Court Of Chancery, Friday...
m a!P5ftf., an ; ml case, wmcnC concerned the inheritance oftconsdetrablePrt. petty left by an intestate, resident at the time ;of bis.death at Cal- cutta, and in which, besides the interests of those whd claimed to he next of kin, were involved the claims of the Crowivand the India Comtany to theproperty aa escheats accordingly as it should be do- cided to be personafy or realtv, an issue had gone aut of Chancery to try the question of consanguinity as it respected one of the claim. ants, which issue bad been tried at Warwick, aud deterinined in his favour. The present motion was to have the verdict set aside, and a new trial ordered, on the grountl that the verdict uas against eindenmee It appeared that the ittestate, whose uame was Samuel, was descended from one of the four sans of John Oldham. who was married to Elizabeth Stonehurst, at the parish church of Pack- Rnt?n, in Warwickahire, in Ostober, 171 4. The question in the rissue depended chiefly upon the legitimacy or illegitimacy of' Thomas, one of these sons. There nseared in the parish register of Coleshill an interpolated line, which recorded the baptism Of Thomas to have taker place in Septembe.previous. The contention both on this motion and on the trial we, vwhether this entrr was correct or net with respect to situation and date, (both sides big agreed that it could not be so with respect to the time of insertioa), and if not correct, in what order of time the birth of Thomas would stand with respect to the otber sons, John, Richard, and William. The father and mother were persons who had lived in great indi- gence, and it was surmised bv those who opposed the verdict, that the birth of Thonias was the main cause of their marriage union. On the other side, the will of the grandmother was produced, to prove that in the bequeathing of hbr worldly substance, which amounted in all to 71, and a fraction, she had made no distinction which could imply a doubt of the legitimacy of Thomas, whose name stood first in the enumeration of the chiidren as legatees, each of them having to receive the sunm of 5s. at her death. The SOXLCITOi-GENERAL moved for the new trial, and was supported by Sergeant Vaughan from the common law-bar, wlho had opposed the lecitimacy oi behalf of the Crown in the issUt tried at WVarwick ?isi Pr.is. Afr. SUnDEN and Mr. ROUPELL, assisted by the Comlsroy SERGEAST, supported the verdict which had been given in favour of the legitimacy. The argument laqted the whole time of'sitting. The LORD CHANCELLOR called for the equity plealings, whicll he undertook to reed over this evening. He conld not refrain from making one or two observations on the pernicious neglect which gene- rally prevalled, oracanyrate had hitherto prevailed, In the keepitg of pansh registers. By the 70th canon of the Church the offlcrattng cler. gymnan was bound to insert every baptism at the time of ainsite"-. ing it, an l a correct copy of everv day's proceedings: this and the other ntes of the church were to be taken each day, which extracts were to be remittel every week to the court of the Bishop. So loosely were these arrangements complied with, that he enmembered a case having been nearly lost in the House of Lords, because the original register could not be found, and their lordships were unwill- ing to admnit a duplicate, until he reminded them that 1f this strict- ness of evidence were introduced, it would in alrm,ost every case be found, quite impossible to establish a pedigree,. He also remember- ed that when he went circuit they tried a cause in a town wvhich war a county of itself, in which they g.t a verdict by pro'ncing a copy of the register.i The next day they had a ese ofmuch more consider- able property, claimed by the samrte P.rty, to be tried in the county at l-arge. lt was thought tleceYSsry over night to have the duplicate compared-,with the register, au, the effect of that inspection was, that they did not venture to Ro o trial next day. COLT OP CH AN1rR1Y, FlIXDAY. JULY 2. * - - F.EEMAN V. FAIBLEIGf.