Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1526

their answers to the bill in Chancery; the cause was heard on the 21st of May 1724, and it appearing fully in proof, by the evidence of one Shippy, who was clerk to the testator, that he was witness to a deed of defeazance dated the 28th of November 1713, and saw the same executed by the appellant Lattin to the testator; that he believed the paper writing produced to him on his examination, was a true copy of such defeazance, and that he had examined the said paper, with the entry of the defeazance in the book in the recognizance office and it also appearing by the evidence of Walter Burton Esq. who was, in the year 1713, [579] clerk in that office, that the paper so proved by Shippy to be a copy of the defeazance he saw executed by the appellant Lattin to the testator, was a true copy of the entry in the recognizance book of the 28th of November 1713; that two several statutes staple, and two defeazances, were brought to him to be entered in the office, and that he entered the same as appeared in the said book: and it also appearing by many concurring circumstances, that the defeazances so entered were executed by the appellant Lattin to the testator, the court decreed an injunction, to put the respondents into possession of the said lots of ground on George's Quay and Mercer's Dock; and that a perpetual injunction should issue, to stay the appellant Lattin's proceedings upon the statutes staple entered into by the testator to him, as to the lands which the respondents claimed as heirs at law of the testator: and it was referred to a Master, to state the accounts of the profits of the said lots of ground, from the time of the extent laid thereon by the appellant Lattin, and also to take an account of the personal estate of the testator; and that the appellant Moore should stop executing any extent upon the statute staple entered into by the testator to him, until the return of the Master's report; and that in case it should appear that there were assets sufficient of the testator to pay what was due on the appellant Moore's statute staple, the same should be paid thereout in case of the real estate, which the heirs at law of the testator wore entitled to: and the court decreed costs against the appellants Lattin and Moore; but the costs against Moore were to be paid out of assets.

From this decree the present appeal was brought; and on behalf of the appellants it was insisted (C. Wearg, T. Lutwyche), that there was not the least proof made of the appellant Lattin's executing any such deed as that of the 25th of June 1713, importing a defeazance to the statute staple of £2500; for the persons supposed to be witnesses thereto swore they knew nothing of the execution of it. That the evidence offered to support the other pretended defeazance of the 28th of November 1713, was so loose and uncertain, that no credit ought to be given to it; and the person supposed to be a subscribing witness to that defeazance, being examined for the respondents, had on his oath denied, that he ever knew or heard of such a deed. That the entries made in the book of the clerk of the recognizances in Chancery, ought not to be admitted as evidence of any such deeds, that office being in no sort appointed by any law or custom to make or receive entries of any statutes staple, or defeazances of any kind; nor hath there been any entries of deeds, usually, or at any time made in the said office. That there was the less reason for making such entries in the present case, because there was no proof made of the execution of the deeds; nor was it attempted to be shewn, when, or by whose order such entries were made, or who paid for the same. That there was no sort of evidence of the appellant Moore's having [580] executed any defenzance, nor even an entry thereof in any book whatsoever; neither did it appear that he had sued out any extent or liberate upon his statute staple, but he was brought into court by the respondents without any grounds; and yet costs were decreed to be paid to them as against him, out of the testator's assets, That if such entries, not warranted by any law, usage, or custom, should be admitted as evidence to establish deeds, it would be of very dangerous consequence, render all property precarious, and introduce and encourage perjury and confusion; and therefore it was hoped, that the decree would be reversed, and the respondents bill dismissed with costs.

On the other side it was said (P. Yorke, C. Talbot), that it appeared by the evidence of Mr. Shippy, the testator's clerk, that a defeazance was executed by the appellant Lattin, to the testator, of the statute staple for £6000, dated the 28th of November 1713, whereby certain lands in the county of Kildare, were only to be extended on account of the statute staple; and therefore the appellant Lattin had no right, under any pretence whatever, to extend any other estate of the testator's. That it appeared in proof in the cause, that the defeazances on the statutes staple of the