case William PLUNKET Appellant Lord viscount Kingsland and others Respondents  that January Mews dig viii where on a agreement for a lease the particular  rend commencement and duration of the lease be uncertain or depend upon the  approbation of a three person a court of equity will direct proper issue to  ascertain these several fact before any specific performance of the contract  be decree Nicholas Lord viscount Kingsland decease be seize of the land and  warren call conney borough of Portmarnock in the county of Dublin by deed date  the that of December devise the same to Richard to drive together decease for  year to commence from the saint of may render yearly a rend of pound and five  dozen pair of rabbit and after the death of Lord Nicholas the respondent Henry  Lord viscount Kingsland his son and heir by deed date the that of November  demise to the say Richard Cogan the mill and a house and land belong thereto  part of Portmarnock for thirty one year from the saint of may then last at the  yearly rend of pound brown this warren and mill lie contiguous to the estate  of Luke plunket the appellant brother a part of which estate call Carrick hill  the respondent wakele hold of he by a feefarm grant in Richard Cogan the  lessee die possess of both these lease and by his will date in march and make  before his take the lease of the mill he bequeathe his lease of the warren and  land hold therewith to his two son John and James they pay pound to his son  William but the testator make no disposition of the surplus of his estate nor  appoint any executor upon the death of Richard Cogan John and James his son  become entitle by virtue of the will to the lease of the warren of Portmarnock  but the other lease of the mill be undisposed of vest in Ann his widow and in  John James and William his three son and Margaret Tiernan his daughter as his  next of kin by virtue of the statute concern the distribution of intestate  estate but no administration with the will annex be take out by any of they  from the death of Richard Cogan in till the warren and mill be joint hold and  occupy by the three brother John James and William Cogan and by a agreement  date the that of April it be agree between they that John and William shall be  joint entitle in moieties to the profit of the warren and mill and that James  Cogan shall have rend free a house and a garden on the warren together with  the liberty of keep there two cow and two calf and also liberty to dig and  draw sand from off the warren or any part thereof which privilege he accept in  satisfaction of his pretention or right to the profit of the warren or mill in  consequence of this agreement John and William continue in the possession of  the warren and kill the rabbit there and joint take and enjoy the other profit  thereof till the death of William Cogan in February and James continue in  possession of the house and from time to time enjoy the other liberty and  privilege which he be entitle to under the agreement after the death of  William but the warren and mill be much too dear rend the Cogans in decline in  their circumstance and the rend to Lord Kingsland run in arrear and William  Cogan have marry the daughter of a tenant of Lord Howth application be make  through his mean by Lord or lady Howth to Lord Kingsland to accept a surrender  of the then exist lease and to grant a new lease at a low rend and in order to  enable William Cogan to make a surrender of the old lease of the warren and  complete a agreement for that purpose with Lord Kingsland John Cogan and Ann  his mother in January execute a assignment of their interest in the warren to  William without any consideration such assignment be intend only for the  purpose of his obtain a new lease which be to be in trust for John and James  Cogan and be to be enjoy by the three brother upon brown the term of the  before mention agreement and before the execute brown er p cion John Cogan  declare and desire notice may be take that he do not absolute give up his  right to his brother William but be still to have his share of the land and  the benefit of the new lease which William agree to William Cogan accord  prevail on Lord Kingsland in the latter end of the year or the beginning of to  agree to accept a surrender and to grant a new lease of the premise or part  thereof for the term of thirty one year at a low rend upon payment of pound  the arrear of rend then due to Lord Kingsland and on condition that Peter Daly  esquire his lordship father in law who manage his affair without who consent  his lordship never conclude any such agreement will consent to and approve of  such lease but the Cogans not be in circumstance to pay the fine for the new  lease or to continue under the old one and Mr Daly never have approve of any  such lease the agreement be not carry into execution nor be any new lease ever  execute by Lord Kingsland to the Cogans in pursuance thereof the respondent  wakele imagine that the Cogans will not be able to continue tenant of the  premise have long before November by the interest of the other respondent Lord  Athunry obtain a promise from Lord Kingsland that he shall have the refusal of  a lease thereof upon the expiration of the Cogans interest or whenever they  shall quit the premise and in consequence of such promise be induce to lie out  a considerable sum of money in building and other improvement upon his own  estate of Carrick hill which lie contiguous to it and in August John James and  William Cogan inform the respondent wakele that they be not able to hold the  premise and pay the arrear of rend then due to Lord Kingsland and therefore  propose to the respondent wakele as