Star.
London, England, 1817-12-11 00:00:00

Liffif INTLI,LauLNut.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 10.
AItNoLD W J,.HN HARLEY..
An action to recover damages t.r the breach of
an agreement. The declaration stated, th it the plain-
tiff, being Proprietor of the l'he•itre lt,iyal Lyceum
and English Opera•house, entered into an agreement
with the defendant, that he should become a per-
former there tta five years, at a ritong salary of six,
seven, eight, nine, and ten pounds per week, and
that he should execute the cussomory drucirs signed
by performers, but that the defendant hat refused to
perform at the plaintiff's l'heatre, and to execute the
articles.

Mr. SCARGITT, for the plaintiff, observed, that
under all the circumstances, his client did not ihink
it proper to accede to this prop .sal. Tile Learned
Counsel then proceeded to state the facts ut to
which the action arose. The plain-iff
.was a Gentle
man whose risme and talents were piobably wed
known to the Jury ; he was Manager and Proprietor
of one of the must elegant Theatres of the Metrop—
li., and his object in submitting this case to a Jur') ,
was not so much to proceed with harshness eget bt
Vie defendant, an exceiLlit and approved perform 1,
as to obtain the opinion Ji the Cowt and Jill) tivoir
an important questi in which deeply affected his
tut -
rests, ALI whteli, it determined against him, wooid
compel him to el, inge tiie 'intuit 01 the cum, -
ments entered int,. by now with all the actors
concern. In order to rendrr ills L'heatre deserving
of the patronage the public, he had used his ut-
most exertions to engage C•ir most celebrated per-
formers at the Provincial rile:sties ; while they, un-
der the direction of A liberal Manager (for such Mr.
Arnold had evet strewn hi inset!, and in this instance
more especially). would LAVa such an opportunity of
displaying them talents at a Summer theatre, and tit
forming more permanent, it nut more profitable
en-
gagements, at a winter establishment. In the year
2814, Mr. Arnold had heard a •inettring of the.me-
rits of Mr. Harley, who having an engagement with
the York company ( which had produced many of the
most distinguished actors of Liiiid,4l), was at that
time playing at Brighton, where Mr. Arnold
Illed on a visit. The defendant had learnt through
a friend that it was not improbable that Mr. Arnold
woulli treat with him, and in consequence he wrote
the following letter to the plaintiff :
" Theatre, brighten, October 80, 1814.
" Sia—Mr. Kelly, to .rhorn I feel lugh4 indebted, bai se.
quainted me with your inclination to make a stip to town thh
summer desirable to' me. I fun here merely a bird of passage,
and return to York immediately. 1 wish, however, to ks my-
self in the overgrown place, if a fair inducement is held out—
but cannot give up a lucrative certainly tor a mere speculation.
It you wish to avail yourself of my services, you Will Wats your
terms—l am sure they are what I wdl age to. Contormably
with your desire, I have uanscrilted au abundant cast of parts,
which I have been its the habit of filling. I un Etc.
The cast of parts was (continued 41. _Sr' ARUM)
very comprehensive. Some Gentlemen were famous
iht one line of acting, to acquire eminence in which
they sacrificed the rest—but few men possessed such
versatility of talent as to enable them to pity so mail
different characters a: Mr. Harley piotessed himself
qualified to till. The following were a few of theme
Sadi, in 'l Pte Meinsedusseers—jagmes, in The Hoary Mom
in The Cabinet—Edward, in The Hauntedt
Tower. and Aleto-worsa, in The Hip:cries. There
were, beaides. nearly 100 others. It did suit of ten bap•
pen that a man's estimation of his own parts was
correct. sienerally speaking (and lie did nut know
that lie ought to except actors from the rule), the
vanity of led them to err a little in eakiniating
their merits. Mr. Harley, buweva, bad certainly
made a just estimate of his abilities—he proved him-
;eh capable of supporting all this vatiety of ch.rac-
ter—and, therefore, it was not difficult to judge of
lus utility. He :mind an itarnedsate igISMSE 1101 U

ivir: Arnold. anA he then wrote ,to thit Gentleman
the following letter
. .
" lose not a moment in acknowledging your favour of
yesteiday. I shoal,' be proud to visit London in the einitoug
summer, and rest the event of a winter engagement on the s ,c-
-cess I may meet under your aurpices, as I undetstatid fom re-
port, that your fr.endly aid witl be given to one who well exert
himself to the utmist in his power to become worthy u 4 cii. tt
derattim. My prestin incomeavcrats £3OO a-year, and I 11,4,e4
you will nut consider me a. demanding :110 much, when I a k an
engagement at £5 pet week, sullitct II) any tavourAtile ahcratity,
which my services may de3crvr. lam MU,: &Caitlin 10 aim in
.7.2nr C.111i..4"

Mr Arnold, in reply, wrote thus:
" I, whhout hesitation, agree to your ptopocition, and con.
eider you engaged, for the season of lettri, at the l.ycrafn
I heatre, at £J per o ech, bincrrely hoping, and little doubting,
that your ialente will procure you an ens:v.:meta on toe wiutei
hoard.,"

