Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/293

instrumental to his being so turned out, and zealously solicited the cause against them, and that by his management a sentence was obtained against the will, from which sentence respondents had appealed to the Court of the Arches; After which, Dr. Oates contriving to be further revenged on respondents, and to draw them into his power, after the said sentence was passed, repeatedly insinuated to respondents that he was satisfied [260] of the justice of their cause from that clause in the second agreement, whereby appellant had debarred himself from having anything to do with his wife's estate, and that if he had seen the settlement before, he would never have stirred a step for appellant; and that he was satisfied of the validity of the will; and that the instructions given to the attorney who drew it, were, in his judgment, a very good will; and pressed respondents friends to persuade them to refer the matter to him, declaring that otherwise they would spend the estate, and none be the better for it, but that damned crew of rogues in the commons, as he called them, who would get all, and that it grieved him to see such an effusion of christian money, in such an anti-christian court as that was; and by such insinuations prevailed on respondents to refer the matters to him, but on express condition that neither Mr. Porter, an attorney, appellant's agent, nor Mr. Lovell, appellant's proctor, nor a Mr. Jeffreys, should be present; for, that as they had left the law, they would have nothing to do with lawyers: And that respondents were by such contrivances drawn in to execute a bond of 4000l. penalty to stand to the Doctor's award: And that several attendances were had at Dr, Oates's house, where, contrary to the condition of the arbitration, Porter, Lovell, and Jeffreys, were all present; and that the Doctor abetted them in rude behaviour to respondents and their witnesses, whom the Doctor himself not only refused to hear, but palliated manifest contradictions of appellants witnesses, and at length, in vengeance to respondent, and from malice of mind, freely and indecently avowed, published his award under his hand and seal, whereby he not only confirmed the sentence against the will, but awarded respondents to pay 1500l. to appellant at his, Dr. Oates's, own house, though no part of the said Hester's estate had ever come to the hands of the respondent Reynolds, and very little to respondent Burroughs, to the utter ruin of respondents and their families: And that to be relieved against this award, respondents exhibited their bill, and appellant a cross bill, which were both answered: And to justify this extravagant award, the Doctor had sworn in his answer in Chancery, that the testatrix, a fortnight before she died, acquainted him that she had above 2000l. in respondent Burroughs's hands, and also that she lad shewed him two several bonds under respondent Burroughs's hand and seal for 1500l. and the other for [261] 500l. but respondent shewed that the Doctor had not insisted on, or pretended any thing of this at the time of the reference, nor till his answer in Chancery; and that respondent Burroughs, in his answer to appellant's cross bill, had denied that he ever entered into such bonds: And shewed that it had been proved in the cause that the testatrix had, about two years before her death, sworn before the commissioners upon an appeal for being assessed too much for her personal estate, that she was not worth above 300l. and that it appeared by the deposition of one of appellant's own witnesses, that she had declared she was 2000l. worse by her marriage with appellant: And that respondents had fully proved that Doctor Oates was angry with respondents, because, besides the matters before mentioned, they had neglected to invite him and his wife to the testatrix's funeral, and prevented his preaching her funeral sermon; and that he had declared he cared not which of the parties got the cause, so respondent Burroughs was ruined; and said "God had put a rod into his hands, wherewith he would scourge Burroughs; and that he would swinge him; and when he had wore it to the stump would lay it by; and that respondent Burroughs was a rogue, and before he had done with him he would ruin him, and make him fly the country, and not leave him worth a shilling; and had said, "do you think that wearer's boy (meaning the respondent Burroughs) shall knock heads with me, who have been a Doctor of Divinity above these twenty years?" And being told he ought not to seek for revenge, but leave it to God; Oates replied, "God was many times long before he did it; and that when the Jews refused St. Paul, he turned to the Gentiles." And it being replied to him, that though St. Paul did turn to the Gentiles, he did not wage war with the Jews; Oates rejoined, "that though Paul's teeth were grown, his