Prerogative Court, Wednes...
The Times, 1824-02-19T00:00:00

. jv- 's J)lu5iOkLL, Intgivnlg sentence in this long-depending .cause, described it to be one of much importance, on accoant of the -magnitude of the pronaerty, (anounting to nearly 200,0001.), the na- ture of the papers that had been pl6adedi the sort of evidence to be contidered, and the unusual application that had recently been made to tbe COutt. The learned Judge then entered into an elaborate re- capitulation of the evidence, which he observed had been very care- fully taken by one of the most intelligent and able examiners in the protession; but of a sentence which occupiedi three hourr. in the deliverr, we have no room for the most contracted report. The de- ceased in the cause was Al r. Thomas. Cbarles Pattle, who died at Macmo, in Cbina, on the 26th of November 1815, leaving behind him, in England, a widow and an only child (a daughter.) The property of which he died possessed had been variously stated, but in tne plea was estimated at about 140,000L. He had been many years abroad in the East India Comoany's service. In 1802 he re- turned to England. In 1805 he went out again as one of the coun- cil for the factory at AMacae, wbere he remained till his decease. Before his departure from his native country in 1806, he made a will, by which he appointed four of his friends his executors, and bequeathed the whole of his property to his wife anti daughter. Thatproperty was then supposed to he between 10,0001. and 20,00ul.; but not to have exceeded that sumn. The Court then en- tered into a history of the will said to have been made by the tie. ceased in 1805, and by which, among his families and friends lie gave away in legacies and bequests upwards of ll0,0001.-of the 'eeeased's voyage from Mlacao to Mlanilla and Canton, and back to Mllacao, in his Mlajesty's ship Alpheus ; his conversations with Captain Lzangford, Sir .'William Fraser, MIr. Edmuunds, and Mr. Allen, who were likewise on board- and of the deceased'4 last illness-the execution of the will propounded on the 18tl) of October, 1815, after it had been prepared from deceased's diictationbyl r Croft, a law gentleman, who had come with his wife from India into China, for the benefit of her health ; ang of the deceased's death on the 26th of November following. The Court also stated every fact in plea as to the capacity of the deceased i his knowledge ot the danger lie was in from the information of Ir. Livingst6n, the surgeon, and the various corroborations which the, genuiinenes, of the testamen'tary dispositions of this last instrument received fromr several witnesscs in the cause. The two great objec. tions that had been attempted to be established against a paper thus provedlwe,e-Ist, that the signature or the body, or parts of both, or either, or the endorsement on the envelop, purporting to be of the hand-writing of deceased, or of the party who prepared the instru- iient, were not genuine * and 2d, that the character of Mr. Croft lhad been so damaged, that he could not be safely relied on as a witness (and lie was the principal witness) as to capacity and execu. tion. The Court decided that the signature wvas estabished to be clearly the true signature of the testator, that the ernsures and in- terlineations in question in the body of the paper were sufficiently accounted for, anti that the endorsemenit was in the hand-writ. ing of Mr. Allen, who quitted the 41phieuas and resided with deceased. It further held, that Mr Croft's testimony was of the most consistent character throughlout, and that his character as a witness we,s not to be successfully impugnod by reason of his moral guilt in a transaction occurrmig two years afterwards. (This vwas an allusion to an action brought in the Supreme Court at Cal- cutta, " GCotberbach v. Croft," and in whieh heavy damages were recovered by Mr. Comberbach against Croft, who was hi5 partner, for the seduction of his daughter, aged 17. The yojmg lady hatd eloped frotii her father's mansion, andt in order to elude inquiry had left letters on her table intiniating herintention of drowning herself, umder an apprehension of approacbinig insanity, and was all this time concealed in the hotise of her betrayer, who in the tiean time visit- ed, under pretences of condolence, her distracted fansilv.) The Court was disposed, therefore, to pronounce for the validitv of the will of the 18th of October, 1815. But Mr. WVakefield, wlho had inarried the daughter of deceased, and liad, in common with the le- gatees, poelCeted the bequest to which he was entitled (in right of his wife, who was left with a legacy of 30,0001.), opposed this will, and prayed the C-ourt, after witnesses had been examined, publication had been decreed, and tlte catuse had gone on to hearing, to rescind the conclusion in ortler to allow I,ini time to bring in tlse copy of alatcr wvill whichi die deceased was said to have executed, and in whtichi he left his daughter a legacy of S0,0001. and the resi- due; so that Mlr. Wakefield, representing his late wife, and in that character havintg a vested right to tite principal sum w*hicil was to revert to lher after the dcath of her mnother (now Mirs. Robsoii), would take, in virtue of this paper, 100,0001. and upwards. The learned Judge then examined the history of this paper. It was not even producedt; and even upon the singular story whiGh was told about the wvay in whicb Mr. WVakefield had obtained it, through ccommunications by post with an anonymous correspondent, and gubsequently an inter- view at Paris tvish this mysterious party, who thiere delivered the copy of thiat original w.hich he asserted to have se:n, to Mllr. W1'ake. field ; what credit could the Court sie required to give to it ? The anonymous stranger bad, it was said, only given u - this copy on a solcrcn promise and a written undeitaking, that hs name should never be divulgedl. Mlr. W'lakefield and his brother consented to these termn; but S1r. llankefield's solicitor, AMr. Humphlries, with a prudence and caution highly proper and honourable in a profes. sional man, rcfused to have any thing to do with any sucb etigage- ment. The next account of this paper was, that Mr. lWakefield, who always carried it about liiis person, went one day into the city to his banker's-then walked about the streets-tlhen dined at an hiotel; then went to the play; and, at last. discovered that he liad lost it-andl the Court was now applied to to stav the cause, inas- miich as the anonymous stranger had " said" tbat a seaman, for- merlY belonging to his Majesty's ship Alpheuz, and now to bis Mla- jesty-s shilp Grampwi, had another copy, but the Grampus was at present in the IVest Indies, Thii was eight years after the death of' the deceased, and four years after probate bad been granted to the will propounded. Under such a state of circumstances, the Court I could by no nteat,s listen to the app*i.Otion; and in proceeding to judgment, would only obsers-e, that the Robsons, who prayed that the wU of 1805o (which left the whole property between lrs. Rob,- son and her daughter) might be established, or else that the deceased aght be pronounced to .,ave died intestate, had equqally failed in proof of theircase: and the C'ourt, therefore, confirmed the will of October, 181S, and decreed costs against the parties opposing the s.ame. PRE!ROGATIVE COURT, WEDWPq AV- 1.R "k"ON, YORMERLY PATTLE AND "WAK?FELD, AGAIrST - - -- ROCKE AND ANOT1ER.