Star.
London, England, 1818-08-05 00:00:00

LAW

.aiwc,~y

COUitT OF CHANCIRT, AUGUST s.
LAD! SUSAN DOUGLAS, IN THE MATTES Or THAISPN,
A LUNATIC.
Mr. BZLL stated, this was the petition of the Lady,
praying that the Lord,Chancellor would be pleased
to make an order for her receiving• some money out
of the funds belonging to the lunatic, the sum she
prayed for being what the lunatic intended when he
was sane, as he thereby made a provision for her.
The petitioner was married to Joseph Tharpe, who
was the eldest son of John Tharpe, the testator and
grandfather of the lunatic, in July 1788, she being
at that time only sixteen years of age, and by the tes-
tator's will she was entitled to the annual sum of
£3OO, which sum was charged on the testator's es-
tates in Jamaica, in the event of her surviving her
husband. Shortly after the marriage her husband
went to reside in a largrhouse in Portman-square,
he having parcbased the lease of that house, and
which house was and now is at the present moment
occupied by Earl Grey. The house was, by appro-
bation of the testator, fdrnished in a most splendid
manner. Her husband. Joseph Tharpe, died in the
year 1794, without a formal will, leaving the pe-
titioner, his widow, and some issue by her. After
the death of her husband the testator applied to the
widow to gain possession of the house in Portman-
square, with the plate, furniture, &e. and added,
that in case of her. refusal he would do for her son.
In a state so very critical as this, the applied for the
best advice of John Dl.Namara, Esq. of Strea:ham,
who advised her to give it up, observing at the same
time,, that when the boy (meaning the son) should
be informed of the circumstance, he would feel it his
duty to remunerate his mother. The mansion-house
was sold in September 1797, to his Grace, John,
Duke of Athol, for £14,700. The testator, at seve-
ral requests being made to him, agreed that Lord
Dunmore, the petitioner's brother, should have
,000 per annum, in addition to what she formerly
had, on condition that she should cease to have any
part of it if she married a second time. The said
um was forfeited by her marriage with John Drew,
Esq. in 1797. After the death of her second hus-
band, she married the Rev. Archibald Douglass,
in 1809, and the lunatic was allowed to reside of
course with her, and she was obliged to increase htr
manner of living, in consequence of which her af-
fairs and those of her husband became very much
embarrassed. The lunatic, before and since he had
become 21 years of age, assured the petitioner he
would give her the highest rewark: in his power, for
that when he was 24 years of age he would be enti-
tled to the testator's estates, by giving or making a
very great addition to her fortune, or at least to her
jointure. On the 24th of May the lunatic was 24
years of age, and then he became entitled to the
whole estates of the testator, both in Jamaica anti
also in England, which, at a net valuation, were
£42,400. The Learned Gentleman, in continuation,
observed, that this petition was supported not only
by Lady Susan Douglass, but by several Peers,
among whom were the Bishop of Kildare, &c. He
(the Counsel) had to request that the petition be refer-
red back to the Master, to consider and report what
allowance ought to be made to the petitioner out of
the income of the lunatic. _ _

The LORD CHANCRLLOR conceived that the whole
allegations of the petition only came to this point,
that the lunatic had expressed great regard for his
mother, prior to the time of his being mane ; but
there was nothing which could amount, in any way,
by any means as he thought, to a contract. He how.
ever must see the affidavits before he said more.
Mr. NVINGFIZLD informed his Lordship, that the
case was not stated as if there was a contract ; beet it
was only put to his Lordship to determine what were
the intentions of the lunatic towards the petitioner,
and whether he (the Lord Chancellor) could not de-
termine that the Petitioner should be protected by an
order of the Court ?

The LORD CIIANCELLOR—" Before I give such an
order, Mr. Wingfield, in a case of this nature, I wish
to see the affidavits, which, not only in former peti•
tons, but in this also, have been filed. After read-
ii,g them I shall be able to dispose of the case Wort:
tl.c present Sittings are at an eud.

MA%TON r. SAN TORRAS AND OTHERS.

