Middleton of Ringwood and Romsey, Hampshire
_________________________________

Sadler's Hampshire Directory, 1784
Middleton James, attorney, Ringwood
Middleton John, attorney, Rumsey
(Neither appear in Pigot's Directory, 1828 nor
in the Universal British Directory, 1792-98)

From "Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the English Ecclesiastical Courts" 1832

The case is MIDDLETON v. FORBES, decided in this Court in Trinity Term 1787. ... It was very elaborately argued by Dr. WYNNE, the then King's Advocate, and by Dr. SCOTT, now Lord STOWELL, in support of the will — and by Dr. HARRIS and Dr. BEVER for the next of kin. The Judgment will sufficiently show the circumstances of the case.

"John WILCOX died on the 21st of October 1778, leaving a will dated on the 5th of August 1776. The contents are in substance as follows:—

'he describes himself as John WILCOX of Ringwood — cousin, heir at law, and sole next of kin of William WILCOX, late of Portsmouth Common, deceased: he directs his debts to be paid; he leaves — to two female servants of his late cousin, annuities of 10l. 8s. each — to his niece, Catherine WILCOX, and to his cousins, James MIDDLETON of Ringwood, and John MIDDLETON of Rumsey, all his property real and personal as tenants in common; if his niece shall have no issue he bequeaths her third of the real property to the MIDDLETONs — he appoints James and John MIDDLETON his executors. The will is signed by the deceased and attested by three witnesses.'

As to the state of the deceased: he had lived at Ringwood, a poor man, but by the death of his relation, he became possessed of about 3,000l. Immediately on the death of this relation, MIDDLETON, receiving notice, carried the deceased to Winchester, Ct administration to his cousin, then carried the deceased to Portsmouth, where William WILCOX had died, and soon after obtained this will. The MIDDLETONs afterwards got a deed of gift from the deceased, took possession of the estate, and kept possession of it till 1781, when FORBES took out administration to the deceased and proceeded against MIDDLETON, in Chancery, to set aside the deed. The deed was set aside, and the decree affirmed by the House of Lords. During the proceedings in Chancery, no mention was made of this will. The will has now been set up here. Objection is taken to it in point of law as giving the property to the Attorney, and cases have been quoted in Chancery, showing that the objection would there be valid; but that rule has never been adopted here. ... Overruling, therefore, the legal objections, I come to the facts of the case; and the question is, whether there is proof that this was the unbiassed act of the deceased. The first consideration is his capacity. It is admitted he was a drunken man, whom the boys followed and hooted — boys do not follow a mere drunken man, but an antick man playing tricks, such as this man did: his relations considered him in this light, for they made him a small weekly allowance. On his receiving this 3000l. the MIDDLETONs immediately carried him away and had the entire management of him — he had no regard for money — he was entirely under the direction of the MIDDLETONs, and under their custody — though not actually shut up — at Portsmouth, at a distance from his relations — the will was made by the person who had the beneficial interest — Qui se scripsit hseredem renders the will void under the civil law, though it is not so by the law of England.

A deed is also obtained for the same purpose, and though the setting aside of the deed does not establish fraud, yet it is a corroborating circumstance. The ineptitude of such a bargain might be a sufficient ground to set aside the deed, but not the will, which does not take immediate effect. Yet the obtaining such a deed does come strongly to corroborate the fraud of the will: it shows that the testator was liable to imposition, that he executed a deed which he ought not to have executed, and that the MIDDLETONs obtained a deed they ought not to have obtained. ...

COLLINS, the subscribing witness, says that a conversation passed between the deceased and MIDDLETON, and the witness's father about a will; but not that the will was prepared by the direction of the deceased, nor does he specify the conversation. The evidence of the execution does not specifically detail any thing as originating with the deceased himself, but merely what he said in answer to what was put to him.

This is all that eomes out to clear up these doubts, and to remove the suspicion of fraud: every thing originates with the MIDDLETONS — it seems a concerted plan to obtain this will — they show that they thought the deceased liable to imposition, otherwise they would have trusted him, and not got the deed: they were afraid of the continuance of his affection, lest he should fall into other hands.

