The Statesman.
London, England, 1814-03-01 00:00:00

•
et
• 1.4:37 IN.T;LLI-GENC.E.. . .
CEll

•

itipt. Sir W. 131;AcKiTpNE, ,at
Anvil tr

1 i .r-
-the :ary principles of that re iu•digane(tts
Praler calls it), that law of thels4 it *hick was the CQVRT Of CU, Y, FES. 48. ,
proper subject of his book, and leading his readers ,• • a.r.oire O. PAssINGIIAM.
. ..
a. wild-goose chase to ancient Rome, would not 'Mr. !het stuted, that the bill prayed that e re-
lieve mended the matter a whit, if he had not lease given by ttlary Lloyd, deceased, might be
been as disiogenuous at Rome as he had before cancelled,, it hosing been obtained by fraud. There
been in England ; for there, even there, Mr. were three Plaintiffs—John Lloyd, who was entitled
Enerort, the same principle stared him in the to the possession of the estate in question, and his
fact:, "'though, I must confess, he gained one ad- children in entail ; and, in case of failure of issues
vantage by the removal. It was easier for him to !Richard, the brother of John ; and the third Plain-
shut his eyes on it at Rome than at home. It was I tiff was• John Hughes Lloyd, the nephew of the
easier for him to overlook the Roman maxim, Inca; est I other- two. It appeared that a gentleman of the
cOMmunis sponslo ci;:italis, and the comitium ,&c. &c. name of Gwyn Lloyd was possessed of a large estate
than what Raacioe, and Fowl sscur., amid Sir !in Monmouthshire—he
,died, intestate, in the year
'frtom.ts SMITH, and others, have written in England. 1174, leaving his two 'sitters, Catharine and Mary
In my first Letter it was asserted, that Mame Lloyd, his next 'of klu—ithey jointly entered into.
storm had written a Commentary en the Law of Farge,sthe possession of' the estate. •
.Catherine died in the
land, in which he not only sappressed the just and „).00 1779,and,by Wifl, bequeathed to Mary her pro-
proper definition, which a
far
greater authority than r portion of the estate, with remainder to the Plaintiffs.
himself had given in his writing upon that law, !Mary continued in possession until the year 1794,
above SOO years ago, but also, that, he bad sub- 1 when.the ptitendaelabrought an ejectment to dis-
saluted another, and a spurious definition in its possess her, on the ground that they were the next
stead, which is by no means adapted to our free law, ; of kin .to the, late Mr: Gwyn Lloyd, their mother
het suits admirably with that law (if law it can be ; having been his daughter.' The question Was tried
railed) which tyrants in other countries have set op ! at the Spring Assizes of the year 1794, in Somerset- i
by virtue of force. Upon this I was told by a friend , shire. In support of the Plaintiffs' case (Jonathan 1
that BLACKSTONE, under the term Municipal Law, ' anti Robert Passitighern), on the trial, two certifi-
had given a definition that suited law in every come. 1 cates or registers were produced, purporting to he
try, whether proceeding from the will of one man, I signed by the Minister Mel Church-wardens of St. j
or of the people,. and that this definition was agree- Pancras parish ; the first vegiSter, that of baptism,
able to that of linAcrox. The centrary to this has, viz. that of Elizabeth, the child of gtvipllo,,yd and
I . think, been proved in my former Letters. At i Elizabeth Un)d, was baptised. ", * 41111411*/ day at
present I will go a step (either, end venture to ; St. Pancras church ; the second register; that of the
affirm, that this famous expositiun of &ace. Iberia' of Mrs. Lloyd, 'which was alleged to have
STONE is .not even suited to the Municipal Law : taken place six-mouths afterwards. The Jury gave
of !tome,: for there, even there, laW proceed- ", a verdict for the Plaietilfs.en the ejectment,-and also
•ed from the will of the people ; it was not i the Defendants in this cause requested a meeting with.
ccerentencl imposed on them by a superior power, I Mary Lloyd, and it was agreed on the conference
but a:compact, made amongst themselves; and de. !that she should give the Defendants a release, on
riving its force entirely from general auction.— i their living bet edischarge for what remits she had
IA therefor appears to me, wilfully to ! received: The Learned Counsel then went on to ob-
have shut hisLACKSTONE, eyes against the truth in both instances.; serve, that that relemie was gained hi fraud ; that
Nay, he has done more—he has used the words i the registries bad been' since disetereied to be forge-
