, the solicitor, and sent him
by Mr. Colvin, deceased said it was useless, as he
had two wills already, one of them in India ; that
op his return, Mr. Colvin told the deceased the co-
dicil trd.--. not valid, whereat, in 1823, he tore
the codicil in ti;‘? presence of Mr. Bazett, de-
siring him to tell 14:tvia9olvin) he had so done ;
that he afterwards was reconcile,' with him ; that
on the purchase of Fonthill, the deeeass:: executed
la codicil directing the disposal of the property. in
case he should die in possession of it, which instru-
ment *as deposited in the hands of Messrs. Bowles
and Chitty, of Shaftesbury, but he told Mr. Phil-
lips that he intended to sell Fonthill; that from
1822 to his death he had often declared he hied two
wills, and a copy was in the cabinet in hie sitting-
room; that the deceased was acquainted with Mr,
Hume, M.P., who, in 182.5, explained to him a plait
for the improvement of Marischal College, and asked
him to subscribe to it; that the deceased approved
of it, and requested Mr. Hume to call and see his
plan for the promotion of education in Scotland;
that in 1820 Mr. Hume brought him the plan of
the London University, and wished him to take 100
shares, telling him it was proposed to endow a pro-
fessorship, to be called the " Farquhar Professor-
ship ;" that the deceased;took four shares, but re-
fused to take more, as it would interfere with his
views regarding Aberdeen College; that on the
4th July, 1826 (the day before his death) the de-
ceased being informed by Mr. Phillips, who had
called to make final arrangements respecting the
Fonthill estates, that unless he made a codicil, his
will would only pass his personal property, pro-
mised to do so, adding that Mr. J. F. Fraser should
not have a sixpence more from him ; that Mr. Jas.
Mortimer had had too much, and that none of his
relations should be benefitted by his death ; that
for the last 12 months, the cabinet before men-
tioned had been left by the deceased unlocked and
his papers loose; that after his death several papers,
and an envelope bearing a superscription, "the will
and codicil of John Farquhar, Esq." were taken
possession of by Mr. J. F. Fraser and Mr. James
Mortimer and his wife, who had resided with the
deceased for soma time in the New-road, and had
access to his papers; that after the deceased's death,
the executor made search for the will sent from
India, Mr. and Mrs. Mortimer being desired to at-
tend the search, but refusing; that it was not found,
but had been destroyed, though not by the de-
ceased; that disputes arose respecting the adminis-
tration between Mr. Fraser and Mr. Mortimer, and
that Mrs. Mortimer declared to a witness named
Hurst, that John Farquhar Fraser was under great
obligations to her for that she had destroyed the
will.

An allegation had been put in on behalf of Mr.
John Farquhar Fraaer, consisting of 54, articles,
which contradicted various averments on the other
side in respect to the history of the deceased ; it
also alleged the amount of the personal property left
by the deceased to be under 600,000!. It alleged
that the deceased deposited the will he brought
from India with MesSrs. Whitbread and Co , in
which firm he became a partner; that this will he
afterwards cancelled; that he informed Mr. Alder-
man Wood that he had made a will in India, but
had destroyed it, and would die intestate ; that in
July, 1821, the deceased, dining at Mr. Whitbread's,
expressed great admiration of Mr. Clarkson, the
slave-trade abolitionist, and declared that he had left
him a legacy; that Mr. Colvin knew and had de-
clared that Mr. Farquhar had left no will, and thut
he intended to die intestate.

A further allegation on behalf of the executors,
set forth that a correspondence had taken 'place be-
tween the deceased and Mr. Wilson of Calcutta,
which was exhibited; that the deceased had de-
clared that Mr. Fraser should have nothing from him
but his education. It re-asserted certain facts stated
in the former allegation, and negatived 'certain
articles in Mr. Fraser's.
The KING'S ADVOCATE should contend that
the deceased had repeatedly recognized his will male
in India ; that as the copy brought to England had
by some means been destroyed, but not by the tes-
tator, or by his direction, the certified copy from Cal-
cutta ought to be admitted to probate.
The further hearing of the case was adjourned till
next Court day.