Upon the whole, I do not think the evidence of the execution does away the suspicious circumstances of fraud and imposition. I shall therefore pronounce against the will, but I shall give no costs."

I have looked into the original papers in MIDDLETON v. Forbes; and the deposition of Collins — the only surviving attesting witness — was to the following effect:—

"He is an auctioneer — he and his father were employed on the death of William WILCOX, about his funeral. The transaction of which he is about to depose, took place at his (William WILCOX's) house about a fortnight after the death. From a conversation between the deceased, MIDDLETON and witness' father, he understood the will was ready for execution: the deceased expressed a desire then to sign it, and desired deponent to fetch a third witness, his uncle. The will was read in the presence of all three — the deceased was attentive — expressed full approbation — took a pen and signed his name, and published the paper as his will."

The witness speaks to his full belief of his capacity — says

"that the deceased was a wary man — perfectly sober — and expressed great obligations to the MIDDLETONs* — though the deceased was not acquainted with the nature and full extent of the property of which he was become possessed — yet he thought it considerable."

This is the substance of COLLINS's deposition; and from my note of the sentence, the Learned Judge did not seem to think this witness discredited, yet on the whole case he was of opinion that the will was not satisfactorily proved. ...
__________

* It appeared that the MIDDLETONs were distant relations, and that one of them paid the deceased his weekly allowance before the death of William WILCOX, the cousin.

From "Cases Determined in the Courts of Equity: From 1783 to 1796 Inclusive"

WELLES v. MIDDLETON in Lincolns Inn Hall before the Lord Chancellor on July 12, 13 and 15, 1784

This was a bil1 brougnt by the heirs at Iaw and next of kin of John WILCOX, to set aside certain deeds as being obtained by the defendants from the said John WILCOX, by fraud and imposition.

The property in question devolved upon John WILCOX, by the sudden death of William WILCOX his first cousin intestate, to whom John was heir at law and next of kin: John WILCOX was at this time about seventy-two years old, and till then had lived in great indigence; and there was great contrariety of evidence with respect to his capacity; some witnesses considering him as a madman, some of very low intellects, some as having impaired both body and mind by excessive drinking; but many of the defendant's witnesses considered him as a man of good understanding.

The defendants, James and John MIDDLETON, were brothers, and both attornies, and related in some degree to John WILCOX, being second cousins to him; the plaintiffs were his nieces and co-heiresses.

Early in the morning of the of actual 27th of July, 1776, William WILCOX died at Portsmouth. The same morning Mr. BINSTEED, an attorney of Portsmouth, sent a letter to Mr. WILLES, an attorney at. Ringwood, acquainting him of the death of William WILCOX, and saying that he (BINSTEED) knew of no will, and desiring to know whether WILLES knew of any. This letter WILLES immediately carried to the defendant James MIDDLETON (who lived at Ringwood) in the night between the 27th and 28th. Early in the morning of the 28th James MIDDLETON sent to John WILCOX (who also lived at Ringwood), and they immediately set off together in a post-chaise to Rumsey (where John MIDDLETON lived), and having told him of the death of William WILCOX, they all three set off for Portsmouth, the defendants accompanying John WILCOX with a view, as stated by their own answer, of advising and assisting him in the management of his affairs. In their way to Portsmouth they went through Winchester, and although it was Sunday, John WILCOX took out letters of administration as next of kin of William WILCOX from the Diocesan Court of Winchester. On the 29th of July they proceeded to Portsmouth, and having searched the papers, &c. of William WILCOX to no purpose for a will, they staid seven or eight days at Portsmouth, and then went back again.

It appeared by the testimony of one witness (James Collins) that during these seven or eight days the defendants had prepared a will for John WILCOX to execute, by which the whole property which came to him on the death of William was given to the defendants absolutely. This will was read over to COLLINS by the defendants, but they afterwards declared to COLLINS that

"as a will was alterable, John WILCOX might be persuaded when he returned to Ringwood to alter it."

