Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-07-28
.SACKV|LLE CASE
STANDS BY ITSELF
Many Notable Will Contests,
However, That Have Occu-
pied British Courts.
PULLING QUESTION Is
UNDUE INFLUENCE
Has Never Been Satisfactorily De-
fined in Suits of Bygone Years.
Notable Litigants.
Special Correspondence Of The Star.

Special Correspondence Of The Star.
LONDON, July IL, 1913.
The Sackville million pound will
case" which will be added to the law
yers' collection of leading cases and
causes celebre stands by itself on &C
count of the immense interests involved
and the priceless treasures fought for.
But. although 1t constitutes probably a
record. at all events on this side Of the
Atlantic, there have been many notable
will cases that have produced just as
stubborn contests in the courts and have
aroused public interest to fever pitch.
The puzzling question, What is undue
influence? has never been very satisfac-
torily defined. Legally man has a per-
feet right to dispose of his property as
he wishes. but judges and juries do their
utmost to support what are called natu-
raj wills and to upset what in contrast
may be termed unnatural wills. A man
may have hated his brothers and sisters,
with good reason, perhaps, and have told
them that he never intended to leave
them penny. But II he carries out his
intention and bestows his bounty on a
stranger in blood probate suit is pretty
due influence" the testator's mental in
capacity or both.
Famous Swinfen Case.
A famous case. perhaps the most ex-
traordinary one known. In which the lat
ter reason was put forward for setting
aside will. was the Swinfen case of
some fifty years ago, which concerned the
estate valued at about 97O.O9O, Of Sam
Swinfen, an eccentric Staffordshire gen.
tleman. When eighty years of age and
suffering from partial paralysis he had
the misfortune to lose his son and heir.
estate would pass to the heir-at-law
and representative of his predecessors.
Capt. Swinfen of the 9th Dragon
Guards, whom he detested. he executed
sons widow. The will was made July
II, 1854, and on the 26th Of the same
month he died Capt. Swinfen at once
filed bill in chancery. alleging the
mental incapacity of the testator, and
the case came on for hearing at the Stat
ford assizes Saturday. March 10. 1856.
On the first days hearing many damag-
ing points were made against the VIII by
as Lord Chief Justice Cockburn. The
widow was advised to compromise the
matter. but refused. To her astonish-
ment, however. on arriving at the court
Monday morning she found that her
counsel, Sir F. Thesiger (afterward Lord
Chancellor Chelmsford), had In defiance
Of her instructions settled the matter by
relinquishing the estate in consideration
of an annuity of 91.OOO.
Widow Held Possession.
But If the heir-at-law had verdict the
widow had possession and to possession
she chung The former tried all the legal
procedure available to dislodge her, and
almost succeeded when a champion arose
t. n
Charles Ram Kennedy. a provincial bar
rister, VINO convinced the master OF the
rolls that the compromise was not bind
ing, and OBTAINED an oroer Ior ne"
trial.
This came on at Stafford In March.
1858, and, although the judge summed up
dead against the widow, the jury, I'M
pressed by Kennedys able advocacy. re-
turned verdict for the widow. which
was confirmed on an appeal to the master
of the rolls.
There was a sequel to the case. Mrs.
Swinfen. flushed with victory. brought
an action against her former counsel.
who was now lord chancellor, for fraud
ulent compromise, and, as may be Inn
agined, lost the day. while Kennedy sued
her for 10000 she had agreed to pay
him IL successful. He lost his case on
the principle that an English barrister
he was disbarred and died heartbroken-
the only instance, perhaps, of lawyer
who saved his client and ruined himself.
Another Remarkable Case.
Another remarkable will case, in which
both undue influence and mental inca
pacity were alleged. was that known at
the time as the great Irish will case.
which was heard at Dublin in 1885, The
suit was instigated to establish the will
Of Sir Edward Fitzgerald, who beQueath-
ed his personality. worth 10000, to his
widow, with remainder as to consid-
cradle portion to the descendants OF
paternai uncle. He had previously as
signed all his lands, worth $4,000 year.
to his widow.
his brother, Sir Augustine Fitzgerald.
impeached both the will and the deed as
having been obtained by unfair means
from an incapable testator.
It came out in evidence that the dead