nereicipal lair, which mean, no more than corpo ratiork.4 ries; the Judge and Jury' at the that had been de-
lero, in the same way that the words John Doe and ceivt-d by them, and why ahould.sheqot ? The name
Diehard Roe have many, a time been used by him,. of Mr. Sandy appeared to the action bf ejectment,
without believing in the existence of any such per- but it appeared on the interrogatories that he only
tints ; in short, he .has used them in the way of a! lent his name. The -fact was, that the Defendant,
professional fiction, by means of which fiction he Mr. R. Passingliam, conducted the suit, and carried
has misled and imposed upon, or, at least endue. down to Somersetshire the evidence of the registries,
voured to impose upon, his Readers. j which were now proved to be forgeries. His Lord-
, siraliast.ks sornoossuroa iu in timeline chapter, ship bed the evidence of Ilendtick,. not of, himself;
7, that a man may c' mount the throne as as ; but that nature of evidence that showed that he Was'
usurper, mind afterwards reign a lawful King, tiy ! employee by the Defendant ltoliert, to alter the pa-
governing according to laws sanctioned by the Killrish register. Mrs. Sawyer, the wife of the their
of the people;" so, says lie, "a Prince that lawfully clergyman, stated in her evidence, that her husband
was induced to let the Defendant, Robert, have hos-
!worries King by election or successionis may after.
session of the church books ; she also said that she
wards become a tyrant, and forfeit his right by'
governing according to his own will, instead of laws, saw Hendrick erasing something from the parchment
register, and the Defendant, Robert, rectlestetl
enacted by popular approbatim." If this rule were
to be-applied to the present Govettonents of Europe,
her to burn any papers she had in her possession re-
few of,them, I, fear, would escape the reproach of
lative to the circumstance, as it was all' a forgery, .
but he had gained his point by having get the rolease.'t
territory, for: few there aregoverned by laws sanction.
On ettamipa(ion pf tlfft church .register k would he '
ed by the oensent of the
.people. As to the othese
I .were made in it differeiii hand.
notion, that power unlawfully obtained, may afterl 611'4 •thattheeat -
at 4 is e '4lllO 4 4 'he book ; and
wards became legitimate by a submission to the p
sint4 from
pular will, it is, in my opinion, Avery vain eepectatien4lt al" appeared a
..emilistertahr of any absolute Prince. No, the compel From °ther ivideitee it
. wen opinion is, that an usurped power becomes laww! "II such a person
' 'lei by long establishment. Prescriptive Smutty jo 1 IPillndifth 1.10,1
the
at up as a bar against popular right, in e 14 rdereame.d 7 kslts*ltlst
dude it for ever. This is the infamous doctrine •l mme ofllly,suela..known' to "'
,mother was entirely un •
avowed in the Brunswiek Manifesto at the commence- _ never
meet of this ruinous war, which, says Mr. Comte°, , heard her mentioned.' 'Mr. R. Passingliam and Mr.
Hendrick Were btother clerks' to a Mr. Nelson when
has never changed its object. It was considered i
aht. . the forgery wasgoiug on; and since that, Hendrick had
teat the 'BOURBONS had suffered injury in being
• been supported by the favours of the-tiro Defendants;
priced of the power of doing wrong to the French the
;ration I. Why ?—Because the King of France had :he' Learned Counsel, contended; that thi in s itself
exercised wassufficient to establish the forgery. :If theCeurt and'that illegitimate power ever since the time ; were imposed on. by this false icicle*, he
of Louts XI. Indeed, what was this but an attempt ; Jury
to legitimate injustice by prescription ? I *ill present would ask his Lordship, Why Mary LleYd ased)
:might not have been ? 1
the Reader here with an admirable. passage from-an..t was under t • ' conside-
adinirable person, which, to its other merits, will ' rations be Iroated.tihsehitr-Loritilapwou , peat the
also have that of novelty ; for•l•dtr' not believe ' Prayer-of the bill, Int if the release was Rot made
the book is to be bought iii any shop in Eng.
null and void, the Plaintiffs could not bring an
-ac-
baud. It iv from an additional collection of Let- . tion at few.
ter; written by Pope GANGANALLS, and published by i Mr. AGAR followed got e same side,
Ca lIIIACCIOLI, a little before the French revolution, ' . The Louts CRlANCE'Lobserved, be would hear
in which there are three or four letters, far superior, . Sir S. Remaly to-morrow for the Defendants.
.

