House of Lords Journal Volume 23: February 1728,1-10

February 1727, 1-10

DIE Jovis, 1^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Sankey versus Graham.

The Answer of Anne Graham, Widow and Administratrix of Winwood Graham, deceased, and Anne, Margaret, and Sarah Graham, Minors, Sisters and Heirs of the said Winwood Graham, by their next Friend the said Anne Graham Widow, to the Appeal of Henry Sankey Esquire:

E. of Granard versus White & al.

As also, the joint Answer of John White Esquire, John Crofton Gentleman, and Bridget Maguire Widow, Three of the Respondents to the Appeal of Arthur Earl of Granard;

Were this Day brought in.

L. Masham takes the Oaths.

Samuel Lord Masham took the Oaths, and made and subscribed the Declaration, and also took and subscribed the Oath of Abjuration, pursuant to the Statutes.

Dutc. Marlborough & al. versus Guidott.

The House being moved, "That Monday the Fourth Day of March next may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Sarah Dutchess Dowager of Marlborough and others are Appellants, and William Guidott Esquire is Respondent:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on Monday the said Fourth Day of March next, at Eleven a Clock, as desired.

Crewe versus Action.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Crewe Esquire; complaining of an Order of the Court of Exchequer at Chester, made the Eighteenth of October 1726, and of a Decree of Dismission the Sixteenth of October last, in a Cause wherein the Appellant was Plaintiff, and Samuel Acton Gentleman Defendant; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, and the Appellant relieved:"

It is Ordered, That the said Samuel Acton may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant February.

Thurston versus Essington.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Mary Thurston Widow is Appellant, and John Essington Esquire and Mary his Wife are Respondents:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on Monday the Twenty-sixth Day of this Instant February, at Eleven a Clock.

Baynes and Langton versus Bertie & Ux.

The House being likewise moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Richard Baynes and Anne Langton are Appellants, and Peregrine Bertie Esquire and Elizabeth his Wife are Respondents:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on Tuesday the Twenty-seventh Day of this Instant February, at Eleven a Clock.

Thanks to the Bp. of St. David's, for his Sermon.

Ordered, That the Thanks of this House be, and are hereby, given to the Lord Bishop of St. David's, for the Sermon by him preached before this House on Tuesday last, in the Abbey Church, Westminster; and he is hereby desired to cause the same to be forthwith printed and published.

Farewell & Ux. versus Cokers.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Nathaniel Farewell Esquire and Susannah his Wife are Appellants, and William Coker Esquire and Thomas Coker are Respondents:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on Wednesday the Twenty-eighth Day of this Instant February, at Eleven a Clock.

Staines versus Maddock.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Staines; complaining of certain Decrees made by the Master of the Rolls, the Ninth of May 1724, and Seventeenth of May last, in a Cause wherein Edward, Robert, Thomas, William, and Sarah Maddock, Infants, by Robert Maddock their prochein Amie, were Plaintiffs, and the Appellant and Alicia his late Wife were Defendants; and wherein the said Infants by the said Robert Maddock were Plaintiffs, and the Appellant was Defendant; and also of the Affirmance thereof by the Lord Chancellor, the Twenty-eighth Day of October last; and praying, "That the same and all other subsequent Orders in the said Cause may be reversed; and the said Plaintiffs Bill dismissed, with Costs:"

It is Ordered, That the said Infants, by their said prochein Amie, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant February.

John Kerrich versus Bransby & al. Anne Kerrich & al. versus Bransby & al.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Causes wherein John Kerrich Doctor in Physic is Appellant, and Bridget Bransby and others are Respondents, and wherein Anne Kerrich Widow, Giles Bladwell and Elizabeth his Wife, are Appellants, and Bridget Bransby and others are Respondents; the said Appeals being from the same Decree, and relate to the same Estate:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the First vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Isaac versus Meredith and the E. of Mount Alexander.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Simon Isaac Esquire; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, made the Seventeenth of December 1726, and an Order of the Seventeenth of February following, for over-ruling the Appellant's Exceptions; also an Order of the Twenty-third of June last, for allowing a Demurrer; as likewise an Order of the Twenty-eighth of the same June, for an Attachment against the Appellant, in a Cause wherein Jane Meredith and Henry Earl of Mount Alexander were Plaintiffs, and the Appellant was Defendant; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and the Order of the Eighteenth of May 1726, for dismissing the Plaintiff's Bill, with Costs, may be affirmed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Jane Meredith and Henry Earl of Mount Alexander may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the Seventh Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the said Respondents Attorney, or Agent, in the said Court of Exchequer in Ireland, be deemed good Service.

