The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-07-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT. -WEDNESDAY. - EDNESDAY.

BLUNDELL V. GLADSTONE.

This case came before the court upon two petitions, one
by the plaintiff, in the nature of exceptions to the mas-
ter's report, the other by the co-heirs-at-law of the
testator in the cause, praying that the report might be
confirmed. The testator, Mr. Blundell, of Lancashire,
by will, dated in 1834, devised his farm (having two) for
the maintenance of a Raman Catholic priest, the Rev.
Thomas Robinson, of Seel-street, Liverpool, and the
questions were, whether that devise was void for uncer-
tainty. and, if so, whether the farms passed under a
general devise to the trustees of the will, or lapsed to the
co-heirs-at-law, the priest having: died in the testator's
life-time. Ile master had assumed the trust deed, which
assumption was now called in question.
The Vice-Chancellor said that the only question was
whether the testator had any farms or lands in trust, so
as to come under the exception to the general devise in
the will. Lord Lyndhurst had, in fact, agreed with his
honour, and a reference was ordered to the master to in-
quire whether any of the lands were held upon a trust.
The Vice-Chancellor then went through the master's
report, and said that he did not think that report was
right in assuming a trust by Lady Anderton, with refer-
ence to Shepherd's Farm. With regard to the construc-
tion of the will, he still entertained the opinion that the
testator held no land in trust.

LIBEL UPON THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK.—In the Court
of Queen's Bench, last week, an action was brought by
the Duke of Brunswick against James Hamer. Esq., the
proprietor of the Weekly Dispatch, to recover compensa-
tion in damages for a series of alleged libels. The libels
complained of alleged that the Duke of Brnnswick had
been expelled from his dominions because he was a tyrant,
and had outraged the feelings of his subjects, trampled on
the laws, had the letters in his post-office opened and plun-
dered, had been guilty of so much atrocity that his subjects
had expelled him, and burned his palace. Sir F, Thesiger
was retained for the defendant, and made a powerful
speech in his defence. The jury found for the plaintiff,
damages £5OO.
WHAT CONSTITUTES A FIXED RESIDENCE.—This ques-
tion was mooted in the Middlesex County Court last week,
on the occasion of a claim preferred by a firm in Regent-
street against Lord Drumlanrig, for the sum of £slos. 6d.,
being for drapery supplied to Lady Drumlanrig in 1843.
A summons had, it seems, been left at the residence of
Sir William Clayton, in Gloucester-place (his lordship's
father-in-law), where Lord Drumlanrig was staying. It
was contended, however, that his lordship's occasional
visiting at Sir William's house, or even sleeping there,
did not constitute a fixed residence, the Judge of the
County Court stating that " it had been held that a resi-
dence is a fixed abode, where a person has an intention to
remain, and in this case it does not appear that Lord Drum-
lanrig intends to reside permanently with Sir William
Clayton." The Judge added, that the question was a very
important one,and that the legislature was about to amend
the act. The service was declared to be not good, and
the plaintiffs were nonsuited.
BEARD v. EGERTON.—This was an action brought by
the assignee of the patent for taking daguerreotype like-
nesses against the defendant for an infringement of the
patent, which had been assigned to the plaintiff by one
Miles Berry. The defendant pleaded a great number of
pleas, the material plea being that the specification was
bad, and that by following its directions the plates, which
were to be silvered over, and prepared in a particular way,
to receive impressions, would be useless. Evidence to
this effect was given, and it was contended that the objec-
tion was fatal. The learned Judge who tried the case
thought the objection was fatal, and the jury were directed
to find for the defendant, leave being reserved to the
plaintiff to move to enter the verdict for him if that direc-
tion should be wrong. The court had now come to the
conclusion that the objection then made could not be
sustained. In the construction of a patent the court was
bound so to read a specification as to support it, if it could
be supported. Applying that principle of construction to
the specification before them, it seemed to the court to be
free from any obscurity calculated to mislead any person
of fair intention, and that the obscurity was cleared away
by a fair consideration of the whole specification. The
rule, therefore, to enter the verdict in favour of the plain-
tiff must be made absolute.—Rule absolute.
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM AND HIS CREDITORS.
—A case was tried in the Court of Queen's Bench, on Sa-
turday, Strutt v. Lowndes, the plaintiff being an attorney,
and formerly the confidential adviser of the Duke of
Buckingham. and the defendant the Sheriff of Bucking-
hamshire. It appears that, when the duke assigned his
estates, the name of Mr. Strutt was omitted from the list
of creditors, and now by him an action was brought no-
minally against the sheriff, but really against the Marquis
of Chandos, to whom the estates were assigned. Amongst
the witnesses called was the Duke of Buckingham him-
self. It transpired in the course of the trial, that, in the
year 1842, when the duke succeeded his father, his income
was nominally £61,000 a-year. The property was bur-
dened. between the liabilities of the late duke and his son,
with debts to the amount of a million one hundred
thousand pounds. These obligations he continued to
increaso till, in 1847, they amounted to a million and a-
half of money, the interest upon which was fully £15,000
per annum more than the nett rental of the estates, which
it covered in the shape of mortgages. In five years the
Duke of Buckingham had added nearly £400,000 to his
original debts. The duke stated that he was unable to
say, within £50,000 or £lOO,OOO, the amount of his pecu-
niary obligations in 1847. After a consultation with Lord
Brougham and the Duke of Richmond, he assigned the
estates to the Marquis of Chandos, who gave up all for the
benefit of the creditors. It appeared further that the
conduct of the Marquis of Chandos, against whom the
duke now appeared as a witness, has been highly credit-
able and unselfish. He has been appointed receiver on
the estates at a salary of £1,500 a-year, which is less than
half the salary usually allowed on similar circumstances.
This is the sole support. Out of this 1,500 a-year he