. .
in my opinion, to any thing in the former collection; i COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Fca. 28.
eitd one, in particular, to Lord Cues'maxim°, - WILSON, EN. V. FREEMAN. ...
whi..h, perhaps, no other man but Gatteseem.t was This was an action brought by Mr. Richard Wil-
- capable of writing. The Letter I quote from, is to son, against the proprietor of the Saracen's Head lon,
Col. -, wherein, after speaking of Govern- Aidgate, to recover the value of a looking-glass,
swifts established by force, he says, " But how which had been broken in its carriage from London
conies it that justice has since sanctioned what vin-' into Suffolk. ft appeared that the looking-glass was
I.ence acquired? Hew comes it that the man who firth properly packed ih a case, and conveyed to the inn
made-himself a Monarch by his crimes, is succeeded. Iby a carman ;and that it was directed, in large let-
by ethers who bear the sceptre with lawful sualltest ! ten,. 4 4 By Martin's waggon, glass, with' care :" that
tit)? ? Had I been there, Mons. La Colonel, I should; the person who conveyed it to the inn asked if he
doubtless have exhorted these descendants to render I was right, and was told by the book-keeper he wigs ;
back what their parents had usurped ; and I should l and that they had another package for the 'Plaintiff ;
have had as good reason for so doing, as 1 have in he was then informed, that the package-canteined a
assuring you, that the longest sword does not give looking-glass worth SOL and that it must be taken
the best right. But the right of prescription has been t tare of ; the book-keeper replied, it was very
introduced ; a right, barbarous in its nature, and heavy, and they must charge it at 40010. weight.—
fatal to likastp.-a right which necessity has sincecon.t The witness said, that it was under 3001 b. weight,
founded with those of nature, and which justice but they might charge what they pleased, so-as they
has consecrated in tears. I repeat, justice itt took care of it : the book-keeper also- claimed Gd.
tears, for she is one, eternal, and unchangeable; i foe booking it, which the witness said-eras an unu-
and cannot he made to comply with the institutions sual charge, but paid it.
~ It appeared 'that Martin's
of men without doing her injury; her origin,is from waggon had ceased to go from the Saracen's Head ;
Ilearen, and her descent upon the earth was full of but the witness did not then know this, and the
beeignity, but her transition to human politics in- book-keeper said he did.not see that the case watt
spires horror. Force enslaved the free, and the man directed by that conveyance. When- the glass sr.
of oppression became, alas ! the man of Isze."—Nou. rived at Ipswich, in the cart to which'it was deliver-
velcs Lefties du Pape (amen& XIV. p. 103*. ed from the waggon in order to be forwarded to the
.After this bon bouclte, it is impossible -to add any plaintiff's, it was found to be broken: but if it had
thing, except that I remain, 4c. grime by Martin's waggon, it would not have passed
TlNtoTitir TRUEMAN. grime
Ipswich, but would 'have been delivered
4 Thi. little book was given by me to a Derbyshire' gentle• from the waggon at, once to its place of destination.
num. who passed a few days w ith me tit my residence on the On the pact of the Defenistit, it was cos 'ied
1,040 of the Thann, in the summer of the year 17S, and wh• as he had stuck up a notice in Masonic*,
stionsipe.l me that it stmnld be (nu:slated amt publi,h6l, which I ed hand-lailisoleciarling that.he would not
shimk it ought to be, and for w.hiett purpose I ported with the able for glass, *.c. wiles, entered and '
affidt.-Perhaps that Gentlentai may rend this Letter. cordingly ; this package ought to have
time so paid for • but Lord ELttNnoaoua
what passed between the *Use's and
' keeper amounfedio a dispelisitire !tram'
the Plaiutig had a verdict. , ''' ',
. caouctt kielretve:
in 'This was an' adieu. t Vy aka
tiuck • against a *Goer: to timer damps ' for. ii,