—Ms. Arnol4l then observed, that the defendant had
not mentioned any 01,1 men's characters in his list
•isci inquired whether Peter Fi:1,4:1, in the Boartliiv-
house, would not come within Isis general scope of
actin;° ? To this tie defendant answered—i, lam
the original Fidget, at the York Ti.e.i.re. The •.d
men I iu.sociate with other business are those iii c.e
hoe ot I:ave.:it and Bannister." These, ohm:fired Mr.
SCerietl, were two most eminent actors, whose cast
ol paths be .Issocitted with those already mentoased.
1813, the defendant came to town, anti only
played two or three times, at £5 a week. Mr. Ai-
now was so satifi:d with his talents that he made
him a voluntary prirssiti.in of an increase ot salary.
" Yoc shall," said be, £6 per week, for the
present year—and, it you will engage for a longer
term, you ,:.all hive a rising salary." Then cause
ine contract on which the piesent action was build::.:.
At the tinse it was mad; Mt. Atnoid told the de-
lendant that he bad no concern with Drury-lane
Iheatre, co which he had been Massager. 4, I know,"
slid he, it has been a matter of speculation, th it
the persons engaged at my Summer l'heatre should
nib o have an engagement at Drury-lane—but I pro-
mise nu such thing. Therelore, open your eyes on
the subject, and lu.,k abjut you. It you agree with
.tie, and afterwards procure an engageuscnt at o;.c
.1 stir Winter Theatres, 1 will give you, should I
call on you to perform, while the IVinter Theatres
at open, the same salary as you receive under pair
+Volts r engagement—but my engagement Must i•ike
tin i,recedence." Mr. Harley then drew up the
nig memorandum with his own hand :
Mesenuauctum-1 do hereby engage myself to Sainte!
Jatais isruold, ot the Lyceum Iskeatre, for a term ot live year',
at .5 re.i:ig %al:try of if, 7,8, 9, and Ito per wren,
pay"—(t hat, observed Mt. SCAILF:IT, means pay 'luring the
time the at:Or3 really per min) —"to commence with the presets:
eJ...011 ; and it is a condition of this engigeintnt, that, in the
evens in my bcmg 4::,gsged a: a Winter fnea! re, Sit- 32k1
ettookt I) •to pay me the same salary as t derive under my new
engagement, should lie require me to play wide the Wh ict.
l'iseair. are open.' flue meaning of this was, suppose I
siourst make act engagement with Covent Garden or thwy-Leie
for £_U • witch, i, y. 41 caul 011 me to play for you whi.e the 11 neer
Chen se, are °pm, you must pay me the same sum." .1 he Nt emu•
raintion went on 1. In ratifica ion of whirls agreement, an amide
will ioninettis be executed by both parties."

Th se Articles were in printed form--.they con
touted tines for noneettendance at rehears.uls, and a
variety to reeulAttons in other points. It was the
breech of this agreement of which the plaintiff now
complained After Mr. Harley Ined made him.ell a fa-
vout.te with t..e public—after he had, by his eeertioes
at the Lyceum, obtained a teconimenclation to
Drury-lane, where he was 'now engaged—after re-
ceiving warning from Mr. Arnold nut to sign the
agreement with him till he perfectly understood what
he was about—it Was tip much for .him to turn
about and say, 4‘ I w.li not pet firm my agreement.
I will not sign the article." Vilien Mr. Arnold argil •
~im the article to sign in (Sri, he said he could not
11l that form, a. it would he inconsistent with his en-
gageoient at Drm y lane. Mr. Mayhew, the plain.
off's s,.licitor, then sent him the at ticks, and re-
quested to know what part he objected to—which i.e.
re!urned, alter 11 lying made an alteration with his
own hand. Mr. Arnold could hot agree to the exe-
cution of the article thus altered. A corresermileiice
then took place between the parties—and Mr. Ar-
-nold requested the defendant to sign the articles, ob-
serving, that lie would not press their execittii,n on
ilia' wt h any severity. lie, however, sail refused..
In toe begiiiiiing of the present ye.tr, Mr. Haley ex-
pressed a desire agein to perform at the Lyceum,
si g, that he could get more money by another
summer eneweement, but that he would perform at
a reduced tate tor Mr. Arnold. Still he would not
sign tie aticle—he even refused to sign it, as altered
try himself.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—JS there any penalty in the
arttcles ?
Mr. hcatiterry said, that there was a general pe-
nalty of 1,000, and particular fines for not attend-
ing oil different occasions, and doing certain prohi-
bited acts. This brought him to the question of da-
mages-what the plaintiff lied a right to expect al
the hands of the Jury. In some pieces in which the
defendant played at the Lyceum, he made certain
characters extremely popular ; and when he quitted,
Mr. Arnold was under the necessity of employing
others, however considerable their talents, not so
much approved, to fill :nose parts, and he paid them
a higher salary : this would be one rule by which the
loss of the plaintiff, certainly not easily ascertained,
could be measured : it could, however, form no ade-
quate criterion, for it might be said that some parts
the defendant had actually appropriated to himself,
anodic: man might play them ; but they did not
seem to belong to him any more than Another men's
coat would appear to fit him; like a suit of clothes,.
they -seemed made for Mr. Harley, and in this re-'
spect the injury to the plaintiff could not easily be
repaired.
Lord EoLteitotoueou, in this stage of the cause,
put it to Mr. Gurney, on the other side, whether he
could vary materially the statement of facts 0141
made: could he do away with the agreement, and
no license or dispensation was plead:!
Mr. GVIINEY replied, that thong% Le feared his de-
hence was not such a, to enable tin: to r;:sis! a Vet.
diet, he could off.r such circunistences to the consi-
deration of the Jul y, as would coripletely exculpate
defendant.
Lord ELLENDOROUGH.—TI ere is certainly great
udEcol7 in hitting upon any mode of ascertaining
the comp:us:anon to witch ti,c plaintiff is entitled ;
older& that difficulty seenis insuperable at Nisi Prior;
and my reAton for iitterposing, WAS to see it it were
not possible to avoid it in sonic other way.
Mr. GURNEV—The-diflicalty I feel is this:—l re-
present an individual whose existence depeork on the

