Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1858-08-27
Relations between Lawyers and Clients

FrCm The London Tines, JAY 2s.l
Four years ego, that is to say, in the month
| Of July, 1851, there was living al Swinfen-hall,
10 the county Of Stafford, an aged gentleman
Of fair estate, named Samuel Swinfen. He
was the son and heir Of John Swinfen, who
had been twice married, and who By bis second
wife left a numerous familv-the haif-brothers
and sisters Of the aforesaid Samuel Samuel
himself had also been married, aud OF bis
marriage there had been issue, z son named
Henry John. Henry John next took a wife,
but made bic selection from the humber
ranks Of society|a proceeding which, com
bined with bis own irregularities, had the ef-
feet Of estTangirg him from the affections Of
his father. The match, however, il is alleged,
proved actually benefc al to the character Of
tie son, and in the end, it appears, that Henry
John, and Patience. his wife, were received a.
Swiufen ball. ard there took Up their abode.
This was in IS4s, after the death Of Mrs. San
uel SWinfen. Il further appears that between
this Period and July, 1854, the tsstsmeDtary
arrangements made BY Samuel Swinten were
such that Henry John would have succeeded 70
the inhsritancs Of the property but, az II hap
peued, the son died before the father. On the
18th Of June, 1854, Henry John SEiufsn sud
denly departed this life, leaving Patience Sgin-
fen, his widow, surviving. On the 7th Of July
t0ilowirg Samuel STinfen, being then four
score years cf age, made a fresh viii, BY
which he devised the ssinfen estate to Pa
tience Swinfsn. and this is the instrument
which has been the source and subject Of 50
much litigation. The question originally
raised was to the competency Of the old man,
under the circumstances described, to make
this disposition Of bis property, and as 70 the
validity Of the documents thus conveying the
estate to bis daughter-in-law. Had the case
stopped at this point it would probably not
have called for the notice We DOW bestoW up
on it.
The viii 81 Samuel Swinfen was disputed By
Frederick Hay SWinfss, Who as the representa-
tive of the second family Of John Swinfen, was
Ssmael's heir-at-law, and the issue thus raised
came on for trial in due course az the Lent As
sizes Of 1856. The estates devised By the viii
to Patience Swinfrn and claimed By Frederick
we're worth e ,1OOa year, a prize well calcu-
lated to provoke stout fighting. Accordingly,
counsel Of the highest standing were retained
on both sides, The lady being represented BY no
less an advocate than Sir F. Ihesiger, now
Lord High Chancellor Of England and the gen
Heman bv Sir A. COckburn, now L0Td Chief
Justice Of the Common Pleas. Now comes
the Critical and extraordinary point in TIE pro-
ceedings. The case had been conducted
through the first day Of the tTisL when, at the
beginning Of the next, Sir F. Thssiger, on
Mrs. Sxinfsn's behalf, came 10 an arrangement
with Sir A. Cockburn, acting for Frederick
S~winfen, that be (Frederick) should take the
estate as hsir-at-lsW in pursuance Of bis
claim, but that out of the estate Mrs. Swim
fen should erioY an annuity Of Zoo, making,
with her iointer OF f3O0, a total income u
$1,000 a year. This agreement, however, thus
arranged between the counsel 10 the cause,
Mrs. Swinfcn refused to Tatify, asserting that
Il was made without her authority, against her
desire. and contrary to her interests, aud re-
pudisting The act to which her advocate had
committed Der. Here, therefore, was a point
raised OF common interest: beng nothing less,
indeed, than the extent OF night or power sc-
quired BY counsel entrusted with the general
management OF aesEse. The heir-at-law sndea-
vorsd TO enforce the agreement, but without
success.
Mrs. SWinfen again appeared IN 4 court Of
law, this time represented by Ar. C. R Ken
nely. who has prosecuted with indefatigable
yigsr, and At last with complete victory, the
claims Of his client. The Court Of Common
Pleas bad been FIRST applied TO by the heir-at-
law for the endorsement Of Sir F. Ihfsiger's
agreement. but 10 refused to give the powers
required. Tue CoCrt Of Cbsncery vas next
appealed to, bat with a similar result. The
agreement in short, could not be enforced, and
under the directions Of the Court of ChaucerY.
the original cause, interrupted BY COMPROMISE
in 1850, was ~eonmeaeeG a second time al
Stafford on Friday last, and after a long hear
ing-which has flled cur colunns-wss ter
minated on Tuesday evening by a verdict in
Mrs. SWinfen's favor
The tree Importance q the case consists,
not IT, the circumstances Of The actual Issue,
nor even in the success with which q lady's
has at length been crowned, but in the
extent to which the position, or at any rate
the practice Of advocates, VIII undoubtedly be
We canBoL say that the relations of
counsel ard client have been absolutely estab-
lisbed, or that the powers lodged with the
have been finally dshaed, bot the con
iuct and fortunes Of Mrs. SWiufen 10 first re-
oldfating her sdvocate's act, thea resisting to
he utmost the proceedings which were based
lpon It. and ultimately winning her cause In
Ct all, would certainly impress counsel
gith more caution in their dealings with the
;lsims Of others.