DISPATC:f OF Iit:SINUS IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE
11.1BARGiO IN AMERICA.:-.—BOSTON, DEC. 21, 1813.
AN:int 30 neutral vessels sailed from hence on
Suntioy, most of which were Men, and fitted for
sea, since N." It will be recollected, that the
Embargo Law passed on the 17th of Decdtiter.

t'..

Art`ATESMAN

will, most probably; never recover the use of his fin-
ger.—The Jury gave hies 1001.
OLD V. TOLLOGII. •

This was an action of trespass for running age._
the Lady Shore ordnance_ transport, by the Forth
Leith smack, in the Thames. It appeared by the
testimony of an imilartial spectator from the' shore,
that the Lady Shore was lying at anchor, the Forth
was heating up against the wind, with much sail, and
that a vessel, calh'd the Chumley, was comilig down
broadside. The Forth first struck the Chumley, and-,
as the ATTOR74ItY-G rstaxL, for the Defendant, con-
tended, was driven by that vessel against the Lady
Shore; ;o that it was to the Chumley the Lady
Shore ought to look as the original cause of the in-
jury. lie quoted the well-known case of Scott e.
Shepherd (2. Black. Rep. 392, and 3. Wils. 403),
in which, on the-evening of the fair-day at Whom
Port, in Somersetshire, the Defendant threw a light-
ed squib from the street into the market-house ; the
'squib fell upon the stall of li. ; C. in order to protect
himself and the wares of B. from injury, took up the
squib, and threw it across the market-house, when
it fell upon the standing of D., who, to save his
wares, threw the squib to another part of the market.
house, where it struck the Plaintiff' in the face, and
bursting, put out one of his eyes. Three oat of four
Judges were of opinion, that the original thrower of
the squib was responsible for all the mischief whiah it
occasioned ; that the new direction and new force
given it flowed out of the first force ; and that CAM
D. were not free agents, but acting under a compul-
sive necessity for their own safety and self-preserva-
tion : the several acts of throwing the squib must be
considered as one single act, namely, the act of the
Defendant, the same as if it had been a cracker,
which had bounded again and again before it struck
out the .Plaintiff's eye. So the ATTORNEY.G CME.
ear. contended here, that the Chumley • was respect.•
sible for all the consequences of the original force
occasioned by her concussion with the Forth. But
it appeared from the evi.ience, that it was the Forth.,
which ran against the Chumley, who was sailing
broadside dawn like a log, and the Forth, with full
sail set, might have cone either on one side of her or
the other; that fire, six,- or seven minutes passed
between the time of the Forth striking the Chumley,
and her running foul of the Lady Shore ; and that
the Defendnnt said, in the, hearing of a witness, when
he came to look at the new mast for the repair of
Lady shore, " if we had not run against her, we
must have gone on shore." So that the Defendant's
vessel had. an alternative ; and Lord Fr.traeonounti
said, it was her duty rathir to have run on shore and
injured herself, than against the Lady Shore and in.
j4red her neighbour. The Jury would also consider,
whether the Defendant's vessel was merely that
missile which the Attorney-General had represented
her; *ether she might Out have arolded.to run foul
'le,Chuinley, and, having so run foul, whether *he
)ot afterwards time to avoid running foul of the
was perfectly passive in *the Whole

mach as .b run against the Lady Shorel4in
consequence of being driven by the Chutaley)
not directly and immediately.
Lord ELLExsoaou on saved this point, bat did not
think it• could be made good,—as the Defendants's
vessel had an alternative : she' alight have gone
on shore, but she preferred to commit the trespass.
The Jar, found their verdict for the Plaintiff, da.
mages 1001. subject to ateference to James Gibson,
asmwthe value of the old mast.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GUILDHALL, FEN. 46.

