Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/594

witnesses; and the next day Matthias Reilly, one of the appellant's agents, went with Mr. Shanley to the several tenants of the Dublin estate, and persuaded them to sign an instrument, purporting to be an attornment; but as soon as the respondent came to the knowledge of what had been done, he directed Mr. Shanley to restore the possession to Reilly, which he instantly did, and in his presence delivered the money received by the tenants for their attornment, and cancelled the instrument so signed by them.

The last-mentioned proposal or treaty for an accommodation being thus ended, the appellant, on the 15th of August 1738, put in his answer, and thereby insisted, that the said articles of the 16th of June 1737, were obtained and entered into by fraud, surprise, and misrepresentation, when he was ignorant of his title; and that he and the respondent had come to a subsequent agreement, which was reduced into writing, and which he set forth in his answer, and declared he was willing to perform; and therefore insisted, that the first agreement was waived, and ought not to be carried into execution.

To this answer the respondent put in a special replication, stating, that the pretended second agreement was only a treaty for an accommodation, that it was not reduced into writing by his direction, or with his consent, and that it was not signed by either of the parties, and was therefore void.

On the 19th of March 1738, the appellant exhibited his cross bill, alledging, as he had done in his answer to the respondent's bill, that the agreement of the 16th of June 1737, was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, and surprise, and whilst he was igno-[296]-rant of his title; and that the appellant had come to a second agreement, as before-mentioned; and therefore prayed, that the first agreement might be set aside, and that the second might be established.

To this bill the respondent put in his answer, denying any fraud, surprise, or misrepresentation; and insisted, that he was not bound by the second supposed agreement, for the reasons contained in his replication.

Both causes being at issue, witnesses were examined, and publication having passed, they came on to be heard before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, on the 28th of February 1740, when his Lordship was pleased to decree a specific execution of the articles, bearing date the 16th of June 1737, so far as the same had not been already carried into execution; and that accordingly, the appellant should convey to the respondent and his heirs, lands of the clear yearly value of £200, part of the estate which Arthur, late Earl of Anglesey, died seised or possessed of in Ireland, free from all incumbrances, and should account with the respondent, before the Master, for the said £200 yearly, from the date of the said articles, upon which account all just allowances were to be made; and the respondent was to convey to the appellant and his heirs, all his right and title to the park and lands, with the wood and timber trees standing and growing thereon, of Knockengarrow, otherwise Knockgrenan, near Camolin, in the county of Wexford, and the mansion house and keeper's lodge, with their appurtenances thereto belonging; and that a partition should be made between the appellant and respondent, of the residue of the estate whereof the said Earl Arthur died seised in Ireland, according to the said articles, viz. one third part thereof to the respondent, and the other two third parts to the appellant; and that a commission should issue to set out, according to quantity and quality, one third part of the said residue to be conveyed to the respondent by the appellant, under the several limitations, remainders, powers, charges, and incumbrances mentioned in the said articles; and the other two thirds of the residue of the said estate so set out, to be conveyed by the respondent to the appellant, under the several limitations, remainders, powers, charges, and incumbrances also mentioned in the said articles. And until such partition could be made, injunctions were awarded, to put the respondent into, and from time to time to quiet him in the peaceable possession of one third part of the said residue, and the appellant was to account with him before the Master, for one third part of the issues and profits of the said residue, from the date of the said articles; upon which account all just allowances were to be made; and the respondent was declared to be entitled to cut down, fell, and dispose of one half of the wood and timber trees which were standing and growing on the 16th of June 1737, being the date of the said articles, upon any part of the said estate, whereof the said Earl Arthur died seised or possessed in Ireland, except the woods and timber trees in the said park