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	sir_n	thomas_n	73,651	5	10.2922	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57085	The respondents ansvver to a printed paper, called, The Dutchess of Albemarl, and Mr. Monk's case against the said respondents	Bath, John Grenville, Earl of, 1628-1701. aut	1694 (1694)	Wing R1172A; ESTC R219680	3,186	4

THE RESPONDENTS ANSWER TO A Printed PAPER Called The Dutchess of ALBEMARL and Mr. MONK's CASE Against the Said RESPONDENTS Appel Ralph Earl of Mountague Elizabeth Dutchess of Albemarl his Wife And Mr. Monk Resp John Earl of Bathe and others SINCE the Respondents printed their Case there is a Paper come abroad Entituled The Case of the Dutchess of Albemarle and Mr. Monk against the Earl of Bathe and others Respondents wherein the Author declares the general Question to be Whether the Deed of 1681 or the Will of July 87 in Eqnity ought to be construed to be the true Settlement of the Duke's Estate And then complains the Decretal Order only declares That the Court saw no Cause in Equity to relieve the Appellants at which the Author is greatly offended and saith The Court ought to have given a Reason why they saw no cause to relieve This is certainly an Original for no one before did ever expect a Reason why another could not see a thing that did not appear But in the next place he arreigns the Lord Keeper and Judges for taking it to be a Good Deed Whereas saith he only the Fact was tryed and the Verdict ought to be no farther Evidence than that the Duke executed the Deed. If the Deed was found by Verdict to be well executed as the Au Author admits wherein was the Iniquity of the Court to take it to be a good Deed. But rather why doth the Author after he admits it to be the Dukes Deed stuff the rest of the Paper with so many Libellous Matters as tho the Deed had never been Executed The Plain Reason of it is Because the Author hopes to amuse some by bold Reflections altho nothing to the Point which he himself makes to be a Question in Equity the Law being agree'd by himself to be against the Appellants his Points of Surprize Concealment and Resulting Trust remain only Points in Equity so that the Libellous part being determin'd at Law where the Respondents had many other Witnesses than those in Chancery they need not here Answer what they there confuted out of any respect to their Cause Nevertheless not to suffer such scurrilous Reflections to remain unanswer'd They say that they cannot but wonder to see the Author again to mention the Rasure in the Date of the Deed as though there was some very ill Practice therein whereas the Date is not Material so as it was Sealed at any time either before or after and it is not to be supposed that any one shuuld do an ill thing for no End but the Rasure is plain and visible and not done with Art to deceive but always ownd and fully provd to be before the Scaling I. The Writer swears it done by him ten years before and that he never saw it under Seal untill he saw it at the Examiners Office at his Examination in this Cause II. Mr. Croft's who read the same at the first opening doth swear The Room being dark he by mistake read it 82 but at the same time corrected himself And it was then handed about and agreed to be 81. And it stands now as it was then III. Mr. Aleman one of the Witnesses went beyond Sea in September 81 and had a Pass from the Secretary of State which he produced of that Date aud positively swears it was before he went IV. All the Witnesses swear it was in Albemarle's House which was sold before 82. V. Sir Thomas Stringer took an Abstract thereof before the Duke went to Jamaica where it is plainly mentioned to bear Date as now it appears in July 1681. The next thing quarrell'd at is that the Earl by his Answer saith he knew not who writ the Deed and what wonder is it if a Person that had been concern'd in such variety and multiplicity of Business as the Earl was should not after so great a length of time as ten years call to mind who it was that did a particular thing The next Reproach that is therein repeated doth rather shew the Malice than Discretion of the Author for he cannot but remember that the Seal-Cutter swears that Mr. Bull the Earl of Bathe's Secretary helped him him to many Customers and that it is about 28 years since he cut two Seals one for the Earl of Bathe and this of the Duke of Albemarl's for which the Earl of Bathe paid