Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/319

lowed in that account, which account not being insisted on, or read at the hearing, nor set forth in the respondent's answer, appellant's council were not instructed therein And that upon the deposition of Crispe, who swore only that he believed, or apprehended, that the 700l. was part of the 1830l. and upon the evidence of one Fletcher, who swore that appellant had confessed to him that the 700l. was part of the 1830l. and notwithstanding appellant in his answer, and respondent's husband by his answer to respondent's bill, had both sworn that the 700l. due to Crispe was no part of the 1830l. nor was the same in either of the articles mentioned or expressed to be any part thereof, the jury found for respondent: And that on 9th February, 1702, upon a re-hearing of the causes on respondent's petition for costs and further directions as to the manner of appellant's accounting, it plainly appeared that appellant had lent and paid to James Cockayne before the 22d of May, 1691, 854l. 17s. 11d. And therefore, upon the re-hearing, appellant insisted to have another trial, especially since respondent insisted that the jury having found contrary to appellant's answer, he ought to lose his own costs, and to pay respondent's costs; but the Court did not think fit to grant another trial, but ordered that the verdict should stand, and gave several directions touching the manner of appellant's accounting; and instead of appellant having costs, according to the former decree, ordered appellant to pay respondent her costs both at law and in Chancery: And appellant complained that as to the 243l. 10s. besides costs of suit so paid to Sir Simon Harcourt by appellant, and which was proved in the cause, and owned by Sir Simon, the Court did not make appellant any allowance for the same; and shewed that the Court, 13th January last, upon hearing exceptions to the Master's report of the account, directed a trial at law for settling several other matters in the account; and complained that he was aggrieved by the orders or decrees made since the first decree; and particularly insisted that such issue ought not to have been directed, and that the verdict obtained thereupon ought to be set aside, and he have satisfaction for the 700l. paid to Crispe, and for interest and costs; or if the issue was properly directed, insisted he ought not to be concluded by one trial, obtained by a sudden [314] producing of an account, which in its nature required time and consideration to examine into, especially where the consequence was so great to appellant as to make him lose 1012l. paid to Crispe, for the said 700l. with interest and costs, and also appellant's own costs; and further to make him pay respondent 517l. more for her costs, besides the injury to appellant's reputation: And complained further, that on arguing the exceptions last mentioned, chiefly upon the evidence of one Stevens, who made some proof of an offer to take the premisses for eight years, at the rent of 200l. per annum, the Court of Chancery had directed appellant be charged to that value, though such offer was made upon such covenants as would have spoiled the farm, and which appellant could not comply with; and though appellant desired liberty to try that matter with the other things directed to be tried, yet the Court refused appellant that liberty. (J. Browne.)

The respondent on the other hand made this case; that she had an annuity of 200l. per annum for her life, issuing out of the estate of Rowland Lacy, Esq.; her former husband, which before her marriage with Cockayne was settled on trustees for her sole and separate use, and that she was prevailed on by Cockayne to consent to sell it, and purchase the estate in question for her own and Cockayne's lives, the purchased estate to be settled on trustees in like manner for her separate use; and that she accordingly sold her annuity for 1800l. with which she purchased the estate in question from Sir Ralph Dutton, for her own and Cockayne's lives; but that before the purchase perfected, Cockayne had misapplied 600l. of the money; and thereupon they borrowed 600l. from Crispe, and mortgaged the purchased estate to him; and then the premisses were conveyed subject to that mortgage to William Crispe and Richard Diston, in trust for respondent for her separate use; and that Cockayne neglecting to pay Crispe the interest, and being otherwise indebted to him, he sued him; and, March 6th, 1690, 930l. appeared due to Crispe; and respondent being uneasy under that mortgage, and appellant being avenor,^[1]