Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/292

ditioned to perform the award: And that Dr. Oates, after several days hearing the parties and their witnesses, on the 26th of December, 1700, made his award, and confirmed the sentence against the pretended will, and awarded [258] appellant the leasehold estate, and 1500l. in lieu of the residue of his wife's estate, and mutual releases to be executed: And that respondents exhibited their bill in Chancery, to set aside the award, which appellant and Dr. Oats answered; and witnesses were examined on both sides, and the cause heard 17th November, 1702, before the Lord Keeper; who decreed that the award should be set aside, as unfairly made and obtained; but appellant insisted that respondents had not shewn any indirect practices on appellant's part, but appellant had, on the contrary, fully proved that respondents, their friends and relations, had, by evil practices, laboured to obtain an award in their favour, and had offered the Doctor great rewards, and solicited him "for the honour of God, for the sake of the Gospel, and for the sake and interest of the Anabaptists;" and though it was said the Doctor had expressed some resentment against respondents, appellant insisted he ought not to suffer by any misunderstanding between respondents and the Doctor, who was an arbitrator of their own choosing; and the rather so, because it was proved that Doctor Oates had fully heard all respondents witnesses for several days, and that respondents, at the conclusion of each day, thanked the Doctor, and declared he had behaved himself fairly and impartially, and made no complaint of partiality until the award was made: And though it were objected, that the money awarded exceeded the estate, appellant contended respondents might have much more in their hands than what was awarded; and that the arbitrator was of that opinion, by awarding appellant to release respondents on payment of 1500l. and that it appeared in proof that the wife's estate was on appellant's marriage between 5 and 6000l. that appellant had lived but a little while with her, and received but 800l. thereof, and a few small houses, valued at 400l. and that she increased her estate during the separation, and recently before her death often declared she would make Hannah Moreton (a young girl her near relation, who died just before her) worth between 3 and 4000l. and that respondent Burroughs, had several hundred pounds of her money in his hands; and the May before she died, shewed two bonds under the respondent Burroughs's hand, one for 1500l. and one for 500l. and a note for 500l. more, and again shewed the same bonds about a month before she died: Wherefore appellant insisted that the decree ought to be reversed. (Sam. Dodd.)

[259] The respondents, in affirmance of the decree, shewed, that Hester Moore, who had been the widow of Thomas Moore, by a written agreement before her marriage with appellant, assigned her estate in trust for her separate use, and reserved to herself power to dispose thereof at her death, except the part agreed to be settled on appellant (which was very considerable) and thereupon the marriage was had; and that appellant afterwards used her very barbarously, and several suits had been commenced between them, but that they had come to a second agreement, by indenture dated 31st July, 1691, whereby, in consideration of 800l. more of Hester's estate paid to appellant, beyond what had before been settled upon him, her personal estate therein mentioned was assigned over in trust for such purposes only as she (whether sole or under coverture) should by any writing under her hand and seal, or her last will, or any writing purporting her last will, testified by two or more witnesses direct and appoint, and for want of such direction and appointment to her executors and administrators, so as that appellant, his executors, and administrators, might have no controul, disposition or power of, or over the same, or any part thereof: And that she, having a just aversion to appellant by reason of his barbarity, and having lived separate from him for a considerable time, did, pursuant to such her power, 6th October, 1699, when of sound mind, duly publish her last will in writing, which had been prepared according to her instructions by Mr. Prime, an attorney of known credit, in the presence of three credible witnesses; whereby she disposed of part of her estate, and made the respondents executors, as she had made the respondent Burroughs in other wills before drawn by Mr. Prime: And that respondents duly proved the will, and appellant questioned it in the Consistory Court of London; and that Dr. Titus Oates, who had been turned out from being preacher in the congregation of Anabaptists, had conceived a prejudice against respondents as