House of Lords Journal Volume 22: February 1726, 1-10

February 1726, 1-10

DIE Martis, 1^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Corporation of Trinity House versus Ryall & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of the Master, Wardens, and Assistants, of the Corporation of Trinity House; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery, of the First Day of June last, made by the late Lords Commissioners for the Custody of the Great Seal, in a Cause wherein the Petitioners were Plaintiffs, and Maltis Ryall, George Noble, and others, were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be varied:"

It is Ordered, That the Defendants in the said Court 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 Fifteenth Day of this Instant February.

Mr. Goldsborough to enter into Recognizance for the Appellants.

The House being moved, "That John Goldsborough, Secretary to the Corporation of Trinity House, may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for the said Appellants:"

It is Ordered, That the said John Goldsborough may enter in a Recognizance for the said Appellants, as desired.

Acherley & Ux. versus Vernon & al.; Two Judges of each Court to attend.

Ordered, That on Friday next, at the Hearing of the Cause wherein Roger Acherley Esquire and Elizabeth his Wife are Appellants, and Bowater Vernon Esquire, and others are Respondents, the Counsel be called in precisely at Eleven a Clock, pursuant to the Standing Order; and that Notice be given them to attend at that Time; and further, that Two of the Judges of each Court do then attend this House.

Thanks to Bishop of Norwich, for his Sermon.

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

Earl Ferrers versus Countess Dowager Ferrers & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Washington Earl Ferrers; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery, of the Twenty-second of February 1724, and the Orders and Report of the Sixth, Twelfth, and Sixteenth of March following, in a Cause wherein the Petitioner was Plaintiff, and Selina Countess Dowager Ferrers, Robert, George, Sewallis, and John Shirleys, Sir George Beaumont Baronet, George Townshend Senior, Esquire, and Thomas Harlewyn, the Executors and Trustees of the Will of Robert late Earl Ferrers, Rowland Cotton Esquire, James Lord Compton and the Lady Elizabeth his Wife, were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Selina Countess Dowager Ferrers, and the other Defendants in the said Court, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant February.

Parker versus Harvey & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Margaret Parker Widow of Christopher Parker Esquire, deceased; complaining of several Orders of the Court of Chancery, of the Twenty-ninth of January 1723, and the Twentieth of July 1724, and the subsequent Orders and Proceedings made in Pursuance thereof, in certain Causes, wherein Edward Harvey, Joseph Ayloff, Shem Bridges, Esquires, and Edward Dixon Gentleman, were Plaintiffs, and the Petitioner, and Alexander Parker Gentleman, Thomas Stanley and Katherine his Wife, and William Brome Esquire, were Defendants; and wherein the said Petitioner was Plaintiff, and Alexander Parker, and Thomas Stanley and Katherine his Wife, were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Edward Harvey and the other Parties in the said Court may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and shall and they are hereby required to put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant February.

Wynne versus Wynne.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Maurice Wynne Esquire, only Son and Heir of Owen Wynne Esquire, deceased; complaining of several Decrees, Orders, and Report, of the Court of Chancery, particularly a Decree of the late Lords Commissioners for the Custody of the Great Seal, the Fifreenth Day of January 1724, made on the Behalf of Richard Wynne Gentleman; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Richard Wynne 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 Fifteenth Day of this Instant February; and that Service of this Order on the Respondent's Clerk in the said Court of Chancery be deemed good Service.

Jones & al. versus Edwards & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Catherine Lennard (now Catherine Jones Wise of John Jones Esquire) and of the said John Jones, Margaret Lennard and Anne Lennard, Spinsters; complaining of several Orders of the Court of Chancery, in a Cause wherein Elizabeth and Mary Usher, Executrixes of Joseph Haddock, deceased, the Petitioners Margaret, Anne, and Katherine, by their next Friend, were Plaintiffs, and Thomas Earl of Sussex and others were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and that the Petitioners may have an Opportunity of laying before the Master their several Evidences, Vouchers, and Receipts, in order to the supporting and making out their Demands against Henry Edwards Esquire, appointed, by an Order of the said Court Receiver of the Petitioners Estate, in the County of Essex:"

It is Ordered, That the Defendants in the said Court may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Tuesday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant February.

