Star.
London, England, 1823-01-29 00:00:00

It was evident that a Mild might be living, thoughl
not born at the time of
sthe testator's death. Ue
should be glad to heat airy anthilvities chid whilat
COURT OF CHANCERY, JANUARY ea. • s would bear upon the question ledw far the gerierlti In-
BEER U. wAED—JUDGMENT.
a. 4eetion of the party had. been
scOnsickted ; for here
•
e was satisfied; that.s in the s mind theree
This case ha - been long in progress through the PI.-
roorts of Lew. It arose from the following cireuma could be but one meaning:X:l7o%lra however,
stances:— A person termed William Cotton had con-
must be bound by principles.
tutued ilea stem of lunacy from .1769 down to 1819,- • -COURT or Riteia'alatzepee, JANUARY, Rs.
when he ,lied. The person who was to take the ARCHER V. BAMPoRD. .
estate, in litigation after him was. disturbed in hie' This was.areaction on. a billsof exchange for £3OO
possessien by the next of kin of the predecessor,
who •of which the plaintiff was. are endorsee, and the
claimed on the ground that the lunatic was not the !defendant the acceptor. At the trial; which took
legitimate son of William Cotton, and that the-heirs I place at the last Sittings for Middlesex, it appeared
or Evelyn Rowland Cotton, who was the legitimate that this bilfwas given, with two others, Torthe pur-
offspring, were entitled. It apperwed frown the nume- chase of a mortgage on certain premises in Stafford-
rous proceedings which had taken place, that the shire, on part of which were copperas works, which
lunatic was the son of a William Cotton, win) was the defendant had been induced to make by false re-
the son of a Rowland Cotton, of an ancient and re- presentations, and which prcieed of little cra no value.
spectable 'family in Shropshire. This Wm. Cotton Evidence was also laid before the Jury to induce them.
married a woman named Rebecca Webster. Are- to believe that the plaintiff had taken the bill with a
gister produced sheaved a marriage to have been so- full knowledge of the whole transaction: but it ap•
lemnized in 1742. .The lunatic was proved to have peered that Arr. Bamford had never distinctly repu-
been baptized in 1740. It followed, if this were the dieted the contract, but had obtained possession of
first marriage, that he was illegitimate. It was, how. part of the premises, by.purchasing the interest of
ever, set up, that this was the second marriage ; be- a prior mortgagee, and still held them. Under these
cause, the first having been a secret one, the parents circumstances, the Lord Chief Justice thought that
Wished to remove doubts which attached to it, by the he could not say, in a Court of Law, that the consi-
second. There was a settlement made by the father deration had wholly failed, but that relief must be
in• 1746, in which time four children then living of sought in equity, and a verdict was accordingly
William Cotton, the father of the lunatic,were treated given for the plaintiff.
as legitimate. The verdict in a trial at law had, not- The SOLICITOR-GENERAL now moved for a Rule
Withstanding the last named circumstance, declared to shew capse why the verdict should not be set aside
the lunatic to be illegitimate. This verdict had occa- and a new trial had, on the ground that the defendant
sioned a motion before his Lordship for a new trial, had not taken possession on any legal title derived
and, under this motion, the proceedings which have from his bargain, bet as the assignee of a third per-
been of late reported to the Public took place. son, whose interest he had bought, and that there-
The LORD CHANCELLOR, after taking a review of fore he had received no benefit under the fraudulent
all the circumstances and pleadings, was of opinion contract, from which the bill had its origin.—The
that there must be a new trial. The former verdict Court granted a Rule to shew cause.
had determieed the illegitimacy of the lunatic, by TILE KING v. WILLIAM •AIEAD.
finding the marriage of 1742, and the baptism of the Tire SOLICITOR-GENERAL mentioned to the Court
lunatic in 1740. This issue slid not give enough con- that his affidavits in this case were informal, as they
sideration to the motives which might, by possibility, were not entitled in the cause. He wishedeliat they
have induced the parents to effect a secret marriage might continue on the file, but that he might be at
before that of 1742, to which the marriage of 174.2 liberty to send duplicates into the country, to be
was only intended to be an affair of public confirms- sworn under proper titles.. ,
lion. Certain it was that secret marriages -were at Mr. D. F. JONES said, he had no objection to this
that time vei y frequent. The settlement of 1746 had arrangement, but he thought it right to mention that
an air of forgiveness for some '
seemingly existing notice of bail had been given so late yesterday, that
defect in the circumstances of the marriages. Bet no opportunity had been afforded of investigating the
there the children were treated as legitimate. He responsibility of the proposed sureties.
