Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/660

respondents to as much expence as possible, hoping by that means to take advantage of their poverty, and thereby prevent them from establishing their just rights. And the appellant for that purpose, on the 17th of February 1769, turned the whole of his long answer to the respondents original bill, into a cross bill against the respondents; and thereby stated the settlement of the 20th of July 1694, and prayed to be decreed to the possession of the estates alledged to have been settled thereby, as the only issue male of Thomas Butler; and notwithstanding the respondents were in a great measure strangers to the title of the family, and that the appellant's case was fully before the court upon the original cause, and that the respondents had put in a very full answer to the cross bill, yet the appellant took exceptions to the said answer, and obliged the respondents to put in a second and a third answer. Issue was at length joined in both causes, and the parties proceeded to the examination of witnesses; and publication of the depositions having passed, and the respondents and appellant having obtained orders to read the pleadings and proofs in the several suits before stated, and also for liberty to prove the several deeds, fines, and recoveries before-mentioned on the hearing, the causes came on to be heard before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, on the 21st of June 1773, and continued at hearing seven days; during which time all the evidence, and the several matters before-stated, were fully discussed; and on the 28th of April 1774, his Lordship declared, that the agreement of the 22d of March 1756, appearing to be a reasonable agreement, and for the peace and benefit of the family, and all parties concerned in it, decreed, that the said agreement should be established and carried into execution; and that the respondent Sarah Elizabeth, the daughter and heir of Richard Butler, who was the eldest son and heir of Francis Butler, who was the second son of Thomas Butler, the father of the appellant, was intitled as such, and under the said deed of the 22d of March 1756, to two-thirds of the lands in question, and that the whole of such lands were to be divided and set out according to the said deed of the 22d of March 1756, subject as in such deed mentioned.—And it was further decreed, that the respondent Sarah Elizabeth was intitled to an account of the rents and profits of the said several estates as follows, (that is to say), of one-third of the rents and profits, from the death of her father Richard, and of one other third thereof from the death of Pierse Butler the idiot, her uncle; and that the appellant should account with her accordingly, and that it should be referred to a Master to take such account.—And that the respondent Sarah Butler, as administratrix of Richard her late husband, was entitled to an account from the appellant of the rents and profits of one-third part of the said estates, from the time of the entry of the appellant to the time of the death of her husband; and that it [394] should be referred to the Master to take such account.—And it was decreed, that the appellant was intitled to the remaining third of the Tipperary estate, and the remaining third of the Kilkenny estate, to be divided and set out to him according to the said deed of the 22d of March 1756, subject as in the said deed.—And it was further ordered and decreed, that a commission should issue to proper commissioners, to divide and set out the said several parts, and thirds of the several parties intitled thereto; and that an injunction should issue to put the respondent Sarah Elizabeth in possession of the said several thirds of the towns and lands thereby decreed to her; and that the parties should severally and respectively execute and perfect all proper and necessary conveyances to each other, of their respective parts of the said estates so to be divided and set out; and that the said Master should settle the same.—And it was further ordered, that the appellant's cross bill, so far as it sought to be decreed to the one-third of the said Pierse Butler, and to set aside the said deed of the 22d of March 1756, should be dismissed; and the consideration of costs, and all further directions, was reserved until after the Master should have made his report; with liberty to apply from time to time as occasion might be.

Since pronouncing this decree, the respondent Sarah Elizabeth Butler intermarried with Robert Bryan, esq. and notwithstanding the respondents used every means in their power to carry the said decree into execution, yet they were not able to effect the same, through the litigious disposition of the appellant; who, on the 26th of November 1779, thought fit to alledge that he was aggrieved by the said decree, and presented his petition of appeal therefrom; but no case appears to have been printed for him, nor did he appear by counsel on the hearing of the appeal.