Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/789

him to make the said will in Packington's favour; and that he hoped it would then serve to procure bread for his boys, and that he had suppressed the said will in favour of Mary Edgworth. The appellant further said, that Robert his father had made several wills, and had informed the appellant thereof on their being reconciled; and that some of them were subsequent to the will set up by Packington. He insisted, that Mary Edgworth, his sister, was no party to Packington's former suit, or to the said decree; and that therefore her right under the said will of the 24th of September, or codicil of the 4th of November, could not be bound by such decree; that the said Mary and Robert Gifford were dead without issue; that Packington had but a bare use for life under the codicil; and that he held the said manor and lands under that title, and an agreement or composition with Mary, and could have no title under the decree against her, or any person deriving under the subsequent will, which not being in issue in that cause, could not be affected by the decree; and that the appellant was the eldest son of Robert, and eldest brother of Packington and Mary, and heir at law to them all. The appellant admitted, that he took possession of the manor on the 13th of July 1759, and was opposed by no one; but denied that he appeared in a hostile manner, or otherwise armed than as usual in travelling; and insisted that there were but four servants, who were weak and old, and one gentleman, an acquaintance, who hap-[32]-pened to have business in that country, with him and his sons, and that none of them had any kind of arms; and positively denied all manner of force: he said, that Tyrrell freely surrendered the office of seneschal, and that Newcomen was thereupon appointed in his room, and held a court; and that the tenants of the manor thereupon attorned and swore fealty to the appellant as lord; and that the appellant did not believe that Mary Moore, the respondent's mother, was ever married to or the wife of Packington, or was ever treated by him as his wife.

By this answer the appellant further insisted, that by a statute made in Ireland 19th Geo. II. to prevent Protestants intermarrying with Papists, it was enacted, that all marriages between Protestant and Papist, and between Protestant and Protestant, if celebrated by a Popish priest, after the 1st of May 1746, should be deemed null and void, without any judgment, citation, sentence, or process of law whatsoever; that the said Mary Moore was born of Popish parents, bred a Papist, and all along continued so; and that in the year 1747 Packington offered to enter into a treaty of marriage with the daughter of one James Tyrrell, but had been refused; and that he was never married to Mary Moore in any shape, but in order to save appearances, and give a kind of colour to Mary's cohabiting some time with him, it was given out by her and her relations, and winked at by Packington, that she was married to him by one father Sweeny, a popish priest. That the respondents, who are the children of Mary Moore, were bastards, and were deemed so by Packington himself, who declared his estate would not go to them; and frequently declared, that the said Mary their mother was not his wife, and that he might quit and put her away when he pleased; that the appellant did not believe that Packington made such will as alledged on the 20th of June 1759, for that he was delirious several days before that will was made, and continued so to his death; and that if he had directed or read the said will, he would not have allowed the said Mary Moore to have been named guardian, or have called her his wife, or the respondents his sons; nor would he have permitted his will to have been witnessed by Robert Daly, or one other pretended to be a witness thereto, as he had declared he had a very bad opinion of both of them, and also of the said Mary. The appellant denied that the respondents were entitled to any possession in the said manor, and insisted to be restored to his possession and rents, and to be quieted therein, and that the respondents should be left to the law and common course of proceedings to make out and inforce their title, if any they had, and insisted they were not entitled to support a possessory bill against him, who was heir at law.

The said Robert and Newcomen, the appellant's sons, also put in their answers, and thereby disclaimed any right or title to the said manor and lands, save under the appellant; and Newcomen insisted, that he was in possession of the said office before the injunction, and that a possessory bill would not lie for an office, and [33] that he ought not to have been dispossessed, but by the common course of law.

The appellant examined several witnesses of credit, to the different points put in issue by this possessory bill and answers, and gave rules for publication. And although the court had on the 15th of February 1760, at the respondent's instance, respited