would have it put to the Jury, on the new trial, to The-SOLICITOR-GENERAL consented that the justi-
say wire. her there might not have been a marriage tication of bail should be postponed till to-morroW•
pevioas to that of 1742, and whether the settlement earoAN V. WILSON, REYNOLDS V. WILSON, PRICE V.
.
of 1746. would not afford an inference that those .
ev ... itssets.
M
doubt; had heen cleared up, and ail the offences r. S-c-Aiiiii-T moved at once in these three eases
against the feelings and opinions of the testator and for rules to skew cause why the verdicts should not
the family done away. In directing the new trial, be set aside, and new trials granted. They were
he wordd also direct the Secretary of Lunatics toma icious prosecution G indictment
action's for the -1" - ' - • ' -f an
prodece all the papers and proceedings of every by the defendant against the plaintiffs
-and others,
kind in the Master's Offices without further older, charging them with conspiracy to effect the fraudu-
on the trial. e - -.' a' lent rettlovtil of goods distrained by him as landlord,
. Mr. WETHERELL asked if the trial should 'take Litman. on '
premises occupied by They were tried
place in the Court of Common P;eas ? . as undefended causes, and the Jury gave C4OO is
The Lome Cum:et:Leon said, no, it had better be the first; £l3O in the second, and £5O in the third,
tried in the Court of King's Bench ; and, in saying- by. seayeareamagea
Ile (Mr. Ssarlett) had been in-
that, he was anxious to obsei ve, that he had never structed to Sa - piii to y the Court to postpone these trials,
known a trial which was conducted widi more abi- on actount ..if the abscoce of Wm. S .°1 a
ea, 1, material,
lity than had been shewn by the Learned Judge who eisd indeed esseiniel witness for the defendant, whose •
tried the former issue. s residence he had been unable to discover. He thought
VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COUIZT,.ISNUARy 2a. it right to defer the application Until the causes came.
BASS V. TODD AND OTHERS. On fbt trial,'tvheit lie mane it in. full confidence of
This was a case in which a greet variety of parties success. Mr. Gurney, however, gave S 'very short
were interested, and many Coensel appeared. Lewes answer to the application, by producing the witness
a bill filed by the plaintiff, praying that'the defend- in Court; and the trial wait ordered to proceed. At
ants might be compelled to adhere to the agreeineut this time, no briefs had been prepared ; the Counsel,
entered into between* the rustles, and it also prayed therefore, did not appear, and no defence was made,.
an injunction to restrair the defendants from build- because 'the Attorney for the defendant relied on the'
in any house: contrary to the place 'aeeeed upon.— postponement of the trial. - Smith, the witness, was
In 1792 an agreement was entered into between a the broker authorised by Mr. Wilson to distrain, and
Mr. Portman and a Mr. Harcourt, for the purchase of therefore lie could not advance the -first step in
certain lands in Mary-la-bonne: Upon this ground proving probable cause for the prosecution without
houses were to be built, forming a street called York- his evidence; but when he came to inquire for him,
street, Which was to be sixty feet in width. The plain- he found that he had left the street where he had
tiff aereed with llarcou:t to lake a piece of his land, lived, and no clue remained by which it was possible
upon the understanding that the'street was tobe sixty to trace him. A clerk of Mr. Wilson's attorney had
feet wide, and built a house at the corner of .York- received instructions to• procure the causes to be set
street. Since that various buildings bad been erected, down as Special Jury causes, but he lost his papers ;
and the street had been narrowed more than six feet. and thus they were unexpectedly hurried on to trial.
