J f THE NATIONAL' RECISTE INTELLIGENCE. HIGH COURT OF DELEGATES.-SERJEANTS' - INN,- CHANCERY-LANE. HENIIHAW AND HADFIELD. V. ATKINSON. LA.' For many days this important cause has been under discussion before the Adjunct Commission of Review, composed of the following learned judges.—Barons Wood and Richards, and Justicesßailey and Dallas; Drs. Phillitnore, Daubigny, Burnaby and Gosling It is a question as to the validity of the will and codicils of the late Mr. Henshaw, of Oldham in Lancashire, who ,died worth near One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pounds, bequeath ing the greater portion of his property to purposes of Charity, and a specific legacy, amounting to upwards of 20,0001. to Mr. John Atkinson, of Salford, near Manchester. His will was dis • puted by Mrs. Ilenshaw, his widow, and Mrs. Hadfield, his next of kin; and the ground on which it was impugned was, that the testator, at the time when he disinherited his family, was, though not absolutely lunatic. yet in such a state of men tal imbecility, as precluded the free exercise of those faculties he had forme ly possessed in a very strong degree;. and it was alletlged that the defendant, Atkinson, having obtained an un due influence over him, had availed himself of that ascendancy to the extent of p.evailin .4 upon him to make the teStainentary dispsisitions in fa .or- of himself and certain charities. The same question was a- ;tied last spi ing before an equal number of Judges. ‘iri • ), divided in opinion. gave'no .judgment. It was now te-arguAl b Dr. Swabev, Dr. Jenner, Mr. Warren, and Mr. Widi tins, on the part of M s Ilenshaw, the widow, and Mrs. Hadikid, die n2xt of kin ; and by Stodhart, Dr. Lushington, M. lart, and Cross, on the part of M. At kinson : the arguments occupied six entire days. In support of the will and codicils it w.is now contended, that Mr. 1-lenshaw was, at the time he executed then, to the perfect enjoyment of his faculties—that he had, for a considerable period, manifested a disposition to found a blue-coat-school—that he had expressed such his intention to certain of his acquaintances, and conse quently, that as far as related to his charitable bequests, his will` and co dicils were the result of his own mind carrying into effiyet a previou.ly deter mined intention. With respect to his legacy to the defendant, it was i nsisted, that he had derived advantages from his advice and assistance in the management of his con. cerns—that the influence Atkinson had obtained over him was j . that fair influence which long services and tried friendship had earned, and that the legacy to him, large as it was, was not 1. more than was commensurate with his deserts. The compe tency of Mr. Henshaw to make the disposition of his property as-he had done, was inferred by his having been able, till within ! a short period of his death, to arrange partnerships, and a varl et y of matters of importance connected with the business by I which he had acquired his wealth. On the other side it was strongly argued, that Mr. Atkinson had acted the part of a false : friend and interested adviser; that he hadpersuaded the deceased ! to alter those testamentary dispositions by which he had be queathed his property to his wife and family, and to devote the j mass of his fortune to the endowment of eleinosynary institu• tiuns, leaving Mrs. Henshaw the slender pittance of :20!)I. a year; that he had urged him to do so, not by a single testament, but by a series of embeds, and with the intentioa of keeping him in a course of testamentary disposition, in order that he might seize some favourable opportunity, when the testator was in the humour, of procuring a bequest to himself. The learned Counsel for Mrs. Henshaw ' in language the most energytic, dwelt upon the cond uc t o f Mr. Atkinson in obtruding himself into the family of the testator. and diverting him from those benevolent intentions towards his family, which, till his inter ference had uniformly actuated him. They represented to the Court the artful and insiduous proceeding s of the defendant, in deporting him se lf as a f r i en d towar d s M is. Henshaw, dining at her table, and expressing his regard for her, when at the same time, he must have been conscious, that by his persuasion her husband by what he had left her, had comparatively disin herited her. They argued from the voluminous evidence be fore the court, and by the last act of the testator, which was se,f destclielion, the