Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/345

ton and his heirs; and this estate so to be settled, was the only marriage-fortune of Mary, and thereby Peter Pilley, on his part, covenanted, when restored to his ancient estate, thereout to assure lands of the yearly value of 50l. to the use of Mary, for life, for a jointure, and in lieu of her dower, when so restored, and to intail that estate to the issue male of that marriage; with a like agreement to secure 800l. out of such estate to the issue female, in failure of issue male; and the remainder in fee to be limited to his own right heirs; and that Peter Pilley, in confidence of these articles, married Mary, and perfected a bond of 400l. penalty, bearing [367] date the 22d of September, 1673, with a condition to lay out 200l. as a further provision, for the issue of that marriage; and that after the marriage, in the life-time of Martha Nelson and John Osbaldeston, the late King Charles the second, appointed commissioners for hearing and confirming the title of transplanted persons, and to reprize deficient transplanters, and confirm those that had right, and to dispose of the estates of those that had no right, according to the acts of settlement and explanation, which commissioners were to make a common stock for reprizals out of all forfeited and undisposed lands in Connaught and Clare; and that Peter Lilley, in 1676, exhibited his claim before the commissioners, as a deficient transplanted person, who had had a decree before the commissioners at Athlone, in 1656, but to whom no lands had been set out for his final settlement; and on this claim the commissioners gave judgment for him to be reprised out of the common stock of reprizals, and that Peter Pilley, viewing the common stock of reprizals, found all the lands which Osbaldeston had so agreed to settle, except Annaghdarry, comprised in that stock; and that this was the first notice he had of any defect in Osbaldeston's title: and that on a full hearing before the commissioners, it plainly appeared, that these lands had been the estate of Charles O'Connor Roe, and of other forfeiting persons, on the 23d of October, 1641, and long before, and that Charles O'Connor Roe had made a lease for 31 years of Tully, Carroward, Coggalmore, Coggalbeg, and Lissenerin, to Edward Deane, in 1629, and levied a fine Sur Concessit thereof to him for said term; and by Strafford's survey, and the grand office found in the late Earl of Strafford's government (which were allowed to be indisputable evidence of the propriety of lands in Connaught) those lands were proved to be the propriety of forfeiting persons; and that Geffery Osbaldeston had no title but in right of his wife, the widow of said Edward Deane, and devisee of the remainder of the term of 31 years, under the will of Edward Deane, and that after her death Geffery married Martha, and was by virtue of that lease possessed in 1641: And that Geffery died in 1644, and Martha married Col. Nelson, an officer in the English army, and he enjoyed till 1660, claiming merely under that lease, against a transplanted person to whom the lands had been set out by the commissioners in 1656; and that the commissioners, after the strongest opposition and de-[368]-fence, adjudged those lands into the common stock of reprizals, as forfeited and undisposed lands, and vested in his majesty by the acts of settlement and explanation, for reprizing deficient transplanted persons; and that the commissioners, by certificate under their hands and seals, in 1676, adjudged said lands into the common stock of reprizals, and granted them to said Peter Pilley and his heirs, in reprize for the two thirds in quantity, and number of acres, to which he was entituled in Connaught and Clare, and in satisfaction of his deficiency, with a saving for Martha's right during her life; and thereupon Peter Pilley passed patent on the certificate as a reprize for bis own estate pursuant thereto, according to the act of explanation: And that this patent was by the act expresly made good against all titles not therein saved: And that Mary, the wife of Peter, died, leaving issue the respondent Katherine (and Mary, who died young) and Peter afterwards married Ursula Lally, and had issue by her appellant, his only son, and died in 1691, after which Katherine married the respondent Hugh, and had 100l. from Ursula for her portion: And that Martha Nelson married Sir Mathew Deane, and died in 1702, and then appellant entered as son and heir to Peter Pilley; and thereupon respondents preferred their bill against him in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, to have the said lands decreed to the respondent Katherine, upon the foundation of the said articles, pretending that the said Peter Pilley, passed the patent in trust for her. And that appellant answered and