Star.
London, England, 1818-01-24 00:00:00

Before she retired from Court, Mrs. Dobin ex-
pressed her sorrow fer the trouble she lead already
given: her situation was most painful, and she trus-
ted
that their Lordships would do justice to her feel-
ings as a mother: nothing but a superior sense of
duty to her child could compel her to abandon her
duty to the Court. Obedience to their Lordships'
mandate to deliver up her child was out of the ques-
tion, and she would willingly suffer imprisonment
or any other privation, rather than be separated from
it. She then courtesied and retired.

Mr. SC:1111,1'1r, in another case of a family differ-
ence, (the wirnes of the parties not being mentioned),
e.)served, that he was instructed on the part of the.
father an,l the r.-ife. The matter was fixed for dis-
Ossion on the 27th instant, but he trusted that some
a-rangement might be made to prevent exposure.
The Cenral. expressed its readiness to grant a pri-
vate audit if the parties sh4uld think it proper.
Mr. SCARLETT said, that this intimation should be
mentioned to them ; but unless both sides consented,
the subject must necessarily be made public.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JAXUARY23.
SIR W. LEE•;IS V. J. 'S.tORGAN.

Mr. BLAKE moved for a Rule to show cause why
John Morgan, the defendant, should not be commit-
tdd to the Fleet Prison for a contempt of Court, and
also why he should not be directed to pay into Court
ail the rents which he received from the estates of the
plaintiff, since the 18-1 of November last, the day
4:n which the Court made its order, prohibiting him
to interfere with the same. This motion was grounded
on two facts sworn to in die affilavits : first, the vio-
latian of the order of November 18. The Court
would recollect that by that order, not only Morgan
was restrained from receiving any part of the rents
'tut Sir W. Lewis was restored to the possession of
his estates. Morgan was in Court when that order
was pronour.cel, and it was settled in Lord Hard-
wicke s time, t"tat if a party were in Court when an
order alTecting him v.-as pronounced, he was bound
to obey Lt, whether he gat subsequent notice of it or
not.. In direct violation, however, of this order,
Morgan-proceeded to receive the rents by his agent.
The secomi fact was, the separate publication of the
opinion of one of the Learned Barons which was de-
livered last term. lie not only violated the order of
t!te Court by receiving the rents, but also printed and
circulated the opinion of one of their Lordships, who
differed from the rest as to the justice of that order,
as if. he was determined to bring forward the opinion
of that person, in order to sustain him is receiving
than rents. Mr Morgan could not plead ignorance;
he was a veteran practitioner of the Court. It required
re seat knowledge to see the gross violation of the
dignity of the Court in which he was implicated.--
He was a Solicitor, an officer of the Court, and there
was no reason why he should not be punished. The
aldavits in support of these facts, stated, that Mer-
gan's Agent (ilemry Lewis) did, on the January
instant, receive 5001. on account of rents, from the
eltates of Sir W. Lewis; and he produced a letter to
the tenants, in which Morgan authorized hint to re-
oeive those rents, and also sent him a printed copy,
pgrporting to contain an account of the opinion of
Baron Wood, which he (Morgan) desired to be
shown to the tenants.
Rule granted against Mr. Morgan and Mr. Lewis.
Mr. BLAKE subsequently moved for leave to have
the time fur paying the money into Court enlarged
for a week longer, as notice of motion had only been
serrel on Morgan this morning.- *.Motion granted.

a forrr.er else ti'st of " .Austen r. Duncan. 1756," a
natural datiliter had been appointed executrix. She
was a minor, and there was no guardian appointed
by the Court of Chancery.
The Count' said it was entirely within its jurisdic-
tion to appoint a guardian for that purpose ; but
granted the administration to the grandmother.—
None of these cases bear exactly upon the present
point : they are all distinguishable either on the
ground of relationship or on that of interest ; but here
the case stands on the mere and simple choice of the
minor. The Court has undoubtedly a discretion to
accept such a choice ; and it is not necessary that
there should be an appointment as guardian by the
Court of Chancery. If, indeed, such an appointment
were made, it would doubtless be considered with
great respect by this Court, and the administration
would probably be granted accordinjly ; but, that
matter does not now come under consideraer- The
choice is that of an illegitimate minor; and though
in this particular instance I have no doubt but that it
is a very proper one, yet on geneni 7rinciple it mist
be admitted, that such a choice is liable to be very
injudiciously made. When the Cont has a discre-
tion, it usually considers, in the first place, where the
interest lies : and as a general principle, it commits
the management of the property to the person prin-
cipally interested in it, if otherwise capable ; consi-
dering that where the greatest interest is, there is the
greatest security for good management. Now as to
the property of illegitimate persons, the Crown has
the sole interest in case of death : and the Crown too
is the general guardian of such persons where no
other is appointed. In short, the Crown stands to them•
in the place of next of kin. I consider, therefore, that
in a case like the present, notice should be given to
the Crown officers, in order that they might see iehe-
ther the person nominated was proper, and might
take care that due security was given. If upon such
=ice the Crown officers did not object to the nomi-
nation, the Court would probably grant administra-
tion to the minor's nominee ; but if the officers of the
Crown did object, the Court would hear on such ob-
jections, and decide according to the circumstances;
and if it thought the objections well founded, it would
either grant the administration to some other nominee
of the minor, or else to a nominee of the Crown.—
The Court therefore recommtuded, that on the pre-
sent occasion, and in all future instances where an
illegitimate minor nominated an indifferent stranger,
notice should be given to the Crown officers, and if
no objection was made by them, the administration
should theft be moved to be granted to the nominee
of the minor.

