Star.
London, England, 1817-07-25 00:00:00

L.IIP Pa BLZIGENCL

COURT OF CHANCERVIITLY a 4.
Ilit!lrr,MTOM AN!) oritEits qt. ifittiCOUßT AND Widths.
Mr. Lrwst applied to disrelve an injoretion oh-
tainted by the Plaintiffs to prevent tie Defendaot
Haicoutt from c.,llecting certain rm.!. ft app" ,red;
from what was stated in the hill, that the defendant
had been eneaeed with partners iii the putchase of
estates ; and this e20,t)00 had heels hortaswed front
the plaintiff;. The deLndant Harcourt 114 agreed
to assign certain frec.hold and copyhold estates as
security for the £'20,000; bet as the assignment had
not been completed, the plaintiffs had applied f
and obtained an injunction to prevent the defendant
from receiving the rents of the said estates. The
answer of the defendant, however, was, that accord.
ing to the agreement the plaintiff, were not to have
recourse to him until )they securities in their power
had been made avAlable ; and that, when he was
milled to on the subject of making the assignment,
he was assured that there was little danger of his
being called on, as the plaintiffs were in possession
of good securities. They ought, therefore, to have
I resort, in the first place, ti these securities. it was,
indeed, surprising that an injunction should have
been applied for, to prevent the defendant, who was
a Gentleman of property, from receiving the rents,
in order to leave them in the hands of tenants. If the
plaintiffs were entitled to the equality to which they
pretended, they ought to apply for a receiver, not for
an injunction.
Sir SAMUEL RoMILLY, who was Counsel on the
other side, explained the reason why the plaintiffs
had applied for an injunction, and not fur a receiver.
Mr. Harcourt had engaged to cinvey the estates as
security for himself and partners, and measures had
been taken in pursuance of this agreement. The
plaintiffs, therefore, wanted no receiver, for they
would have been in possession themselves on the exe-
cution of the conveyance, which they understood to
be in progress. Now, however, finding that the con-
veyance was not executed, they wished that a receiver
should be appointed.
Mr. LEACII said he would not resist the motion for
a receiver.

The LORD CUANCBLLOR ordered a Receiver to be
appointed, that the blaster should see what pro-
perty was comprised in the agreement. The rents
noa, doe were ordered to be paid into Court without
pick:dice.

ORDERS OF COURT RELATIVE TO BANKRUPT OASIS.
Mr. MONTAGUE having asked his4Lordship to hear
a Bankrupt case between and the ..7th of August
next, his Lordship replied--
de Gentlemen—l here beg leave to inform you,
that I shall not sit after the 25th of August next. I
must further observe, that as several applications
have been made to me for the purpose of my hearing
Petitions in Bankrupt cases out of their order, I shall
certainly on no account bear any petition out of order,
Unless some extraordinary grounds are stated to in-
duce me to do so. I believe all of you will do me
the justice to say, that no man can feel more deeply
than myself the paintul privations which parties in
this Court must undergo, by their cases being long
detained in the Court. At the same time, should I
consent to this application, I do not see why I should
not do it in a thousand other cases, as the same argn-
meumfor the one might be brought forward for the
other ; and by doing so, I might be the means of
ruining those individuals, whose cases, by priority of
claim, I ought to have heard first. It is but just 1
should bear parties in regul..r order; and, therefore,
I beg all such applications as.the present be in future
desisted from. On the 15th of August I shall rise,
and till then I shall most assuredly give all my at.
tention to such cases as shall come before mr—an
assurance of which I believe you require no pledge."
The other cases were chiefly Bankrupt Petitions,
which were of no interest but to the parties.
PREROOA nvE COURT, DOCTORS COMMONS.
JONES V. IIOTHAM.

