Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/613

tion, John Cogan declared and desired notice might be taken, that he did not absolutely give up his right to his brother William; but was still to have his share of the lands and the benefit of the new lease, which William agreed to.

William Cogan accordingly prevailed on Lord Kingsland, in the latter end of the year 1740, or the beginning of 1741, to agree to accept a surrender, and to grant a new lease of the premises, or part thereof, for the term of thirty-one years, at a lower rent, upon payment of £61 (the arrear of rent then due to Lord Kingsland); and on condition, that Peter Daly, esq. his Lordship's father-in-law, who managed his affairs (without whose consent his Lordship never concluded any such agreements) would consent to and approve of such lease: but the Cogans not being in circumstances to pay the fine for the new lease, or to continue under the old one, and Mr. Daly never having approved of any such lease, the agreement was not carried into execution; nor was any new lease ever executed by Lord Kingsland to the Cogans, in pursuance thereof.

The respondent Wakely imagining, that the Cogans would not be able to continue tenants of the premises, had long before November 1741, by the interest of the other respondent Lord Athunry, obtained a promise from Lord Kingsland, that he should have the refusal of a lease thereof, upon the expiration of the Cogans' interest, or whenever they should quit the premises; and in consequence of such promise, was induced to lay out a considerable sum of money in buildings, and other improvements upon his own estate of Carrick Hill, which lay contiguous to it. And in August 1741, John, James, and William Cogan, informed the respondent Wakely, that they were not able to hold the premises, and pay the arrears of rent then due to Lord Kingsland; and therefore proposed to the respondent Wakely, (as they knew the premises lay convenient for him,) to take the new lease, which was conditionally agreed for as aforesaid, and to pay the arrears of rent; and told him, that they believed he might get such lease at a rent of £40 per ann.

The respondent Wakely having this offer made to him by the Cogans, and putting a confidence in the appellant, soon after informed him of this proposal, and of the promise he had before obtained from Lord Kingsland; and asked the appellant's opinion of the value of the warren and mill, and desired him to use his interest with Lord Kingsland, on his the respondent's behalf, to moderate the rent; the respondent Wakely not having the least suspicion, that the appellant intended to apply for a new lease himself.

The appellant, upon such conversation, promised his assistance in applying to Lord Kingsland, but greatly undervalued the warren and mill; and having formed a design to get the new lease to himself, sometime afterwards told the respondent Wakely, that Lord Kingsland had fixed the rent of the new lease at £50 per ann. [325] and the fine at £50, which was a false suggestion, and made only with a design to deter the respondent Wakely from the thoughts of applying further to Lord Kingsland, and to furnish the appellant with a pretence of declaring to Lord Kingsland, as he afterwards did, that the respondent Wakely had no further intentions of taking the lease.

The mill was supplied with water from the tides of the sea, which formed a large pond by dams, that kept in the sea water upon the ebb of the tide, until the return of it and in September or October 1741, the appellant (before he had obtained any promise of a lease from Lord Kingsland) by the permission of the Cogans, who still continued in possession of the warren and mill, made several alterations in the mill-dam, and in the sluices and bridge belonging thereto, with design to try if he could drain eleven or twelve acres of the ancient mill-pond, in order to add the same to his brother Luke Plunket's estate lying contiguous thereto, although the mill-pond had been from time immemorial in the possession of Lord Kingsland's family and the appellant afterwards succeeding in this scheme, used all arts to procure a lease for himself of the mill and warren from Lord Kingsland; and for that purpose assured his Lordship, that the respondent Wakely would not take a lease of the warren and mill at the rent of £45 per ann. and a fine of £61 and that he, the appellant, had obtained the approbation and consent of Peter Daly, esq. to his becoming tenant of the premises. And although both these affirmations were false, yet he thereby prevailed on Lord Kingsland to make him some verbal promise of a lease, for a fine of £61 and at the rent of £45 per ann. in case Peter Daly