Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/301

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
WHARTON (LORD) v. SQUIRE [1702]
COLLES.

ordered that Squire and Thompson should answer [277] Lord Wharton's petition: And that Lord Wharton, 25th January, 1702, moved the House that Thompson should be left out of the order for answering his petition; and obtained an order that Thompson should not be obliged to answer: And that Squire had answered, and said that Charles Bathurst, Esq. Sir William Robinson, Bart. Robert Byerly, Esq. William Bower, John Bower, John Langstaff, Thomas Langstaff, and Gregory Elsely, were defendants in the suit in Chancery, and plaintiffs in a cross cause in that Court, together with himself, and therefore insisted that they ought to have been made parties to this appeal, together with respondent, if the being a party to a cause in Chancery be any proper foundation for making respondent a party to this petition, complaining of an order in the Court of Exchequer: And that as to the charge in the petition of respondent's contrivance, and designing to cause the parchment to be filed clandestinely as a record of the Court of Exchequer, with intent to use the same as evidence; respondent hoped the Lords would not take cognizance originally thereof, but leave him if guilty of such undue practices, to be tried by the known course of the laws of the realm: And that as to any grievance on petitioner, by such pretended design to file it clandestinely, it appeared by the petition, that the petitioner had been already fully relieved therein, by the order of the 26th of February, 1700, which stayed the filing till the Barons afterwards ordered it; and that therefore petitioner had not in that respect any ground of appeal; and that as to the residue of the petition which imported an appeal from the order of the 15th of July, 1701, and prayed to set aside that order, and to have the record taken off the file; respondent shewed, that the record in question not only greatly concerned her Majesty but all her subjects, who were or might be entitled to lands in that part of the kingdom to which the record relates, and more particularly concerned all persons having lands within the honour of Richmond, and lordship of Middleham, which honour and lordship respondent shewed, were much larger than the [278] whole county of Middlesex; and respondent stated that divers lands therein had been in the reign of King Charles the first, purchased from the Crown. by the trustees of the city of London, and the greatest part sold by them to several persons, who yet held under that title; all which purchasers, and also all those who with respondent were intitled to the mines in question, in the Court of Chancery, respondent conceived ought to be heard touching this record; and respondent showed, that the order affected to be appealed from, had not been made in any cause depending in the Court of Exchequer, but was made in exercise of the duty of that Court, to see its records duly kept and preserved from imbezzlement, and restored when recovered; and that if the Lords should think proper to receive any complaint against the Court of Exchequer for making that order, or touching the reality of the record, respondent, as one only of many who were or might be equally interested in the record, hoped the Court of Exchequer would be able to give the Lords entire satisfaction in the justice and reasonableness of their proceedings in that matter; and respondent conceived it would be highly improper and officious in him alone, who was but one of many interested in the record, to undertake the defence thereof, lest the justice of the Barons in a point relating to their duty. or the property of so many others concerned, should receive injury by his or his councils inability, neglect or inadvertency; and therefore, for as much as the matters aforesaid had been examined and received, a determination in the proper jurisdiction; and as the inheritances of many persons of great quality, and of thousand others depended upon the record, who were not made parties to the petition, the respondent hoped the Lords would not proceed to any further examination of the


    one of the persons required to answer was not a party in that suit; and therefore, as to him at least, it must be an original cause. Thirdly; though all had been parties in Chancery, yet it never was heard that an appeal lay from one Court that had no suit depending in it, because there was a suit depending in another Court.

    2ly. Because no Court can take any cognizance of a cause in which that Court cannot make an order, but in this case the House of Lords cannot make an order, because very many are concerned in this record who are not before the House; therefore this House cannot take any cognizance of it. Signed by eleven Lords. Lords Journ. vol. xvii. p. 252.

285