estiiiiation in which he held by the se; a 1.
• FA 4
he go (tom this Court with an impression againsi
him that he has wantonly, and w;thout reason, via:.
lated solemn engAgement, it rnit be th, d strut=
of all his to:me hopes: From the itisto.ictions
have received, i may say co tidently, that oi ugh
t !ry
.do nut .nnount to i legal, they do c*rtainly
amount to a moral defence

lar4d Et.t.expoitot:cat.—Here tve hale only to do
w leg.il dclence.
Mr. (ltieNKr.—With respect to any other mode of
idjustment, I can only SA f that the pr hit a
reicirce was reinstd in the first inst.ii ce. and in the
me,n, tirne the Conii,el his the piaintiff has had the,
oprortunity of making hi; speech, which, it 1 ci n.
sent, must remain uita!:swered ; oteerwise, I shoeld
have no ohieetto:, to altite the plaintiff to recover the
damages, be.is the su:jtci of an award.
Mr. SCAILLETT.—Ii the pr,vsal had been in the
first instance ,hat th•- plat:turf should have a
the dam,ges b nee roeriud, I should Ull,bilibied:r
have vitis:utt-d. I am iiistriict.d to that is is
not Mr. At noLl's wis it ad to pre,s upo.. this gen.
Lk/04h 0/ ti/.11 r.fleat up •ii taint Slliet: he I.N.
,i,:ves that he has ;men and has act. • i
11e has doee iron. a 1111:,CrinCtilLi1111 or the sisslUte Us
lcgai obligation.
Mr. CUISNEY added, that circumstances he was
prepared to t•ta:e, w•nild probably reduce the da-
.ges to a sum act. ly nominal It was the 0./.t.1;.
tion of his client to tile a hill in equity..
litai.Nunitovtar rectm:ended that
the p.trties sh•luld a Chancery putt, wit sh could
only prove :1 further !•.:niter of unproniaide a6,r; ;
is WAS not u•ifi-uit to 111311 a Gm lcrnau at the r...f
cq!tanhted with theairie::l who, V.tu, S.tiCt
bosi,sist and liberally, could investiate tote ma ter,
and might be invested with toll powers to settle the
nratt?rs in diffeience more satisfactorily on some ac-
counti than a C :ur t of Equity.
A sh rt disc.p.sion then took place as to the pro.
prim of giving as individual these powers.
Mr. SCAULL'IT olp.rived, that he _was des'red to
say, that the chief object the plaintiff had in view,
was not to injure the prcket of Mr. Harley, bin to
set le his own lights: his property iu the Lyceum
Thaatre would perish, if the actors he had engaged
!elt themselves at lit:erty to hum oilier engagements,
and to neglect these previously made with litur.
Mr. GUn.NEY r.quiested to he allowed to state, that
!!:e facts contained an his instructions were didaent
in several important particulars from those detail...4l
try Mr. Scariest ; he hoped, therefore, that it wt.uld
not be supposed, h‘.cause the defendant consented to
the reference, that he agreed in the facts nox before
the Court.

Mr. SCARLPTT added, that what he had said a. 42
warra,.tel by tiit I..ttcrs of the defendant•
After tew ottakr oninsportant obseitr4tions upon'
the choice of an arbitrator, ;4 Gaselee was finally
named, All,l a rerdicc WAS taken tor the plaintiff—a
llain.%es £1,t;01, subject to his awar.l..

PREROGATIVE couaT, mc.9.

