The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-04-14 00:00:00

INDICTMENT FOR PERJURY.-QUEEN V. SMITH.

The prosecutor in this case was Mr. George Meldon, and
the defendant, Mr. Christopher Smith, both of Chorlton-
upon-Medlock.
Mr. Brandt and Mr. Murphy appeared for the prosecu-
tion ; Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Monk for the defence.
Mr. BRANDT said the charge was one of wilful and cor-
rupt perjury against the defendant, formed on a written affi-
davit signed by him, and made with the view of procuring
the prosecutor's arrest by a creditor on the ground that he
was going to run the country. The prosecutor was an old
man, 75 years of age, and the defendant was his nephew.
The affidavit alleged that the prosecutor had stated on the
3d June last, that he was going to quit England. The pro-
secutor was called, and he stated that he had not left his
home on the 3d of June, and called his daughters to prove
that he had not, on that day, when the defendant and he had
a quarrel at his house, said anything about quitting England.
The defendant called witnesses who swore that they had seen

the prosecutor at the public-house kept by the defendant,
and that he stated that he was going to Sydney, where his
son was now living. . .
His LORDSHIP stopped the case, as the corroborated evi-
dence required by law, to establish a case of perjury, had not
been proved. The jury found a verdict of Not Guilty.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—FRIDAY.
(Before Mr. Justice ERSKINE and a Special Jury.)
• DOE DEM. SEGAi V. NAILING.
This was a cause in which the validity of a will made by a
deceased lady in the neighbourhood of Ormskirk, was dis-
put dby her surviving sister. Messrs. Cresswell, Alexander,
Wightman and League appeared for the plaintiff ; and for
the defendant Sir W. Follett (who came down on a special
retainer), Mr. Watson, and the Hon. J. S. Wortley.
After a long consultation between the learned counsel,
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT rose to address the court and jury.

In this case he had the honour to appear before thein its
counsel for the defendant, Mr. Robert Waring, of Ormskirk,
in this county. If this cause had gone oh, and the jury had
been called upon to investigate the evidence, it would still have
been his duty to address them first for defendant,• be-
cause he should have admitted at once the title of the heir
at law, for whom his learned friend Mr. Cresswell appeared,
although he insisted the defendant had a right to the estate
under a will devising that estate to Mr. Robert Waring. But
he was happy now to say that an inquiry, which mivitt have
lasted some time, and have occupied the jury in that,box

some hours, was 'not likely, now, .to be necessary ; and he
had risen for the purpose of telling them what was the nature
of the case in which they had succeeded in making this
arrangement. The action was brought by Miss Segar, an
elderly unmarried lady, now considerably advanced in years,
for the purpose of recovering a small estate devised by her
sister, the late Mrs. Molyneux, to the defendant Mr. Robert
Waring. Mr. Robt. Waring and his father were attorneys at
Ormskirk, and he believed he might say that Mr. Waring the
father, and Mr. Robt. Waring the son, were perons of the
highest character in the neighbourhood, and that they both
stood very high in the profession. The case was of far more
importance to Mr. Robert Waring, from some supposed
charge made against him because Mrs. Molyneux had cho-

sen to devise to him a considerable part of her property,
than from the value of the property itself. The property

