Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 20, 1714-1717. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1767-1830.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
DIE Mercurii, 15 Maii.
Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:
Rochfort versus Nugent:
Counsel (pursuant to the Order Yesterday) were called in, for the further Hearing of the Cause, wherein Robert Rochfort Esquire is Appellant, and Ridgely Nugent Gentleman Respondent.
And the Respondent's Counsel proceeded accordingly.
And desiring that the Answer of Walter Nugent the Attorney might be read:
It was objected to by the Appellant's Counsel, the same not having been read in the Court below.
Whereupon they were directed to withdraw.
And withdrew accordingly.
And, after Debate;
The Question was put, "Whether the Answer of the said Walter Nugent, to prove the Identity of the Person mentioned in the Settlement made by Walter Nugent, of Portlomon, Esquire, in the Year 1675, be permitted to be read?"
It was Resolved in the Affirmative.
Then the Counsel were called in; and the Respondent's Counsel were acquainted by the Lord Chancellor, "The House was of Opinion, the said Answer might be read."
And the same was read accordingly.
Then it was proposed, by the Respondent's Counsel, "That the Deposition of the said Walter Nugent the Attorney might be read."
And the same being likewise objected to by the Appellant's Counsel, he being concerned in Interest:
They were directed to withdraw.
And being accordingly withdrawn:
The Question was put, "Whether the Deposition of the said Walter Nugent shall be read?"
It was Resolved in the Negative.
Then the Counsel were again called in; and the Respondent's Counsel acquainted by the Lord Chancellor, "The House was of Opinion, the Deposition of the said Walter Nugent should not be read, he being concerned in Interest."
Then the Respondent's Counsel desired the Answer of the said Walter Nugent might be read in Evidence against another Defendant, Leonard Hatfield.
Which being opposed by the Appellant's Counsel:
They were directed to withdraw.
And being withdrawn accordingly;
The Question was put, "Whether the Answer of the said Walter Nugent shall be read in Evidence?"
It was Resolved in the Negative.
Then the Counsel were called in again; and the Respondent's Counsel acquainted, by the Lord Chancellor, "The Lords were of Opinion, the said Answer should not be read."
Then, after reading some Proofs in the Cause on Behalf of the Respondent; and the Appellant's Counsel having replied:
And being withdrawn;
The following Order and Judgement was made:
"After hearing Counsel, as well Yesterday as this Day, upon the Petition and Appeal of Robert Rochfort Esquire, presented to this House the First Day of June last, complaining of several Orders and a Decree, made and pronounced in His Majesty's High Court of Chancery in Ireland, in a Cause wherein Ridgely Nugent Gentleman was Plaintiff, and the Appellant and Leonard Hatfield were Defendants; and praying, that the the same may be reversed: As also upon the Answer of the said Ridgely Nugent put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration had of what was offered in this Cause: It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the several Orders and Decree of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, complained of in the said Appeal, as also the Order of the said Court, made upon re-hearing the said Cause, affirming the said Decree, the same being insisted on by the Respondent's Answer, be, and are hereby, reversed; and that the Respondent's Bill in the said Court of Chancery is hereby ordered to stand dismissed, and that the said Court of Chancery do cause Possession of the Estate in Question to be restored to the Appellant; and that the mesne Profits of the same, if any have been received under the said Decree, be accompted for and paid to the Appellant; but the Respondent is at Liberty to proceed at Law as he shall be advised."
Frankland's Petition referred to Judges.
Upon reading the Petition of Sir Thomas Frankland Baronet, and John Wind Clerk; praying, "That Leave may be given to bring in a Bill, for confirming and making effectual an Agreement, for an Exchange of a Messuage, Lands, and Premises, in Great Thirkleby, in the County of York, belonging to the said Sir Thomas Frankland, for the Vicarage-house and Glebe Lands belonging to the Vicarage of Great Thirkleby aforesaid:"
It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to Mr. Baron Mountague and Mr. Baron Fortescue; who are forthwith to summon all Parties concerned in the Bill; and, after hearing them, to report to the House the State of the Case, with their Opinion thereupon, under their Hands, and whether all Parties that may be concerned in the Consequences of the Bill have signed the Petition; and also that the Judges, having perused the Bill, do sign the same.
Sir Richard Barnardiston et al. versus Carter.
Whereas Friday next is appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Sir Robert Barnardiston Baronet and others are Appellants, and William Carter Esquire Respondent; and for the Judges then to attend:
The House being this Day moved, at the Request, or with Consent, of both Parties, "That the said Hearing be adjourned to some further Day:"
It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on Tuesday next, the First Business; and that the Judges do then attend.
Ambrose versus Ambrose.
The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Elizabeth Ambrose Widow is Appellant, and Thomas Ambrose and his Wife, and Thomasin Ambrose by her Guardian, are Respondents:"
It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on Thursday the Twentyninth Day of this Instant May, at Eleven a Clock.
Burk versus Morgan.
The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for arguing the Errors assigned upon the Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein Richard Burk is Plaintiff, and Richard Morgan Defendant:"
It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on Saturday the First Day of June next, at Eleven a Clock.
Blair to enter into Recognizance for Carre.
Upon reading the Petition of John Carre of Cavers Esquire; praying, "In regard his Residence is in Scotland, that William Blair Gentleman may be allowed to enter into a Recognizance for the Petitioner, on account of his Appeal depending in this House:"
It is Ordered, That the said William Blair may enter into a Recognizance for the Petitioner, as desired.
Lawrence versus Lawrence.
Ordered, That the Hearing of the Appeal of Giles Lawrence, whereunto Dulcibella Lawrence is Respondent, which is appointed for To-morrow, be adjourned to Friday next, at Eleven a Clock.
Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Veneris, decimum septimum diem instantis Maii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.