Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	chief_a	court_n	lord_n	10,605	5	4.2916	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90356	The pedigree from old Andrew Barrett, Esq having seven sons, who made several feofments to several trustees in trust of all his estates to theuse [sic] of his last will, who made the said will in Dublin, July 9. 1613. and thereby intails all his estate upon Sir James Barrett his eldest son, and to his heirs male; and for want thereof, to the 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th sons, as by inquisitions, deeds and records, may, and will appear.		1685 (1685)	Wing P1049B; ESTC R231930	9,516	5

that the said Lands were Fee-simple Lands he set forth that the same were the Inheritance of Katherine the Wife of Old Andrew Barrett who was Great Grandfather to Sir William Barrett and the Appellant and that Andrew their said Great Grandfather could not Intail the same prayed to examine Witnesses in perpetuam Rei memoriam to prove the Will of his Testator Sir William Barrett whereby the same were devized to him and his Heirs To which Bill the Appellant answered and denied all the Allegations thereof Issue thereupon was joyned Witnesses examined Publication past And The Cause came to Hearing before his Grace the Lord Chancellor of Ireland 29 Nov. 1677 when and at several other Hearings thereof before the Councels for the Appellant insisted that the Will being proved the Cause ought not to proceed any farther in that Court That Court having no Jurisdiction thereof it being a Question of Free-hold and Inheritance which is properly and only determinable at the Common Law Nevertheless his Lordship upon the said hearing directed that a Tryal at Law should be had upon one single Issue Viz. What Lands Andrew the Great Grandfather was seized of in Right of Katherine his Wife and whether he made any Intails and of what Lands To this Tryal neither the Appellant nor his Counsel ever gave their consent but were forced thereunto nor did the Appellant consent that a Jury should be appointed by the Court of Chancery but his Grace commanded the Sheriff to bring the Pannel of the County into the Court where the same was named the Foreman whereof Sir Richard Aldworth married his Grace's Neece Sir Richard Hull was his Sisters Son besides these there were others related to his Grace and the Respondent Impannelled none of which the Appellant durst presume to accept against because of their Relation to his Grace and his Graces Relation to the Respondent who is Brother-in-law to the Earl of Inchiqueen which Earl intermarried with his Grace's Sister A Tryal upon the Issue aforesaid was had 28 Jan. 1677 when the Jury found that Andrew Barrett the Great Grandfather was seized in Right of Katherine his Wife of most of the Lands in Question and also many thousand Acres of Land belonging to other persons which the Respondent did not Claim by the Bill adding as followeth viz. We do not find that the said Andrew made any Intail After which Verdict the Cause coming again to be re-heard Exceptions were taken to the Proceedings of that Court therein and against the said Verdict for that 1. The Court ought not to have proceeded in this Cause to direct the Tryal of any Issue whatsoever nor otherwise than to have inabled the Respondent to prove the Will in Question 2. The Issue was unreasonable Restraining the Appellant from the just Defence of his Right and Title it being only to try whether Andrew the Great Grandfather made any Intail whereas if Grandfather the Father or Sir William Barrett himself had Intailed the same the Respondents pretended Right is bound thereby 3. The Issue was to try an Intail de Jure only whereas an Intail de facto is sufficient to make good the Appellants Title and it is notorious that Sir William Barrett in his life-time lookt upon it as Intailed and in his Answer to a Bill in Chancery Exhibited against him in his life-time Swore it was Intailed and as such devised it by Will to the Appellant which Intail de facto is sufficient to assertain the Appellants Title 4. The Verdict in it self is uncertain as to the matter for it only saith they did not find that Andrew Barrett made an Intail but doth not say that Andrew Barrett made no Intail and yet upon this Verdict which recites but part of the Land in Question 5 July 1677 the Court of Chancery notwithstanding the Exceptions aforesaid proceeded to Decree from the Appellant and to the Respondent all the Lands in Question without admitting him to a new Tryal though moved for and Affidavits made of new Evidence being found after the aforesaid Tryal had which Evidence by the Respondents Art were kept concealed till the said Tryal was over The Cause coming again to be heard 4 May 1678 his Grace called to his assistance the Lord Chief Baron Mr. Justice Reynell the former upon hearing Counsel on both sides declared the Cause was improper for that Court and that both the Issue and Verdict were uncertain His Grace as by the Notes taken upon that days hearing appeareth declared he was satisfied 1 Feb. 1677 Sir William Barrett believed there was an Intail and that he intended something to the Appellant by his Will but what was the Doubt Whereupon he ordered a Reference advised the Parties to agree declaring That if they did not the Court had the Rains in their hands and a Hank upon them both adding That if the Respondent should insist too much upon his Right the Court would give the Appellant liberty to defend his Right at Law and the Court has the Appellant in their power if he should insist too much upon his Right It having been found there is no Intail whereupon the Court in the Appellants absence without his consent and when he was above 100 Miles distant from Dublin proceeded to make an Order of Referrence the Respondent then present and naming his Referee by which Order it was directed that the Appellant should meet the Respondents Referree at Cork and there name his Referee to joyn with him and the Court would make choice of an Umpire but the Appellant being advised by his Council that it might hazard his Title and injure the Heir in Remainder to attend the said Referrence never appeared Whereupon for his Contempt the Court awarded a Sequestration against all his Estate before any final Decree made which Sequestration was continued till December 1678. When his Grace re-heard the Cause assisted with six Judges but before the Cause was entered upon declared to the Judges that they should only speak to the Construction of the Will aforesaid But not to the Jurisdiction of the Court. Nor whether the Cause were properly Cognizable by that Court. Nor whether the Issue tryed at Law were a proper Issue nor whether the Verdict obtained upon that Tryal were certain Nevertheless the Lord Chief Baron Sir Richard Keneday and Mr. Justice Jones delivered their Opinions positively 1. That the Respondents Bill ought to be Dismist for that Court had no Jurisdiction of the Cause and gave as their Judgment that upon the Will it self the Matter of Law was for the Appellant 2. The Lord Chief Justice Booth and Mr. Justice Johnson delivered their Opinions That allowing their former Proceedings to be regular and that there was no Intail de Jure or de facto that then and in such case nothing past to the Appellant by the Will in Question But Mr. Justice Reynell declared That his Grace ought to proceed to Decree for the Respondent Whereupon His Grace