Star.
London, England, 1822-11-14 00:00:00

NI
Merry to denser oa per*, Is 3 l4 "h ld order that the question t ceased having conceived a strong animosity to .e,
Griffiths, determined to execute a will. s OU
might be fully argued. •
COUItT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 15. make -aivay his.(the.dtceased's) property from t'eat.
SEYMOUR V. GARTSIDI. Gentleman. Now it should seem from this, that Mr.
Griffiths stood in some degree of relationship. to ;he
Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS moved for a Rule to spew i
deceased,- or in some situation that had-authorised
cause why the judgment in this case should not be
him to expect that this property would be bequeathed
arrested. It was an action for a breach of promise .to him. This would be the natural inference from
of marriage by a Gentleman against a Lady, which
I the words " make away." The fact, however, was
was tried before Mr. Justice Richardson at the last I
quite the reverse of all this. The Learned Counsel
Assizes for.the county of Somerset, on which a ver- I contended, that there were so many circumstances to
diet was given for the plaintiff, with forty shillings
damages. The verdict was• taken generally on the induce a suspicion, either of improper influence hav-
ing been exerted to procure this will in its present
wholedeclaration, and therefore, though his objet- shape to be made by the deceased, or else that it had
tion only applied to one of the counts, yet, if sus- been so made under a state of mind which never
tained, it must operate in arrest of judgment. c,.uld be considered as that of a capable testator, that
The Collar suggested to Mr. Williams, that if he
the Court would not permit probate to pass to the
should strceeed, he would only oblige the plaintiff
to apply to the Learned Judge who tried the cause parties by whom it had been propounded.
Dr. HAGGARD, who had formerly addressed the
to amend the4ceord. Court for the parties proponent, shortly replied.
Mr. Wiur:tota said, that he would not persist in
his Sir Joust Nrcuot.r. observed that the witness Hinde,
motion if this were not a case in which every one
in the course of his examination, spoke to several
who heard it must ,decree earnestly that the plaintiff
very important particulars—to the paper Of instruc-
should fail. His objection was this—that the Court
tions having been given by the deceased a .month
stated mutual promises by the parties to marry within
before the will was prepared, and to the preparation
a reasonable time—a general readiness of the plain-
of the will a month previous to its execution. It had
tiff to marry, and that a reasonable time had elapsed ;
been very properly observed by the last Counsel, that
but stated no request, nor that the defendant had
this was all which the examiner in the cause could
married another person, which he submitted was not
correctly allow Mr. Hinde to speak to as of his oiva_
sufficient to sustain the action. knowledge. Upon the whole of the facts the Court
On reading the count objected to, it appeared that
thought it might safely express itself satisfied 'with
though there was no allegation of a report, it v. as al-
the proofs that had been induced. The questicin
leged the defendant had refused to marry the plaintiff.
arose out of the will of a Mr. Thomas Ruffin, who
The COURT held, that this was clearly sufficient
died at Hoffenbach, in Germany, on the 4th of May,
after verdict, and refused the Rule.
HOWLEY V. 'ROUGH. 1819, aged about 54 years. The will .and codicil
propounded bore the same date, the 4th .Of 'May,
Mr. CHITTY moved for 4 Rule to thew cause why
1819; the deceased having died a few hours after
the verdict for the defendant in this case should not
executing the instrument. The property of which he
beset aside, and a new trial granted. It was an action
died possessed consisted of some freehold and lease-
for assault and false imprisonment, to which there
hold estates, to the value of about £l5O per annum,
was a plea of the general issue, and also a special'
and he had been also, for a few years before his death,
plea, stating, that the defendant kept a public-house.
in -the receipt of a Government annuity of about
and that the plaintiff came there, P.nti conducted. him.
£l,lOO a year, which expired with his-life. By the'
self so improperly, that the defendant was compelled
will in question the deceased gave the whole of his
to use force in order to remove him. At the trial, a
property in trust to three persons, his ' partiCular
fi iend of the plaintiff stated, that he went a ith him,
friends., namely, John Hinde, James Taylor, and
on a wet evening, to seek shelter, and having called ,
il:lencuriaei syli_eys, in trust for the children of each re-
for some ret'teshment by way of compensation, began tiv . These gentlemen were to convert the
to stir the fire. A boy came in, and said that there i'
propertv ; and the produce, after payment of his just
was a law of the house, that no one but the landlord
debts, sic. was to be divided, one-third to the chit;
should poke the fire ; the plaintiff laughed at this
dren of Hinde, one-third to the childten of Taylor,
rule, when the defendant came in, called the plain
;sail one-third to the children of Keys. Though these
tiff and his friend pickpockets, 'ills having forcibly
individuals were appointed his executorli, they them-
dragasd him aboirt the room, puhed him into the
selves took no direct interest under the will. The
street. On the part of the defendant, the boy was
codicil gave a legacy of £5O to Mrs. Hinde; and
called, who did not materially alter the statement, so
iings, to be in value each of them 51.55. to Mr. New-
that it was not even thought necessary to cross-era- man, deceased's solicitor, and Mr. George Robinson,
mine him : yet the Jury found a verdict for the de-
his ;.wit intimate friend. Both papers were attested
fendant—he. believed, induced by some observation
by three witnesses; two of them were described as