they know the premise lie convenient for  he to take the new lease which be conditional agree for as aforesaid and to  pay the arrear of rend and tell he that they believe he may get such lease at  a rend of pound per and the respondent wakele have this offer make to he by  the Cogans and put a confidence in the appellant soon after inform he of this  proposal and of the promise he have before obtain from Lord Kingsland and ask  the appellant opinion of the value of the warren and mill and desire he to use  his interest with Lord Kingsland on his the respondent behalf to moderate the  rend the respondent wakele not have the least suspicion that the appellant  intend to apply for a new lease himself the appellant upon such conversation  promise his assistance in apply to Lord Kingsland but great undervalue the  warren and mill and have form a design to get the new lease to himself  sometime afterward tell the respondent wakele that Lord Kingsland have fix the  rend of the new lease at pound per and brown and the fine at pound which be a  false suggestion and make only with a design to deter the respondent wakele  from the think of apply further to Lord Kingsland and to furnish the appellant  with a pretence of declare to Lord Kingsland as he afterward do that the  respondent wakele have no further intention of take the lease the mill be  supply with water from the tide of the sea which form a large pond by dam that  keep in the sea water upon the ebb of the tide until the return of it and in  September or October the appellant before he have obtain any promise of a  lease from Lord Kingsland by the permission of the Cogans who still continue  in possession of the warren and mill make several alteration in the milldam  and in the sluice and bridge belong thereto with design to try if he can drain  eleven or twelve acre of the ancient mill pond in order to add the same to his  brother Luke plunket estate lie contiguous thereto although the millpond have  be from time immemorial in the possession of Lord kingslands family and the  appellant afterward succeed in this scheme use all art to procure a lease for  himself of the mill and warren from Lord Kingsland and for that purpose assure  his lordship that the respondent wakele will not take a lease of the warren  and mill at the rend of pound per and and a fine of pound and that he the  appellant have obtain the approbation and consent of Peter Daly esquire to his  become tenant of the premise and although both these affirmation be false yet  he thereby prevail on Lord Kingsland to make he some verbal promise of a lease  for a fine of pound and at the rend of pound per and in case Peter Daly brown  er p approve of such agreement and the appellant on the that of December  deposit with Lord Kingsland pound which in case Peter Daly approve of such  agreement be to go as part of the fine but can not prevail on Lord Kingsland  to give any receipt for the same as for a fine or to sign any other write  except a letter date the that of December to James Goddart his steward direct  he to prepare a draft of a lease for the appellant and to insert such  restriction therein as he and Mr Daly shall think proper but in that letter no  mention be make either of the land to be let or of any rend term of year or  commencement of the lease the appellant be conscious that he have obtain this  verbal promise from Lord Kingsland by false suggestion go the next day with  Lord kingslands letter to Goddart his steward and have inform he of the term  of the agreement offer to pay the remainder of the pound fine and desire he to  give a receipt for the same as part of a fine for a lease of the cony borough  and mill of Portmarnock but Goddart apprehend such receipt to be improper till  the agreement be full conclude by the consent of Mr Daly absolute refuse to  give any such receipt or to receive the money as a fine until he have acquaint  Mr Daly with the term of the agreement which he then have only from the  information of the appellant and Goddart also inform the appellant that no  agreement will be conclude or brown lease make without the consent of Mr Daly  whereupon the appellant consent to pay the money to Goddart as a deposit only  till the agreement shall be conclude and to accept a receipt from Goddart to  be Accountable for it on demand and be so far from look upon his agreement as  conclusive on Lord Kingsland that he then and often afterward request Goddarts  friendship and interest with Mr Daly and Lord Kingsland for his get a lease  and give Goddart direction to prepare a draft of a lease to be lie before Mr  Daly accord to the term of the proposal he then inform Goddart he have make to  Lord Kingsland in pursuance of these instruction Goddart prepare part of a  draft of a lease and soon after acquaint Mr Daly with the whole affair but Mr  Daly be so far from approve of or consent to the lease or any agreement with  the appellant that her immediate upon see the draft declare that the  respondent wakele have a previous promise of a lease and therefore must and  ought to have a preference and Goddart soon after inform the appellant of such  his discourse with Mr Daly and offer to pay back the pound and the draft be  never complete nor be any lease ever execute to the appellant and when Mr Daly  afterward hear that the appellant have inform Lord Kingsland that he have his  approbation to be tenant of the warren and mill he declare such information  absolute false and groundless the respondent wakele have receive private  information that the appellant be thus clandestine treat with Lord Kingsland  for a lease of the premise charge he therewith and acquaint the other  respondent