Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/473

cause having been made to the respondent Smith, and he being thereby intimidated from proceeding in [119] that cause, Thomas Holled took advantage thereof, and thereby, and by other fraudulent practices, again imposed and prevailed on him to execute an indenture, dated the 12th of December 1769; whereby, after reciting, that divers proceedings had been had in the said causes, and that by the advice of friends the said Thomas Smith had, for settling all disputes, agreed that he should discontinue his action of quare impedit, and dismiss his bill in Chancery, and do such other acts as should be necessary for establishing the said Thomas Holled's title; and in consideration whereof, the said Thomas Holled had agreed to dismiss his said cross bill, and immediately to pay Smith 10501. and also his costs, both at law and in equity, together with the costs of the appellant; the respondent Smith did, in consideration of 1050l. paid by the said Thomas Holled, grant, bargain, sell, and confirm to him, his heirs and assigns, the said advowson, together with the glebe lands, tenements, tithes, oblations, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, and the rents, issues, and profits thereof: Which said indenture (except as to the consideration money, for which a blank was left) had been previously prepared by Thomas Holled, or his agent in all his law affairs, without the privity of the respondent Smith; and upon or immediately after the execution thereof, the respondent Smith signed a letter to the Bishop of Lincoln in the words following, viz.

My Lord,

Whereas all suits at law and in equity are now ended between me and Thomas Holled, touching the advowson of the church and rectory of Boresworth, otherwise Husband's Bosworth in the county of Leicester; and as I have by a certain indenture of bargain and sale and confirmation, bearing even date herewith, duly executed and acknowledged by me, in order to be inrolled in the High Court of Chancery, confirmed the title of the said Thomas Holled and his heirs, of, in, and to the said advowson and rectory; now I do hereby, as far as in me lies, recall and make void my presentation of the Reverend Samuel Rogers, clerk, to the same, and I do further therefore hereby humbly request your Lordship, to deliver up the said presentation by me given to the said Samuel Rogers, to the said Thomas Holled, his solicitor or agent, to the intent, that the same may be destroyed, and to accept, instead of the said Samuel Rogers, the Reverend Knightley Holled, (now Doctor of Divinity,) and to institute or cause him to be instituted and inducted to the church and rectory in question forthwith, all proceedings in the quare impedit by me brought against your Lordship being by my consent and approbation discontinued.

Upon the execution of the indenture of bargain and sale, and the said letter to the Bishop, the respondent Holled paid Mr. Smith 630l. and gave him a note or other security for 420l. in discharge of the 1050l. the consideration money in the indenture mentioned. But a suit was afterwards instituted in the Court of Chancery, between the said Thomas Smith and Thomas and Knight-[120]-ley Holled for setting aside the said indenture of bargain and sale for fraud and imposition.

In Hilary term 1770, the appellant filed his bill in the Court of Chancery against the respondents, stating the several facts before mentioned, and praying, that the said conveyances might be set aside for fraud, and that the appellant might have the benefit of his presentation to the said rectory, and be instituted and inducted into the same, and that the money in the hands of the sequestrators of the rectory might be paid to him.

The respondents Thomas and Knightley Holled put in their answers to this bill, and the respondent Thomas Holled thereby admitted, that he was employed as attorney and agent for the respondent Smith, to inquire into the value of, and to sell the said advowson; but alledged, that he had done so, and could get no more than 500l. for the same, and insisted on his purchase thereof, at the sum of 525l. and also on the second conveyance, for the further sum of 1000 guineas and costs. And the respondent Knightley Holled, by his answer, claimed to be entitled to institution and induction into the rectory, as well by virtue of the original presentation by the respondent Thomas Holled, as of the above-mentioned requisition of the 12th of December 1769.

The respondent Smith also put in his answer to the appellant's bill, admitting