Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/615

about such repairs, upon the 11th of February 1741, went with Hugh Wilton [327] and Rolleston Humphrys, esqrs. to the appellant, and informed him, that they were come to caution him against laying out any money in repairing the mill, because Lord Kingsland had let the mill and warren to Lord Athunry; and they then shewed him the minute of the lease before-mentioned; and the appellant then said, he believed Mr. Wakely would take the mill and coney-borough if he could; and that he the appellant would also take them if he could: but he then owned, that he knew the respondent Wakely had been treating for the warren and mill for a considerable time past, and that he had consulted him some months before as his friend and neighbour, about taking the same: and the appellant being then asked, if he had obtained any lease thereof, or contract for a lease, he said he had a lease on certain conditions; but being desired to produce it, said he had not a lease, but a letter to Lord Kingsland's agent to draw a lease on certain conditions; and being then desired to produce the letter, he said it was a receipt for a fine; but he had it not there, nor would produce it till a proper time; but he made no pretence of a lease, letter, or receipt, till after he had seen the minutes of the lease to Lord Athunry.

The appellant, notwithstanding this notice, being resolved to get possession and a present lease of the premises, and having seen the date of the minute of the lease to the respondent Lord Athunry, he obtained from William Cogan, (who was then insensible and upon his death-bed, and very soon afterwards died,) a deed, which was called a surrender, or assignment of his interest in the warren and mill to the Lord Kingsland, or the appellant, which surrender appeared to be antedated on the 8th of December 1741, in order to give it a precedence to the minute of the lease to Lord Athunry, and the better to correspond with the agreement, pretended to be absolutely concluded with Lord Kingsland, upon the 4th of December. And being apprehensive, that his verbal treaty with Lord Kingsland would not be a sufficient title against Lord Athunry, the appellant, upon the 19th of February 1741, prevailed on Lord Kingsland to sign a writing, importing an acknowledgment of the receipt of the £61 as a fine, and setting forth the terms of the verbal agreement pretended to have been made upon the 4th of December preceding; but this writing was also antedated so as to bear date on the 5th of December 1741, although actually signed on the 19th of February.

Notwithstanding Lord Kingsland had inadvertently signed this antedated writing, he was so conscious that he had been imposed upon by the appellant, and that he was in justice bound by his agreement with Lord Athunry, that upon the third of March 1741, he executed a lease of the premises approved of by Mr. Daly, pursuant to the minute before given to Lord Athunry, in trust for the respondent Wakely.

The appellant having, upon the death of William Cogan, which happened on the 23d of February 1741, under pretence of the assignment or surrender from him, and the agreement with Lord Kingsland, got into possession of all the premises, (except the house, which James Cogan held under the before-mentioned agreement [328] with his brothers,) and the term granted by the lease to Lord Athunry not commencing till the 1st of May 1745, and the appellant daily committing great waste, both in the warren and mill; the respondent Wakely was advised to apply for letters of administration to Richard Cogan the father, with his will annexed, which had never been granted before, and which, by the consent of his widow and surviving children, were granted accordingly: and the respondent Wakely having thus become entitled to the subsisting leases of the warren and mill, as well as to the reversionary lease thereof before-mentioned, he, in Easter term 1742, brought two ejectments in the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, for the recovery of the possession of the premises; and the appellant having taken upon him the defence of the ejectments, the respondent Wakely obtained a writ of estrepement against the appellant, to prevent his committing further waste on the premises, pending this suit. But before the respondent Wakely could obtain judgment in the ejectments, the appellant, upon the 15th of June 1742, filed his original bill in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, against all the respondents; for an injunction to stay the respondent Wakely's proceedings at law, and for a specific execution of his pretended agreement with Lord Kingsland for a lease of the premises.

The respondent Wakely, upon the 21st of June 1742, put in his answer to this