Prerogative Court, Monday...
The Times, 1824-06-15T00:00:00

I The Rev. Samauel Locke, D.D., formerly curate of Farnham, (Surrey), in this case craved the Court's grt of letters of adminis- tratiou (with the will annexed) of. the property of Sarab, his late wife deceased. The proceedings have run to a very great extent; and the Couut Wfs cctpiped, two or' three davs aflet tde close of tthe hast tetoi, in hearing the evidence read, and the arguments of Counsel. The Principal facts of the case (as we collected them cl3iefly from the allegations given in iSn either side) maybe stated thus :-In thp latter end of. 1810, Dr. ILocke married M5rs. Strah Clinch, a widow lady of considerable property residing at Earibam; and by certain marriage articles in the shapeofan indenture of three parts, executed in Novemnber, 1810, a power and control independent of her bus. hand, were reserved to Mrs.-Clinch's trustees over the principal part of her tbrtune-particularlv her funded property; and it was e5ae- ciaUy contracted that she salould be auithorized bv her last will aiid testament, to dispose of her monies, effects, &c. at her plcasure. It appears that subsequently to her marriage she either gave instructions for, or wrote, orcommenced,orexecuted agreat number of testamentary papers: for no less than 12, of one description or other, were broiught in by Mr. John Hollest, a respectable soliritor of Farnbam; bat the prlnclpal issue which the Coturt was called on to determine was a uestion as to vailidity between twO wills; one dated on tke 28th ot May, 1819, propounded by Alr. Denner, a nephew of the deceased, one of the executors named therein and be- nefitted thereby, and the other dated the 12th of June, 1821, pro- pounded by Dr. lIocke, the executor, ando only person interested in the personal estate and effects of the deceased. The day after the execution of this latter will, (namely, on the 14th of June, 1821), ,Mrs. Locke expired. In the following month a ravmat was entered at Doctors' Cornusons against probate passing to any will of the de- cuased unitil the executors should have been put on proof thereof, by Mr. Tlhomas Denner, who, in case of the deceased's intestacv, would be entitled in distribution to a shaTc of her pz-rsonae estate and cffiects. U-J;on thte allgation propounding the will of the 13th of June, 1821, there were examined eight witnesses, incluting a sister of the deceased, who had, previouslv to her examination, released a legacy of 2001. to which she was entitled under that instrument, and also all claim on the estate -eal and personal of deceased; and on Dr. Lockes; two men and two female servants of deccasedl ; the son of deceased's attorney, and one of the trustees named in her marriage settlement, and the wife of a clergyman resident in their vicinity. On the other allegation given in support of the will pro. pounded by Mr. Denner, 24 witnesses were examined. It consisted of no less than 30 articles, and 21 exhibits (letters of deceased, and other papers) were brought in and annexed to it. To this a responsive allegation was given by Dr. Locke. The evidence of these various witnessrs was exceedingly conflicting; those produced upon behalf of Dr. Locke deposing for the most part to the perfect mental pos- session of the deceased at the time ofexecuting the will of.June, 1821, td its conformity with her previous declarations, to her expressions of satisfaction aftcr its execution, at what she had done, and to the general intention she had always manifested to benefit the doctor at her decease by her testamentary bounty. The witnesscs for the will of Mlay, 1819, of which MIr. Thomas Denner and Mr. John Le,gh Hollest were the joint cxecutors, told a very different story. Without attempting to inter into any detail of the numerous impu- tations whlich their testimony suggested against the general con- duct of Dr. Locke to the deceased, and his conduct in the particular transaction of obtaining the will of June, 1821, 1 mar be sufficlent to state that a considerable portion of the large mass of evidence produced went to charge him with repeated at- tempts to exiort a testamentary disposition in his favour froni the de- ceased; to obtain from her assignments of her dividends on bank and other stock; to show hercccasional resistanceto, and occasional compliancewitb, these attempts; her own declarations to herfriends and relatives, that naenaces had been used by him at such times ; her frequentcomplaints of his cruelty; the efiectwhich those measures had haduponherdeclining health andspirits; and lastly, tbestrict injunctions of secrecy wlich sheherself imposed upon tbesolicitor who prepared from her ipstructions the will in favour of her nephew and others of her relatives, under the declared appreliension of the cruel treatmnent which sbe should experience from Dr. Locke