Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1126

contrary to truth, that the body doing all corporate acts for the college had assembled on that day. That the college having expended large sums in the prosecution of the suits, and payment of the damages, and in the survey before-mentioned, whatever benefit arose from suits should accrue to the head of the college for the time being, and should be considered, after the death of Dr. Andrews, as a trust for the succeeding Provost. That Dr. Andrews, transferring to his executors a great part of the profits of the lands intended by the Crown (the patron and founder of the college) for the support of the Provosts, had injured the patronage of the royal founder, without the consent of his Majesty, and contrary to his royal intention, as Dr. Andrews was expressly appointed Provost for his life only.

To this bill the respondents William Gamble and Margaret his wife, and Elizabeth Tomkins, put in a plea and answer.—And as to so much of the bill as charged, that the lessees in trust for Dr. Andrews, by his directions, made leases of the lands for his benefit, reserving £1200 yearly, and upwards; and that, by such means, Dr. Andrews reserved to his representatives a clear yearly profit of above £800, and thereby endeavoured to deprive the office of Provost of an annual sum, nearly equal to one half of the remaining annual income of the said office; or which charged, that Dr. Andrews declared he had £800 clear yearly profit by the said leases; or which required the respondents to set forth the highest yearly rents payable out of the said lands, under the said leases made by Dr. Andrews, or by any trustee for him, or by any person employed by, or acting under him, and when such leases were respectively made, and by whom, when and to whom, and for what term, and when such terms commenced, [528] and if any fine or fines were paid for making such leases, to set forth the amount thereof, and for what leases, and to whom and when paid; or, which required the respondents to set forth to whom, and at what rents, and for what terms the lands were respectively set by Dr. Andrews, or any trustee for him, at the time of perfecting the leases of the 6th of August 1773; and as to all discovery touching the value of the said lands, and to so much of the bill, as sought that the said leases made by Dr. Andrews to the respondent William Gamble, on the 6th of August 1773, might be set aside or impeached: the respondents pleaded the several acts of parliament made in Ireland, 10th and 11th Charles I. and 11th George II. and also the two leases; and said, that at the time of executing those leases, there was not any other estate or lease in being of the said lands; and said they were advised, that whether just and proper rents were reserved by the said leases, so as to bind Dr. Andrews's successors, and whether the said leases were otherwise warranted by the laws and statutes of Ireland, were questions properly and solely triable and determinable, by one or more actions at law.

The respondents, Robert and George Gamble and Sarah Norman demurred to the several matters to which the other respondents had pleaded. And for cause of demurrer shewed, 1st, That it appeared of the appellant's own shewing by his bill, that whether so much of the value of the lands as ought to have been, was reserved in rents by the said leases, was a question expressly directed by positive law, to be tried by the proper action at law. 2dly, That it appeared of the appellant's own showing, that whether the leases which he sought to set aside, were warranted by, or agreeable in other respects to the laws and statutes of Ireland, were merely legal questions, and ought as such to be tried and determined, by one or more proper actions at law. And lastly, that it appeared of the appellant's own shewing, that no obstacle or impediment stood in his way, or prevented the trying, if he should think fit, his pretended right of avoiding the leases at law.

This plea and demurrer came on to be argued before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, on the 27th of July 1775, when his Lordship ordered and adjudged, that the said plea and demurrer should be allowed with costs.

From this order, the Provost thought proper to appeal; and on his behalf it was said (J. Skynner, J. Dunning), that the plea and demurrer, and his Lordship's order, were founded upon the Irish act of the 10th and 11th Charles I. but this case did not fall within that act, because none are thereby enabled to make leases for 21 years, who are not disabled from leasing otherwise. But the Provost could not be disabled, because he had then no separate estate, the lands in question not having been granted to him for many years afterwards; nor had he, at any time, any power of acting