impaired and weakened state of bi 4 iutollectb. They contended that it was not necessary to prove a deranged mind ; it was sufficient that the facts of the case presented the testator before the Court as a man who had been repeatedly afflicted with paralysis, and as a man with respect to whom his regular medical attendant had advised that he should be strictly watched, to prevent that catastrophe which eventually occnrre4 They insisted, that when a testator, thus vacillating between the extremes of sanity and insanity,. was practiced upon by a person who had obtained an abiolute controut over him, such as At kinson unquestionably had over the testator, the will made, under such circumstances, was riot the will of the testator, bilk was f truth the will of the party by whom he was influenced. The judges assembled on Wednesday morning last by anjournrn ment, and boingdeliberated from eleven o'clock till three, the Register of the Court, upon the parties and their Counsel having been called in, stated, that tlic judges, being divided in opinion gave no judgment, . . . , C01.744T .OF CHANCERY, DMQ. la. • . • . WADE v..II,As.ELEY• • . - • .- Thiejlasf Mr. Charles Henry Baseley and Mr. Barker, one of his assistaists.lu tlt Alopement with Miss Wade, attended the • Court in pursuan t . .'6( .the Lord Chancellor's order, to answer for a contempt of his L'ordship's authority. The Lord Oran cello;, when this case was4ast before him, was pleased to ex press that it mi7,ht be his duty to direct a prosecution for a con spiracy to be commenced against the parties by the Attorney- General. In the mean time they were allowed, if they were so disposed, to tile affidavits as to the respective share they had taken in the affair. It appears they availed themselves i'vf his Lordship's permission ; and on this occasion they all had filed affidavits, which went flatly to contradict the depositions on the part of those who supported the application to the Court against them. Sir A. Piggot, as Counsel for Mr. Baieley, addressed the court at great length iu extenuation of the c•nduct of his client, and in an endeavour to prove that there had been no conspiracy to carry otlthe young lady with intent to inal y her to Baselev. and obtain her fortune. It was stated, in opposition to the affidavit of Mr. Broughton. which disclosed all the transactions of flaseley with respect to carrying away the young lady, that Mr Brough ton had written two letters to Mrs. Baseley after her marriage, :n which he expressed his determination to render her every assistance, and spoke in the most respectful way of Mr Baseley. 'ln consequence of the differeneebetween these letters and the affidavit mails 'hy,Mr. Broughton, it was contended that Mr. Broughton was not to be believed, and that the Lord Chan , cellar could not, upon such a statement, )(tweet the Attorney- General to prosecute the parties. Sir S. Romillv most ably vindicated the character of Mr. Broughton. and described him as a gentleman wha had been anxious, after the matrimonial contract had been made, to con ciliate the parties, in older to promote the happiness of Mrs. Baseley. It was on this ground he wrote the letters in question . The Lord Chancellor gave a must elaborate judgment ; his Lcrdship said, in a case of this kind, it was impossible to pre vent a portion of the punishment inflicted on the husband falling on the 'wife ; but if any feeling of that sort were to debt the end of justice, every needy a tveuturer would say, he might commit the same °donee with impunity. Every body. reading the affidavits on i»th sides, would say there had been a con spiracy of such a nature existing between the time of the first and second elopeinnt, as requi , ed the Chancellor to send proofs before the Attioney General.--:.low that officer woulddeaf with toe case was another question. With respect to M. Baseify 'and Mr. Barker, then attending, he should not do his duty if by hesitated one mmncut to say they must both be committed to the custody of the Warden of the Fleet for cootenpt. With regard t . the fortune of this younj. lady - , it would be the duty of the Court to make her owner of every shi/liug •if kw ro . perty, and to give her the p ower to dis p ose of* it. T Oil Chancellor coneludedby saying, there hadbeen a l g. ost of the law; and theretore he ordered Mr., Liaselel pad M r ' Barker to be sent to the Fleet prison, and the AA*. it; t o b e ' a id before the Attoruc 1 Comet. DEC. 24, *vow N~ +