Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1115

appeared; and it would be very hard and unreasonable, in case this will should stand valid, as there was no doubt it would, that their share should be lodged in a Master's hands, without their consent, or being heard, and receivers put upon them to the great diminution of the estate, and for which no adequate satisfaction could be made them. That the appellant was effectually prevented by the Ecclesiastical Court, from receiving any more of the estate, he being under a monition, and certificates having been ordered to the proper offices for that purpose. And as the two last orders appealed against, were founded upon the two former; if those were not rightly founded, the others must fall of course. Should it be objected, that though there was no legal or proper evidence of the appellant's having received any money contrary to the said monition, or that the monies were unsafe, or in danger in his hands, at the time of making the order of the 19th of December; yet, by the appellant's not complying with that order, and standing out in contempt, even to a sequestration, the want of such evidence was supplied; it was answered, that (not to mention the speed in obtaining those orders, almost all within the compass of a month, when the appellant was absent, and without any personal service) these subsequent accidents would not be proper foundations to warrant the reasonableness of the orders, at the time of making them; but the appellant acknowledged that he was the less willing to comply with these orders, in hopes of obtaining relief from them upon this his appeal. And should it be further objected, as it was suggested in the respondent's bill, that the appellant had drawn in the testator to conceive a causeless displeasure against his relations; it was answered, that if the cancelled will, for which the respondent was contending, had stood, none of the testator's relations, who were pretty numerous, would have been the better for it, except the respondent; for the legacies to them were the same in the cancelled will, as in the last will, viz. only to Mrs. Cross and Mrs. Powell, the daughters of the testator's eldest brother; but at the time of making both wills, the testator had a younger brother and two sisters alive, and four nieces, the daughters of his second brother, who had not one farthing given them by either of the wills; so that it appeared, the testator had no intention of giving his estate to his relations, as such, but only considered two of them as friends.

On the other side it was only said (P. Yorke, T. Lutwyche), that the orders were just, and consonant to the rules of equity; and therefore ought to be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with exemplary costs.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed; and the orders therein complained of, affirmed. (Jour. vol. 22. p. 254.)^[1]

The respondent, in Hilary term 1722, exhibited his bill in the Court of Exchequer, against the appellant, stating, that William Redman, of York, Esq. being seised in