allows his father, the duke, £5OO a-y'efif; bis „other,
the duchess, £5OO a-year, retaining for the§tipport of
himself, young wife, and family only £5OO a-yedf, The
jury found a verdict for the defendant.

THE NEW RELIGIOUS SECT AT " AGAPEMONE."
This case, to which we referred last week, was resumed
in the Exchequer Court on Monday and Tuesday. In
the course of Sir F. Thesiger's speech for the defence, he
said :

"The AgaperaOtte, or Abode of Love, wherein this unhappy
plaintiff had taken up her residence, consisted, amongst other
of its inmates, of four apostate clergymen, one civil engineer,
one farmer, one solicitor,—for even in this "abode of love"
they could not do without a lawyer—(laughter)—and two blood-
hounds—(renewed laughter.) In this place, it appeared, all
prayer was abanloned—a duty which was one of the first,
which was the most emphatically enjoined by the religion of
the country. Although he could not but feel disgust at such a
course, and at the efforts of these people to creep into families
and there to spread dismay and desolation, yet if it were proved
that the plaintiff was of sound judgment, he could not but
admit that, however extravagant her opinions might be, still
that were no justification for her being put under the restraint
of a lunacy asylum. -2. Tr. Prince, of whom they had heard
much during the proceedings, had in 18-ti, most unhappily for
the family of Mrs. Nottidge, obtained a sway over the young
ladies by his preaching at Stoke. The influence of Mr. Prince
had been so great, under the ' will of God,' that three of her
daughters, with .e 6,00 each, had been carried off from her.
It would have been supposed that £lB.OOO out of one family
would have satisfied these people; but no, it was not so—they
must have another daughter, and another £6,000, and the
present plaintiff was the victim."

