Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/812

were insisted upon, and claimed by the respondent's bill. That no evidence appearing to the court, to excuse the respondent's wilful and obstinate forfeiture of the copyhold in question; the bill, so far as the same related to such forfeiture, ought to have been dismissed with costs; or at least, if the respondent had entitled himself to any relief touching the forfeiture, the same ought to have been granted on payment of costs. That the boundary, as claimed by the respondent, ought not to have been affirmed, or declared to be sufficiently ascertained by the decree, nor ought he to have been quieted in the possession thereof, according to the verdict, by the injunction of the court, without any saving to the appellant and his successors; in regard it appeared upon the face of the decree, as well as by the respondent's bill, that the copyhold in question (which in fact lay within the pretended boundary) was held of the appellant's manor of Chester, and was parcel of the same; and for that the coal mines, and copyholds, and other the rights enjoyed by the appellant within the boundary, likewise appeared to have been always enjoyed as belonging to the appellant's manor; so that the respondent's claim of the boundary seemed inconsistent with the rights admitted to be enjoyed by the [66] appellant within the same, and might in time (as the decree was drawn up) be made use of to take away those rights. That the issue being only directed to ascertain the boundaries of the respondent's manor of Lamesley, cum membris, was not sufficient to determine the right to the soil of Blackburne-Fell; unless the ascertaining such boundaries did also ascertain the respondent's right to all the wastes and soil within the same; in which case the appellant would lose his right even to the copyhold lands, and all other his rights which were admitted to him: but the right of the soil of Blackburne-Fell, ought to have been tried in an ejectment; and the appellant ought not after issue joined and a view directed, to have been stopt by injunction, and ordered into another county at a vast expense, to try only the boundaries of the respondent's manor; which would be a precedent of very great consequence and prejudice to the see of Durham, and to the privileges and franchises of the county palatine. That there were no directions given for ascertaining the boundaries of the appellant's manor, though prayed even by the respondent's bill. And lastly, that a single trial ought not (especially after new matter discovered) to be conclusive to the appellant's rights, much less a trial upon such an issue as had been directed.

On the other side it was argued (T. Lutwyche, S. Cowper), that the matter on which the Bishop would have founded his bill of review, was a pretended discovery of several records and evidences since the trial and the decree, but not since the final decree; and in fact, there were affidavits made that he had them before. That no copies of such records and evidences had ever been produced either to the Court of Chancery, or the respondent's agent; but, according to the account given of them, they did not appear to be material. That even if they had been material, yet if the same were found and discovered before the decree made on the equity reserved, the Bishop had a proper opportunity before, or at the time of that hearing, to have moved for a new trial; but on the contrary, he did not even desire it, but only insisted that he ought not to pay costs; and offered to submit to and acquiesce in the verdict, if the costs of suit were waived. That the Bishop exhibited his cross bill against the respondent, to fix and settle the boundaries of his manor of Chester-le-Street, and also his manor of Gateshead, in the county of Durham, adjoining upon the respondent's manor: that the cause was now at issue, and the Bishop might insist upon his new pretended records and evidences therein if he thought fit; but though this cross cause was at issue before the first hearing in the original cause, yet the Bishop was so well satisfied with the respondent's right, that he had never made one step in his cross cause since that hearing. That the Bishop seemed to lay great stress upon the coal mines in Blackburne-Fell being held by lease from him; but in the ancient purchase deed of the respondent's manor made to his great grandfather quinto Jacobi primi, these coal mines were excepted, and the respondent claimed no title thereto; nay, in his answer to the said cross bill, [67] he disclaimed any other right thereto, than by lease from the Bishop. That as to all the other objections to the verdict, there was this answer to be given; that on the hearing upon the equity reserved, the Bishop did not so much as ask for a new trial, nor endeavour to get any certificate from the Judge, or take any other proper step towards obtaining it. That as to the copyhold, it was a very small tenement, let by the respondent at £9 a-year, and would