Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1510

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
III BROWN.
NEWBURGH v. NEWBURGH [1712]

no remedy, unless the pretended will could be established, so as to make this the estate of Elizabeth; but Elizabeth having, in her life-time, conveyed a part of the estate of the value of about £600 to the appellant and his heirs, he ought at least to be permitted to hold that part, and to redeem any incumbrances affecting the same.

On the other side it was said (T. Powys, H. Collett), that the objection to the competency of Mr. Wells, was made at both the hearings and overruled; it appearing, that the money due to Mr. Wells was advanced at the joint instance of the appellant and respondent upon the credit of a mortgage of the estate in question, made in the father's life-time, and which they both agreed should stand as his security; so that, be the event of the cause what it would, this security could not be in any wise affected, and consequently Mr. Wells was a fair and indifferent witness. And as to the conveyance from Elizabeth of part of the estate to the appellant and his heirs, it was only suggested in the respondent's bill, in order to draw forth a discovery of a particular piece of evidence relative to Elizabeth's title; but no demand was made of this estate by the appellant's bill, because he well knew that such conveyance, if it really existed, was fraudulently obtained by him from his mother, for the sole purpose of qualifying him to vote at an election for members of Parliament, for which reason he never insisted thereon at either of the hearings; and if he had, there was nothing sufficient to ground any decree upon concerning it.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed; and the decree therein complained of, affirmed. (Jour. vol. 18. p. 694.)



Case 5.—Brockhill Newburgh, and Another,—Appellants; Henry Newburgh,—Respondent [2d April 1712].

[Mews' Dig. vi. 700.]

[Old rent rolls admitted as evidence to prove fee-farm rents; there having been an unity of possession for above 30 years, and being so ancient it could not be imagined they were fabricated to serve the present purpose. But an inquisition post-mortem is not evidence, unless it is proved that a commission was ever issued to warrant it.]

Viner, vol. 12. p. 221. ca. 1.

King James I. by letters patent dated 8th June 1610, granted to John Taylor and his heirs, several considerable quantities and poles of plantation lands in the county of Cavan in Ireland, amounting to 1500 acres, and created a manor thereof, by the name of Agheteduffe, with a court-baron, to be held in socage of the castle of Dublin, at the rent of £8 per ann.; in which [554] letters patent are several clauses and provisions relating to the plantation and improvement of the premises, and for the patentee to grant fee-farms to persons of British extraction; and also several advantageous privileges and immunities to encourage the patentee, and his fee-farmers, to build upon the lands.

In pursuance of this patent, Taylor, on the 26th of July 1612, granted several parts of the premises to one Robert Reader, in fee-farm; and he afterwards made like grants of other parcels thereof to other persons.

On the death of John Taylor, this manor, together with the rents reserved upon the fee-farms, descended to Brockhill Taylor, his son and heir, who being desirous to procure some farther royalties and advantages, on the 12th of October 1629, obtained from King Charles I. new letters patent of the said manor, with an additional grant of all tythes within the same, a court-leet, waifs, estates, markets, fairs, tolls, free warren, and liberty to build a tan-house under a new rent of £16, and 20s. more in respect of the markets and fairs; and the manor was, from thenceforth, to be called by the name of Agheteduffe, alias Ballyhaise; and the patentee was thereby also impowered to grant fee-farms to persons of British extraction, which he accordingly did.

In July 1636, Brockhill Taylor died, leaving two infant daughters, namely, Elizabeth and Mary, who thereupon became entitled to the said manor and fee-farm rents, in moieties, as his co-heirs; and, on the 12th of April 1639, during their infancy, their

1494