Prerogative Court, Thursd...
Y,irJdirnNNcjeoLn gave senter.'cc ia this causetoe.dav. 'The tsestatar waa gMhrr. Peter Ef ; ihosdjed on thet-4th of August, 1821, baying attht.25thofiJne preceding, executed his last will .rindtestanint,. The general efrectfothat will was- to give to Mlr. Simiel Pik'e, (on'e of the eecutora' narmed therein), and to the fa- nilyjbfthat gentlemnan, aietyconsiderable-property,bothin pecaniary legades, andiinfkeeholdanldleasehold hosses.I To one of the daugh- ters'he deyised hit farm' in Essex; and all his othei. real estate he left to.his ni.ceLucy Hill,. for- her life; and after her *dcath. .to, his .three executors, or their assigns, in .trust -to sell the sanie,-:and 'out- of the proceeds to pay certain legacies !anaedin sitch his last will 'This niece, M1rs. Hill, therefore, was residuary lekafee'during the tern of bei natural liM. at the expira-' iion of which thbt residue was to gd the executor6. The personalty- of whicl the.deceased -died possessed- was .woth about 4000.L- the realty about 15,0001. The wiU which had been propounaed by the *execeqtors was opp:ise b#rs; lucy'HilI. The princpal ground of her Ioppoiition, as pleaded in her allegation, was the in- sanity of the deceaied.! It was stated that in the latter end of the j'ear -1817 .his minda had. become more and more deranged, and lei a. variesyvof extrayagant. acts cornaitted by him froua that tinme doiwn'to the period of his dcath.were set forth; and it was par- ticularly alleged that da'ring the whole month 'of June, 1821' bat more.especiaUyl eii the 25thof that 'month, the day of the date there. of, this deceased was of unsound mind, and- wholly incapable of mnaking his vill, or of dotig any act requiring thought, ijud ent, and reflection ;:but wasa in the custody and under the control of the raid thrMeeic&itomtL In an allegation given in on the otber side,. .it was i,niwered that the tdeceasedawas, in-fact, iever insane, but was subject. to oecasional. intoxication'; .ahid that dutrif his fits of aruinkenness, he might have comraiitted acts of extravagance: buhtwhe -he was rober, and -free from the influence of liquor, he waj of perfectly soand mind and understanding, and not liable to any unue control or coerdon.. The Court then pro- ceedel to staee, thut after 'ery carefully considering the evidence in. the kau<e, it did .not feel itself authorized to pronounce that any case of inanity hsd,. in this instance, ever existed.. (Th'elearned Judge recapitulated a part of the. testimony, which prored that the deceased had;it diileta times -done a variety of-strange and extra- vagaht acts,' but they appeared to havr been done under the infnu. ence of cxcessiye drunkenness; in which state, for example, de- cemed one day walking out, sawanauiction gbingon atDalbv-terrace, Islipgtor;- a entering the house purchsed it and the farhiture and the lease on the spot. The facti of the : me were, generally s?eaking, of a 'very unintertsting descaiption to the public. The Court found,that at the time of giving instructions for the wll, and at its execution, the deceased was of souind and disposing mind; aad thareforc pronoanced for it accordingly. . PREROGATIVE. COURT.. ThuRssD,AY JuNE 17. A A- D AOTHERS AGA1INST HILI.