was not very considerable. The estates in question were
small; but Mr. Waring could not bear in a state where any-
thying like suspicion rested upon him with regard to the will
of the testatrix. It was understood upon the part of the
plaintiff, Mrs. Segar, that she, being disappointed at not
receiving so large a bequest under the will of her sister as
she expected, thought fit to institute legal proceedings for
the purpose of ascertaining whether or not, at the time the
will was executed, Mrs. Molyneux was competent to execute
it. Under the will, Mrs. Molyneux had devised her estates
in this way : a small portion of land was left to Mrs. Segar ;
another estate, which was the subject matter of this action,
to the defendant, Mr. Robert Waring; another estate to a
brother of his ; another to a third brother ; the sum of XI,OOO
to the Liverpool Blue Coat Hospital; £2,000 to Miss Jane
Segar; another legacy to Mr. Lax, a medical man who had
attended her for a great number of years ; and another to Mr.
Boyer, the agent and manager of the property of Lord Skel-
mersdale. The deceased lady had a personal estate amount-
ing to between £I,OOO and £5,000. The residue of the pro-
perty she left to her executors, Mr. Boyer and Mr. Robert
Waring, not for their own advantage, but in trust to be dis-
tributed to the poor of the parish of Ormskirk. The part of the
will quarrelled with by Mrs. Segar, was the part relating to Mr.
Robt. Waring. With Mr. Waring's family Mrs. Molyneux was
on terms of the greatest intimacy ; his father had managed her
property for many years, and through his management it had
considerably accumulated. The greater part of it, however,
she had derived under the will of her late aunt, Mrs. Crane ;

and as he (the learned counsel) had already stated, for a con-
siderable period she derived accumulations by savings made
during the time it was under the management of Mr. Waring.
The real property amounted to about £lO,OOO, and the per-
sonal property to about £5OOO. After the death of Mr.
William Waring, Mrs. Molyneux was on terms of intimacy
with Mr. Robert Waring, but with her own sister, Mrs.
Segar, she was, unfortunately, not on terms. She had de-

vised no property which she received from her father's
family ; the property which she had from her father was left

. .
to her for life, and at her death it went to Mrs. Sugar. So
Mrs. Segar derived all the property of her father, and she
had a considerable income herself. There was every reason
to suppose that Mrs. Molyneux would have selected some
person—indeed, if the case had gone on, he should have been
able to prove that she had repeatedly said it was not her in-
tention to leave the property to her sister, but to other persons;
and she had left it in the way described. His learned friend (Mr.
Cresswell) had been instructed by Mrs. Waring to contest
the competency and the capability of the testatrix to make
this will ; but he (Sir Wm. Follett) believed there would now
be no attempt to dispute the will upon that ground. He (Sir
Wm. Follett) ought, however, to state, that Mr. Waring,
feeling the position in which Mrs. Segar was placed, as being
sister and heir-at-law to the deceased, held her justified in
making inquiries into the validity of the will, and in insti-
tuting these proceedings. Mr. Waring was anxious that no
expense should fall upon her, therefore, and had consented
that the matter should be disposed of? as if it had been in
another court. If it had been litigated before the ecclesias-
tical courts, and in due course taken before the Privy Coun-
cil, the hosts would come out of the estate, and not from the
parties proceeding. Mr. Waring, however, wished that no
expense should fall upon Mrs. Segar ,• he consented that
she should be at no expense at all. Of course he did not
mean to call upon the parties interested in the charitable
part of the property to take any part of the costs ; but as for
that part of the property which had been given to the benefi-
cial interest of Mr. Waring and his family, he was satisfied
the matter should be disposed of exactly as in the Ecclesias-
tical Courts.

