Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	law_n	lord_n	sergeant_n	2,779	5	10.7577	5	false

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

declaring 7 Feb. 1678 That nothing the Judges delivered had prevailed with him to alter his Opinion therefore Decreed all the Lands in Question being all the Estate the Appellant hath to the Respondent notwithstanding the Verdict doth not extend to many of the Lands in the Respondents Bill mentioned and for which his Grace upon former Hearings had declared the Respondent could have no Decree yet the Respondent is like to be put into the possession of the Estate which this Appellant and his Ancestors have injoyed and been possest of for many Hundred years last past And although it is mentioned that the said Decree should be without prejudice to the Appellants having a new Tryal in case he can find out any new Intail yet is the Appellant ruined thereby for first there never was any Intail but what he hath now found and moved for a new Tryal because kept from him at the former Tryals and such new Tryal denied 2dly For that as the Order is pen'd if a new Intail should be found yet cannot the Appellant have a new Tryal till he hath first performed the Decree so that he must deliver the possession of his Estate to the Respondent which done he hath not a penny to help himself or wage Law against the Respondent for recovering of it back besides the Respondent hath most of the Evidences that prove the Appellants Title in his possession so that if the Estate be Decreed his and delivered to his possession the Deeds relating to it belong to him also and the Decree will warrant his destroying them which being done will put an utter impossibility upon the Appellant ever to prove his Titie or recover back his Estate by any Tryal at Common Law where the Respondent ought to sue for his Right if he have any and not in Chancery From which Decree and Proceedings for the Reasons aforesaid April 1679. as well as for that the same is Illegal and Arbitrary and tends to the subverting the due course of Tryals of Rights of Inheritance and Free-holds and if led in Example and President may prove pernicious to the publick and by consequence in a short time become the Destruction of Property the Appellant addrest to this Supreme Court of Judicature and Fountain of Justice for Relief and appealed from the Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery in Ireland in this Cause as well as from the Decree aforesaid and prayed the Respondent might Answer and the Cause be heard and he receive Relief agreeable to Justice and that his possession in the mean time might be quieted which Appeal was signed by Serjeant Maynard Sir Francis Pemberton Sir Henage Finch Sir Francis Winnington and Mr. Keck To this Appeal the Respondent answered this Appelant replyed and a re-joynder was put in but the Respondent prevented a Hearing the last Parliament save on by alledging all his Papers were in Ireland when-as he came into England on purpose to attend the said Appeal The Appellant from April 1679 till Aug. 1680 attended his Appeal in England waiting for the Sitting of the last Parliament The Respondent delivered Appellants Tennents Declarations in Ejectment in Ireland Easter-Term 1680 and prest for a Tryal last Summer Assizes when the Appellant with all his Evidences were in England waiting for the Session of the last Parliament by which be intended to have surprized him but that was denied and a Tryal at Bar directed to be had Michaelmas-Term last accordingly a Jury came from the Country of Cork to try the Cause Notice was given that the Tryal should be had the 22d of Novemb. 1680. 48 l. was Deposited in Court by the Respondent to pay the Jury and the Respondent upon Apellantsmotion in Chancery that he might Elect which Court to proceed in for that he ought not to have two Suits Depending in two several Courts at the same time and for the same matter chose to proceed at Law and his Bill in Chancery had been Dismist but that it was Exhibited to examine Witnesses in perpetuam Rei Memoriam so that the Appellant well hoped his Appeal had been at an end it seeking only for Liberty to try his Title at Law but the said Respondent because the Court would not grant Liberty to Exemplifie the Deposition of one Mrs. Brimsdom Sir William Barretts Landlady examined by him at Bristoll who is now living and to use the same at the said Tryal which was opposed by the Appellant as being contrary to the Practice of the Court therefore the Respondent would not proceed to Tryal took his 48 l. out of Court and moved that the Suit might be discontinued the last motion was denied and the Suit is still Depending and ready for Tryal but the Appellant by these means hath been put to vast charge in going to Ireland Feeing Counsel providing and bringing Witnesses to Dublin and the Court of Exchequer 27 Nov. 1680 by Rule declared it was not the Appellants fault the Tryal was not heard last Michaelmas-Term Now the Reason why the Appellant insisted upon it by his Council not to give way to the use of the Deposition desired it as followeth The Respondent first Exhibited a Bill only to prove the Will in question To which the Appellant answered and not opposing the proof thereof suffered him to Examine Witnesses Ex parte one of which swore they saw him sign seal and publish the Will and this was the Evidence he desired to use at Law Afterwards the Respondent Exhibited his Bill against the Appellant not only to Examine Witnesses in perpetuam Rei memoriam but also to have the Estate in question decreed to him In this Cause the Appellant joyn'd in Examining Witnesses and Cross Examined the Witnesses he desired to make use of at Law who swore not only the Will made and published but also that it was done at her desire and that at the same time Sir William Barrett told her he had refused to make a Will before though prest thereto for that his Estate was Intailed and he left it to a poor boy in Ireland of his Name to keep up the Name of his family adding That seeing God had given it him he would not take it from him The Appellant never denied the making use of this persons Testimony in the Cause wherein the Decree was pronounced and the Tryal aforesaid directed but offered to consent thereunto but the Respondent would have publisht it in the first Cause where Examined Ex parte in which Cause never any farther proceeding was yet had and this purposely to defeat the Appellant of the benefit of his cross Examination which the Appellant opposed and the Court denied to Grant Whereupon The Respondent leaving the Appellant in Ireland 20 Dec. 1680 came to London Petitioned this most Honourable House for a hearing alledging great damage by the Appellants delay and obtained Order for the Cause to be heard 20 Jan. 1680 without any other notice to be given