Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

An act for defraying the charge of the pay and clothing of the local militia in Great Britain for the year 1814.

An act for defraying the charge of the pay and clothing of the militia of Ireland, and for making allowances in certain cases to subaltern officers of the said militia during peace.

An act to continue so much of an act, made in the 43d year of his present Majesty's reign, for authorizing the billetting and subjecting to military discipline certain yeomanry corps and officers of cavalry or infantry, as relates to such corps in Ireland.

An act to amend an act passed in the 49th year of his present Majesty's reign, intituled an act for amending and reducing into one act of parliament the several laws for raising and training the militia of Ireland.

An act to provide for the preserving and restoring of peace in such parts of Ireland as may at any time be disturbed by seditious persons, or by persons entering into unlawful combinations or conspiracies.

An act to render more easy and effectual redress for assaults in Ireland.

An act to continue, until the 25th day of March, 1816, an act for regulating the trade to the Isle of Malta; and to revive and continue, for the same period, several acts relating to the trade to the Cape of Good Hope; and to the bringing and landing certain prize goods in Great Britain.

An act to impose a conntervailing duty of excise on bleaching powder imported from Ireland. VOL, LVI.

An act for the effectual examination of accounts of the receipt and expenditure of the colonial revenues in the islands of Ceylon, Mauritius, Malta, Trinidad, and in the settlements of the Cape of Good Hope, for five years.

An act to allow a bounty on the exportation from Great Britain of British made cordage.

An act for the more easy apprehending and trying of offenders escaping from one part of the united kingdom to the other.

An act to revive and continue, until the 1st day of June, 1820, and to amend several acts for the more effectual prevention of depredations on the river Thames and its vicinity.

An act for enabling his Majesty to raise the sum of three millions for the service of Great Britain, and for applying the sum of 200,000. British currency for the service of Ireland.

An act to defray the charge of the pay, clothing, and contingent expenses of the disembodied militia in Great Britain, and of the miners of Cornwall and Devon, and for granting allowances, in certain cases, to subaltern officers, adjutants, surgeons mates, and serjeant-majors of militia, until the 25th day of June, 1815.

An act for appointing commissioners for carrying into execution an act of this session of parliament, for granting to his Majesty a duty on pensions and offices in England; and an act made in the 38th year of his present Majesty, for granting an aid to his Majesty by a land tax to be raised in Great Britain, for the service of the year 1798.

[blocks in formation]

REMARKABLE TRIALS AND LAW CASES.

TESTAMENTARY CAUSES.

Arches Court, Doctors-Commons, Friday, May 20.-Adams v. Kneebone. This was a case of appeal from the Consistorial Court of Exeter, brought by Mr. Thomas Adams, the brother and sole executor of the will of Mr. Thomas Adams, late of St. Winnon, in Cornwall, deceased, against Elizabeth, the wife of Mr. Thomas Kneebone, the niece and administratrix of the effects of Mrs. Jemfer Adams, the widow of the deceased. The suit was originally instituted in the Court of Exeter, by Mrs. Kneebone, in impeachment of the validity of the will of Mr. Thomas Adams; and the Judge of that Court, upon the evidence there taken, pronounced against its validity, and revoked the probate which had been granted; from which decision, the present appeal to this Court was prosecuted by Mr. Thomas Adams, the executor.

The will in question was contained in two papers, both of them dated the 16th of May, 1799; the first, attested by Dr. Hall, the physician, who attended the deceased, and Mr. Philip Carnsew, a hair-dresser, who lived in the neighbourhood; and the second by Carnsew, and two neighbours of the names of Solomons and Curteys. Mr. Adams died three