Mrs. Nottidge, the mother of the plaintiff, was the first
witness called for the defence, when she gave the follow-
ing sad history of these extraordinary doings. She said—
"I am the mother of the plaintiff, and lived as Rose-hill
when my husband died, with my daughters, in 1844. My un-
married daughters were living with me. In 1843 Mr. Prince
came to preach at Stoke, and my daughters sometimes went to
his church. I heard of his going to Brighton. Louisa, (the
piaintiff,) Harriet, and Agnes, took a house at Brighton. That
was before the death of their fattier. I sent for them from
Brighton when he was dying; and when they came they told
me they should not have clone so but for the will of God.' He
died in May, 1844, and my daughters returned to Brighton in.
August. Clara stayed with me. I afterwards went to Brigh-
ton and took up my abode with them, but I did not join them
in their devotions, and I told them that I would never receive
Mr. Prince into my house. I remember Mr. Prince coming to
the house, but I would not see him. I was compelled to lock
myself up in my bed-room to prevent his intrusion upon me.
I recollect my daughters going on a Monday to be present at
the opening of the chapel at Charlinch. They were to return
on the Saturday. But two only came back, and my daughter,
Louisa (the plaintiff), not until Sunday morning. I spoke to
her of the impropriety of travelling on Sunday. Louisa said,
Mr. Prince had written a prayer which said that they must not
travel on Sunday; but then he made another prayer, where he
said it was the will of God' that they should travel on the
Sunday; and she also told me, with tears in her eyes, that the
other three sisters were going to be married, as it was the" will
of God' that they should then marry. She then told me
that Brother Thomas' was corning to sleep there that night.
I said, I would not consent to that. This Brother Thomas'
afterwards married my daughter Agnes. The plaintiff said it
was of no use objecting to his coming, as it was the will of
God' that he should, and in he would come; and accordingly
in he came at ten o'clock that night. I said I should leave the
house if this were done, for it was very improper. My daugh-
ters went up to him, and when they came down they told me
that it was the will of God,' and stop there he would. In
consequence of this I went to a friend's house that night, and
on the next day, when he had left, I returned. They then told
me that lie said lie should return at night, and that it was the
will of God' that another man (Turner) should come with him.
I objected, tut they said it was the will of God', and they
must submit. I afterwards heard that the marriages were to
take place at Swansea, and I went down to prevent them ; but
it was of no use, for they said it was the will of God' that
they should be married. After this I went to Rose-hill, where
the plaintiff and Cornelia were. That was in December, 1845.
Mr. Starkie and Mr. Turner came to Rose-hill. From what
was said to her the plaintiff told me she must go; that it was
tearing the flesh from her bones to leave me, but that it was
the "will of God' that she must. The men gave the plaintiff
two hours to pack, and at the expiration of that period they
drove up in a carriage and took her away. That was the last
time I saw my daughter until sh • was brought back by the
defendants. I am now seventy-six years of age. I went to
Weymouth to find my daughter to bring her away. I had
heard that she was living at Weymouth in the greatest sin and
iniqinty. I told Mr. Ripley what I had heard from several
friends and from many letters. These reports it was that I
communicated to the defendants, and they went down to Char-
linch in consquence. When I was at Weymouth I saw two of
my other daughters, but they refused to give me any informa-
tion as to where plaintiff was. I was six weeks making my
search, and was not successful. I offered a reward, but it was
of no use. I afterwards found a clue to where the was, and I
then begged of the defendants to go and bring my daughter
away as quickly as they could ; and at once down they went,
for I was in such a wretched state of mind about her. I saw
them with my daughter on their return. She was brought at
once to me, and I conversed with her. This was at Mr. Rip-
ley's in Woburn-place. She told me that if it were the will
of God' she should be at Charlinch on the Wednesday. This
was on the Monday. i put clown on paper what she said. It
was when I spoke to Louisa (the plaintiff) about Mr. Prince,
that she said, ' I know no such person. God now only dwells
at Charlinch in the flesh of him I once knew as Mr. Prince.
God, who made me and all the world, is now manifest in him
whom I once called Mr. Prince. He has enteredhis tabernacle
of flesh among men, and I have seen God face to face. He
will deliver me whenever I am taken.' After this I sent for
my brother, who saw Louisa, and by his advice the medical
men were sent for."

Mr. John Pepys, brother of Mrs. Nottidge, corroborated
her evidence, and Mr. Thomas Morton, surgeon, and Dr.
Rowland, of Woburn-place, declared their opinion that
the plaintiff was of unsound mind, and that they had
accordingly given their certificates for her admission into
a lunatic asylum. Dr. Stillwell, the head of Norcroft-
house, the asylum at Hillingdon where the plaintiff was
confined, was of the same opinion. Dr. Turner, Mr.
Milne, and Mr. Procter, the lunacy commissioners, and
Mr. Lutwedge, their secretary, gave evidence that they
had examined the plaintiff eight times during her incar-
ceration, and were always of opinion that she was of
unsound mind. She was in the end discharged on the
ground of declining health, the commissioners giving it as
their opinion that there was no abatement of the unsound-
ness of mind of the plaintiff, nor of her extraordinary
delusion on the subject of religion, but they thought the
plaintiff was competent to manage her own affairs.—Mr.
Cockburn then replied on behalf of the plaintiff. The
Lord Chief Baron summed up, and, in doing so, said that
the jury must find a verdict for the plaintiff on the first
plea of "not guilty," as the facts were not denied ; also
upon the second, of "justification" which was not made
out :

" Namely, that the plaintiff was a lunatic, and not capable of
taking care of herself, and was in such a state of mind as to
injure herself and other persons, and that it was in conse-
quence of her being in that state they had had her put in a
place of safety—that plea was not made out. Now, he was
bound to say, that the law had been correctly laid down, that
if the jury considered, upon the evidence, that the plaintiff was
not in such a state as to be dangerous to herself and others,
then, that the plea to that effect not having been made out,
the verdict ought to be for the plaintiff upon that issue also.
The evidence had clearly shown, as applicable to this branch
of the case, that the conduct of the plaintiff had, been per-
fectly consistent, even in respect of her delusions. The lady
entertained a strong opinion on a religious subject, and to that
opinion, whether right or wrong, she had adhered."