if it should come to his knowledge that she had executed such a paper. The 260h article of the allegation for AIr. Denner pleaded, among other things, that on the day preceding deceased's death, Mr. Ew- bank, the solicitor of Dr. Locke, called upon Itim at his hoase in Farnham, and upon the doctor's asking whether two former testa- mentary papers in his favour, and dated the 5th and 6ths ofJJune,1821, "were valid executions of the power of appointment given to deceas- ed by her marriage settlement," he replied in the negative, where- upon Dr. Locke immediately drew up the will, dated JuRel3, 1821, and after it had been nrepared, Winslade, a footman, and Sarah Luf, a maiti-servant, were desired by Dr. Locke and Mlrs. Dean, the de- ceased's sister, to go into deceased's bed-room ; that wher. they ar- rived there, they found Mrs. Limpus, (the nurse), Dr. Locke, and MIrs. Dean; Ilaat sheortlvaiter they got there, Dr. Locke came from the bed-side oEillrs. Loeke with pen, ink, anti paper in his hand, and addressing Luff, saidl, " Your mistress has signed her cross to this paper, and wishes ou to sign your name to it," and he made a similar observation to Winslade; that Winslade and Luff thereupon subscrlbed the will as witncsses, withioaxt having been required so to do by deceased, and without the deceased having published and de- clared the same, or set her seal to it, or subscribed it with her mark "it their presence." That Iitupus also did not subscribe her mark as a witness to such will in their presence; and that at the time de- posed to, Dlrs. Locke was im.a dying state, and in fact,expired at 12 o'clock at noon on the following day. Mr. Townsend, the solicitor of Mlr. Denner, to this article deposed, that in August tollowing, he wenit over to Frensbam, and himself took the examination of Luflto the above effect; and that Luff also stateti that Mlrs. Locke forseve- ral days preceding her death *" was notin her senses so as to make a will." In reply to this article it was pleaded by Dr. Locke's couinsdl, lst,That no such written examination was produced in the cause, from whence it was to be inferred that it hiadi neyer been taken; 2dly, that LuII upon his answers to.interrogatories, had sworn to her be- lief that deceased was never better in her mind than on the 13th of June, deposed of. Luff admitted, however, that in her opinion de- ceased was at times, during her last illness, delirious; but this she attrlbuted to tlielarge quantities of latidanum she at first took: but sbe thouEght deceased during the last three weeks of her life perfect- ly capable of any rational act. This day, after presiding in the Arches' Court, Sir JOrHN NInoOLL gaYe a judgment in this case, wlich occu. pied between two and three hours in the dlelivery, and containea a minute and laborious investigation of all the branches of this most voluminousevidence. Thelearned Judgeseemed to expresshis con- currence in the opinion entertained by a great number of the wit- nesses, who thought that the wiU of Mar, 1819, was conformable to the clear previousintention of the deceasiTd to leare. the bulk of her property to her relations; and that the latter will of June, 1821, was executed by the deceased, if sensible at the timne. more for the sake of peace and quietness at such a moment thpn any thing else. The Court, upon a review of aU thecircumstances, considered that tile account which had been-given in Dr. Locke's allegation as in_ troductory to the history connected with this will executed on the day beforc her death, was by no means made out; and that the wit- nesses exanined in support of it were not such as could be safely re. lied on by tle Court. One of them, Aslett, deceased's coachman, was described in other parts of this evidence, as having been placed by the Doctor as a spy upon his wife, in order to communicate to him any intelligence of proceedings on her partthat nmiglht affeethis views upon her property. ht seemed that tbe Doctor, on a great variety of instances,bothbeforeand afer his bankruptcy (for he had been made a banktupt). had applied for monies to his lady: and they were ob- tained, not from hervoluntary consent, but by the harsh exercise of his marital authority. Tbse contriv.ances of Dr. l.ocke for obtaining a paper of this description would appear to have originated imnedi ately after his liberation f:on confinement, and to have continued untl the day of the date of the will propottded by him. The learned Judge, after expressing an opinion thatthe deceased sras not in a sound and dispoting state of nd on the 13th of .June, 1821 and that the will propounded by Dr. L ocke was moreover obtained by undue influence, pronounced against the same; decreed probate to that of MWay, 1819; and condemned Dr. Locke in the costs of these proceedings._ PREROOAirIVE COURT, oxiy, Jux 14. - LOCKE. V. DENNEX.