Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/822

and answer, excepting that of their being heirs to the blacksmith, and particularly the manner of obtaining John Norris's conveyance from John Neve the blacksmith; his having been employed as counsel by old Oliver in many conveyances, particularly in this settlement, and in preparing his will; and being a trustee in it, his being guilty of a breach of [81] trust in making the purchase, and in concealing it from the appellants ancestors; and that therefore it ought now to be deemed to have been a trust for, and should have been taken in the names of Oliver, Peter, and Francis Neve, to whom the estates were successively limited; and that they had lately, since June last, discovered several new evidences to make out these allegations; and set forth these new evidences to be a letter of the 3d of April 1679, to Francis Le Neve from old Norris, wherein he said, he would endeavour to have the intent of his cousin Neve, the testator, performed, the trust thereof being committed to him; the bill filed the 23d of October 1679, against the widow Neve and the blacksmith; the widow's answer; the bill filed 16th May 1684, by Oliver Neve against old Mr. Norris, and the answer; the assignment by old Mr. Norris in August 1698, of several leases to trustees, in trust for Oliver Neve; the release to old Norris by the Neves, and several deeds, to which he was a witness. And they alledged, that their solicitors and agents were ignorant of any legal proof thereof, or of any of the new facts. How alledged, at the hearing of the cause. They likewise alledged, that old Mr. Norris's purchase was made, whilst he was in possession of the estate, in trust for the appellants ancestors; and therefore he ought not to be allowed to purchase for his own benefit. That in regard the evidence the appellants would offer, was not such as could be liable to any suspicion, the greatest part being ancient written proof, and chiefly from the records of the court; and that the appellants were ignorant of these new matters, and of the proofs of the facts alledged in their answer, at the hearing; and in regard also, to the dangerous precedent of suffering a man of law intrusted in a family, and in possession of their estate, by a will and deed of his own making, to acquire to himself and his family, at any distance of time, or under any contingency, an unjust advantage of the trust reposed in him; they prayed as in their former petition.

This second petition was heard before Lord Hardwicke, on the 28th of January, and 4th and 8th of February 1743, when the appellants read fourteen affidavits, three of which were made by William Havers, their solicitor in the cause, who swore, that till the 20th of June last, he did not know that the appellants could prove old Mr. Norris was counsel for old Mr. Neve, or prepared his settlement and will, or that he purchased the reversion whilst he was in possession for Oliver Neve,—or that he took any lease of any part of old Mr. Neve's estate in his own name,—or that the deponent knew of the proceedings in 1679 and 1684.—Three other of the affidavits were made by Thomas Martin, one of the executors of Peter Neve, who swore, that on the death of Peter Neve in 1729, be found in his study, old Mr. Neve's settlement of 1674, and a copy of his will, and several purchase deeds attested by old Mr. Norris, which had been in the deponent's custody ever since, till he delivered them to the appellant Matthew Graves, in May and November last; and that the appel-[82]-lants never saw them before. That he knew not of the suits in 1679 and 1684, till June last; and in answer to an affidavit of his being solicitor in these causes, for the appellants Isabella, and Edward and his wife, and Rogers and his wife, and that he was attorney also for them in the defence of the ejectment; Martin swore, that he was attorney for the appellants in the ejectment, but was not concerned as solicitor on the defence set up by them in this suit. That he never saw the bill of revivor in 1740, nor the answers or copies;—had several meetings with the respondent's father's solicitor, and acted for the appellants under the directions of the parties, or some of them, or of Havers or Bowyear, who had the sole conduct of the cause for the appellants; but that he was not concerned as solicitor, otherwise than as aforesaid.

The other affidavits were chiefly made by the appellants, who swore, that they knew not of the writings in Martin's hands, till he delivered them to the appellant Graves as aforesaid; nor of the suits in 1679 and 1684.—The appellant Graves swore, that after Martin had delivered him the said writings, he observing upon one of them the title of a cause, Neve by guardian, plaintiff, against Neve, defendant; he found at the Tower the records in that cause, and in the other of Neve against Norris; but