The jury, after deliberating, found a verdict for the
plaintiff for £50., coupling it with an opinion that no
malice against the defendants had been proved with re-
spect to the course they took in confining the plaintiff in
the lunatic asylum. The damages were laid at £l,OOO.
In the Bridgewater County Court, on the 11th instant,
Isaac Thomas, a labourer, residing at Paxton, obtained a
verdict of eleven guineas damages for an assault by Thos.
Starkey, Lewis Price, and Thomas Williams, three of
the "apostate clergyman" inhabiting the Agapemone,
under the following circumstances :

"The premises occupied by the defendants adjoin the turn-
pike road, and the plaintiff, who was a labourer residing at
Paxton, on passing their premises and hearing a noise inside
got upon the hedge on the other side of the road, which was
high enough for him to see what was going on. Plaintiff there
saw about forty men and women playing at • hockey;' upon
their seeing the plaintiff, about twenty of them rushed out into
the road with their bandies in their hands, fell upon him, and
thrashed him within an inch of his life."
For the defence it was stated that :

"The ladies and gentlemen of the Agapemone had been re-
peatedly insulted by the plaintiff and several others, without
giving the slightestprovocation. On the sth May, a number of
these ladies and gentlemen were amusing themselves at a game
of ' hockey ' on their own premises, when a stone was thrown
over the wall which struck Mr. ' Prince.' but did not injure
him. The defendants then rushed out in the road to punish
the offender. They were constantly receiving insults of this
sort, and in consequence had been obliged to raise the walls of
the Agapemone."

The Court awarded the plaintiff eleven guineas damages.

Crneval

A vessel arrived in London, from Van Dieman's Land,
has brought 3800 hams as part of her cargo.
A bill has been brought in to authorise the sale of the
Royal Pavilion at Brighton.
Last week the town of Kilham, near Hull, was the
scene of six incendiary fires.
Major Charles Campbell, an old and most distinguished
Peninsular officer fell down dead on Saturday, whilst
walking along Pall Mall, London.
Miss Cushman intends to return to America, accom-
panied by her friend, Miss Heyes, the novelist and trans-
lator. - - - - . -- . .

The Dean of Durham has offered to give £5OO in aid of
any measure adopted by the authorities of that city for
the prevention of cholera.
On Saturday, a man was killed at Cross Mills, Dean
Clough, near Halifax, by two of his companions, with
whom he had quarrelled, throwing him out of the window.
A young woman named Emma Mellor has been com-
mitted to York Castle charged with the murder of an il-
legitimate child to which she had just given birth.
On Friday, a lodge of Orangemen was opened at Little
Horton, when 18 good men and true were initiated into
the mysteries of Orangeism.
A man, named Ferguson, is in custody at Castletown,
Isle of Man, charged with occasioning the death of his
wife.
The Duke of Hamilton has been presented by his
Scotch tenants with a superb piece of plate, valued at
1,200 guineas.
In some of the London Savings Banks there has been a
gratifying increase of deposits lately, and this, it is to be
hoped, is the case elsewhere.
Louis Philippe has presented to the captain of the
express steamer. which conveyed his ex-majesty from
Havre to Southampton, a beautiful silver vase and cover
with an autograph letter.
On Sunday week, three young men, named Stowe,
Heseltine, and:Good, went to bathe at Immingham Creek,
Lincolnshire, when they got out of their depth, and were
drowned.
SLANDER AT A DiscouNT.--The copyright of the
Satirist newspaper was, on Thursday, publicly put up for
sale, and an offer of £lOO was made, No bidder appear-
ing beyond that sum, it was withdrawn.
The Manx Sun says, " throughout the island the crops
look promising. The potatoes are healthy and regular;
the grain is rapidly appearing in ear ; and the hay harvest
is in full operation."
Mr. Macready appeared, for the first time in England
since his return from North America, at the Birmingham
theatre, on Tuesday night, and his reception was enthu-
siastic.