Dames versus Dames.

The House being moved, "That a Day be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein John Dames is Appellant, and Elizabeth Dames Widow Respondent:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the next vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Accounts of prohibited East India Goods and Stores delied.

The House being informed, "That some of the Commissioners of the Customs attended:"

They were called in; and delivered, at the Bar, pursuant to certain Acts of Parliament, several Papers.

And being withdrawn:

The Titles thereof were read, by the Clerk, as follow:

"The Return of the Commissioners of the Customs, to the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, with the Accounts of prohibited East India Goods, and Naval Stores imported from Russia, from Lady-day 1727 to Michaelmas 1727.

"N^o 1. An Account of prohibited East India Goods remaining in Warehouses at St. Hellens at Lady-day 1727; with what has been brought in since that Time, what exported, as also what remained at Michaelmas 1727.

"N^o 2. An Account of prohibited East India Goods remaining in Warehouses at Leadenhall at Lady-day 1727; with what has been brought in since that Time, what exported, as also what remained at Michaelmas 1727.

"N^o 3. An Account of prohibited East India Goods remaining in His Majesty's Warehouse London at Lady-day 1727; with what has been brought in since that Time, what exported, as also what remained at Michaelmas 1727.

"N^o 4. An Account of prohibited East India Goods remaining in the respective Warehouses in the Out Ports at Lady-day 1727; with what has been brought in since that Time, what exported, as also what remained at Michaelmas 1727.

"N^o 5. An Account of Naval Stores imported from Russia into the Port of London, from Lady-day 1727 to Michaelmas 1727.

"N^o 6. An Account of Naval Stores imported from Russia into the Ports commonly called the Out Ports, from Lady-day 1727 to Michaelmas 1727."

Morse & al. versus Dubois & al.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein John Morse, Samuel Clarke Esquire, and others, are Appellants, and Charles Dubois, Arthur Moore, Edward Gibbon, and Grantham Andrews, Esquires, are Respondents:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the First vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Walter versus Glanville.

Whereas Friday the Sixteenth Day of this Instant February is appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein John Walter Esquire is Appellant, and William Glanville Esquire Respondent:

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the next vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Rodd & al. Petition referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Lucy Rodd, Widow and Administratrix to Bampfyld Rodd Esquire, deceased, John Ivie Esquire and Lucy his Wife, Mary Sophia Rodd single Woman, and of Margaret, Elizabeth, Gratiana, and Juliana Rodd, Infants, by the said Lucy Rodd their Mother and Guardian, who are the Six Daughters and Heirs of the said Bampfyld Rodd, deceased; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for Sale of several Messuages and Lands in Stoke Cannon, in the County of Devon, for Payment of Debts, and for other Purposes in the Petition mentioned:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to Mr. Justice Denton and Mr. Baron Hale; 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.

Donnellan & al. versus Burke & al.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Joseph Donnellan Gentleman and Margaret his Wife and John French Esquire are Appellants, and Miles Burke and Annable his Wife, and others, are Respondents:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the First vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Agnew versus M'aull.

Whereas, by Order of this House of the First of February last, Mr. John M'aull was required to put in his Answer to the Appeal of William Agnew of Castlerig Esquire on or before the First of March following:

And the House being this Day moved, "That the said Respondent may, by a certain Day, put in his Answer to the said Appeal;" but it not appearing that the said former Order was served:

It is Ordered, That, if the Respondent hath not taken a Copy of the said Appeal, he may take a Copy thereof; and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the Twenty-ninth Day of this Instant February.

Tooke to be re-attached, for Breach of the E. of Strafford's Privilege.

