Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/935

warrant and grant, unless the defendants, the infants, should, within six months after they attained twenty-one, shew good cause to the contrary; and that, in the mean time, an injunction should be granted, for quieting the possessions of the plaintiffs, after the determination of Edith's estate.

From this decree the defendants appealed, insisting (C. Phipps), that though the strict letter of the warrant was not pursued, yet the non-performance of it did not proceed from any neglect of the appel-[243]-lants, but from the necessity of the times, and the default of the officers of the Crown; for that the fine was tendered at the publication of the warrant in clipt money, which was current at that time, and the only money which could then be procured; but, being refused, security was by the direction of the Deputy Steward given for the payment of the fine; and therefore such security ought, in a Court of Equity, and under these circumstances, to be taken as payment. That within one month after the publication of the warrant, the fine was tendered to the receiver at the audit, in clipt money, after the rate at which it was then usually paid and received; but he refused it, and gave time for the payment, till milled money could be procured. That as soon as milled money could be had, which was immediately after the expiration of the six months, the fine was paid, and accepted by the receiver, and by him answered to the Crown; and that as the infant appellants were the only persons interested under the first warrant, their own laches, and much less the laches of the Crown officers, or any other person, ought not to be imputed to them, nor construed to defeat them of an estate, which had been so long in the family, and especially as, in this case, the Crown could not sustain the least prejudice.

In support of the decree it was contended (S. Dodd), that though this was a controversy between private persons, yet, as it related to the rules and methods of preserving the revenues of the Crown, it highly concerned the Queen; for if the conditions in these warrants, framed on purpose, as fences to keep the Queen's treasure in a right channel, might be broken through by a Deputy Steward, at his discretion; it would be in his power to put the Queen's fines into his own pocket, and to dispose of this branch of the revenue, as he should think fit. That the first warrant having four conditions in it, and three of them not being observed, the whole became null and void. That it was a fraud and misdemeanour in the Deputy Steward, to receive a fine upon a litigated warrant; and especially, when the receiver himself, who was the proper officer, had refused to accept it; and to take promises, or pieces of paper for the Queen's money, without any order or direction, was still worse in a Deputy Steward; because, it was to make himself sole Judge and Chancellor of this part of the revenue. That if this decree should be reversed, the jurisdiction of the officers concerned in the Queen's revenue would be confounded, and a way laid open for ill-disposed persons to cheat the Crown at pleasure; but if it was affirmed, the ancient course of the Exchequer and Dutchy of Cornwall would be established, the revenue preserved, great frauds prevented, and the respondents quieted in the possession of their estates.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed; and that the decree therein complained of should be affirmed. (Jour. vol. 17. p. 589.)

Sir Thomas Badd having issue five daughters, namely, Elizabeth Blake, Amy Barton, Frances Dennis, the respondent Joanna Willoughby, and Margaret Taylor;