case hill versus white ux e contra at the chancellor house Lord chancellor Mr  hill prefer a petition to his majesty in his high court of chancery pray a  commission to review and rehear a sentence of the court of delegate in Ireland  and mrs white and her husband prefer a cross petition for a commission to  review and rehear a sentence of a court of delegate in England Mr solicitor  general for the petitioner Mr hill captain white private marry the daughter  and only child of lieutenant general Sanchi without his privity or consent and  the mother of Marcus hill the petitioner be sister to the general be wife in  general Sanchi die in Ireland on a journey in company with Mr hill and be  great disoblige at his say daughter marriage he a few day before his death  make his will and appoint the say Marcus hill sole executor and residuary  legatee after payment of debt and legacy in may the will be propound in the  prerogative court of Canterbury and the probate be oppose by the counter  petitioner but in a sentence be give in favour of Mr hill and the probate  grant to he and on a appeal the sentence be affirm by eight of the delegate  July and no complaint thereof be ever make till this cross petition and the  testator leave also considerable asset in Ireland the will be likewise  propound in the prerogative court of that kingdom and a probate be grant to  the petitioner and on a appeal the cause be hear before the delegate January  on the same mosely report evidence as in England and they adjourn till the  that of February follow and on the that of April without be continue by  adjournment and without notice to the party or their proctor three judge meet  and no commonlawyer among they and reverse the sentence of the prerogative  court and grant letter of administration to mrs white the daughter wherefore  we now prefer this petition to have the say sentence review and reheard and  though a commission of review be not a matter of right but of grace and favour  as be adjudge in the case of powis and Andrews yet it have never be deny upon  good reason and we presume our case be so very different that there be the  strong reason for this petition and none of any weight or moment for they in  Ireland there have be but one sentence against the will and that give by only  three commissioner nor be the fraud and imposition on and insanity of the  testator suggest by the cross petition sufficient allegation because they have  be already under consideration of the judge mosely report er p that give the  sentence and they have adjudge they not sufficient to set aside the will the  sentence of the delegate in England be conformable to the sentence of the  prerogative court and have be acquiesce under five year and no precedent can  be show where after so long a acquiescence a review have be grant of a  sentence of delegate who confirm the sentence of the prerogative court doctor  henchman numberless inconvenience will ensue if a commission of review shall  be allow after so great a distance of time the executor Mr hill have pay the  debt and legacy of the testator all which be liable to be reverse and undo by  this commission they pray by their cross petition and therefore there be  always a time limit for the bring of appeal the civil law allow ten day and we  fifteen and I have know a appeal disallow that be bring on the sixteenth day  conformable to which rule the house of lord have late make a order that appeal  to their lordship shall be bring within five year and two year be the time  allow to petition his imperial majesty in and this be now the law of the  empire all which rule be find on a supposition that the estate be in that time  dispose of and that the circumstance of the party in such a course of year be  great alter the court of delegate in Ireland have proceed in a manner new and  unprecedented four year pass between their first sit on the commission and  their give sentence the cause be first hear in January before five  commissioner and the last hear be on the that of the same month then they  adjourn to the that of February then next follow then there be a  discontinuance then they meet on the that of February and there be no settle  adjournment as to time or place so mosely report that the party can not tell  when or where to attend the next meeting be on the that of April another be on  the that of January and on the that of April the sentence be give though  neither the council for the petitioner or his proctor walk present as appear  by the act of the register the commissioner in Ireland refuse to admit five  witness who testimony be allow in the prerogative court in Ireland and by both  the court in England in February the commissioner in Ireland meet to give  sentence but can not agree till there be no quorum in the Irish Commission and  though they set forth in their petition that all the three delegate sign the  sentence unanimous that be of no weight because by the tenor of the Commission  that be necessary to make the sentence good in Ireland the prerogative court  give sentence for the will and only three judge of fifteen give sentence in  favour of the cross petitioner in England the probate be grant by the  prerogative court and their sentence be confirm by eight delegate out of  fourteen and though here be in not three conformable sentence on appeal which  be never impeachable yet here be three similiar sentence and four year  acquiescence in which case no precedent can be show that a review be ever  grant and the daughter be not leave unprovide for but be seize by the same  title with the petitioner of the moiety of a estate descend on her from her  mother dr strahan No objection can be make to our petition the most irregular  step have be take by the commissioner in Ireland four year pass between take  the information and give sentence five judge be present when the information  be take and but only three when sentence be give and the other judge have no  notice of their meeting and where any of the judge take upon they to give  sentence without the rest all the proceed be null and void Mr hill proctor  petition the court that the three will not proceed to sentence till the other  two meet which be at that time grant and their reason may have convince the  other three as to mrs white petition no instance can be give where a review  have be grant after five year acquiescence most country now observe the  imperial law where they vary from it it be in shorten the time as in holland  it be restrain to a year that property may not be unsettle after a long  distance of time dr Brampston the only foundation for this cross petition be  the single sentence in Ireland where five witness be not suffer to mosely  report give evidence who testimony have be object to in the prerogative court  in England and allow and on a appeal the delegate be of opinion they be good  witness and remit the cause dr palmer for the cross petitioner this case be  the first of the kind that I remember the proceed have be set out as if those  in Ireland be subsequent to those in England whereas both go on acquire step  this will whereby a only child be disinherit be make in limit the testator  upward of seventy year of age his distemper a diarrhoea which be improper stop  turn to a lethargy mosely report er p the will be make on the eight he die on  the ten of the month it be say his intention by the will be to give several  particular legacy and the residue to Mr hill whereas no legacy be give by the  will but by the codicil which be more proper Mr hill will for thereby he  promise by way of note subscribe by himself that he will pay those several  legacy and the legatee who be the menial servant of the general his groom and  such like have receive and give release