him and this they would have to be a Seal prepared only for the Sealing of this Deed and kept by the Earl for such purpose but it was proved I. That Duke George used this as his Seal by many Instruments produced at the Tryal that had been kept by the Parties from the time they received them from his Hand II. Marthew Look Esq the old Duke's Secretary swore That he kept the same Seal many Years in the Old Duke's Time and deliver'd it to his Son the last Duke after his death III. That there were many Instruments also produced at the Tryal made by Duke Christopher under the same Seal And surely after such Proof to renew this Reflection is very malicious The Author quarrels with the Unlawyer-like Pening of the Deed of 81. But by whom was it done was it not by Sr. Thomas Stringer the Dukes Councel And if good in Law shall his Informalities make it void in Equity That surely they will not agree for then what would become of their Will of 87. Their own great Oracle had his Blunders How comes it to pass unless to shew the Duke was not in earnest That by that Will I. The Remainder of all the Estate is limited to the Regecide Issue whom the Duke made it his great Concern to exclude from Inheriting what came from the Crown II. How comes is that the Duke after he had given his Heir at Law 5000 l. absolutely by the Will of 75 gives it by this only upon Condition That she Release her Right to 500 l. per Ann. her paternal Estate and to Pudridg the Capital Seat where the Duke had laid out 16000 l. in Building This could not be in Earnest III. How comes he to enjoyne Mr. Monke to make that his Habitation could he think his Vncles Daughter would so easily give up what she had by Settlement from her Father Duke George's elder Brother That is no more to be imagined than that the Duke really intended it In Answer to this the Appellants will say Altho Mrs. Pride's Father to keep the Estate in his Name setled those Lands from his own Daughter on his Brother Duke George in tayl Male with the remainder to his Daughter yet the Dukes might have suffered a Recovery and then the Devise to Mr. Monke would have been good And however they out of Honour would not do so ungrateful a thing Yet in regard they could have done it if they plesed that now in favor of the Devise his Intent appearing thereby Equity shall supply both the Recovery in this Case and the Revocation in the other But God forbid such dangerous Doctrine should take place The rest of the Paper declining to contend the Reality of the Deed and labouring only to perswade that in Equity Mr. Monk without Kindred or Merit ought to have Preference to the Duke of Albemarl's Estate and not the Respondents The Respondents forbear to answer the same but refer to their Printed Case and doubt not but every impartial Reader will agree that if they have the best Title at Law they ought not in Justice or Equity to be further disquietd But the Author having in the beginning of these Sutes rais'd and spread those scandalous Reports doth now even against his own Conviction the Appellants acquiessing in the Verdict and not denying the Deed but only insisting on Equity maliciously revive the same And the Respondents hope That as they have been vindicated against that foul Imputation of Forgery by a Verdict at Law and of that of Surprize and Concealment by a Decree in Chancery after full deliberation they shall now be dismissed by this Noble House and repared against the Author of that Paper for his Confessed Wilful and Malicious Scandals THE Respondents at the Tryal Examined the several Witnesses following which are not Examined in Chancery viz. The Earle of Maclesfield Th Lord Carterett Sr. Caesar Cranmer Sr Peter Prideaux Sr. John Moslesworth Sr. Thomas Higgins Pullein Esq Doctor Nixon a Prebend of Canterbury Mr. Serjeant Bonithon THE following Witnesses were Examined at the Tryal to several Points whereunto they had not been Examined in Chancery viz. Matthew Lock Esq William Shaw Esq Mr. Heblethwayte Sr. William Jones ' s Chief Clerk Mr. Chapman Sr. Tho. Stringer ' s Clerk Andrew Barry Esq Mr. Thompson the Scrivener Mr. East the Seale-Cutter Mr. Errington SEveral other matterial Witnesses which were in Court to have been Examined but were not by reason the Court were satisfied without them viz. The Honourable Francis Roberts Esq Sr. Thomas Ogle Major Francis Kelly And many others Answers to the Rasure in the Date of the Deed of 81.