Page images

take no steps to assist him in the purchase." It was no abdication of his trust. He was bound to require the highest price, and to sell to the highest bidder, whoever that person might be. The con. temporary letters showed that Mr. Currey did not consider himself the agent of Lord Abinger, and it was not on that foundation that the suit was originally instituted. The contract was repudiated before it was signed on the 30th of July. Mr. Bulteel took the contract of two trustees, knowing the sale was repudiated by the third, and he must be responsible for the costs of the suit, instituted without any foundation.

To-day (March 23rd), Vicechancellor Sir I. Wigram gave judgment-and after having gone through the evidence at great length recapitulated the facts of the case as follows:-"Now the present circumstances were these

The sale of the estate had been the business of all the trustees from 1835 until 1838. Their object had been to obtain the best price; they had declined to fix any price. When they had a bidding from one party, they carried it to other bidders, to see whether, by this species of competition, the price could be improved; and this principle was uniformly acted upon, except in this single instance out of which this litigation arose. Nothing but the consent of all the trustees would justify a departure from this mode of dealing. In this state of things Lord Abinger left London for the circuit, and while upon the circuit he learnt that his son was a bidder for the Bagshot estate, and then he wrote the letter of the 23rd July which was as follows:

"My dear Sir,-Having heard that my son has made some proposal to you and Edmund about the Rapley estate, I write to apprize you that it is exclusively his own affair, and has been his own doing. He will have no assistance from me in the matter, nor shall I take any interest directly or indirectly in it. Indeed I think I ought not to give any opinion on it, and shall decline doing so. I presume his object is in a great measure to gratify Edmund, which I hope he may be able to do without any loss to himself.

"Yours truly, "ABINGER. "I hope to be in town on the 3rd of August."

It was not possible to read that letter in connexion with the circumstances, and to understand it as intended to supersede the arrangement for securing the benefit of competition among private bidders. Whether the letter would have authorised Mr. Currey to sell to Mr. Scarlett, without first giving Lord Abinger the opportunity of putting a veto upon the contract

whether Lord Abinger was right in saying, that the import of the letter with reference to his duty as a trustee left him a veto even upon a contract with Mr. Scarlett-are questions which might admit of argument. But that letter could not be read as giving any authority to sell the estate, even to Mr. Scarlett, except he was the highest bidder, at a price which the other trustees should think sufficient. If that were Lord Abinger's meaning, he left the estate at least the benefit of that protection which competition would insure. If he did not intend so to limit the authority to sell to his son, he must have intended, in favour to his son

alone, to withdraw that protection from the estate which had theretofore been uniformly given. Even with that protection, he (His Honour) inclined strongly to think, that Lord Abinger could not lawfully delegate to his co-trustees an authority to sell the estate to his son, without reserving to himself a veto upon the contract. The letter of the 23rd July could not reasonably be carried beyond this -that if Mr. Scarlett should prove the best bidder for the estate, Lord Abinger would not interfere, or give an opinion whether his bidding should be accepted or not. The letter could not be perverted into an authority to sell to Mr. Scarlett, unless he were the best bidder, nor, as far as language went, could it be construed as an authority to sell to any one, except Mr. Scarlett, upon those terms. Nor could the motive which actuated Lord Abinger in writing that letter apply to any one except his son. It was argued, however, by the plaintiff, that a letter conferring such an authority, not equally applying to other persons, would involve Lord Abinger in the difficulty of having imposed terms upon a sale to others, to which his son was not subjected-a construction incompatible with Lord Abinger's sense of honour. This argument was ingenious rather than sound. The argument, so far as it proceeded upon Lord Abinger's disclaimer of interest, imputed to him motives very different from those by which the court was bound to believe him actuated-namely, motives of duty to his cestui que trusts, and not of interest in favour of his son. And this observation, if well founded, met the whole argument, and if not, the argument was dis. placed by the observation, that the

letter of the 23rd of July put Mr. Scarlett and all other bidders on the same footing, at all events to the extent of allowing no one to be the purchaser unless he were the highest bidder. If there were any difference, it would not arise until, by outbidding all others, he had acquired a right to call for the approbation of the trustees. But that state of things never arose; in fact, it was the unfortunate omission of Mr. Currey and Sir Edmund to offer the estate to Mr. Scarlett, that had given rise to the present question. It was his genuine opinion, that throughout the whole transaction, Mr. Currey had acted a strictly honest part; but he could not avoid thinking that he had, unconsciously to himself, allowed the impressions made upon his mind in the later stages of the case to influence his opinion of the effect of the former transactions. The bill must be dismissed.


