Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/593

After the execution of these articles, the appellant entered into a treaty with Mr. Francis Annesley, for the sale of an undivided moiety of an estate in Oxfordshire; the other moiety whereof, was devised to Mr. Annesley himself, by Earl Arthur; and Mr. Annesley insisted, that unless the respondent joined in the convey-[294]-ances, he would not purchase the same: accordingly, in execution of these articles, the respondent joined in the fines, recoveries, and conveyances, which were levied and suffered of this estate; and also levied fines and suffered recoveries of all other the estates in England and Wales, and executed proper deeds, declaring such, fines and recoveries to be to the use of the appellant and his heirs; and at the same time many of the tenants, both in England and Wales, who had attorned to the respondent, did, at his request, attorn tenants to the appellant, by which the appellant obtained the quiet possession of the estate in England and Wales. And the respondent, in further performance of the articles on his part, caused several suits in replevin to be dropped, and also desisted from prosecuting the cause in equity; in consequence of which, the appellant soon after cut down part of the most valuable timber in the park of Camolin, to the value of £1500 at least, which he could not have done had the respondent opposed it, as he was restrained by the order of the Court of Chancery before mentioned; but the respondent did not oppose his cutting down the timber, being willing in every thing to perform the articles on his part, and not doubting but the appellant would do the same when desired.

Thus the respondent did all that was to have been done on his part, and though the appellant had got all that was desired by him, yet he refused to perform the articles, and would neither execute deeds pursuant thereto, or suffer the respondent to receive any part of the rents of the estate.

Wherefore the respondent, on the 20th of February 1737, exhibited his bill in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, against the appellant, to have the said articles specifically executed; but before the appellant put in his answer, many applications were made to the respondent, by persons employed by the appellant, to prevail on him to come to an accommodation with the appellant, rather than to be at the expence and trouble of a tedious law-suit; and, by repeated solicitations, the respondent at length was prevailed on to meet the appellant, in order to try whether their disputes could be amicably determined: and accordingly, they had a meeting at a tavern in Dublin, on the 18th of May 1738, with friends on both sides; at which meeting several matters were talked of and proposed; but Mr. Edmund Shanley, the respondent's agent, declared that nothing was intended finally to be concluded, and hoped that nothing then said or done should be conclusive, for that the end and design of that meeting, was only to propose means for an accommodation; to which declaration, the appellant and his friends agreed; and it was understood, on both sides, that nothing then said or done should be in any sort binding on either party. It was, however, after much conversation, proposed that three of the company should withdraw into another room, and consider of some terms which were to be the subject matter of future consideration; and they accordingly did so, and in a short time returned, and brought in a paper in the words following:

Charles Annesley, Esq. is to have [295] £1000 per ann. in fee, clear of incumbrances; another £1000 per ann. is to go to my Lord Anglesey for life; remainder to his first and every other son in tail male; remainder to Charles Annesley for life; remainder to his first and every other son in tail male; remainder to the right heirs of the Lord Anglesey; all the rest of the Anglesey estate to go to my Lord Anglesey in fee: and the article perfected in England to be cancelled, when deeds are perfected pursuant to this agreement, and fines and recoveries levied and suffered to establish those deeds. May the 18th 1738.

But this paper was not signed by either party.

When this proposal was brought in, the appellant seemed to be very angry that he was thereby to be made tenant for life only; and he arraigned the friendship of the persons who made the proposal, as containing terms too much in favour of the respondent; but at length he asked the respondent whether he would agree to it, and desired the respondent to sign the said writing, which the respondent expressly refused to do, intending to consult his friends, and further to consider of it before he made it conclusive: upon which the appellant called for a Bible, and asked the respondent to swear that he would abide by the terms proposed, which the respondent also refused to do; notwithstanding which, Caesar Colclough and John Stratford, two of the appellant's friends, thought proper to sign the said writing as