days after the execution of these papers. The effect of both was pretty nearly the same, that of making a small provision for the testator's wife, but bequeathing the greater part of his property to his brother Thomas and his family, and appointing him executor; there was, however, a clause giving the residue of the property to Mr. Thomas Adams in the latter will, which there was not in the prior one. A probate was obtained of this latter will, in which all the testator's relatives appeared to acquiesce, no proceedings being taken to impeach its validity for 7 years afterwards. In September, 1806, Dr. Hall, who took the deceased's instructions for and prepared the first will, (from which the second was prepared by an attorney), died; and in October following, proceedings were instituted by some of the deceased's relatives, calling upon the executor to bring in the probate, and prove the will by witnesses; but in January following, the first will, which had never till then made its appearance, was found to be in the possession of Mr. Philip Carnsew, one of the witnesses, and the proceedings were shortly afterwards discontinued. From this time the executor continued in undisturbed possession of the probate until December, 1811, when Mrs. Kneebone, as the administratrix of

the

the deceased's widow, who had survived him only about 2 years, instituted the present suit.

The evidence, in support of the will in the Court at Exeter, fully proved the death, hand-writing, and good character of Dr. Hall, the framer of it, by way of shewing, in order to supply the want of his evidence, the improbability that he would have been a party to the transaction, had it been otherwise than perfectly fair and correct, or the deceased incapable of knowing the nature of the act he did.

Mr. Philip Carnsew, however, spoke in direct derogation of his own act, and swore, in the most positive terms, to the testator's total incapacity, during the whole of the transactions in question. The rest of the evidence threw but little light on the subject, as the other subscribing witnesses were unable, from the great lapse of time since the transactions, and their being uninterested in them, to speak, with any great degree of positiveness or precision, to the facts in question. Upon this evidence the Judge of the Court at Exeter founded his decision against the validity of both wills, and pronounced the deceased to have died intestate. Upon the appeal to this Court, a variety of new matter was introduced in pleadings on both sides, and many additional witnesses examined, and the case therefore came on for a hearing upon the general complexion of the evidence, as taken in both Courts.

It appeared that the deceased was a farmer, and possessed of considerable property at St. Winnon and its neighbourhood. On

the Saturday preceding his death, he was seized with a fever, occasioned, as was supposed, by a cold he had taken, in being exposed to wet in the course of his farming concerns, and he was in consequence attended by Dr. Hall, in his medical capacity. Having expressed his wish, "to settle his mind," as he termed it, Dr. Hall was spoken to on the subject, and he accordingly took his instructions verbally; and reducing the same into writing, the paper was duly executed by the deceased, and attested by Dr. Hall, and at his request by Philip Carnsew, who had been sent for to take the hair off the deceased's breast, preparatory to the application of a blister. Dr. Hall then took the paper to Mr. Hext, an attorney, at Lostwithiel, since also dead; and in a subsequent conversation with Adams, told him his will was not half a will, and that Mr. Hext was preparing another, which Carnsew was directed to fetch; he accordingly did so, and according to his own account, Mr. Hext then tore off the seal from the first will, saying it was of no use, but that he must get three witnesses to the other, on account of the freehold property. Carnsew then carried both papers to Mr. Adams, the deceased's brother, who went out to fetch witnesses, and returning with two, this second will was executed in their presence, and attested by them and Carnsew. The latter then took both papers to Mr. Hext, to see that they were correct, and afterwards delivered them to Mr. T. Adams, who returned him the cancelled one as of no use, and he, as stated, threw it into a drawer with some refuse

[blocks in formation]

papers, and knew not afterwards what was become of it, until he accidentelly found it, on making a search by desire of the professional persons concerned in the cause. The rest of the evidence went principally to the degree of regard entertained by the deceased for the parties interested; his recognition to his family and others in conversation of his will and its contents; the acquiescence of the wife and relations in it for so many years; and Carnsew's declarations of animosity to the executor, on account of his enforcing payment of a debt due from him by legal proceedings.

It was contended, on the part of the next of kin, that no part of the evidence, in support of the will, was sufficiently strong to weigh against the positive evidence of Carnsew, as to the deceased's total incapacity, and, therefore, the decree of the Court below, founded upon the proof of that fact, ought to be affirmed.

On the other hand it was argued, that Carnsew was not entitled to credit; and setting his evidence aside, the evidence of Dr. Hall's good character and hand-writing, corroborated by the collateral facts of the case, was sufficient to uphold the will, and justify a reversal of the decision appealed from.

