Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/273

the purchases: And respondents insisted, the alleged award could conclude nothing, because the decree declared it neither good nor bad; and that appellants had brought a bill to have it performed, and that suit was yet depending; and that the rents were justly sequestered, because respondents right to the lands were upon a full hearing decreed for, and sufficient time allowed appellants to clear their accounts; and that it appeared by the proceedings, that they were fully paid before the decree all that they could charge against respondents: And whereas appellants objected, that the decree was founded on the validity of the will, without a trial at law first had, and that at best an estate for life only was given to the five uncles sons: The respondents answered, that the decree and orders were founded not only upon the validity of Earl James's will, but also upon the trust; and that there was not any necessity for a trial at law, because it was fully proved by witnesses of unquestionable credit, that Earl James gave orders for drawing it, and approved of it when read to him; and when he sat up to sign it perceived a blot in it, and ordered it to be written over again; and when that was done, and it again read to him, he in presence of many persons of integrity and character, called for pen and ink, and signed, sealed, and delivered it to his lady as his act and deed; and that he was perfectly in his [218] senses, and never raved, nor spoke incoherently during his sickness; and that Sir Hans and appellant James had themselves sworn it a good will, and duly perfected, both before and after their purchase; as did Earl Henry, under whom appellants derived; and that Sir Hans had by his letter owned, that one of the witnesses against the will swore ignorantly, and the other over-reached himself; and that indirect means and bribery had been used, to cause witnesses to swear against the will; and that the will gave an estate in fee, inasmuch as it bequeathed the remainder of the estate.

Die Jovis, 16 Aprilis, 1702. After hearing council on this appeal, it was adjudged, that the order of the 24th July, 1701, should be reversed, and the decree made the 10th February, 1698, and the subsequent orders made in that cause be set aside, and the cause sent back into the Chancery, in Ireland, to the intent that both causes might be brought to a hearing together upon the whole matter; and that appellants should procure the cause in which they were plaintiffs, to be brought on to be heard as soon as might be by the course of the Court; and in case of the death of any of the parties, appellants to revive without delay. Lords Journ. vol. xvii. p. 100.

The appellant stated that the respondents, 2d June, 1699, exhibited their bill in Chancery against appellant, and thereby charged, that in 1694, the ship Gertruydt sprung a leak near the Island of Providence, where appellant was governor; and that appellant, on a signal of distress, sent out boats with men, on pretence of assisting her; but that instead of stopping the leak, and bringing her into harbour, they plundered her cargo to the value of thirty thousand pounds, and brought all to appellant; but that appellant had in his answer, filed 9th October, 1699, denied the whole bill; and showed, that about the time alleged, three boats full of men had come to Providence, and said they were the crew of a Dutch ship, which had been cast away in the night time, about fifty leagues off in the open sea, seventeen days before: That after seventeen days sailing in their boats, Providence was the first land they saw; and that they had come thither to save their lives, and for provisions, for which they would pay ready money, &c. and that they then surrendered their arms, being ten fusils, and seventeen pistols; and at their departure paid for their provisions, some fifty pieces of eight a-man, some forty, some twenty, and others ten, amounting in all to about three hundred