The House was informed, "That Thomas Tooke, an Attorney, formerly ordered into Custody for a Breach of the Earl of Strafford's Privilege, and who was once in Custody for his Offence, was not taken pursuant to the last Order, nor had he surrendered himself:"

It is Ordered, That the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod do forthwith re-attach the Body of the said Thomas Tooke, and keep him in safe Custody until further Order of this House; and this shall be a sufficient Warrant on that Behalf.

To Sir Charles Dalton Knight, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod attending this House, his Deputy or Deputies, and every of them.

Rind peremptorily to answer Skerret's Appeal.

The House was informed, "That Christopher Rind, who, by Order of this House of the Thirteenth of May last, was required to put in his Answer to the Appeal of Humphrey Skerret Gentleman on or before the First Day of the next Session of Parliament, has neglected to put in his Answer thereunto, though duly served with the said Order for that Purpose."

And thereupon an Affidavit, made by Thomas Maher, of the said Service, being read:

It is Ordered, That the said Christopher Rind do peremptorily put in his Answer to the said Appeal in a Week.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Lunæ, quintum diem instantis Februarii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

DIE Lunæ, 5^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Errington versus Soulby.

The Answer of Christopher Soulby Gentleman, to the Appeal of William Errington Gentleman:

Rich versus Athorpe & al.

As also, the Answer of Heyrick Athorpe, John Wadsworth, and Samuel Shore, to the Appeal of Aymor Rich Gentleman;

Were this Day brought in.

L. Berkeley of Stratton takes the Oaths.

Willam Lord Berkeley of Stratton took the Oaths, and made and subscribed the Declaration, and also took and subscribed the Oath of Abjuration, pursuant to the Statutes.

D. and Dutc. Dowager of Gordon versus E. of Murray & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Alexander Duke of Gordon and Elizabeth Dutchess Dowager of Gordon; complaining of several Interlocutors of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Sixteenth of February 1726/7, and the Day of the same February affirming the same; the Fourteenth of July 1727, and the Day of the same July affirming the same; made on the Behalf of Charles Earl of Murray, Sir Harry Innes, William Duff, and Sir James Suttie; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Earl of Murray and the other Parties may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Monday the Fourth Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Agents, or Solicitors, at Edinburgh, be deemed good Service.

Johnson versus Johnson.

The House being moved, "That a Day be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Robert Johnson is Appellant, and Mary Johnson is Respondent:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the First vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Governors of Bridewell, &c. versus Pugh & Ux.

The House being also moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein the Mayor, Commonalty, and Citizens of the City of London, Governors of the Possessions, Revenues, and Goods, of the Hospitals of King Edward the Sixth, of Christ, Bridewell, and St. Thomas the Apostle, are Appellants, and Evan Pugh and Mary his Wife are Respondents:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the next vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Freman & al. versus Sir Cleave More.

The House being likewise moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Ralph Freman, Franklyn Miller, Esquires, Elizabeth Greenbill Spinster, and John Ellis Esquire, are Appellants, and Sir Cleave More Baronet is Respondent:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the next vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Came versus Came.

The House being also moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Francis Came and Jane Came are Appellants, and John Came an Infant, by Elizabeth Came his Mother and next Friend, is Respondent:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the next vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Morison versus Vis. Arbuthnot.

The House being likewise moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein William Morison of Prestongrange Esquire is Appellant, and John Lord Viscount of (fn. 1) Arburthnot is Respondent:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the next vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Caddel & al. versus Swinton.

The House being also moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Jean and Euphan Caddel and others are Appellants, and Mr. John Swinton is Respondent:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the next vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Winckworth versus Najack.

The House being likewise moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein John Winckworth Esquire is Appellant, and Mark Anthony Najack Esquire is Respondent:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the next vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Johnson & al. versus Ward and Fenn.

The House being also moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Margaret Johnson Widow, Arthur Collier, and Margaret his Wife, are Appellants, and John Ward and Henry Fenn Esquires are Respondents:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the next vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Skerret versus Nisbet & al.

The House being likewise moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Humphrey Skerret Gentleman is Appellant, and John Nisbet and others are Respondents:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the next vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Cromy versus Holland, alias Ash.

