Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1135

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
HILL v. SEWELL [1791]
II BROWN.

The statute of Charles I. by confining questions upon the validity of leases made in pursuance of that act, to a legal determination only, has emphatically excluded every other mode of trial. If Courts of Equity in Ireland were permitted to entertain suits re-[541]-specting the value of ecclesiastical and college leases, it would occasion infinite mischief and confusion in that kingdom, where a great part of the property is held under leases made by virtue of this very act, which was manifestly calculated to guard against discovery and relief, in the manner sought for by the present appellant.

As to the demurrer, there was no difference between it and the plea, other than in the form of the defence; the substance of the defence in both was the same. The plea stated the two acts of parliament, and set them out; the demurrer referred to them as being stated in the bill, and as the known law of the land, which a party is not bound to plead, or shew to the court. The substance, therefore, of the bar in the demurrer being the same, the argument was the same, which the respondents contended was sufficient to support the order appealed from; and therefore hoped the appeal would be dismissed with costs.

After hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed; and the order therein complained of, affirmed. (MS. Jour. sub anno 1775–6. p. 345.)


Case 7.—Joseph Hill,—Appellant; William Luther Sewell, and Others,—Respondents [23d March 1791].

[Mews' Dig. xi. 795. Kerly, Hist. of Equity, 128, 267, 276.]

[One of the sworn clerks of the Court of Chancery files a bill against all the six clerks of the same court, praying, that an agreement entered into by them for regulating the practice of the office might be set aside; that an order of the Master of the Rolls, confirming the same, might be rescinded; and that certain other regulations for transacting the business of the office might be established. To this bill the defendants demurred, for that the plaintiff had shewn no title in himself to call upon the court to interfere respecting any of the matters in his bill mentioned. Demurrer allowed.]

The Court of Chancery, the jurisdiction of which is divided into what is commonly called the law side and the equity side of the court, has, amongst its officers, two descriptions of persons; the one known by the appellation of the Six Clerks, being six in number, and anciently in holy orders, and concerned only as attornies on the law side of the court, and in writing and enrolling patents, and as Comptrollers of the Hanaper; the other, properly called the Sworn or Sixty Clerks, being (as are also the six clerks) sworn into their office, but commonly called Clerks in Court; also twelve clerks of the same description, called Waiting Clerks, who are not sworn. The duties of each are after particularized.

It does not appear at what precise period of time the six clerks first became concerned in the business of the equity side of the court; but it should seen that originally they acted as attornies on the law side of the court only; and that it was not till [542] about the year 1596, that the sixty or sworn clerks had, as such, any fixed character in the court.

The number of the clerks, called the six clerks, was settled by an ordinance made for the regulation of that court in the 12th year of King Richard II. And the writ of subpoena, which is the first process in a suit on the equity side of the Court of Chancery, originated in the same reign.

It does not appear, in what right the six clerks first became concerned in the business of the equity side of the court; but it appears, that as the business on the equity side of the court increased, the six clerks took other clerks to assist them therein; which clerks it was afterwards found convenient to put on some regular establishment as officers of the court. And accordingly, in the year 1596, Sir Thomas Egerton, (afterwards Lord Ellesmere,) then Lord Keeper of the great seal, and formerly Master

1119

This article is issued from Wikisource. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.