Lord Athunry and also the earl of mount Alexander with what have  pass in relation to the lease and desire they to use their interest with Lord  Kingsland to prevail with he to perform his promise and make a lease of the  premise to he upon the term which have be offer to the Cogans and the  respondent wakele be himself confine with sickness the Lord Athunry on his  behalf apply to Lord Kingsland for a lease who be satisfy of the justice of  the respondent Wakelys pretention do with the consent and approbation of Mr  Daly on the saint of January execute a article or minute of a lease which be  draw by Mr daily clerk whereby Lord Kingsland in consideration of pound pay by  Lord Athunry as a fine demise the premise to Lord Athunry for the term of  thirty one year to commence from the saint of may when the beforementioned  lease of the warren be to expire at the yearly rend of pound and Lord Athunry  then pay to Lord Kingsland the whole fine of pound this article or memorandum  be take by Lord Athunry in trust for the respondent wakele and the pound be  his proper money the respondent wakele find that the appellant be by the  permission of the Cogans prepare to make considerable alteration in the mill  and mill dam he in order to prevent the appellant put himself to any  unnecessary expense brown er p about such repair upon the that of February go  with Hugh Wilton brown and Rolleston Humphrys esqrs to the appellant and  inform he that they be come to caution he against lie out any money in repair  the mill because Lord Kingsland have let the mill and warren to Lord Athunry  and they then show he the minute of the lease beforementioned and the  appellant then say he believe Mr wakele will take the mill and cony borough if  he can and that he the appellant will also take they if he can but he then own  that he know the respondent wakele have be treat for the warren and mill for a  considerable time pass and that he have consult he some month before as his  friend and neighbour about take the same and the appellant be then ask if he  have obtain any lease thereof or contract for a lease he say he have a lease  on certain condition but be desire to produce it say he have not a lease but a  letter to Lord kingslands agent to draw a lease on certain condition and be  then desire to produce the letter he say it be a receipt for a fine but he  have it not there nor will produce it till a proper time but he make no  pretence of a lease letter or receipt till after he have see the minute of the  lease to Lord Athunry the appellant notwithstanding this notice be resolve to  get possession and a present lease of the premise and have see the date of the  minute of the lease to the respondent Lord Athunry he obtain from William  Cogan who be then insensible and upon his deathbed and very soon afterward die  a deed which be call a surrender or assignment of his interest in the warren  and mill to the Lord Kingsland or the appellant which surrender appear to be  antedate on the that of December in order to give it a precedence to the  minute of the lease to Lord Athunry and the better to correspond with the  agreement pretend to be absolute conclude with Lord Kingsland upon the that of  December and be apprehensive that his verbal treaty with Lord Kingsland will  not be a sufficient title against Lord Athunry the appellant upon the that of  February prevail on Lord Kingsland to sign a write import a acknowledgement of  the receipt of the pound as a fine and set forth the term of the verbal  agreement pretend to have be make upon the that of December precede but this  write be also antedate so as to bear date on the that of December although  actual sign on the that of February notwithstanding Lord Kingsland have  inadvertent sign this antedate write he be so conscious that he have be impose  upon by the appellant and that he be in justice bind by his agreement with  Lord Athunry that upon the three of march he execute a lease of the premise  approve of by Mr Daly pursuant to the minute before give to Lord Athunry in  trust for the respondent wakele the appellant have upon the death of William  Cogan which happen on the d of February under pretence of the assignment or  surrender from he and the agreement with Lord Kingsland get into possession of  all the premise except the house which James Cogan hold under the  beforementioned agreement brown with his brother and the term grant by the  lease to Lord Athunry not commence till the saint of may and the appellant  daily commit great waste both in the warren and mill the respondent wakele be  advice to apply for letter of administration to Richard Cogan the father with  his will annex which have never be grant before and which by the consent of  his widow and survive child be grant accord and the respondent wakele have  thus become entitle to the subsist lease of the warren and mill as well as to  the reversionary lease thereof beforementioned he in easter term bring two  ejectment in the court of king bench in Ireland for the recovery of the  possession of the premise and the appellant have take upon he the defence of  the ejectment the respondent wakele obtain a writ of estrepement against the  appellant to prevent his commit further waste on the premise pen this suit but  before the respondent wakele can obtain judgement in the ejectment the  appellant upon the that of June file his original bill in the court of  chancery in Ireland against all the respondent for a injunction to stay the  respondent Wakelys proceed at law and for a specific execution of his pretend  agreement with Lord Kingsland for a lease of the premise the respondent wakele  upon the saint of June put in his