Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/932

and other things, for the use of you the said Dr. Bentley, and your family, as in the precedent articles is mentioned.

LXV. Item, Quod premissa, etc.

Note 2.—[238] This spirited prosecution was accordingly carried on, and after a trial at Ely-house, which lasted six-and-twenty days, sentence was, on the 27th of April 1734, given against the Doctor, "That he had been legally convicted before the visitor, of a violation of the statutes, and dilapidation of the goods of the college and that he had thereby incurred the penalty of deprivation of his office of Master." Ely Register, D. p. 328.

The curious reader will find the subsequent history of this business, in that elaborate work, Biographia Britannica, vol. II. 2d edit. p. 238.

By articles, dated the 15th of July 1698, made between the respondent the Duke of the one part, and Elizabeth, Lady Gerard, the mother of the Duchess, of the other part; reciting the intended marriage of the respondents, and that all demands on Lady Gerard were fully adjusted, to the satisfaction of all parties; it was agreed, in consideration thereof, and to prevent all future claims and demands, and to settle peace between the parties, that the Duke should, within two days after the marriage, release to the Lady Gerard, her executors and administrators, all actions, suits, claims, and demands whatsoever, by reason of her being guardian of the person and estate of her said daughter Elizabeth; and, for performance whereof, the Duke bound himself to Lady Gerard in £10,000.

The marriage took effect, but differences soon after arising between Lady Gerard and the Duke, the release was not executed; and therefore the Lady brought an action against the Duke upon his covenant, and recovered a verdict, and entered up judgment thereon.

This proceeding obliged the Duke and Duchess to exhibit their bill in Chancery, against Lady Gerard for relief; a plea and answer was put in, and witnesses were examined, but before the cause was heard Lady Gerard died; whereupon the suit was revived against Charles Earl of Macclesfield, her brother and executor.

Pending this cause the Earl also died, having made his will, and thereby given the respondent, the Duchess, a legacy in the following words, viz. “I give and bequeath to my niece, the Duchess of Hamilton, a pair of diamond pendants, and a diamond necklace, provided she give no trouble to my executor." And appointed the appellant executor.

The appellant having refused to deliver this legacy, unless the respondents would give him a release, pursuant to the agreement with Lady Gerard, they filed a new bill for the recovery of these jewels; the appellant put in an answer, admitting the legacy, and that he was the Earl's residuary legatee; but insisted on having a release of all claims and demands against the Lady Gerard; and that such a release was what his testator intended by the proviso annexed to this legacy.

[240] On the 27th of January 1702 this cause was heard on bill and answer, when the Court decreed, that the plaintiff, the Duchess, should not give the defendant any trouble, as he was executor of the Earl of Macclesfield; and that the defendant should bring the jewels before a Master, who was to make an estimate of the same; and upon the plaintiff's giving security, to the value of the jewels, that they