Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/257

relation, and who had been his guardian, and who probably was privy to the fraud against the former vicars, he being a subscribing witness to several acquittances produced for the pretended modus, and who principally promoted that agreement, and seduced appellant to write it; and thereby appellant covenanted to accept the same money as was paid to his predecessors, and to give such discharges as they had done; but that, by some copies of writings since accidentally fallen into his hands, appellant had discovered the fraud of the exemplification, and that respondent had imposed upon him, and therefore had prefered his bill against respondent for tythes in kind, and to be relieved against that agreement as fraudulent; which imported that respondent had shewed to appellant an exemplification of a record, testifying an ancient right, or modus, by prescription of twenty shillings per annum, formerly paid by his ancestors to the vicars of Lenton, in full consideration of all tythes whatsoever, and that it was therefore thereupon fully agreed on between the above named persons, &c. and appellant stated that he would never have questioned the agreement, if the exemplification, so produced by respondent, had contained, as respondent averred, the whole matter of the record; but that this appearing otherwise, and respondent intending to circumvent him not only of the tythes of Handby, but also to include Grangeleas under the same agreement, though appellant had fully proved in the cause that Grangeleas lay in another lordship, and always paid pariah rates as part of Lenton; and shewed further, that the modus pretended, was only for 200 acres of meadow, and 200 acres of pasture, and that the lordship of Handby alone contained full 800 acres, and was worth near 500l. per annum rent, of which the vicars should have the rectorial tythes; for that it appeared by the record, in the valuation of the first fruits, proved in the cause, that it was one of the endowments of the vicarage; and shewed also, that there were depositions of [184] nine witnesses taken (in perpetuam rei memoriam) by a commission directed out of Chancery in vicar Dale's time, who proved the several kinds of tythes paid to the former vicars, viz. corn, hay, wool, &c. and that though acquittances for the modus of twenty shillings per annum, were pretended to have been given by the vicars near fifty years, yet none were proved to be given by vicar Dale or Tempest Wood, his successor; though one lived vicar near twenty years, and the other fourteen; and that during all the time acquittances were so supposed to be given, the owners of Handby paid sometimes 13l. yearly; and 11l. per annum was paid to Mr. Loddington, appellant's immediate predecessor; and so appeared by the tythe book proved in the cause: But that, notwithstanding all this, the Court of Exchequer, on the hearing, dismissed appellant's bill, and would not relieve him against the agreement, nor decree him tythes in kind of Hanbeck, nor even decree him the money payable under that agreement, though six years were due, of 11l. per annum, and also refused him relief as to the tythes of Grangeleas, though he had proved it to be no part of Handby, and decreed costs against him, in prejudice to the church and the appellant's right. (Samuel Dodd.)

The respondents on the other hand stated, that the true questions between them were; 1st, whether appellants agreement, under his hand and seal, drawn and engrossed by himself, to accept of twenty shillings a year for all tythes according to an ancient modus, should bind him or not? And 2d, whether a close, called Grangeleas, were part of Handbygrange, or part of the mannor of Lenton? To elucidate which, respondent made this case: That appellant was instituted vicar of Lenton, in 1687, and that respondent was seised in fee of the manor or Grange called Handbeck, alias Handbygrange in that parish, and that the abbot, of Vaudie of the Cistercians order, before the dissolution, was proprietor of the Grange, as parcel of the possessions of the Abbey and that respondent, Sir William Buck, by his answer to appellant's bill, prescribed to be discharged of tythes of the said Grange by payment of twenty shillings a year, and that his proofs were receipts and acquittances of the respective vicars for above eighty-seven years last and that controversies growing, appellant proposed a meeting to accommodate matters; and respondent shewed appellant [186] and his agents all his writings and evidences relating to the said modus, and amongst others an exemplification of a record in prohibition in the Queen's Bench, Michaelmas, 37th and 38th of Eliz. which proved the modus; and that appellant and respondent, 4th December, 1690, came to an