Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1100

1741, leaving the appellant, her only son and heir, then an infant about ten years old.

Elijah Charles having survived his two co-executors and trustees, Joshua Henzell and Frances Charles, died in the month of February 1743, without ever having had issue, leaving his wife Alice his executrix; and upon his death the appellant, under his grandfather John Charles's will, became entitled to an estate tail in the said lands and premises, and was the proper person to whom a renewal of the lease ought to be made, pursuant to the clauses and covenants therein contained; but being only twelve years old when his title accrued, and the benefit of the lease, had he died during his minority, being by his grandfather's will limited over to the said Bigoe Henzell, his guardian, he did not think it safe or prudent (if he could possibly avoid it) to lay out his other small fortune in suing for a renewal of the lease, and paying the expences of obtaining it.

Richard Charles, another of the cestique vies in the lease, died on the 28th of January 1746, leaving John Charles, his son and heir; and Thomas Hendrick, the life proposed to have been inserted in Alice Charles's room, having also died some time before, the appellant's guardian, for preventing all charge of default on the appellant, (though then an infant,) in not applying for a renewal within the year after Richard Charles's death. did, together with the appellant, on the 18th of January 1747, wait on the respondent at his house, and then paid him £527 17s. 2d. being all the rent due to the 1st day of May then last; and over and above that sum, carried with him 1502 guineas in specie, in three bags, which he tendered to the respondent, in whom the power of renewal lay, desiring him to tell the same, and take thereout what rent, if any then remained due; and also £100 as a fine for inserting a life in the room of Alice Charles, payable on the 9th of March 1711, and a farther sum of £100 at the end of every eight years after, with a proportionable interest for both, on a supposition, that had the lease been regularly renewed, from time to time, one life would have dropt in seven years, and a farther sum of £100 as a fine for inserting a life in the place of the said Richard Charles; and also tendered a surrender of the original lease, with a pair of indentures of lease, reciting that lease, the fall of the lives, and payment of the money, by way of fine for renewal thereof, and purporting to be a demise of the lands, in pursuance of the covenant of renewal, for the life of John Ward, the surviving cestique vie in the original lease, and for the lives of his then Royal Highness Prince George, and the Duke of York, [490] and the longer liver of them, at and under the same rents, covenants, and clauses of renewal, as in the original lease contained; all which the respondent refused, declaring he would not put the appellant's guardian to the trouble of counting the money, but would admit the tender was properly made; and the respondent being then a member of the Irish House of Commons, and in full privilege, the appellant's guardian requested him to waive his privilege, so as to give the appellant liberty to commence a suit, for renewal of the lease; but this he absolutely refused.

Alice Charles, the widow and executrix of Elijah Charles, who was the surviving executor of John Charles, died on the 19th of November 1758, having by her will appointed the appellant sole executor, and he afterwards proved the same.

The appellant being, during his minority, sent to England for education, on his return to Ireland in 1755, filed a bill for relief in the Court of Exchequer, in the nature of a bill of revivor, against the respondent and others; but being advised that such bill was improper, he dismissed it in Trinity term 1759; and in Michaelmas term following, filed an original bill in that court, against the respondent and others; and (without taking notice of the former suits between John Charles and the respondent's father) stated the matters and things contained in John Charles's bill, the death of John Charles, and the several transactions subsequent thereto; and prayed, that the respondent might be compelled to renew, by executing a lease of the lands for the lives of the said John Ward, the then Prince of Wales, and the Duke of York, with such reservations, covenants, clauses, and agreements, as in the original lease made to John Charles, upon the appellant's making such compensation or satisfaction to the respondent, as the court should think just; that the appellant might have a proper allowance for John Charles's costs and expences, and be quieted in the possession of the lands, and the respondent injoined from proceeding at law against him.