HL Deb 05 March 1830 vol 22 cc1307-8
Lord Holland

presented a Petition from a person named Clarke, praying for a revision and alteration both of the Ecclesiastical Courts and of the Ecclesiastical Law. He had, it appeared, been a party to a suit in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, where he was defeated. He then carried the cause before the Court of Delegates, who confirmed the former judgment; and finally he applied to the Court of Chancery for a commission of review, which was refused. He was at present a prisoner in the Fleet prison, for a contempt of the Court of Chancery, having neglected to pay into that Court a sum of money according to its order, he being in fact unable, on account of the expense of the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts, to pay it.

The Lord Chancellor

stated the facts of the case. It appeared, that the petitioner Thomas Clarke, had had some property devised to him to the prejudice of the next of kin, who sought to set aside the Will on the ground of the insanity of the Testator. The cause was first argued before Sir John Nicholl, and afterwards before the Court of Delegates, both of whom concurred in setting aside the Will. The Lord Chancellor contended, that the judgment of Sir John Nicholl, and the affirmation of that judgment by the Court of Delegates, were perfectly in accordance with the circumstances disclosed before them. He had felt it to be his duty to refuse the commission of review, because there were no grounds for extending to the petitioner that measure of grace and favour. He had closely examined all the papers in the cause, amounting to 500 folio pages, and he had heard it argued for several days. As a commission of review was entirely a favour granted by the Crown, he thought it would be wrong to permit the petitioner to have such an indulgence, when there was no reason whatever for disturbing the judgment of the Court below. As to his being confined in the Fleet prison, he had been committed for a contempt, in not having paid a sum of money into Chancery, in conformity with an order of the Court.

Back to