Star.
London, England, 1820-07-21 00:00:00

. •. .
•

LAW iNTELLIGENCE.
• - •
:COURT OF:CHANcicfrir, JULY 20.
IN THE MATTER OF THE LATE DUKE OF IMIKINSDIRRY'S
- • LEGACIEB:
THOMAS' D. MONTOOMRRY.
The LORD' CRANCELLOi observed, he bad exa-
mined, with the greatest attention, the 'calculation
which had been handed to him, as to the amount of
the fund in'Court, and the amount of the legacies,
and if he granted what was:asked by the legatees, it
would only leave. the sum of. £126,800 in Court,
which he thought would be too little as a provision
-to meet other claims that might be made. He was
sorry to be obliged to say this,but he could not help it.
Mr. MURRAY said, perhaps his Lordship would
give the legatees something short of what they asked ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—" Certainly, there can
be no objection to that. Give me a calculation on
Saturday morning of a tenth of their demand, instead
of a fifth, and I will order it to be paid out of Court to
the legatees ; but I shall-not be justified in ordering the
fifth they ask for."— Further consideration postponed.

~~

.:•~

INJUNCTION.

HUDSON V. FRAMS BEAUCHANIP AND OTHERS.

Mr. WETHERELL moved for an Injunction to re-
strain the defendant Beauchamp from selling or
transfetring certain. Stock to a large amount, which
stood in his name and that of the late Mrs. Hudson ;
and that the Bank of England should be also re-
strained from parting with the stock, without an
order of the Court -for that purpose. He stated, he
moved this on affidavits, which set forth that the
plaintiff was the next of kin of Mrs. Hudson, the wife
of John Hudson, both of whom are deceased. They
had resided in a small cottage at Twickenham, and
had been of most penurious' habits, and at the death
of the husband.they had amassed the suns of .E. 5000.
In the year 1816 a brother of Mrs. Hudson, who was
a waiter at the Thatched House, St. James's-street;
died, and he bequeathed her £25,000, which was se-
cured in the Funds. That the defendant was a clerk
in the banking-house of Messrs. Maule and Co. and
by the situation he held in the bank he obtained a
knowledge of Mrs. Hudson's property, who was then
79 years of age, and by some means got introduced
to her, and persuaded her, in the year 1817, to leave
her residence at Twickenham, and to reside with him
.in Suffolk•street. where she remained until her death,
in the latter end of the year 1819. That when Mrs.
Hudson .arrived at Stiffolk-s:reet her whole wearing-
apparel was not of the value of five shillings, and
that the defendant 13eatchamp immediately pur-
thased silk dresses, and everything of. dress on the
same eipensive scale, took "her- out
.in a carriage
every day fa r the. first twelve months, after which
tittle. her mind got so imbecile that she could not
leave the .house. That the: defendant Beauchamp
prevailed on her to make a will, bequeathing to
him all her property, on his promising to marry her,
but which he never diJ. Ai this time Mrs. Hud-
.sun's mind was so weak that she had forgotten the
value of the money, and • used: to entertain herselt
:by throwing gold and silvei 'coins . about the twill,'
which were furnished tier • by the defendant Beau-
champ ; she also amused herself by _binding flowers.
--.-That the defendant 13eauchanip behivo as her
child, always calling her " Mamma,! or " My dear."
Before her death he prevailed on her to havethe stock
which stood iu her name, amounting to-upwards of.
• £30,000, transferred to their joint names. That
Mrs. Hudson was not only--of the advanced.age of
eighty, and of imbecile mind, but she was highly of-
fmsive to those who' were obliged to be about her
from ulcers in her legs—so much so, that when the
defendant Beauchamp was in the room with her, he
always. had a bottle- of salts in - h:s hzndkerchief,
which he constantly applied to his nose. That oil
the death of Mrs. Hudson, the defendant Beau-
champ proVed the will in .the Ecclesiastical Court,
and also Obtained a probate, since which the plaintiff
had instituted a suit.against him in the same Court, to
set the will aside. Under these considerations, he had
no doubt. but his Lordship would grant the injunction.'
Mr. HAstsotc, Counsel- for the defendant Beau-
champ, stated, that he was in-tructed by his efifnt
to say. That when the proper time came le would be.
able to refute every else of the allegations which had
been stated, and that he woad be also able trishew
that the plaintiff had no claim. •
The Lunn CHANCELLOR observed, that he hoped
what the Learned Coutisel-(Mr. Hantson) had stated
might be the case, but it was his duty, on the evi-1
deuce. before him, to grant the injunction.

.T"

