Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	henry_n	king_n	lord_n	23,977	5	4.2438	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35648	The case of Sir Robert Atkyns, Knight of the Honourable Order of the Bath, upon his appeal against a decree obtain'd by Mrs. Elizabeth Took, (the now wife of Thomas Took, Esq.) and others, plaintiffs in Chancery, about a separate maintenance of 200 l per ann. clear above all charges settled on Mrs. Took, beside a large jointure	Atkyns, Robert, Sir, 1621-1709, defendant.; Took, Elizabeth.	1695 (1695)	Wing C999; ESTC R170983	10,525	13

Reversion of the whole after her Death In this Bill of Mrs. Took's in the Chancery Answ. whereupon the Decree now Appeal'd from is made there is not any Allegation nor the least touch or mention of that Bill of Sir Robert's in the Exchequer nor of the Matter of that Bill For had it been alledg'd in Mrs. Took's Chancery-Bill Sir Robert could have given it a full Answer and shewn how that Sir Robert at the Exhibiting of his Bill in the Exchequer had not so fully discovered the Fraud of the Separate Maintenance as he has done since but believ'd as the Deed for the Separate Maintenance does alledge see her Deed that the Rents were sufficient to answer her the 200 l. per An. and that 160 l. per. An. over would have been left for Sir Robert which by her proofs appear to be false and the Rents short of making good her 200 l. per An. as she alledges See her Bill A Court must proceed Secundum Allegata 2 dly The reading that Bill of Sir Robert's in the Exchequer and indeed all the proof offer'd at the hearing the Cause in Chancery were irregular there being nothing in the Cause in the Chancery put in Issue by the Bill and answer The only Equity of the Plaintiff Mrs. Took's Bill being a Trust of the Separate Maintenance and Sir Robert's Notice of it both which were confess'd by Sir Robert in his answer He only insisted upon it both by his Plea and Answer that their Deed was Fraudulent which ought to be tried at the Common-Law and that he being a Stranger neither Party nor Privy therefore the notice was not material Here was nothing remain'd that requir'd proof in Chancery yet to increase the Charge the Plaintiffs proceeded to proofs which has given occasion to Sir Miles Cook to load Sir Robert with near 200 l. Cost which tho excepted too is confirm'd by the Court. 3 dly Had the matter of Sir Robert's Bill in the Exchequer been the least hinted at or stirr'd in Mrs. Took's Bill in Chancery Sir Robert had been awakened by it and forewarn'd to have answer'd to it and made proof upon it Viz. That his Bill in the Exchequer was designed meerly to state the Debt owing to him by Mr. Took and to compel him to a Redemption of the Mortgage or to be barr'd of his Redemption and all Parties as was propos'd to Sir Robert on the behalf of Mr. Took were inclin'd to get an Act of Parliament pass'd for the sale of Mr. Took's Estate and to have the Debt due to Sir Robert upon the Mortgage and the Debts to his other Creditors paid off and a provision afterwards made for Mrs. Took which Sir Robert offer'd to further So that it was not so seasonable nor proper at that time to question their Title nor to object Fraud against it Nor was it proper for Sir Robert to Object or Controvert the Fraud of it in Equity there being sufficient Remedy against it at the Common-Law which Course too he afterwards pursued when he found they proceeded not in their Agreement to get the Act of Parliament pass'd And the Fraud more plainly appearing 4 thly Sir Robert at the hearing of this Cause in Chancery oppos'd the reading of his Exchequer-Bill in Evidence as being no regular proof or evidence either in Law or Equity A Bill in Equity is no Evidence in another Suit Bills in Equity being the Invention and Surmises of the Council that draw them and the Suggestions and Allegations that are in them are indeed but of the Nature of Interrogations to enforce a Discovery from the Defendants but are no Conclusions nor Estopples to the Parties that exhibit them nor evidence against them who do not so much as Sign them themselves Nor shall Sir Robert's Bill in the Exchequer controll his Indenture of Mortgage whereby the Fee-Simple of the Houses in Question is conveyed in possession to him and not a Reversion only Nor shall it overthrow his Answer upon Oath in this Cause wherein he makes Title to the Houses in Possession as being the Purchaser of them for a valuable consideration Note and being indeed forced to accept the Mortgage by Mr. Took's defrauding him of a former security which Sir Robert had for his Money or else Sir Robert must have lost his money Now that Sir Robert's Exchequer-Bill ought not by the Rules of Law to have been allow'd for Evidence no not in the Chancery tho between the same Parties appears by a printed Case by the Resolution of a Lord-Chancellor too in the very like Case in the main but the present Case on Sir Robert's part is much stronger than that too on his Side The Case is Mich. 14. E. 4. Fitzh Abr. Tit. Subpoena plac 15. One Tate was Sued in Chancery by a Bill in Equity as Sir Robert is and made to answer upon Oath at the Hearing just as was in this present Case a Bill of Tate's then Defendant exhibited by him in the same Court too and for the same matter and thereupon so much the stronger against Tate was offer'd to be read which did contradict and differ from his answer By the Chancellor by advice of the King's Sergeants Tate's Bill was not to be regarded for he was Sworn to his Answer but not to his Bill 5. If Sir Robert's Exchequer-Bill had been Evidence as it is not yet it serves only to prove that in Sir Robert's opinion at that time when his bill was Exhibited Mrs. Took's Deed of Separate Maintenance was not Fraudulent or that he then had not discovered the Fraud This would then have been proper to have been offer'd upon the trial of the Issue at Common-Law but is no Ground for a Decree And Sir Robert may change his Opinion upon further Discovery of the Truth of the Case for it is at most but his then apprehension of it it alters not the truth of the Case nor the matter of Fact in it and he was seduced into that good opinion of Mrs. Took's title to her Separate Maintenance by Mrs. Took's own Deed which did affirm the yearly value to be 360 l. per An. which had it been true would have been sufficient for both their turns but in truth there has not been enough to pay the 200 l. per An. Separate Maintenances are but of late Invention and bring many mischievous consequences after them And not one Precedent of the Chancery as 't is believ'd can be produc'd where ever before this Decree a Separate Maintenance hath been Countenanc'd against a Purchaser Which Purchase to the Appellant Sir Robert Atkyns never was made out of any greediness of profit Sir Robert was forced to take this Mortgage but he was meerly driven to it to accept it as a farther Security after he had parted with his Money to the Husband who had defrauded Sir Robert of a former Security as appears by the proofs And either the Husband or the Wife or any Friend of theirs on their behalf may still redeem if they please if it be done in some reasonable time Sir Robert will be willing to accept of his money again Sir Robert hopes to be excus'd for using this Freedom with the Chancery It being generally known that long before this present occasion even while he himself Sate in a Court of Equity established by Act of Parliament he both in that Court and in the Highest Court the House of Lords discharg'd his Conscience by inveighing against the Encroachments of Courts of Equity To Conclude The Apellant Sir Robert Atkyns humbly moves the Lords to take up the same resolution in this present Case which appears in the Precedent and Example to be of highest consequence as their Noble Ancestors and Predecessors did in the Twentieth Year of King Henry the IIId when the Statute of Merton was made Chap. 9 th The Lords being press'd by all the Bishops to make the Ancient Law of England to conform to the Constitution of the Church but in one point Viz. That Children born before Matrimony might be accounted Legitimate and Inheritable to Lands All the Earls and Barons with one Voice answered That they would not change the Laws of the Realm which hitherto have been Used and Approved Erratum P. 4. l. 30. add the. FINIS