Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/333

surrendered, and was the only estate in being at the making of Lopez lease; and the bishop particularly said, he had given directions that all searches should be made for the discovery of every thing either for his advantage or disadvantage, and offered appellants free liberty to inspect all evidences and writings; and said that upon search in the Exchequer, it appeared an answer of Mr. Sheldon's was missing, and, as he believed, taken off the file; and that several years before his answer, when Price acquainted him he had found out Freeman's lease, he gave notice thereof to appellant, and desired him to satisfy himself therein, and offered to renew; and again, by his answer, offered to renew to appellant, and take a less fine than usual: And respondent observed that before that trial at barr appellants had a rule of Court that the bishop and his officers should permit him to search the evidences of the bishoprick, and should produce at the trial such as the appellants desired; and that some few weeks before the trial, respondent being informed that there were some bailiffs accounts which mentioned the matter of Katherine Harniold, desired the present bishop's officers to bring up the same to the trial, and that accordingly some of those accounts were then brought into Court, with the other evidences of the bishoprick; and that Price being examined as a witness for appellants, particularly mentioned the said bailiffs accounts, and what he found therein concerning Katherine Harniold. And respondent stated, that he did not take possession upon his verdict, because the [342] estate was then in possession of appellant Durham, who rented the whole from Sir Henry; And that Sir Henry after that trial at bar, delivered declarations in ejectment in the Common Pleas to Durham his own tenant, upon which he was sure to get judgment, by default, and so turn respondent out of possession: And that respondent therefore obtained a rule, that he himself might be made the only defendant in that ejectment, and might have a trial at bar there; which was accordingly had in the absence of the chief justice, and appellant had the good luck to get a verdict, and that had he previously brought an action of trespass for the mesne profits, as stated by appellant, and, after several dilatory pleadings, obtained judgment upon a demurrer argued by council on both sides, and took out a writ of enquiry of damages: And that appellants so far submitted to make their defence in the action for mesne profits, as to obtain a rule in the King's-bench (after they had got their verdict in the Common Pleas) that the writ of enquiry should be executed before the judges of assizes for Worcester: But then, for further delay, appellants brought a bill in the Exchequer against respondent: And that respondent in his answer denied appellants suggestions, and that appellants made no proof thereof: And that respondent being obliged to answer by commission, appellants got a general injunction, whereby the respondent was hindered not only from proceeding in the action of trespass, but from bringing any new ejectment to recover the estate; and that the Court had, on hearing, dismissed appellants bill with moderate costs: And respondent insisted such dismission was just, and ought to be affirmed; for that the Court of equity, could not inquire into, or examine upon what evidence the verdicts in either of the trials at bar were obtained, nor hinder respondent from recovering the mesne profits, which by law were his right, and but a consequence of his verdict, because it would be in effect to falsify and disparage that verdict, and to try the cause over again: And Sir Henry Parker was a wary man, and a good lawyer, and should not have trusted to the survey, but have used better means to have satisfied himself, and should not have bought any thing under Lopez lease, which contained in the whole about 48 copy-hold, and 21 leasehold estates (being a considerable part of the revenue of the bishoprick) and that that lease was in its creation a great prejudice to the church. (W. Dobyns.)

[343] Die Veneris, 10 Martii, 1703. After hearing council on this appeal, it was adjudged by the Lords, that the decree or order of dismission complained of should be reversed, and that the bill should be retained in the Exchequer; and that if James Stillingfleet should not bring a new ejectment, and try his title to the lease in question before the end of Michaelmas term next, that then the court of Exchequer should grant a perpetual injunction against the action of trespass for mense profits: And that upon the event of the trial, the court of Exchequer should give such directions as should be just; and that the former injunction should continue in the mean time. Lords Journ. vol. xvii. p. 477. (1 Freem. 509. 1 Salk. 256. 6 Mod. 249. Holt. 261. Lill. Ent. 192. Vin. ix. 329. xii. 102. 124.)