Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/823

not the blacksmith's answer, or any depositions.—The appellants also read the letter of the 3d of April 1679, before mentioned, to Francis Neve from Norris.

For the infant respondent, the affidavit of Jeremy Harcourt was read; who swore, that at the trial of the ejectment in 1731, Thomas Martin acted as attorney for the appellants, the then defendants; and that this deponent proved copies of the bill in 1679, and the blacksmith's answer, which were then read as evidence. That Martin was concerned as solicitor in this cause for the appellants in May 1732, when a commission was going to be executed to examine witnesses de bene esse; and that Mr. Lock attended as commissioner for the appellants.—An agreement was also read, signed by Snell, the respondent's father's attorney, and Martin as attorney for the appellants, about the trial of the ejectment; another agreement, dated the 11th of April 1732, whereby Martin promised to engage Lock to attend the commission; and Martin's letter to Snell of the 11th of May 1732; wherein he said, "We are not prepared to join in commission next week;"—the affidavit of one Francis Saul, who swore that he served the appellant's clerk in court, personally, with the order of the 1st of February 1741, that the respondents, at the hearing of this cause, might read copies of the bill, answers and depositions, taken in 1679; and an affidavit of one John Monck, setting forth the infant respondent's pedigree; and that the deponent believed him to be heir at law of the blacksmith.

And upon reading the settlement and will in 1674, the blacksmith's conveyance, and the bill, answers and depositions in 1679 and 1684; and several purchase deeds of old Neve, attested by [83] Norris; and the verdict in ejectment 1731; and after three days hearing of counsel, it was ordered, that the petition should be dismissed.

From this order of dismission the petitioners appealed; and on their behalf it was argued (W. Murray, W. Noel), that the conveyance to old John Norris by John Neve the blacksmith, of his right to the lands comprised in the settlement of 1674, from all the circumstances under which it was obtained and concealed, ought, in a Court of Equity, to be deemed a trust for Oliver Neve the younger; it being most manifest, that the whole transaction was an unjust and fraudulent scheme on the part of old Norris, abusing the confidence of old Oliver Neve, who had for many years employed him as his family lawyer, by turning the knowledge he thereby acquired of the affairs and pedigree of the family to his own advantage; abusing the trust reposed in him by the will, in breach of the duty he owed the infant Oliver, who was incapable of acting for himself, and for whom Norris was a trustee, and by means thereof at that time in possession of the whole estate, and all the family deeds and papers; and for whose interest he promised to do everything in his power, and thereby inducing the friends of the infant to rely entirely on him, while he was privately acquiring to himself the inheritance of the infant's estate; and using means in the name and under colour of serving the infant, by filing a bill against John Neve as heir of old Oliver, to give strength and countenance to the title of John Neve the blacksmith, as his heir; and which in fact had so far succeeded, that upon the trial of the ejectment in 1731, this very contrivance was used as evidence of the blacksmith's pedigree. That it was impossible to account for the silence of this bill, and the answer of the blacksmith, as to this conveyance, but from a consciousness in Norris, that this matter would not then bear being divulged; and in hopes, that if the whole conduct of the infant's affairs was left to his management, he might by long concealment and artful contrivances, ripen a purchase originally founded in fraud and a gross breach of trust, into a good title. And with the same view, he detained one part of the original settlement, and several other material deeds and evidences, which were in fact produced by his descendants, partly at the trial of the ejectment in 1731, and partly upon executing the commission of partition; although by his answer to the bill filed in 1684, he positively swore, that he had delivered up all deeds and writings belonging to the estate, except some old writings in a chest.

That public convenience (which is a source of equity from whence many and various determinations have been drawn) required, that such a purchase as this should be held to be a trust; for otherwise, no family in England could be safe. Most gentlemen of estates are obliged, while they live, to let some country lawyer into the knowledge of their affairs; and when they die, persons under this description are commonly left guardians and trustees; and if they may be permitted, while acting under such confidence, and in such capacities, to purchase for themselves