Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/618

interest or concern in the premises. And though as a gentleman of the bar, and Lady Kingsland's father, his Lordship might pay him the compliment of taking his advice in the way of his profession, to settle his leases and see that they were properly drawn, with all the legal and usual restrictions; yet it could never be conceived, that he would tie himself up not to grant leases to any persons, or upon any terms, but such as Mr. Daly should approve of; for this would be to throw the whole power over the estate, into Mr. Daly's hands. But nothing of this kind was shewn with regard to other parts of his Lordship's estate, and therefore it was the more improbable to have been first and solely introduced into this particular lease; especially when it was considered, that this agreement with the appellant was only a sort of transfer of the agreement which had been some time before made with William Cogan; and it was not pretended, that Mr. Daly's approbation was any part of the agreement with Cogan; nor could it be imagined, that Lord Kingsland would have received, or the appellant have paid the fine, if the agreement had been controulable, or liable to be varied or defeated, by the arbitrary will of a third person, who knew nothing of the matter, either with respect to the value of the estate, or whether the terms were reasonable or unreasonable. But if Mr. Daly's consent was, in fact, necessary, it appeared, by the proofs in the cause, that he approved of the agreement with the appellant, saying, he would always prefer a responsible tenant, who would pay most; and that things were too far gone for Lord Athunry or Mr. Wakely to expect a lease: and as there was not, nor had the respondents suggested any reasonable objection against Mr. Daly's giving his consent, if it was necessary; and as Lord Kingsland was desirous that the appellant should have the lease, it was but equity to compel him to grant it, if he refused.

And as to Lord Athunry and Mr. Wakely having notice of the appellant's agreement before the 1st of January 1741, when the minute was made to Lord Athunry, in trust for Wakely; his Lord-[332]-ship had, by his answer, expressly admitted, that upon his first application for a lease in favour of Mr. Wakely, Lord Kingsland informed him, he had promised to let the premises to the appellant; and by two of Lord Athunry's letters to Lord Kingsland, which were proved in the cause, particularly the 1st of the 8th of December, which was within four days after the appellant's agreement, and long before the 1st of January 1741, it appeared, that Lord Athunry was not only apprised of that agreement, but was endeavouring to get over it, and to gain a preference for the respondent Wakely. That it was admitted by Mr. Wakely, in his answer, that he had heard the appellant was applying for a lease for himself, and thereupon desired Lord Athunry to remind Lord Kingsland of his promise of a lease to him; that it was the report of the neighbours, that the appellant had taken the premises; and that he was in possession thereof from the 1st of November. It was also proved, that the respondent had notice in December 1741 of such the appellant's possession, and of his improvements; that he lived within a quarter of a mile of the premises, and daily walked or rode by the same, while the appellant was repairing. But it was insisted, that in this case, the question whether the respondent Wakely had notice or not, was wholly immaterial; for it was admitted throughout, that he never was in possession, and consequently could have been at no expence in improvements; and as to the fine, that was ready to be repaid him; so that he could sustain no injury by the appellant's having the lease, and therefore notice to him, in a case so circumstanced, was altogether unnecessary. Upon the whole, as the appellant's was an equitable agreement, and carried into execution before the subsequent minute of January 1741; as the setting this minute aside could be of no prejudice to the respondents, whereas the appellant would be very sensibly injured if his agreement should be set aside, as the whole tenor of the respondents' behaviour and proceedings appeared to have been one continued scene of fraud and imposition; and that they took improper advantages of the credulity and confidence of Lord Kingsland, in the assurances which they gave him of the appellant's being willing to relinquish his agreement; and as they were now endeavouring to impose a tenant on Lord Kingsland, contrary to his inclinations, and in no respect, either as to rent, fine, or solvency, preferable to the appellant; it was hoped, that the order appealed from would be reversed, the lease obtained by Lord Athunry set aside, and a lease of the premises decreed to the appellant, pursuant to his agreement.