known as much devoted to sacerdotal influence. The plaintiff
was one Julie Metairie, next of kin to a deceased Roman Catholic
gentleman, a native of France, whom it was alleged, when in a state of
mental incapacity, was induced by a priest named Holdstock to make
a testament of his property in favour of the Church of Rome, and of
certain charities favoured by that church. It was given in evidence that
the man had been a sceptic nearly all his life, hated priests, and was
especially prejudiced against the peculiar disposition of his property,
which the priests alleged that he had actually made upon his death-bed.
A Roman Catholic physician, one Gasquet, had called in the priest. It
appeared on the trial that no will, or other document, disposing of
his property, could be produced by Cardinal Wiseman, or the priests his
co-defendants, in the handwriting of the deceased, or of his attorney.
A document, however, was drawn up by a Roman Catholic barrister, at the
confessor's request; and, according to the affidavits, the dying man was
held up in the bed by the priest, while the latter took hold of the
hand of the expiring man, and with it signed a deed, conveying L7,000 to
certain trustees for Roman Catholic uses. Cooke, the barrister, by
whom the deed was drawn up, prepared a power of attorney, by which the
property was placed in his hands upon the decease of M. Carree (the name
of the man thus entrapped). This paper also the dying man was made to
sign, but he intimated his desire to retain the papers which he signed,
but was not allowed. One of the allegations made at the trial which most
prejudiced the public was, that the priest who effected the trick did
not again visit the dying man, who was permitted to die unabsolved,
unanointed, without any of the "consolations" which Roman Catholics
prize so much.

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other relatives of the deceased,
filed a bill in chancery, demanding judgment upon the invalidity of the
deeds by which M. Carree's property was wrested from his relatives,
and placed in the hands of the priests. After nine days' argument the
defendants paid the money into court. The matter was not again argued,
as the defendants consented to pay L4,000 out of the L7,000 over to the
relatives not to proceed. This was accepted to avert any uncertainty in
the issue dependant upon doubtful points of law, and to avoid exhausting
the property by litigation. The public expected that the