LI VIE il. /ISSIGNECS OF ITLai.'
This was an issue from the Court of Chincery, to
determine whether there had been usury or not in se-
veral transactions, upon which the Plaintiffs sought'
to prove a debt to the amount of 20,0001. ageing the
•
estate of the bankrupt.
It appenred that Bytes had been in possession of
several contracts,
ts to supply the shipping on th* West
India station with lice and other articles; and that
he had also shipping contracts at Yarmouth and
Bristol. The Plaintiff afterwards entered into part-
nership with him, and made several large advances cf
money on account of those contracts, but that after-
wards wishing to withdraw from the partnership, he
agreed Intake Core per cent. interest for the money
advanced, and also one per cent. on several of the
victualling bills then due. It was contended on the
part of the Defendants, that this made the transaction
usurious.

'The evidence of Byles went to prove that the
Plaintiliiknew at the time that there had been no
profit upon those contracts, but that they hnd been
'osing concerns ; and that, therefore, the additional
one percent was given, in addition to the legal in-
terest fag the use of the money.
The Plaintiff's evidence ven the other hand was,
that he bad no knowledge of the state of the Con=
Germs', but believed from the representations of
Ryles that they were profitable contracts. He,
therefore, accepted of the one per cent. as a corn-
pensation for withdrawing from what he considered
a profitable concern, but which he thought Ilyles
more competent to manage.
Tl►e case.then went to the Jury on the credit due
to the coullicting testimony of both sides. The Jury
found In favour of Livie that the transaction was not
usurious.

. . .
'OUR; DefreOfts' COMMON!.
10. AND MORRISS.
AO tO the validity of the will or
welkin!, late of kennington-lane,
•hich was propounded on the part
ife of Mr. Robert i forgave smith,
of Mr:George Morrips, as the
. tooted, and opposed by Japes
Threlkeld, Esq. tile brotherlitiat
of the deceased.
, the deceased died on the 4th Hof
idala 18111 when belwaeo 60 ancf7o years of age.

J,~`y

,

injury ber h
had' ifaitained by the negligence of The will ih queition, p 7
ri2ncipally .in favour of thn
draymen, in driving their dray against his truck, two executrixes~ they be ed residuary lege.:
by which he wae'forced against a window, and had tees,
,was.dated tho 421st t;fflCp4il pec;ceding,,and wag
his eight. hand lacerated, so that he lost the use of his executed under the foltowitir cirewittitaness:—
`fore-finger. Tfseacrident happened in Botolph-lane; The deceased had been'ailusiaeif with Mrs. iStifith
.
and it vi proved that the draymen might have pass. : and Mrs. Morriss for about Mali, stars prior to h'ef
ed withatit running against the truck. -The Plain- death. On the day of the (Tate of the4lll,. Mrs.
tiff was confined ala weeks in Guy's Hospital, and Smith called upon her, wheriAlid eitfiressetta wish

make her grill, and desireiTiftliat......lth inlet be !es t!'
for. Ile being envied, his sou came ingtesult
the diced)ed asked liiro to get a prbOr Vorfon thr:tbefl
iose. Ile accordingly applietto Mr. Evans) of
'hat

