Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1527

26th of June and 28th of November 1713, were brought with the statutes to be entered together in the recognizance book of the Court of Chancery; and it also appeared, that these defeazances were entered in that book next to their respective statutes staple, on the very days when those statutes were entered; it was therefore reasonable to believe that the same was done by the appellant Lattin, or some person by his authority, since there was no other entry of the said statutes staple in the book; and it was observable, that it was upon the entry of the statute for £6000, next to which the defeazance was entered, that the appellant Lattin sued out his extent, and by virtue thereof got possession of the lots of ground. That according to the schedules which the appellants had annexed to their answers in the court of Exchequer, the personal estate of the testator, which they had possessed themselves of, was not sufficient to pay the debts due on these statutes staple; and yet, by the same answers, they confessed to have paid about £1800 in debts of an inferior nature, and legacies to the amount of £3000, and also to have divided among themselves and the two other executors, all the testator's plate, household furniture, and jewels, which it is not to be imagined they would have done, had the statutes staple been in force, or the debts due thereon then subsisting. That neither of the appellants in their several answers in the Exchequer, ever once thought it to mention, or insist on their demands under these statutes staple, although that bill prayed to have the residuum of the testator's real and personal estate undisposed of by his will and though the testator died in 1717, yet the appellant Lattin did not think fit to set up his statute staple till the year 1721, which was four years afterwards, and when he appre-[581]-hended the respondents were likely to recover the lots of ground on George's Quay. That the liberate sued on the statute for £6000 was marked for the sum of £9610, and which addition of £3610 could only be for interest accrued due in the testator's lifetime, as well as after his death; whereas it was not probable, that the testator, considering his great circumstances, would suffer such an arrear of interest to accrue, or that the appellant Lattin, considering his circumstances, could have permitted the same to remain unpaid: and as there was no proof that be ever advanced a single shilling of the several sums for which the statutes staple were acknowledged, or ever demanded or received any interest thereof, the inference was strong, that they were only given to secure the fraudulent purchases above mentioned. And therefore it was hoped, that the decree would be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with costs.

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; and that the appellants should pay to the respondents, the sum of £60 for their costs in respect of the said appeal and it was further ordered, that nothing in this judgment contained, should be taken to be binding upon the personal estate of the testator William Alcock, with relation to the several statutes in the proceedings mentioned, or any of them; but every person interested in, or claiming title to the said personal estate, should be at liberty to disprove the said statutes, or any of them, either in this present suit, or in the court of Exchequer, or in any other manner, as they should be advised. (Jour. vol. 22. p. 446.)

John Duke of Buckinghamshire, being seised of an estate in tail male in the manor of Mulgrave, and divers other manors, lands, tenements, and hereditaments, and several