for their legacy be admit witness to  prove the will Mr hill be a mere stranger in blood to the testator nor can the  displeasure he have conceive at his daughter marriage be the cause of this  pretend will in favour of Mr hill for the decease be afterward reconcile and  very kind to her and two will be find in his study in England by which nothing  be give to Mr hill as to the proceed on the Commission in Ireland the statute  in that kingdom require no quorum and commonlawyers be but of late ear  necessary in the commission in England and as to the length of time dr Crawley  be deprive for simony by the delegate and a review be grant by king William  III at about five year distance and the sentence be reverse and he restore to  his archdeaconry which dr oldis have enjoy in the mean time nor be the king  limit to any time it be not necessary that the council or proctor shall be  present when sentence be give but it be very usual for the judge after hear to  declare we will give the gentleman who be of council any further trouble of  attendance and what they mention as irregularity be common in these commission  sometime the judge adjourn to a certain day and then if none attend they be  adjourn without die Mr hill be as much in fault as the cross petitioner for if  he think the proceed be delay he ought to have apply for a day and the  register be to attend the judge to sign a warrant for that purpose and as to  the objection that five commissioner be present at the mosely report  information and that only three give sentence and that the other two may have  be of a different opinion this will have be no sufficient foundation for a  review though the five have be present and the two have actual disarm as be  adjudge by Lord Harcourt in the case of Tindar versus Hopkins three be  sufficient to join in opinion by the word of the commission we pray a  commission because we have new witness to examine and to new matter which they  do not suggest and therefore we hope your lordship will make a favourable  report of we to his majesty Mr attorneygeneral this be such a will as a court  will allow the probate of with great reluctance a inofficious testament in  which no notice be take of the daughter his only child and will be void by the  civil law and there be two will find both make in her favour the testator  leave asset in both kingdom make this a very particular case but I must  observe to your lordship that this will be make in Ireland and witness there  and in that kingdom they may give sentence on the credit of the witness where  they be best know and their character can be easy find out and this indeed  appear to be the fact from the complaint of the petitioner that five of the  witness who testimony be allow in this kingdom be reject there and may be so  here on a commission of review as in the case of drake and prime that of  February Abington be allow a good witness by the prerogative and court of  delegate and yet his evidence be refuse on a review here have be three  sentence against one indeed in favour of the will but not on the same evidence  but only sentence against sentence as to the error in the proceed it be common  not to have due entry from Ireland and be answer by the practice of the court  of delegate here the judge meet adjourn and at the day perhaps no judge come  yet the proceed do not fall for that reason but new warrant be grant to attend  and no entry be make of such warrant proceed of court be first take down in  minute and be draw up at large from thence so that it be not strange that  several error shall appear in they as to the prayer of their proctor that the  sentence may be stay till the other judge come who hear the cause this may  have delay the sentence for ever for accord to my instruction they two be dead  when sentence be give though the sentence in England be very solemn and in  conformity yet there be sufficient cause for a review because we have new  matter to prove and by new evidence and as the law have set no time in which  such a petition to be bring it lie whole in the breast of the crown and no  case can happen in which it can be more proper ask than in this where a  daughter be leave poor and mosely report destitute of any provision from her  father and a suit depend at the same time in Ireland to set aside the will  wherefore it mosely report er p be advisable to wait till the same be  determine in that kingdom and if the judge there give sentence in favour of  the will then to acquiesce but if they give sentence for the daughter this  then will be a good reason for we to pray a review of the sentence give in  England and be very necessary to prevent the clash of jurisdiction in case the  sentence of the commissioner in Ireland shall be confirm on the commission of  review grant to the petitioner for they in the same kingdom it will be allow  in one court to be a good will and disallow in another and there be no other  method for one uniform determination than to have both sentence review by a  new commission so that here the length of time can be no objection because it  be for mrs white to wait the event of the suit in Ireland by the rule of this  court a month be the time limit for a rehear suppose then a decree make in  favour of the plaintiff and in another cause a decree give for the defendant  on the same equity and a petition be prefer to rehear the last cause the court  will likewise suffer the first cause to be reheard at the same time though the  petition be prefer at a great distance of time than be limit by the course of  the court to the end that there may be one uniform decree in both cause and  review in ecclesiastical court be of the same nature with rehearings Lord  chancellor though the cross petitioner suggest that they have new matter to  offer yet as they have produce no affidavit to prove the same I can take no  notice of the allegation of their petition my opinion however be not final but  I be only humble to lie my think before his majesty I can advice the king to  grant a commission of review after five year acquiescence under the sentence  for that will render property unsettle and precarious and of commission  without proof of new matter be ever grant at such a distance of time if the  case stand single but here in one kingdom be a sentence for the will in the  other against it five delegate in Ireland hear the cause and four year after  three give sentence as to the entry they be but matter of form and may be  rectify in this case there have be two sentence in England for the will and  one in Ireland so that a commission of review of the sentence of the delegate  in Ireland be plain reasonable but to prevent contradictory decree this seem  to I at mosely report present the best method to lie before his majesty that  the petitioner be well entitle to a commission and that it will be proper to  suspend the consideration whether a commission shall be grant to the cross  petitioner till those commissioner of review have give sentence if they  reverse the sentence of the delegate in Ireland then there will be no occasion  for another commission because the sentence in England will agree if they  affirm it that it will be proper to grant a review of the sentence in England  to the same commissioner that two different sentence on the same will may not  be on record in the same kingdom Instit h ch hard Cas supplement to Wentworth  but not to be allow to give new evidence as to fact and matter before examine  to the act of the court of delegate in Ireland be produce in this cause sign  by the register and it be adjudge that there need no affidavit to prove his  hand he be a public and know officer as on a appeal to the lord the party be  never put to prove the register hand to a decree