puric
ettnington-cross, and another attortiet in the..
-neighbourhood, but it being Solidity, found neilited
of them at home. He then returned to his father's}
house, and there met with a person of the name of
Sharpless; who had called in hi, aceidentlo get 'sem.
refreshment, it being a ptibitt-hease. Mr. Sharp.,
less, as described by •the Cottage', was a so-t of in.
terloper in the legal profession, and having formerly,
levet, great satisfacticin in a petition to the'Admfralty,,
which he had prepared for some of Mr. Smith's family,:
he was on this present occasion asked if int could mskd'
a will,to whicli he replied, he could es well is any attor.i
nay in the kingdom : and beingittfernved of the*
ceased's situation and wishes, hw deitrddldr: Smith
jun. to take the instructions ond briagthim to hi
at his father's, and tin wodW Ara w theillo there.
He gave him particular directions. to'lwitidewe thei
christiett, surname, and residelicrof the 'deceased
„i
and those of the intended legatees, :the nature andf
amount of the deceased's* prbpeity, and in partiee.{
her whether she had any Ezcbeqaer Bills. Mc. Snu:ll4
jun. went to the deceased's, and tank tife instr
'Cons as desired. He described her printerty alb colio•
listing of 10001. Long Annuitiei, 5001. Reduced,
and part of the furniture in the keen where silo
lived : the rest, with the house, she said; bed
' longed to her brother. She of at first tok
Sniith's , getting any one glse .to draw the will,
and to the necessary witnesses being IntrOdoned.
into her bed-rooni, but'afterwards acceded *to lt,
and he took the instructions to Sharpleii,. who p 4-.
pared the will, whilst Mr. Smith, sett. weld to 'pre.
cure witnesses, and succeeded :n getting three pee,
sons, who. accompanied him and Snarpless to the d4ft
ceased'S house. The will was Wen read -to the wi
nesses, in the parlour; after which, one of them, it
Mr. Jeffries, accompanied Sharpleeiep *Mrs, to thi
deceased's room, and proposed'thlt be stoned real.
the will to the testatrix, whichbeiereacbded to, he
did so, and asked her if she tinderstonditi twashiels
Site replied in the allirniative, and ezitreard her
probation of its contents. ft was 04414e/tested td
her, that she had a brother ; and the ' tett, it
she did net wish to leave him something, but she ree't '
plied, nd. The. other witnesses were then intro•+
duced, asked similar questions, and received similaa
answers, and the deceaed,was lifted up in bed, an&
her hand guided to sign the will, after,wbith it was'.
sailed, attested, &c. as usual. .• • •
The case set op in opposition to the will on the
part of the next of kin, was that of a total. incept.
city in the deceased :to know ,or understand the
nature of # the act in *quest*, , occasioned. a
paralytic affection and the habitual use of spiritotts
liquors, with which she atter censtently supplied by
the parties inteeested. and that the will was obtained
from her, when in tiiis stale, by .fraud and imposi-
tion; in support
.of whict'fiviseral witnesses were:
examined, and, also to ptore. dissimilitude of the
hand-writing-to the-will to that Oahe deceased, the •
facts of two powers of ,ettatey„ wieruted by the
deceased for the sale of sato:torher stock tieing reject..
ed by the Bank, on account ofAlreaccateting i
feet appearance of the signataks; and-decaratitils
persons that they-would not have attestedthe elfeCt. t
lion of a will by her at this tiree„ fry asanfteljetion
of her incapacity. • • • !rf
Sir JOHN NicuoLL recapitulated the evidenee.,... •
The circumstances attendant on the taking the in-.
structions, he observed, rested principally upon the
evidence of Mr. Smith, jen. who was rather. to be
considered as a biassed witness*;, 'being time heir ex-
pectant to the reversion of the property bequeathed.
to his mother. The subsequent adoption,- bowers ,
of thew ill and its execution by the deceased, in a
state of perfr.:t capacity, was confirmed,by all tbit
witnesses present, some detailing the facts tore folly
than others. • The Cam t, therefore, without relying
too much upon the evidence of the. instructions,

le
2." • '4lO
. •
:sem
-
alto
r . ..1,

t 4-1
it IE

',lei •were made In g differed; hand: missile which the Attorney-General had repret
firgie.geMintler of tipe isinik ;• ind :. her - "(betties. she might nut hire aiolded to ru
Gat Otue'.:eissare hid-Wit made. !of ti:e.Chinnley, and, ha•vitig so run foul, wheth,
lee it appeared that thitre never had had not afterwards time to atoiti running foul t
;on buried in that; church-yard -as L Lady Shore) who was perfectly passive in *the
he.. • er of th .• Aenta affair- .
404fifi l'' .s!yi.i •..
ogria
rAvtivrit,AlLther contended) ti.
aid-ids DIV_ gte' an ter ; hf 4 (act ono—oihrto Wivi fieitriitstisailariiiiipaii;
.. • • . ,
ly onkoown- to them they never 1 mach as the Forth run against the rely Sho
. -. t •,_. .2 • -- L.. •1.. • t.k.t.nina

