Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/348

in possession of Martha; who thereupon complained to Peter Pilley, that he had brought that charge and trouble upon her, and requiring him to save her jointure from quit-rent: Whereupon the said Peter preferred a petition to the commissioners of the revenue in Ireland, setting forth that the said lands were not liable to quit-rent, as never having been forfeited, nor seized or sequestered, for that the same were protestant interest, being the estate of Jeoffry Osbaldeston, before and after the 23d of October, 1641, and after his death the jointure of Martha, his wife, who was also a protestant, as appeared by the copy of the petition, all in Peter Pilley's hand-writing, and proved and read on the first hearing of the cause; and that Peter soon after married Ursula Lally, without any other portion than a third part of 200l. by whom he had issue the appellant, and died in 1690, or 1691, possessed of a personal estate, worth 1200l. and seized of a real estate worth 100l. per annum, all which came to appellant; and that in 1693, respondent Hugh, by consent of Ursula, married Katherine, and immediately upon Martha's death, in 1702, got peaceable possession of the lands, in right of respondent Katherine; but appellant tampering with [373] the tenants, prevailed with some not to pay their rents, so that respondents were forced to commence a suit in the Exchequer in Ireland, against appellant, to quiet respondents in their possession, and to compel appellant to execute the trust, in regard the said Peter Pilley, at the time of passing the patent, was father and guardian to the said minors, and had got from the said Martha the deeds relating to the title of the lands, upon trust to secure the title for them, and had no pretence thereunto, but by the articles of inter-marriage under the title of John Osbaldeston; and that the 200l. he was so bound to lay out in a purchase or mortgage for the benefit of his daughters, was much more than the charge of passing the certificate and patent; and that upon the hearing, the late Lord Chief Baron Donnelane was of opinion, for the clearer decision of the matter, that it ought to be tried by a jury, whether the said Peter Pilley did make any express declaration of a trust; and an issue was accordingly directed to be tried by a jury of the county of Galway at the Exchequer bar; and that at the first hearing, as well as at the said trial at bar, the said petition of Peter Pilley (setting forth that the lands were the estate of Jeoffry Osbaldeston, a protestant, never seized or sequestered) was read, and given in evidence; but that by the obstinacy of one man, the jury did not give any verdict, wherefore the Court ordered a juror to be withdrawn: After which respondents petitioned for a re-hearing, which was granted; and the cause being solemnly argued by several council of each side in Easter term, 1705, and respondents council insisting upon the resulting trust arising from the nature and circumstances of the case, as well as on the positive proofs of an express trust, the cause was kept under advisement of the Court from that time till Hillary term following, at which time there was a decree pronounced for the respondents; and that appellant then petitioned for a re-hearing to be had on the 2d day of Michaelmas term last; and the respondents, by their council, pressed on the said re-hearing, and expected that the appellant would have proceeded therein; and the rather, because Lord Chief Baron Freeman, who never heard the cause, then sat on the bench; but the appellant withdrew his petition for a rehearing, and brought this appeal to the lords in England, in hopes to tire out the respondents with expence and [374] charges, which already exceeded the value of the lands; wherefore respondents insisted the appeal ought to be dismissed, and the decree affirmed. (George Lysens. Richard Hore.)

Die Mercurii, 5 Martii, 1706. After hearing council upon this appeal, it was adjudged by the Lords, that the appeal be dismissed, and the decree complained of affirmed; with this alteration only, that appellant be allowed for the deficiencies, and the charge of passing certificate and patent, what it should appear he laid out above 100l. part of the 200l. he was to lay out by his bond; the other 100l. being paid at respondent Katherine's marriage, by appellant's mother, as her portion, and agreed to be allowed as aforesaid. Lords Journ. vol. xviii. p. 269.