Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
B08975
|
The Earl of Pembroke's case, in reference to the amendments in Wales.
|
|
1695
(1695)
|
Wing E77[plus]; ESTC R232759
|
2,133
|
3
|
THE Earl of PEMBROKE's Case In Reference to the Amendments in Wales PHilip late Earl of Pembroke the Brother of the now Earl having married the Dutchess of Portsmouth's Sister in pursuance of an Agreement made by him in Order to that Marriage for settling a Jointure on her in case she survived him did by Demise and Redemise settle the yearly Rent of 1500 l. per annum issuing out of all his Mannors and Lands in Glamorganshire and in order to make that a good Security to her he having only in those Mannors and Lands an Estate tail-male with a Remainder in tail-male to the now Earl did in the Year 1675 levy a Fine and suffer two Recoveries of all the said Mannors and Lands but declared no Use of the Freehold and Inheritance thereof there being no Agreement for settling of any Estate on any Issue Male or Female on that Marriage After the suffering of which said Recoveries the said Earl Philip died without Issue-Male of his Body having only one Daughter the Lady Charlott Herbert now Wife to the Lord Jefferye after whose Death the now Earl of Pembroke being informed that there were several gross Errors in the said Fine and Recoveries did bring several Writs of Error to reverse them but could procure no Return to be made on the said Writs of Error till after the late Lord Chancellor Jefferye had concluded the said Marriage of his Son and two Persons were sent down by the said late Lord Chancellor to procure Amendments to be made in the said Fine and Recoveries and then the Records and Writs were returned in the Court of King's-Bench as they were amended some of which Amendments being illegal and not warranted by Law and being procured by Power and Practice the Effect of the said now Earl's Bill is to set aside the said Amendments The Amendments that the now Earl iâ—sists on to be made contrary to Law is in altering of the Date of the Writ of Covenant which was dated the 1st of April in 27 Car. 2. which was altered and dated the 3d of November before which they did to make it precede the Dedimus for taking that Fine which was dated that 5th of November which being an Amendment of an Original Writ is not warranted by the Common Law or any Statute and was so declared by the Judges whilst this Bill was depending in the House of Peers and that the Judg of the Grand Sessions could not by Law make any such Amendment The other Error insisted upon by the said Earl is That Earl Philip being not in Person in Wales at the time of suffering the Recovery a Commission stiled a Dedimus issued to several Commissioners named in that Commission impowering three or two of them to take the Earl's naming his Attorney to appear for him as Vouchee in the said Recovery which was executed by Herbert Salladin and Francis Negus whereas Herbert Salladin was no Commissioner named in that Commission and so was executed but by one of the Commissioners therein named and therefore void To supply which gross Error the Judg of the Grand Sessions ordered a new Dedimus to be made and put Herbert Salladin's Name into it on pretence that the former Dedimus was lost and that Herbert Salladin was therein named one of the Commissioners for taking the said Warrant of Attorney which Pretence none of the Lord Jefferye's Witnesses being examined at the Lords Bar could make out or prove that Herbert Salladin's Name was ever in such Commission And the now Earl insists on it that his Name was not in any such Commission for these Reasons First That in the Entry of the said Commission on the Roll on Record neither the Christian Name nor Sirname of Herbert Salladin is mentioned Secondly That the Name of Herbert Salladin in the Commission for taking the Fine is written on a Razure and 't is very probable it was so put into that Commission after the Sealing of it the Lord Jefferye's Witness who made out the Commission being examined to that Matter at the Bar of the Lords said he could not tell that it was put in before the Sealing thereof Thirdly That when the now Earl sent for Copies of the Records and Proceedings in order to bring his Writs of Error Mr. Hughes the Officer who kept the Records in the Grand Sessions did in examining the Copies of the Records after they were writ refuse the now Earl's Agent to peruse the Dedimus and did read to him the Dedimus for taking the Fine instead of the Dedimus for taking the Warrant of Attorney for the Recovery That the Deputy Prothonory who had the Custody of the said Records being then Agent for the Lady Pembroke did in the Year 1688 before the said Amendments were made offer one Anthony Phillpott one hundred Guinea's if he would acknowledg he had seen the said Dedimus for taking the said Warrant of Attorney and that the Name Herbert Salladin was therein written as a Commissioner All which the now Earl thinks are plain Proofs that Herbert Salladin was never therein named a Commissioner and that the Commission is purposely imbezzl'd and conceal'd that the Truth might not appear that there might be a Pretence for making a new one under Colour that the former Commission was right and casually lost In the ingrossed Bill there is a Proviso to make the said Mannors and Lands in case the said Fine and Recoveries should be revers'd liable to such Debts of the said Earl Phillip as the said Mannors and Lands would have been subject unto if the said Fine and Recoveries had stood good and not been revers'd And also that in case the other Mannors and Lands descended and come to the Lady Charlotte Wife of the now Lord Jefferyes should not be of the Value of 10000 l. to be sold being her Mother's Portion to make those Mannors and Lands of which the said Fine and Recoveries were levied and suffered liable to the raising of such Part of the 10000 l. as the said other Mannors and Lands shall not amount unto THE CASE OF THE Earl of Pembroke