And they then tore it in the presence of COLLINS.

William WILCOX having died possessed (amongst other things) of 50l. long annuities, it was necessary to take out a prerogative administration, and upon the llth of August the defendants wrote to some correspondent in London for a commission to take out letters of administration. On the 14th the commission was returned. On the 16th the defendants and John WILCOX went a second time to Portsmouth; and before the prerogative letters of administration arrived there, the first deed in question was executed. It was dated and executed on the 20th of August, and made between the said

"John WILCOX, by the name and addition of John WILCOX, of Ringwood, in the county of Southampton, Gentleman, heir at law, and sole next of kin of William WILCOX late of Portsmouth Common in the said county, Gentleman, deceased, of the one part, and James MIDDLETON, of Ringwood aforesaid Gentleman, and John MIDDLETON, of Rumsey in the said county Gentleman, of the other part,"

reciting that the said William WILCOX, on or about the 27th day of July last past, died intestate, leaving the said John WILCOX his heir at law and sole next of kin, and that he the said John WILCOX being perfectly satisfied of the said William WILCOX's friendship and good intentions towards the said James and John MIDDLETON, who were also nearly related to the said intestate; and that from the public declarations of the said William WILCOX in his lifetime, it was very much to be expected that he would have given the greatest part of his real and personal estate to the said defendants, had the same intestate made a will, and reciting that the said John WILCOX being very old and infirm, so as not to be able to manage aud transact the affairs of the said intestate, and being desirous of fulfilling the good intentions and designs of the said William WILCOX towards the said James and John MIDDLETON, he the said John WILCOX had voluntarily proposed and agreed to grant, bargain, sell, and assign all the said William WILCOX's real and personal estates to the said James and John MIDDLETON, intrust for the several uses and purposes therein after particularly mentioned; it is thereby witnessed that for the considerations aforesaid, and also in consideration of the natural love and affection which the said John WILCOX had towards the said James and John MIDDLETON, and of the sum of five shillings to him in hand paid by the said James and John MIDDLETON at or before the sealing and delivery thereof, he the said Johin WILCOX did freely and voluntarily give, grant, bargain, sell, assign, transfer, and set over unto the said James and John MIDDLETON, their heirs and assigns, the ancient freehold, dwelling-house, and garden, with the appurtenances, and the cottage thereto adjoining, in the town of Ringwood aforesaid, and the freehold dwelling-house and garden, with the appurtenances on Portsmouth Common aforesaid, and four small copyhold estates of inheritance in and held of the manor of Havant, which was all late the property of the said William WILCOX, and of which he died seized and possessed in fee; to hold to the said James and John MIDDLETON, their heirs and assigns, for ever.

