<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2012-10-02</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>John Pas</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed as part of batch B120725.pdcc.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B08636">
<STC T="W">C935A</STC>
<STC T="C">R173530</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">[ocm]64551030</BIBNO>
<VID>184417</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="1">
<HEAD>THE CASE OF John St. Leger E&s;q; RESPONDENT IN THE APPEAL Of <HI>John Barret,</HI> from a Decree in the Chancery of <HI>Ireland.</HI></HEAD>
<P>SIR <HI>William Barret,</HI> being in <HI>England,</HI> but having a con&s;iderable E&s;tate in <HI>Ireland</HI> (part whereof he apprehended might be in|tail'd.)</P>
<P>Made his Will in Writing and leaves all his intail'd Land to Mr. <HI>Barret</HI> (his Heir Male) and tho&s;e not intail'd to Mr. <HI>St Leger,</HI>
<NOTE PLACE="marg">16. <HI>Feb.</HI> 72.</NOTE> his Unckle and his Heirs Males, making him Guardian of Mr. <HI>Barret;</HI> but yet he had a very little regard for him, declaring often the Re&s;pon|dent Mr. <HI>St. Leger</HI> &s;hould have his E&s;tate.</P>
<P>At fir&s;t Mr. <HI>St. Leger</HI> apprehended al&s;o that part of the Lands might be intailed, but afterwards di&s;covering that they were not, exhibited his Bill in the Chancery in <HI>Ireland,</HI> to di&s;cover the Writings, and prove the Will, and examine the Witne&s;&s;es, the Will being made here in <HI>Eng|land,</HI> and the Lands lying in <HI>Ireland:</HI> And to have the Deeds deliver|ed, and have the Benefit of Depo&s;itions taken in a former Cau&s;e, but between other Parties, <HI>viz.</HI> The Daughters of one Sir <HI>James Barret</HI> who claim'd Portions out of the E&s;tate, and to be reliev'd upon the whole matter.</P>
<P>To which Bill the Defendant an&s;wered, and did not Object again&s;t the Juri&s;diction of the Court; but by an&s;wer prayed to have a Determination of the Matter, &s;aying he hoped it would appear at the Hearing, that the E&s;tate was intailed. Whereupon</P>
<P>The Cau&s;e was heard, at which time the Que&s;tions were,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">21. <HI>May. 77.</HI></NOTE> whether the E|&s;tate were Old <HI>Andrew Barret</HI>'s (an Ance&s;tor of the Family of the Te&s;ta|tors) his Wife <HI>Katharines,</HI> and whether it was intail'd? And the Court after three days Hearing, directed a Tryal upon the&s;e I&s;&s;ues.</P>
<P>Whether <HI>Andrew</HI> were &s;eiz'd in Right of his Wife <HI>Katharine</HI> of the Lands in que&s;tion, and whether there was any intail, and of what Lands.</P>
<P>In which Tryal the Appellant join'd, and after a full Tryal at the King's <HI>Bench-Bar,</HI></P>
<PB N="2" REF="2">
<P>The Jury found that <HI>Andrew</HI> was &s;eiz'd in Right of his Wife <HI>Katha|rine</HI> of particular Lands:
<NOTE PLACE="marg">17. <HI>Feb.</HI> 78,</NOTE> And did not find he made any intayl, <HI>vid. the Judges Certificate.</HI></P>
<P>After 13 &s;everal days hearing of Coun&s;el on both &s;ides,
<NOTE PLACE="marg">20. <HI>June</HI> 77.</NOTE> the Court Decreed the Lands in the Bill (being tho&s;e found to be <HI>Katharines</HI> by the Verdict) to the Plaintiff Mr. <HI>St. Leger,</HI> and an Injunction for Po&s;|&s;e&s;&s;ion, but without prejudice to the Appellant, if any intayl &s;hould af|terwards be di&s;covered, and brought to light, provided he fir&s;t give Obedience to the Order of the Court.</P>
<P>Again&s;t which Decree <HI>Barret</HI> now Appeals, as if the Court had ex|ceeded their Juri&s;diction in making a Decree. But it is conceived to be very Ju&s;t, and agreeable to Rea&s;on; and the Appellant's Preceed|ings again&s;t it very unrea&s;onable.</P>
<P>For the Plaintiff in the Decree Mr.
