Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/510

paid, viz. £160 to Sir Richard Holford, though no more than £120 was paid him, and £30 paid in London, though no more than £20 was actually paid, and £10 more was promised to be made good. After the execution of these articles, the respondent Mary and Mr. Knight her trustee, signified their consent thereto, and that they and the respondent Francis were ready to perforin the same; but the appellant did not pay the said £200 till June 1703, and then took a note from Mr. Scroop, whereby he agreed, that it should remain in his hands till the conveyances were executed; and in case they were not perfected within six months, that the money should be repaid; although within two or three years afterwards, all the money, except £40, was, by the appellant's consent, at several times, paid by Mr. Scroop to the respondent's wife, to supply her necessities.

The appellant, not taking any other step towards performing the articles, although the title deeds were in his own custody, and application was, from time to time, made to him for that purpose, and the circumstances of the respondent Francis being thereby rendered desperate; he, in May 1704, rashly made an attempt on the appellant's life, by stabbing him in St. Andrew's church; for which he was fined and imprisoned till the year 1713; but during all the time of his imprisonment, the appellant never made any application to have the conveyances perfected, but contented himself with the quiet enjoyment of the estate.

At length, in the year 1713, the appellant, on terms of the respondent's obliging himself by a bond in the penalty of £500 to depart the kingdom of Ireland, and never to return, consented to his enlargement from prison; but never said any thing about proceeding in his purchase, as thinking when he had got the respondent out of the kingdom, he should rest at quiet in the possession of his estate under the title he then had. And although applica-[173]-tion was afterwards made to the appellant to proceed in his purchase, he refused the same, and declared he owed the respondent no money, and would pay no more for him.

The respondent Francis, looking upon this conduct as a waiver of the articles, did, in the name of himself and his wife, and in her right, in January 1716, exhibit a bill in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, against the appellant and Sir Richard Holford, and others, for an account of the sixth part of the rents and profits of the premises, and that the articles might be set aside; or, if the Court should be of opinion, to establish the articles, that the appellant might be obliged to perform the same, and pay his purchase-money with interest.

To this bill the appellant answered, and pleaded the respondents outlawry, at the suit of Holford; and denied that he came into possession under the articles, or under the respondents title, but under the custodiam, though Holford had no custodiam of the Wexford estate. But this plea being overruled, the appellant answered again; and also exhibited a cross bill, to have a specific performance of the articles.

On the 1st of June 1720, the causes were heard, when the Lord Chancellor took time to consider of the matter; and having afterwards ordered the causes to be further heard, they were accordingly heard by his Lordship, assisted by the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and two of the Judges of the Common Pleas, on the 18th and 28th of June, the 18th of July, and the 10th of November 1720; when his Lordship, with the concurrent opinion of the Judges, ordered and decreed, that the appellant should account before a Master for what he did receive, or, without his own wilful default, might have received, out of the respondents sixth part of the Meath estate, from the 1st of November 1702, but not before; the mesne profits of that estate, from the death of William Ridges, jun. to All Saints 1702, being released and discharged by the articles; and that the Master should ascertain what was due from the respondent to Holford; and that the appellant, in the said account, should have credit for such part thereof as he paid Holford, over and above the £160 and the £20 by the articles agreed to be paid, so as the respondent should be eased in those sums: but if, upon the account it should appear, that the appellant had paid Holford more money than was due to him, the appellant was to have no credit for such over payments, but was left to recover the same against Holford, as he could; such payments being voluntary, and without the consent of the respondents, and not compulsory on the part of the appellant; Sir Richard Holford being never put into the possession of the respondents estate by the