And it was thereby further witnessed, that in the considerations aforesaid, and of the sum of five shillings in hand paid by the said James and John MIDDLETON at or before the sealing and delivery thereof, he the said John WILCOX did freely and voluntarily give, assign, transfer, and set over to the said James and John MIDDLETON, their executors, administrators, and assigns, all the household furniture, monies, securities for money, government securities, and all other the personal estate of the said William WILCOX, of which the said John WILCOX was then possessed or entitled to as his administrator and sole next of kin; to have and to hold all the household furniture, money, securities for money, government securities, and other the personal estate of the said William WILCOX, thereby given, assigned, and set over unto the said James and John MIDDLETON, their executors, administrators, and assigns, as their own proper goods and chattels for ever; all which said freehold and copyhold premises, household furniture, and other the personal estate so given, granted, bargained, sold, and assigned unto the said James and John MIDDLETON, their executors, administrators, and assigns, were so given, granted, and assigned to them, in trust in the first place to pay and discharge all the just debts of the said William WILCOX, due and owing at the time of his decease, and after payment thereof, then in trust, to pay unto Dinah STOCKER and Barbara DARLEY, both of Portsmouth Common, spinsters, late servants of the said William WILCOX, deceased (also defendants) one annuity of 10l. 8s. each, to be paid to them or their assigns quarterly, during their respective natural lives, to commence from the 29th of September then next ensuing; and also in trust to pay to the said John WILCOX and his assigns one annuity of fifty-two pounds, to be paid him by weekly payments, at and after the rate of twenty shillings a week, for and during the term of his natural life, clear of all deductions, to commence from the day of the date thereof, and from and after payment of the said debts, and the said three several annuities, in trust for the said James and John MIDDLETON, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns for ever, as tenants in common, and not as joint tenants; and to and for no other use and purpose whatsoever. And the said John WILCOX, for the considerations and purposes aforesaid, did thereby empower the said James and John MIDDLETON to recover and receive all such sum and sums of money as were due and owing to him as administrator as aforesaid: and the said John WILCOX for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, did thereby covenant and agree to, and with the said James and John MIDDLETON, their heirs, executors, and administrators, that they the said James and John MIDDLETON, their heirs, &c. should, and might from thenceforth peaceably and quietly enter into, have, hold, use, occupy, possess, and enjoy the said tenement and premises, goods, chattels, and personal estate and effects, and receive and take the rents, issues, and profits thereof without the lawful let, suit, trouble, or interruption of the said John WILCOX, his heirs, executors, administrator, or assigns, or any other person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim, by, from, or under him or them.

This deed was attested by Edward HUNT, Mary RIDGE, and Thomas GRANT, all three persons of undoubted credit, all of whom had been well acquainted with William WILCOX; but they were all three total strangers to John WILCOX, never having seen him before the time of the execution of the deed The account given by Edward HUNT of the behaviour of John WILCOX at the time of the execution was, that the deed was carefully and deliberately read over to the said John WILCOX before he executed it, and deponent believed he approved of it; and that he freely, willingly, and deliberately executed it; and that he was in deponent's judgment and belief at the time he executed it, of sound mind, memory, and understanding, and in the possession and enjoyment of his right senses, and perfectly understood what he was doing when he executed it, and that he appeared to deponent to he in the same situation with respect to his health and constitution as persons at an advanced period of life usually are, and did not remark any particular appearance to induce him to form a contrary opinion: and the deponent added that he was sent for (as he believed) by John WILCOX to attend the execution of such deed, and that John WILCOX after it was executed returned him thanks for his attendance, and before he executed it he declared in deponent's presence, and in the presence of the other witnesses, that he had received great kindnesses and civilities from defendants MIDDLETONs, and that he was perfectly satisfied and happy in executing the same. Mary RIDGE and Thomas GRANT were also examined, and deposed to the same effect, though not so fully.

Defendants admitted by their answer, that the value of the real estates was about fifty pounds per annum, and the personal estate 2095l. including 1250l. for which the long annuities were sold: they also admitted that James MIDDLETON prepared the draft, and John MIDDLETON engrossed the MIDDLETON. deed, and that it was shewn to nobody, on the part of John WILCOX; that there were no written instructions given by John WILCOX, and that only one part was executed, which the defendants had.

The day after the execution of the deed, on their return from Portsmouth to Ringwood, it appeared they stopped at Winchester, and then the defendants executed a bond to John WILCOX to secure the payment of the twenty shillings per week.

Defendants being apprehensive that the real estates were not sufficiently conveyed by the said deed, John WILCOX afterwards executed deeds of lease and release, bearing date the third and fourth days of September 1776, and made between said John WILCOX of the one part, and defendants of the other, whereby after reciting the said deed of gift, and that the said John WILCOX, in order to vest the freehold and inheritance of said freehold tenements and premises in said defendants and their respective heirs, and further to manifest and support their title to the same, had agreed to grant and convey said freehold tenements and premises unto said defendants; the said John WILCOX did for the purposes aforesaid, and in consideration of ten shillings to him in hand paid by said defendants, grant, bargain, and release to said defendants, their heirs, and assigns the said several premises, together with all deeds, evidences, and writings touching or concerning the premises, or any part thereof, to hold to the said defendants, their heirs, and assigns for ever, as tenants in common, and subject to the trusts mentioned and declared in the said deed of gift. On the 7th of September John WILCOX surrendered the copyhold estates to defendants and their heirs, as tenants in common, subject to the trusts mentioned and declared in the said deed of gift.

