Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/989

The term expiring in 1740, possession was demanded for the use of the corporation; but the appellant refused to deliver up the premises, insisting that the reversionary lease was a good title for sixty-one years longer.

Whereupon the corporation, together with the other respondents, who were the coheirs of law of the surviving trustee and lessor in the original lease, in Hilary term 1740, exhibited their bill in the Court of Chancery in Ireland against the appellant; praying, that he might be compelled to deliver up the premises to the corporation, and rebuild the windmill which he had pulled down, put the mansion-house in repair, and account for the full value of the premises since the expiration of the lease.

To this bill the appellant put in an answer, insisting, that upon the expiration of the first lease, the last lease became a good and subsisting term in the premises.

The appellant also filed a cross bill against the corporation, setting forth the reversionary lease, and that under the faith of its being good and valid, he had made several improvements on the premises, by erecting a house and outbuildings thereon, and walling in a garden. He also charged, that the corporation had the counterpart of this lease in their custody; but, to deprive the [324] appellant of the benefit of it, they had not so admitted in their original bill. That the lease was duly executed by the corporation, under their common seal, and entered in their books. That there were also several entries in those books, relating to the consideration of that lease, and to services done for the corporation by the appellant's grandfather and father. That the corporation had not set forth when they were first incorporated, nor what right or title they had to the premises at the time of filing their bill. That they were about to disfranchise some of their members, to make them good witnesses in the cause; but under a secret agreement to restore them, when the cause should be ended: and therefore the bill prayed a discovery of these matters; that the appellant night have the benefit of the corporation's answer, at the hearing of the original cause; and that both causes might come on together.

The corporation, by their answer to this bill, admitted the reversionary lease of the 3d of September 1688, to the appellant's father; but said they did not believe that either he, or the appellant's brother, looked upon such reversionary lease to be good; but were, on the contrary, fully apprised of its invalidity, not only on account of the act of parliament before stated, but from a judicial determination in a cause where a similar reversionary lease was disputed, and in which the appellant's father gave evidence; they insisted that the lease was void, as being made by persons claiming under an illegal charter, forced upon the corporation without their consent, to put their property in the hands of Papists, who, by virtue of, and under such new charter, assumed the power and possessions of the old corporation. They also insisted, that if there was any corporate body legally subsisting at the time of making this reversionary lease, it was the body erected by former charters; but that the Mayor and other officers, who then acted as a corporate body, were created by and acted under the new charter, and not by or under any former charter; that the new charter manifestly appeared upon the face of it, to be a charter constituting a new corporation, and not a charter of confirmation; nor was the legal corporate body, which subsisted before or at the time of this new charter, confirmed or established thereby, with the addition of any new privileges. They said that the incorporation of the town was very ancient, but they could not tell when it first took place that they had several charters, particularly one in the second year of Henry V. another of the 8th December, 7 James I. which was a confirmatory charter of their ancient privileges, and another confirmatory charter of the 22d of March, 10th William III.

Both causes being at issue, several witnesses were examined on both sides in the original cause. The appellant proved many services rendered to the Protestant interest in Ireland, by his grandfather George Pippard, during the rebellion of 1641, and also several improvements on the premises by his father and brother, upon the faith of the new lease, to the amount of £500 and up-[325]-wards. And the respondents proved the several charters, and other proceedings before stated.

On the 29th of July 1749 both causes were heard by the Lord Chancellor; when his Lordship ordered, that a state of a case should be drawn up and agreed to by both parties, upon the several pleadings, proofs, and evidences in the cause; and if they could not agree upon the case, that the same should be stated by one of the Masters of the court; and that the case, so stated, should be sent to the Court of King's Bench