Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/531

in Dublin; but the Court ordered the issues to be tried at Dundalk, in the county of Louth, at the next assizes, which were to be held on the 28th of the same month; so that twelve days only wore allowed to prepare for a trial of such consequence.

The issues were accordingly tried, and the jury found the contract for renewal to be the Lord Powerscourt's act and deed, on the evidence of mean persons, who swore only to similitude of hands; but that Richardson had no notice at or before the taking of his lease.

On the 25th of June 1716, Lord Powerscourt moved for a new trial; and some affidavits were read, to shew there was great rea-[203]-son to believe, that the said deed of the 17th of November 1696 was forged; but the Court refused to grant a new trial.

On the 28th, 29th, and 31st of January 1717, the cause was heard on the equity reserved; when the Court took time to consider of the matter, until the 3d of February following; but in the mean time Lord Powerscourt died without issue, on the 2d of February at night; upon whose death the premises came to the appellant, as heir male of the said Lewis Wingfield. However, on the said 3d of February, the Court decreed, that the Lord Powerscourt should perfect a lease to the respondent, pursuant to the contract: but as to the said Thomas Richardson, it was ordered that the bill should be dismissed, and the injunction dissolved; and this decretal order was accordingly drawn up and passed, as of the 3d day of February 1717.

The respondent, on the 5th of June 1718, exhibited a bill of revivor against the appellant, as heir at law of the said Lord Powerscourt; setting forth the former proceedings, and praying, that the said suit, so abated, and all the orders and proceedings had therein, might stand revived against the appellant.

To this bill the appellant put in an answer and plea; stating, by his answer, that Lord Powerscourt died the day before the decree was pronounced; and, as to that part of the bill which prayed that the cause might be revived against him, he pleaded the said indenture of the 28th of April 1662, and the fine levied thereon; and that by virtue thereof, the appellant, upon the death of Lord Powerscourt, without issue, became seised of the premises, as a remainder-man in tail, and not as heir at law to Lord Powerscourt.

On arguing this plea, on the 26th of June 1718, the Lord Chancellor ordered the same to be over-ruled, and that the cause should stand revived against the appellant; which order was afterwards, on the 24th of November following, affirmed by the then Commissioners for hearing and determining causes in the absence of the Lord Chancellor.

In Easter term 1718, the said Thomas Richardson brought an ejectment in the King's Bench in Ireland for the said lands, and obtained a verdict and judgment against the respondent: and the respondent having brought a writ of error in the King's Bench at Westminster, the said judgment was there affirmed.

The respondent having dismissed his said bill of revivor, he, on the 17th of July 1719, brought an original bill against the appellant and the said Richardson, setting forth the proceedings in the former cause, and that he was advised he could not proceed on the said bill of revivor, in regard the appellant claimed under a settlement, and not as heir by descent; and further setting forth, that the lease made to Mr. Richardson was in trust for the appellant; and therefore praying, that he might have the full benefit of all the proceedings had in the cause against the late Lord Powerscourt in his life-time, and might be at liberty to make use of the pleadings, depositions, and other proceedings therein; and might also have the benefit of the said decree, and an account [204] of the value of the lands, and of Lord Powerscourt's personal estate.

To this new bill the appellant put in an answer and plea, to the same effect as his answer and plea to the bill of revivor, save only, that by this answer the appellant admitted he had sufficient assets of Lord Powerscourt in his hands. On the 24th of November 1719, this plea came on to be argued; when it was ordered, that the same should stand for an answer; and that the benefit thereof should be reserved to the hearing of the cause.

The cause being at issue, witnesses were examined on both sides; and, by the concurring testimony of several witnesses, as well as from many strong circumstances in the cause, there was great reason to suspect the reality of the alledged