he had liberty to amend his bill; and with these alterations the former decree was ordered to stand: And that appellant amended his bill, but it being after publication and hearing, the respondent put in a plea thereto. And the causes being beard, 20th February, 1694, the Chancellor then declared, that the profits received by Skelton and wife out of the Peyton estate, but not these received out of the Sewster estate, must be applied to sink respondent's debt; and that the decretal order of the 15th December, 1687, should stand; but if the respondent should insist to have the benefit of the legacy of 500l. so given by Sir Robert Sewster, then the profits received by Skelton and wife, out of Sir Robert's estate, [48] were to come in account so far only as to sink the demand of the 500l. legacy; and respondent's said plea was allowed. And the Register having mistaken the Court, as to the direction in the last order of not giving costs, although by the last order, the former order of the 15th December, (whereby costs were given to respondents was to stand) respondent petitioned for a rehearing touching costs only; and the cause was reheard, 24th December, 1697, and appellant's council heard thereto, and the Court decreed respondent his costs of these suits; and respondent insisted such decree was according to the rules of equity; and that respondent, who bona fide, lent 1000l. near twenty years since, should be repaid the same with interest and costs, (as all mortgages ought.) And after the respondent, who had been twelve years in recovering a just debt, and had three decrees, should at last be at peace; and prayed the decree may be affirmed. (Wm. Dobyng.)
Die Martis, 14th February, 1698. Upon hearing council on both sides, on the petition and appeal of Sir Sewster Peyton, from several decrees and orders of the Chancery, in several causes between Skelton and wife, plaintiffs and appellant, by his guardian, defendant, and è contra: And between Brown, plaintiff and appellant, and Skelton, defendants: And between appellant, by his guardian, plaintiff, and Brown and Skelton, defendants—It was ordered and adjudged by the Lords, that the said several decrees and orders of the Court of Chancery should be reversed, so as that Brown should stand in the place of Skelton and wife, to account for the rents, issues, and profits, as well of the manor of Ravely, as of the manors of Coldham and Doddington, received since the deaths of Sir Algernon Peyton and Sir Robert Sewster respectively, in order to satisfy the money due to Brown: And that the accounts stated in the Court of Chancery, in 1676 and 1679, be laid open for that purpose, and that the Court of Chancery give directions accordingly. Lords Journ. vol. xvi. 383.
[49] Case 10.—William Smallman and Thomas Gregory,—Appellants; Humphry Brayne and Richard Walker,—Respondents [1698].
The appellant stated that respondents, as lessees of the Bailiffs and Burgesses of Bridgnorth, in the county of Salop, of certain Mills, called Pendaston's Mills, brought their bill in the Exchequer against appellants, to compel them to grind all corn and grain used in their houses at said mills, on pretence of a custom, that all bakers, brewers, residents, Burgesses, and other inhabitants of said town, had used, and of right ought, to grind all corn and grain, spent and used in their houses, at said mills, and not elsewhere; and prayed a discovery of the quantities of corn and grain appellants had so used within the time stated in the Bill; and that appellants might in future be compelled to grind all corn and grain used in their houses at said mills, and appellants, by their answers, denied the custom, and insisted that foreign millers publicly came into town at all times, and carried away the ground and grist of the Burgesses and other inhabitants, time out of mind, to be ground at other mills; and brought the same back publicly, when ground, without interruption, especially when, by extortions and delays, the inhabitants were ill used at respondents mills; which appellants had frequently been to their great damage. And witnesses being examined on both sides, the cause was heard in the Exchequer chamber, 25th November, 1697, and a trial at law directed at the then next assizes of Salop, to try whether any such custom, as alleged by respondents, which appellants were ready to have tried. But the respondents
174
