Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/384

gage only in trust for respondent, that the inheritance and right of redemption was granted to colonel Castle, and that respondent purchased from the colonel's daughter, and that Richard Shee, appellant's grandfather, did, by obligation dated, 8th February, 1666, bind himself to the respondent in 1000l. with condition to be void, if he Richard should yield up the possession of the premises to respondent on the 25th March, 1674, and therefore prayed to be decreed to the possession of the said lands of Lovestown, and an account of the profits since 1674: And that to this bill appellant, 17th May, 1709, put in a plea, and set forth the settlement made in performance of the marriage-articles, the adjudication and certificate of the commissioners, and the patent passed [452] thereupon, and pleaded that he was a purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice of respondents pretended title; and that this plea was argued 3d June, 1709, and over-ruled, and appellant ordered to answer by the essoign day of the then next term; and accordingly appellant answered, and said he believed the said bond was fraudulently contrived, and insisted on the marriage settlement, certificate and patent, the long possession of him and of his ancestors; and upon the respondent's own conveyance executed in April, 1666: and 16th August, 1709, exhibited a cross-bill against the respondent, setting forth his title as before, and the stale and frivolous pretensions of respondent against his own deed, and a quiet possession of 40 years; and therefore prayed that respondent and his confederates might discover where the bond lay all that time, and whether any other writing or agreement had passed between the appellants grandfather and respondent, or his brother Walter Lawless, concerning the lands of Lovestown; and that the appellant's title might be established: And that respondent answered, 28d February, 1709, and confessed, that appellant, his father, and grandfather, had quietly enjoyed for 40 years; and said he remembered no writing or agreement made between the appellant's grandfather and respondent, or his brother Walter, concerning the lands, except the bond and condition; and positively denied the conveyance executed by him in 1666, though it was fully proved in the cause: And that issue being joined in both causes, witnesses were examined on both sides, and appellant made undeniable proof of his title; and respondent attempted to prove the bond, by the single testimony of one Walter Dobbins, who by agreement was to have a third part of the lands in question, besides other gratuities for his evidence; and who afterwards in his last sickness, through remorse of conscience, owned his wickedness, and the great wrong he had done appellant, as had been proved in the cause: And that the respondent finding the pretences made in his original bill too weak, set up another pretence, and 26th June, 1710, exhibited a supplemental-bill against appellant, suggesting that among some papers loosely kept, he found a deed-poll under the hand and seal of appellant's grandfather, dated in October, 1677, reciting that respondent being in February, 1666, lawfully interested in the lands of Lovestown, did put appellant's said grand-father in pos-[453]-session thereof, and consented he should enjoy the same until 25th March, 1674; and that 90l. became due to respondent from said Richard Shee, for the profits received in the mean time, and therefore by that deed said Richard Shee, in consideration of being discharged of the 90l. undertook to obtain certificate and patent of the said lands in trust for respondent: And that appellant, 13th November, 1710, answered the supplemental bill, and insisted that he was a purchaser for valuable consideration, without notice of respondent's pretences, and that respondent had contrived that pretended deed of trust, which was inconsistent with what respondent had sworn in his answer to appellant's cross-bill: And 11th December, 1710, appellant exhibited another cross-bill against respondent and his confederates, for a discovery of this new management and contrivance, and to know how respondent came by that deed, and why he had not mentioned it in his original bill, or in his answer to the first cross-bill, and why he lay still so many years without giving notice, or making a demand, though he lived in appellant's neighbourhood: And that respondent put in an answer to part, and a demurrer to the residue of the last bill; and by his answer confessed, that he had lived all along near the mansion-house of appellant's father, and grand-father, and said he did not forget the deed, or the contents thereof, but always remembered it, and always had it in his custody, but it did not come to his knowledge, among what papers it lay, till his son accidentally found it about a twelve month before; And that the causes came on to be heard 19th February, 1711, and