Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/616

bill, and thereby, after stating the several transactions before-mentioned, he set forth that William Cogan was not, in his life-time, entitled to the premises, and was therefore incapable of surrendering or assigning the same to Lord Kingsland; that as to the writing, purporting to be such surrender, and dated the 8th of December 1741, no opinion could be formed as to its execution by William, he being a marksman; and that when the appellant obtained such surrender, he imagined that the warren and mill were demised to Richard Cogan by one lease, and continued of that opinion till he was served with two ejectments, which apprised the appellant that there were two leases; and in consequence of this, the writing, purporting a surrender, was altered, and the words [a lease] appeared to have been turned into [leases], by erasing the a, and adding an s, in a different hand and ink from the rest, which was done through the whole deed, except in one place, where it seemed to have been overlooked.

The respondent Lord Athunry put in his answer upon the 18th of February 1743, and thereby stated the circumstances attending the contract made between him and Lord Kingsland, and the lease, as far as he was concerned therein, in the same manner as the respondent Wakely; that the fine of £61 was paid by him on the execution of the minute, and that Lord Kingsland, some years before November 1741, did, in presence of the Earl of Mount-Alexander and Lord Howth, promise to make a lease of the premises to the respondent Wakely, whenever Cogan's interest should determine; and admitted that he was only a trustee for Wakely.

Lord Kingsland having also in October 1744, put in an answer to the bill, the appellant replied to the several answers; and issue [329] being joined, many witnesses were examined, both on the behalf of the appellant, and of the respondents Wakely and Lord Athunry; and publication having duly passed, the cause came on to be heard before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and having taken up several days in hearing, upon the 14th of December 1745, his Lordship was pleased to direct a trial at law by a jury of the county of Dublin, upon the following issues, viz. Whether it was a part of the agreement between Lord Kingsland and the appellant, for a lease of the warren and mill of Portmarnock, that Mr. Daly's consent and approbation should be had to make such lease valid; and if such consent or approbation was part of the agreement, whether Mr. Daly gave such consent or approbation; and whether Lord Athunry or Mr. Wakely had, on or before the 1st day of January 1741, any and what notice of any and what agreement between the plaintiff and Lord Kingsland, for a lease of the warren and mill of Portmarnock?

From this order or decree, the appellant appealed (D. Ryder, W. Murray); and on his behalf it was said to be erroneous: I. As to the merits of the case. II. As to directing the issues. And, III. As to the matter of notice.

As to the merits it was contended, that the original agreement between the appellant and Lord Kingsland, of the 4th of December 1741, was a fair and honest agreement; the fine was an adequate fine, and the rent reserved the full rent, and much more than the respondent Wakely admitted the premises were worth, or than he would give for the same. That this agreement was not obtained by surprise, but with deliberation, the terms being first settled with William Cogan, the assignee of the original lease; and upon his inability to comply with them, his right was transferred to the appellant. That the respondent Wakely was early apprised of the treaty between Cogan and Lord Kingsland, and did not then make the least mention of any previous promise to him of a lease of the premises in question, but endeavoured to dissuade and discourage Cogan from proceeding therein, by representing the premises as not worth more than £30 per ann. and that there was not the least ingredient of fraud or circumvention throughout the whole transaction, on the part of the appellant; as Lord Kingsland, who was mostly concerned in point of interest, and knew the whole of the business, had fully declared and admitted, not only by his answer, but by a letter under his hand, which had been proved in the cause.^[1] That this agreement was no sooner [330] entered into than