Barnardiston the earl of thanet and other against paterson and other July the  present bill be bring by the earl of thanet and his son against the defendant  who be owner of certain tenantright estate in the county of Westmoreland  insist upon general fine not exceed two year accord to the improve value of  the land due from they upon the death of the Lord of those manor the bill set  forth that upon the death of Thomas late earl of thanet in the estate devolve  to the present earl under a settlement and that upon the late earl death the  fine in question be due to he the present bill therefore be bring by the  present earl of thanet as tenant for life under that settlement and likewise  by his son the next remainderman in tail pray that those fine may be pay to  the present earl and that this custom may be establish to this bill the tenant  set forth by their answer that true it be that general fine be due to the lord  of these manor upon the death of a former Lord and likewise that grow fine be  due to they upon the change of a tenant but then they insist upon it that by  the custom of these manor no great fine be due upon the death of a Lord than  ten time the value of the ancient rend which be call a seventeen penny fine  and that no great fine be due for the grow fine than seventeen time the value  of the old rend which be call a seventeen penny fine the tenant likewise  prefer a cross bill against the plaintiff whereby they pray that the fine as  they set they forth may be establish and that certain other custom  Barnardiston relate to those estate may be establish likewise this bill far  set forth that the daughter of the late earl have make a entry upon these  manor immediate after the death of the late earl claim a Title to they these  lady be make defendant to this bill together with the present earl and the  bill pray that they may interplead one with another and a affidavit be annex  to this bill set forth that it be indifferent to the tenant whichever of they  they pay their fine to to this bill the daughter of the late earl of thanet  put in their answer and thereby set forth that these manor be original grant  from king John to one Robert de old Pontus and the heir of his body and that  they be those heir and as to the settlement which the present earl of thanet  claim under they say that it be only support by a fine and recovery which they  be advice be void inasmuch as the reversion of those manor be in the crown Mr  fazakerley argue as counsel for the plaintiff in the original Cause and to  show that the present earl be entitle to these manor and not the daughter of  the late one he say that king James the saint by letter patent grant his  reversion to this family and that be out of the crown the fine and recovery  will be well maintainable this point he say be so hold in the case of Lord  anglesea and the earl of Derby in the court of exchequer and to show that the  statute of h which this question depend upon be to be construe strict he rely  upon Raymond and gardener case there cite thus much he observe to show that  the present earl be unquestionable entitle to these manor but he think it be  pretty extraordinary that a question of this nature shall be handle in the  present Cause where the original bill be only bring to establish a right to  fine due from the tenant he do own that by the proof Barnardiston it do not  clear appear whether the present earl be in the right in the dispute or  whether his tenant be and therefore he ready agree that a trial must be direct  the question will be where the issue shall be try and consider the length and  difficulty of they he believe it be certain that the issue must be try at the  bar and the doubt will only be by what jury they shall be try whether by a  jury from Middlesex or by a jury from Westmoreland he say that he appre  Barnardiston er p hended a jury from Westmoreland will be very improper  inasmuch as most of the estate in that part of the kingdom be tenantright  estate and in the case of the duke of Somerset where there be a question  relate to certain fine due from estate of this very same tenure the jury come  from Middlesex and there be a trial at bar likewise and the same be do in the  case of Lord anglesea and the earl of Derby beforementioned where the issue be  try in the common plea the attorneygeneral argue as counsel for the daughter  of the late earl Thomas and say that if the court shall be of opinion that  this bill be proper a interpleading bill so that the dispute between the  present earl and the daughter of the late earl may be final settle he shall be  very ready to offer what he have to say in support of the lady Title but he  conceive this be not proper a interpleading bill for that the fine claim by  the present earl be not bring into court Lord chancellor say he be desirous  that this question concern the propriety of the cross bill with regard to lady  Title may be first determine whereupon Mr brown as counsel for the tenant say  that he apprehend they be well justify in this part of the cross bill inasmuch  as the lady actual sign a letter of attorney empower a entry to be make on  their behalf Barnardiston Mr Wilbraham on the same side say that though a Lord  for the time be who be even a seize may claim fine from tenant due on their  admission to a copyhold yet he apprehend that none but the rightful owner of  manor can bring a bill apiece to establish a custom in it and as to what be  object by Mr fazakerly that the money claim for these fine shall be bring into  court he say that be by no mean necessary unless the other side move that they  may bring the money in and the tenant have set forth by their answer that they  be Willing to pay what shall be find to be due Lord chancellor say his opinion  be that so much of the cross bill as seek to bring in question the dispute  between the earl and the lady ought to be dismiss there be two question he  observe for he to consider saint whether this cross bill be a bill of  interpleader with regard to the form of it and dly whether in the present case  a bill of interpleader will lie or not with regard to the first point his  opinion be that this be not a interpleading bill with regard to the form of it  he say he do ready agree that it be not necessary that the plaintiff in such  bill shall bring the money into court unless the other side require it but it  be necessary in such bill that the plaintiff shall make a offer to bring it in  and even the whole of the money as it be demand by the original bill which in  the present case the tenant have omit to do with regard to the second question  his opinion likewise be that no interpleading bill will lie in the present  case at all it be agree on all hand that the present earl be in possession and  have be so from the death of the late earl in and though in that year the lady  do make a entry yet they never think proper to pursue their claim to this very  day there can therefore be no doubt but that the present earl be entitle to  these Barnardiston fine as against the tenant and that they can not be bind to  pay they over again there be another reason likewise why the lady can in no  manner be entitle to the fine claim by the original bill in as much as they be  set by the steward of the present earl at a court hold in his name and if the  lady will have make any Title to fine they must have hold court in their own  name and have set their fine themselves and demand they likewise and as to  what be object that a person must be rightful owner of a manor in order to  bring a bill to establish custom he say there be