Dr. LUSHINGTON stattd, that his party wo'tld be
happy to adopt the course pointed out by tie Court.

RICHARDS V. CLARKE.

In this case an allegation Wal given in, propound-
ing, as a codicil, a paper which the testator some
time after its execution had torn, being then and
afterwards, as wai alledged, in " are unfft state of;
mind to make a will," and the admission of this alle- I
gation being opposed, the Court, after hearir.g the
arguments of Counsel, gave its decision, r.ear.y as
follows: The first and second articles of this allega-'
tion afford no ground for objection. Thzy are mk..rely
narrative of the circumstances under which the tes-
tator died in the month of November, having pre-
viously made a will, and leaving behind him a bro-
ther, sister, and r2phews, and personal property to
the amount of 16,0001. The third article states, that
he arrived at Liverpool, fivm the West Indies, in the
month of September immediately preceding his death,
in an ill state of health. This article goes or. to state
his conversations on the subject of his testamentary

intentions, with his physician, Dr. Barrow, since de-
ceased : and it is objected that these conversations
cannot now be proved; but this past of the narrative
is only introductory to the execution of the codicil,
and seems intended principally to chew that that exe-
cution was a deliberate act. Now the Court does not
usually look with a strict degree of minuteness into
the parts of an article which are merely introductory.
Dr. Barrow, it is said, recommended the testator to
employ Mr. Miller to draw up the instrument necessary
for carrying into effect the testator's intentions, which
were of a very natural and reasonable kind, viz. to be-
queath legacies to his brother's children; to give di-
rections for the emancipation of one of the testator's
slaves ; and to appoint the testator's brother as co-
executor with another Gentleman named in his will,
and who was in the West Indies. These facts may,
perhaps, be admitted in the answers; and at all events
it is not worth while to reform the allegation fur the
mere purpose of expunging the parts which may be
supposed to have been known only to Dr. Barrow.
The fifth ,n-tide continues the narrative, and states,
that the deceased having sent for the sketch of his
will, and communicated his intentions to Mr.,Miller,
a new will was meant to be drawn up ; but in the
mean while it was thought advisable to put the ad-
ditional matter into the shape of a codicil, which
was accordingly executed by the deceased; and the
sixth article pleads his hand-writing. The seventh
article relates to the destruction of the codicil. _lt
states, that two days aftsr the execution, Mr. Miller
came again to receive the further instructions of the
testator, when he found him in a state of great mm-
tal irritation, and after some time the deceased ask:d
him for the sketch of the will, which was given to
him, together with the codicil, which by accident was
folded up in it, and he, it is said, tore the whole, not
being sensible of what he was about. Certainly, such
•earing, if proved as pleaded, could not revoke the
because there was no animus repocanii. It is
that he never afterwards was in a fit state of
• execute ae. if]. I agree with t:.ts Counsel, in
m to the alkgatirm, that this is not the usual
)f pleading, and that it is highly important to
to technical language in drawing up arega-1
At the same time, it is not absolutely essential',
ate to prove that the testator was really unfit
re his will from the time of tearing his codicil
death , for if the persons around him thought
was not in such a state of mind, and therefore
ei from bringing before him the codicil which
torn sine anima revoaandi, that circurterteusce
never operate to revoke the codicil. If it be
hawever, to plead that he was of " unsound
' that expression, as being more technical,
be preferable to the present expression, not in
ite of mind to make a will. '
Counsel accedirg to ttis alteration, the allege-
reformed was immediately admitted.