Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	day_n	good_a	great_a	2,831	5	2.5730	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B08631	The case of Elizabeth Dutchess of Albemarle, and Christopher Monke Esquire, [brace] appellants. Against John, Earl of Bath, and others respondents		1680 (1680)	Wing C911A; ESTC R173516	12,012	6

THE CASE OF Elizabeth Dutchess of Albemarle and Christopher Monke Esquire Appellants AGAINST John Earl of Bath and others Respondents THE Appellants Bill in the Chancery sought to be relieved against two Deeds of Lease and Release mentioned The proceedings in Chancery and state of the Case to bear Date the 15 and 16th of July 1681 And that the Estate Real and Personal of Christopher late Duke of Albemarle might go according to his Graces last Will Dated the 4th of July 1687. And to have an Execution of the several Trusts in the said Will. And the said Earl insisted on a Will of the 23d of August 1675 and on the said Deeds as well executed and duly obtained and sought thereby wholly to avoid and render ineffectual the said Last Will tho' the same was most solemnly-made and intended by the said Duke to be the compleat and entire Settlement of all his Estate as herein after is mentioned The Court on the 8th July 1681 First Decree The Will of 1689 confirmed as to the personal Estate and a Decree for Account accordingly after four days Debate Decreed the Dutchess to have her Specifick Legacies and the personal Estate to be accounted to Mr. Monke and otherwise to be applyed according to the Will of 1687. Which Decree for the Personal Estate has never since been questioned And the said Will of 1687 had also before been solemnly sentenced to be a Good Will and that the Duke intended the same so to be by the Court of Delegates But as to the real Estate before any further direction to be given touching the same the Court did think fit and so order That a Tryal at Law should be had touching the said Deeds of Lease and Release in such manner as in the said Order is mentioned and after the said parties were to resort back to the Court for their further direction A Tryal was accordingly had Tryal at Law and the Cause again heard and there happened to to be a Verdict for the Defendants and afterwards the Cause being several days again debated before the Lords Commissioners they took further time to consider thereof But before they made any final Decree that Commission was superseded And the said Cause coming to be further heard before the Lord Keeper several matters were insisted upon whereby in Equity to establish the said Will of 1687 as the intire Settlement of the said Dukes Estate notwithstanding the said Deed. His Lordship on the 22d of December last pronounced a Decree therein Second Error to this effect That as to the Appellants several Claims and Demands to the real Estate of the said Duke under the Will of 1687 against the Deed of 1681 their said Bill should be dismissed and did not Relieve the Appellants as with humble Submission ought to have been done And therefore they have brought this Appeal wherein the General question is Whether the Deeds of 16 July 1681 or the Will of the 4 July 1687 in Equity be construed to be the true Settlement of the Duke's Estate Observ 1st That in this Decretal Order as now entred of all the matters offered and debated in Court after four days were spent herein there is not any one particularreason given for the Judgment of the Court as is usual in Cases of so great consequence But only in general That the Court saw no Cause in Equity to Relieve 2dly That the Lord Keeper and Judges did lay great stress on the Verdict and that there had been no motion for a new Tryal And that so the Deeds must be now supposed to be taken as good Deeds Which 't is humbly hoped will not now be of weight For there was nothing insisted on at the Tryal but the Fact only And so the Verdict is or ought to be of no further Evidence than that the Duke sealed the Deed. And there was no motion for a new Tryal Not because the Appellants were satisfied with that Verdict or had as they conceived any reason so to be But because it was and is conceived That supposing the Duke did Execute such Deeds there are matters in Equity arising out of the Deeds themselves and otherwise relating thereto sufficient to set the same aside or render the same ineffectual First Either as unduly obtained Secondly Or as unduly secreted and concealed from the Duke Or Thirdly as in Equity revoked by the last Will of 1687. Or Fourthly as a Trust resulting for the Duke whereby this his last Will of 1687 may have its full effect and operation But before these Points are severally considered it is necessary to see what the Will and Deeds are and under what circumstances they stand And were the Fact the direct question at present it would be remembred and is proved Some of the Evidence as to the Fact of the Deed. That when the Deeds were first produced by the Earl they were read by his Lordship 's own Counsel to be dated the Lease the 15 July 1681 and the Release the 16 July 1682 at which great notice was taken and with much difficulty Mr. Bowes and Mr. Buttler got the Earle's leave to look on the same and observed the Lease to be 1682 as the same had been read and with those two Witnesses concur the Lord Cheney Mr. Cheney and Dr. Barwick and thereof Mr. Bowes and by Lord Cheney 's direction Mr. Cheney then entred several Memorandums in writing And on sight of the Deed of Release there appeares now a plain Razure both in the Year of the King and in the Year of our Lord but in no other word throughout the whole Deed for ought appeared Now the difference was very material not only because if the Release were 1682 as these five Gentlemen say it was it would not only be void at Law the Lease being determined but Sir William Jones whose name is Endorsed as a Witness was dead in July 1682. As also That it now appears to have been Engrossed at the Earls House at St. James 's and by his direction by one Thompson who hath been the Earls Scrivener for these thirty Years Whereas the Earl by his Answer says he knows not who Engrossed it But it being of great moment and secrecy was all committed to the Care and Conduct of Sir William Jones And also that Thompson on his first Examination swore That in 1687 he Ingrossed for the said Earl a Deed of the same purport as this whereas this Deed is dated 1681 and remembers not that ever he Engrossed any other But when he is afterwards produced by the Earl then there is shewn to him a Parchment prepared to be but never Executed by the Dake And this he says is what he Engrossed for the Earl in 1687 as is said prepared in 1687 both as to the Power of Revocation and every thing else is the same in words with the Deed of 1681 saving only the last Covenant not to revoke the Will of 1675 And Thompson says he thought