Star.
London, England, 1830-07-21 00:00:00

LAW REPORTS.

PREROGATIVE COURT, Jots 20.
Before Sir JOHN NICHOL.

POLLOCK V. ALLIESON.
The Court was occupied the whole day in hearing the arguments
in this case, which was a suit to act aside the will of the lac, Rev.
John lifonkhouse, on the ground of insanity. The suit was insti-
tuted by the sister of the deceased, u next of kin, she being disin.
herited by the will, which gave the greater portion of the property
for the purpose of founding a school—the deceased imagining that a
school was the best means of effecting a reformation in his parish,
which he conceived to be very profligate.
The KING'S ADVOCATE and Dr. NICHOL were heard in sup-
port of the will, and Dr. Donsost addressed the Court on behalf of
the next of kin ; but, as the Court rose before the arguments were
concluded, we shall defer reporting the case until it again comes
before the Court.
ROLLS' COURT, Jot.: 20.
TAACTICE OF THE COURT.-80WE V. DARIN.

At the sitting of the Court this morning, Mr. COOPEIL requested ,
leave to mention this case to his Honour. On the 6th of the present
month the Court had dismissed the bill with costs, on the ground of
the great delay that had taken place in instituting the suit. The
motive the Learned Council had in view in mentioning the case was
to ascertain the precise pounds on which the Court had come to the
decision it had, as be (Mr. Cooper) was much afraid, in consequence
of what had occurred within the last 24 hours in another branch of
the Court, that the decision would often be referred to ass precedent.
The short facts of the ease were these :—The property claimed by
the bill is only a legacy of between 9001 and 3001. Extreme neg-
lect had taken place in bringing the suit to a hearing. The legacy
was left as !mg ago as 1799. The party, a married woman, de-
layed filing her bill for 16 years. Another 16 years elapsed before
the suit was brought to a hawing, no pro ..ings whatever taking
place in the interim. The learned counsel did not mention this to
the Court because be was instructed to prepare a Petition of Appeal,
but because be thought other grounds in the ease bad been
overlooked by the Court, and the present decision would
be looked upon as aleEedent in cases where similar delays had
taken place. Accord to the present state of the Lord Chan-
cellor's paper, if hislordship made the same progress hereafter as he
had done during the last six months, the petition of appeal would
come on to be bard somewhere about the beginning of the next
century ; therefore, during all that time, supposing the Lord Chan-
cellor's judicial and natural life to extend to that period, the deci-
sion in the present cue would be considered as a precedent. The
Court must be aware that a delay of fifteen years did not bar a
legacy. The delay of twenty years, accompanied with additional
circumstances, enabled the Court to presume payment of the legacy.
The only question now was, whether the delaying the suit for
fifteen years was a reason for dismissing the bill 1, The Court
was very much struck with the circumstances of the delay that
had taken place, and dismissed the bill with costs, without stating
its reasons for doing so. He (Mr. Cooper) had never beard of a
ease where the Court had dismissed the bill on the ground of delay.
He recollected a case where nine years elapsed before the cause came
on for hearing.
The 31Arr zit of the ROLLS had no precise recollection of the
case, but he had no doubt he should be of the same opinion if he
were to hear it again. It was not to be eoneidered that the delay of
fifteen years was an absolute bar, but all the circumstances of the
case must be taken into consideration. The Court never intended
to lay down any absolute rule.
The case therefore stands exactly as it did after the Court had
dismissed the bill.