Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-11-05T00:00:00

.... ma w asu eUII DV tue executors or islrs. .irockericy against the executors of Alr. Covin, on a note for the payment of 6001, within siX months from Mlr. Covin's decease. The parties lived at Louth, in the county of Lincoln, whlere the note was given on the 16th of March, 1813. It purported to be given inconsideration of natural love and affection4 rnd of services rendered, and thereafter to be rendered, by Alrs. Brockerley. She was conneeted with him very distantly by marriage, but not related by blood, and had occasionally assisterl in his family. The niote was not given at his house, but at that of a man named Adam Eve, vrho attested the note as a witness. At the trial, before Mlr. Baron Hullock, the defence set up was, that the testator, an old man of 74, was not of sound and disposing mind, and was unduly Influenced te make the instrument. It was proved that, before this time, he would, when he saw a cow milked, exclaim, " Ifow much milk that horse gives !" and when asked after his health, would answer, " Ildied some time a-o." He had beem a Commissioner of the Court of Conscience in hiS borough, and used to sit, hear all the arguments, ancd say no. thing, and then say the iudgment must- be ferthe plaintiffinstead of the defendant, or vice r'ersd. A cominksion of lunacy vwas after- wards taken out against him, and he was found a lunatic ; but the period fixed for the beginning of his mental alienation was three years after the note was given. The learned Judge summed up srongly for the defendant, but the Jury found a verdict for the plaintif. A rule wvas obtained for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against evidence, whicb now came on to be argued. The CoMMxoN SERGEANT showed cause against the rule. The question was purely a question of fact, most fit for the consideration of the Jury, to whom it was certainly presented by the learned Judge without any leaning i favour of the plaintifFi The instances of nental aberration given were really futile: when vexed and teased, the old man answered as a humourist; but though he said he was dcad, he did not acr on the notion, which was the characteristic of Thu LoRD CuIEY JUsTs cE..That is,he did not give directions for his own faneral. (A laughi.) TheCoMaroN SERGEANT.-And if he sat as judge, and merely named the party who ought to succeed, what did he do more than t he celebrated ,udge who decided by the cast of the die? The l,ORD UsIEP JusTIcE.-And of whom it is sald by Re- belais, who tells the story, that fewer of his decisions were reversed on appeal than those of any judKe on rec6id. (A laugh.) The CosrMMoN SERGEANT proceeded to contend that the Court could not disturb the verdict without infiinging on the province of the jury, who saw the demeanour of the witnesses, and who were as much! the constitutional tribunal to deride, as the Court were to de- termine points of law. " Ad quistiwienefacti non respondeant ju.I dices" was a well-known nsaxim; and what was this but a question of fact? He therefore submitted that the rule shouild be discharged. 111r. CLARKE proceeding to support the rule was stopped by The LORD CHIEF JU'sTIcx,who said.-" IWle tbink, in this case there ought to be a new trial on payment of costs. The practice of granting new trials, which has beein fountl highly beneficial to the interests of juSticC, arose In the room of the old law of attaint, which was far less favourable to the trial by jury. It is impossible to look at the history of our law, without eretiving that in ancient times the verdicts of juries were regarded with far greater jealousy than they are by us. I believe the. improvements in manners and in morals have removed in a great degree the occasion for that jealousy; but I feel that the interposition of the Court, not to direct verlicts, but to bring them uncder review, is still of great service. When we direct a new trial, we do not say that the verdict is wrong, but merely that the case ought to undergo another inquiry. That is all we say now, and that we may not prejudice the case, we will give no opinion on its merits. The rule must be absolute, on pay. mentof costs by the defendant." COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER, Nov. 4. 3TItUNL+Nk. V. IARKHAM.