Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1283

payable, as a maintenance for his daughters till marriage. The will then goes on as follows:

And in case my said daughters Mary, Sarah, and Catherine, or any or either of them, shall happen to die before their respective days of marriage, my will is, that the said fortunes to them respectively bequeathed as aforesaid, shall go to, and be divided among my said children Mark and John, and the survivors of them, and to and among the survivors and survivor of them, the said Mary, Sarah, and Catherine, share and share alike.

And that in case any of his said daughters should marry without the consent of his trustees, such of them as should marry without consent, should not be entitled to any more of the said fortunes and portions, than such sum as his trustees [198] should think fit, not exceeding £100, and he gave the surplus to such of them as should marry with consent. And after taking notice, that he was indebted to bis son-in-law Wilson in £100 as part of the marriage portion of the testator's daughter Elizabeth, which, by their marriage articles, was not to be paid till his death; he directed that sum to be paid by his executors to the uses of the said articles, out of the profits of the lands before devised to his son Mark, and charged his said lands therewith. And he bequeathed to his sons Mark and John, and the survivor of them, all the rest, residue, and remainder of his estate, fortune, and substance, not before otherwise disposed of; and appointed the said David Tew and William Stear, and his son Mark, his executors.

On the 18th of December 1736, the testator died, leaving his said two sons Mark and John Tow, and four daughters, viz. Elizabeth, who, in his lifetime, intermarried with Jaanes Wilson, and received a portion, and Mary, Sarah, and Catherine.

Mark Tew the son proved his father's will, and he and his brother John entered upon and held the lands devised in trust for them respectively, according to the will, until December 1739, when Mark the son died a bachelor, seised in his own right of certain lands called Great Freffans, which he held under a lease for lives renewable for ever and having made his will, dated the 19th of December 1739, whereby, after giving several legacies, he bequeathed the rest and residue of his estate, real and personal, to his brother John Tew, and appointed the two trustees named in his father's will executors of his will.

Upon the death of Mark the son, unmarried, and without issue, John Tew became seised and possessed of all the leasehold estates and interests mentioned in his father's will; and also became seised of the freehold lease of his brother Mack, and continued in the possession thereof until his death.

Mary, one of the three unmarried daughters of Mark Tow the father, after his death, intermarried with Digby Tarlton, by consent of her father's trustees, and afterwards died without issue in the lifetime of her brother John. Sarah, another daughter, with the like consent, intermarried with Richard Mottley; and, having survived her husband, made her will, and appointed her brother John Tew, her executor, and died in his lifetime, leaving the appellants, Catherine and Elinor Mottley, her two daughters, and only surviving issue. And Elizabeth, the eldest daughter, who had intermarried with James Wilson, died in his lifetime, leaving two children, the appellants Mark and Susanna Wilson.

John Tew intermarried with Jane Hill, having previous to his marriage made a settlement upon her out of the lands of Freffans and Rathkilmore, in bar of all dower and thirds, which she could claim out of his real and personal estates; and soon after the marriage, died intestate, and without issue. But a contest arising [199] concerning the right of administration, administrators pendente lite were appointed by consent of all parties.

Catherine the youngest daughter of Mark Tow the testator, with the consent of her father's trustees, intermarried with the respondent Thomas Bayly, and survived all her brothers and sisters; and, as such survivor, she, and the respondent Thomas Bayly in her right, pretended that they were entitled to all the leasehold estates and interests of Mark Tew the elder; and that the appellants, although they were the children and legal representatives of the two other daughters of Mark Tew the elder, had no right or title to any part thereof. And under colour of such pretensions, the respondents Thomas Bayly and Catherine his wife, in August 1754, exhibited their bill in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, against the appellants, and the heir at law and the legal representative of the surviving trustee named in the will of Mark Tow the elder, and