The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-05-27 00:00:00

HUDSON T. FARTHING BEAUCHAMP.

T'•is day. after some part of the Arches' Court business
had' hern transacted.
Sir d. ii Num°Lo gave sentence in the above erase;
the riiiiripal facts of which we had, during the course of
last term, such frequent occasion to refer to, that it seems
unnecessary to restate any part of them, on the present oc•
casimi, in Wail. It will be recollected that the testatrix.
au old lady of very advanced years, some time in 1819 exe-
cuted a deed of girt of the whole of her property to a Mr.
Farthiog, a gentleman with" whom she dad become ac-
quainted, in the first instam e, through the circumstance of
her banking with the house of Messrs. Morland and Co.—
Subsequently she exec-.ted a will, confirming the deed in
question, but disposing of one or two legacies to an old ser-
vant and executors; and a codicil, also, by which she en-
joined that Mr. Farthing should take upon himself the name
of Beauchamp, in compliment to the memory of the testa-

'AN.

tries brother, from whom the greater part of her fortune
bad originally descended. Of this will. the learned Judge
observed, probate was taken on the 24th of March, iddli.
by Boattchanth ; but was afterwards called in on the.
application of kindson, the next of kin of the dooeased,
testing the validity both of the will and the codicil. The
question which the Court was to decide, therefore, vies.
whether the due execution of these instruments was sulfl-
dently proved? To the point of testamentary capacity,
and sohnd and disposing mind on the part of deceased. two
witnesses had been examined, and evidence had been taken
as to her hand-writing. The whole of this testimony was
most Unexceptionable in its nature ; and, indeed, neither

. -
the fact of execution nor of testamentary capacity seemed
to be denied. The plea set up by the next of kin was,
generally, that deceased was In that state of mental
imbecility which rendered her Incapable of doing " any
act of judgment," and was, both before and at the time
of executing the will, in the custody of Mr. Beauchamp;
and did not publish this as her last will and testament of
her own' free accord. This was the substance of the 17th
article; but the. 15th article set forth, that the parties,
under pretetire of obtaining the subscription of the de-
ceased to the power of attorney for selling out her stock,
and receiving her dividends, had procured her signature
to these testamentary instruments. The Court proceeded
at veryconsiderible length to examine the evidence in
the cause, more especially as touching these particulars
—custody, incapacity, and fraudulent circumvention.
It expressed its entire conviction that there was nothing
in the depositions to warrant either of the imputations
set up in the adverse plea ; and after taking an opportu-
nity to vindicate the character of the late Mr. llosier, (a
partner in the house of !Borland and Co. and the
gentleman by whom the instructions for the will
were taken), and adverting to the very honourable and
satisfactory testimony on this subject which had been
Riven by the lion. Douglas Kinnaird and Sir James
Graham, Bart. the Court declared itself entirely satis-
fied with the whole conduct and complexion of a trans-
action to which Mr. Hosier load lent the sanction and
guarantee of his reve::tithie name and services. The
learned Judge went on to discuss the conduct of Mr.
Beauchamp to the dery teed ; and with this he expressed
himself equally well satisfied, seeing that the conduct of
that gentleman had well fulfilled all the duties of re-
spectful and careful attention towards the person and
comforts of the testatrix, which her adoption of him
ha I certainly established a claim to at his bands. Fi-
nally, the Court pronounced for the validity of the last
will and codicil of the deceased as they had been pro-
pounded ; and expertise I his satisfaction at finding that
.Ur. Beauchamp had contented to waive the question of
costs—a measure, which, seeing that that gentleman
nas not related by btu° 1 to the deceased, and that her
next of kin might have very fairly imagined themselves
entitled to imitate these proceeding.. the Court would
} not but deem very well advised.
(Floe property in this case is about 30,0001.)

POSTER O. rotten.
In this case also, relative to the validity of a will judg-
ment was likewise declared. The testator, it appeared,
'led In the c mrse of last summer, leaving upwards of 8,0901.
in freehold property, and 3,00111. In person', bequeathed
among a large family, by a will suddenly prepared and exe-
cuted, but by which hlu-salfiest son was excluded from all par-
tion. The deceased bad some joint property with his bro-
ther, and this WO was disposed of. The shiest son was pre-
sent 4nd heard the instremeat read over ; but the next day,
when the father bad expired, the will which had been pre-
, pared byattnrneys named Swan and Cooke was missing, and
after some search, was found thrown Into some running
water on the premises torn loto small pieces. These frog•
ments. when placed together, exhibited all the component
parts oldie will, and the evidence of Mr. Cooke, in addition
left no doubt timt it was the precise document which the lat-
ter had prepared, corresponding as it did with all the Instruc-
tions he haJ receir,d, Upon this case, then, thus far he
had no difficulty; all that arose was from the apportionment
of coats. If he conceived that the elder brother bad in view
to defraud his young* brothers and relatives, he should not
scruple as to condemning him in the full amount; but •s he
was roiikstant to believe that, he !mould reserve the question
of costs for further consideration.