Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/331

determine till 1732; and that appellant Parker, in 1676, purchased the lease from the Sheldons for 2950l. there being 54 years unexpired; and that the writings of the Sheldons had been burnt at Boeley house in the time of the late wars, and Sir Henry Parker, before he compleated his purchase, applied to the then bishop of Worcester and his officers, to know the certain commencement of the term, and had a certificate from Mr. Price, the bishop's secretary, that it appeared by a survey taken in 1647, and then registered at Worcester, that the lease for 90 years commenced in 1642: And that Sir Henry Parker thereupon proceeded in his purchase, and paid his purchase money, and entered upon the premisses, and quietly enjoyed till 1692; and at that time the late bishop Stillingfleet, finding an entry of a lease of the premisses made to one Freeman, which determined in 1607, and which appellant stated never had had any possession with, or rent paid under it; and supposing that to be the estate in being at the time of the granting the lease for 90 years, concluded that the 90 years commenced in 1607, and consequently would determine in 1697; and thereupon granted a concurrent lease to one Pedley his trustee, and then preferred a bill in Chancery against appellant Sir Henry, to have a discovery of his deeds and writings; to which bill he pleaded that he was a pur-[338]-chaser for a full and valuable consideration; and that plea upon argument before the late lords commissioners was allowed, and no further proceedings had in that court, and the bill since dismissed; and that the lease to Pedley was afterwards surrendered, and the bishop made a lease to respondent his son, in trust for himself: And respondent, in 1698, in the name of John Underhill, his feigned lessee, brought an ejectment against appellant Durham, Sir Henry's under-tenant, in the King's bench, which was tried at bar in Michaelmas, term, 1699; and that the only question was concerning the commencement of the lease for 90 years, respondent's council insisting that it commenced in 1607, upon the determination of the lease to Freeman, and that Sir Henry complained that he had no notice of the evidences which were in the bishop's or respondent's custody, and so was disabled to make defence, and that a verdict passed against him, and judgment was obtained, and possession had thereupon; and that since bishop Stillingfleet's death, which happened a short time after that trial, Sir Henry had found amongst the evidences of the bishoprick divers rolls of bailiffs accounts in the reigns of Q. Eliz. K. James the 1st. and K. Char. the 1st. whereby it appeared that the rent of 10l. per annum. was answered and paid by one Katherine Hornyold, who had a lease of the premisses since the lease to Freeman, and before the lease made to Queen Elizabeth, and that such payments of rent continued for 40 years together; and Sir Henry Parker and his council were thereby satisfied that he had above 30 years to come of his 90 years, and thereupon brought his ejectment against respondent, and tried the same at the bar of the Common Pleas in Easter, 1701, and obtained a verdict upon a full evidence on both sides, and had judgment: And that respondent notwithstanding had, after the trial in the King's-bench, brought an action of trespass in the name of Underhill, his feigned lessee, against Durham for the mesne profits, and obtained judgment therein in Easter term, 1701, and a writ of inquiry of damages was awarded; and that appellants were stopped by the verdict in the ejectment, to make any defence at law in that action, and therefore exhibited their bill in the Exchequer against the respondent, to have a discovery of the rolls of the bailiffs accounts, and evidences in his or his father's custody, at the time the suit was depending in the King's-bench, and for an injunction [339] against the action of trespass for the mesne profits, he having then about 30 years to come of the said 90 years: And that respondent in his third answer (two former being insufficient) confessed that the first knowledge he had of the said bailiffs accounts was about five or six weeks before the trial in the King's-bench, and said he did not think it material for him to give appellants notice thereof. And in a former answer he acknowledged that some of those bailiffs accounts were brought up to the trial in the King's-bench, and that he proposed to Mr. Price (who brought them up at his request) to take notice thereof in his evidence there, if occasion offered, though appellant or his council had not the least intimation thereof, and so could not make any use of the same: And that the cause in the Exchequer was heard 18th June, 1703, before three of the barons, and one of them was of opinion that appellants ought to be relieved; but two other barons being of a contrary opinion, the appellants bill was ordered to be dismissed, which other appellants insisted ought to