Prerogative Court, Wednes...
* vn a tormer day the evidence is this case was read and counsel herd: it respects, the validity of a will priade by a Mr.W.Litchfield, formerly of London, upholsterer, who died en the 31st of Alay, 181.3, leaving behind hbm a property, at the time of his decease' es- timated to be worth 50,0001. (personsltv), and a real estate of the yearly vttlieof300., but inthe hmandof the Accountant.GeneraI of the Court of Chancery, the accretions have enlarged the person. alty.to the amount of'70,900W. The decease&j tsa7eryA lliterate- man, stnd hiaving quittedI business retired to Hanwell,.- where lie ha an establishment consisting of one female servant, and a: boy who took care of his horse and gig. nis habitt~ were extremely nenu.- rioutia andhleTometi, during-his residence at lianivel,.:.Anintimate connexion with his s6rvant, by whom he N t child, born in theycar 1805, and baptized, at his expess deSire, by hi. owmn thameof "llisd amLitchfield."Th"e seemea. V& 1a good deal ofevi. dence to prove the deceased's declarations of affetioiyfor this son, of whom he would often declare "that be intended to make a g4nte- min of-him;" and.by a will made in September, 1807. he gave and devised aUl his property and estate, real and oersonal,. in tystst for the u ro and benefit of tbe said Villiam Litchfield. On the 18th of andl,1813 however, about a fortnight before toSetestator's death, he imade another will, ceaving thebulk of his property among his rela. tions, away from this natural child. Some oft e witnesses deposed, that the deceased had always expresse himself in terms of great dslkefr hi i particularly hiis brother. But in the month ofitede, to vrobate of the will of Mfay preceding was granted to fr. lushett,ojie ofithe executors named thcrein, and in marchb, 1821, ofr. Johin Rich, one of the execators named In the will of Septemnber, 1807, cited retr. ushett into thiS Court, tosh owcause wby the probate hcat had been grnted to l im shouldnotbe revokeA,l ind letters of administration, withtac will of September, 1807, an- nexel obe granted to Mr. Richs . Tha e principal ground on which the validity of the latter will is disputed, appears to be the asserted incapacity of the deceased at the time ofits execution. Sir Jouw INrrOrjL gave judgment in this cause to-day, atnd pro. nlouncd the will (of DMr. LtChfield, deceased) dated in 1807 to be entitled to probate. The Court, in an elaborate sentence which c- cupied fvehours in thpe delivery, (but whic,b as it was a more ana- lysis of the evidlence in the cause, and as tbai evidence was of a de- scription entirely, uninteresting to the public, it does fiet seen, neces- sary, to give a maore parttciclav account of,) rjected. the will of 1813, by which the deceased had virtually revoked his will of 1807, on thiese greunds-.that intention was clearly shown in respect of the will of 18017 that no case had been made out to accounit fTr the alteration of that intention, or for the testanmentarv dispositions ex- empplified in the wifll of 1813; and that at the time of executing the wil of181, te dcesedwasin stteof bodily and miental inca- paciy. he ourtals dereedproateto tbe codicils bearing date decesed coes nto ossssin o a ropety moutin to70,0001. PREROGATIVE COURT. tsVVnsDAY. Jrnt3.V 7i . RICH V. MIYSHETT.