<MILESTONE N="1"> <HI>St. Leger</HI> could never have had a|ny relief without the help of a Court of Equity, either to di&s;cover what Lands were Intayled, (which mu&s;t be done by the writings if any were) or to have the writings of the Fee-&s;imple E&s;tate out of <HI>Barret</HI>'s hands, or to examine Witne&s;&s;es who lived in <HI>England,</HI> and el&s;ewhere to u&s;e at Common Law, if Occa&s;ion were. As al&s;o to have the Benefit of Depo&s;itions taken in another Cau&s;e between other Par|ties, but touching the &s;ame E&s;tate.</P>
<P>The Appellant joyned to have the Cau&s;e determin'd in Equity (as before) and did not Object again&s;t it,
<MILESTONE N="2"> as hoping him&s;elf to have a fa|vorable Con&s;truction in Equity upon the Will, as to the Pretence of the Intayl. And then he Joyned in defence of the Tryal.</P>
<P>There being an I&s;&s;ue directed,
<MILESTONE N="3"> and a Verdict upon the Right, it would have been hard to have made all that &s;ignifie nothing, as it mu&s;t, if there was no Decree made; But the Court being &s;o po&s;|&s;e&s;t of the Cau&s;e, it was fit and ju&s;t to make &s;ome Rule upon tho&s;e Proceedings, and no other could be but the &s;aid Decree: For it would have been very unrea&s;onable to have di&s;mi&s;&s;ed the Bill, when the Plantiff Mr. <HI>St. Legers</HI>'s Right had been a&s;&s;erted upon the Tryal.</P>
<P>By the Decree the Appellant has all the favor &s;hewed him that was po&s;&s;ible,
<MILESTONE N="4"> for altho the Verdict found no entail by which the Court might have concluded him, yet he is left at Liberty to make out an entail at any time after, and have the benefit of it; but he knows there is, or can be none, for that the whole E&s;tate was <HI>Katharine</HI>'s In|heritance, and &s;he out-lived both her Husband and her Elde&s;t Son Sir <HI>James,</HI> and in truth did no Act to entail it, and neither her Husband, or Son, without her could entail it.</P>
<P>But the great Trouble of the Cau&s;e is, that <HI>Barret</HI> finding the mat|ter upon the Intail to be again&s;t him; and that he fails in his ex|pectation of making that out, one Alderman <HI>Dean,</HI> now &s;tarts up to oppo&s;e the Decree. And he pretends that he has purcha&s;ed the E&s;tate, of <HI>Barret.</HI> And &s;o would render all that has been done voyd.</P>
<P>But that is very ill done of him: for he knew of the Suit, and after I&s;&s;ue joined in the Cau&s;e, has (as is pretended) purcha&s;ed; &s;o comes in <HI>pendente lite.</HI> And &s;o the Judges of <HI>Ireland</HI> have Certified. And therefore no Con&s;ideration ought to be had of him.</P>
<P>And the Plaintiff in the Decree (as is humbly hoped) &s;hall proceed for po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of the E&s;tate, having been hung up (now &s;even years) by this Appeal, from proceeding on the Decree. And he hopes the Decree &s;hall be Confirmed having been &s;o Solemnly made.</P>
<P>As to the Appellants Printed Ca&s;e given out this Se&s;&s;ions, this Re|&s;pondent
<PB N="3" REF="2">conceives it needs no An&s;wer, the main of it being a &s;canda|lous Libel, Reflecting on his Grace the Lord Chancellor of <HI>Ireland,</HI> and &s;ome of the Judges, and on all the Jury.</P>
<P>He therein gives your Lord&s;hips &s;ome Lawyers opinions, hoping thereby to per&s;wade your Lord&s;hips into a good Opinion of an ill Cau&s;e: Nay, he Prints Sir <HI>William Jones,</HI> and Sir <HI>Francis Pembertons</HI> Opinions, which if they ever did give, was upon his mi&s;taking the Ca&s;e; for the &s;ame Per&s;ons have given their opinion upon the Ca&s;e truly &s;tated, with their Rea&s;ons for the &s;ame.</P>
<P>That this Re&s;pondent was, and is well Intitled to have the Decree, again&s;t which the Appeal is brought, and not only tho&s;e two, but the late Chief Ju&s;tice <HI>Saunders,</HI> Judge <HI>Reymond,</HI> and Mr. <HI>Holt,</HI> have Con|curred therein.</P>
<P>But this Re&s;pondent did not think fit to put the &s;ame in Print, be|cau&s;e he is well a&s;&s;ured, he &s;hall by his Council give your Lord&s;hips at the Bar &s;uch Rea&s;ons, as will Convince your Lord&s;hips that the Appeal ought to be di&s;mi&s;t, and the Re&s;pondents Decree confirmed.</P>
<PB REF="3">
<PB REF="3">
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
