Letter – John Bearl to John Bell – 25 May 1833

Dear Sir

      On the other side I forward you a copy of Mr Teeds opinion upon Hunters Case.  You will perceive that he has taken a more expected view of it than Mr Fonblanque did – but this is to be attributed to the additional facts laid before him

      It becomes very necessary to ascertain from Isaac Hunter when his Brother & Sister died whether they died intestate & unmarried & whether Letters of Administration have been taken out by any person

      May I beg your early attention to this - & also an answer to the queries contained in my Letter to you of the 17th instant.			

      I am Sir Your vey obed Servt.

		Jno. Bearl



25 Tokenhouse Yard 25 May 1833





Copy Opinion



It is stated that the three children who are named in the will survived the Testator and that two of them, viz Catherine and Robert died in the life time of the widow unmarried and Intestate.  If Mrs Hunter the widow of the Testator was the Mother of those children – then if there were any surplus of his Estate in respect of which she was intitled for her life, to any Interest beyond her annuity of Fifty pounds a year such residue was divisible half immediately, and the other half upon her Death amongst the three children, or the survivor and personal representatives of the Deceased children; and upon the Death of Catherine and Robert, Mrs Hunter as their Mother became entitled to a distributive share of their personal Estates – and of course to a share of what they were entitled to under the Testator’s will.  Upon the Death of the first child one Third of the residuary Estate became divisible amongst the two surviving children and the Mother in equal shares, and upon the Death of the second, 4/9ths became divisible between the Mother and the surviving son equally and the Mother therefore became entitled to one Third of the entire residue – If the statement that Isaac Hunter the son received as for his share from Mr Surtees Three thousand two hundred and eighty five pounds six shillings and four pence be correct, then it is plain that the Deceased children were entitled to have received some considerable sum of money and unless they did receive it, that their legal personal representatives must be entitled in their right for the benefit of the representative of Mrs Hunter the Mother and of Isaac Hunter the surviving Brother.  The statement however is inconsistent with that contained in Mr Bells letter of the 18th Septr. 1832 in page 9 – If Isaac never received anything from the Trustees or Executors on account of his share of the residue though the Testator has been dead more than Thirty years and he himself was engaged in carrying on the Farm until it was sold in 1805 it may be supposed that he was satisfied that all the Estate was absorbed by the Debts and that there was nothing to divide amongst himself and his Brother and Sister – This however should be enquired into and if it can be shewn or if there is sufficient reason to believe that there was any considerable residue and that the deceased children did not receive their shares before their Deaths then unless letters of administration have been already granted of their Estates – I think the representative of Mrs Hunter should endeavour to get such letters of administration granted to him and to extend his Bill beyond his claim for the Interest due to the widow to what was due in respect of the capital to those children and that he may retain his share of what so belonged to them.

				J. G. Teed

				Lin. Inn 24th May 1833