This was a suit as to the validity of the will ef
Christopher Tennant, Esq. late of Sampson's-hall, in
the parish of Kersey, in Suffolk, deceased.
The will was 'dated the 14th of May, 1812, signed
and sealed by the deceased, and purported 'to dis•
pose of real and personal property. There were se.
veral idterations, with the deceased's initials against
thom,ssome of them made within a few days of his
death ; but There was an attestation clause without
witnesses. The will was propounded on the part qt
William Hotham, Esq. the executor, and opposed
by Marianne, the wife of the Rev. Thomas Jones,
the sister and only next relative of the deceased. It
appeared that the deceased died on the 15th of May,
ltiltd, at his house, Sampsen's-hall, at the age of
about forty-four, possessed of no freehold property,
but of personal estate to the amount of about iesooo.
He bad formerly practised as an attorney, but ibis
he had discontinued for some years prior to his death.
He died a bachelor, without a parent, leaving Md.-
Jones, his sister, and some nephews and nieces, the
only persons entitled to his property in case of intes-
tacy. It was pleaded, that the deceased had con.
tracted for the purchase of a freehold estate at Sud-
bury, in Suffolk, which he expected would be com-
pleted about May, 1812; but that, from subsequent
occurrences, the contract was finally vacated about
May, 1819. The particulars, however, of this train-
action were not distinctly apparent. For some years
prior to his death, he had been on terms of enmity
with Mr. Jones (his sister's husband) and his family,
and some instances of this appeared down to within
a very short time of his death. The will, which from
its date appeared to have been made ca the 14th of
May, 1812, was all in the deceased's hand-writing,
and appointed the Rev. Thonias Jones, Clerk, (his
sister's husband) to be executor and residuary lega-
tee, The several altkations as to minor legacies,
subsequently made, were also in the deceased's band-
-writing, and authenticated by his signature. A dif-
ference afterwards occurred bet Ween the decease&
and Mr. and Mrs. Jones, and some strong expressions
of dislike to them on the part of the deceased, and
of An intention thit they should derive no benefit
from his property, were proved down to within a
very short time of his death. For about tourteeil
years prior to that event, the deceased had been on
terms of great friendship and confidence with Wm.

he expressed hit sentiments towards his relations very
freely, and spoke of his then pecuniary embarials I
ments, and of his views of mattimnny. Mr. Jones's
name was struck through in the deceased's will, and 1
that of Mr. Hotham substituted for it ; and, in
tion to the several alterations thus occasio,,ed in Ow
will, the following words, in the cleceaz...J's hand- I
writing, were added at the end :.(6 The alt2rations I
made in favour Of the said Wm. Hathene this 10th
day of January, 1816. Sign:-,cl Christ. Tennant."—
After the deceased's death, the will ':as found locked
up in a private drawer of the d. ceased's writingalesk.
And it farther appeared, that two or three days only
before his death he had expressed an anxiety see
Mr. Hothain; and desired him to he sent for, whilst
he at the same time positively forbade any of his re- I
lations being permitted to come near him.
Sir Jorm NICHoLL observed, that the question was
whether the deceased intended the will to operate ?
If he did so intend, the Court was bound to give ope-
ration to it, however defective it might he; but if that
point was not satisfactorily established, the Court
were equally bound to pronounce against the paper.
When there was an attestation clause, and yet no'
witnesses, the presumption of law was, that the de.
ceased did not intend the paper to operate in its then
state ; and this prestimption must have been repelled
by circumstances to entitle the paper to probate. To
this rule of law the Court was bound to adhere, and
the strength of the presumption to be entertained
must depend on the mitre and extent of the circum-
stances produced to repel it. Adverting to t' e con-
tents and appearance of the will, Sir John isiicholl
remarked, that though it purported to dispose of real
property, the deceased had at that time none to dis.
pose of L though no contract for the purchaa: of any
was proved, yet there was a strong probability that
the deceased contemplated such a purchase, and
therefore his introducing the clause of attestation
could only have been dune from an intention to exe-
cute the paper on completing the purchase, being well
aware, es an attorney, that such a formal execution
would then be necessary. He was, however, equally
aware, that to pass personal property, his signature
alone would be sufficient, and by adding that it must
be taken that he meant to dispose of that pin of his
property ; he could have had no other intent in doing
such an act, and this in consequence took off the or-
dinary presumption against the paper. But the pre-
sumption that he intended the paper to operate was
confirmed by the alterations he made in it from time
to time, and the couhrmation of those alterations by
his placing his initials against them, and his sulquininp,
an t signing the formal recognition of them at the end.
This he would never have dune had he considered the
paper as mere memoranda for the future testamentary
disposition; but it was evident that he intended to
authenticate the alterations, so as to give them effect
with the rest of the will. He subsequently contrac-
ted for some real estates ; but considering that con-
tract at an end, he must have been aware that. he had
then nothing bin personality, and for that he knew
that the execution of his will, as far as it had then
gone, was sufficient. But there was a farther con-
firmation to be found in the state of his family. The
proof of his disaffection to them was clear, as was
also his quarrel with Mr. Jones, in 1815, whilst the
last alteration in favour of Mr. Hotham was in Ja-
nuary, 1816. Under these circumstances Sir John
Nieholl was completely satisfied that the deceased's
intention that the paper should operate was sutficiently
proved, to repel the -contrary presumption arising
from the state of the paper itself, and he therefote
prcnouneed for its validity. Some discussion then
took place as to the expenses; but the deceased's
estate being supposed insolvent, and Mrs. Jones tak-
ing a considerable real estate, Sir John Nicholl said
be should not detect her expenses to be paid out of
the estate; but if the estate should turn out solvent,
he should recommend them to be so paid.