of the Lmil Chief Justice, that a publican might lay
domestics, and the third, Forster, was a nurse in Mr.
down a-rule that no one should poke his fire-s-a rule
Ilinde's family. The deceased appeared to have died
which he (Mr. Chitty) thought could not be supported.
, „ a bachelor, and without any known relations ;he him-
The Latin CHIEF JUSTICI said, that he never could,
self having always had an impression that he had no
have laid down any such doetrine. He then read
relationstila. living. In consequence of some info macros
treat
over the evidence, from which it appeared :hat the it been conveyed to the Law Officers of the
boy gave a different account of the transaction to -
Crown, a caveat was entered by the kin's Proctor ;
that sworn to on behalf of the plaintiff, in so far as
and this suit had been conducted on .the part of the
respected the conduct of the plaintiff and has friend. •
Crown—as such suits on all occasions were—with.
Mr. Cuirrr urged that at all events there *MS .
the fairness and liberality with :which that august
nothing to justify the forcible removal. If the case
interest ought at all times Lobe repreented. -Nothing
-went to a second trial, he should be able to sheer that
could be more candid or fair than the spirit in which
the boy was not in the house on the evening in question.
this proceeding had been carries on. An-allegation
The COURT, after suggesting that the probable had been given in propounding the Will in the form
amount of damages, bad the plaintiff succeeded, .
of a common coadidit. Some previous proceedings
would have been under 201. gave a Rule to shcv
had been had, and corbequently dropped—a circum-
cause, as it might induce the parties to consent to a
stance that could not, of course, bar Mt. Taylor from
strt.processus. beginning them again. On that. condidit two-wit-
-Ihe motions for new trials being exhausted, the
iesses had been examined ; one of them was .Mary
Court went into the consideration of cases in the
Forster, a subscribing witness to the will, formerWa
Crown paper. nurse in the family of the witness Mr. 'Hinde, and
so described in the attestation clause. She hAd been a
servant with them for upwards of thirteen years.—
She had attended the Hindes in England, France,
an d Germany, returned with them to England, and
.I.tiittesi them above one year before her examination
in this cause. She gave a clear account of thetirc-
tura of the will ; stated that she had known Mr. Rlf.'
fin; from his long intimacy with her master, for many
years; and related the way in which she was called
up in the night of the 4th of May, 1819, to attest
the execution by the deceased of his will; and the
suddenness of his death, in a few hours afterwards,
at Mr. Hinde's house at Hoffenbach. in the Grand
Duchy of Darmstadt. The Learned Judge having
stated the particulars of her evidence, remarked that
it was very tully corroborated by other testimony;
and that she came before the Court not only with a
character unimpeached, but with the advantage of a
thirteen years continuance in one family—a fact
which gave to that character additional weight and
influence. Mr. Hinde, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Keys,
she found in the bed-room of the deceased, and every
fact connected with his manner, his conduct, and his
actions, strongly indicated perfect capacity at the
time of signing and executing his will. He spoke to
the two other domestics in French ; to the witness in
English. He himself took up his watch, which lay
on the bed, and sealed the paper; and then desired
these attendants to withdraw. He even desired this
witness, as she left the room, to take care of Hiode's
children. The Court saw nothing that would at all
affect this witness's credit; and if she was to be be-
lieved, could a doubt remain as to the deceased's full,
knowledge and understanding of the act he was per-
forming, or of its being an act proceeding from his
own volition? It was very true, as the Counsel op-
posing the will had observed, that the executors were
present at the time of its execution; and that the in-
strument itself was in the hand-writing of one of
' them. Now, though this fact was one proper enough
to excite the vigilance of the Court, and to call for
ample proof of the factum of the will, yet it did not
invalidate the act, more especially when there was
proof of the reading over, and of an active capacity
at the time in the deceased himself. It was also true.
that two of the subscribing witnesses were not pro-
duced; but it was proved to the satisfaction of the
Court that due diligence had been used in the endea-
vour to find them ; and looking to their station—ser-
vants in a family—and to the distant town in Ger-
many in which they resided, their non-production
did not seem any extraordinary defect. It the case
then tested on. the evidence adduced under the can-
didits, the Court must feel it to be its duty to pro-
nounce the will sufficiently proved. The only ques-
tion then was, was. that. evidence so impeached, or

THE JUNG V. HALL.
This was a quo warrants information calling on
the defendant to chew by what authority he exercised
the functions of Registrar of the Count of Requests
at Bristol. The facts had been submitted to the Court
in the form of a special case. it appeared that Mr.
Hall was elected to the office in 1818, having nine
votes against five which were polled for his opponent.
The objection to his return was, that the Statute gave
the riqht of voting exclusively to " liduseholders,"
and that several of the voters for the defendant,
though possessing houses and establishments in Bris-
tol, did not themselves reside within the city ; and
the only question was on the meaning of the word
" householder."
Mr. SELWYN now argued that the term " house-
holder" implied residence; and Mr. ADAH at great
length contended the contrary.
The Court took time to consider of their decision.

PREROGATIVE COURT, NOVEMBER 11
TAYLOR AGAINST lIIS MAJESTY'S PROCURATOR•