Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/386

again rested in the crown: And that Richard Shee, appellant's grandfather, who was council for respondent and Walter, and had full knowledge of their just title, in 1666, pretended that a debt of 100l. was due to him from Thomas Denn, respondent's uncle, and that he had promised to secure it on Lovestown; and that said Patrick Denn, and Thomas his son, had, in 1652, conveyed their equity of redemption to him, although they had forfeited in 1641; and notwithstanding Shee well knew of respondent's prior mortgage, yet he threatened that he could create a forfeiture of the whole estate of the family, unless respondent would permit him to hold Lovestown until Lady-day, 1674, in satisfaction of his pretended debt of 100l. and that respondent, for quietness sake, submitted, and put him into possession accordingly: And the said Richard Shee, the 8th of February, 1666, executed a bond of [456] 1000l. penalty, conditioned, to restore the possession to respondent on the 25th of March, 1674: And that Shee accordingly enjoyed Lovestown, not only to the 25th of March, 1674, but under the same trust held over for 3 years longer; and the premises being then 30l. per ann. these 3 years value amounted to 90l. which respondent frequently demanded; but Shee threatened to discover not only the defect of respondent's title to Lovestown, but to subject the rest of the family estate to a forfeiture, in case respondent should persist in his demands: And that thereupon respondent and Shee came to a second agreement, by which the respondent remitted the 90l. and in consideration thereof, Shee executed a declaration of trust, dated September 3d, 1677, reciting the condition of the former bond, and agreed that he, at his own expence, would discover the forfeiture of the equity of redemption of the premises to the commissioners, and take out a certificate, as first discoveror, and pass patent in his own name, but in trust for respondent; and would immediately thereupon put the respondent in possession thereof, pursuant to the deed of trust: And that Shee continued in possession; and in 1679, past patent to him and his heirs, subject to the trust, though not expressed in the patent: And that whilst this matter was in agitation, the bond and deed of trust, with other deeds and papers, were mislayed, and not to be found by respondent; and that Shee being well apprised thereof, very unjustly set up an absolute title in himself under the patent: And that respondent frequently demanded the possession from Shee, who refused to deliver it, though, in 1687, some short time before his death, he publicly confessed that he had executed such bond and deed of trust to respondent; but still threatened, that if respondent gave him any trouble, he would discover, and subject the rest of the family estate to a forfeiture: But he soon after died, and his eldest son Marcus entered, and with-held Lovestown from respondent; and the troubles in Ireland happening, Marcus soon after died; and appellant, as his eldest son and heir, entered and with-hold Lovestown from the respondent, who continually claimed it, though his said bond and deed of trust, with other papers, were unfortunately mislaid; but that the bond being found some years since, the respondent again demanded his estate, and an account of the profits from appellant; and in [457] November, 1707, preferred his bill in the Exchequer in Ireland, as stated by appellant: And that appellant pleaded first an outlawry for debt, and that being reversed, appellant then pleaded a pretended release from respondent and his brother Walter, to Richard Shee, appellant's grand-father, and several other matters, which were over-ruled. Whereupon the appellant answered, and insisted on the conveyance from the Denn's in 1652, and the pretended release in April, 1666, which (if any such there was) respondent said he was prevailed upon by appellant's grandfather to execute, in order to facilitate the passing the intended grant in trust for respondent, that respondent's title might not obstruct the passing it: And respondent insisted that the marriage settlements relied on by appellant were voluntary, being executed after the marriage, and the lands of Lovestown not mentioned in any of the articles before the marriages; and respondent shewed the proceeding stated by appellant, and that the Court took time to consider from the 20th May to the 18th of July, 1712, and then unanimously decreed the premises to respondent, and an injunction to put him in possession thereof, and that appellant should account for the profits, from the 3d of September, 1677: And respondent stated, that immediately thereupon several popish persons, by appellant's directions, were sent post to respondent's house in the