Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	francis_n	sir_n	william_n	36,923	5	8.8615	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B08636	The case of John St. Leger Esq; respondent in the appeal of John Baret, from a decree in the chancery of Ireland.		1685 (1685)	Wing C935A; ESTC R173530	2,295	5

THE CASE OF John St. Leger Esq RESPONDENT IN THE APPEAL Of John Barret from a Decree in the Chancery of Ireland SIR William Barret being in England but having a considerable Estate in Ireland part whereof he apprehended might be intail'd Made his Will in Writing and leaves all his intail'd Land to Mr. Barret his Heir Male and those not intail'd to Mr. St Leger 16. Feb. 72. his Unckle and his Heirs Males making him Guardian of Mr. Barret but yet he had a very little regard for him declaring often the Respondent Mr. St. Leger should have his Estate At first Mr. St. Leger apprehended also that part of the Lands might be intailed but afterwards discovering that they were not exhibited his Bill in the Chancery in Ireland to discover the Writings and prove the Will and examine the Witnesses the Will being made here in England and the Lands lying in Ireland And to have the Deeds delivered and have the Benefit of Depositions taken in a former Cause but between other Parties viz. The Daughters of one Sir James Barret who claim'd Portions out of the Estate and to be reliev'd upon the whole matter To which Bill the Defendant answered and did not Object against the Jurisdiction of the Court but by answer prayed to have a Determination of the Matter saying he hoped it would appear at the Hearing that the Estate was intailed Whereupon The Cause was heard at which time the Questions were 21. May. 77. whether the Estate were Old Andrew Barret's an Ancestor of the Family of the Testators his Wife Katharines and whether it was intail'd And the Court after three days Hearing directed a Tryal upon these Issues Whether Andrew were seiz'd in Right of his Wife Katharine of the Lands in question and whether there was any intail and of what Lands In which Tryal the Appellant join'd and after a full Tryal at the King's Bench-Bar The Jury found that Andrew was seiz'd in Right of his Wife Katharine of particular Lands 17. Feb. 78 And did not find he made any intayl vid. the Judges Certificate After 13 several days hearing of Counsel on both sides 20. June 77. the Court Decreed the Lands in the Bill being those found to be Katharines by the Verdict to the Plaintiff Mr. St. Leger and an Injunction for Possession but without prejudice to the Appellant if any intayl should afterwards be discovered and brought to light provided he first give Obedience to the Order of the Court. Against which Decree Barret now Appeals as if the Court had exceeded their Jurisdiction in making a Decree But it is conceived to be very Just and agreeable to Reason and the Appellant's Preceedings against it very unreasonable For the Plaintiff in the Decree Mr. St. Leger could never have had any relief without the help of a Court of Equity either to discover what Lands were Intayled which must be done by the writings if any were or to have the writings of the Fee-simple Estate out of Barret's hands or to examine Witnesses who lived in England and elsewhere to use at Common Law if Occasion were As also to have the Benefit of Depositions taken in another Cause between other Parties but touching the same Estate The Appellant joyned to have the Cause determin'd in Equity as before and did not Object against it as hoping himself to have a favorable Construction in Equity upon the Will as to the Pretence of the Intayl And then he Joyned in defence of the Tryal There being an Issue directed and a Verdict upon the Right it would have been hard to have made all that signifie nothing as it must if there was no Decree made But the Court being so possest of the Cause it was fit and just to make some Rule upon those Proceedings and no other could be but the said Decree For it would have been very unreasonable to have dismissed the Bill when the Plantiff Mr. St. Legers's Right had been asserted upon the Tryal By the Decree the Appellant has all the favor shewed him that was possible for altho the Verdict found no entail by which the Court might have concluded him yet he is left at Liberty to make out an entail at any time after and have the benefit of it but he knows there is or can be none for that the whole Estate was Katharine's Inheritance and she out-lived both her Husband and her Eldest Son Sir James and in truth did no Act to entail it and neither her Husband or Son without her could entail it But the great Trouble of the Cause is that Barret finding the matter upon the Intail to be against him and that he fails in his expectation of making that out one Alderman Dean now starts up to oppose the Decree And he pretends that he has purchased the Estate of Barret And so would render all that has been done voyd But that is very ill done of him for he knew of the Suit and after Issue joined in the Cause has as is pretended purchased so comes in pendente lite And so the Judges of Ireland have Certified And therefore no Consideration ought to be had of him And the Plaintiff in the Decree as is humbly hoped shall proceed for possession of the Estate having been hung up now seven years by this Appeal from proceeding on the Decree And he hopes the Decree shall be Confirmed having been so Solemnly made As to the Appellants Printed Case given out this Sessions this Respondent conceives it needs no Answer the main of it being a scandalous Libel Reflecting on his Grace the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and some of the Judges and on all the Jury He therein gives your Lordships some Lawyers opinions hoping thereby to perswade your Lordships into a good Opinion of an ill Cause Nay he Prints Sir William Jones and Sir Francis Pembertons Opinions which if they ever did give was upon his mistaking the Case for the same Persons have given their opinion upon the Case truly stated with their Reasons for the same That this Respondent was and is well Intitled to have the Decree against which the Appeal is brought and not only those two but the late Chief Justice Saunders Judge Reymond and Mr. Holt have Concurred therein But this Respondent did not think fit to put the same in Print because he is well assured he shall by his Council give your Lordships at the Bar such Reasons as will Convince your Lordships that the Appeal ought to be dismist and the Respondents Decree confirmed