Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/322

And appellant shewed, that it was in proof in the cause that respondent's father married Winifred, to the great displeasure of her friends, and that she lived but eleven months after her marriage, and died without issue, twenty years before the date of the pretended bond; that her portion was fully paid, and a discharge given under her husband's hand for the same; and that it was not at all probable that Thomas Scott, her brother, should give her husband more, apprehending, from the strongest circumstances, that his ill usage was the occasion of her death; or that the said Thomas Scott, who was a man of the greatest probity and discretion, should keep this pretended bond concealed in his custody for upwards of 30 years, and leave it to raise discord in his family after his death; and that Thomas Scott frequently said he had paid his sister Winifred's portion to a farthing, and often expressed his trouble and resentment for her ill usage by her husband: And that Richard Pretty, the first subscribing witness to the bond, was, on the day it bears date, near twenty miles distant from the place where respondent pretended it was sealed; and that there then was a great difference (occasioned by a law suit) between Scott and Pretty: And that all the pretended witnesses to the bond in question were dead several years before Thomas Scott, and before this bond was heard of; and that the name William Lucas, set to the bond as a witness, resembled the hand [320] of William Lucas senior; and respondent at the first trial applied his proof to prove his hand; but that it afterwards appearing that he died three years before the date of the bond, some remarkable letters therein were much altered, and all drawn over with fresh ink, before the second trial, to make it more like the son's hand, who was alive at the time of the date, and that the words (sealed and subscribed) although unusual and improper, were like what respondent himself had used in other instances; particularly in two bonds wherein himself was bound, which had been unpaid near twenty years, till being produced as evidence against respondent at the first trial, they were paid off and taken up before the second; and as to another bond, pretended to be made by Thomas Scott to one Doleman, in 1694, in the like phrase with that in question, and sent in a letter of the same hand, seal, and ink, dated August 22d, 1699, to a Mr. Fox, to be by him concealed till after Thomas Scott's death, as the letter imported; (a copy of which bond is subjoined to this case); appellant observed that soon after the death of Thomas Scott, respondent went to Fox, about ten miles distant, to examine a copy of the bond in question; and that there was good evidence that this bond and letter were of respondent's own writing; and that Thomas Scott was so old and infirm that he could not write at all, nor so much as hold a pen in his hand at the time when that letter was dated, which was signed Thomas Scott, exactly like, and written as well as the bond in question; and that respondent had been in different stories how he came by this bond, saying sometimes he found it amongst his father's writings, and sometimes, that Thomas Scott gave it him in 1694, being ten years after his father Hilton's death: And that the respondent had brought an action upon the bond in question in the Court of Common Pleas, and laid his venue in Warwickshire, and thereupon obtained a verdict; but that the Court of Common Pleas not satisfied with it, directed a new trial; and that upon the second trial, upon proof of the before-mentioned, and many other matters and circumstances, after a trial of nine hours at Warwick assizes, in August, 1701, by a special jury of gentlemen of quality, and upon a full hearing of both sides, respondent having some notice that the