Anctitrit v. notntsH.
This cause rclate.l t,i the will of Thomis Archer,
Ire o! Perry 13.4 r, irishire, which bore date on
;he 4th of December, 1815, tnd was propoiteded by,
Crionras Archie, the son e f the deceeseJ, y
legatee 0 ere n tainted. The party oppi sng it was rt
Mr. George Liar:ill, snn-iii.law of tae d ck.!s•sl.. aid
one. of the txecuters partied in a will, dale ! 5.1 i J n.
1811. The ;.eceasetl had made three co.ficils to the
wilt 0(1814 the'first bearing date 1301 I.tit 1814 ;
tne second, :Nei April 1814 ; and the 3d dated 26th
August 1815
lie chel on t! e 4eh December, 1815, (two or three
flows after the executien of the will propounded in
Nos cause) leairSog a son and three daughters, rif
whom tt.o were married, Mr. Burr:sh and Mr:
elionisoil,. and rine, Letitia, was unniarried.
• 13y the wit of 1815, he left his leasehold property
and trade to his son Thomas, who was in partnership
with him; £SSD, and £25 per annum to Mr. Butri-h,
three canal shares to his daughter Letide ; and the
residue of fus; proper; y to his grandchildren, the sons
of Mr. littriislt. I:}' the codicils he reduced the t
(pest to his daughter Letitia, first to .E5O, then to
w:10, and lastly to t ) per annum. fly the will
propounded, the deceesed gave to Me. limns!' £17(0,
to Mrs. Th-tn,on A. 1200, to his daughter Letitia
di:7oo, and the residue to his son, Thomas Archer.
This Will WAS only signed by a cross, as the testator's
mark ; the former was executed in the tisti.,l wan
and both wills were attested by three witnesses.
. The case was argued at great length on thi
and the preceding Court day, by Drs. Adams and ,
.leaner for the Liter will, and by Drs. Swebey and
Lushington against it.
Sir .1. Niettoee gave judgment nearly in the fele
lo \sing terms : " This is a question of the validity
of a p pa, propounded as the last will 'and testerni tit
of a Mr. Archer.—(tiers he steted the psi:Oculars
above noticed.)—It IS clear that the deceased con-
sidered that by his hunter will he had given .1 jest
share of his property to his son,'l'nos. Archer, whom
he had previously taken into partnership as a manna
I'm:utter at llirrtinigirant. Against this son he enter-
taiaed no resentment ; but the cese was different will
rewire. to his daughter Leetia, who had grievously
offended loin by tie part which she took in some de-
'nestle disputes beteeen him and his late wife, who
separated from huh in 1810, and died in 1811. The
testator, in the coakils, expte,sly assigns her insn- •
knee to him in resavet to the disagreements between
him and his wife, as the reason for reducing her from
an equal .re with his teller daughters to a mete an.
nutty, as he expresses it, to keep ner from the pa:ieN.
—The w el, however, is a total departure frith
the former will and codices ; it passes over the grin!.
childiea eltoitether and re-admits his daughter e.e:it.4
in iet RIR shag of his ;.ireperty, 'taking into the ac.
court the iiee.eions sealers:env. on his married dati,,!i.
ter.. I ,tre nu means of areeiteining the amou..t
ot the residee it: this case; no is it, perhaps, of any
sci y great int,p,rtaiice. The ~on has certainly an ad.
vantage in the nee will. At sill events he has no
pertners'aip acceutit to reeler. 13ut the questial for
me now to ciecide is, whether the will of Ike. 4,
1815, is sunicieraiy prove J, according to the ilemands
ot•the law, to Lave bent the real will and iatencen
of the deceased h'ensell. It is not pretended that the
dece.teed himself ever expressed any dissatisfaction at
the former arrangement of his affairs, or any wish in
his last illness, 'set:kir coetineed it near a mutt:::, to
alter his hornier a iii yi Cudi.:lls. clfteree is stated