The House being also moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Elizabeth Cromy Widow is Appellant, and Mary Holland, alias Ash, Widow, is Respondent:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the next vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Donnellan & al. versus Sir Thomas Taylor.

The House being likewise moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein William Donnellan and Mary his Wife, John Cahill and Ellinor his Wife, are Appellants, and Sir Thomas Taylor Baronet is Respondent:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the next vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Blakeney versus Byrne.

Whereas, by Order of this House of the Fifth of May last, Walter Byrne Esquire was required peremptorily to put in his Answer to the Appeal of Catherine Blakeney Widow and Mable Blakeney on or before the First Day of the next Session of Parliament, which he has neglected to do:

And the House being this Day moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the said Cause:"

Hearing appointed ex Parte.

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, ex Parte, on the next vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed, unless the Respondent put in his Answer in the mean Time.

Sir Jermin Dewes versus Norton.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Sir Jermin Dewes Baronet is Appellant, and Thomas Norton Esquire is Respondent:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Causes, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the next vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

White & al. versus E. of Granard & al. et è contra.

The House being also moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Causes wherein John White Esquire, John Crofton Gentleman, and Bridget Maguire Widow are Appellants, and Arthur Earl of Granard, George Lord Forbes, Richard Nutley, and Robert Doyne, Esquires, are Respondents, et è contra:"

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Causes, by Counsel, at the Bar, on the next vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

White versus Jones:

Whereas, by Order of this House of the Fifth of May last, Lewis Jones Gentleman was required peremptorily to put in his Answer to the Appeal of Nicholas White Gentleman on or before the First Day of the next Session of Parliament, which he has neglected to do:

And the House being this Day moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the said Cause:"

Hearing appointed ex Parte.

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, ex Parte, on the next vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed, unless the Respondent put in his Answer thereunto in the mean Time.

Francis to enter into Recognizance for the E. of Granard.

The House being moved, "That Richard Francis Gentleman may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Arthur Earl of Granard, on account of his Appeal depending in this House, to which George Lord Forbes and others are Respondents; the Appellant residing in Ireland:"

It is Ordered, That the said Richard Francis may enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellant, as desired.

Leslie versus Hamilton & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Elizabeth Leslie, alias Hamilton, Widow; complaining of several Orders and Proceedings of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, of the Fifth of March 1725, the Twenty-seventh of May, the Sixth of June, and Seventh of July, 1726, the Twelfth and Thirteenth of June, and Tenth of July last, made on the Behalf of Magaret Hamilton by her Guardian the Reverend Dean Anthony Dopping, and the said Dean Dopping, William Lord Archbishop of Dublin, Francis Barnard Esquire, John Usher Esquire, Archdeacon William Hamilton, Arthur Weldon and Mary his Wife; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Magaret Hamilton by her said Guardian, and the other Parties, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Monday the Eleventh Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Clerk or Clerks in the said Court of Chancery in Ireland be deemed good Service.

Jevers versus Sir William Barker.

Whereas, by Order of this House of the Tenth of April last, Sir William Barker Baronet was required to put in his Answer to the Appeal of Thomas Jevers of Corcamore in the Kingdom of Ireland Esquire on or before the Fifteenth of May following:

And the House being this Day moved, "That the said Respondent may by a certain Day put in his Answer to the said Appeal;" but it not appearing that the said former Order was served:

It is Ordered, That, if the Respondent hath not taken a Copy of the said Appeal, he may take a Copy thereof; and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Monday the Eleventh Day of March next.

Eyre versus Daly:

The House was informed, "That Laughlin Daly, who, by Order of this House of the Twenty-fourth of March last, was required peremptorily to put in his Answer to the Appeal of John Eyre Esquire in a Week, has neglected so to do."

And the House being this Day moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the said Cause:"

Hearing appointed ex Parte.

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Cause, by Counsel, at the Bar, ex Parte, on the First vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed, unless the said Respondent put in his Answer thereunto in the mean Time.

Morley & al. peremptorily to answer Byrne's Appeal.

