Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/503

the respondent his costs in the original cause, so far as related to the setting aside the deeds, together with the costs directed to be paid by the respondent to the other defendants in that cause; and the cross bill, so far as it sought to establish the deeds, and to redeem Dr. Sloper's mortgage, was dismissed with costs.

From this decree the defendants in the original cause appealed (J. Darnall, C. Phipps); because the several assignments of the 500 years term, and the other deeds and writings executed by the respondent, as also the stated account, were decreed to be set aside, as having been obtained by fraud, imposition, and circumvention; whereas it was insisted, that it did not appear by any proofs in the causes, that the appellant Frances, or her late husband, used any fraudulent means whatsoever to obtain the said assignments, or that the respondent was any way imposed upon therein; and as she had denied all such fraud and imposition by her answer, it was conceived, that nothing less than the plain and positive oaths of two witnesses at least, was sufficient to outweigh what she had so sworn; but no such proof had been made: and as to the appellant Dr. Stanhope, it did not appear that he was even privy to the making either of those assignments. That if it had been thought reasonable to set aside the last agreement, so far as not to have permitted the appellant Frances to have had the benefit thereof, as to the £2000 and interest; yet, before such assignment had been set aside, the Master ought to have been directed to inquire whether the Lady Toppe was reimbursed the said £2000 which she advanced for the appellant Frances's fortune, with interest, either out of the personal estate of her late husband, or by the rents of the trust-estate charged therewith; and the 500 years term ought to have stood as a security, for so much of the said £2000 and interest, as should have appeared due on such account: and Dr. Sloper's mortgage ought not, in the mean time, to be assigned to the respondent, upon his payment of what should appear due thereon, as was decreed; but the same ought to have been directed to be assigned, to wait the event of the said account. That as to that part of the last assignment which related to the advowson of the church of Tormarton, the appellant Dr. Stanhope humbly conceived there was no reason to set the same aside, in regard it only gave him the next presentation to that living; which he well deserved for the services that he and his family had rendered to the respondent, who was his uncle, and had no other relation [163] in the church. That there was no provision made by the decree, to indemnify the appellant Frances against the bond, which she had given to Dr. Sloper, for payment of the said £500; nor any direction given for payment of what, on the account, should appear to be due to her; both which, it was apprehended, ought to have been done. As to the agreement made by the respondent for the payment of £240 a-year for his board, &c. there was no proof of his being imposed upon therein, or that any unfair methods were used to obtain the same and as the quality and estate of Mr. Stanhope set him above any such practice, so, if he could have been guilty thereof, it was very improbable that Lady Toppe, who was privy to that agreement, would have stood by and seen her son imposed upon. And as to the unreasonableness of this agreement, declared by the decree, it was conceived that £240 a-year was no unreasonable allowance, considering the respondent's quality; and that Mr. Stanhope was not only to find him and his two servants in diet, washing, and lodging, but was likewise to keep a coach and horses for him. As to the settlement made by the respondent, it did not appear, by any proofs in the cause, that the appellants used any arguments or persuasions to induce him to make the same; or were in any manner instrumental therein, otherwise than that as Dr. Stanhope happened to be in London, he procured a settlement to be drawn, pursuant to the instructions which the respondent sent him for that purpose; and the only witness who said any thing to impeach what was done in respect to that settlement, was one Hicks, an attorney, who was sent for by the respondent or his lady, to make some alterations therein; but what he swore, was so inconsistent and improbable, that it was far from being sufficient to overthrow the settlement, even as it stood; and much less to charge the appellants with having used any fraud or circumvention in procuring the same, especially considering what they had sworn in their answers to the contrary. That there was no reason to set aside the stated account, as there was not the least proof that the respondent was any way imposed upon therein; on the contrary, it was in proof, that the said account, and the