Forbes versus Galloway.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Thomas Forbes of Watertoun; complaining of several Interlocutors, or Decrees, of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Fifth and Twenty-ninth of January 1725, the Thirty-first of December and Sixth of January last, made on the Behalf of John Galloway of Baldivie; 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 Tuesday the First Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Procurators in the Court of Session in Scotland be deemed good Service.

Burke versus Lynch.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Theobala Burke Esquire; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, of the Twenty-sixth of November 1720, and the Sixth of July 1723, in a Cause wherein the Petitioner was Plaintiff, and Thomas Lynch Esquire was Defendant; and praying, "That the said Decree, and the Affirmance thereof, may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Thomas Lynch 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 Eighth Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondent's Six Clerk in the said Court of Chancery in Ireland be deemed good Service.

Burke & al. versus Lynch.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Theobald Burke and Ulicke Burke Esquires, and Morgan Naughten Farmer; complaining of certain Orders of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, of the Twelfth of August 1714, and the Eleventh and Sixteenth of July 1715, in a Cause wherein Thomas Lynch Esquire was Plaintiff, and the Petitioners and others were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Thomas Lynch 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 Eighth Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondent's Six Clerk in the said Court of Chancery in Ireland be deemed good Service.

Mr. Chalmers to enter into Recognizance for Lady Houstoun.

The House being moved, "That James Chalmers of London Merchant may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Dame Margaret Houstoun alias Schaw, on account of her Appeal depending in this House, to which Sir John Shaw Baronet is Respondent; the Appellant residing in Scotland:"

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

Adjourn.

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

DIE Jovis, 3^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Meynell and Crabb versus Moore.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Sarah Meynell and Isaac Crabb; complaining of an Order of the Court of Chancery, made the Eighteenth of April 1724, on arguing the Petitioners Exceptions, in a Cause wherein George Moore was Plaintiff, and the Petitioners were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said George Moore 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 Seventeenth Day of this Instant February.

Lady Tipping, Sir John Lear & al. Petition, referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Sir John Lear Baronet, Dame Mary Tipping his Daughter, Widow and Relict of Sir Thomas Tipping Baronet, deceased, Dame Anne Tipping Widow, Mother of the said Sir Thomas, Samuel Sandys and Letithea his Wife, and Katherine Tipping Spinster; which said Letithea and Katherine are the Sisters and Heirs of the said Sir Thomas Tipping; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for confirming an Agreement entered into by the Petitioners, the Sixth Day of April last, for vesting certain Estates, in the Petition mentioned, for the Purposes therein expressed:

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

Brown, Lord Kenmare's Petition, referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Valentine Brown Esquire, commonly called Lord Kenmare in the Kingdom of Ireland; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for Sale, or Mortgage, of Part of the Petitioner's Estate, in the Counties of Limerick, Cork, and Kerry, in the said Kingdom, to raise Money sufficient to pay off and discharge his Debts; and to make Leases of such Part of the said Estate as shall remain unsold, for Ninety-nine Years, not to lessen the present Rents:

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

Burt & al. Petition referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Rebecca Burt Widow, John Mapleton, David Mapleton, and Thomas Hare, on the Behalf of Rebecca Burt, an Infant under the Age of Five Years; and also of Richard Tayler and Martha his Wife, David Burt and Mary Burt; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for Sale of so much of a Farm in Hartley Wintney, called Hurlbatts, in the County of Southampton, as shall be sussicient for Payment of the Legacies of John Burt Yeoman, deceased, and the Interest thereof; 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 Tracy and Mr. Justice Fortescue; with the usual Directions, according to the Standing Orders.

