after they were sealed, and that he ought not to make any further assurance with general warranty; although by the articles aforesaid he had agreed to make good the estate, and had by three leases made by him to under tenants covenanted generally for quiet enjoyment, in order (as respondents supposed) to induce Henry to be a purchaser; and that William's council insisted on the hearing, that the articles were forged: Upon which Lord Somers, at their request, directed the issue, and on two trials by two special juries, who knew the character and credibility of the witnesses on both sides, verdicts were found for respondent the [103] infant, and that the articles were William's act and deed. And that after the second verdict upon hearing the cause on the equity reserved, William's council obtained four days to attend the judge for a certificate for a third trial, who refused it, declaring it was a fair verdict, and such as himself would have given had he been upon the jury. And the cause being afterwards finally heard upon the equity reserved, it was decreed that William should re-convey the mortgaged premisses to the respondent the infant, and that she should enjoy same against William and all claiming under him; and that the respondents should convey to William the lands sold to Henry free from encumbrances, and that each deliver back to the other the title deeds on oath; and respondent, the executrix, to acknowledge satisfaction on the 500l. judgment, and the reconveyances to be settled by a Master, and an account to be taken of what money the respondents testator paid for interest of the 300l. and costs on both sides were reserved until the court should see how the decree would be complied with; and the Master settled the said conveyances, and reported 36l. due to respondents for interest; and that appellant in the name of William Williams afterwards petitioned for and obtained a rehearing; and thereupon the first decree was confirmed, and ordered William Williams to pay costs in case he did not comply with the said decree; after which William died, and administration to him had been granted to appellant, who had all along managed and carried on the suits at his own charge in William's name, who had, in 1686, assigned his interest to appellant, as appeared by William's affidavit. And respondents insisted that the two decrees ought to be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with exemplary costs; and showed that respondents had for upwards of fourteen years been harassed in these suits by appellant in the name of William, and put to above 600l. charge, to their utter ruin, and had for several years been kept upon the charity of their relations. (Wm. Dobyn.)
Die Lunæ, 24 Martii, 1700. After hearing council upon this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged by the Lords, that the decree and order complained of should be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with 10l. cost. Lords Journ. vol. xvi. p. 633.
The appellant stated, that the manor of Adderbury, in the county of Oxon, and several lands there, worth above 6000l. per annum, had been in the family of the late Earl of Rochester for many generations, part fee simple, part copyhold of inheritance, and part leasehold, under the bishop of Winchester, for three lives, all held together without distinction of freehold, copyhold or leasehold, and that the leases, as the lives dropt, were from time to time renewed by the Bishop, on easy fines, and during the late wars, when there was no possibility of renewing the bishop's leases, Henry, late Earl of Rochester, the last life therein, died in 1659, in exile, leaving Ann, his Countess, and John, Earl of Rochester, his only son, then about twelve years old and 1660, upon the restoration of Charles the 2d, and the
202
