Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/791

in several sums of money, and was in dread of losing and being sued for the same, if the cause went against the respondents; and though it appeared, that there were two other persons subscribed as witnesses to the pretended will, who were not examined to the proof of it; and though Daly had confessed on his cross examination, that he did not read the will to Packington, and that Packington neither read nor was able to read the same, or to sit up in his bed when the same was executed.

The respondents having been allowed to read the said will, the appellant's counsel offered to read the will of the 24th of September, and codicil of the 4th of November 1729, made in favour of the said Mary Edgworth, the appellant's sister, and to whom the appellant was heir at law, and to read the proofs taken in the cause, of the execution of that will, but the court refused to admit the same to bo road; and on the said 1st of March 1763, the Lord Chancellor was pleased to adjudge the appellant guilty of the contempt laid to his charge, and did there-[35]-fore order and decree, that an injunction directed to the sheriffs of the counties of Kildare and Meath should be awarded to restore the respondents to, and from time to time to quiet them, and all persons deriving by, from, or under them, in the actual, quiet, and peaceable possession of the said manor, town, and lands of Longwood, with the appurtenances thereunto belonging, the same to continue till the respondents should be thereout evicted by due course of law; and it was thereby further ordered and adjudged, that the appellant should stand committed to the custody of the pursuivant attending the court, until he should pay the costs of that suit, and the further order of the court to the contrary.

The appellant apprehending himself aggrieved, as well by the order of the 24th of May 1760, as the decree of the 1st of March 1763, appealed from both of them; and on his behalf it was said (C. Yorke, F. Norton), that the first institution of possessory bills was owing to the many revolutions in Ireland, by which means the evidences of titles to lands having been lost, the possessors had frequently no other proof to produce in support of their titles than a long and uninterrupted possession, which the Courts of Equity in that kingdom thought proper to protect against any force, till a better title could be made out at law; but ever since such possessory bills were first allowed in Ireland, it has been a fixed and settled rule, that the plaintiffs, to entitle themselves to such bill, must shew a peaceable and uninterrupted possession for three years, a title still in being and undetermined, and an actual force; and heirs at law were allowed to connect the possession of their ancestors to their own, to bring them within that general rule. But the like privilege was not allowed to devisees, or any persons claiming otherwise than as heirs at law; it having been a constant known rule, established by many precedents, that a devisee could not support a possessory bill against an heir at law upon the death of the ancestor, as a will required very solemn and particular proofs of the due execution of it, of the sanity of the testator, and of his power to make such will, which were not to be determined in a summary way, but ought to be left to a determination in the ordinary course of proceedings at law; whereas heirship from time immemorial has been deemed and allowed a sufficient title against devisees and all others, as to the possession, until a better right can be established by due course of law. That the respondents having totally failed in proving their legitimacy, and that Moore Edgworth was heir at law to Packington, which was denied and put in issue by the appellant's answer, their bill ought to have been dismissed; and the appellant, who was proved beyond all contradiction to be heir at law not only to Packington Edgworth, but also to Robert his father, restored to his possession, rents, and royalties and more especially, as the appellant had by uncontroverted evidence, and the cross testimony of the respondents own witnesses, proved them illegitimate; consequently the appellant, as heir at law of Packington, who died last seised, [36] ought to have had an injunction to the sheriff, the respondents forcible detainer having been fully proved by their own witnesses. That as the appellant appeared beyond all contradiction to be heir at law, it was a sufficient title to the possession, and the respondents ought not to have been permitted to read the pretended will of Packington, but should have been left to make the best use they could of it at common law, according to immemorial usage and practice, as the validity of that will, or the right of the respondents under it, could not be determined in a summary way; and the admitting Daly's deposition to be read in proof of the will, was inconsistent with the rules of evidence, as he clearly appeared to be interested in the event of the cause: besides, if this will was to be the foundation of the respon-