Sir John Rushout versus Elizabeth Rushout & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Sir John Rushout Baronet; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery, made the Twenty-fourth Day of April, in the Second Year of His Majesty's Reign, in certain Causes, wherein Elizabeth Rushout, by her next Friend, was Plaintiff, and the Petitioner, and Sir Rushout Cullen Baronet, Thomas Vernon Esquire, Anne Freeman Widow and Administratrix of Richard Freeman Esquire, deceased, Sir George Thorold Baronet and the Lady Elizabeth his Wife, Samuel Pitt Esquire, Thomas Williams, and Anne Lardner the Widow and Executrix of Joseph Lardner, were Defendants; and wherein the Petitioner was Plaintiff, and the said Elizabeth Rushout, Sir George Thorold and his Wife, Samuel Pitt, Sir Rushout Cullen, Thomas Vernon, Anne Freeman, Thomas Williams, and Anne Lardner, were Defendants; and praying, "That the several Parties may put in their Answer to this Appeal; and that such Order may be made, for the Petitioner's Relief, as shall be just:"

It is Ordered, That the said several Parties may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the Seventeenth Day of this Instant February.

Magistrates of Edinburgh versus Lockart & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council, of the City of Edinburgh; complaining of Two Interlocutors of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Eleventh of November and Fourteenth of December last, made on the Behalf of George Lockart of Carnwath and Robert Dundass Younger of Arnestone Esquires, and the other Heretors of Midlothian; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said George Lockart, Robert Dundass, and the other Heretors of Midlothian, may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and do put in their Answer or respective Answers thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the Third Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Agents, or Writers, in the Court of Session in Scotland, be deemed good Service.

Ash versus Sir William Parsons & Ux.

Upon reading the Petition of Sir William Parsons Baronet and Dame Elizabeth his Wife, Respondents to the Appeal of Richard Ash Esquire; praying, "That the Hearing the said Cause, which stands appointed for Monday next, may be put off for a Month; the Appellant's Agent. consenting, by signing the said Petition:"

Hearing put off by Consent.

It is Ordered, That the Hearing the said Cause be adjourned to Friday the Fourth Day of March next, at Eleven a Clock.

Mr. Dalrymple to enter into Recognizance for Sir John Shaw.

The House being moved, "That Robert Dalrymple Esquire may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Sir John Shaw Baronet, on account of his Appeal depending in this House, to which Dame Margaret Houstoun alias Schaw is Respondent; the Appellant being indisposed:"

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

Mr Wood to enter into a Recognizance for Cornwall.

The like Order for Vincent Wood Gentleman to enter into a Recognizance for Francis Cornwall Esquire, on account of his Appeal, to which William Bowles Esquire is Respondent; the Appellant being at a great Distance in the Country.

Sir Alexander Cumming versus Ferguson.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Sir Alexander Cuming of Culter Baronet, Eldest Son, Executor, and Assignee, of Sir Alexander Cuming Baronet, deceased; complaining of an Interlocutory of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Twelfth of December 1724; and the Affirmance thereof, made on the Behalf of James Ferguson of Pitfour; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said James Ferguson 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 Third 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.

Floyer versus Johnson.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Floyer Esquire; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Exchequer, made the Eighth Day of December last, in certain Causes, wherein the Petitioner was Plaintiff, and Richard Johnson of Hippenscombe in the County of Wilts Esquire was Defendant; et è contra; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Richard Johnson 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 Seventeenth Day of this Instant February.

Sir Alexander Cumming versus Pantoun.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Sir Alexander Cumming Baronet, Eldest Son and Executor of Sir Alexander Cumming Baronet, deceased; complaining of several Interlocutories of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth of June, the Fourth and Twenty-fifth of July, and the Third and Ninth of December 1724, and the First, Ninth, and Nineteenth of January, and Fifth of February following, made on the Behalf of Robert Pantoun Merchant; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Robert Pantoun 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 Third 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.

Noke versus Darby & Ux.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of James Noke of London Merchant, Executor and Residuary Legatee of Judith Medlicot Widow, deceased; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Exchequer, of the Sixteenth of July 1723, and the Affirmance thereof, the Tenth of June last, made on the Behalf of Richard Darby and Selwyn his Wife; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Richard Darby and his Wife may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and they are hereby required to put in their Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the Seventeenth Day of this Instant February.

