Chapters in the Rnglish Law of Lunacy.
533
Charles Russell, O- C., now lord chief justice, the court merely asks him to disclose facts Mr. R. B. Finlay, Q. C., and Mr. F. B. Palmer, within his knowledge. But in the case of a a leading authority on company law, ap legacy under a will, the legatee may have, peared for the plaintiff, while Sir Edward and in point of fact generally has, no part Clarke, Q. C., then solicitor general, and in or even knowledge of the act, and to cast Mr. Warmington, Q. C. were counsel for the upon him, on the bare proof of the legacy defendant. In the court of appeal Sir Horace, and his relation to the testator, the burden now Lord Davey, was substituted for Sir of showing how the thing came about, would Charles Russell. The case was argued with be manifestly unfair. In Parfitt v. Lawless great ability on both (1872, 2 P. & D. 469), for instance, a sides, — Sir Edward Clarke's speech being Roman Catholic priest had resided especially brilliant. with a testatrix and Both courts held (al though Lord Justice her husband for many Cotton dissented) years as chaplain and for part of the time as that on leaving the sisterhood Miss Allconfessor. He was card would have been confessor when the entitled to restitution will — under which of all property then he became the testa in Miss Skinner's trix's residuary lega hands, but that she tee — was made. had barred her claim There was no evi by laches in assert dence, however, of undue or improper ing it. influence, and accord The law of undue ingly Lord Penzance influence in regard to declined to let the gifts inter vivos does case go to a jury. not apply to testa Parker 7r. Duncan mentary dispositions. (1890) was a case In the former case un of a different char due influence is pre VICE-CHANCELLOR BACON acter. There the sumed from certain relationships, and it is for the donee to rebut will of a female pauper was propound the presumption. In the latter, the mere ex ed by the chairman of the Board of Guar istence of a relationship which renders undue dians of the Union in which she resid influence possible will not invalidate a testa ed. The property consisted of policies ment in favor of the person who is in a of insurance upon the life of the deceased, position to exercise such influence. It must and these the testatrix disposed of absolute be shown that he did exercise it. The bur ly to the plaintiff. It was shown that he den of proof therefore is different. The had himself taken the alleged instructions reason for the difference is plain and satis for the will and got it prepared by his own factory. In the case of gifts and contracts solicitor whom he refused to allow to see there is a transaction in which the person the testatrix. Of the attesting witnesses one benefited at least takes part, and in calling was a friend of the plaintiff, the other was upon him to explain what that part was, a nurse in the workhouse infirmary, in which
