Cambridge, Tuesday, Augus...
CTvTr. STDE.-BeAfre thtc LoRn CIuTET BAnnV- This was an action brought by - sister against her brother, to re- cover the sum of 1561. for the funeral expenses of their father. Ille plaintiff's case was, that her father (MIr. Joseph Pomrret Vandermetilen) had died in Lhe year 1822. Being left his executrix, with a very limited income (not niore than from 601. to 1001. ayear), rhe had intensded to bury him respectably, but inexpensivelI, in Cambridgeshire. Mr. Frederick Vanderineulen. (the defendant), hOwever, wlho, by the bequest of his grandmother, enjoyed a very considerable fortune, thou ht such a course derogatory to the honour Of the familyj and insisted upon carrying his deceased father to the faTniy vault at Su. Alban's. In doing this, avery heavy expense had been incurred, which. in the first inistance, he had declared slhould be his; but which, when called upon by the executrix (who had paid it), tle now refused to defray. Aitr. Iewortliy, a clergyman of respectability, and a magistrate for Cambridges9hire, was called to proe the case. This gentleman, whp wasi married to the aunt of both the parties, and in whose family the plaintiff lived, swore that the defendant had undertaken the charge of his father's funeral, and had employed him (witness) to give all necessary orders and directioprs. Witness had done this * paid all the b511a, and been repaid by 'Miss Eve Vandermeulen, the execu. irix. In the course of the funeral arrangements, he (the witness):hid frequently spoken to the defendant about the heavy expense in- curred. Defendant had answered, tbat he would have the thing so- that he would sell his coat rather thar. have his father buried othere wise-that he would pay the expense. AlMr. H. CoorsR, for the defendant, endeavoured to show that r. L~ewortly was the real plainiff'in the cause, he having in fact brought an Action against the defendant, and failed in recovering nt the very last aasirzc. H:}e denied any intention on the part of the defendant, at any time, to render himself liable for his tather's fu- neral. Mli.ss Vandertueulen was the father's sole heir (and to con- siderable property) as well as his executrir, AMr. F. VanderLneulen not being even mentioned in his will. All that the defendant had wished lwas to see his father buried respectablv, which he knew his sister It ad assets sufficient to afford. The Lonn CHrI:F BAROx: said, that the short question for the jury was, wIeether the defendant had undertaken to indemnify the plaintiff for the expense of conducting their father's funeral in the way in which he desired to see It done. His mere wish, nor even his interference (which had evidently been very active) witll the fu. neral arrangements, would do: to sustain the present action there must have heen a specific undertaking by him. Whether the de- fendant had ever given such an undertaking, the jury must collect from the evidence of Mr. Leworthy. It appeared that (as to some points of expense) he had said, " I will have it so '" about others, i' I would sell my coat, &c., rather than it should be otherwise ;" and, upon one point, " I will pay It all." How far these declara- tions woald constitute an undertaking as to the wlhole charge. or as to part, it would be for the jury, peculiarly, to consider. He (the Chief Baron) thought it qaestionable, wvhether the positive under- taking necessary liad been given. The Jury, after retiring for half an hour, found their verdict for thp FafC-1irtne CAMBIRIDGE, TUESDAY, AUaGUST 3. vA.nFlER3kErTLEN V. VAVTDFl.RAfV7rT.r,T.