August 19.


Mr. Erle and Mr. Barstow conducted the plaintiff's case, and Mr. Crowder and Mr. Butt that of the defendant.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages for a breach of promise of marriage. The plaintiff was the daughter of a tradesman in Salisbury, and, it would seem, was rather an accomplished individual. She was twentyeight years of age. The defendant was a merchant at Poole, the first cousin of the plaintiff, but sixty-eight summers had passed over his head. He was a widower

The the case the following witnesses were called:

with a grown-up family. laintiff went on a visit to this gay Lothario for eleven months. The young lady became attached to him. They walked out together at five in the morning, and strolled together in the evening. But in this world enjoyment does not last for ever; and they must part. Hard was that parting: and again and again they promised to correspond, and hundreds of letters, in the course of two years, passed between them. Sometimes the gentleman's letters were strictly mercantile, and might be interpreted into the following:-"An arrival of gout expected shortly; pains on the rise, influenza on the decline, and hoary locks as per last." Then he would write three sides of letter paper upon the weather. One, according to her wish, several times expressed, contained a silver lock of his hair; and at length his passion had reached such a height that he became out of his wits, for he discarded prose and became poetical. This correspondence went on for a length of time, until the old man became ill, and it was not expected he would get over it. He, however, did, and this would seem to have given the plaintiff a kind of hint that the devoted of her heart might not recover from a second attack, and therefore her sister interfered, took him to task, and endeavoured, as she stated it, to bring him to the point. This was, however, no easy matter, as the old gentleman seemed averse to marriage. The lady, as was natural, became ill, and was nervous and irritable. The whole family despaired of her being lady of the property in Poole and at Bournemouth, and of the ships at sea, and an action for damages was the result, and to prove

Mrs. Ann Rooke.-I am the mother of the plaintiff. I know the defendant. His mother and my mother were two sisters. I have seven children. The defendant has four children, and lived at Litchit. Mr. Conway is 67. He came to my house in the spring of 1839. He asked leave for the plaintiff to go and see his family in the year 1839. She remained there eleven months. I had no conversation with him on the subject of marriage for two years afterwards. I think it was at the fall of the year 1841, I spoke to him on the subject at my house. I told him I had been informed he was paying his addresses to my daughter. He said there was a correspondence. I told him he ought not to think of such a child as she was to him. She is twentyeight. He said he should like my daughter Amelia very much indeed. We were then interrupted, and nothing more was said.

Maria Louisa Rooke.-I am one of the sisters of Amelia Rooke. I live at Salisbury with my brother, and have been acquainted with Mr. Conway twelve or fourteen years. He came to our house in 1839, and took the plaintiff away with him. She stayed away many months. She returned in June, 1840. Mr. Conway paid her a visit in about a month after her return. He behaved in a very affectionate way to my sister. Our company was of no pleasure to them; we were only with them at meal times. I know the defendant's handwriting. After my sister came back she received letters from him-sometimes two in a day. I have seen my sister open the letA lock of his hair was en


closed in one of them. She had it put in a brooch. She had a letter in August, which made her unwell. My brother wrote, and defendant came to Salisbury on a Sunday, the 29th of August, 1841. She was then very poorly indeed. She saw him that evening. I asked him, what induced him to write such a letter and make her so uneasy? He said he was not aware it would make her uneasy. He asked for the letter, to look and see what he had written. He took it, and I never saw it afterwards. He afterwards brought back many letters, and told her sister he could not destroy them, because it hurt his feelings, and he did not like them to remain at home, lest his family should see them and laugh at them.

