Star.
London, England, 1822-11-27 00:00:00

CLAY V. LADBROKE.

Ice person appeared.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—Is that gone to Cam- '
budge? Don't strike it out, for the parties may
have been taken by surprise.—His Lordship rose at
o ie o'clock.
VICE-CHANCF.I.LOWS COURT, NOVEMBER 26.
BAYLF.Y V. SNELHAM.—JODGMENT.
The VICE-CoaNceuma, on coming into Court,
delivered the following judgment in this case. In
this cause a bill had been filed for the purposes of
establishing the trusts of the will of John Snelham,
deceased. The testator commenced his will by stating
that he had lately married Jane, the sister of his de-
ceased wife Mary Snelham, in Scotland, according
to the form and usages of the Church there, and them
went on to dispose of his property. He directed that
all his estate should be sold, that his wife should '
have the interest of the produce doling her life,.and
that after her death the bulk was to be equally divided
among the children gotten and to be begotten by him
upon the body of the said Jane Snelham, his wife.
He further directed that his wife and children should
take the provision assigned to them in the same man-
ner as if he had been married to his wife according
to the Church of England. It was objected at the
hearing of the cause, that a marriage in Scotland, of
a man to the sister of his deceased wife, was not a
valid marriage. By the law of England such a mar-
ria,;c is voidable, and not void ; and it is valid, there-
fore, until sentence is pronounced against it. In con-
sequence it was argued, that if Jane was never the
lawful wife of the testator, her children could not
'take the provision intended by the will; because the
law does not permit a. man to make a general gift
to future illegitimate children. I at first intended
to have directed an inquiry as to the validity of the
marriage, but it was urged on the other side, that
such an inquiry must necessarily be attended with
considerable delay and perhaps expense; and that it
ought to be avoided. unless it was absolutely essen-
tial for the purposes of the cause. In order to shew
that it was net essential, Counsel contended that al-
though the proposition could not be disputed, that a
gift generally to illegitimate children was not valid,
yet that the gift in this will was conveyed in terms
which intended to give the benefit of it to the chil-
dren of Jane, although she should turn out not to be
his lawful wife. I was much struck by the language
of the will, and was not sure that I could bring the
case within the reach of any that had been decided,
and I desired it to stand over until I had considered
that point. After examining the case with very
great attention, I am glad to say that I am of opi-
nion it comes within the prinCiple of former de-
Cisions, and the children will take under the will,
even although it should unfortunately turn out.that
by the law of Scotland they are illegitimate.—
I say I am glad that I have formed this opinion, be-
cause it is always gratifying to a Court of JUstice to
come to a conclusion by which provisions that are
founded on the best feelings of the human heart can
be established. The case of Wilkinson anti Adam,
wliich received a more elaborate consideration tha
perhaps any other case ever before received, ha;
cleared the present case of many of its difficulties,
and settled the law upon the point in question. In
the former case •the disposition of the testator was a
gift in'the following terms—" to the children which
I may have by Ann Lewis, who may be living at the
time. of, my death. ,or may be born -within
.clite time
afterwards." The testator was a married man, and

Ann Lewis
was obviow
It was cont
your of Meg,
valid. It
the law does tc
gift to ilk it did
make is hat provision he thought fit for person, living.
at the time of hit making his tvill, and'; ti fie
might believe to be his illegitimate chitireii ;.and it
was said that in the case which was then being ar-
gue 3, the testator had not made the illegitimacy of
the children a condition of the gift; but 'used It only
as a description of persons : he gave to A, 13, and'C,
whom he considered to be his illegitimate Children ;
it was a gift to persons known in the world by that
'description. It was admitted that the gift was not
good with respect to any children who might be born
after the death of the testator, because that was
against the policy of the law. The Court proceeded
on this distinction, and established the yai:Jity of the
gift. The question is, whether in the present case'the
reasoning is not stronger in favour of the children.
than it was in the case I have referred to? Here all
the children whom Snelhatn happened to have by
Jane, were born at the time he made his will. It is
admitted, that no child born after his death could
take under the will, if the marriage shotjld prove to
be illegitimate. lam therefore of opinion, that it is
unnecessary to institute an inquiry into the validity
of the marriage according to the Scotch law; because,
admitting for the sake of argument the marriage was
not valid, still the testator has made an express gift
to children who had acquired the reputation of being
his; and their illegitimacy is not made the condition
of the gift, but merely the description of persons.—
Take a Decree that the mother is entitled to the estate
for life, with remainder to her children.

EX PARTE GRIMSTEAD IN THE MATTER Or HOWARD

belief that they ttrm-Fortinfe from
inatientiOn than trothlgi tniproper
having stood over unia tiros Ay,
an. opportunity., tinswering the de-
above-mentichied; affidavits were
accordingly, which went to shew, that the
defendant had been guilty of various
,other acts of
peculation and fraud whilst he held-the office of stir-
preyor—that the ofECe of surveyor, though it had no
kulary attached to it, had been sedulously sought after
by the defendant, and that he had prevailed upon
the Magistrates to appoint him for a great number
of years continuously, and that during the last nine
years he had defrauded the hamlet of no less a sum
than £1,800; that on one occation,when his accounts
were objected to, he tore out some leaves of his book,
and substituted others, for the purpose of disguising
his fraud—that he was a person without children,
unincumbered, and lived in handsome style upon his
wife's settlement. Mr. Peppercorn, in the fresh affi-
davit now produced, distinctly denied the imputations
cast upon him by the defendant. In instituting this
prosecution, he was influenced by no hostile feeling
against the defendant, but acted entirely upon public
grounds, and from a conviction that the defendant
had been guilty of various -abuses in his office. He
solemnly denied that he ever applied to the defendant
to advance him 1001. out of the highway rates for
any purpose, or that he had ever used any threatening
expressions, importing that he would persecute the
defendant until he had effected his ruin, or anything
to that effect.
The COMMON SERJEA NT, Mr. ADOLPHUS, and Mr.
CHITTY, addressed the Court on behalf of the defend-
ant, and urged the defendant's unhappy situation as
a fallen man; who, from having maintained through
his previous life the highest chOacter for integrity
and honour, was now brought before the Court as a
culprit. The defendant, under such circumstances,
threw himself upon the compassionate and merciful
consideration of their Lordships, trusting that they
would view his case with lenity and forbearance.
Mr. GURNEY and Mr. F. PoutiocK, for the prose-
cution, spoke in aggravation, and contended that there
was not a single circumstance in the case which enti,
tled the defendant to any lenity. For a series of years
he had been guilty of systematic fraud and pecu-
lation, and public justice demanded a severe exam-
ple, in a case marked throughout by no redeeming
feature which could entitle the defendant to a mer-
ciful consideration.

The COURT ordered the defendant to be committed
to the custody of the Marshal, and brought up for
judgment to-morrow.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOV. 26.
IN RE ISAACSON, CLARKE, AND BROOKES.

This was an application to strike the two first-
named persons off the rolls of the Court, and to call
upon the third to answer for certain matters alleged
in the affidavit. Serjeant PELL was heaed to-day
against the Rule. Serjeant VAUGHAN was in part
heard in support of its being made absolute. The
further hearing of the case was postponed.

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, NOV. 26.

s was ant his wife.; hit itloa,on, therefprerlt apressed -their
asly to provide for his siletifiintiti children.l negligence and
tended that this was a gen,eral, gat in ta- 'ranting&
ail
legitimate children, and such was not -The-case havh
was answered, that although the policy of Mr. Peppercorn
ocs not permit a mad to make a general fendant's affidavi
legitimate children, it did permit him to .now put in accoi
• • _ d. h... 1 el