answer to this brown er p bill and thereby  after state the several transaction beforementioned he set forth that William  Cogan be not in his lifetime entitle to the premise and be therefore incapable  of surrender or assign the same to Lord Kingsland that as to the write purport  to be such surrender and date the that of December no opinion can be form as  to its execution by William he be a marksman and that when the appellant  obtain such surrender he imagine that the warren and mill be demise to Richard  Cogan by one lease and continue of that opinion till he be serve with two  ejectment which apprise the appellant that there be two lease and in  consequence of this the write purport a surrender be alter and the word a  lease appear to have be turn into lease by erase the a and add a S in a  different hand and ink from the rest which be do through the whole deed except  in one place where it seem to have be overlook the respondent Lord Athunry put  in his answer upon the that of February and thereby state the circumstance  attend the contract make between he and Lord Kingsland and the lease as far as  he be concern therein in the same manner as the respondent wakele that the  fine of pound be pay by he on the execution of the minute and that Lord  Kingsland some year before November do in presence of the earl of mount  Alexander and Lord Howth promise to make a lease of the premise to the  respondent wakele whenever cogan interest shall determine and admit that he be  only a trustee for wakele Lord Kingsland have also in October put in a answer  to the bill the appellant reply to the several answer and issue brown be join  many witness be examine both on the behalf of the appellant and of the  respondent wakele and Lord Athunry and publication have duly pass the cause  come on to be hear before the Lord chancellor of Ireland and have take up  several day in hear upon the that of December his lordship be please to direct  a trial at law by a jury of the county of Dublin upon the follow issue  videlicet whether it be a part of the agreement between Lord Kingsland and the  appellant for a lease of the warren and mill of Portmarnock that Mr daily  consent and approbation shall he have to make such lease valid and if such  consent or approbation be part of the agreement whether Mr Daly give such  consent or approbation and whether Lord Athunry or Mr wakele have on or before  the saint day of January any and what notice of any and what agreement between  the plaintiff and Lord Kingsland for a lease of the warren and mill of  Portmarnock from this order or decree the appellant appeal d rider W Murray  and on his behalf it be say to be erroneous as to the merit of the case as to  direct the issue and ill as to the matter of notice as to the merit it be  contend that the original agreement between the appellant and Lord Kingsland  of the that of December be a fair and honest agreement the fine be a adequate  fine and the rend reserve the full rend and much more than the respondent  wakele admit the premise be worth or than he will give for the same that this  agreement be not obtain by surprise but with deliberation the term be first  settle with William Cogan the assignee of the original lease and upon his  inability to comply with they his right be transfer to the appellant that the  respondent wakele be early apprise of the treaty between Cogan and Lord  Kingsland and do not then make the least mention of any previous promise to he  of a lease of the premise in question but endeavour to dissuade and discourage  Cogan from proceed therein by represent the premise as not worth more than  pound per and and that there be not the least ingredient of fraud or  circumvention throughout the whole transaction on the part of the appellant as  Lord Kingsland who be most concern in point of interest and know the whole of  the business have full declare and admit not only by his answer but by a  letter under his hand which have be prove in the cause This be a letter  address to the appellant in the follow word sir Tarvey march that I receive  you this day and be greatley surprise to hear that Mr wakele say you impose on  I about the the coneyborough for I be sure you do not for you give the same  fine and be to pay the same rend that William Cogan agree with I for and when  Lord Athunry speak to I about the farm for Mr wakele I say I have already  promise it to you and receive a fine in consideration thereof upon which my  Lord tell I he will bear I harmless and take all on himself and even pay all  the expense of any law suit that can ensue upon which term I give he a lease  who be sir your friend Kingsland P S as for rend I expect non until all affair  be settle and your cost allow that this agreement be no soon brown enter into  than brown er p execute the fine be immediate pay the great part of it on the  same day into Lord kingslands own hand and the remainder on the next day to  his agent who receive it by his order and a receipt be afterward give by his  lordship specify the precise term of the agreement direction be at the same  time give by his lordship to his own agent for dispatch the lease the  appellant be put into possession and immediate begin to improve the estate and  pay his first halfyear rend on the very day it become due and both the  agreement and the improvement be public and notorious be the general discourse  of the whole country that the surrender of the old lease by William Cogan be  make in favour of the appellant and be express recite in the draft of the new  lease which Lord kingslands agent be prepare pursuant to his lordship  direction and in order to the draw of which the appellant furnish