Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	esq_n	john_n	william_n	62,837	5	9.9142	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39583	A Reply to a paper intituled A true account of the unreasonableness of Mr. Fittons pretences against the Earl of Macclesfield		1685 (1685)	Wing F1067; ESTC R37818	5,214	5

establish and strengthen his Settlement the Times growing ill and he being about to enter into the War which would have signified nothing as to the saving his Estate in his Family if he had had a power to revoke it In Answer to the fifth Objection 't is plain the Possession and Deeds and Account of the Profits were Decreed before any Tryal was had upon the Will and before the Tryal which the Chancery it self thought fit to allow which was plainly before the Cause was Determined 'T is also evident that the Deed was at first sent with prejudice to be Tryed for it was called a pretended Deed. Nothing can be more frivolous than the sixth Allegation that the Right of Inheritance was not touch'd but only the Person bound by the Decree For all Deeds were taken from Mr. Fitton together with the Possession and the Deed-Poll Cancelled and he Decreed to have no farther Tryal and he that has no Remedy has no Right or at least his Right can do him no good Whether the Court of Chancery has exceeded their Power is now the Question before the Lords and therefore to draw Arguments from the Judgment of the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper is begging the Question and is indeed to make an Argument Which if it have any force at all will indifferently serve against all Appeals to the Lords the Jurisdiction of this Great Court being founded upon a supposition that Chancellors and Keepers may mistake Besides the now Lord Keeper being prevented by a Plea and Demurrer could never look into the Proofs in the Cause That the Decree is larger than the Plaintiffs Petition will be obvious to any Person who looks on both nothing is pray'd but to set aside the Lease and to be at Liberty to examine Witnesses to the Will But the Decree is for the Possession for an Account of Profits for Delivering up and Vacating Deeds and does exclude the Defendant from Trying his Right at Law for the future The pretended Answer divides the Proofs of the Will into three Heads As to the first which mentions Sir Edward's Intention to settle his Estate on the Earl of Macclesfield Mr. Manwairing the first Person named had for many Years together been in Suit which Mr. Fitton as one of the Co-heirs of Sir Edward and therefore could not believe there was a Will And Sir John Trevor Mr. Davenport and other Persons of undoubted Credit did fully prove in the Cause that Sir Edward did ever intend to keep the Estate in the Name and to settle it on William Fitton and sent for him out of Ireland for that purpose and declared that rather than a Fitton should not have it he would leave it to Ned Fitton the Bang-beggar Nor could Sir Edward Fitton conceive any prejudice against William Fitton because he was engaged in the Irish or English Rebellion since'tis utterly false that he was engaged in either being well known to be a Gentleman of very Loyal Principles And Philip Pritchard Esq Ralph Jamon and Thomas Cowley William Sweetenham Edmund Barwick Edward Gardiner and John Snelson prove that when Sir Edward Fitton upon his Death-bed was sollicited by Earl Rivers and Mr. Davenport to settle his Estate upon the Lord Gerrard he absolutely refused it And John Cowley and another proves that when the Earl of Dorset and Earl Rivers at Oxford at several times about three Months before his Death importun'd Sir Edward Fitton to settle his Estate on the Lord Gerrard he made answer he could not do it having settled it before on the Fittons Which is in effect a proof that Sir Edward Fitton own'd he had Releas'd his Power of Revocation As to the second Head the Witnesses who spoke positively to the Will were two Dr. Smallwood and Hollingshead Smallwood being Examined as a Witness in a Cause in Chancery between the Co-heirs and Mr. Fitton did Depose that he knew not of any Settlement made by Sir Edward Fitton by Deed Will or otherwise which Oath of his must be false if he had at that time the Will in his Doublet where he pretended to have carried it seventeen Years 2. Whereas according to the Settlement Edward the Eldest Son of William Fitton at his Age of fourteen Years tendred himself to marry the Lord Brereton's Daughter Smallwood being then his Domestick Chaplain persuaded the Lord Brereton to marry his Daughter to him which he could not do without the basest Infidelity if he knew the Estate was given away from the Fittons As to Hollingshead he was the Person who treated a Marriage between Edward the Eldest Son of William Fitton and the Daughter of William Jolliff Esq which was prevented by Edwards Death and who after treated a Marriage between the Petitioner and the Daughter of Thomas Jolliff Esq and upon both those Treaties he constantly affirmed the Title of the Fittons under the Settlement 2. After the Marritge had taken effect he pressed the Petitioner for a Lease of a Farm part of the Lands in question and offered a considerable Fine for such Lease which he would not have done if he knew the Petitioner had no Title and he often affirmed that he was present when Earl Rivers press'd Sir Edward Fitton to settle his Estate on the Plaintiff which he refused He also advised others to renew their Leases from Mr. Fitton which they did thereupon And notwithstanding it is alledged with so much assurance that the Will was clearly Proved at the Tryal at Chester Sir Job Charlton before whom the Cause was Tryed directed the Jury that they ought to have no regard to Hollinshead's Testimony as a Person not credible and that the only Evidence for the Will was Dr. Smallwood if they did believe him As to the rest of the Witnesses who speak to Hollingshead's Report their Testimony falls together with Hollingsheads 'T is true there was an Information of Perjury Exhibited against Smallwood and Hollingshead but Mr. Fittons most material Witnesses being then beyond Sea when the Cause was to be Tryed and the Court refusing to put off the Tryal no Evidence at all was given and the Defendants acquitted of course As to that Objection which may at first seem plausible that it will be a hardship upon the Earl to come to a Tryal after so long a time if it be examined it will appear to have to weight in it For the Question being upon the reality of the Will and the Earl's Witnesses having been all Examined their Depositions remain for his advantage and they cannot be cross-examined by the Court which they might have been if they were yet alive and that is only to the disadvantage of Mr. Fitton There is no time of limitation fixed in case of an Appeal from an Erroneous Decree In this Case the Plaintiff and Defendant are still living Mr. Fitton has been Prisoner almost ever since the Decree but has made Entries and Claims on Record from time to time though under a disability not only to Prosecute this Suit but another Suit upon a Mortgage of part of the Lands in question which he might have done if able at a much less charge than bring on this Cause The Tryal had at Chester is much insisted on but if the Fact were stated would have little weight with it Mr. Fitton was then a Prisoner the Sessions appointed in Term-time all the Principal Council below retain'd by the Earl and Mr. Fitton could get no Council in London to leave the Term to go to that Tryal nor could he prevail with divers of his material Witnesses to go down All which appears by several Affidavits made in Chancery before the Tryal and in order to put if off And at the Tryal he lost the use of several Witnesses who were dead being not suffered to read their Depositions because the Bill and Answer in the Cause were forgotten to be brought down as appears by another Affidavit made in the same Court for a new Tryal