Walker versus Nightingale and Chamberlain.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Walker of London Merchant; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Chancery, made by the late Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal, the Twenty-eighth Day of April last, and all Orders and Proceedings of the said Court subsequent thereto, in an Original Cause, wherein Joseph Gascoigne Nightingale Esquire was Plaintiff, and the Petitioner and Francis Chamberlain were Defendants; and from an Order of Dismission, and all subsequent Orders and Proceedings, in a Cross Cause, wherein the Petitioner was Plaintiff, and the said Nightingale and Chamberlain were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, and the Petitioner's Cross Bill retained; and that the Matters therein prayed be decreed to the Petitioner:"

It is Ordered, That the said Joseph Gascoigne Nightingale and Francis Chamberlain 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 Seventeenth Day of this Instant February.

Brand versus Wilmott & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Thomas Brand; complaining of a Decree of the Master of the Rolls, made the Second Day of February 1724, in a Cause wherein John Wilmott, Jonathan Welch, and Thomas Alsop, were Plaintiffs, and the Petitioner and George Wingfield and others were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and the Plaintiffs Bill dismissed, as against the Petitioner, as well as against the other Defendants:"

It is Ordered, That the said John Wilmott, Jonathan Welch, and Thomas Alsop, 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 Seventeenth Day of this Instant February; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Clerk in Court, be deemed good Service.

Haldane versus Sir Alexander Anstruther & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Patrick Haldane Esquire; complaining of several Interlocutory Sentences of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Eighteenth of July 1722; the Thirty-first of January, the Ninth of July, and Twenty-sixth of December, 1723; the Thirteenth of February, the Eighteenth of June, the Second and Thirtieth of December, 1724; the Twenty-third of June, the Twentieth of July, and Eighteenth of November, 1725, and the Seventh of January last; made on the Behalf of Sir Alexander Anstruther, Robert Lumsden of Innergellie, and Lady Dowager of Innergellie his Mother, Mr. Walter Wilson, and Sir John Anstruther; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Sir Alexander Anstruther, Robert Lumsden, and the Lady Dowager of Innergellie, Walter Wilson, and Sir John Anstruther, 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 Third Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Agent, or Procurator, in the Court of Session in Scotland, be deemed good Service.

Skerret versus Nisbet & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Humphrey Skerret Gentleman; complaining of a Decretal Order of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, of the Twenty-second of February 1723; and of the several Orders made upon arguing the Exceptions of John Nisbet, whereby any of them are allowed; and of the several Directions given for Trials at Law, upon the several Issues mentioned; and of the Lord Chancellor's not determining the Merits of the Petitioner's First Exception to the Master's Report, in a Cause wherein the Petitioner was Plaintiff, and the said John Nisbet, and William Slack, Joseph Hall, and others, were Defendants; and in a Cross Cause, wherein the said John Nisbet was Plaintiff, and the Petitioner and his Mother and others were Defendants; and praying, "That the said Nisbet may be decreed to pay the Petitioner, not only the Rent in Arrear, reserved upon the Demise made by the Petitioner's Father to the said Slack, but also the growing Rent, for the Remainder of the said Term:"

It is Ordered, That the said John Nisbet, William Slack, and Joseph Hall, 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 Tenth Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Clerk in the said Court of Chancery in Ireland be deemed good Service.

Stirling versus Gray.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Walter Stirling Writer in Edinburgh; complaining of an Interlocutor and Decree of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the First of January 1724/25, and the Affirmance thereof the Fourth of February following, made on the Behalf of William Gray; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said William Gray 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 Third 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.

Williams versus Lane and Viscount Lanesborough.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Edward Williams Gentleman; complaining of several Orders or Decrees of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, made the Nineteenth of November 1719, the Fifteenth of February 1722, the Nineteenth of July 1723, and the Seventh of May 1724, in a Cause wherein the Petitioner was Plaintiff, and James Lord Viscount Lanesborough was Defendant; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and that John Bell Lane Esquire the Heir, and Mary Viscountess Lanesborough the sole Executrix, of the said James Viscount Lanesborough since deceased, may put in their Answers to this Appeal:"

It is Ordered, That the said John Bell Lane and Mary Viscountess Lanesborough 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 Tenth Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Six Clerk in the said Court of Chancery in Ireland be deemed good Service.

