Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/943

On the 8th of September 1720, the cause was heard upon bill and answer, before Mr. Serjeant Whitaker, one of the Justices of the said Court; who was of opinion, that the legacy was well vested in Edward Vaughan, and ought to have been satisfied and paid to him within six months after the expiration of the term of his apprenticeship, to which he was bound, at the time of making the will; and did therefore order and decree, that the Register of the said Court, should examine when the time or term of the said apprenticeship expired, and compute. interest upon the said £100 from the end of six months after; and decreed the £100 and interest to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff, with costs.

The Register accordingly, on the 6th of April 1721, reported £196 10s. due for the said legacy, interest, and costs; which he appointed to be paid on the 27th of May following.

But in the mean time the defendants appealed from the decree; insisting (T. Lutwyche, R. Reeve), that Edward Vaughan, quitting his said apprenticeship against his master's consent, and without any reasonable cause, his legacy did not become payable; and that therefore the bill ought to have been dismissed the legacy not being payable at a certain time, at all events, but only in case he fully served out his apprenticeship, which was in the nature of a condition put upon him by the testatrix.

On the other side it was contended (R. Raymond, S. Mead), that this legacy vested in Edward Vaughan, on the death of the testatrix; and that the serving out the apprenticeship was not to be considered as a condition annexed to the legacy, for the non-performance whereof the legacy would be forfeited; but was only an appointment of the time when the legacy should be paid. And it was apprehended, that if Edward Vaughan had died before the expiration of the term of his apprenticeship, his representative would have been entitled to demand this legacy. It was therefore hoped, that the decree would be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with costs.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed; and that the decree, report, and confirmation thereof, should be affirmed: and it was further ordered, that the appellants should pay to the respondents the sum of £40 for their costs in respect of the said appeal. (Jour. vol. 21. p. 581.)

James, Duke of Ormond, being tenant for life, inter alia, of the lands of Killcross in the county of Kilkenny, in Ireland, did, in the 8th and 9th years of King William III. obtain an act of parliament in England, to enable him to raise fines, by making leases for lives, renewable for ever, of the same and other lands in the act comprised, for payment of his debts; whereby it was enacted, that it should be lawful for the said James, Duke of Ormond, during his life, by himself, or by any two or more persons, by him for that purpose to be commissioned, deputed, or appointed, to make such leases.

In pursuance of this act, Sir Richard Cox, knt. William Worth, William Robinson, and Edward Cocker, esqrs. Commissioners appointed by the Duke for the purposes therein-mentioned, by indenture, dated the 19th of July 1697, in consideration of £111 in hand paid as a fine, and of the yearly rent of £16 13s. 4d. and duties, demised the said lands of Killcross, with their appurtenances, to Arthur Anderson, clerk, for and during the natural life and lives of himself and of John Anderson his nephew, and Valentine Bolger, and the survivor and survivors of them, under the said yearly rent of £16 13s. 4d. and a fat beef, as accates, and £5 for an heriot and by this lease, the Duke covenanted for himself, his heirs and assigns, to and with the said Arthur