to have been committed towards him by the persons
I enuSted. It is true he was subsequently dissatisfied
with his son's management of business; he was not
on le:rtes of great intimacy with him; and even in-
turpo.:ed to throw an obstacle in the way of his
marroige, by stating that his son had no reason to
expect any more from him. With his daughter
Letitia, it appears he lived on ill terms. She indeed
attended on him during his last illness, as did his son.
They both paid him great attention on this occasion;
and it appeared to the servants that he eras perfectly
reconciled to them. If the observations of the ser-
vants be correct, the facts they speak to, strongly
mark returning kindness on his part ; hilt still there
is nothing coining front the deceased himself which
marks any intention to alter his testamentary arrange-
ments. The will propounded is wholly is the hand•
writing of the son, who is the Residuary Legatee
named in it. This circumstance, no doubt, in all
cases requires explaaatiots. Now what is the expla-
nation here given It is admitted to have been writ-
ten without any instructions from the deceased : and
U.! drawing it up is thus stated by Mr. &lest. He
saes, 44 that Mr. Archer told I:im that he (Arc:iei )
arid his sister Letitia were sitting together one even-
ing, a few days before the deceased • died ; that lie
said to It's sister, he wondered how their lather would•
leave his property, that he (the son) would sketch a
will, and compare it with the deceased's sifter hi.
bath ; that the cne he would sketch should be what
he thought ought to satisfy all the family ; and that
Ise did accordiugly draw out a paper, which is the
very will now propounded, wed which he kept locked
up till the very morning of the day on which the de-
ceased died." Now, the expression of 4‘ wondering"
seems rather odd ; for the son seems to have been
sufficiently informed how the grand-children were left.
However, this account of the writing does not go at
all to correct the origination of the will with the de-
ceased. It is not drawn up in pursuance of any in-
Eructions from him, but merely as a matter of curiosi-
ty, to be compared after his death with the real will.
Neither is it suggested that this•will was in any manner
communicated to the deceased till within five or six
hours of his death; and then only by twice reading it
over to him. This Court will not lay it ;lowa as an
universal rule, that a ssi;l drawn up without instruc-
tions, written by the residuary legatee, and read over
by him, revocatory of a previous complete disposi.
thin, cannot be establiihed ; but it is not saying too
touch to assert, that a will, under such circumstances,
would require evidence of the most satisfactory kind,
Mewing that the deceased fully knew and understood
the nature and effect of the instrument, and that' be
freely and solemnly adopted it as his will. It is a
sort of axiom in the decisions of this Court, that where
the capacity of the testator is doubtful, there must be
full proof of insuuctions, or of something tantamount
to instructions. It is a proposition equally received'
'in these Course, that where an instrument is drawn
up by the hand of the party benefited, there must be
'at least full proof ref capacity. Some persons erro.
!lowly imagine, that it a testator can understand the
moot simple proposition. an instrument executed by
him must take effect, however intricate and compli-
• gated; but that is not the true doctrine of this Court.
The capacity must be equal to the act; there must
be a mural conviction in the mind of the Court. that
the testator was capable of understanding, and did
understand the whole instrument, and that the whole
was his will. What evidence is sufficient to produce
that moral conviction, must vary.according to the
*tabor circumstances of every case. It the will be
tendered to the deceased for execution by an indiffe-
rent person, or prepared by his confidential Solicitor,
the Court will generally presume the from the
mere execution; but where the instrument is of a dif-
ferent character, the degree of capacity must be more
closely scrutinised. Under the circumstances of the
present car, it becomes extremely material there-
fore to lee what was the state of the deceased's capa-
city at the time of executing the instrument in ques-
tion. He had been indisposed for a month pre.
oleos'', he had been confined to his"room for a week.
and to his bed for three days. In the tatter stages
of his disorder it had changed to a diarlaca,
producing extreme debility of body, and of course a
weisimued mind. Oa Sunday, the Sd of December,
' Mr. Guest, a friend of the family, visited him, and
;bought his conversation shoved that he was in
.full
tiosseuion of capacity ; but be did not then talk much
bet atcoent of his illness and of his wishing to obtain
the refreshment of sleep. On Monday morning, the
litli of December. Mr. Guest thought him in the same
state; but be does not appear to have then had any
conversation with him. Dr. Johnstone, the physician,
saw him that morning, between eleven and twelve,
and thought him then in a dying state, and that he
could not live above a few hours. Mr. Allen who
was with him between one and two, says, he did not
utter one word which he could understand. Of the
two maid-servants who are examined, one says, that
be became drowsy within half an hour after the en•
cation of the will, and did not utter above one word
more before his death. Mr. Guest returned againbe-
tween three and four. and found that a very material
alteration had taken place, that his eyes looked dim,
he was in the hands of death, his mental I acuities were
newly, if not quite gone, and he had lost his senses.
The Learned Judge here stated several other circum-
stances in the evidence, to shew,that during the whole
of thismorning the deceased's faculties were rapidly
-declining. At this time Mr. Thomas Archer, the
son, was clearly aware of the former disposition 01
his father's property, for be says to Dr. lolinsume,
4. that it was of the greatest importance that his father
should be prevailed upon to alter his will, as he had
loft his property very unequally, leaving it to his
,grand-children, pissing over his children, and leav-
ing his youngest daughter tet ally destitute." Tu which
Dr. Johnstone replied by expressing his doubts whe.
ther the deceased was adequate to a business of so
much importance. The son, however, sets about pro-
curing the execution of the paper which he had Were
written _oat merely from curiosity. lie substitutes
OM entirely new will, and one of an extremely
complicated nature, its the place of that will
which the deceased had formerly executed. Now the
question which the Court has to decide is, whether the
. deceased did freely and knowingly adopt the whole
and every part of this new Will t it is impossible, in
such a case as this, to adopt the course suggested in
argument of taking part and rejecting part; tt is one
entire act which the Court has here to decide upon.
The only grand suggested either to cis( deceased or