Sir John Rouse versus Barker & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Sir John Rouse Baronet; complaining of a Decree, or Decretal Order of the Court of Exchequer, made the Twentyfifth of June last, in a Cause wherein the Petitioner was Plaintiff, and John Barker Gentleman, John House Esquire and Lucy his Wife Charles Ward Clerk, William Powell, and Mary his Wife, late Mary Anthony, John Russell Gentleman, John Mahew and Robert Bence Gentlemen, were Defendants; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said John Barker and the other Defendants in the said Court 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 Seventeenth Day of this Instant February; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Clerk, or Clerks, in the said Court of Exchequer, be deemed good Service.

Adjourn.

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

DIE Veneris, 4^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Acherley & Ux. versus Vernon & al.

After hearing Counsel, upon the Petition and Appeal of Roger Acherley Esquire and Elizabeth his Wife, Sister and Heir of Thomas Vernon Esquire, deceased; complaining of a Decree of Dismission made by the late Lord Chancellor, and also of a Decretal Order of the said Court made by his Lordship, the Twentieth of November 1723, in a Cause wherein the Appellants were Plaintiffs, and Bowater Vernon Esquire, William Vernon, Thomas Vernon Senior, George Vernon, an Infant by his Guardian, George Wheeler, Richard Vernon, John Bearcroft, Francis Keck, John Niccoll, and Thomas Vernon Junior, by Thomas Vernon Senior his Guardian, were Defendants; and in a Cross Cause, wherein the said Bowater Vernon was Plaintiff, and Francis Keck, John Niccoll, George Wheeler, John Bearcroft, and Richard Vernon Gentlemen, Executors and Trustees of the Will of the said Thomas Vernon, deceased, the said Roger Acherley and Elizabeth his Wife, Letitia Acherley the Daughter of the said Roger Acherley and Elizabeth his Wife, and Mary Vernon Widow of the said Thomas Vernon deceased, were Defendants; and praying, "That the said Decree and Order may be reversed, except what relates to the Devises to the said Mary Vernon the Widow of the Testator; and that this House would make such other Order for the Appellants Relief as to their Lordships should seem meet:" As also upon the Answer of the said Bowater Vernon, William Vernon, Thomas Vernon Senior, George Vernon an Infant, by George Vernon Senior his Guardian, Richard Vernon, Francis Keck, John Niccoll, Thomas Vernon an Infant, by Thomas Vernon Senior his Guardian, put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration had of what was offered on either Side in this Cause; and hearing the Opinion of the Judges present, touching some Points of Law to them proposed:

Decree and Decretal Order affirmed.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Petition and Appeal be, and is hereby, dismissed this House; and that the Decree and Order therein complained of be, and the same are hereby, affirmed.

Segrave versus Ryan.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Mary Segrave Widow; complaining of an Order of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, made the Eighteenth Day of June 1724, in a Cause wherein the Appellant was Plaintiff, and (fn. 1) Donk Ryan Apothecary in Dublin was Defendant; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and the Verdict obtained upon the Trial, had pursuant to the said Order, may be set aside:"

It is Ordered, That the said (fn. 1) Donk Ryan 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 Eleventh Day of March next.

Meyrick to enter into a Recognizance for Wynne.

The House being moved, "That Robert Meyrick Esquire may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Maurice Wynne Esquire, on account of his Appeal depending in this House, to which Richard Wynne Gentleman is Respondent; the Appellant residing at a great Distance in the Country:"

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

L. Kingston versus Bourk.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of John Lord Kingston in the Kingdom of Ireland; complaining of a Decree of the Court of Exchequer in the said Kingdom of the Eighth of May, and a Decree or Decretal Order of the Fifth of December, 1723, in a Cause wherein Richard Bourk was Plaintiff, and the Petitioner and Gerald Fitz Gerald were Defendants; and praying, "That the same and all Proceedings thereupon may be reversed; and that the said Richard Bourk's Bill, as against the Petitioner, may be dismissed, with Costs; and that Richard Bourk, Executor of the said Richard Bourk deceased, may put in his Answer to this Appeal:"

It is Ordered, That the said Richard Bourk 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 Eleventh Day of March next; and that Service of this Order on the Respondent's Clerk, or Attorney, in the said Court of Exchequer in Ireland, be deemed good Service.

