Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/591

said brother Arthur for life; remainder to his sons in tail male; remainder to the same persons, and with the same powers, as his said other estate devised to him as aforesaid was appointed. He then devised all his estate in the county of Meath, and in the town of New Ross, in the county of Wexford, to Arthur Lord Altham, for life; remainder in tail to his sons; remainder to the daughter and daughters of such son and sons, and to the daughters of the [291] said Arthur Lord Altham; remainder to his said brother Arthur for life; remainder to his eldest and other sons in tail male; remainder to the same persons, and with the same powers, as his said other estate devised to him as aforesaid was appointed to go.

On the 10th of the same month of December, the testator published two codicils; by the first, after reciting that he had published his last will, bearing date the 14th of May last; and also a codicil, bearing date the 23d of November, annexed; he thereby confirmed his said will and codicil, and bequeathed some pecuniary legacies to be paid out of his estate in Essex. And by the other codicil, after reciting the will bearing date the day before, and the codicil annexed thereto of the same date, he confirmed both; and bequeathed the same legacies to be paid out of his Essex estate, as in the first of these two codicils.

And on the 2d of January following, he published two other codicils; by both of which, after reciting generally, that he had by his last will devised certain lands, etc. to his brother Arthur for life, with divers remainder over; he thereby gave a power to his said brother, to settle a jointure on any wife or wives he should marry.

In January 1701, Earl James died without issue male; on whose death both the said wills and the codicils thereto, were proved in the Ecclesiastical Court, and also in the Court of Chancery; and an Act of Parliament passed for exemplifying the same under the Great Seal of Great Britain, and to make such exemplification evidence in all Courts of law and equity in England and Ireland; and the said wills and codicils were exemplified accordingly, so that the appellant was fully apprised of all his title and claim under the same.

Arthur, Earl of Anglesey, being seised in fee of the park of Knockgrenan, otherwise Camolin-park, in the county of Wexford, in Ireland, built a large mansion-house and offices, which cost him £5000 at least; and being so seised, on the 18th of February 1735, he made his will; and thereby devised the said park, house, and keeper's lodge, and the woods growing in the park, to his cousin Charles, the respondent, and his heirs; and which woods were reputed to be worth £6000 at least.

On the 1st of April 1737, Earl Arthur died without issue; and upon his death the appellant found means to get possession of part of the said devised premises, and particularly of Camolin-park, the house and keeper's lodge, and cut down some part of the woods, and threatened to cut down all the rest: whereupon the respondent, in Easter term 1737, exhibited a possessory bill in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, against the appellant; to be restored and quieted in the possession of the said devised estate, and that the appellant might be injoined from cutting down the said woods: and upon moving the Court, and reading several affidavits, and a certificate of the bill filed, an order was made, that the appellant should shew cause why an injunction should not be granted; and that in the mean time, he should be re-[292]-strained from cutting any of the woods; which order was served on the appellant on the 30th of May 1737.

Pending this suit, the appellant, being in London, often applied to, and requested Francis Annesley, Esq. (who was equally related both to the appellant and respondent) to use his kind endeavours towards bringing about an accommodation between them; and pressed Mr. Annesley to write directly to the respondent, who was then in Dublin, in order to prevail upon him to come to London, to adjust and settle the matters in difference; and voluntarily proposed, that the respondent should have and enjoy one third of both the English and Irish estates: whereupon, Mr. Annesley was persuaded to write to the respondent, acquainting him with the appellant's proposal, and that the appellant desired the respondent would come to London, in order to settle the disputes that were depending.

On the respondent's coming to London, in June 1737, a meeting was had between him and the appellant, at the house and in the presence of Mr. Annesley; who then told the appellant, that as there were disputes concerning the title to the estate, he would produce any deeds or papers that should be thought necessary