Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/280

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
COLLES.
SHERARD v. HARCOURT [1702]

full ten years at great expence, and appellants had all his money in their hands, the very interest of which would bear their expence; and that there still remained due to respondent Daston 3887l. so that if the 2186l. 15s. 6d. decreed to him were paid, he must still be a loser near 1700l. and that therefore the appeal ought to be dismissed with costs. (Wm. Dobyns.)

Die Sabbati, 21 Novembris, 1702. After hearing council upon this petition and appeal, it was ordered and adjudged by the Lords, that the orders therein complained of should be reversed as to the sums of 702l. 10s. and 1389l. 11s. 9d. Lords Journ. vol. xvii. p. 170. (Prec. Ch. 188. 3 P. Wms. 401. (n.) Vin. xi. 298. (bis) 1 Eq. ab. 10.)

Note.—In the last book the only point is, whether the book kept by Mr. and Lady Russel (they being both dead) should be admitted to discharge as well as to charge them on the account before the Master.



[233]Case 48.—Brownlow Sherard, Esq., and Dame Mary Anderson, his Wife,—Appellants; Simon Harcourt, Esq., and Henry Harcourt and Richard Harcourt, his Sons,—Respondents [1702].

The appellant stated: That Sir Richard Anderson, by will, written with his own hand, 25th July, 1699, devised all his real estate to appellant dame Mary (his relict) for life, and gave her all his personal estate and power to commit waste in felling woods; and made her sole executrix; and directed her to sell the inheritance of any of his lands to pay his debts: And that soon after Sir Richard's death, respondent Simon pretended he had a voluntary settlement, dated in March, 1694, whereby the real estate was limitted to himself for life, with remainders to his sons Henry and Richard successively for life, and to their first and other sons in tail, and to give colour thereto, procured an advertisement to be printed in the newspapers, intimating that his house and study had been broken open, and his deeds cut in pieces and taken away, and only some scraps of them left; and offering a reward for discovery of the pretended offenders; and insinuating that such deeds were enrolled in the King's Bench; but that upon search made, it appeared no enrollment was ever duly made, but that respondent, being then and still a clerk in the Crown-office, had, with his own hand transcribed the pretended deeds upon two rolls of parchment, with a memorandum expressing, that they had been acknowledged in Court, and had procured them to be filed amongst the rolls in the Crown-office five years after the pretended acknowledgment, by affirming to the officer, that the mark which was to warrant the enrollment had been written by a third person which afterwards, upon an examination in the King's Bench, appeared to be untrue, respondent confessing in open Court, that such mark was made with his own hand; and that for this ill practice, the lady was ready to move against respondent, and for vacating the present enrollment; and that to prevent this, respondent, un-[234]-known to her, applied to Mr. Methuen, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, her father, who thereupon informed her, that respondent would refer all matters to him, and that she was to do the like, and inclosed to her in a letter a submission ready drawn, to execute and return to him, which she did, not doubting but she might safely confide in such a referee; but that before the parties were heard, or any witness examined on either side, her father sent for her to see him make his award; and that she attended, and found him filling up blanks in a paper, which he presently after executed as his award; and that she was at the same time made to sign a receipt upon the award, for part of the monies awarded, which was brought ready to be paid her; and that she was from thence immediately carried to Doctor's Commons, to renounce her executorship; and that she had then neither read the award nor heard it read; nor had ever before seen it or any draught or copy, nor was informed of its contents: And that in April, 1700, the referee sent her an answer, ready engrossed, to a bill of the respondent's, with verbal directions to put it in that day by noon, which she did; being made to believe she could not be safe without a decree, and that it was a proper answer; and that she intirely relied upon

264