Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/759

and £400 a year to the respondent Knox Ward for life; and after his death, to pay £400 a year to the respondent Elizabeth, until money could be raised out of the surplus of the said premises, for the purchasing of lands of inheritance of £1000 a year; which, when raised, the said Knox Ward covenanted should he laid out in such purchase, by the consent of Knox Ward, if living; if not, of the bankrupt, if living; if not, of Ralph Ward, or the heirs of his body; and in default of such issue, with the consent of the right heirs of Knox Ward: which lands, when purchased, were to be conveyed to Lamborne and Wallis, and their heirs, for 200 years, upon the trusts after-mentioned; and after the determination of that term, to the said Knox Ward and the heirs of his body; and in default of such issue, to the respondent Ralph Ward and the heirs of his body; and for want of such issue, to the right heirs of Knox Ward for ever.

The trust of the 200 years term was for raising £400 a year for the bankrupt during his life, if he, in person, should demand the same; and after his death, to Rebecca, his wife; and the £400 a year to Knox Ward and his wife, with a power to raise £6000 for younger children's portions. And in this deed was a proviso, that in case the residue of the trust estates should raise more money than would purchase £1000 a year, the same should be laid out [540] in a purchase of lands of inheritance, with such consent as aforesaid, to be settled to the use of Knox Ward and the heirs of his body; and in default of such issue, to Ralph Ward and his heirs; and in default of such issue, to the right heirs of Knox Ward.

By another indenture, dated the same 13th of June 1729, between the respondent Knox Ward of the first part. Thomas Nettleton and Elizabeth his daughter of the second part, and James Lamborne and George Wallis of the third part, the said Knox Ward agreed, that the respondents Lamborne and Wallis should stand seised of the manor of Woolverston, as a collateral security for the raising money to purchase the £1000 a year.

The several debts and annuities pretended to be provided for by the said several deeds of trust, were wholly or chiefly fictitious, and not due or payable by or from the bankrupt at the time of the execution of those deeds; nor did the trustees ever act in the said trusts, otherwise than by executing and signing such deeds and accounts as were brought to them ready engrossed by the bankrupt, or the respondent Knox Ward, which were fictitious accounts, and calculated only to give an appearance of a consideration to those deeds.

The respondent Knox Ward was a man of no fortune, but was kept and maintained by his father, and never paid, or was able to pay the considerations mentioned in any of the aforesaid conveyances, from the bankrupt or the trustees to him; which amounted in the whole to upwards of £38,000. Nor were they valuable considerations for the premises comprised in those conveyances; nor did he pay for the purchase of the office of Clarencieux, or the estate purchased of Michael Thompson, but the same were paid for by the bankrupt, or out of the bankrupt's money; nor did the respondent Knox Ward receive the £4000 portion with his wife, as mentioned in the deed of the 13th of June 1729. But all these conveyances and purchases were made merely to defraud the bankrupt's creditors, and with no other intent whatsoever.

Knox Ward having, however, possessed himself of all the deeds, writings, and securities, estates and effects of the bankrupt, by virtue of these fraudulent conveyances and assignments, and insisting to hold the same; the appellants, on the 20th of June 1732, filed their bill in the Court of Chancery, against the respondents and others, to set aside the said deeds, and to have all the deeds, writings, and securities, estates and effects of the bankrupt delivered to them.

To this bill the respondents Knox Ward and his wife put in a plea and answer, and thereby insisted upon the several deeds before-mentioned, and upon their title to the premises in pursuance thereof; which plea, on being argued, was ordered to stand for an answer, with liberty for the appellants to except, and the benefit thereof was reserved till the hearing of the cause. And after exceptions taken, the said respondents put in two other answers; and thereby insited that the said John Ward was no bankrupt, nor had committed any act of bankruptcy.

[541] The cause being at issue, and several witnesses examined on both sides, came on to be heard before the Lord Chancellor Talbot, on the 4th of December 1736.