Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/256

that appellant should have the benefit of William Thwaites's will; and that Lady Bridgman, also would have the management of the second trial, and not suffer respondents to interfere, nor let them see their briefs, because their Interest was the greatest, and that they had in several instances mismanaged the cause; that by which means only appellant, on the second trial, obtained a verdict; and that respondents had, on the third trial, after the jury spent above twenty-seven hours in consideration of all the evidence, fairly obtained a verdict according to the first verdict, namely, that the deed was rased after it was sealed; respondent therefore insisted, that the decree on the last verdict ought to be affirmed by the Lords. (Richard Godfrey.)

Die Lunæ, 9 March, 1701. After hearing council on this appeal (which was brought in 5th December, 1689, from a decree of the Court of Exchequer, made the 18th of June, 1683), it was ordered and adjudged, that the said decree be affirmed, with this alteration; that appellant, Josiah Thwaites, and all legally intitled under him, should have the benefit of the deed of appointment. Lords Journ. vol. xvii. p. 65.

The appellant's case is wanting in this report.

See a case of this name, reported 2 Vern. 80. Eq. Ab. 343. pl. 6. Vin. xxvi. 479. [see Mew's Dig. x. 1518 (Thwaytes v. Dye)], but the circumstances, as here stated, do not appear in any of these books.

The appellant made this case: That he was vicar of Lenton, in the county of Lincoln, and that the manor or lordship of Handby, alias Hanbeck, and also certain lands called Grangeleas, both the estate of respondent, were situate in his parish; and that it was sometimes pretended Handby was exempt wholly from tythes; and at other times, that a modus of twenty shillings per annum, was payable in lieu of all tythes for that manor: But appellant stated, that a suit had been commenced in the Arches, 37th Eliz. by the then vicar, against the owner, or farmer of the lordship of Handby, and nine witnesses examined, who proved the payment of tythes for that estate; but that defendant, in the Spiritual Court, upon suggestion of such a modus of twenty shillings, obtained a prohibition, and examined two witnesses to prove his suggestion, and that issue was joined thereon, and a trial at Lincoln, and the jury found against the modus, and a consultation awarded, and that, 39th Eliz. a sentence was given for the tythes in the Spiritual Court; but that respondent's grandfather, or father, afterwards, in 12 Jac. 1. with design to impose on the succeeding vicars, took out an exemplification of the suggestion and prohibition, and the testimony of the two witnesses examined to prove the suggestion, but omitted the trial at law, and judgment in the King's Bench, consultation and sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court, and that some succeeding vicars were prevailed upon to take sometimes twenty nobles per annum, and sometimes a certain close was allotted in lieu of tythes, and sometimes 13l. per annum paid, as appeared by two terriers taken out of the register of Lincoln; and that in Mr. Lodington's appellant's predecessor's time 11l. yearly was paid, besides the pretended modus of twenty shillings; but that the vicars had, from time to time, been prevailed on to give acquittances in full, expressing only twenty shillings modus, though they were constantly paid the other sums besides: And that when appellant was appointed vicar, he applied to [183] respondent for the tythes; but respondent produced the exemplification, and pretended that there never had been further proceedings therein, but that the succeeding vicars, convinced of the truth of such modus, had acquiesced under it, which appellant crediting, without further examination (for peace sake) submitted to an agreement, which, though written by himself, was drawn up in particulars by a Mr. Peregrine Buck, respondent's