Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/300

taken away, though the other books of the office, both before and since that time, were all extant: And that Thompson, who pretended to prove he had made a copy about the same time, to be given in evidence upon a trial at York, and to remember it by the circumstance of one Johnson riding post therewith to York, could give no reason why he believed there were no more schedules then annexed to it. And that it appeared by Johnson's own letter, that he, Johnson, was in London during the trial at York aforesaid, when he was pretended to have ridden post: And appellant stated that he had purchased the mines in question before his pretended record was brought into the office; and that if such writing should be suffered to be filed as a record after such length of time, the searching the record office, which was the common security of every subject, would signify nothing, all settlements and purchases would be easily defeated, and no man could be safe in his estate or inheritance. And appellant shewed, that the other defendants in Chancery were not made parties to this appeal, because the respondent Squire, was the only defendant who made affidavits for the supporting the survey, and the principal person that solicited therein, and employed Thompson to file and enrol it; and whereas it was objected that others might be concerned in this pretended record who ought to be heard, appellant answered, that if it were not a good and perfect record, it ought not to be evidence for any, and that the mischief in establishing it would be more dangerous on the other side. (J. Powis. Sim. Harcourt.)

The respondent on the other hand shewed, that this record had been made use of on a trial at bar some years ago, and was by mistake (among several other writings and papers then also made use of) carried to Mr. Grainge's chamber in the Temple, and had been found since his death, and delivered back into the Exchequer to be put on the proper file: But that appellant finding that this record might affect him in a difference he then had with Sir William Robinson, Mr. Bathurst, Colonel Byerly, respondent, and others, touching certain lead-mines, thought fit to move the Court of Exchequer to have it suppressed: And that that Court thereupon examined the matter, and in the mean time stayed the filing; and after four months time, upon full examination of all persons who [276] knew any thing concerning the record, and upon inspection thereof, and comparing it with entries in divers books concerning it, 15th July, 1701, made the order complained of, being satisfied it was in the same plight as when taken off the file, and had not been altered or defaced: And that appellant had since acquiesced, but that record having been made use of, and allowed as evidence in Michelmas term last, at a trial at bar in the Queen's bench, and a verdict being given against appellant upon full evidence, and a view previously had, Lord Wharton had now appealed from that order, to deprive the parties (defendants to the suit in the Queen's bench) of part of their evidence, and therein named Squire and Thompson (a sworn clerk of the Exchequer) for parties, because Squire was a defendant in a cause appellant had depending in Chancery about certain lead-mines; and that they, Squire and Thompson, were advised that this petition was not properly an appeal, but an original complaint against them, or rather against the Court of Exchequer, for a matter relating to the safe custody of the records of that Court, and about which no suit was ever depending in that Court between them and the Lord Wharton; so that they could in no sort properly be made parties to the said petition and appeal; and therefore they, 7th January, 1702, petitioned the Lords, setting forth the said matters at large, and prayed to dismiss Lord Wharton's petition, and discharge the order for their answering thereunto: But that the Lords, 22d January, 1702,^[1]