to Dr. Johnstone for the new will, is the desdtnte
state in which the daughter was left under the other
will. Now how stands the evidence of the deceased's
intentions even on that point r That he may have
acted very unjustly and very unkindly towards his
daughter is very possible; but that is a circumstance
which the Court has no right to lrok at. and if it had
there is nothing before it to thew the real state of that
question. Mr. Guest urged him very notch in favour
of his daughter on the Sunday night ; but even in
that weak state the deceased refused to do any act
in compliance with those requests. He said, No,
OM now ; let her behave well and 1 will do well by
her." We then come to the reading of the will.—
The first witness on this heed is the charwoman. She
seems to have fallen into some mistake, for she says,
contrary to all the other witnesses, that thi will was
read over to the deceased before Dr. Johnstone came.
However, whether she be right or wrong in this parti-
cular, it comes to nothing ; for she adds, that the de-
ceased refused to excente it then, saying, No, no."
Tbe next witnesses are two maid servants. They
carry the matter very little further ; and besides they
are to be heard with caution; for they evidently in-
terested themselves in favour of Miss Letitia Archer,
as it was natural they should t they have besides been
retained in the service of Mr. Archer, and some little
pains have been taken to refresh their memories from
time to time by the successive solicitors of the parties;
and though the Court does not mean to intimate that
INS was done with a view to tutor them improperly,
yet it necessarily creates a caution in we'ehing the mi.
nine circumstances to which they speak ; and it is
certain that the Court can pay little attention to their
opinion, and none at all to their conjectures in the
question of the deceased's capacity. The Physician
attended about noon, and after he went away the
poultice and applications of mustard, which he had
ordered, mete applied to the deceased's ancles, and
the deceased was set up in his bed, and supported in
this position, while Mr. 'Phonies Archer, his son,
read the will over to him, and told him that it was
what his friends thought proper, mentioning several
names in which the witnesses are not exactly agreed.
At all events, this mode of introducing the subject,
was one likely to influence him, and also to take off
his attention from the purport and effect of the will,
the object of which was also represented to him in
general terms, but not correctly, as meant to benefit
his daughter. After the first reading, the deceased
said, 44 No, no." He was the:; urged both by his
ton and daughter, and also by one of the maid str-
eams. At length he said. Con it over again."—
It was read again to him, and be said nothing. It
was never explained particularly to him ; never even
read over clause by clause, and his opinion asked on
the separate clauses; but at last, thus sitting up in
bed, it is put before him, • pen is put into his hand,
he is assisted by his son, and a mark is made. One
witness says, she heard him say, is I 'can never re-
pent," and saw him point with the pen to the writ-
ing; but the other witnesses mention nothing of these
facts. Mr. Allin, one of the subscribed witnesses,
says, that the deceased muttered something, but he
could nut understand him. Taking this statement in
a favourable yoinKof view, does it prove that the de.
"aware
knew the contents of the will; that he was
-aware of their weirs and effect? Independently of
the want of capacity, here is a degree of solicitation
which, in such circumstances, must be looked
,upon
with ;peat jealousy. The transaction was not ended
till near two-fibers after the visit of Dr. Johnstone,
and less than two hours Wore the return of Mr.
Guest...4lllde: all the circumstances, the Court,
without imputing fraud to the parties, feels itself
compelled to pronounce against the will, with costs.
OLD HAMBY SESSIONS.
Yesterday Joseph Mom was convicted of stealing
a quantity of brass door handless:id window fasten.
ings from the Rectory.house at Hillingdon, the pro-
perty of Lord Boston. The prisoner was employed
as bricklayer's labourer ; and being suspected of the
theft, was apprehended, and confessed the robbery.
The prisoner, and a man of the name of Often. had
sold the articles to Mr. Blenheim, an ironmonger.—
Green was examined, stated himself to be a brick-
layer employed in the house, and confessed that he
and the prisoner had taken the goods. The prisonet
was recommended to mercy on account of Ws former
good character.
JAB Lem* mid Ricks?' Tisseetusw were indicted
for cutting and stripping, with intent to steal, 1121 b.
of lead, the property of Charles Blasdell. The evi-
dence against Lecese was not sufficiently strong, but
Thompson
,was convicted. ..
The RECORDER told Lecase that he might think
himself very lucky in getting off, for he added, a you
are a notorious character ; 1 remember you very
well. This is not the first time you have appeared
at this bar. One would have thought that the pu-
nishment you have already received would have de.
tarred you from committing any further crimes."
The officer also stated that the prisoners were
well known characters. Leease had been already
convicted of a burglary, had been transported, and
had been Many times in the House of Correction.—:-
Lecase, when apprehended, told the officer that if
he got off he would 64 rap his pate for him."
Maria Thompson, Aims Frith, alms Germain, Thomas
Gerwaia. and Alma Frith, were indicted—Marie
Thompson for stealing from the person of James
Anderson bank notes ;to the amount of iir6S, and
Anne Frith, Thomas Germain, and Eliza Frith, for
receiving the same, knowing them to be stolen.
The prosecutor is a person of respectable appear-
ance. He stated, that on the 21st of November, in
the night time, while passing the Horse Guards, he
was accosted by Maria Thompson, who enticed him
into a' public house near at hand. There he had
some liquor, and felt the effects of it in his head.—
Presently he perceived something taken from his
pocket, and in an instant missed Lis money,
tunsis-
ting of three £2O notes, and five sel bank notes.—
He had some faint recollection of having seen the
other three prisoners at the same time, but he could
not be certain. Immediately upon missing his notes,
Maria Thompson VAR off he followed and took her
to the watch-house. There he made his charge
against the prisoner, and was much infuriated at the
loss of his money. He expressed himself rather
warmly upon the subject, and be was in consequenee
put into the Mad halt. The next morning he ap.
peered with die prisoner before the Magistrate, and
stated his case. , _