Mr., ft k.AI.D ‘.i,:lS proceeding to state his case,when The witness Smith, whom the plaintiff knew where
an objection was raised diet the suit must be abated, to find, and whom they sebiareaed but did not call,
one of the defendants (Mr. Rutherford) having died had himself comprOmise3 an indictment which he
since its commencement. preferred against them, from motives of compassion;

The. Vice-CuaNcecion directed that a bill of reei-1
oor shOuld.beliled,''afidirthat, ifheA,the parties wet
ready, the case. should-be Mentioned. to the .court.
• SMITH V. TAGGART.
The plaintiff stied *floret/ .prittye.ris, andhad.filed
a bill for
,an accpiint 16'1).0 taken in a certain breivql.
concern in whichmselfand.defendaint were interested.
:Mr—Elate:se objected. to the account being taken,
because the plaintilf.wai a pauper, and had no chance
of obtaining a shilling even if the accoirpts were taken.
The Vtc.it:•Cri4Occet.t.ort That all, 41,4 was
necessary. was, that the• pat& was
.en 7•
titled to an account, and it was no answer. to assert
that theplaintiff could get nothing by the scrutiny. •
noliN ft suggested The great hardship upon
the defendant, who in an;piasstoinst pay the.cOsts.
The VlCEXNAsestzoi was aware_of.nd.authority
which gave power to the Court to act upon one prin-
ciple with respect to a rich man, and on another with
regard to, a pauper. f le 'vi4,,therefore , afraid hei
must the prayer of the present bill.
• • fanieta d 81T1715.
TWA was. a fttrlettiental by certain le-
gatee‘ wider a'Svill to nknke,.a •child, born after the
commencement of a suit,
.a. party to it.: The ques-
tion here was,...with respect to the construction of the,
•will, whether.' the eleallsll4 children"bern in my life-
time" users ..
Mr. cited authorities to strew that an in,
fant.ea Fintra-sa mere Was included in the words—
tltiltiretiViihg at the thatlcof.the testator ;", and
coOtendtiefiNt. the 'wcii-ds, O'h4aine‘t in the present
will,44"liatifrri my lire ttine,~ bore precisely the sane
Meattirleas '44 living at the testitnes death." . . The
case brelitY and .1114ce 2d . &Own p. 225, was
pastteu "taikaiter and tancaster,"
7 Meg Rkoto. •t• • . •
Mr. Wst4oFiato, on the other hand, maintained
that the word living would admit of a much more
eatended meaning than the word born. .
The Vge,CßAricm.Loi was of the same opinion.

and from his testimonY, it would appear that Mr.
Wilson bad subjected himself to these actions, by for-
bearing to urge his prosecution from a similar feeling.
The Cotter granted rules to shew cause in all the
Cases, on condition that the defendant should pay
the costs of the former trial ; undertake to make no
okjection to the pleadings.; and bring £3OO
into Court by Saturday. These conditions were ac-
cepted, and the rules taken on these terms.
MACPI42IIIOI4 V. LOUIE.
a Mr. ScantxTr)noved for Rule to shew cause
why the'ver4ici an this case should not be set aside,
and anew trial had. It was in action for a breach
of promise marriage, brought by a widow against
the Captain of a West India ship, in which, at the trial
'a few days ago in London, the plaintiff recovered
•£5OO damages. There was one general observation
which he (Mr. Scar,leit) would venture to make on
cases of this kind, that a modest and meritorious
'plaintiff had far less chance of obtaining considerable
damages, than one of an opposite character, because
it was scarcely ever possible to impeach the character
of the most abandoned woman except by witnesses,
whose examination must furnish topics for a strongl
and influential reply. His own experience had taught
him, that it was always unwise to call such witnesses,
unless he could gather from the cross-examination of
the plaintiff's witnesses some matter on which he
might ground his case; but sometimes, as in this in-
stance, a Counsel had no discretion to exercise. The
plaintiff, Mrs. Macpherson, had already been twice
married ; she bad children by both husbands, and
one of her daughters was already settled in the world;
and this was the Lady who sought to recover on a
promise of marriage written by herself, and only
signed by her• admirer: • The-words of this promise
were—" I promise to merry you when. I return from
Demerara, please GOD, or pay ybu 11000."
Mr. Justice BEsr.—Was the promise made in a
yarns climate ?,—( A laugh.) •
Loiw Cam JUhriCir•at was not rerr far