Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/320

and [315] Cockayne equerry to King William, appellant offered to pay off Crispe, and reimburse himself by perception of profits; and that they came to a verbal agreement accordingly; and that respondent thereupon, March, 1690, actually delivered possession of her house, goods, stock, and farm, to appellant, and left him in possession, and that some time after articles of agreement were drawn between Cockayne, appellant Crispe, respondent and her trustees: And 1830l. being mentioned as due to appellant, and no particular recital how it was made up, or what debts were to be paid, and only a bare covenant to pay Crispe 700l. respondent refused to execute them till another writing, dated May 28th, 1691, but executed at the same time when the articles were drawn, wherein it was recited, that appellant had paid, stood engaged, and secured to be paid 1830l. And appellant covenanted on payment of what was due to him of the 1830l. to convey all his interest to respondent, or whom she should appoint; and that appellant paid 230l. to Crispe, and at several times afterwards 100l. to respondent; and having covenanted to pay 700l. to Crispe, and agreed to lay out 300l. in stock, which made only 1330l. he gave a receipt for 500l. as part of the 1830l. consideration received back again: And that upon the execution thereof, appellant agreed and declared that the 930l. paid and secured to Crispe was included in and part of the 1830l. and that it was so proved upon the trial at law by witnesses of undoubted credit; and that appellant entered on the estate, and had then other goods and stock worth 500l. and a crop of corn, hay, and St. foine growing that year, worth 650l. and kept the possession of the estate worth 300l. per annum, from 1691 to 1699, and that he, notwithstanding, neglecting to pay Crispe, he brought an ejectment to recover possession of the estate: And appellant exhibited his bill to redeem Crispe's mortgage, and that respondent and Cockayne might redeem it, or be foreclosed, and demanded the 1830l. as due to him, over and above what he paid and should pay Crispe; and that Crispe, respondent, and her trustees, put in their answers, and respondent in her answer set forth how the 1830l. was made up, and that the 700l. to Crispe was part of the 1830l. and afterwards exhibited her bill against appellant for an account of what was paid of the 1830l. and how made [316] up, and to have Crispe paid, and an account of what appellant had received, and to have the overplus paid to her, and for a reconveyance of the estate; and that appellant in his answer swore his debt 1830l. exclusive of the 700l. to be paid Crispe, and prevailed on Cockayne her husband to swear to the same effect; and that both causes were heard, and the decree stated by appellant made; and that the Master made a special report as to the 700l. payable to Crispe, that respondent had positively sworn it to be part of the 1830l. and Crispe had swore that he apprehended and believed it to be part of the 1830l. and that appellant had sworn that it was not part of the 1830l. and that respondent took exceptions to the report, and petitioned to be re-heard, for that appellant had kept the estate in his own hands, and his running and other horses upon it, and ought to be answerable for the yearly value, and not for only what he actually received; and that on the re-hearing an issue was decreed as to the 700l. and a trial had before Lord Chief Justice Holt, and on full and clear proof to the satisfaction of the Court, a verdict was given for respondent, that the 700l. was part of the 1830l. and that appellant did not think proper to move for a new trial, but acquiesced under the verdict, and proceeded before the Master; and then proposed a reference to two Council, which respondent agreed to; but that after attendances for above a year and a half, it appearing at last that appellant only designed delay, the reference was broke off, and the respondent proceeded again before the Master; and that on appellant's petition the cause was re-heard, and his petition dismissed, and he did not then complain of the verdict; and that the cause was again re-heard on respondent's petition, as to the matter of costs, and manner of accounting; and that appellant again petitioned to be heard and re-heard, on a suggestion that he had found a duplicate of account, which would prove the 700l. to be no part of the 1830%. and that the causes were re-heard on both petitions, and then ordered that appellant should account as stated by him, and his answer being falsified by the verdict, he was decreed to pay costs both at lay and in Chancery: And it appearing by the account, when produced, that the sums therein could not be part of the 1830l. appellant's petition was dismissed;