Upon reading the Petition of Gerald Byrne; setting forth, "That the Petitioner, the First of February 1726, obtained an Order of this House, for Jane Morley and others to put in their Answer or respective Answers to the Petitioner's Appeal on or before the Eighth of March following; yet they have not answered the same;" and praying, " That a peremptory Day may be appointed, for the said Respondents so to do:"

And thereupon an Affidavit of the said Service, made by the Petitioner, being read:

It is Ordered, That the said Respondents do peremptorily put in their Answer or respective Answers to the said Appeal in a Week.

L Forbes & al. peremptorily to answer E. of Granard's Appeal.

The House was informed, "That George Lord Forbes, Robert Doyne, and Richard Nutley, Esquires, who, by Order of this House of the Thirtieth of March last, were required to put in their Answer or respective Answers to the Appeal of Arthur Earl of Granard on or before the Fourth of May following, have neglected to put in their Answers thereunto, though served with the said Order for that Purpose."

And thereupon an Affidavit, made by Thomas Carr, of the said Service the Sixth of January last, being read:

It is Ordered, That the said Respondents do peremptorily put in their Answer or respective Answers to the said Appeal, in a Week.

Smart versus Littell:

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for arguing the Errors assigned upon a Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein Jonathan Smart Junior is Plaintiff, and John Eden Littell and George Sawbridge Littell are Defendants:"

Errors to be argued.

It is Ordered, That this House will hear the said Errors argued, by Counsel on both Sides, at the Bar, on the First vacant Day for Causes after those already appointed.

Howse versus Stamp.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Howse; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery, the Twenty-third Day of June 1724, the Master's Report the Third Day of August, and the Order for confirming the same, made on or about the One and Twentieth Day of March 1726/7, in a Cause wherein Elizabeth Anne Stamp, Widow and Relict of John Stamp, was Plaintiff, and the Appellant and others were Defendants; and praying, " That the same, as far as concerns the Promissory Notes amounting to Four Thousand One Hundred Thirty-five Pounds, may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Elizabeth Anne Stamp may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and she is hereby required to put in her Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Monday the Nineteenth Day of this Instant February.

Gardiner versus Cooke and Griffith.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of William Gardiner Clerk; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery, of the Twenty-eighth of January 1726, in a Cause wherein the Appellant was Plaintiff, and James Cooke, Edward Griffith since deceased, and John Griffith, were Defendants; and praying, "That the said Decree may be altered, and the Appellant relieved:"

It is Ordered, That the said James Cooke and John Griffith may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Monday the Nineteenth Day of this Instant February.

Heron versus Heron.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of George Heron; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery, made the Fourteenth of June last, in a Cause wherein the Appellant, by Bill of Revivor, and Barbara Heron, Widow of George Heron deceased, were Plaintiffs, and George Heron, Son of John Heron deceased, an Infant, by Fenwick Downes his Guardian, John Aynsley, and Hester Heron, were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, and the Appellant relieved:"

It is Ordered, That the said Defendants may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Monday the Nineteenth Day of this Instant February.

Bishop of Bristol's Privilege;

A Petition of Isaac Smith and James Wintle, who were taken into Custody of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, for a Breach of Privilege against the Lord Bishop of Bristol, was presented to the House, and read; acknowledging their Offence, expressing their hearty Sorrow for the same, begging Forgiveness, and promising never to be guilty of the like for the future.

And thereupon the said Lord Bishop acquainting the House, "That he forgave the Petitioners, if their Lordships would please so to do:"

Smith and Wintle discharged, paying their Fees.

It is Ordered, That the Petitioners be, and are hereby, discharged from the Matter of the Complaint made against them, paying their Fees.

Forbes versus Galloway.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Thomas Forbes of Waterton Esquire; complaining of several Interlocutors, or Decrees, of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Fifth and Twenty-ninth of January, and Thirtyfirst of December, 1725, and Sixth of January 1726, made on the Behalf of John Galloway of Baldivie Esquire; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said John Galloway may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Monday the Fourth Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the said Respondent's Agents or Procurators in the Court of Session in Scotland be deemed good Service.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Martis, sextum diem instantis Februarii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

Die Jovis, 27^o Februarii, 1728, hitherto examined by us,

Warwick.
Warrington.
Jo. Carliol.