Adjourn.

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

DIE Lunæ 7^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Collier to enter into a Recognizance for Ash.

The House being moved, "That Jabez Collier Gentleman may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Richard Ash Esquire, on account of his Appeal depending in this House, to which Sir William Parsons Baronet and Dame Elizabeth his Wife are Respondents; the Appellant residing in Ireland:"

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

Adjourn.

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

DIE Mercurii, 9^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

PRAYERS.

Helbut versus Philpot.

The Answer of Nicholas Philpott Esquire to the Appeal of Isaac Helbut:

Sir J. Rushout versus Rushout.

Also, the Answer of Elizabeth Rushout Spinster to the Appeal of Sir John Rushout Baronet:

Tutt versus Mercer.

And the Answer of John Mercer Gentleman to the Appeal of John Tutt Gentleman;

Were this Day brought in.

Writs of Error brought up.

The Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, in the usual Manner, brought up the Transcripts of the Records upon Three Writs of Error; (videlcet,)

John Prowse Gentleman Plaintiff, against Samuel Foot Esquire Defendant.

The King, and John Herle Esquire.

Peter Pender Gentleman Plaintiff, against The King Defendant.

Vaughan versus Blake.

After hearing Counsel, in Part, upon the Petition and Appeal of William Vaughan Merchant; complaining of several Decrees and Orders of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, in a Cause wherein Robuck Blake Gentleman was Plaintiff, and the Appellant Defendant; as also upon the Answer of Robuck Blake put in to the said Appeal:

It is Ordered, That the further Hearing the said Cause be adjourned till To-morrow.

Adjourn.

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

DIE Jovis, 10^o Februarii.

Domini tam Spirituales quam Temporales præsentes fuerunt:

Georgius Princeps Walliæ.

PRAYERS.

Gyles and Smith's Answer to Barker's Appeal.

The Day the Answer of Nathaniel Gyles and Lawrence Smith, Executors of Robert Barker deceased, to the Appeal of Robert Barker Gentleman, was brought in.

Vaughan versus Blake:

After hearing Counsel, as well Yesterday as this Day, upon the Petition and Appeal of William Vaughan Merchant; complaining of several Orders and Decrees of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, made the Nineteenth, Twentieth, and Twenty-fifth of June 1718, the Ninth of May 1719, the First of December 1720, and Twenty-first of February 1723, in a Cause wherein Robuck Blake Gentleman was Plaintiff, and the Appellant Defendant; and praying, "That the same may be reversed, and the Appellant relieved:" As also upon the Answer of the said Robuck Blake put in to the said Appeal; and due Consideration had of what was offered on either Side in this Cause:

Judgement.

It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That the said Decree of the Twentieth of June 1718 be, and is hereby, affirmed; with this Addition and Alteration, "That the Appellant shall have an Allowance and Deduction of an Annuity of Twenty-one Pounds per Annum for Twenty Years, granted by the Respondent to the Appellant; and also an Allowance for all such Part of a reserved Rent of Fifty Pounds per Annum, and of a Rent of Three Pounds per Annum for Duties, to Jeffry Blake, as the Appellant shall have actually paid, though he doth not produce Receipts for the same from the said Jeffry Blake the Head Landlord:" And as to the Accompt taken before the Chief Remembrancer, pursuant to the said Decree, and the several Reports made thereon, this House is of Opinion, That, besides the Allowances made by the said Report to the Appellant, there should have been allowed him Two Hundred and Forty Pounds Five Shillings and Three Pence Half-penny, paid by him for Rent to Edward Eyre the Incumbrancer; as also Thirty-nine Pounds, paid by the Appellant for Thirteen Years Duties to the said Jeffry Blake; and also Four Hundred and Twenty Pounds, for the said Annuity of Twenty-one Pounds per Annum for Twenty Years: And their Lordships are likewise of Opinion, That the Appellant is overcharged One Hundred Thirtyfive Pounds Fourteen Shillings and Eight Pence Halfpenny, in the Computation of the Profits of the Lands received by him: All which said several Sums, amounting in the Whole to Eight Hundred Thirty-five Pounds, their Lordships are of Opinion, should be deducted out of the Nine Hundred Eighty-five Pounds reported due to the Respondent from the Appellant; and that there will be then only due One Hundred and Fifty Pounds from the Appellant to the Respondent:" It is therefore further Ordered and Adjudged, That the said Decree of the Twenty-first of February One Thousand Seven Hundred and Twentythree, whereby the Respondent is to have and recover against the Appellant the Sum of Nine Hundred Eighty and Five Pounds, shall, as to that Part, be, and the same is hereby, reversed: And it is also Ordered and Adjudged, That the Appellant do pay unto the Respondent the Sum of One Hundred and Fifty Pounds: And in all other Points it is likewise Ordered and Adjudged, That the said Decree be, and is hereby, affirmed.

