Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/544

Earl, it was ordered and adjudged, that the decree complained of should be reversed; and that the said Court of Chancery should direct an issue to be tried at the King's Bench bar, by a jury of the county of Dublin, "Whether James, late Earl of Anglesey, elder brother of the respondent Arthur Earl of Anglesey, was seised in, fee of the lands now called Camolin-park, formerly Knockangarrow, and whether he devised the same;" in which cause Arthur, Lord Altham, Richard Bayley, and Charles Annesly, were to be plaintiffs, and were to take upon them the [222] proof that the said James Earl of Anglesey was seised in fee of the said lands, and did devise the same, and the appellant and Arthur Earl of Anglesey were to be defendants; and the said Court of Chancery were to give all necessary directions about the said trial: and the said Arthur Earl of Anglesey and the appellant, and those who should derive title under them, should be at liberty to make use of the depositions taken in the said cause, on the behalf of the said Arthur Earl of Anglesey, on the said trial; and if the said Arthur Lord Altham, Richard Bayley, and Charles Annesly, should refuse to deliver a declaration, or to proceed to trial, by such time as should be appointed by the Court, the issue should be taken against them pro confesso and it was further ordered, that after such trial bad, or such issue taken pro confesso, the Court of Chancery, should proceed to make such decree as should be just. (Jour. vol. 22. p. 532.)

By articles dated the 29th of December 1713, previous to and in consideration of the marriage of Nathaniel Jackson, deceased, with the respondent then Mary Burrow, widow, the said Nathaniel Jackson, for providing a competent provision and jointure for the respondent, in full recompence and bar of dower, thirds, or other demands whatsoever, which she might have out of his real or personal estate, by the common or statute law, or custom, or otherwise howsoever, (except as therein was excepted or provided,) covenanted and agreed with trustees, that he would within six months after the marriage, settle and assure an estate of inheritance in fee-simple, within forty miles of London, of £300 per ann. free from all incumbrances, to the use of himself for life; remainder to the respondent for her life, for her jointure; with divers remainders over for the issue of that marriage; and afterwards, the reversion to the said Nathaniel Jackson and his heirs. And reciting, that the respondent had three daughters by her late husband Jonathan Burrow, deceased, who had made her executrix of his will, viz. Mary, Rebecca, and Hannah; and that she was possessed of or entitled to some personal estate of her own, which it was thereby agreed, the said Nathaniel Jackson should have no power over, but that the same should remain to the sole and separate use [223] of her and her children; the said Nathaniel Jackson thereby covenanted with the trustees, not to intermeddle therewith, and disclaimed all right thereto. And he also covenanted with the trustees, in case the marriage took effect, to pay the said three children £1000 a-piece, at their respective ages of twenty-one, or marriage; and if