Mr. AGAR stated the case, which was merely a
question, whether a caveat could prevent a man from
getting a patent from the Crown? The circumstances
were not of the slightest public interest, unlets it was
that the caveat was merely tiled to prevent the person
getting his patent within the twelve months pre-
scribed by the Act of Parliament.
The LORD CHANCELLOR then left the Chair, and
went to his private room to examine the fire-arms for
which the patent had been granted, and on his re-
turn he ordered the patent to be confirmed, adding
at the same time, that he would take time to con-
sider who should pay the costs of this application,
but the patent, he thought, was properly granted.

AUGUST C.—GURNEY V. MAMILTOi •MITOTMESL
An Injunction to prevent the defendants selling an
estate at Exeter, belonging to the plaintiff; under the
following circumstances : —Two persons of the name
of Luscomb were about to open a house of trade at
Ilavre de Grace in 1816, but not being able to pro-
cure credit for goods from the defendants on their
own personal security, the plaintiff, in the mouth of
September or October, consented to mortgage in
their favour the estate in question, with a stipulation
that they should not proceed to sell without giving
him six months notice. Goods were supplied to the
Luscombs to the amount of several thousand pounds
between September and December 1816, for which
they gave bills to the defendants, which were not
paid when due. The plaintiff was at that time in
Paris, and the defendants wrote to him stating the
fact, and he returned an answer desiring them to sell
the estate if they thought it necessary, but relying
on their honour in the business ; they proceeded to
sell it in consequence, making a claim of between
IC3OOO and £4OOO. 'lie ground on which the in-
junction was obtained was, that the estate in question
was only placed in the hands of the defendants as a
security for goods to be supplied to the Luscombs
subsequent) to the date of the mortgage.
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY now moved to dissolve the
injunction, on the ground that there was no pretence
for saying that the estate which the defendants were
about to sell was mortgaged merely for debts to be
incurred after the date of the instrument ; the terms

of it seemed distinctly to prove the contrary, for it
was specified to be a security for the balance of the
account, esii all she goods, with the exception of
only three parcels, bad been furnisited to the Un-
met& sobs: tosas iral to the 11th September, 1816,
sthee the Awl was dated. The letter of
Gamey, the • fe*m Paris, permitting the sale,
seemed to put an end to the question.
On the elleir hand, Mr. HAUT relied very much
upon a kite which he insisted had been practised
upon the plaintiff: the letter from Paris had been
written in ignorance of a most material fact, viz.
that the mortgage bore date-on the I lth September,
when in truth it was not executed until the 11th No-
vember, when the plaintiff imagined that it was
dated. "The draught of the instrument was endorsed
on the 26th October, when it was-laid before Counsel
to be settled, and the difference was most material.
It was clear that the plaintiff was only to be liable
for debts incurred subsequently to the date, and if it
really had been the 11th September, he would have
more than MOO to pay ; but if the 11th of Novem-
ber, the amount would scarcely exceed £4OO. It was
also necessary to recollect, that the bills which the
Luscombs had given had been renewed by the De-
fendants when they became due, without any notice
to the Plaintiff, so that he might be considered as
exonerated, at le ist so far. _ . • .

The LORD-CRANCELLOR asked if it were meant to
be contended •bf the Counsel for the plaintiff, that
this deed was merely to be considered a security for
goods sold and delivered ?
Mr. HART allowed that it had reference also to
the balance of the accounts between the Luscombs
and the defendants.

Sir SAMIML ROM ILLT, in reply, insisted that the
real date of the deed was wholly immaterial, because
it was expressly provided in it, that the estate should
be answerable, not only for goods to be furnished,
but for whatever sum might be due at the time of
the arrangement. There was, therefore, no pretence
for supportmg the injunction.
The LORD CHANCZLLOR, on comparing the dates
of the various transactions, and referring to the terms'
of the documents in the cause, was decidedly of opi-
nion that the injunction ought to be dissolved. The
deed had probably been antedated, and the honesty
of the transaction seemed to be that it should be so,
in order to render it effectual for the purposes all the
parties had in view.

GRAND COURT, KINGSTOX, JAMAICA, JUNE is.

'\l
a'4
~ I
' f
• I ' •
1
i .
. . ' . i
• 1
1, 1
.1:
' . 1
i
! I
i
1
11.
1
ji
t
h
I.
i ! I
N
F.
•,' .. ,
100 '
' • :
. ..:*
3
. ;
. I
/..
11
i 1
)
I I.
1