Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/624

 Old World Trials.

581

OLD WORLD TRIALS. XII. SWINFEN v. SWINFEN. THE case of Swinfen v. Swinfcn possesses so much intrinsic and extrinsic interest that I shall deal with it in some detail. The plaintiff, Mrs. Patience Swinfen, pro pounded the will of her father-in-law under which she took estates worth about £60,000. The will was disputed by the heir-at-law, Frederick Hay Swinfen, and in July, 1855, the master of the rolls directed an issue to try its validity. The issue came on for trial at the Gafford Assizes, before Mr. Justice Crenwell and a jury, in March, 1856. Sir Frederick Thesiger was leading counsel for the plaintiff, Sir Alexander Cockburn, then attorney-general, represented the defendant. At the close of the first day of the trial ne gotiations for an arrangement took place be tween Thesiger and Cockburn, and ultimately the following terms were finally agreed upon and embodied in a memorandum : — "Terms of compromise. Juror to be with drawn. Estate to be conveyed by plaintiff at law to defendant in fee, free of incum brance if any, erected since the death of Samuel Swinfen (the testator) such convey ance to date from Michaelmas 1855. De fendant to secure to plaintiff an annuity on her life on the estate of £1000 a year. . Plaintiff's costs as between attorney and client not exceeding £1250 to be paid by defendant. Power to either party to make this agreement a rule of court. In event of any question arising on the above terms, the same to be referred to Sir Fred erick Thesiger and the Attorney-General. The house and grounds to be occupied by plaintiff without payment of rent till Mich aelmas next." This memorandum was em bodied in an order of nisi prius which was afterwards made a rule of court. It may well be doubted whether any compromise

before or since has given rise to such a crop of litigation. The negotiations had been entered into in consequence of an observa tion made by the learned judge as to the course that the case seemed to be taking, and were conducted and concluded in the absence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not, however, on her return repudiate the compromise that had been arrived at. Soon afterwards Mrs. Swinfen seems to have de termined upon a different line of action. She refused to execute the compromise, and the Court of Common Pleas declined, on a technical ground, to order her attachment for the refusal. The Court of Chancery, "following the law," refused to enforce itona bill for specific performance; a new trial of the issue was directed. Mrs. Swinfen ob tained a verdict, which was upheld on ap peal, and the Swinfen estates came into her possession and power at last. Now for this happy issue she was, and indeed admitted herself to be, largely indebted to the energy and ability of Mr. Charles Raun Kennedy, barrister at law, whose acquaintance she had made in April, 1856, and who acted for her in all the proceedings subsequent to the re fusal of the Court of Common Pleas to order an attachment. A warm friendship sprang up between counsel and client. Mr. Ken nedy had taken no fees for his services except such as were paid by way of costs by Mrs. Swinfen's opponents. In May, 1859, however, he thought it time to make some provision for the future, and induced Mrs. Swinfen to convey the estate recovered in the litigation, to himself in fee, subject to her own life-interest and other charges. The draft of this deed was prepared by Mr. Kennedy, but it was engrossed by a separate solicitor selected by Mrs. Swinfen, who, in