Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1503

a subsequent order, they were directed to be sealed up, and deposited with the usher of the court of Chancery, there to remain.

Earl Henry having thus got rid of the leases, executed a feoffment to Matthew Johnson and Robert Guy, and their heirs, of the premises in question, in order to make them tenants to the precipe, for the purpose of suffering a common recovery; and in Hilary term 1673, a recovery was accordingly suffered by double voucher, and the uses thereof were declared to be, to confirm several mortgages made by Earl Henry to Sir John Duncomb, Lord Anglesea, and others; and afterwards to Earl Henry and his heirs.

The earl having no other issue than the respondent Lady Mary, who by other settlements was entitled, after his death, to the inheritance of the manor of Blechingly in Surrey; and he being desirous that this Surrey estate should be sold, in order to discharge the incumbrances affecting his Northamptonshire estate; an act of parliament was passed in the 29th of Car. II. whereby the manor of Blechingly was vested in trustees to be sold, and was accordingly sold to Sir Robert Clayton; and the estate in Northamptonshire, (except Drayton house and parks, and the advowson of Slipton, Islop, and Lowick,) was vested in the same trustees, to the use of Earl Henry for life, with remainder to Lady Mary, and her heirs for ever.

In November 1697, Earl Henry died, without issue male; whereupon the Lady Mary, then Duchess of Norfolk, became seised in fee of all the settled estates; but, in Hilary term following, the appellant exhibited his bill in Chancery against her, in order to avoid the settlement of the 1st of November, 14 Car. I. as having been fraudulently made, and kept dormant, and to establish the subsequent one of 4th July, 16 Car. I.

To this bill the defendant pleaded her title as above stated; and by her answer insisted, that the leases by the Countess Elizabeth were made in fraud of the aforesaid agreement and decree; and that Andrew Newport the lessee neither accepted of these leases, nor ever made any entry or claim for or in respect thereof and the cause being at issue, an order was made by consent, that both sides should be at liberty to make use at the hearing, of the depositions in several former causes therein mentioned, saving all just exceptions.

On the 16th of December 1702, the cause was heard before the Lord Keeper Wright; when his Lordship was pleased to allow the defendants plea, and dismiss the bill; declaring, that, if the [543] plaintiff had any title, he had a plain remedy at law by ejectment, and therefore was not entitled to any relief against the defendant in a court of equity.

From this decree the plaintiff appealed, because he was not permitted to read at the hearing, the depositions taken in one of the said former causes, nor to give in evidence the leases made by Countess Elizabeth to Newport, and which were so made with a design only to preserve the estate in the family according to the intent of Earl John's settlement; nor true attested copies of those leases; nor an abstract of a deed to one Cocks, a counsel of the Countess Elizabeth, whereby the practices to make Earl Henry tenant in tail would fully appear.

And in support of this appeal it was argued (A. Bowyer, J. Sloane), that both the former causes related to the settlement in question, and were in the nature of cross causes; that they were both heard together, and the depositions in one of them were made use of at the bearing of the other; that the depositions, not permitted to be read at the hearing of this cause, were taken in one of the said former causes, and yet the depositions taken in the other of them were permitted to be read on the part of the respondents. That the depositions so refused, related to the material point in controversy; namely, the considerations, on which the deed of the 16 Car. I. was made; which were the disposal of the two manors of Dunnington and Blechingly, the countess's own inheritance, for the benefit of her husband's family; and that the appellant's disappointment in this respect was so much the greater, because relying upon that evidence, which could not but give the fullest satisfaction, as to the motives on which the countess executed that settlement, and concluding himself safe, by the above-mentioned order, for reading the depositions on both sides, he neglected to make other proofs of this matter, as thinking it unnecessary. That the pretence for not reading the leases was, that they were made in breach of the countess's articles to the contrary, and were left in the custody of the usher of the court of Chancery till further order; but it