Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/314

his two sons, for their respective lives, remainder to King William, his heirs and successors for ever, subject to a rent-charge of 540l. per annum. to appellant and his heirs for ever, and made appellant and Evans executors and residuary legatees; and that testator died indebted to several persons, and particularly to Evans 1500l. by bond: And appellant declining, Evans alone proved the will, and was at great expence in several suits in law and equity, relating to his executorship, and paid great sums for Sir William's debts; and that Evans being sickly had retired from London to Barnet, and finding himself not like to live, and being greatly in disburse upon the executorship account, sent to appellant to come to him there, that his accounts might be stated and settled in his life time: And that appellant, who was himself a barrister, together with Thomas Price, Esq. a barrister, went to Evans at Barnet, who produced his accounts and papers to them; and that it appeared Evans had paid for Sir William's debts 742l. 17s. 10d. ob. and expended for law, and other charges relating to the executorship, 834l. 8s. 4d. above all assets come to his hands, and that thereupon appellant, being well satisfied with Evans's accounts, the agreement stated by appellant was drawn by Price, and perused by appellant, and mutually executed, that the 1392l. due by Lady Bulkley, should be applied to pay the Evans the 742l. 17s. 10d. ob. and that the residue should go towards paying him the 834l. 8s. 4d. and that the remainder of the 834l. 8s. 4d. should be paid by appellant out of the first money he should receive out of the residue of Sir William's personal estate: And it was thereby declared, that Evans's bond of 1500l. was not included in that account, nor satisfied; and that Evans soon after died, and made Beata executrix, who married respondent Doulben; and that then appellant proved Sir William's will, and received great part of his personal estate; but refusing to perform the said agreement, respondents [303] brought their bill for a specifick performance thereof, and to have satisfaction of the said 1500l. bond-debt, and that the cause being at issue, it was ordered, 3d March, 1701, that both sides should examine their witnesses that vacation; and that publication should pass the first day of Easter term, and the cause be set down to be heard some time in that term: And that, 7th May, 1702, it was ordered that publication should be enlarged for a week, and that respondents set down their cause; and the depositions then taken were published, and respondents had copies thereof, and wore ready for hearing; but that, 11th July 1702, just before the cause was to have been heard, appellant obtained an order to enlarge publication till the 1st day of Michaelmas term, and liberty to take out commissions to examine his witnesses in the interim; and that appellant took out two commissions, one into Wales, and another into Yorkshire, but executed one only, and did not return that by the time limited; but 3d November, 1702, almost a fortnight after publication had passed, under the order of the 11th July, appellant petitioned the Master of the Rolls, that publication might be enlarged for three days, and annexed the usual affidavit, and his honour answered the same in these words, "filing the affidavit, let it be as desired, saving all just exceptions, but of this give personal notice to the appellants clerk in Court forthwith;" and that appellant examined Collier 3d, and Price 4th November, 1702, both of whom, and appellant, lived all along in London, and might (had a fair examination been designed) have been examined between the 3d of March, 1701, and the 1st day of Michaelmas term, 1702; and that respondent's clerk was not served with that order till both witnesses were examined and gone; nor was the affidavit, upon which that order was grounded, filed till 19th of November, 1702, the day respondent gave notice that they would move the Court to suppress the depositions of Collier and Price, as irregularly taken; and that after the order of the 21st November, 1702, appellant applied to the Court no less than three times to set up those depositions, and which the Court as often, upon full hearing, denied, declaring that they were irregularly taken, and contrary to the known rules and practice of the Court: And that the decree complained of, was made on the 7th of December, 1702; which decree and order, respondents insisted ought to be affirmed, because the irregularity for which the depositions [304] were suppressed, was a practice which if countenanced, would prove of most dangerous consequence to the suitors: And the Master of the Rolls at one time called before him the clerks on both sides, and the person that examined the two witnesses, and upon deliberate examination it appeared that both the witnesses were examined,