Intended., that' 4 PREROGATIVE CI
and deliver- ,' \ . './unet.arta
ut be answer- •.„...Tigs tea a suit al
dl paid fbr ac. ti;Eliimbeth Thre
e heeu at the. yctiiiceased) wh
,I!
uon held, that triatte, the air
id the book- jilts?, the wire
thit rate, and ekefeetiikee therein
:Matthew William T
Only neaeyelative el
drawer of a it appeared that

too mucu upon one 'sumacs us %ow, meiluvioulaw, , -
must feel disposed to, uphold the act in-question, f n
upon this.latter proof of capacity .and volition, un. J
less impeached by the evidence adduced on the pact ~ -! VI
; se
of the next 'of .kin. • The evidence as tb thet.tilA .ao
similitude, of hand.writingi was immaterial ins ~, Ca
, 61
case where the proof opposed was so strong ; but
. - Ai
the most important peittte were, the paralytic af- . IV
feet ion and :I run ketmess charged. The wiLii,cAses.yp.. ! '
`'._ ex,
- . ettl
on these poiots, paiticulatiOnflaietlVal gentleman
..• lit;
and the Norse Who attended• the- deceescit,, did not , 4
speak to the capacity of the deceased. until a period .. .* * •-•
long subsequent to the transaction in question, and s
one witness only, the broker, who transacted the , .. '
.. tei
deceased's affairs at the Bank, spoise
.to the drunk. :.' , - TA
ennees; and he stated, that when he last saw her, : ' t., , strl
her breath smelt of liquor,. and from her whole ap- - i i se
pearance at that time, he would not have attested the I ''. , Di
execution of a will by her. lie seemed, however, to i ILe
To
draw his conclusions without sufficient grounda,. and I . vii
therefore, his single evidence could not weigh !boobies '• , . ..itt
the scale, particularly as he did not. teem to have op- ..
tertainedthe same scruples relative to the execution of '`
the powers of attorney as he did is that of a will*
and his letter to the deceased's brother did notfx. , , • Lr
press the same opinion of her situation that, hic bid '.J.,
expressed in his evidence, Upon the whole of the
case, therefore, rel/Ing. principally upon the fa* 'andli ''' IL'',
positive det4ll of circumstances, as foAlltelettestecu.i' - 1 lm,
lion of the will, and' ek,tttitin the iiildr. points o; -. Tr
the instructionti4; Ate: the Court was eropleion, tha ' *ts
this evidence -was not sufficiently, shakenrtiy. the evil!, , I
Bence adduced in impeathment of tfie mill, tteid' it' :..
. 3 (
therefore, felt itself bound to pronounce for the war 4 I
lidity of the, will, but without costs, against. 6048 . 4.
of kin. . -4,- I ' lii: *II
.
' . .. ). •
, . . . . c -'lllllO
A country. Qe.stientien, -WINO Ibrie. 'gape" l'il the (r,
hoo
'
Court "of Chancery, Inivleg obe.rred lien" Afil . odlt .
.41 Ow
case that the .14onnens.ncm.1.0a,abilayentietliewiust 1-. 40.'
go home to con,ad,e at it, be*eil to bottenta•" whose oie3
tau
' opinion it was that he as ibee.el4. . '•. `'
k.; - ,. • .PI
7- ' - ------4,—i-e---_—+:---4-4-;- i•t7---rrr -,,-..' ..- • -.--- -‘ IF ''' ',
tAixDoN.;..tajpard• ~..0 votiogif ti pi. rl 0,
.at or
STATESMAN C. Ffic ge`Tie . .
.. ,
, • - • l'': ...
.. . . ,
. ..
• .- -.. ... ,
''
. . .kI r:.