Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1026

interest was satisfied, the Master was from thenceforth to allow the corporation 40s. yearly, as paid to the poor for grass money; and when, according to this manner of accounting, there should appear due to the poor £100, the same was to carry interest at £5 per cent. for the benefit of the poor; and in like manner, for every £100 which should be so found due to the poor. And inasmuch as it appeared, that several Members of the corporation had made many affidavits relative to the discovery of deeds and writings, pursuant to the order of the court; and yet, notwith-[380]-standing, had suppressed and concealed the said book, inscribed the Burrough of Hertford, till they were particularly examined touching the same; and which being produced, appeared to be the most material evidence for the poor; therefore the corporation were ordered to pay Christopher Kent, the prosecutor, his costs. And the decree of the commissioners as to all other matters was ratified and confirmed; and the exceptions taken thereto, overruled.

Pursuant to the Lord Chancellor's decree, the Master, by his report of the 10th of July 1710, certified, that the £100 and interest was satisfied at Michaelmas 1661; that he had from that time allowed the corporation the sum of 40s. annually, as paid to the poor for grass-money; and that upon the balance of the whole account, there was due from the corporation to the poor, the sum of £898 15s. 3d. And this report was afterwards confirmed.

From this decree and report, and the order confirming the same, the corporation appealed; insisting (T. Powys, E. Northey), that there was no sufficient evidence to prove King's Mead to be a charitable estate, it having been granted by the Crown to the corporation, and their successors, without any trust therein mentioned for the poor; and the purchase-money thereof paid by the corporation, who had for near ninety years constantly enjoyed the same accordingly. That the Lord Chancellor's decree seemed chiefly to be founded upon the petitions and applications made to the Crown, for obtaining the grant of the said meadow; but those petitions, and the answers thereto, related chiefly to the right of commoning in the meadow, and to the settling of a dispute between the inhabitants of the ancient and new-erected cottages, touching such right of common. But supposing there was sufficient evidence to decree the said meadow to be a charity estate, yet the decree was erroneous, in not allowing the charges of procuring and passing the grant of the inheritance thereof from the Crown, over and above the £100, and which charges, as appeared from the books made use of as evidence against the appellants, amounted to £50. Neither had the appellants any allowance for the purchase-money, or the charges of taking in the assignment of the ninety-nine years term. That the allowance for the grass-money was restrained, until such time as the £100 and interest was satisfied; and which, as reported by the Master, was not till Michaelmas 1661; whereas if the appellants were entitled to any allowance for this grass-money, such allowance ought to be made from the time of their first paying the same, which would vary the account several hundred pounds, and more than discharge the balance reported to be due from them. That it was neither proved in the cause, nor true in fact, that the meadow was of the clear yearly value of £14, at which rent the appellants were decreed to account; and though it is usual, where the value of any thing is controverted, either to have the same settled by proofs, or, if very doubtful, by a trial at law, yet the appellants were denied that reference in this case; so that they were de-[381]-prived of a right, which, by the rules and justice of a Court of Equity, every suitor ought to have, to exonerate himself upon the account of any uncertain charge. And that the Master, by his report, had not pursued the decree, in taking the account of the rents and profits of King's Mead and Hodges Rents separately, but had blended them together, whereby the £100 laid out by the appellants, for the purchase of the inheritance of the said meadow, together with the interest thereof, appeared to be sooner satisfied than it really was; and the account was, by that means, greatly varied to the appellants prejudice.

To all this it was answered (J. Jekyll, S. Cowper), that it appeared by several petitions and orders tempore Charles I. and by an inquisition taken in the year 1645, all entered in the book inscribed The Burrough of Hertford, which contained the bye-laws and constitutions of the corporation, and therefore not likely to be overlooked, that King's Mead was a charity, and that King Charles I. was graciously pleased to grant the same for the use of the poor. That it likewise appeared, by the exemplification of an inquisition, and by the decree upon a commission of charitable uses in the