Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1111

separate covers, the testator took one of them, and delivered the other to Mr. Baldwyn, to be kept by him.

By this will, the testator gave to his niece Mary Cross £500; to her children that should be living at his death £2000; to his niece Martha Powell £600; and all the residue of his real and [505] personal estate to the respondent, and made him sole executor.

In August following, the testator went to the respondent's house at Salop, where he stayed above two months, and intended to stay much longer; but Mr. Atwell, his banker, with whom he had near #30,000 in cash, happening to die, he was called up to London on that occasion, and the respondent attended him thither; but, in the journey, the testator was seized with another fit of the palsy.—The respondent was obliged, within a few days after, to return into the country; but, in November following, he came again to London, to visit the testator, who continued to express the same affection for him as before, or greater; and as a fresh instance thereof, being informed that the respondent had a sudden occasion for £6000, he voluntarily lent him that sum, and pressed him to take more, and he likewise frequently sent the respondent's wife considerable presents.

In December 1720, the respondent returned again into the country; and then the appellant observing, that the testator, after his last fit of the palsy, was much impaired in his memory and understanding, found means to inveigle him from his lodgings in the city of London, where he had resided above twenty years, to go and lodge at the appellant's house at Westminster; and having got possession not only of the testator's person but also of his effects, the appellant managed him as he thought fit, and rarely suffered any of his relations, or others, to revisit him; and when they did, they were never permitted to be alone with him. At this time, the testator was so feeble that he could not walk without support, and so weak and impaired in his memory and understanding, that he frequently mistook one person and thing for another; and although the respondent never did any act to disoblige the testator, yet the appellant used great endeavours to misrepresent the respondent to him, and intercepted several of his letters.

Within a month after the appellant had thus got the testator to his house, he prevailed with him to make another will, dated the 10th of February 1720, whereby he gave to his niece Mary Cross and her children, and to his niece Martha Powell, the same legacies as were given by the former will; to the children of Mr. John Harwood £30 a-piece; to the respondent's children £20 a-piece; and the residue of his estate, real and personal, to the appellant's children John and Gerard Andrews, and Elizabeth, since married to Henry Fenn, share and share alike, and made the appellant sole executor, though neither he or his children were at all related to the testator. This pretended will was of the appellant's hand-writing, and the subscribing witnesses thereto were Frances, the appellant's wife, Robert Philips, an ordinary barber, and Margaret Rogers, a menial servant in the family.—And although the testator lay speechless, and in a languishing condition, for above a week before he died, yet the appellant never gave notice thereof to any of the testator's friends or relations; but upon his death, which happened on Sunday the 11th of February 1721, the appellant went early the [506] next morning, and with great expedition procured a probate of the pretended will, in common form, out of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, before any of the testator's relations had notice of his death, or had an opportunity of entering a caveat against such probate.

The appellant having thus procured a probate, immediately caused the same to be registered at the Exchequer, where the testator had several long annuities, to the amount of £1708 per ann. and also at the South-Sea House, where he had above £4200 capital stock.—But speedy application being made to the Prerogative Court, a decree was, on the 23d of the same month, obtained for the appellant to bring back the said probate; and upon the return of the citation, the Judge assigned the appellant to bring the probate into court on the 3d of March then next, which was done accordingly; and on the 10th of April following he exhibited an inventory, pursuant to the Judge's order.

The respondent afterwards discovered that the appellant, after being served with process to bring back the said probate, viz. on the 2d of March, being the very day