Carlisle Patriot, 19 Nov 1825 - Vice-Chancellor's Court (1)

[petra.mi...@doctors.org.uk]

Saturday 19 Nov 1825   (p. 3, col. 2-3)

 

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NOV. 10-14.

 

LANCASTER v. ATKINSON.

 

Mr. HEALD and Mr. PHILLIMORE stated the case for the plaintiff in this cause, which now came on to be heard. It appeared that a Mr. ATKINSON of Whitehaven, died, leaving two daughters, one of whom (with her husband) was the plaintiff, and the other the defendant in the suit. Some years before his death he told his two daughters that he intended to divide his property equally between them, and that it consisted of a quantity of gold, which would be found in a desk and escritoire, which he pointed out. At the same time he gave to the eldest daughter, in the presence of the younger (the defendant), the keys of those places, and told them that his will was deposited there also. The sisters proceeded to examine, and found in the several places pointed out by their father a sum of 717 guineas and a 7s. piece. This money was then put into a secret drawer, and the elder daughter remained in possession of the keys. About a year and a half before the death of the testator the defendant expressed a wish to see that the gold was safe, and her sister went up stairs with her for that purpose. The drawer was opened, and the money counted; after which the defendant requested to see some gold rings, and when the plaintiff turned aside to show them to her, the defendant seized the keys and locked the escritoire, saying at the same time, "You have had the keys quite long enough, it is my turn now, and I shall keep them for the future." The plaintiff complained to her father, who desired the defendant to restore the keys; but she refused then and ever since, until her father's death. During all this time the defendant never parted with the keys, having them fastened round her waist by a riband when she was asleep. After the death of the testator, Mr. LANCASTER, an attorney, who had married the elder sister, asked the defendant to join in proving the will, and afterwards to meet for the purpose of dividing the property. She at first refused but consented to do so on the following day; when, in the presence of both the plaintiffs, the escritoire was opened, and to their surprise no money whatever was found. The defendant exclaimed that she was robbed, and accused the plaintiff of having taken the money, which the latter not only denied, but had brought this suit to compel her sister to pay over the half of that sum, which was deposited in the desk when the defendant assumed the custody of it.

 

The depositions on behalf of the plaintiff were then read, and were to the effect above stated.

 

Mr. HORNE and Mr. FISHER, for the defendant, read from her answer a complete denial of the imputations attempted to be cast upon her by the bill. She admitted that she had obtained possession of the keys in the manner stated, but denied that she had ever opened the escritoire excepting in the presence of the plaintiffs, or or [sic] that she had in any way possessed herself of the money lodged there. She moreover asserted her suspicions that the plaintiff had been in possession of another key, and that she had by that means obtained the money; in support of which it was sworn that the plaintiff had lodged a sum of £200 in the bank of Messrs. HARTLEY &Co. bankers, Whitehaven, and the possession of which the plaintiff endeavoured to account for, by saying, it was the amount of savings made by her while acting as her father's housekeeper. The defendant swore also, that on going into the room, in which the escrutoire [sic] was, on a certain day in September, 1819, she saw the plaintiff with two check bags in her hand, and asked what they were, to which the plaintiff answered, "it is my father's gold." Defendant was called down stairs, and on her return, found the plaintiff still in the room, but the bags were not to be seen; the keys lay on the table, and that she (defendant) took them up, saying, "You have had them long enough," but subsequently offered to return them, when the plaintiff declined receiving them. A mass of evidence merely circumstantial, and all tending to throw upon the plaintiff that accusation which she had brought against the defendant was read.

 

The following is another report of the defendant's counsel's reply:—

 

Mr. FISHER, the junior Counsel for the defendant, now proceeded to read the answer, which stated that she was the younger sister of the plaintiff, who had kept all the keys, consisting of the keys in question and divers other keys, among which she suspected that there was a certain additional key which opened the lock of the escritoire in question; that she was induced to claim possession of the keys in question upon a suspicion raised by the plaintiff having lodged a sum of £100 in a banking-house, at Whitehaven; and when she made enquiries of the plaintiff as to the safe custody of the guineas in question, the plaintiff refused to satisfy her queries, saying, that she should do as she pleased, and let her know when she thought fit; that the escritoire in question stood in a certain back room, next to the room of the deceased, and that on the defendant going up to her father's bed-room one day in the month of September, 1819, she saw the plaintiff in the said back room with bags of money on the table, and when questioning her what it was, the plaintiff replied it was the money their father had spoken of. The defendant asked her how much there was; and the plaintiff replied, seven hundred and seventeen guineas. Immediately the defendant heard a noise below stairs, and supposing something was the matter with the deceased, who was in the lower room, in a feeble and infirm state, she went down; and on her return she saw her sister, the plaintiff, on her way from the said back room, but saw no money on the table; that though she got possession of the keys, she offered them again to the plaintiff, provided she would let her (the defendant) know how she became possessed of the £100 she had lodged in the Whitehaven Bank; but she refused so to do. The bill then went on to swear positively that the defendant did not ever keep the keys stated, bound round her body, nor had she ever unlocked the escritoire, unless to get out and put back papers for her father, or on the occasion in question, when she, in the plaintiff's presence, opened the same to search for the bags of guineas stated. That she never counted the gold in question, or opened any secret drawers in the escritoire, or knew of the existence of such secret drawers, until pointed out by the plaintiff. That on the search made, the plaintiff said, perhaps she had put the money into the back drawer; on which the defendant said, "Thou hast never put it there; thou hast put it with the other things thou hast robbed my father and me of!" The defendant fretted much, whereupon the plaintiff told her not to fret, for she would take care of her, or words to that effect. The answer concluded by denying all knowledge of secreting the guineas in question.

 

The testimony of two other witnesses directly contradicting that of the plaintiff's witness (WALKER), was then read.

 

The vice-Chancellor asked if it was intended to charge the defendant with having taken the money in the life-time of the father; because, if so, it would be a capital felony.

 

Mr. HEALD answered in the negative, that he only meant to charge the defendant with having possessed herself of "the keys" during the testator's life time, and with having taken "the money" in the interval between his death and the examination of the escrutoire [sic], in the presence of the plaintiff.

 

The Vice Chancellor said, this case could not be decided here, as well from its nature as from the conflicting evidence. It must be tried in a court of law. The case was at all events one of considerable suspicion; there must be gross perjury on one side or the other; and he should therefore direct an issue to try whether the defendant possessed herself of any money, the property of the testator, contained in his escritoire; that the plaintiff and defendant should both be examined as witnesses on the trial, and that the Judge should be directed to endorse any special matter on the postea.

 

 

[to be continued]