no rule of court that require  that though it be very true that he that have a bare interest for life in a  estate can bring such bill alone but he that hang the inheritance must be join  in it he do own that the objection concern the entry have at first some weight  with it but he think it wag capable of two plain answer one with regard to  lord of manor in general the other with regard to the jurisdiction of this  court as to lord of manor it will be extreme difficult upon they if because a  Title be set up by another the right which they have to fine from their tenant  must be delay and they must go through the course of a interpleading bill and  if this shall be so in the present case there may be equal reason of go  through the course of twenty interpleading bill if title be set up by twenty  different people and if this shall be allow of with regard to the general fine  it may even be insist on with regard to the grow one as to the jurisdiction of  the court he say it may be a great inconvenience to that Barnardiston er p for  instead of court of law determine the legal Title between different claimant  as it proper belong to they to do it will involve this court in determine a  great variety of these sort of question for these reason his lordship say his  opinion be that this part of the cross bill must be dismiss the question will  be whether with cost or not but his opinion be that there can be no cost even  with regard to Barnardiston any of the lady two of they make default at the  hear and therefore with regard to they it be clear they can be entitle to no  cost and as to the other lady he say they may have demurrer to the bill and he  have know the master of the roll often give that as a reason why a defendant  shall not have cost give he and beside in the present case there be the less  reason for their have they inasmuch as by their answer they have insist upon a  Title accord this part of the cross bill be dismiss general without cost the  counsel for the tenant then go into their objection to the other matter which  Mr fazakerly have pray they say they shall not contend but issue must be  direct and two question will arise saint whether those issue shall be try at  the bar and dly whether they shall be try by a jury from Middlesex with regard  to the first question they say that these be local matter and therefore ought  to be try in the county where they arise with regard to the second they say it  can not be doubt but a equal jury may come from the county of Westmoreland at  least they apprehend that a jury from a neighbour county may try this and the  like be do in the case of holt and terry where a jury be order to come from  the county of Stafford because the court can not award their process into  Cheshire Lord chancellor say that he think there can be no doubt but that  these issue ought to be try at the bar and it be indeed agreeable to the  statute of nisi prius which say that the trial shall be at the bar Ubi great  to need examination he say his opinion likewise be that these issue shall be  try by a jury from Middlesex the custom concern these tenantright estate be  very general through most of these neighbour county and be a sort of border  law for which reason he do not think that the Cause can receive a indifferent  trial by a jury from any of those county and in the case of issue direct by  this court a great latitude be always allow of than in issue arise in court of  law he say it Barnardiston will be cheap for the party to have a jury from  Middlesex than to have it from any other county and there have be several  precedent in this court where issue of this kind have be direct to be try by a  jury from this county it so do in the case of the duke of Somerset and frank  which relate to a tenantright estate though there indeed the question only be  whether a tenant for life be entitle to such general fine the like be do in  the case of the duchess of Somerset concern the estate of the earl of  Northumberland and so be it likewise in the case of champion and Atkinson keb  and so his lordship direct accord a question then arise where the other issue  shall be try relate to the custom claim by the tenant in the cross bill Lord  chancellor incline to be of opinion that those issue shall be try at the bar  by a Middlesex jury likewise within a few day after the former trial shall be  over inasmuch as it be hardly possible that they shall all be try on the same  day and he say that the same be do in the Appleby Cause where one information  relate to that corporation be try at the bar on one day a a trial of another  of they two or three day after but at last the party consent that these other  issue shall be try at York or Lancaster as the court shall direct when the  trial of the first issue shall be over march when this Cause come on before Mr  fazakerly as counsel for the earl produce a paper wherein he have settle the  form of the issue as he have conceive they be proper to be frame the first  issue be to this effect whether by the custom of the several manor on the  death of the Lord or lady the Lord be entitle to arbitrary fine not exceed two  year value the second issue be to this effect whether Barnardiston on the  death or alienation of a tenant the Lord be entitle to a fine not exceed two  year value of the land the counsel on the other side agree that the issue  shall be direct in this manner and the court direct they in that manner accord  but there be the interest of a infant in question the order direct these issue  be not draw up by consent these issue come to be try at the bar of the court  of king bench but when Barnardiston er p these issue come to be try there that  court be of opinion that the word not exceed two year value be part of the  fact of the issue and that the plaintiff be preclude from give evidence that  ever any great fine be set than two year value of the land and in some measure  upon that account the jury find both the issue for the defendant but these  word not exceed two year value be real insert by the plaintiff counsel upon a  imagination that it be only that which the law will imply and thereupon the  matter come on now before this court upon a motion for a new trial and upon a  petition of rehear wherein it be pray that the issue may be rectifier by  strike out the clause not exceed two year value and likewise the Cause be set  down by the defendant on the equity reserve Lord chancellor have inquire of  the judge whether they ere satisfy with the verdict that be give and they  certify he that they be his lordship be now of opinion that the issue ought to  be vary in the manner thathas be mention and that a new trial ought to be  grant and so his lordship be please to order accord Barnardiston February this  Cause now come on in the paper again the counsel for the earl say that the  earl and his tenant have come to a agreement among themselves and part of that  agreement be that the earl shall relinquish the order that he have obtain for  a new trial and that he shall take his decree against the tenant upon the  verdict already give but in order that this decree may be make effectual  against such of the tenant as have sign a write whereby they agree to stand by  those tenant that be make defendant to this suit it be pray ed that that  agreement together with the name of those tenant may be annex by way of  schedule to the master report and it be say that this be so do in the case of  the duke of Somerset and frank but for want of a consent of the other side in  relation to another part of the agreement the Cause be order to stand over