Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1534

rebellion, before the 3d day of October 1691. And that this was the meaning of the law was evident, inasmuch as not one of those inquisitions, which were taken and returned before that act was made, and which the legislature then had under their consideration, found of what religion the traitor was; but it was thought sufficient to find, that he died in actual rebellion. Lastly, it was submitted, whether the giving way to exceptions so slightly founded, as those made by the defendant in the present case, might not tend to overthrow, or render precarious, the purchases made under the [592] faith of the act of parliament, for sale of the forfeited estates in Ireland, for which the public had already received the consideration money: and if so, it was hoped that the judgment of the barons of the Exchequer would be affirmed.

On the other side it was contended (N. Fazakerley, T. Rootle), that an inquisition so obliterated, ought not to have been admitted as evidence, or read to the jury, until the commission therein mentioned was first produced. That this inquisition was apparently defective, several material parts of it being illegible, or wholly wanting; and it appearing upon the face of it, not to be warranted by the commission therein recited. That these defects and imperfections of the inquisition, could not be supplied by any testimony viva voce; for no parol evidence ought to have been admitted, to prove the issuing of the commission, by virtue whereof the said inquisition was supposed to have been taken; that commission, if any such there was, being a record to be proved by itself only, and of so high a nature as not to admit of any extrinsic proof. That no viva voce testimony ought to have been admitted to prove, that the said Thomas Leicester was a papist, or a reputed papist, at the time of his death, in order to supply the defect of the inquisition in that behalf; it being altogether unprecedented, that on such supplemental oral proof, an attainder should suddenly start up, where none before appeared upon record. And lastly, that the said other inquisition and commission were quite foreign to the matter in issue, and therefore ought not to have been given in evidence upon the trial. For all which reasons, it was humbly insisted, that the judgment given by the barons of the Exchequer was manifestly erroneous; and consequently, that the judgment of reversal given in the Exchequer Chamber was warranted by the rules of law, and ought to be affirmed.

But after hearing counsel on this writ of error, it was ordered and adjudged, that the judgment of reversal given in the Exchequer Chamber should be reversed; and that the judgment of the barons of the court of Exchequer should be affirmed. (Jour. vol. 23. p. 32.)

The defendant in error having, on the 6th of July 1723, obtained letters of administration in the Prerogative Court, in Hilary term 1725, brought an action of debt in the court of King's Bench, against the plaintiff in error, upon a bond entered into by the said John Wildman, in his life-time, to the said George Searle, in the penalty of £600, dated the 24th of June 1697.

The plaintiff in error craved oyer of the condition of this bond, which was for the payment of £307 10s. on the 25th of December next ensuing the date thereof; and thereupon he pleaded that John Wildman the obligor, in his life-time, viz. on the 10th of February 1709, paid to the said George Searle, the said £307 10s. in the said condition specified, and all interest due upon the said bond, in full satisfaction and discharge thereof.

To this plea, the defendant in error replied, non solvit modo et forma, as by the plea was alledged, and thereupon issue was joined.