John WILCOX lived only two years after the execution of the deeds, and after his death the present plaintiffs, who were his nieces and co-heiresses, and next of kin, filed this bill to set aside all these deeds.

 
Lord Chancellor.—

This cause was opened as a transaction of fraud, and a great deal of argument has been used to impute to the character of the persons concerned that sort of foulness and baseness of mind which goes beyond the transaction itself: and I have been Anxious to hear it out, chiefly on account of that imputation, not from any donbt I have entertained on the case from the beginning to the end of it. ...

Let us now a little consider the peculiar situation in which he [John WILCOX] stood at the time when this transaction happened. It is clear he had formed no expectations from his cousin by will, and no expectations at all equivalent to what the law would do for him, if there was no will. The cousin died somewhat suddenly at Portsmouth. A Mr. BINSTEED, an intimate friend of the cousin's, sent over notice to WILLES, an attorney at Ringwood, with a view to its being communicated to the MIDDLETONs. This has been represented as a sort of confederacy; but it seems to me to be perfectly clear and fair; it only goes to prove that those who knew William WILCOX most, thought that he would entertain a partiality for the family of the MIDDLETONs; so that proves for them instead of against them. BINSTEED having found no will, and the MIDDLETONs having therefore reason to suppose that no will existed, they took along with them his next of kin; and very properly. The connection they had with him before made it an easy matter for them to derive to themselves all the confidence which he was capable of reposing in any body. He had led a life of absolute poverty; he was come to a fortune which to him was immense. It was an influx of prosperity of which he had no adequate idea as to measuring the parts or arranging the business of it: he therefore reposed the confidence absolutely in the MIDDLETONs. This seems a fair account of their going to Portsmouth. If the MIDDLETONs had considered it merely as going there to do business for him, it does not appear to me necesssary that both should have gone; one wonders that both went, unless it was that they conceived the fortune of this man was to be divided between them, and therefore they were both to go to see fair play. ...

All that appears is, that the MIDDLETONs were in possession of the house, and money, and furniture, in which they did very properly: the unbounded confidence they received from him [John WILCOX] made it a matter of course. The only thing besides appears by COLLINS's evidence, and I have no doubt of the fairness and clearness of his testimony: by that it appears that the two MIDDLETONs had in fact made a will for him, and by that will, according to the general representation of it, they had given every thing to themselves. What am I to infer from this? Why, that they understood that the confidence which this man reposed in them was such that they thought themselves at liberty to dispose of an instrument they had made for him, and that there would be no difficulty in getting any disposition of his fortune which they thought fit. ...

1 have no doubt of his [John WILCOX] having expressed himself to be perfectly satisfied with what he had done. First, had he any means to alter it ? Was it ever put in his power to alter it? Next, was he ever sufficiently acquainted with the nature of the estate, or the extent or value of it, or the nature of the deeds to form an idea on a transaction of this kind?

Whatever may be in proof with respect to the general circumstance of the fairness of the conduct of the MIDDLETONs, whatever they may have believed in their consciences, that this man [William WILCOX] would have done for them, if it had been in his choice, that is not the case. In this particular instance they have taken the property; perhaps bluntly and inadvertently; but that is too far out of the sight of a court of justice. I therefore set these deeds aside, entirely npon the grounds 1 have before stated, and without reference to the fairness of the characters of the defendants in any respect whatever; but the deeds must be set aside; and they must deliver them up to be cancelled as the Master shall direct, and account with the plaintiffs for the rents and profits of the real estates, and convey and surrender them to the plaintiffs at their own expense, and also account for the personal estate, and pay interest for it."

After some hesitation the Lord Chancellor said he thought the plaintiffs had got enough without costs.

From this decree the defendants [the MIDDLETONs] appealed to the House, of Lords ...