APPENDIX: TO 
suaded the deceased to alter those 
testamentary dispositionsby which 
he had bequeathed his property to 
his wife and family, and to devote 
the mass of his fortune to the en- 
dowment of eleemosynary institu- 
tions, leaving Mrs. Henshaw the 
slender pittance of 200/. a year— 
that he had urged him to de so 
not by a single testament, but by 
aseries of codicils, with the in- 
tention of keeping him in a course 
of testamentary disposition, in 
order that he might seize some 
favourable opportunity, when the 
testator was in the humour, of 
procuring a bequest to himself. 
The Learned Counsel for Mrs, 
Henshaw, in language the most 
energetic,-dwelt upon the conduct 
of Mr. Atkinson in obtruding 
himself into the family of the 
testator, and diverting him from 
those benevolent intentions to- 
wards his family, which, till his in- 
terference, had uniformly actuated 
him. They represented to the 
Court, the artful and insidious 
proceedings of the defendant in 
deporting himself as‘ a friend to- 
wards: Mrs. Henshaw, dining at 
her table, and expressing his re- 
gard for her ; when, at the same 
time, he musthave been conscious, 
that by his persuasion, her hus- 
band, by what he had left her, 
had comparatively disinherited 
her. They argued from the volu- 
minous evidence before the Court, 
and by the last act of the testator, 
which was self-destruction, the im- 
paired and weakened state of his 
intellects. They contended that 
it was not necessary to prove a 
deranged mind: it was sufficient 
that the facts of the case presented 
the testator before the Court as a 
man who had been afflicted with 
CHRONICLE. » 
paralysis, and as a man, with re« 
spect to whom his regular medical 
attendant had advised that he 
should be strictly watched, to 
prevent that catastrophe which 
eventually occurred. They in- 
sisted, that when a testator, thus 
vacillating between the extremes 
of sanity and insanity, was prac- 
tised upon by a person who had 
obtained an absolute control over 
him, such as Atkinson unques- 
tionably had over the testator, 
the will made, under such cir- 
cumstances, was not the will of 
the testator, but was in truth the 
will of the party by whom he was 
influenced. 
Against the third codicil it was 
specially urged, that being in the 
hand-writing of a party benefited 
under it, common proof of. its 
execution by the deceased, in pre- 
sence of witnesses, and of his tes- 
tamentary capacity at the time, 
would not suffice to establish the 
act; but that there must be spe- 
cific proof that he knew the con- 
tents, by some declaration coming 
from him, either before, at, or 
after the execution: and several 
cases from the year 1723 to the 
present time were cited, to show 
that this was the rule of the Ec- 
clesiastical Court. Lastly, it was 
contended that a sum of 3,000/. 
mentioned in this codicil as having 
been previously given by the tes- 
tator to Mr. Atkinson, was, in 
reality only lent, which seemed 
to show, that the testator could 
not have understood what he 
signed, ; 
In support of the will and co- 
dicils generally, it was replied 
that, upon all the evidence, there 
could not be a doubt but that the 
testator was a man of extraordi- 
969 
