Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/472

the advowson of the rectory and parish church of Husband's Bosworth, in the county of Leicester, whereof Edward Colquit, clerk, was then incumbent, employed the respondent Thomas Holled, an attorney at law in that neighbourhood, to sell the same to the best advantage, which he undertook to do; but instead thereof formed a design of secreting the true value thereof, and of purchasing the same for himself at an under-value; and by letter of the 2d of July 1763, acquainted Mr. Smith that he had but one friend who bid for it, that he offered 500l. and no more; and that in all probability he, Smith, could not get a better price for it, although the rectory was at that time worth to be sold, subject to the life of the then incumbent, for 2000l. or more, in the uninclosed state of the lordship; and would be worth double that sum in case an inclosure should take place, which was then intended by the proprietors of the lands there, and an attorney at law was actually employed by them, to solicit an act of Parliament for that purpose, and to apply to Mr. Smith for his consent, yet the respondent Thomas Holled prevailed on such attorney to postpone that application for a fortnight or three weeks; and Mr. Smith living at a great distance from the rectory, and being unacquainted with the value thereof, as well as with the intended inclosure, and in very distressed circumstances, and out upon bail on an arrest for a just debt of 300l. the respondent Thomas Holled took advantage thereof, and renewed his assurances, that the advowson was worth no more than 5001. or 500 guineas, and thereby prevailed on him to execute conveyances, by lease and [118] release, dated the 7th and 8th of February 1764, of the advowson, to the said Thomas Holled and his heirs, for the consideration of 525l. notwithstanding Holled could not but have been informed before that time, that the advowson, though the lordship had continued uninclosed, was of the value of 2000l. or more; and besides, must before the conveyances were executed, or the advowson contracted for by him, have known that an inclosure of the lordship was then agreed upon, and the terms thereof absolutely settled between the proprietors and the incumbent; and that all or almost all the proprietors had before that time signed a petition to the House of Commons, for leave to bring in a bill for inclosing the said lordship, and such petition was, on the 24th of January preceding the execution of the said conveyances, presented to the House of Commons, and a bill then ordered to be brought into that House pursuant to such petition; and that there then was not any prospect of the least opposition to such bill, and in fact there was none; for the same soon afterwards passed both Houses of Parliament, and received the royal assent, on the 19th of April following, and thereby the advowson, subject to the incumbent's life in the rectory, became of the value of 4000l.

The respondent Smith, having discovered that he had been greatly deceived and imposed upon by the respondent Thomas Holled, did, in Hilary term 1765, exhibit his bill in Chancery against him, stating the several facts above-mentioned, and praying, that the said conveyances might be set aside for fraud, and that the rectory might be reconveyed to him: To which bill the respondent Thomas Holled put in his answer, and thereby insisted on the validity of his purchase.

In October 1765, the incumbent died; and thereupon Smith did, by writing signed by him, duly present the appellant to the said church, who attended the respondent the Lord Bishop of Lincoln, (the diocesan) with the said presentation, and prayed admission, institution, and induction thereon; but Holled soon afterwards presenting his brother, the respondent Knightley Holled, to the said rectory, and several writs of quare impedit and ne admittas being served on his Lordship by the several claimants, he refused to admit either of the presentees.

The respondent Smith afterwards amended his original, and filed a supplemental bill, and made the said Knightley Holled and the Bishop parties thereto; and the respondents Thomas and Knightley Holled afterwards filed a cross bill against the respondent Smith and others; to which several bills, answers were afterwards put in by the several defendants thereto, and the said causes were brought to issue, and witnesses examined on both sides, and publication of the depositions taken in town passed in the original cause, which was set down to be heard before the Lord Chancellor; and there being sufficient proof therein that the respondent's purchase was fraudulent, the appellant hoped to have had the benefit of his presentation; but false representations of the depositions in the original