-

• . .
hsleirstr ms- . AsmiEg..
. .
v.tugrous CASE OF DEFAILVTION. . . •
4i- '•• ".• 4-• LANZ I. LAN&
Titetadies were.deslreato Withdritse on this cause
being callecion,
_but, as it turned out, nothing cc-
/purred, be seen, which they might not-have
heard.: the audience were fi equently Ctinvtilsed with
laughtei during the examination of Mr. John-Ellis
Howard : the result must have been extremely morn'
tifying to some of tht parties concerned.
Mr. Serjeant PEAKS said, the plaintif, Mrs. Anne
Lane, was a widow, rather young than otherwise,
and daughter-in•law to the defendant, Mr.' John
Lar.e, of Windsor. A Gentleman, of the name of
Howard, had paid his addresses to her, and with the
consent of his father, a man advanced in years, and
therefore capable of judging of the propriety, of the
connexion,. had agreed' to enter into a contract of
marriage with her; but, strange to relate, the de-
fendant, Mr. John Lane, had taken every opportu-
nity of aspersing his daughter-in-law's character,
and had stated, in the presence of Jane Moss, the
plaintiff's- sister, that Mrs. Lane was little better than
a common streetwalker; and that he had frequently
been obliged to let her into his own house at late
hours of 'the night ; not -content with this, he had
some conversation with Mr. Howard, and advised
-him, as a friend, not to marry Mrs. Lane, " as she
was no great catch!" • Alarmed at the calumnies cir-
culated by the defendant, Mr. Howard had declined
any further connexion with the.pi-aintiff, fill her clia•
ratter was cleared up ; and the breach of this con-
tract formed the ground of the present action. The
Jury were bound to give such damages as would be
a compensation, as tar as money could compensate,
for the loss of character, peace of mind, happiness,
and comfort of a future trarriag,e, which had. been
broken off for' no other mason than the slanders
of the defendant. No blame could attach to Mr.,
Howard, for no man could bet2o circumspect in
the choice of the woman who was' to be his com-
panion through life.
Jane Moss, the plaintiff's sister, deposed, that Mr.
John Lane, the defendant, had told her, that the
plaintiff was a bad woman, worse than a common
street-walker ; for they were open, and she was sly :
'plaintiff should not come to his house any more, for
he had been forced to let her in at late hours of the
night, and be would not advise any man to marry
her, "as she was no great catch." She came to his
house ore Sunday, in a one horse chaise, with Mr.-
Samuel Lone, his brother, and that did not look well.
It was more like man and wife than anything else.. -
Cross-examined by Mr.Jeavas.—The first question
was—Whether the witness .recollected speaking in u
disrespectful manner of the plaintiff,, in allusion to
some particular circumstance?—The witness de,'
nied that she had.

Mr. JER 4,-" The Learned Serjeant has told us,
Mrs. Lane is rather young than otherwise, what does•
he mean by it ?"—Witness---“ I cannot tell." . -

Mr. JERVIS—" No more can I."
JERVIS--." How old is she?"—" About thirty."
Mr. Jaavts—" I suppose that is rather young than
otherwise ?"+--Witness—" Perhaps so."
Mr. Jeavta--" Where does the plaintiff liver—
Witness—" In London now."

Mr. JERVIS—" Did you ever relate the conversa-
tion you had with Mr. Lane to any person ?"—Wit-
ness-6, I never did."

Mr. John Ellis Howard, in appearance a very
dashing young man; stated, that he was a brush-
maker, living with his father at.Brentford ;—he had
known Mrs. Lane.about two years, and bad promised
to marry her, if his own friends and hers were. agree-
able; and his father having no objection to the•match,
!le had engaged to marry the plaintiff. He met the
defendant, Mr. John Lane, accidentally in the street,
at Windsor, two days after the King's funeral, when
Mr. Lane asked him if he had 'seen the plaintiff? at
the same time saying, " I would advise you as a
friend, not to marry her, as she is no great catch:—
They conversed
.some time, but what passed went in,
at one ear and out at .he other. (Witness at this time
was carefully rubbing up his hair). He mentioned
what he had heard from the defendant to his father,
who then withdrew the consent he had given to his
ma, riage with Mrs. Lane. Witness was beginning
a lecture on. Mr. Lane's conduct, and the duty of pa-
: ents to children, when the Learned Judge called him
to order, saying, his advice was not wanted.
Cross-examined.—Mr. Jsavis—" This conversa-
,tion with Mr. Lane passed in at one ear and out at
theother ?"—W itness, " It did."—Mr. JERVIS," When
did you last see the plaintiff r—Witness, " This
morning."—Mr. JERVIS, "Whatpassed between you,
relative 'to this action?"—Witness, " I told her I
would do justice, equally between her and Mr. Lane."
Mr. JEUVIS, ". Well, Sir, and what more passed ?
Have a care r —Witness, " I says to Mrs. Lane, says
I, you - Had better make this business up, as it is
amongfriemds."—:Mr. JEavis, ig And as soon as this
i action s• settled, you mean to marry Mrs. Lane ?"—;
Witness (in a loud tone of voice), 44 No, Sir, I'm be-
spoker—M r. JERVIS, " Were you bespoke at the time
you had the conversation with Mr. Lane, At Wind-.
sor, which passed in at one•ear and out at he other?"
Witness, " No, Sir."—Mr. JErtirts; gi How long after
was it,.that you transferred your tender affections to
another Lady r—Witness, " About two months."—
Mr. JERVIS, " Did you acquaint Mr. Lane at the
time, that you had* trunsferred your tender affections
to another Lady ?"—Witness, " No, on the 28th of
March I wrote to her aunt at Odiham." (Witness
here produced a letter. It commenced by expressing
his opinion that they- must be'surprised at his long
silence, but as a Gentleman, .he was bound- to reply
to her letter; and then gave his conversation with the
defendant; as the reason for declining any farther
connexion with Mrs. Lane).—Mr. JERVIS, 44 How
old is Mrs. Lane?"—Witness, " She told me she was
twenty-six."—Mr.-..havts, " How old are you?"—
Witness, "r My mother told me I shall be twenty-
three, come October."—Mr. Jaavis, " Ofeourse you
do not know more than your mother, though mat.
probably probably fou were present at the 'birth ?"—Witness,os
"
" Most likely I was. Mr. JERVIS, "Did Mi. Lane
ever say anything more to you respecting Mrs. Lane,
than that she wass-no great catch ?"—Witness, ge He
did not." , . '•
• •
.In this stage of the case, a doubt arose whether the
plaintiff had not failed to prove the words in,the. de-
-claration, as it Uppeared.the-witnemhad -never heard
she term 44 strecvwalker, arc. "--Mr. fierjeant PEALE