DIE Martis, 6^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Crosley versus Shadforth.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Nathaniel Crosley; complaining of Two Orders of the Court of Exchequer, made the Twenty-sixth of October and Twenty-fifth of January last, in a Cause wherein the Appellant was Plaintiss, and George Shadforth, and Daniel and John Arthur, were Desendants; and in a Cross Cause, wherein the said George Shadforth was Plaintiss, and the Appellant Defendant; and praying, That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said George Shadforth may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the Twentieth Day of this Instant February.

Middleton versus Roberts, et è contra:

Counsel (according to Order) were called in, to be heard, upon the Petition and Appeal of Philip Middleton Merchant; complaining of Part of a Decree of the Court of Chancery, made the Seventh Day of March 1723, in certain Causes, wherein John Roberts Esquire was Plaintiff, and the Appellant and others were Defendants; and wherein the Appellant was Plaintiff, and the said John Roberts and others were Desendants; as also upon the Cross Appeal of the said John Roberts, to which the said Philip Middleton is Respondent.

And the Appellant's Counsel being directed to proceed:

The Respondent's Counsel objected, "That there were not proper Parties."

Which being admitted by the Appellant's Counsel; they were all directed to withdraw.

And being withdrawn:

Hearing adjourned for a Month, for Want of proper Parties.

It is Ordered, That the Hearing these Causes be adjourned for a Month; and that both Sides be at Liberty, in the mean Time, to amend their said Appeals, by making proper Parties, as they shall think fit, or be advised.

Farewell and his Wife, Petition for Deeds and Papers.

Upon reading the Petition of Nathaniel Farewell Esquire and Susannah his Wife; praying, "That William Coker Esquire and Thomas Coker, Respondents to the Petitioners Appeal, may be ordered to produce before, and leave with, the Clerk of this House, all the Deeds and Writings which were by them produced at the respective Hearings of the Cause and Cross Cause below; and that the Petitioners may be at Liberty to take Copies of them, at their own Expence; and that the said Deeds and Writings may be produced at the Hearing the Petitioners Appeal:"

It is Ordered, That, within a Week after the due Service of this Order, the said Deeds and Writings be left with the Clerk; and that the Petitioners be at Liberty to inspect the same, or take Copies thereof, at their own Charge; and that the said Deeds and Writings be produced in this House, at the said Hearing, according to the Prayer of the said Petition.

Vis. Castlemain and his Lady's Petition referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Richard Lord Viscount Castlemain in the Kingdom of Ireland, and Dorothy Viscountess Castlemain. his Lady; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, to make the Intention of Frederick Tylney Esquire, with respect to the Payment of a Sum of Money, take Effect, according to a Deed of Appointment executed by the said Tylney, the said Deed being obscurely penned; and for other Purposes in the Petition mentioned:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench and the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Please; with the usual Directions, according to the Standing Orders.

Baldwyn & Ux. versus Middleton & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Samuel Baldwyn Esquire and Elizabeth his Wife, who was One of the Executors of the last Will of Thomas Middleton Esquire, her late Husband; complaining of certain Orders of the Court of Chancery, made the Thirtieth of June and Eighth of December 1725, and Nineteenth of October last, in a Cause wherein Anne Middleton, One of the Daughters of Thomas Middleton Esquire deceased, and others, were Plaintiffs, and Thomas Lord Onslow, Sir John Williams, the Appellant Elizabeth, and Richard Hockenhull and Elizabeth his Wife, were Defendants; and praying, "That the said Orders, or so much of them as are appealed against, may be discharged or amended; and that the Appellants may have that Relief which they prayed by their Motion the said Nineteenth of October last:"

It is Ordered, That the said Plaintiffs, and the said Defendants the Trustees, and Richard Hockenhull, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the Twentieth Day of this Instant February.

