A case, on one feature of which we have commented
else- where, and which excited much public attention, was decided on Monday. Miss Allcard, daughter of a wealthy merchant, in 1871 entered an Anglican Sisterhood devoted to works of charity. She gave this Sisterhood all she then possessed-28,000 —and promised more. In 1879, however, dissatisfied with the rules, and strongly inclining to Catholicism, she left the Sister- hood and entered a convent. Her first Catholic director dis- suaded her from reclaiming her money ; but recently she has done so, on the ground of undue influence. In the Chancery Division, before which the suit came, it was shown that Miss Allcard was unusually intelligent ; that she had taken good, though not legal advice ; that she knew exactly what she had done ; that she went on for years facilitating the operation of her gift by signing cheques, &c. ; and that, in short, she was a free agent. The Judge, therefore (Mr. Justice Kekewich), decided that there had been no undue influence, adding that if there had been, he must have ordered the restoration of the property even from innocent holders, " who can assert no right stronger than that of those through whom they claim." Judgment was therefore given for the Sisterhood. The law, which enables anybody to give anything for almost any pur- pose, is strangely, we think even unfairly, jealous of. any " influ- ence" from religion, partly, we suppose, because the religion usually suspected of stealing is the Roman Catholic.
Previous page
