Star.
London, England, 1821-11-22 00:00:00

PREROGATIVE COURT, NOVEMBER 21.

LANGDON V. LANGDON AND JONES.
This was a testamentary cause. The testatrix left
no regularly executed will. behind her ; but in her
escrutoie a paper was found, without date, signa-
ture, or concluding sentence; the inception of which
was conceited in these word::
" My dear children, having little to leave except my blessing,
I make no Will; but I desire to make the following bequests,
which I have no doubt will be complied with."

—This paper was left in this unfinished manner:
" In consideration of Mr. Mayo's having been very kind to
several branches of the family, I trust he will accept my organ,
with £BO to repair it, if he likes. I leave my harpsichord ---"
—The property of the testatrix is of the value of be-
tween £ll,OOO and £12,000. She died a widow,
leaving seven children ; and of these, six were enu-
merated by name in the paper in question as the ob-
jects of her testamentary bounty, but the name of
her son Philip was omitted. This Gentleman, at the
time of his mother's death, in June last, was resident
at the Cape of Good Hope ; and the parties to the
present suit were, on the one hand, the next of kin,
and on the other, Mr. Philip Langdon, who opposed,
the paper now propounded for, and as the last testa-
mentary disposition of the deceased, by which be
would be excluded from all participation in the pro-
perty left by her.
Dr. ADAMS and Dr. DODSON were heard in sup-
port of the paper before the Court. It was endea-
+toured to shew that Mr. P. Langdon had already re-
ceived in the life-time-of his father, and subsequently
to his death, such a proportion of fortune, as was'
equal to that which the lest of the family would be,
entitled to take, under the provisions contained in
this scrip : and that, from the embarrassments in
which he found himself at length involved, in conse-
quence of his misfortunes or imprudence, he quitted
England for the Cape of Good Hope, in the year
1803, and had ever since remained in that settlement.
The Learned Counsel further stated, that, from the
evidence, it appeared that Mr. P. Langdon, during
the whole of this interval, had left his wife and three
children under the care and protection of his family.
And they argued, that upon these and similar facts,
it was to be assumed that the deceased was aware of
the fact of his exclusion from this paper; that such
exclusion was intentional ; that it was accounted for,
and justified by the whole complexion of the case;
that the paper, though informal, was clearly intended
by the deceased to operate as the expression of her
final testamentary intentions; and that the Court
ought to pronounce for its effect and validity as such.l
Dr. LIISHINGTON and Dr. JESSE ADAMS, on behalf
of Mr. Langdon, contended that the paper was, on
the face of- it, not merely informal and unfinished,
but not even a paper originally intended to be opera-
tive by the deceased, and afterwards interrupted ini
its progress towards completion by the act of Goo.
They also dwelt upon the very affectionate terms of
certain letters from the deceased to her son, as con-
tained in the evidence, and upon the strong regard
and interest which she was proved on all occasions to
have manifested in his favour. Upon the whole of
these facts, they submitted that the inference to be
raised was, rather that the deceased was more at-1
tached to Mr. Philip Langdon than the rest of her
family, than that she viewed with resentment his for-1
mer misfortunes, or considered that he had already
had the benefit of a sufficient proportion of that pro-
perty, which it should rather seem she was desirous
of bestowing equally, and without exception, among
the whole of her family. The Learned Counsel also
submitted, that where a paper was thus professedly
informal, nothing but the strongest evidence of tes-
tamentary.intention would so far satisfy the Court as
to induce it to pronounce for it: they conceived that,
in the present case, no such testimony had been sup-
plied ; that nothing had been shewn to warrant the
exclusion of Mr. Philip Langdon, and that the paper
ought to be rejected.
Sir JOHN NICHOLL declared, that the Court felt
itself bound to pronounce against the paper writing
propounded.