Gilmore, an officer, proved, that do the 22i 6f

November, in the morning, be saw .the prima,
L'lromas Germain, andc in cansegnenre of informi-
lion he had received, tamed him with'having a £2O
note in his possetsion. Germain positively' denied it,
clasped his hands together', loaked up to Heaven, and
said that he hoped Goa would never allow him to
unciasp his hands if he had it in his possession. The
officer Tom, this won't do, 1 know you hive
the note, and I will make it stare riu in the film"—
He then searched the prisoner, and in die lining of
his hat found the note. " What do you sly to this r.
said Gilmore, shewing him the note. .ga 0, (he re-
plied) I know nothing of it—l do not know how it
got there."
John Blewett stated, that he had formerly cohabi-
ted with the prisoner Thompson. On the night of
the 21st of November, at about II or 12 o'clock, she
put three 1/20 notes into his hand. He thought she,
had not come honestly by them. The next morning
he accompanied Thomas Geranain to a Mr. Dobrie,
a pawnbroker, in Oxford-street, and charged one of
the twenty pound notes, ptirchasing at :Le same time
a silver watch for two guineas and a hail: Another
twenty pounds note was changed at a public house,
kept by a Mr. Emery.
Cross-examined--He was hirnsTlf in custody. Al.
though he suspected, when the notes acre put into
his hand by Thompson, that all was not right, he
went with Germain to change them. He now lived
in the same house with Thompson, and now cohabi-
ted with her.

Mr. Dobrie, a pawnbroker, produced the JO2O note
delivered to him by GermAin.
An officer proved, that in a gown lift at N. 7S,
Peter-street, belonging to Anne Frith, 17 41 notes
were found awed up in it.
Two £2O notes produced were sworn by the pro.
senator to be his property.
l'he prisoners all avowed their innocence, and
some witnesses were calleJ to char.tcter.

The Jury, after much consideration, found a vet.
pier of Guilty against Maria Thompsun, and Acquit-
ted the other prisoners.
gilvar was indicted for stealing a book, the
property of R. Simmons, a bookseller in Barbican.
An Officer met the prisoner with something under
his arm. Suspecting him, he examined and found a
second volume of a dictionary, which the prosecutor
proved to be that stolen from him.
The pawner, in his defence, said he was impor-
tuned in the street, by a stranger whom be met to
buy this book. He refused, saying that he was no
scholar. The man stilt pressed him, atsd he gave
him Is. 6d. for it. On his way home, he was anxious
to bow the value of thi Oook. as he had a brother
who was a scholar p he therefore called into a book-
seller's shop, who said it was French, and could only
be read by one in a hundred.
Three witnesses gave the prisoner a good charac-
ter.--Nerdict, Not Guilty.
The ItSCORDit." Prisoner, take care in future
how you dabble in books. A poet has said,
" Mink It Is a dangerous thiug,
" Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring r
The prisoner retied !tom the bar, promising be
would let books alone in future, haying got so little
by them on the present occasion.

Gut nitata..—Yesterday Mr. J. Knott, a respect-
able vintner in Salisbury-court, Tket-street, appeared
to answer an information laid by S. Bosanquer, Esq..
of Wimpole-street, Cavendish-square, charging him
with unlawfully harbouring and secreting a spaniel
dog, the property of the complainant, knowing the
same to have been stolen. There was another infor-
mation, charging the defendant with purchasing the
said dug, knowing it to have been stolen. Mr. Am-
maws, who attended in support of the information,
stated, that the defendant was charged upon the sta-
tute of the 10th Geo. 111. which enacts,'' that if any
person shall harbour or secrete a dog, knowing the
same to have been stolen, he shall, upon convietim,
be subjvct to a penalty not less than £20," and for
purehaping a dog under the same circumstances, the
punishment is a penalty of £3O. This proceeding,
the Learned Counsel said, •would not have been
adopted, had not the conduct of the defendant pro-
voked it. Mr. Bosanquet deposed,-that he purchased
the animal of a man of the name of Taierner, in
May last. He gave four guineas for it, but would
not take thtice that sum Writ now. The dog having
become diseased, the witness entrusted him to the
care of a man named Banks, for the purpose of being
cured. On the 20th of November, the dog was
missing from Banks's house, and some days after in-
formation was received that it was in the possession
of Mr. Knott. Witness saw the dog at Mr. Knott's,
and knew him to be the one he had lost. Mr. Knott
offered to restore the dog, if the informant could
make out a prior possession of him. Banks proved
that the deg was not tied up while he had him to
cure, and that he had strayed from his house, and
had not been stolen. Upon this evidence, the infor-
I autism was quashed.
• howArrumar—Yestenlay a young man was brought
to the Office, from Covent Garden watch-house,
charged by Donaldenn, the constable belonging to
Covent Garden Theatre, with making a disturbance
at the box entrance to Are Theatre on Tuesday night.
As the prisoner attributed his improper and violent
conduct to intoxication, be was discharged.
A young man was charged by Baker, the constable
belonging to Druty-lane Theatre. with making a dis-
turbance at'that Theatre, aho on the same evening.
Baker stated that the prisoner bad yesterday musing
begged pardon, and made every possible concession
for his improper conduct, and which he was convin-
ced arose from excess of liquor.—Discharged.
Woainue-stscr.—Joie Morgan, a woman abotit
twenty-four years of age, was charged with being
riotous and disorderly. On examination. the follow.
ing affecting narrative was developed :—The unfor-
tunate woman was born in Slurreititch, and by bet-
own industry acquired a small sum of money. A
silver-cane-mounter became her suitor. and they were
married on a Monday; and on the following Wed-
nesday, possessing himself of her little all, he abscon-
ded, and has not since been heard of. It is suspected
be went to America. This circumstance plunged
her into great distress; and preyed on her mind so
much that she became deranged. Some humane
gentleman got her into a madhouse, where sae re-
mained a considerable time, but a:is at last diseti.tr-
sed ; she had no means of subsistence except some
claims she had upon St. Lake's St. Giles's Cripple.
gate, and Shorediteb. They all aclused to relieve

