Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/359

further, that the issues directed were [397] so multifarious, and contained many particular inquiries into facts done many years since, to which appellants were strangers, that it was not possible for them to make out the same: And further, that there did not appear any title in the Crown, whereon to found & decree for a redemption, as against appellants: And finally, that appellants Allibon and Smith were real mortgagees without notice of any fraud or trust between Sir Roger and Robert Strickland, and ought quietly to enjoy under their title, which had already been adjudged good in law in that Court. (J. Pratt. C. Phipps)

On the part of the Attorney General it was stated, that Sir Roger Strickland was by outlawry attainted of high-treason, in October, 1689; and that, in 1690, a commission went out to enquire of his estate; and by an inquisition taken thereupon, it was found that Sir Roger Strickland, at the time of the treason, was seised in fee of the manor of Thornton Brigg, in the County of York, and of the tythes in Helperby, and of twelve farms in Catterick in the said County; and the same were accordingly seised into the hand of the Crown: And that thereupon the agents for Sir Roger put in a plea (in the name of the late Lord Falconbriggs, and others) for the said manor of Thornton Briggs, and of the tythes of Helperby, of a lease for 1000 years, for payment of Sir Roger Strickland's debts; but that deed was on a full trial at bar found fraudulent, and contrived to avoid the forfeiture to the Crown: And that as to the twelve farms, Sir Roger Strickland, by his agents, in the name of Roger Crofts and Roger Woodcock, put in a plea of the remainder of a term, pretended to be granted to one Mary Maddison, to avoid the Crown title; which plea, upon debate, was found to be void in law; and that thereupon another plea was put in to bar the Crown title, in the name of one Dixwell Hungerford, a nominal person, by the agents and servants of Sir Roger Strickland, of the remainder of the said term of 1000 years, granted and conveyed to Hungerford (as was pretended) which being allowed by the Court, the Attorney General preferred the bill; and that issues were decreed as stated by appellants; and this decree it was insisted was just, because the depositions could not by law, be read, being taken in another cause, and wherein the matters in question were not in issue; and that the issues were right, although [398] Robert Strickland would not appear, because the order for leaving process was regular, and agreeable to the rules and constant course of Equity, and a sufficient foundation to carry on the contempts against him; for otherwise, Robert Strickland's keeping in France, would defend Sir Roger Strickland's estate; and insisted that there was great need of a trial at law, the facts being controverted and doubtful; and it was never before objected, that a Court of Equity had done amiss in directing matters of fact to be tryed by a jury; and that the issues contained apt and proper matters, wherein the appellants were concerned; and that by the attainder a good title was vested in the Crown to redeem the premises, if any thing be due to appellants, and that appellants were not hurt in having their principal and interest paid them, if they were honest mortgagees. (Sam. Dodd.)

Die Mercurii, 3 Martii, 1707. After hearing council upon this appeal, it was adjudged by the Lords that it should be dismissed, and the decree complained of affirmed. Lords Journ. vol. xviii. p. 493.

The appellant stated, that the Chapel of Hammersmith in the parish of Fulham, Middlesex, was erected at the charge of cue inhabitants who gave the intire ground, save only a very little piece of the waste of the manor; and that before consecration the vicar of Fulham, and inhabitants of Hammersmith, entered into articles with