Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1511

guardians procured new letters patent to be granted for the confirmation of the said manor and premises to them.

In 1650, Elizabeth married Humphrey Perrott, the appellant Perrott's grandfather; and in 1654, Mary married Thomas Newburgh, the father of the other appellant, and of the respondent.

In 1656, Perrott and Newburgh, and their wives, made a partition of this manor, and of the fee-farm rents on which occasion the greatest part of the demesnes were allotted to Perrott; and the fee-farm rents to Newburgh, who had also a rent of £2 9s. 6d. reserved out of Perrott's share, in order to make the partition equal. And in 1668, Newburgh purchased from Reader and others, several of the fee-farms, and thereby became seised thereof in his own right in fee; and being before entitled to the rents thereof in right of his wife, there happened to be an unity of possession of the same during the remainder of his life.

Thomas Newburgh had issue by the said Mary his wife two sons, namely, Thomas, and the appellant Brockhill; and, after her death, he married Letitia Vaughan, by whom he had issue the respondent. Thomas, the father, afterwards made four several wills, in all of which he disposed of the fee-farms which he [555] had purchased, and in two of them he devised the same to the appellant Brockhill, his second son by his first wife, particularly specifying each farm, of whom purchased, and what rents were issuing thereout.

But having made other provision for his said second son, by lands of inheritance in England and Ireland, he, on the 26th of May 1893, made his last will, and thereby devised all his fee-farms within the said manor of Ballyhaise, to the respondent and his heirs; and in a few days afterwards the testator died, whereupon one moiety of the sail manor, and of the fee-farm rents, descended to Thomas, his eldest son, as heir of his mother: and the respondent being at that time an infant of only seven years of age, the said Letitia, bis mother and guardian, entered upon all the said fee-farms so devised to him, except only five small tenements in Ballyhaise, and 120 acres, part of two poles, called Agheteduffe and Crosreagh, which lay intermixed with other lands in the manor.

In 1697, Thomas, the son, died without issue; whereupon his moiety of the manor and fee-farm rents descended to the appellant Brockhill, as his brother and heir, who accordingly entered upon the same, and also the five tenements, and the 120 acres of intermixed lands which belonged to the respondent.

Some of the original grants of these fee-farms, and also some of the mesne conveyances thereof to Thomas Newburgh the father, having been lost or destroyed in the troublesome times in Ireland, or by some other accidents, the respondent was not able to proceed at law for the recovery of the premises so withheld from him by the appellant Brockhill; and therefore, in Michaelmas term 1707, he exhibited his bill against both the appellants in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, praying possession of these lands and tenements, and an account of the rents and profits thereof.

The appellant Brockhill taking advantage of the loss of these writings, soon afterwards served ejectments upon the respondent's tenants, in order to evict him of the other fee-farms, of which he had been in the quiet possession ever since his father's death; whereupon in June 1709, the respondent exhibited his supplemental bill, praying an injunction to restrain these proceedings, and to be quieted in his possession.

The defendants, by their answer to these bills, insisted, that all the fee-farms which had been granted, either by the said John Taylor, or Brockhill his son, were forfeited, extinguished, or destroyed, by one or both of the patents granted to the said Brockhill Taylor, or his said two daughters; and by two acts of parliament made in Ireland, in the 10th and 15th years of King Charles I. relating to the plantation counties; or otherwise, that the said several fee-farms were re-purchased by the said Brockhill Taylor, in his life-time; and that the said Thomas [656] Newburgh, the father, had not any title to, or power to devise the same.

On the 15th of February 1710, and on the 6th of July 1711, this cause was heard; when the plaintiff having made satisfactory proof by deeds, ancient rent-rolls and other wise, of the grants of the fee-farms in question, and of a constant possession and enjoyment thereof, as well before, an after the passing of the said two acts of parliament; the court was unanimously of opinion, that the plaintiff had a good right to the said several fee-farms, under his father's will; and that the said two acts of parliament were principally intended, for the confirmation and maintenance of the fed-farmers estates