Davie, Hooper, & al. Petition referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Nicholas Horper Esquire and Mary his Wife, Stephen Northleigh Esquire and Margaret his Wife, Sir George Chudleigh Baronet and Dame Frances his Wife, and Tryphena Davie Spinster; which said Mary Hooper, Margaret Northleigh, Dame Frances Chudleigh, and Tryphena Davie, are the Four Daughters and Coheirs of Sir William Davie, late of Creedy in the County of Devon, Baronet, deceased; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for confirming a Partition of several Manors, Lands, and Hereditaments, in the said County of Devon, the Estate of the said Sir William Davie, remaining unfold; and for settling the specific Lands and Hereditaments thereby resulting to the respective Parties to the several Uses to which their several undivided Shares stood limited before such Partition:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to Mr. Justice Price and Mr. Baron Hole; with the usual Directions, according to the Standing Orders.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præfens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Mercuri, septimum diem instantis Februarii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

DIE Mercurii, 7^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Lords take the Oaths

The Lords following took the Oaths, and made and subscribed the Declaration, and also took and subscribed the Oath of Abjuration, pursuant to the Statutes:

William Earl of Yarmouth.

Lawrence Lord Viscount Say & Scale.

John Lord St. John of Bletsoe.

Edward Lord Griffin.

Mathew Lord Ducie.

E of Strafford versus Blakewey:

After hearing Counsel, upon the Petition and Appeal of Thomas Earl of Strafford; complaining of an Order of the Court of Chancery, made the Nineteenth Day of October 1726, in a Cause wherein William Blakewey and Sarah Harding Widow were Plaintiffs, and the Appellant was Defendant; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, and the Appellant's Plea allowed:" As also upon the Answer of the said William Blakewey put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration and Debate had of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:

Order reversed, with Directions.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Order complained of in the said Appeal be, and the same is hereby, reversed; and that the said Plea do stand for an Answer; with Liberty to except to any of the Facts charged in the Respondent's Bill; but not to oblige the Appellant to make a Discovery of the Values, or Particulars, of the Real or Personal Estate appointed by the Will of the late Sir Henry Johnson for the Payment of his Debts; and that the Benefit of the said Plea be saved to the Appellant, till the Hearing of the Cause.

Pyke versus Chittey & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Thomas Pyke Gentleman; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery, made the Twenty-fourth Day of July 1723, and the Orders grounded thereon, in certain Causes, wherein Anne and Elizabeth Badmering were Plaintiffs, and the Appellant was Defendant, et è contra; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and that Joseph and Anne Chittey, Nicholas and Edward Dee, may put in their Answers to this Appeal:"

It is Ordered, That the said Joseph and Anne Chitter, Nicholas and Edward Dee, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Wednesday the One and Twentieth Day of this Instant February.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Veneris, nonum diem instantis Februarii, hora undecima. Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.

DIE Veneris, 9^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Ivers versus Sir William Baker.

This Day the Answer of Sir William Barker, to the Appeal of Thomas (fn. 2) Ivers Esquire, was brought in.

Chesman & Ux versus Nainby:

Whereas Tuesday next is appointed, for arguing the Errors assigned upon a Writ of Error depending in this House, wherein David Chesman and Elizabeth his Wife are Plaintiffs, and Margery Nainby Widow is Defendant:

Arguing Errors adjourned; and Judges to attend.

It is Ordered, That the arguing the said Errors be adjourned till Thursday the Two and Twentieth Day of this Instant February; and that the Judges do then attend.

Statute of Limitations to be considered; and some of the Judges to attend.

The House being moved, "To appoint a Day, to take into Consideration the Statute made in the One and Twentieth Year of the Reign of King James the First, intituled, "An Act for Limitation of Actions, and for avoiding of Suits in Law:"

It is Ordered, That on Tuesday next this House will take the said Act into Consideration; and the Lords to be summoned; and that some of the Judges do then attend.

Orders for L. Forbes & al. peremptorily to answer E. Granard's Appeal, discharged.

Upon reading the Petition of George Lord Forbes; praying, "That the Order of this House, made the Fifth Instant, requiring the Petitioner and others, Respondents to the Appeal of Arthur Earl of Granard, peremptorily to answer the said Appeal on or before Monday next, may be discharged; the said Order having been obtained irregularly, and by Surprize; the original Order for answering not being served till the Sixth of January last, though made so long ago as the Thirtieth of March preceding:"

It is Ordered, That the said Order of the Fifth Instant be discharged accordingly.