Mr. CRESSWELL said he appeared for the plaintiff. Un-
doubtedly he had no desire to say one syllable reflecting at
all upon the character of Mr. Waring. His learned friend
had already stated some circumstances which had induced
the plaintiff to institute this investigation; and there were
one or two others which he (Mr. Cresswell) desired to state
on behalf of that lady. Mrs. Segar and her sister un-
fortunately were not on familiar or intimate terms for
some time before Mrs. Molyneux's death. Mrs. Molyneux
was a 'person of great eccentricity ; she was very singular
in some of her habits, and among others, she had a con-
stant desire to maintain a delusion in the minds of those
about her, as to the parties who were ultimately to benefit
by the disposal of her property. It was true she stated
sometimes that she did not mean to leave her sister anything;
but she had, quite as frequently, and in the presence of quite
as respectable persons, stated that she did not mean Mr.
Waring to have it. He (Mr. Cresswell) believed, from its
being known that. Mr. Waring was Mrs. Molyneux's confi-
dential adviser, that rumours had spread that he would be-
nefit by her property, though, as if for the purpose of keeping
people in the dark, she ,continually stated that Mr. Waring
should never have a farthing. The lady died. The will was
made out long before her death, and it was natural, under
these circumstances, that rumour should be busy. We
all knew that when a rumour was once started, and f
'Milady repeated, it acquired many additions and exag-
gerations, till a suspicion, entirely unfounded, attach-
ed where it ought not. Thus it was Mrs. Segar was
lead to institute this inquiry. Persons came forward to give
information of this or that, which was very much the crea-
tion of their own brain, so parties were frequently misled,
and they fell into a false position. It was only after a
scrupulous and accurate investigation of the evidence which
*as to have been brought before the jury in explanation and
in proof of the case; when this mass of evidence was placed
before him, being a grave case, on the one hand imputing to
a respectable gentleman misconduct in the preparation of a
will ; and on the other hand, the consideration that an
elderly lady was not to be benefitted by the-property of her'
deceased sister; he investigated it with great care, and ex-
ercising the best judgment he could upon it, and having
formed his own opinion, he had requested Mrs. Segar to
allow her counsel tojudge for her. He would at once say he had
no ground forestablishing acharge ofanything like misconduct
against Mr. Waring, and having that feeling he considered
that to obtain a verdict would be out of the question. A
communication therefore had been brought about between
his learned friend and himself, and they had come to this
conclusion, with which he hoped Mrs. Segar would be satis-
fied. A verdict therefore would now pass for the defendant.
The JUDGE said it must be satisfactory to the jury, that
,
their cause had concluded in a manner so creditable to the
parties. Nothing could hdethe fairer
jyurthtahefor
nerthese couldtate leavementsmaldioe
by the learned counsel, and
difficultyA
verdictin gwi
av
sintgheanr
e verdicttu r n
et odr
for
hre
the
defendant.

BRANCKER AN'D ANOTHER V. MOLYNEUX.
This was an action in which Mr. Thomas Brancker, the
younger, and Mr. Thomas Martin, the assignees of the es-
tate and effects Of Mr. Charles Humberston and Mr. Samuel
Frodsham, sought to recover from the defendant, Mr. Ed-
rnund Molyneux, the value (about £3000) of 304 bales of
Uplands cotton, alleged to have been converted and disposed
of by the defendant.
Counsel for the p laintiffs, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Wightrnan,
and Mr. Cowling; for the defendant, Mr. Cresswell, Mr.
Armstrong, and Mr. Crompton.
Mr. ALEX kNDEIi stated the facts of the case. He said
that this was- an action in which the assignees of Messrs.
liumberston and Frodsham, commission merchants, lately
carrying on business in Liverpool, sought to recover the
value of 304 bales of
cotton, taken by the defendant and con-
verted to his own use. He believed that there would be no
difference as to the value
question would be wheter of
the cotton, and that the only
the taking was a lawful one, and
he hoped that he should be able to prove that it was not.
In 18:35, Messrs. Humberston and Frodsham, who had since
become bankrupts, had a vessel named the Diamond, which
made several voyages to America, andluring the time a
mortgage was made to the present
hdefendant. on the vessel,
securing to him £5OOO, and entitlinognti at any time to
seize the vessel and sell it. The cirnza;ge es which
a h gave
There wt;ls rise to the present auction arose in 1837.
whomAnhl rit.
Thomas Baynes Molyneux residing at withCharleston,in
he h
Messrs. Humberston, Frodsham, and Co., were
of dealing. He made a purchase for them and sent it to this
country, and the action arose out of this purchase. :s
31st October, 1836, Mr. John Toole, the captain of thenhe
Dia-
mond, received instructions to proceed to Charleston, and
take on board a cargo of cotton, At the same time instruc.