Copies of Treaties delivered.

The Lord Viscount Townshend (by His Majesty's Command) laid before the House, Copies of several Treaties.

The Titles whereof were read, as follow:

"Copy of the Treaty of Peace made at Vienna, the 30th of April 1725, between the Emperor and the King of Spain, taken from a Copy communicated by Count Starbenberg in May 1725; together with a Translation of the same."

"Copy of the Treaty of Commerce made at Vienna, the First of May 1725, between the Emperor and the King of Spain, taken from One printed by Authority at Vienna; together with a Translation of the same."

"Copies of the Treaty made at Hanover, the Third of September 1725, between Great Britain, France, and Prussia, and of the Three separate Articles thereunto belonging; with Translations."

Ordered, That the Copies of the said Treaties be taken into Consideration on this Day Sevennight; and the Lords to be summoned.

L. Saltoun versus Frazer.

The House being moved, "That the Hearing the Cause wherein Alexander Lord Saltoun is Appellant, and Mr. William Fraser is Respondent, which stands appointed for Monday next, may be put off for some Time; both Parties consenting thereto:"

It is Ordered, That the Hearing the said Cause be adjourned to Friday the Twenty-fifth Day of this Instant February.

Williams versus Lane.

Upon reading the Petition of Edward Williams, Appellant in a Cause depending in this House, to which John Bell Lane Esquire and Mary Viscountess Lanesborough are Respondents; praying to be admitted to prosecute his Appeal in Forma Pauperis; and that he may be dispensed with from entering into a Recognizance, he having been admitted in Forma Pauperis in the Court of Chancery in Ireland.

And thereupon Robert Williams the Petitioner's Agent being called in, and examined upon Oath, at the Bar, touching the Petitioner's Poverty:

And being withdrawn:

It is Ordered, That the Petitioner be admitted to prosecute his Appeal in Forma Pauperis, as desired.

L. Willoughby de Broke & al. Pet. referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of George Lord Willoughby de Broke, Edward Harley, Thomas Harley, Anthony Duncombe, Esquires, John Browne Gentleman, and of the Honourable John Verney Esquire and Abigail his Wife; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for better ascertaining several Messuages and Lands, in the County of Gloucester, purchased by Sir Grevil Verney; and for the more effectual Partition of the Manor of Tudrington and Itchington, in the said County:

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

Garden to enter into a Recognizance for Forbes.

The House being moved, "That Robert Garden Gentleman may be permitted to enter into a Recognizance for Thomas Forbes of Watertoun, on account of his Appeal, to which John Galloway is Respondent; the Appellant residing in Scotland:"

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

Garden to enter into a Recognizance for Stirling.

The like Order for the said Robert Garden to enter into a Recognizance for Walter Stirling, on account of his Appeal, to which William Gray is Respondent; for a Reason of the same Nature.

Burke to enter into a Recognizance for Burke & al.

The like Order for Francis Burke Esquire to enter into a Recognizance for Theobald Burke Esquire and others, on account of their Appeal, to which Thomas Lynch Esquire is Respondent; the Appellants residing in Ireland.

Burke to enter into a Recognizance for Burke.

