Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1525

the appellants, in their former answers to the original bill, had omitted to confess a large sum of money, due on a judgment obtained by the testator against Thomas Dillon Esq. and therefore prayed a discovery of all these matters, and to be relieved on this and their former bill, as one and the same case.

The appellants answered this supplemental bill; and as to the purchases being made by the testator, in trust for them, they referred to their answer put in to a bill of discovery, brought against them by one Pearson on the popery acts, as a protestant discoverer; and the appellant Moore said, that the statute staple entered into by the testator to him for £1500 was for a valuable consideration.

The respondents were entire strangers to the testator's affairs, having resided in England till after his death; and whatever discoveries they made of his effects or dealings, were only collected from the answers of the appellants, and from common report; for all the deeds, evidences, and writings, which might be of service to the respondents, in clearing up or making out their title to the real and personal estate of the testator, undisposed of by his will, wore in the custody of the appellants, as his executors; and therefore the respondents made search in the book of the recognisor of the court of Chancery in Ireland, and found, that on the 9th of July 1718, an entry was made in that book, of one statute staple from the testator to the appellant Lattin for £2500, which was acknowledged the 26th of June preceding; and on the back of the leaf whereon the said statute staple was so entered, a deed of defeazance was also entered, dated the said 26th of June 1713, and was mentioned to be made between the appellant Lattin and the testator, wherein the said statute staple was recited, and by which defeazance the appellant Lattin did covenant, that he would extend and take in execution the town and lands of Athgarett, with its several denominations in the county of Kildare, and no other estate of the testator, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns; and would continue the same only in extent, until he, his executors, administrators, and assigns, were paid the principal and interest duo on the said statute staple; and he further covenanted, that the same should not charge or affect the person of the testator: and this deed of defeazance appeared, by the entry in the said book of recognizances, to have been entered on the same day the statute staple was entered, On further search in the same book, the respondents found, that on the 31st of March 1713, an entry was therein made of [578] another statute staple from the testator to the appellant Lattin, for £6000, which was acknowledged the 28th of November, in the same year; and on the next adjoining leaf a defeazance was also entered, dated the said 28th of November 1713, made between the appellant Lattin and the testator, reciting the said statute staple, by which deed the appellant Lattin covenanted, that he would extend and take in execution the town and lands of Dowdingstown and Herbertstown, and their great tithes, and several other lands therein mentioned, and no other estate of the testator, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns; and would continue the same only in extent, until he, his executors, administrators, and assigns, were paid the principal and interest due on the said statute staple: and he further covenanted, that the same should not charge or affect the person of the testator. And this deed of defeazance appeared to have been entered on the same day the statute staple was entered.

The appellant Lattin having, by virtue of the last mentioned statute staple, extended the lot of ground on George's Quay, and the respondents not having any intimation that there was any defeazance against the same, until the search was made in the recognizance book as aforesaid; and the original defeazances being amongst the testator's other deeds and papers in the custody of the appellants as his executors; the respondents therefore, in December 1722, exhibited a bill in the court of Chancery in Ireland against the appellants, setting forth the several proceedings in the court of Exchequer, and insisting on their right to the said lot of ground on George's Quay, as being heirs at law of the said testator; and stating also, that the appellant Lattin had extended the same, by virtue of the statute staple of the 28th of November 1713, notwithstanding such defeazance as aforesaid; and that the said several statutes were so entered into by the testator, only to skreen the purchases made by him, in trust for the appellants; this bill therefore prayed, that the said statutes staple might be set aside, and that the respondents might be relieved in the premises.

The appellants having answered this last bill, and therein referred to their several answers in the court of Exchequer, praying that the same might be taken as part of