Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/790

publication to the seal before the then next Easter term, yet the court again, on the 8th of May following, by another order, respited publication to a further day.

The appellant on the 24th of May 1760, moved the court, that the rents of the manor might be brought into court, or that Magill might be obliged to give security, as he was but a schoolmaster, and had no apparent fund sufficient to answer for the rents; but the court was pleased not only to refuse the motion, but to award costs against the appellant.

Publication having at length been permitted to pass, it appeared, and was fully proved in the cause, not only by a number of witnesses of credit, examined on the part of the appellant, but by several witnesses examined on the part of the respondents themselves, on their cross examination, that the said Mary Moore was born of Popish parents, bred a Papist from her infancy, and all along continued so; that Packington was born of Protestant parents, bred a Protestant, and all along continued so; and that if any marriage at all was had between them, it was celebrated by father Sweeny, a Popish priest; that Packington did not treat her as a wife, and had declared he could quit and put her away at his will, and that his estate would not descend to the respondents; the appellant also proved the will of the 24th of September, and the codicil of the 4th of November 1729, by the testimony of several witnesses of credit, whose evidence stood uncontroverted; and that Packington had acknowledged in a letter all of his own hand-writing, and proved in the cause, that such will and codicil had been made by Robert his father, and that he had suppressed one part of the said will: and the appellant also proved, by the testimony of the respondent's own witnesses, on their cross examination, that on its having been proposed to Packington, to appoint the said Mary Moore guardian to the respondents, he angrily replied, that he would not have her guardian; and it was likewise proved, that the will pretended to have been signed by Packington, in which she was named guardian, was not read by him, or to him, and that he was not then able to sit up in his bed, or read the same; and that Packington had a very bad opinion of Robert Daly, and another, pretended to be witness to the said will; that Packington had publicly declared that the said Mary Moore was not his wife, and mentioned in the said letter, that his marriage was not lawful; and that he had not been of sound mind or memory for several days before the said will was pretended to have been made, or at any time after and it also appeared, that the several lands, and amongst others, the lands of Aghegraeth, of which Packington Edgworth was seised, were omitted to be mentioned in such pretended will. The appellant [34] also proved, by the testimony of the respondent's own witnesses, on their cross examination, that his entry was peaceable, and not accompanied with any manner of violence or terror; and that he and all with him behaved quietly and civilly all the time that they tarried in the town; that Tyrrell surrendered the seneschalship freely and voluntarily; and that Newcomen was thereupon appointed seneschal, and held a court, at which Tyrrell assisted; and that all the tenants freely attorned, and swore fealty to the appellant as lord of the manor.

The cause was heard on the 26th and 28th of February, and 1st of March 1763; and the respondents having failed to prove their legitimacy, or that Moore Edgworth was heir at law to Packington, which they had charged in their bill, the appellant's counsel insisted, that the bill ought to be dismissed, and the injunction founded on that supposition superseded; and more especially as the appellant had proved, that the respondents were illegitimate, and that he himself was heir at law; and the appellant's counsel also insisted, that the respondents should not be admitted to go into further proof, as, by the rules in possessory bills, no other person, save an heir at law, can support a possessory bill, whatever title he has, unless such person has a three years quiet and uninterrupted possession, which the respondents did not pretend to.

But the court was pleased to admit the pretended will of Packington Edgworth to be read, though it appeared by the testimony of the respondent's witnesses, that Packington was not of sound mind and memory for several days before the time it was pretended the said will was executed, and though the appellant's counsel objected thereto, as devisees could not support a possessory bill against an heir at law; and the court also admitted Robert Daly's deposition to be read to the proof of the will, though it was objected, and that objection founded on the cross examination of Daly himself, that he did not stand indifferent, and that he was bound for Packington