The Statesman.
London, England, 1814-05-05 00:00:00

• •
RBI V. INHABITANTS or stAtnorr.

This was the case of a waiter at the hotel at Leeds,
who paid COI. a.year.for the privilege of keepilig the
tap at that house; and the question was, wl4jj
this tap was a tenement which gained him a lento
ment ?
Mr. SC4RLtTT contended, that he was entitled to
this privilege as long as he conducted himself Pro:
party as a waiter, sad that the contract of holding
was prima facie for a yeor, and must be so presumed
to be.
Lord Er.r.smoottouou held, that he had no greater
estate in this tapihip than in his faitership, and that
*sit estate could not confer aloettl*ment.

Mr. SCARLET? put the coo sir ••—tonchman, who
paid his master for the rooms which he occupied*
coachman over the coach-house; but
ELLENBORQVGII should hoW theso lamed
to his office, and of equally precarious tenure. ~
The Court rose at half-pact twelve, sifter
Lord Ellenborough sat at Nisi; hi Guildhall, Lon.
don.—The causes there tried were principally unde.
fended.

.

PRPROGATIVE COUR r, ,DOCTORS COMMONS
MAY 4.
TAPTENTIEN a. WALSH.

This. was a suit as to the validity of the sill of
Ann, wife of the Rev. Henry Thomson, late of Pet.
ham, in Kent. deceased, which was propounded an the
part of James Tappenden, Esq. the surviving emit.
for therein named ; and opposed by Mr: Jelin Welsh,
asserted second cousin of the deceased.
It appeared that Mrs. Thomson enjoyed a coast.
derable property, bequeathed for her separate use*
Mrs. Ann Wilson, her deceased daughter, with a '-
power to her to dispose of it by will. She accord
ingly made her will, dated the 15th of September,
I 1799, in which she bequeathed this property to her
husband, with the_exc.eption of some legacies to ser-
rants and others. Having shortly afterwards derived
a farther accession of separate-property by the death
of Thomas Martin, Esq. her cousin, she made a co-
-1 dicil, dated the 2d of October, 1801, disposing of it
to the same effect, as in her former will.
These two pipers were opposed by Mr. Walsh, on
the ground of the deceased's mental incapacity at
the time of executing them, occasioned by a paralytic
attack, which she had met with in the year 1796, and
from which she never recovered until her death laths
year i SO9. •
No witnesses, however, being produced in supped
of plea of the peat of kin Ake case came on fer a
tearing, upon the evidence achineed in support of the
Mill;-astid -
The -execution ef . the will, in the office of Mr.
Tappendue„.• was detailed in the evidence of one of
the &Ailing Onesses .le eery . minute terms, he
having
.(as he 'expressed himself) taken particular
notice ofkit in cOnsequeuelvitf4ts-being the first act of
the laud • we/filch he had- craft been present, and of
his having -observed the testatrix to:be a very shrewd, -
sensible, woman. The other subscribing witness was '
dead,' butlialsend-writing and good character eters
fully. proved. The ezecutien of the codicil was
proved by the evidence of, Mr. and Mrs. Cooper, is
whose house the deceasedoecopied lodgings, at Can-
terbury. -.lt was duly attested, bet signed by a
;nark only, •with an observatiiini expressive of its
being so done in consequence of the deceased's in-
ability tooNvrite as usual, occasioned by the paralytic
affection. The witnesses described its being read over
to her, and her expressing her assent in the matinee
most usual with her, by an inclination of the head, •
her complete capacity at the time, and her apparent
knowledge of its contents.
No Counsel being retained to argue the castes the
part of the next of kin.
Sir Jowl NICHOLL interrupted the Counsel for
the Executor, by stating, that it would be better,
under these circumstances, that he should-state lilt
impression of the case at 'ince, without hearing aik
argument merely et--pare. Ile observed that, upon
the admission of the pleading in support oldie will
and codicil, the question of the deceased's right,
as a married woman, to make a will by virtue
of the wills under which the derived the property,'
had been fully argued ; and the Court was then of
lepitliou, that there was prima facie evidence
of the deceased's having such a right. The only
question, therefore, for the Court now to decide upon
was, whether she had executed that right by an act
done wider such circumstances as the law requires
Ito give it validity, leaving it to another Court to
decide- upon what will be the effect of the will upon
the deceased's property, the bequest of the residue
to her husband having become lapsed by his death
in her life-time. He then entered into an exemin-
ation of the evidence as applied to this question, and
was of opinion, that the execution of both papers, and
the deceased's capacity at the time, were fully proved,
but particularly the first, which was strongly con.
firmed by the appearance of the deceased's signature,,
which was unusually firm and free for a female hands,.
and rendered it very evident- that it must have been,
I made prior to the paralytic affection. Consitlerin4
'therefore, thak the deceased lived nine years after this,
and apparently in a state of sound mind ; that the
papers in question were coo(ormable to all former
ones, in favour of her husband, for whom she ha&
the greatest regard, that the only effect of theta,
would be to give the legacies to the servants, kc.
the residue being lapsed by his death 4 that both acts
were done in the presence of Mr. Tappenden,
disinterested person, and a considerable guarantee,
in the opiniou of the Court, of the fairness of the•
transactions; and that the deceased's mind appeared,
by the witnesses's account, fully to hare gone along.
with the act of • signature ; under all these circum-
stances, the Court could have no doubt of the papers
containing the real will and intentians of the de-
ceased, and they were pronounced for accordingly,
and probate thereof decreed to the Executor, nn.ier
the usual limitations as to the deceased's right to
make a will, &c. -

LON IiON • kirioted And Publol ak 101Ihr
Srhst.%hhh w, e,, Wet-11teci. • 3

1 ...

Tr:frvn