Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1522

were delivered to Rice and his wife; and the deposition of Rice himself, who swore expressly, that he had the said will and codicil out of the said office, and delivered them to the said Thomas Arthur, on his purchasing his and his wife's interest in the premises: so that as it plainly appeared that the said Thomas and Dympna, or one of them, had the said original will and codicil in their custody, and as, in all probability, the respondents Arthur and his wife now had the same, it was submitted, that the exemplification, so proved as aforesaid, ought to have been admitted and read. That according to the letter and intention of the nets of settlement and explanation, the certificates and letters patent granted and passed pursuant thereto, were not to avoid or destroy the dispositions or settlements made by the persons who were before in possession by the setting out of the usurped powers, but to be subject to a trust for the support of such dispositions and settlements; that no clause in those acts for confirming such certificates and patents was intended or taken to exclude any such trust; and that therefore the patent passed to the said Thomas and Dympna, ought to be deemed and taken (as in similar cases had been often adjudged in Ireland) to be in trust for the appellant, with respect to the interest devised to him by the said codicil; of which they had full notice, and wherewith the possession of the said premises had gone ever since the making thereof in 1674, till the year 1714; especially considering, that at the time of the said Thomas and Dympna's obtaining the said certificate and patent, the appellant was under age, and in parts beyond the seas, without the least notice of those proceedings, or having any person in Ireland to take care of his reversionary interest in the premises; whereas, if any person had been then present, to take care of the same, the said Thomas and Dympna would not, in all probability, have attempted to get such certificate and patent; or at least, an express saving of the appellant's reversionary right would have been inserted therein. That the pretended articles of 1644, did not appear to have been over executed, much less reduced into a settlement; but if there really had been any such articles, the same being inconsistent with the [573] respective claims made by the said Rice and his wife, there could be no doubt, but that the said Dympna would have insisted earlier on her title to the premises, by virtue of those articles, while matters were recent, and would have opposed the probate of the said will and codicil, and the claim and patent of the said Rice and his wife, which were expressly grounded thereon; nor would Thomas have ever bought the estate enjoyed by Rice and his wife, under this will; or have suffered the possession to go according to it for forty years, without any interruption, claim, or demand. Nay, Dympna was so far from insisting on any estate or interest in Dr. Arthur's ancient estate, by virtue of these articles, as the respondents now did under her, that the Doctor having been restored, as a nomine, to part of his said ancient estate, she and his other daughters passed patent thereof, as co-heirs to their said father; whereas by the articles, if they had signified any thing, the whole would have belonged to Dympna only. That the codicil not being signed, was not material; because the statute of frauds and perjuries, which requires that a testator should subscribe his name to a will or codicil devising lands, in the presence of three witnesses, did not take place in Ireland till the 9th of William III. 1697; whereas the will and codicil in question, were made in Ireland in the year 1674, when such ceremony was very seldom used, as not being by law required. That the pretence of Dr. Arthur's dying on the 1st of January 1674, when the codicil appeared to be dated the second of the same month, was utterly groundless; for the witness who attempted to prove the same, being first examined upon original interrogatories, swore that the Doctor died in or about January 1674; but upon being afterwards examined on cross interrogatories, which were exhibited about four months after her first examination, and when she was not sworn, as appeared by the record of those interrogatories, she positively asserted, that he died on the 1st of January, and that she saw him dead on that day; shewing a very extraordinary memory, to recollect a transaction of forty-three years standing, so particularly as to the precise day; whereas no person could say so, when the will and codicil were proved in Dublin, within three weeks after the Doctor's death, nor ever since, until this witness pretended to such exactness. It was therefore hoped, that the decree of dismission would be reversed; and that the respondents Arthur and his wife would be compelled either to produce the said original will and codicil, or admit the same to have been duly perfected, by the testator; and that the appellant might be put into the possession of the premises.

On the part of the respondents Arthur and his wife, it was contended (T. Lutwyche,