he with the  assignment and surrender from William Cogan to enable he to complete the lease  that from the whole complexion of the case as well as from Lord kingslands  answer which be prove in the cause to have be settle by Mr Daly it appear his  lordship never have the least intention to recede from his agreement with the  appellant without the appellant previous consent to waive it and that all the  subsequent act which his lordship be prevail upon to enter into inconsistent  with that agreement be owe to a series of imposition in the other respondent  and particular to their assure he that the appellant have actual relinquish  his claim to the lease and all the act thus do by he be only intend to take  effect in case of the appellant wave the lease though have his lordship alter  his intention in favour of tile appellant as he never do it be not in his  power by those subsequent act to defeat his former agreement that the  appellant and the respondent wakele be person equal indifferent and unknown to  Lord Kingsland and be mutual recommend to he at different time but the latter  not till after the agreement with the former and as the appellant have the  prior recommendation so he have the great merit which ought to weigh with  every landlord for he immediate agree to give the full value of the estate as  adjust by a three person while the respondent wakele be endeavour to  depreciate and undervalue it trust to the interest he can make for obtain a  lease upon his own term that the subsequent minute or lease to Lord Athunry be  obtain by fraud and imposition and with full notice of the appellant prior  title his agreement possession and improvement and as this notice will make  his lordship a trustee for the prior equity so the respondent wakele even if  he have no notice ought not to be in a better condition than lord Athunry but  to be subject to the same equity which the appellant have against his lordship  as have have notice as however the respondent wakele have likewise notice he  be guilty of a fraud in intermeddle and a fraudulent lease or agreement be  consider in equity as brown none beside Lord Athunrys offer to indemnify Lord  Kingsland and the respondent Wakelys offer to indemnify Lord Athunry be strong  presumptive evidence of their both have have notice of the appellant prior  agreement and that they be conscious of press Lord Kingsland to do a act which  can not be justify as to the issue it be say there be no foundation for direct  either of they for as to the pretence that it be part of the appellant  agreement with Lord Kingsland that Mr daily consent and approbation shall he  have to make such agreement valid and that this approbation not be have the  agreement be therefore void there be nothing of this kind appeal in the cause  the agreement with the appellant be absolute and not in tile least subject to  Mr daily approbation or consent nor be his consent one of the term or  condition of the agreement and it be incredible that it shall as he have no  manner of brown er p interest or concern in the premise and through as a  gentleman of the bar and lady kingslands father his lordship may pay he the  compliment of take his advice in the way of his profession to settle his lease  and see that they be proper draw with all the legal and usual restriction yet  it can never be conceive that he will tie himself up not to grant lease to any  person or upon any term but such as Mr Daly shall prove of for this will be to  throw the whole power over the estate into Mr daily hand but nothing of this  kind be show with regard to other part of his lordship estate and therefore it  be the more improbable to have be first and sole introduce into this  particular lease especial when it be consider that this agreement with the  appellant be only a sort of transfer of the agreement which have be some time  before make with William Cogan and it be not pretend that Mr daily approbation  be any part of the agreement with Cogan nor can it be imagine that Lord  Kingsland will have receive or the appellant have pay the fine if the  agreement have be controulable or liable to be vary or defeat by the arbitrary  will of a three person who know nothing of the matter either with respect to  the value of the estate or whether the term be reasonable or unreasonable but  if Mr daily consent be in fact necessary it appear by the proof in the cause  that he approve of the agreement with the appellant say he will always prefer  a responsible tenant who will pay most and that thing be too far go for Lord  Athunry or Mr wakele to expect a lease and as there be not nor have the  respondent suggest any reasonable objection against Mr daily give his consent  if it be necessary and as Lord Kingsland be desirous that the appellant shall  have the lease it be but equity to compel he to grant it if he refuse and as  to Lord Athunry and Mr wakele have notice of the appellant agreement before  the saint of January when the minute be make to Lord Athunry in trust for  wakele his lordship brown have by his answer express admit that upon his first  application for a lease in favour of Mr wakele Lord Kingsland inform he he  have promise to let the premise to the appellant and by two of Lord Athunrys  letter to Lord Kingsland which be prove in the cause particular the saint of  the that of December which be within four day after the appellant agreement  and not long before the saint of January it appear that Lord Athunrys be not  only apprise of that agreement but be endeavour to get over it and to gain a  preference for the respondent wakele that it be admit by Mr wakele in his  answer that he have hear the appellant be apply for a lease