The Sun.
London, England, 1829-01-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLTOENnE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 13.
ILLEGAL DISIIRESS.-DUTTON V. MINUET.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, the pro-
prietor of a lodging house at Tunbridge Welk,
against the late Sheriff of. Kent, for illegally seizing
and selling furniture. The plaintiff complained that
being owner of certain goods in a dwelling-house,
called Bath House„ at -Tunbridge Wells, the Sheriff
entered and took those goods,without suit or pro-
cess, against tke said plaintiff.—The Jury found a
verdict for the plaintiff-Damages, 1911.

PREROGATIVE COURT, JAN. 13.
LANGFORD AGAINST DIABERLY.
This was an amicable suit to obtain the decision

of this Count on a question of considerable difficulty

and importance.
The deceased in the cause was Mr. William
Leader, of Putney-hill, and of Queen-square, echo
died the 13th of January, 1828, leaving a widow,
one son (then and still a minor), and four married
daughters, . His property was very large; the per-
sonalty amounted to nearly 300,000/., besides a real
estate worth about 100,0001. A will, dated in
1801, and a codicil, dated in 1817, had been revoked
by a subsequent will,
,regularly executed, bearing
date the 2d of August, of which probate was taken
shortly after the testator's death. The executors of
this will were now called upon to show .cause why
the probate should not be recalled, and other unexe-
cuted instruments propounded in the cause proved
instead of it. The deceaSed had secured to his four

daughter•, Mrs. Acland, ?sirs. Crofton,•Mrs. Luttrer,
and Mrs. Dashwood, by their marriage settlements,
10,000/._ a-piece, in trust for them and their
issue. To Mrs. Acland he gave by bond an ad-

ditional 10,000/. By the will of Atigust, 1826,
he bequeathed to his widow 1,5004 per annum,

and a legacy 'of 1000/. With tly house at Putney
and some land, or an additional 500/. per annum if
she chose to reside elsewherit:' To his daughters,
with the exception of Mrs. Acland, he left 10,000/.
each, on the same trusts as the marriage-settlements.
One of these daughters (Mrs. Crofton) had re-
married Captain Losack; and to her daughter by
this marriage (Miss Augusta Losack), who would

be unprovided -for by the terms of the marriage-set-
tlement, he left a legacy of 2,0001. After some
other legacies, the residue of the personal property,
and all the real estate, was bequeathed to the testa-

tor's son, John Temple Leader, when he arrived at
the age of 21, who was to have an allowance of
1,0001. a year till that period. By a codicil of the
same dute as the will, he directed that, in the event

of hi'§ son's death before he reached his majority,
the residue of the personal property, and all the real
estate, were to be equally divided between his four
daughters. The executors named in the will (with
legacies of 1,000/. each) were Mr. John Moberly,
Mr. E. T. Booth, Mr. John Masterman, and Mr.
Langford. In September, 1827, he became unwell
with a liver complaint. Wishing to make a new
disposition of his property, he had several inler-

. . -
views with his confidential . solicito:, Mr. Langford,
in December, to whom he gave instructions for an
altered will, wherein Mr. William Leader Maber
was substituted executor instead of his father;
the stun of 5,0001. was left to Mr. Arland, and the

same to his wife; the legacy of 2,0001. to Miss
Losack was increased to 5,0001., and the allowance to
the son, during his nonage, was advanced to 1,5001.
The residue, in the event of the son's decease, was
not to be divided amongst all the daughters, but Mrs.
Losack was to have 20,0001. and the real estate was
to go to the others. Some additional legacies were
also inserted. In the first draft the legacies to the
three daughters (excluding Mrs. Acland) were left
blank; and previous to the second draft the testator
declared to his solicitor that he had determined to
substitute bonds for the amount, to be paid by his
executors, and he directed that such instruments
should be prepared. He also stated that his part-
ner in a brewery, Mr. Attway, was about to pay
him 30,0001., which he intended to invest in the
funds, and to settle upon his daughters and their,
families by deed in the following proportion—ane-
sixth to Mrs. Losack and her children by Captain
Crofton ; one-sixth to the issue of her second mnr-
riage ; one-third to Mrs. Dashwood and her chil-
dren, and the remaining third to Mrs. Luttrell and
her issue; and in conformity to this arrangement,
the deceased directed the omission of the legacy in
the will to Miss Losack. The drafts of all these
instruments were eettied by Mr. Langford, and fully
approved by the deceased, when be saw him for the
last time on the 4th January. The deceased then
said he could not execute the papers, because
he had not vet received the 30,000/. from his
partner. He afterwards directed that a year
should be allowed for the payment of his capi-
tal in the distillery COI,,,CTD, and five years for the
payment of the capital he had in a glass-manu-
factory. The will was altered according to his
directions, and Mr. Langford being out of town, his
clerk attended the deceased, who approved of the
draught, but said that the execution might be de-
-1 layed till th-e return of Mr. Langford, and desired
the instruments might not be engrossed. The
clerk, however, perceiving the state of the de-
ceased's health, thought it prudent to get them en-
grossed. The deceased grew worse, Oa the 11 th
he was alarmingly ill ; on the 12th he was better ;
on the 13th he was evidently sinking, and having
asked Mr. Fisher, the medical attendant, if it was
the 17th of January (when the 30,0001. was to be
paid), the latter inquired if he had any thing to do.
The deceased replied he had some papers to sign.
Mr. Fisher said he had better not defer it. The de-
ceased observed, " I understand you ;" and called
for the papers at Mr. Langford's. The will was
brought to him ; he attempted to sit up, but was
unable; a pen was given to him, and he was lifted
up in the bed, but at the very instant he was about
to sign the paper, he expired. Under these circum-
stances, the Court was called upon to say what
instrument or instruments were entitled to he consi-
dered as the will of the deceased.
Dr. LVSHINGTON, on behalf of the executors
under the unexecuted will, contended that this was
a clear case of prevention of death, and it was the
rule of the law to give effect to instruments so de-
fective, unless some peculiar circumstances broke in
upon the rule. The two wills taken together will
carry those intentions into effect more nearly than
the other mode.
Sir J. Niemen thought there had been no pre-
cedent for taking two wills conjointly under such
circumstances,
Dr. LUSH/NGTON continued—Taking, then, the
tmexecuted will and the bonds together, the inten-
tions of the deceased might be nearly arrived at.
Dr. PICKARD followed on the same side.
The KING',S ADVOCATE, on behalf of the exe-
cutors under the first will, disputed the doctrine of
Dr, Lushtngton, as he understood it—that if the
Court, by decreeing probate of certain papers, did
not defeat the intention of the deceased, it was bound
to do so. The rule was the converse of this : it
was an affirmative, not a negative proposition.
Dr, PiunumonE was heard on the same side.
Sir J. iNitcHoLn, in giving sentence, observed,
that it was not passible to state an instance in which
execution of a will had been more clearly prevented
by act of God. The unexecuted will, under the
circumstances attending was as much the will of
the deceased as if he had signed it, and lived some
days afterwards. Throughout the whole transaction
the deceased had shown a decided adherence to the
arrangements he had made. It was clear that the
bonds constituted a part of those arrangements, and
it was as much his intention at the time of his
death to execute them as his will. If Miss Losack
had lost her legacy, the Court was sorry for it; but
neither this circumstance, nor that of Mrs Acland's
getting 5,000/. more than the, other daughters, af-
forded any reason why the Court should reject the
papers. Upon every view of the 'case, 'and after a
full consideration of a question in which property
of such extent was involved, as well as the interests
of a minor, the Court, governed by legal principles,
must pronounce for the papers now propounded, as
together containing the will of the deceased,