The like Order for the said Francis Burke to enter into a Recognizance for Theobald Burke Esquire, on account of his Appeal, to which Thomas Lynch Esquire is Respondent; for a Reason of the same Nature.

Sanderson to enter into a Recognizance for Meynell and Crabb.

The like Order for Edward Sanderson of London Merchant to enter into a Recognizance for Sarah Meynell and Isaac Crabb, on account of their Appeal, to which George Moore is Respondent; the Appellants being beyond Sea.

Meighan to enter into a Recognizance for Sir J. Rouse.

The like Order for Patrick Meighan of St. Andrew's Holbourne Bookseller to enter into a Recognizance for Sir John Rouse Baronet, on account of his Appeal, to which John Barker Gentleman and others are Respondents; the Appellant residing at a great Distance from London.

Mead to enter into a Recognizance for L. Kingston.

The like Order for John Mead Esquire to enter into a Recognizance for John Lord Kingston, on account of his Appeal, to which Richard Bourke is Respondent; the Appellant residing in Ireland.

Ransford & al. Pet. referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Edward Ransford Esquire and Margaret his Wife, on Behalf of themselves, and of Mark and Nathaniel Ransford Sons of the said Edward and Margaret, Minors, of the respective Ages of One Year and an Half, and Five Months; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, to enable Trustees to make Leases of certain Houses, or Tenements, in and near the City of Dublin, not exceeding Ninety-nine Years, at the best improved Rent, and without taking any Fine or Fines for so doing, to such Person or Persons as will take the same:

It is Ordered, That the Consideration of the said Petition be, and is hereby, referred to the Lord Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer and Mr. Justice Denton; with the usual Directions, according to the Standing Orders.

Dunn's Fet. referred to Judges.

Upon reading the Petition of Daniel Dunne Esquire and Edward Dunne only Brother of the said Daniel; praying Leave to bring in a Bill, for Sale or Mortgage of Part of the Estate of the said Petitioner Daniel in the Kingdom of Ireland, for Payment of Incumbrances affecting the same:

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

Sir J Rushout versus Rushout & al.

The House being moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein Sir John Rushout Baronet is Appellant, and Elizabeth Rushout and others are Respondents:"

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

Tutt versus Mercer.

The House being also moved, "That a Day may be appointed, for hearing the Cause wherein John Tutt Gentleman is Appellant, and John Mercer Gentleman is Respondent:"

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

Squier versus Dowell.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Artlvr Squier Gentleman; complaining of a Decree made by the Master of The Rolls the Third Day of July 1724, in a Cause wherein the Petitioner was Plaintiff, and John Baker Dowell Defendant; and praying, "That the same may be reversed; and that the Agreement made between the Petitioner and the Defendant may be performed:"

It is Ordered, That the said John Baker Dowell 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 Twenty-fourth Day of this Instant February.

Squier versus Ly. Pershall.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Arthur Squier Gentleman; complaining of several Orders and Decrees of the Court of Chancery, made the Twentyfourth of January 1718, the First of July and Tenth of December 1719, in a Cause wherein the Lady Rachel Pershall was Plaintiff, and the Petitioner Defendant; and praying, "That the same may be reversed:"

It is Ordered, That the said Lady Pershall may have a Copy of the said Appeal; and she is hereby required to put in her Answer thereunto, in Writing, on or before Thursday the Twenty-fourth Day of this Instant February.

Marriott versus Marriott & al.

Upon reading the Petition and Appeal of Kimbra Marriott, the Widow and Relict of Thomas Marriott Esquire, deceased, late Clerk of the Pleas in the Court of Exchequer; complaining of an Order of the said Court, made the Twenty-sixth of November last, in a Cause wherein Richard and Benjamin Marriott were Plaintiffs, and the Petitioner and others were Defendants; and praying, "That the same be reversed, and the Plaintiff's Bill dismissed with Costs:"

It is Ordered, That the said Richard and Benjamin Marriott 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 Twenty-fourth Day of this Instant February; and that Service of this Order on the Respondents Clerk in the said Court of Exchequer be deemed good Service.

Adjourn.

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