The Genealogist - UK census, BMDs and more online

The Times, Thursday, Nov 23, 1876; pg. 11; Issue 28794; col B



(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir RICHARD MALINS.)


The arguments on behalf of the defendants in this part-heard case were continued this morning.

Mr. NORTH put in all the evidence of the defendants, except that obtained in the suit of 1802 to perpetuate testimony.

Mr. J. PEARSON, Q.C., then put in that evidence.

Mr. GLASSE, Q.C., for the plaintiff, objected to its reception, on the ground that the plaintiff and other persons who ought to have been were not make parties to it, and that it could not, therefore, be used in this suit against the present plaintiff, who, in fact, was not born till 1807. The suit of 1802 might have been, and should have been properly revived against the plaintiff, in which case there would have been no difficulty about the matter. Neither Sir Frederick Fletcher VANE nor Lady VANE was a party to the suit of 1802. The exclusion of this evidence would not involve any hardship. Of course, if it was proper evidence to be admitted, it ought to be; if not, it should be rejected. But the plaintiff had a right to have that question decided, unless the defendants would withdraw it.

Mr. J. PEARSON, Q.C., at first declined to do so, and said he tendered it because he did not wish to have it said hereafter that Sir Henry Ralph VANE had left the court without having submitted every possible piece of testimony that would elucidate the dispute.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR suggested that, the evidence having been tendered, he might, without either rejecting it or formally admitting it, leave the question of its admissability to be settled by the Appeal Court, if there should be an appeal from the decision of his Lordship in this case.

Mr. GLASSE, Q.C., said if that course was adopted he would require a short time to consider whether he should not retire from the case altogether. The plaintiff had a right to the determination of the question, aye or no, should this evidence be admitted. The objection taken was to its admission in bulk in the first instance, but there might still be other objections to it in detail.

Mr. J. PEARSON, Q.C., then said that rather than allow the plaintiff to shirk out of court in that way he would withdraw this evidence.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR. – Then it is withdrawn?

Mr. J. PEARSON, Q.C., replied “Yes.” He then addressed the Court commenting minutely on the improbabilities involved in the case made by the plaintiff, and pointing out the direct testimony which (as observed by the Attorney-General at the close of his opening for the defendants, existed on their behalf to contradict the unreliable evidence of the plaintiff.

Mr. GLASSE, Q.C., Mr. Serjeant BALLANTINE, and Mr. R. Newton SMART were for the plaintiff; the Attorney-General (Sir John HOLKER, Q.C.), Mr. J. PEARSON, Q.C., Mr. DAVEY, Q.C., and Mr. NORTH were for the principal defendants; Mr. Mounsey HEYSHAM was for trustees.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR said he would continue the hearing of the case on Friday next.