thereof from 1696, on pretence that the lease made to Emerton in 1692, was obtained by misrepresentation of the value, and that there was some previous agreement to admit Croasdaile into a partnership; and an account of the profits of all the woods bought by Croasdaile, as being taken in trust for respondents: And that to this bill appellants, in June, 1710, answered as to part, and said they were absolute strangers to the matters suggested in the bill; but that amongst Croasdaile's papers they found a draught of an answer, which they believed he intended to put into the former bill exhibited by respondents Arthur and wife, and set it forth verbatim: And as to that part of the bill which required an account of the woods bought by Croasdaile, pleaded that he was a purchaser thereof for valuable consideration, without any fraud or trust: And to this answer and plea respondents replied, and issue being joined, witnesses were examined, and the cause heard 22d February, 1710, and appellants complained that they were deprived of the benefit of several material depositions, on pretence that the interrogatories were leading; and the Court of Exchequer decreed. That the agreement made with Emerton in February, 1692, for the iron-works of Woodford, as to a third part thereof, should be deemed a trust for respondents; and that appellants should account for the full profits of that third part, from the commencement of Emerton's interest to the 1st day of May, 1697, and that the agreement made by Croasdaile with respondent Usher should be set aside; and that appellants should account with respon-[463]-dents for the full clear profit of the works and premisses, since the commencement of that agreement; and for the value of the woods cut down by Croasdaile, on the lands so demised to him, since the commencement of that demise to the time of his death; and that the lease taken by Croasdaile, in his own name, of the said thirty-six acres in Slewbaghty, should be deemed a trust for respondents; and that appellants should account for the profits thereof since the death of Sir Henry Wadington; and directed several issues to be tried for ascertaining the profits respectively during these several times: And on a re-hearing, 9th May, 1711, on appellants petition, ordered, That appellants should account with respondents for all the timber and bark cut, stripped, or made use of by Croasdaile, on any of the lands held under Emerton's contract, except such timber as was used in necessary repairs on the premises; and also for the profits of the thirty-six acres in Slewbaghty, from Sir Henry Wadington's death; and reserved the judgment as to the other points, until the value and profits be ascertained by a trial at law; for which purpose they directed the several issues to be tried by a jury of the county of Galway, at the bar of the court of Exchequer; and a trial was accordingly had, and the jury found that Croasdaile had made 63l. 7s. 2d. clear profit yearly, from the 1st May, 1693, to 1st May, 1697, of the third part of the iron-works and lands, and of the cord-wood cut thereon; and found the yearly value of all the works, lands, and wood cut thereon, to be 233l. yearly, from the 1st May, 1697, to the 1st May, 1711, inclusive; and that the clear yearly profit thereof, above the reserved rent, was in those years 83l. per ann. and found the value of the wood, timber, and bark, (over and above what was made use of in necessary repairs) from 1st May, 1693, to Croasdaile's death, to be 1850l. and the clear profit of Slewbaghty to be 2l. 10s. a year; which verdict was confirmed by an order made the 12th of November, 1711: And appellants showed that on the hearing and re-hearing they pressed that the issues to be tried might be, Whether any agreement was made between Emerton and Croasdaile, at or before the time of making the demise in 1692? And what the real value of the said lands, woods, and iron-works then were, to be let for seven years to a responsible tenant; but the court would not direct either of those issues to be tried; but without any evidence of a previous trust between Emerton and Croas-[464]-daile, and, notwithstanding the repeated subsequent agreements of respondents, on the 8th December, 1711, decreed, that appellants should account for the profits and value, according to the verdict, without any allowance for the management of the iron-works: Which decree, orders, and issues, appellants insisted were unjust; because the demise to Emerton was with the unanimous concurrence of the executors and coheirs of Sir Henry Wadington, and the rent thereon reserved, was as much as the works with the appurtenances could then be let for to a responsible tenant; so that no fraud could be imputed to Croasdaile in that particular: And again, because there was no evidence of any agreement made between Emerton and Croasdaile, at or before the demise, to let Croasdaile
373
