Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/621

to restrain the respondent from letting, setting, or disposing of the said premises to any other person, under a penalty of £10 to be recovered as rent in arrear.

The appellant afterwards discovered, that it would be for his convenience that a square acre of ground on the side of the river Bann, part of the premises agreed to be demised to, and then in the occupation of the respondent, or his under-tenant, should be excluded from the said lease, for the purpose of making a bleach yard for the appellant's other tenants; and, that a liberty should be reserved for the appellant to dig marle on the bog or moss de-[336]-mised to the respondent, and an indorsement on the lease to that effect was made by the appellant's direction.

The respondent was sent for to the appellant's house, and the lease, with the indorsement thereon, was read over to him, when he objected to the clause of restriction in the lease, because no such restriction was mentioned at the time the agreement was made, and was inserted only in some of the leases granted by the appellant to his other tenants; and because such restriction was in a particular manner injurious to the respondent, who had then let the premises, or part thereof, to under-tenants, and did not propose to reside on and occupy the same during the minority of his sons; and the respondent also objected to the indorsement on the lease, because the excluding an acre of the lands on the banks or side of the river Bann, would entirely disappoint the intention of taking the lease of the said lands for the purpose of bleaching; and also because the liberty or privilege of digging marle, would be totally destructive of all benefit from the bog or moss, which then afforded a bare sufficiency of firing for the use of the occupiers of the premises.

At this meeting the substance of the indorsement on the lease was seemingly waived; and no difficulty, doubt, or dispute subsisted between the appellant and the respondent concerning the clauses, covenants, and conditions, or the rent, parcels, or privileges, to be demised and granted to the respondent by the lease, except with respect to the before-mentioned clause of restriction from alienation, which clause the appellant represented as contained in all his other leases, except one to John Waite; and the appellant peremptorily insisting that such restriction should remain in the lease, and the respondent refusing to accept the same, the appellant thereupon tore, cancelled, and destroyed the lease, with the indorsement thereon, and declared, that the respondent should never get a lease from him.

The respondent therefore, in December 1746, exhibited his original bill in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, against the appellant, stating the several matters aforesaid, and praying a specific execution of the said agreement.

The appellant by his answer, admitted all the material facts charged in the bill; but said, that the restrictive clause objected to, was inserted in all the leases granted to his other tenants, except one John Waite.

The respondent well knowing that the appellant had granted leases to other tenants besides Waite, without such restrictive covenant, and being informed, that the appellant was using his utmost influence and endeavours to take up all the leases from his tenants in which no such restrictive covenants were inserted, and in lieu thereof, to grant new leases containing such covenants, in order to disappoint the respondent in his suit, and prevent his having a lease, and the benefit of his improvements; he therefore filed an amended bill against the appellant, charging that no such restrictive clause or covenant ought to be inserted in the lease; and that at the time the original agreement was made, the appel-[337]-lant was informed that the respondent did not intend to reside on the lands; and that the respondent had found out and discovered that the appellant had granted a lease, dated 25th of July 1744, to one David Hunter, of part of the town land of Ballynaghy, with the moss or bog in the town land of Breagh, for three lives; and that no covenant was therein contained for residing on the premises, or against alienation; and by this bill, the respondent prayed a production of the counterpart of the appellant's lease to David Hunter, and a discovery of the number of other leases granted by the appellant without the restrictive covenant before-mentioned, and a discovery of such counterparts of leases as were in his custody or power at the time of putting in his former answer.

The appellant, by his first answer to the amended bill, admitted that he knew the respondent did not intend to reside on the premises agreed to be demised to