atkins case sir thomas standish versus radley April SC barn Charles Rep to  oblige a man to sign and inrol a decree make against himself in order to  entitle he to bring a bill of review be altogether unnecessary a bill be bring  in by the representative of the five young child of sir Richard standish  videlicet Alexander Ralph John Hugh and Peter against sir Thomas standish who  be descend from the old son of sir Richard standish and no evidence appear of  a actual payment of any of the portion nor any release produce except with  regard to Ralph standish only sir Thomas standish be decree by sir Joseph  Jekyll at the hear of the cause in to satisfy the plaintiff for the several  sum due to they for portion as the representative of the young child of sir  Richard standish since this decree sir Thomas standish find two release one  from Peter standish and another from Alexander and three receipt from Hugh for  their several portion and all of they in the hand of a person who claim under  the purchaser of sir Richard Standishs estate which be charge with the portion  upon this foundation the present bill be bring as a supplemental bill by sir  Thomas standish pray that he may have the benefit of the release and likewise  a petition of rehear in the nature of a bill of review to revise and consider  the decree in the former cause as it have never be sign and enrol though make  as long ago as atkins Lord chancellor I be of opinion sir Thomas standish be  entitle to be relieve and first I shall consider the method of proceed in this  cause the bring a bill in the nature of a bill of review to revise a decree in  a former cause which have not be sign and enrol be a very proper one llewellin  v Mackworth ante Wortley v Birkhead post vol and it be a very fruitless thing  to put a man to sign and inrol a decree which be make against himself in order  to entitle he to bring a bill of review beside the great expense which attend  it therefore I think this method of proceed will answer the design of the  court best in bring new matter before they discover since the former decree  next as to the merit of the case it can be say that it be absolute clear but  however the weight of the evidence be great in favour of sir Thomas standish  it be original a demand for young child portion arise under a settlement in  and a will make in consequence of the settlement and which portion become  Payable so long ago as such a length of time must create a very strong  presumption of their have be pay and it must almost amount to prove a negative  to induce the court to believe that they be still unpay and the master of the  roll have stretch a good deal to decree in that the portion be unpay when the  presumption from length of time must even then have have considerable weight  see Smallman v Hamilton ante Sturt v Mellish post Fotherby v hartridge vern  Ramsden v Hylton Ves Lacon v Briggs post vol Jones v Turberville bro Charles  Rep Oughterloney v earl powis Amb Worsley v Granville Ves the master of the  roll upon a release be produce from Ralph standish one of the young child for  his portion by the decree in dismiss the bill as to his representative as to  the portion of Peter standish it be insist by sir Thomas that since the decree  for Peter representative he have find a release from Peter which be the  foundation for the bill of review the rule to review and revise a former  decree be the discovery of new matter since the make of such decree which be  in be at the time but be not know to the party till afterward there can be no  reason why this release shall not weigh with I as much now as the release  produce by Ralph do with the master of the roll in the former cause next as to  Alexander portion the release he have give for it be in the same form atkins  er p and word with Peter and therefore atkins these release be a bar to the  demand set up by each of their representative in order to show that Hugh  Standishs portion be pay three receipt under his hand be produce as evidence  it have be object these receipt can be read in this cause because they be in  the hand of some of the party to the former cause after publication have pass  and the rule in bill of review be that it must be new matter discover after  the decree but I think this will be too strict for as they be not discover  till after publication in the cause they can not possible be make use of then  and beside it appear that the present plaintiff sir Thomas standish do not  know any thing of these receipt till long after the decree next as to the  parole agreement between the representative of Hugh standish and sir Thomas  standish before the bring the present bill now this be not by way of  compromise on consideration of the doubt and difficulty which arise in the  case but it be only on sir Thomas Standishs agree to pay pound by instalment  provide they will abate pound odd money and therefore do not bring it within  the reason in the case of can v can p W and consequent do not prevent sir  Thomas standish from avail himself of this discovery in relation to the  receipt of Hugh standish for his part of the marriage portion on the that of  may Lord Hardwicke declare that the release give by Peter and Alexander to  their brother sir Richard standish date the that of January and the that of  march be sufficient bar to the demand make by the plaintiff in the original  cause of the original and additional portion of Peter and Alexander and of any  interest for the same and therefore decree that so much of the former decree  as relate to these portion of Peter and Alexander be reverse and that the  plaintiff bill in the original cause so far as it relate to these demand do  stand dismiss and sir Thomas standish shall be allow what have be pay by he  subsequent to the former decree