Star.
London, England, 1830-12-25 00:00:00

LAW RIPORTS.

COURT OF ICING'S BENCH, DEC. 24.
WILLS AND ANOTHER V. CROFTS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs, as assignees of a bank-
rupt named Crofts, to recover between thirty and forty shillings, balance
of an account for a suit of clothes, supplied by the bankrupt to the
defendant.
Mr. Pou.octr, In stating the case, lamented that such a trumpery
action should for a moment have engaged the time of the Court.
Mr. HM, for the defendant, admitted that it was a trumpery action
as regarded the sum in dispute, but it was one of considerable import.
sure to the defendant, as it involved a charge against his professional
abilities.
The defendant was a respectable attorney. and had been employed
by the bankrupt in some professional business, the charge for which he
set of against the claim for the clothes ; but the plaintiff would not
allow It, on the alleged ground that the business was not skilfully
conducted. It was, therefore, a question to him of the greatest
importance.
Ma. F. POLLOCK was replying, when
Lord TINTENDIEN suggested the propriety of withdrawing a juror,
which of course was ultimately agreed to.
The Court, at its rising, adjourned until the first day of Hilary
Term.

PREROGATIVE COURT, DEc. 23.

Before Sir J. NICUOL.
JUDGMENT.
ORINDALL V. ORINDALL AND GRINDALL.

In this case, which has been so much litigated and so frequently before
the public, the Court gave judgment this morning.
Sir J. NICHOLL observed that the deceased T. Adcock Grindall had
made a considerable sum of money (100,0001.) by his business as a distil-
ler. He was a widower, and had no children. His two nephews, Charles
Edmund Grindsll and John Stone Or ndall,who opposed the will In the
pre,ent instances,were adopted by the deceased at an early age, and it
was always intended by him that they should possess his large property.
As the deceased after his retirement lived very penuriously, he did not
act veryllibcrally towards his nephews, and the consequence was that
they had frequent quarrels, but still his testamentary intentions re.
rosined unaltered. He had made several wills prior to 1820, and the
last one gave the whole of his landed property to Charles, and divided
his personal property between Charles and John. In 1826, however, the
deceased, who was seventy-seven years of age, discharged Mrs. Suett
(the widow of the celebrated comedian of that name), who had lived
housekeeper to him for 15 years, and then he fell into the custody of
Charles Grindall. Both nephews bad separately consulted a professional
man with a view to getting the old man pronounced a lunatic. Mr.
Charles, however, having first put his own wife in a mad-house, pro-
cured the assistance of a keeper, named Hunter, and carried the old man
in a strait-waistcoat off to a lunatic asylum at Tonbridge Wells, in No-
vember in that year. John Grindall assisted in rescuing the uncle from
the pc•session of Charles, and the old man, on returning to London
with him, gave instructions for a will entirely in his favour, excluding
Charles altogether. He continued living with John and Mrs. C. thin •
dall (whom the uncle had procured to be liberated), and whom he
said he should take care of. Shortly after the abduction, Captain
Sturt, who had forinerlybeen acquainted with Mr. Grindall from his
having got the son of Mrs. Suett appointed midshipman of the Sky-
lark, which Captain Stun then commanded, called to see the old
gentleman, having heard of the Toubridge Wells affair in die news-
paper. After a few visits the deceased went home with
the Captain to his house, and there remained till his death,
in 1828: Charles Ganda!' was convicted of the assault upon the old
man, and although the latter had given instructions for a will in
favour of John, yet he afterwards refused to execute it. He made a will
on the 30th of January, 1827, giving all his property to Capt. Stun and
family, except one legacy of 5001. which be bequeathed to John, and
another to his agent, Mr. Pugh. of 5001. This will was signed by three
witnesses, and the attorney who drew it, and Drs. Willis, Thomson,
and Vices had previously examined the deceased as to his mental capa-
city, and all considered that, though infirn: from age and some paralytic
attacks, he still had sufficient capacity to manage his affairs. The ne-
phew Charles opposed the will at first, rather vexatiously, but at last
retired in favour of his brother John, who contended that the deceased
was not a free agent and of proper capacity at the date of the will, and
that he had beeu under the improper influence of Captain Stun. The
Court now decided that. as the deceased had given instructions for the
will himself—had refused to execute the will in favour of :John—had
shown sufficient capacity when the present will was signed, and had
not been influenced at the time by any interference of Capt. Stun, who
had, in fact, only interfered in favour of John, from the respectability
of the witnesses, and their consistency—that Charles should be cast in
all costs--that John pay the costs of the resent hearing, and that pro-
bate should be granted to Captain Stun, as sole executor and residuary
legatee.