Moodie versus Stewart.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Elizabeth Moodie; complaining of several Interlocutories of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Eleventh of June, the Eighth and Twenty-fourth of July 1726, the Tenth of June and Day of July last, made on the Behalf of John Stewart; and praying, " That the same may be reversed; and that the Interlocutory of the Lord Ordinary, the Twenty-first of February last, may be affirmed:"

It is Ordered, That the said John Stewart may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and he is hereby required to put in his Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Friday the Two and Twentieth Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondent's Agent, or Writer, in the Court of Session in Scotland, be deemed good Service.

Rich versus Beaumont: Decree reversed, with Directions.

After hearing Counsel, upon the Petition and Appeal of Aymor Rich Gentleman; complaining of a Decree of Dismission made in the Court of Chancery, the Eleventh Day of February 1726, in a Cause wherein the Appellant was Plaintiff, and George Beaumont Gentleman, Gertrude, Jane, Elizabeth, and Sarah Grammer, Infants, by the said George Beaumont their Guardian, and Heyrick Athorpe, John Wadsworth Clerk, and Samuel Shore, were Defendants; and praying, " That the same may be reversed:" As also upon the several Answers of the said Defendants put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration and Debate had of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Decree of Dismission complained of in the said Appeal be, and the same is hereby, reversed: And it is hereby further Ordered, That the Court of Chancery do direct a Case to be stated between the Parties in this Cause; which Case is to be sent to the Judges of the Court of King's Bench, for their Opinion on the following Points, (videlicet,) " Whether the Will, or Instrument purporting to be the Will, of Grace Rich, formerly Grace Bagshaw, the Appellant's late Wife, dated the Twenty-ninth of September 1724, be a good Appointment of the Estates therein contained; and whether the Estates therein limited be Uses executed, or Trusts;" and that, on the Return of the Opinion of the Judges of the said Court of King's Bench to the Court of Chancery, that Court do proceed to make such further Order thereupon as shall be just.

Crowe & al. Petition referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Christopher Crowe the Elder, of Woodford Hall, in the County of Essex, Esquire, for himself, and on the Behalf of Christopher Crowe Junior, George, Catherine, and Charlott Crowe, his Children, and Sir John Shadwell Knight, their surviving Trustee; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for discharging certain Lands in Woodford, in the said County of Essex, from the Uses, Trusts, and Estates, Limitations, Provisoes, and Agreements, specified in a Settlement in the Petition mentioned; and for other Purposes therein expressed:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to Mr. Baron Commyns and Mr. Justice Cowper; with the usual Directions, according to the Standing Orders.

Doctors Commons versus Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Bettesworth Doctor of Laws, and Dean of the Arches, President of the Society of Doctors and Advocates in Commons, Sir Henry Penrice Knight, and Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, Humphrey Henchman Doctor of Laws, Chancellor of London, George Paul Doctor of Laws, Vicar General of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Treasurer of the Society of Doctors in Commons, on Behalf of themselves and the rest of the Doctors of Laws and Advocates in Commons of that Society called Doctors Commons, or which hereafter shall be admitted into that Society; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery, made the Thirteenth Day of March 1726, in a Cause wherein the Appellants were Plaintiffs, and the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul's, London, the Master, Fellows, and Scholars, of Trinity Hall in Cambridge, and Robert Constable, were Defendants: and praying, "That the same, so far as it dismisseth the Appellants Bill, may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Defendants, the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, the Master, Fellows, and Scholars, of Trinity Hall in Cambridge, and Richard Horrabin and Margaret his Wife, the Executrix of Robert Constable, lately deceased, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Friday the Three and Twentieth Day of this Instant February.

Appeals left with the Clerk To-morrow, to be read and proceeded on on Monday.

The House being moved, "To adjourn to Monday next:"

Notice was taken, "That To-morrow will be the last Day allowed by the Standing Order for presenting Appeals from Decrees of Courts of Equity, drawn up and entered before the Meeting of this Parliament."

It is therefore Ordered, That such Appeals as shall be brought to, and left with, the Clerk To-morrow, shall be read and proceeded upon on Monday next.

Adjourn.

Dominus Cancellarius declaravit præsens Parliamentum continuandum esse usque ad et in diem Lunæ, duodecimum diem instantis Februarii, hora undecima Auroræ, Dominis sic decernentibus.