Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/332

be reversed, and respondent injoined from proceeding against the appellants for the mesne profits, the lands appearing to be appellants own estate, and so affirmed by a solemn trial at the Common Pleas bar, and more especially as at the time of the former suit in the King's-bench the material evidences of the appellants title were concealed from the appellants by respondent or his father. (Francis Brown. R. Freeman.)

The respondent on the other hand stated, that it was agreed by all parties, that the last term for years which was granted of the estate in question, was granted by a grand lease, called Lopes lease, dated 13th of November, 31st Eliz. for a term of ninety years, to commence from the determination of all former leases and estates thereof granted by any precedent bishop; and that it was equally agreed that appellant, Sir Henry, was intitled to the remainder of this term of ninety years, and that the reversion and inheritance belonged to the bishoprick, and that the real question was whether the term of 30 years were yet determined, and when? And respondent stated, that that question depended upon this; what former lease or estate was in being when the term of 90 years was granted? And respondent insisted, that upon searches in the books of the prior and convent, dean and chapter and bishop, it appeared that the only lease then in being was a lease made by bishop Sylvester, 23d Henry VII. to one Freeman, [340] for 99 years, to commence from Michaelmas, 1508, and that that term expired at Michaelmas, 1607, and that consequently the term of 90 years granted by Lopez lease expired at Michaelmas, 1697, and that thereupon the late bishop Stillingfleet, having for several years before in vain pressed Sir Henry to renew, granted a lease for 21 years thereof to respondent his son; and that appellants would have it presumed without any ground, that the lease to Freeman was surrendered, and relied upon a copy of a survey, supposed to be taken in the year 1647, by commission from the then usurped powers (which copy was remaining amongst the evidences of the bishoprick) wherein it was mentioned, that the estate in question was then held by William Sheldon, and that the last copyhold tenant died about five years then before; and that there was then to come of the term of 90 years, granted by Lopez lease, about 85 years: But respondent insisted that no such survey was extant, and that though it were, it was no evidence against the church, much less the copy which appeared to be imperfect; and that the commissioners who took the survey were imposed upon by the tenants; and that there were many falsities and mistakes, and particularly in calling the estate in question copyhold; and therefore, till lately, he had depended upon a fiction without proof, viz. that it was a common error in the surveys of crown and church revenues to call leasehold copyhold; and also, that the life mentioned in the survey to be lately dead, was the life of one Edward Sheldon; and that the estate had been held by a lease made by the bishop for his life only, or by a lease for two lives, whereof Edward Sheldon was the survivor; and that appellant finally relied upon some ancient bailiffs accounts, wherein it was mentioned that the estate in question dimiss' per indentur Catherine Horniold, without any further words to explain it, which appellant would interpret to be some lease made by the bishops to Katherine Horniold; and that Horniold was but a trustee for the Sheldons, from whom the appellant bought this estate: But respondent insisted that all this, as to Horniold's being a trustee, was fiction without proof; and that the estate in question, from the time of making Lopez lease till appellant purchased in 1675, was constantly in the possession of the Sheldons; and that Lopez lease expresly mentioned that the estate in question was then held by the Sheldons by virtue of a lease for years, and insisted that this could be no other but [341] the lease for years to Freeman, and destroyed the pretensions of a lease for one or two lives; and moreover that Lopez lease happened to be forfeited to the crown, and granted out again by the crown in 10 Charles 1st. for the residue of the term of 90 years; so that if the term of 90 years was then begun and partly spent, that was a direct falsification of the survey: And that respondent obtained a verdict on his ejectment upon full evidence, and that the court and jury were satisfied that appellants term for 90 years was determined: And respondent stated further, before bishop Stillingfleet died, appellants had brought a bill in equity against him, and respondent his son, and John Price, Esq. chancellor of the diocess, formerly chapter clerk, who all denied they knew of any evidences or writings that made for appellants advantage, and believed the lease to Freeman for 39 years was not