Sir John Nicholl recapitulated the circumstances of the case. He observed that the party now impeaching the validity of the will was the niece of the testator's widow, had lived with her until her death, and had acquired, by deed of gift from her, the same interest that she had herself in the property in question under the

will. She must, therefore, have obtained an ample knowledge of the circumstances connected with the making of the will, and have had the same motives for instituting a judicial inquiry into them. By not having done so, however, for so many years, every presump. tion of law arising from thence was as strong against her as it was in favour of the act impeached. Mr. Carnsew was the only one of the subscribing witnesses now alive who could give any distinct ac count of the transaction in question. He was a witness, common to both parties, they being equally entitled to call for his evidence. That evidence was most material in the present case, and must, therefore, meet with the most rigorous scrutiny, as, if he was to be believed, there was an end of both wills. It was, however, by no means to be concluded, on the other hand, that if he was discredited, the will must necessarily be established. The Court must form its judgment on that point from the whole circumstances of the case, and their probability and concurrence with each other, as there had been cases, as observed by the Counsel, in which wills had been established against the evidence of a very numerous body of witnesses, all speaking in derogation of their own act. contrary position would be grievous in the extreme, and lead to the grossest instances of fraud, by witnesses conspiring together, and agreeing in one uniform and positive narration of fact. He then entered into a minute examination of Carnsew's evidence, and contrasted one part of it with another, and the whole with the evidence

A

of

of the other witnesses, and was of opinion that, looking to the evidence, there was in support of the deceased's capacity, the respectability of Dr. Hall's character, and the improbability that he should lend himself, without having the least interest in the transaction, to the fabrication of a will, and the imposing it upon a man in a deranged state of mind, and afterwards busy himself in getting a more complete one prepared by an attorney, contrary to Carnsew's suggestion of fraud. Looking, also, to the fairness of the execution of the will, and the procurement of the witnesses by the Executor, indiscriminately and without any instructions to them, contrary to Carnsew's suggestion of subornation: observing, too, the evidence of the deceased's capacity, his silence at the times when he is described by Carnsew as raving, cursing, and swearing, and his recognition of the will and its contents, by saying to one witness, that his executor would pay her for her trouble in attending upon him; and to another, (his nephew), by calling him to his bedside, and telling him what he had left him, in direct contradiction to Carnsew's assertion, that the will was never read over to him (the deceased), nor did he know the contents of it; and all this, confirmed by the conduct of the widow, proved to have been in the house during the whole transaction, though Carnsew asserted she was not, and acquiescing till her death in the non-impeachment of the will. Looking to this mass of evidence, the Court could come to no other conclusion than that Carnsew was a most corrupt and per

jured witness, and his act must therefore be taken in opposition to his evidence. The will then appeared the act of a capable testator, and the law therefore presumed his knowledge of its contents. This presumption was, however, strongly augmented by the widow's acquiescence, and the proof of the testator's strong regard for his brother and nephew, the persons principally benefited. It was a very common notion amongst persons not conversant in law, that an executor takes every thing not given by the will, after payment of debts. Dr. Hall may have entertained this idea (not conceiving the bequest of an estate for 4 years only to his brother to be repugnant to the deceased's intention of giving him the residue,) until undeceived by Mr. Hext, and the Court was bound to presume that Mr. Hext would not have inserted the residuary clause, unless he had previously ascertained from Dr. Hall that it was consonant to the deceased's instructions to him. Under all the circumstances, therefore, the Court was satisfied, as well from the presumption of law, as from the facts of the case, both being concurrent, that the paper in question was sufficiently proved to contain the will of the deceased, and the same was pronounced for açcordingly, and the probate thereof confirmed to the executor in reversal of the decision of the Court below; but in consideration of the next of kin having only supported that decision in this court, and of its appearing that Carnsew had been induced to perjure himself so grossly, not at her instigation, but merely from motives of revenge

towards

« ÖncekiDevam »