[ocr errors]

Cross-examined. - He was al ways reserved to me, because I was so much opposed to his paying attention to my sister. I did not think it a prudent thing. I was of that opinion all the time. I did not like his manner towards her, and I pointed out to them his age, children, and prospects. This was in August, 1841. I reproached him for not paying me the same attention as he did my sister; and he said, she and I are sweethearts, she is my lambkin. She sometimes read his letters to me, but if there was anything particularly sweet, she did not read it to me. Some times I assisted her to indite her letters to him. The letters are out of number. If I walked with him, he never offered me his arm. He was so artful that night, that I could not bring him to the point. My sister was leaning on his shoulder, and he was bathing her head with water. I had all the questions to myself on the Sunday night; I reproached him all the time. He appeared ashamed. I

don't know whether he blushed, for it is difficult to tell when a gentleman blushes. I repeated all in my sister's presence, and before him, because then I thought she had a witness of it. If it had been my own case, I should have written it down and got a witness.

The Judge. Had you any gentleman who offered you his arm at that time? Witness.-Walking sticks are very convenient, but I like them younger.

J. L. Rooke.-I am brother of the plaintiff. I heard a conversation between the last witness and Mr. Conway. We asked what his intentions to my sister were, and he said they were honourable. He said he had been told by his family that it was impossible for a young girl to love an old man, but he was convinced of the contrary. He said it was a sort of infatuation that came over him. We were riding out when he said this, but he added that within six months he would marry for certain.

Evidence was then given that the defendant possessed many houses at Poole and Bournemouth : that he had a vessel on the seas, and was a considerable merchant.

Mr. Crowder made a long address to the jury, contending that the conduct of the defendant was only that which might have been expected from a relation so far advanced in years, and that he never dreamt of marriage; but if the promise was proved, the loss was in truth a profit.

The learned Judge having summed up, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff - Damages One Farthing.




James Shea, alias Smyth, was placed at the bar, charged in two counts with the wilful murder of Rody Kennedy, of Loughane, in this county, on the 21st of May last. Before a jury had been completed, the agent for the prisoner had exhausted the challenges. His lordship seemed much dissatisfied with the indiscriminate manner in which the challenges were made. He said it was an abuse that had sprung up in modern times, more out of the tenderness of law to the caprice of the prisoners than anything else. The mode of systematic challenges which had been adopted was monstrous.

The motive which led to the perpetration of this barbarous murder may be inferred from the statement of counsel for the Crown. It appeared that the deceased (Rody Kennedy) lived in a place called Loughane, and occupied a house of considerable size and pretension for a man of his class. In this house also lived a man named Harty, with whom the prisoner was living as a servant. Deceased and Harty married two widows of the name of Kennedy, in whose right they came into possession and occupation of a farm, which they tilled in several divisions between them. Deceased's wife by her former husband had three children, two of whom were daughters. It seemed that previous to this tragical occurrence, Kennedy disapproved of an intercourse which had sprung up between the prisoner and the eldest daughter, and he threatened her that if she had anything to do

with the prisoner he would turn her out of the place. From the evidence which transpired, it appeared that the deceased, Rody Kennedy, on the morning on which he lost his life, had gone out for the purpose of repairing a gap which had been made and admitted trespass into his pasture. This was near Walker's scrub, and it appears that Walker's cattle had trespassed upon Kennedy's pasture. A gap was found in part made; some bushes were laid upon it, and some close to it cut, and when the body was found, it was in the ditch where the gap was made, and seemed to have been dragged a short way. It was found with a deep wound inflicted in the breast-apparently with a hatchet. A short distance down from the place where the body was found a hatchet was discovered. A person named Butler was going in the direction of the place where the murder was committed. He came in upon the road leading from Birr to Cloughjordan, and a little above where Harty's house is situated. After coming out, and having gone a short distance, he saw the prisoner running across the pasture field. He was at the time proceeding with a hasty step, and on turning the corner of Kennedy's field he could see him no further, for the angle intercepted his view. He walked on the road until he came opposite Loughane-house, to which a lane led. When he got there, he saw the prisoner about the spot where the gap was newly repaired. He saw him as he advanced stop there, and raise his hand as if to strike a blow, or throw something at an object before him. He then jumped into the ditch, where he was lost sight of.

Butler next saw him stoop

« PreviousContinue »