Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1531

so long ago as 1703, as appeared by the schedule, received the 315 tuns and a quarter of the late duke's alum; and as they for so many years had the benefit and produce thereof, and the interest of the money for which the same was sold, it was but reasonable, that the appellant should return the like quantity of alum, according to his express agreement. It was also admitted, that the respondents were entitled to have all the other particulars mentioned in the schedule delivered to them; and there being no pretence to separate or [587] distinguish this item of alum from the rest of the articles, it ought therefore to be delivered; but the value of it being much greater than the rest, made the appellant more desirous to entangle and perplex it. That there was no evidence, nor even the least foundation, to imagine, that the late duke ever agreed, that this quantity of alum should be excepted out of the new lease, or that he should have the same immediately delivered to him. And the pretence, that the reason why the schedule to the first lease was annexed to the second, was only to avoid the trouble and expence of making a new schedule, was a vain and frivolous imagination; since if the same was true, and if the 315 tuns and a quarter of alum were delivered, or intended to be delivered to the duke, at the execution of the second lease, this article, being greater in value than all the rest, might either have been struck out of the schedule, or any agreement relative thereto might have been plainly expressed in the second lease itself.

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 appellant should pay, or cause to be paid to the respondents the sum of £100 for their costs, in respect of the said appeal and it was further ordered, that all the written evidence produced at the bar by the appellant, and particularly a paper, purporting to be a certificate or order of the late Duke of Buckinghamshire and Normandy, should be delivered over by the clerk assistant to the register of the court of Chancery: and the house observing many razures and other violent suspicions of forgery in the said paper, it was further ordered, that his majesty's attorney-general should prosecute the appellant for the same, in such manner as he should think fit; and that the papers and writings above ordered to be delivered over into the court of Chancery, should remain there, to be made uso of in the said prosecution, in such manner as the attorney-general should think fit; and that in the mean time, each party, their agents, and solicitors, should have liberty to resort to and peruse the same, in the custody of the said register.^[1] (Jour. vol. 22. p. 530).

The commissioners of the forfeited estates in Ireland by indenture of bargain and sale, dated the 19th of June 1703, and inrolled in the court of Chancery there, in consideration of £3705 bargained and sold to the governor and company for making hollow sword-blades in England, several lands and tenements in Kilcolmuck, alias Kilcormuck, Ballycolane, Currahmore, Kilduffe, Downe, Gurteen, and Killyshell in King's county, which were the estate and inheritance of Thomas Leicester, attainted of high treason, and all other the lands of the said Thomas Leicester in King's county, to hold to them, their successors and assigns for ever; subject to a quit-rent to the crown, and to all the claims and demands which had been allowed by the sail trustees, out of the premises. And soon afterwards, the company sold the said premises to Francis Edwards Esq. for a valuable consideration.