Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/324

known; and that this cause was as proper for such farther trial as other causes wherein more trials had been had, and lately in the cause [323] of Wharton and Tily,^[1] after several trials before had, upon a farther trial directed by the Lords, the bond then in question was proved a forgery. (J. Groves.)

The respondent, in affirmance of the decree, stated: That John Hilton had married Winifred, sister of Thomas Scott, with whom he had 300l. portion, which he heard was not so much as was due to her, by whom [324] he had no children: That John Hilton lived with Thomas Scott several years after his wife's death, and there was a great friendship between them; and that Thomas Scott having an estate of 500l. per annum in the county of Stafford, and 1000l. personal estate, and having no child, and the said John Hilton, after the decease of Winifred, having, with his approbation, married a relation of his, by whom he had issue respondent, said John Hilton, was, as respondent heard, in expectation that Thomas Scott would leave him a good legacy at his death; but that Thomas Scott was narrowly watched by appellant and his friends, to prevent his disposition of any part of his estate from them: And that respondent's father died in the life-time of Thomas Scott; and that Thomas Scott, in 1694, meeting respondent, told him he had something for him; and respondent visiting him soon after at his house, he privately delivered to respondent the bond in question, made in the year 1667, and directed him to keep it secret till after his decease, otherwise he should live but an uneasy life; which accordingly respondent did, save that he privately showed it to some friends for their advice: And that Thomas Scott died about March, 1699, and the money six months after becoming payable, and appellant refusing to pay it, respondent employed an attorney of Warwickshire to put the bond in suit, which he did accordingly in Warwickshire; and the appellant pleading that the bond was not his brother's deed, after a trial of several hours a verdict, was found for respondent; but there being great variety of proof on both sides, and the debt being very considerable, the judge was pleased to certify that upon payment of costs, it was fit the cause should be tried again. And that pending that suit, and before the second trial, appellant exhibited his bill in Chancery, to be relieved against the bond, unto which an answer was put in, and witnesses examined to perpetuate their testimony; and at the next assizes of Warwick, the cause came on to be tried a second time, and