- 24 Nov 1829 (page 3, col c) Civil Actions - Tyrell v. Jenner and Spitty
Prerogative Court Monday Nov 23 - Tyrell
against Jenner and Spitty
This was a further allegation on the part of the defendants in a suit
respecting validity of a will executed by the Rev. Dr. Jenner in favour of Sir
John Tyrell, Bart., the deceased's brother-in-law, to the prejudice of his
next of kin, namely, his son, John Tyrell Jenner, a lunatic, and two
grandchildren, who were still minors. The features of the case have been
already given in respect of the argument on the admission of the antecedent
allegations.
Dr. Phillimore and Dr. Addams, on behalf of Sir John
Tyrell, opposed the admission of this allegation, and commented in strong
terms upon the protraction of the suit, and upon the voluminous evidence and
proceedings in the cause. Three allegations had already been given in; the
number of witnesses examined was 30, one had been cross-examined at such
length that the interrogatories lasted 11 days.
Dr. Lushington and Dr. Dodson, for the committee and
guardians of the next of kin, contended that this was a case which required
the utmost vigilance and the closest investigation. It was a case of a person
alleged to be of unsound mind, who, at the age of 82, had by a will executed
in a stationer's shop, in the presence of the party whom it favoured,
disinherited his only son, and the children of his sister, in favour of a
person not related by blood.
Sir John Nicholl said, that the additional facts now
pleaded did not appear to be of such importance as to authorize the Court to
add to the delay and expense which had been already incurred. If, however,
upon the case being examined more fully, any of the circumstances should prove
to be material, it was in the discretion of the Court, if the allegation were
suspended, to admit it hereafter to proof. He should therefore suspend the
allegation, and decree publication of the evidence.
- 16 Dec 1830 (page 6, col e) Civil Actions - Tyrell v. Jenner, Spitty and Spitty
High Court of Delegates Wednesday Dec. 15 - Tyrell against Jenner, Spitty and
Spitty
This is an appeal from the sentence of the Prerogative
Court of Canterbury, in a testamentary suit, respecting an alleged will of Dr.
John Jenner, of Billericay, Essex, who died in March, 1828, at an advanced
age, whereby the bulk of his property was bequeathed to Sir John Tyrell,
Bart., of Boreham Hall, Essex, a stranger in blood to the testator (his
brother-in-law), to the prejudice of the deceased's son, a lunatic, and other
relatives. The will, which was dated 13th of July 1827, was propounded by Sir
John Tyrell, as executor, and opposed on behalf of his next of kin and
relatives, on the ground that the deceased was not a capable testator, and
that the will was obtained from him fraudulently by Sir John Tyrell, in
conspiracy with a person named Jane Bayles, the deceased's housekeeper, and
who had a control over him. The case and argument were fully reported when
sentence was given in the court below, which set aside the will.
On behalf of the appellant, Mr. J. Williams, Dr.
Phillimore, Dr. Addams, and Mr. Follett, were heard yesterday ; and Mr. Pepys
for the respondents. To-day Dr. Dodson and Mr. Thesiger argued till a late
hour for the respondents, when the Court adjourned.
- 17 Dec 1830 (page 4, col d) Civil Actions - Tyrell v. Jenner, Spitty and Spitty
High Court of Delegates Wednesday Dec. 15 - Tyrell against Jenner, Spitty and
Spitty.
The argument in this case was brought to a close this day.
We were in error in stating yesterday that the cause had
been decided in the Prerogative Court. The decision of Sir John Nicholl was
upon an incidental point in the cause, and an appeal being prosecuted from
that decision to this Court, the cause was retained here, instead of being
remitted, as usual, to the Court below.
The Counsel for Sir John Tyrell were only partly heard,
when the Court called upon the other side, who impugned the will of Dr.
Jenner. The counsel in support of the will rested their case mainly upon the
evidence of execution and recognition, coupled with the testimony in proof of
the sanity and competency of the testator.
The counsel in behalf of the son and grand-sons of the
deceased argued at very considerable length, that the will was the result of a
fraudulent conspiracy between Sir John Tyrell and Jane Bailes, the deceased's
housekeeper; they imputed to the former falsehood and perjury; and they
contended, that the imbecility and "senile delirium" of the deceased
were amply demonstrated by the acts he was proved to have been guilty of,
namely - habitual indelicacy of conversation, absurd notions of his own
importance and qualifications, improper language from the pulpit, addiction to
gin, which he named "Scarborough water," dancing in the streets, and
familiarity with low characters.
Without hearing the counsel for Sir John Tyrell in reply,
the Court consulted for about twenty minutes, when their Lordships pronounced
for the force and validity of the will propounded by Sir John Tyrell, and
decreed probate of the same. Nothing was said as to costs.
Mr. Williams, on behalf of Sir John Tyrell, said that as so
violent an attack had been made upon character, in the argument, and so much
had been said about costs, he trusted, their Lordships would allow a reply
upon those two points.
Dr. Dodson, on the other side, said that his clients had
contested this will under the directions of the Lord Chancellor on behalf of a
lunatic and minor; and he submitted that their costs ought to be paid out of
the estate.
The COURT said, that with respect to what had fallen from
Counsel on the subject of character, their Lordships did not think any reply
necessary; and as to costs, they had taken all the circumstances into
consideration, and since the party who had impugned the will acted purely
under the directions of the Court of Chancery, this Court made no order as to
the costs of either party.
The commission consisted of Mr. Justice Gaselee, Mr.
Justice James Parke, Mr. Baron Bolland, Dr. Arnold, Dr. Burnaby, Dr. Blake,
and Dr. Haggard.
|