her till het proper settlement seas ptoved, Met
'lady again returned, and she Was a second time
fined in a madhouse till considered sane, sollm
was discharr,ed. Then she was under 14e
tressing circumstances as before, the r„f
ing to relieve her tinier the former pretence, anti
was compelled to wander about the streets .titi
food, and in the severest AfiliCtlol. On mencLy
si.e applied to the Alderman at Guildhall, who Rt
ted her a sumtn!m; for one of St. Giles',
that if she had no claim upon that parish, she
he passed to her ripht settlement ; but bein
up and now kept in the watch-hottse, she was
vat
ohany benefit that alight .::,:e from this
mons. She was instantly eiEcLari.,;(l, and one.
Overseers of Shorcditcli, was present, was
tiered to relieve her till her Itzai pace of •
can be ascertained.

Tuesday night the ship Zvi:3r, bound to
tar, commanded. by Captain Mounts, lying in
Thames, was plundered ot a voluaMe bale of
Monday it person was take:, i.:to custody at
Canterbury Bank, on suspicion of fol.gine a
power of attorney, and cot:ln:mod to Westgate
for farther examinatiiin.

Several depredations were committed „t
Fai►. Amongst others, a hawker, of the name
Squire, was robbed of his pack, containing
apparel, &c. and a stall, furnished by Mr. CAL
draper, was plundered of a qu-mtity of sho;s
other articles. Three persons intp,icated in the
beties are committed for trial at the next Sessions
the town and port of Hythe.
Thursday night last, in the neighbourhood
Islington, four men, haviog a dead body Kith
were taken by-the watch, upon the sopposit,,,n
having stolen it from some burial.ground.
being called upon to give an account of thei,
they very adroitly stated that ft was the corpse fia
person who had died in an I-I,ispital of the T
?ever, and which they were conveying, away ti
purpose of burial. This sti;ry had the desired ei
the watchmen and every one present, at the
of Typhus Fever, fled with the utmost expedit
with the exception of the Constable of the Nil
who informed the prisoners that there was no ch:
against them, and desired them to quit the w
house without delay with their burden.

BIRTH.
Nov. 24, at St. Margaret's, Roctinter, the wife of the
Francis Barrows of a son.

nd
ieP"an::d:erecvsras:"dl 1121:'11.4141:
the P.sti'lles
T pretence, :Ind sh
treets u;tne,l
• Ott Monday h
saildha who Rest
• Overseer
; parish, she migh
; bet being Like
tse, she was depri
,:e fro:a this solo
r!: d, and oneof th
s present, teas
p!ace of settlerne
, bound to Gibs,
:trots, lyin4 in
61e bale of c!nth'
.:to custody at t
fa-gang a seamar
Lt to Westgate gs
mined at Hr
of the name
containing teearin
i by Mr. Carpent
miry of shoes an
s;icated in the to!
ht ntxt Sessions I
neighbotabocd
id body Kith the
the suppoilti,rn
ground. On
punt of them selve
WaS the corpse of
'tat of the Tsrpl,r,
eying away tot th
I the desired effect
.nt, at the nteetio
utmost expeditsoe
table of the Nig!•,t
tete was no char!
to quit the watch
.den.
the wife of the Le
nt Charles Norton,
Esher Rivaling Sta
the runner place.
sy, aged rutty-lira, t
et, Bridget Elie
tear of !Waster.
Wm. Flamank,D.
/Winton and Gly
lion, and a M iglstrat
rnwall. Tire Item
ge.
ank, Rozhester, whit
tin Allen, late a pan
sge of 'wady is year
illness of many y
hratres Royal Cu
Andress, in th. Slt
data convjtuttor.;•"
powar:: he had bee
Foctersy
tic cipally clistitignieb
as, orderly man ba
Second He hal r
nd was very generali
demeanour of his '
ad by :he mturfic
ations of the Duke
+er annum. io aidi
ration of his sercte.:
iomerest feeling,
daughter, who u
i, AND DEATHi.
iumas ()rifts,
Makolm, of the I
y of the Rev. fa
Esq. Paymaster, I
Nuance, Mitriour!
i!InNIBRMSt:e yea I:l9ls.ylFll6.7eriad..rii:lGrilf6:llE:nlet:::rwsital:s4'..::::
valo, Avistar• le •
e n ton.
i tae
ns• fl:
i the
sA
:Ns
.3 4 .
1 F, e:
LawarT•
Apothecary, a -.'at:•
'lro try or.
the Hon.
r
k
ls 27 pr.
s 124.) 19 t:1 rt.
Ace. HO "
leket., .tsti sv.
Pricer
gs. Od. ta 04. •
:41 mitt OW 4
19 . ......
.H
,vat