for himself and  thereupon desire Lord Athunry to remind Lord Kingsland of his promise of a  lease to he that it be report of the neighbour that the appellant have take  the premise and that he be in possession thereof from the saint of November it  be also prove that the respondent have notice in December of such the  appellant possession and of his improvement that he live within a quarter of a  mile of the premise and daily walk or road by the same while the appellant be  repair but it be insist that in this case the question whether the respondent  wakele have notice or not be whole immaterial for it be admit throughout that  he never be in possession and consequent can have be at no expense in  improvement and as to fine that be already to be repay he so that he can  sustain no injury by the appellant have the lease and therefore notice to he  in a case so circumstance be altogether unnecessary upon the whole as the  appellant be a equitable agreement and carry into execution before the  subsequent minute of January as the set this minute aside can be of no  prejudice to the respondent whereas the appellant will be very sensible injure  if his agreement shall be set aside as the whole tenor of the respondent  behaviour and proceed appear to have be one continue scene of fraud and  imposition and that they take improper advantage of the credulity and  confidence of Lord Kingsland in the assurance which they give he of the  appellant be Willing to relinquish his agreement and as they be now endeavour  to impose a tenant on Lord Kingsland contrary to his inclination and in no  respect either as to rend fine or solvency preferable to the appellant it be  hope that the order appeal from will be reverse the lease obtain by Lord  Athunry set aside and a lease of the premise decree to the appellant pursuant  to his agreement brown er p the respondent Lord Kingsland do not appear or  make any defence to this appeal but on behalf of the other respondent it be  contend I brown t clarke that as to the issue touch the consent of Mr Daly the  appellant have no just reason to complain of it be be direct it be full prove  in the cause that Lord Kingsland declare he will never conclude any agreement  for a lease of this estate without such consent and that in all his treaty for  brown such lease he constant refer the party to Mr Daly for his approbation  that this be evident even in the instance of his agreement with the appellant  he his give he no receipt for the pound allege to have be pay at too  conclusion of the verbal agreement and the subsequent transaction of the  appellant himself all evident show that such consent be a previous condition  necessary to be obtain by this pretend agreement as conclusive or any thing  more shall a bare proposal appellant be so conscious that this consent be a  material fact and necessary to be establish in order to support his verbal  agreement that he allege in his bill that Mr Daly seem please with this  agreement and that thereupon Goddart prepare a draft of the lease which he  will not otherwise have do and the appellant have though unsuccessful attempt  to prove Mr daily consent in a conversation between he and the appellant and  his attorney in the arean of the four court in Dublin nor have the appellant  any more reason to complain of the other issue concern notice for if the  respondent before the perfection of the minute by Lord Kingsland to Lord  Athunry have no notice of any absolute agreement between Lord Kingsland and  the appellant no decree ought accord to the rule of equity to be make against  they in favour of the appellant even suppose his behaviour have in other  respect be fair and unexceptionable they have obtain the legal estate and be  in such case purchaser for a valuable consideration beside both the respondent  have in their answer full deny notice of any title in the appellant until  after the perfection of the minute except that they have hear of Lord  kingslands have be prevail upon to make a verbal promise to let the premise to  the appellant provide Mr Daly approve thereof but that they have at the same  time hear that Mr Daly have absolute refuse his approbation and that such  promise have be obtain from Lord Kingsland by surprise and misrepresentation  and these answer stand uncontradicted by any evidence on the part of the  appellant that the right of the respondent wakele can not be any way affect by  the appellant agreement with Lord Kingsland unless the same be absolute  conclusive and the term of it certain and reduce into write before the  agreement between Lord Kingsland and Lord Athurny be make parole agreement  relate to land be void by the Irish statute of fraud will but such agreement  be so far from be clear make out by the appellant so as to enable the court to  find any decree thereon without direct these issue that both from the charge  in his bill and the proof in the cause his parole promise from Lord Kingsland  appear to be uncertain as to the nature and term of it and at most but a  conditional agreement depend on Mr daily subsequent consent that most of the  appellant write evidence be brown antedate and be procure after he have see  the minute from Lord Kingsland to Lord Athunry in trust for Mr wakele with a  fraudulent design to gain a priority and defeat that write agreement and with  a intent to make a unjust advantage even of Lord Kingsland by drain eleven  acre of the mill pond and add they to his brother estate and the appellant  behaviour throughout the whole transaction have be such as may possible have  be sufficient to have give the respondent a equity against he but can by no  mean furnish he with any colour of equity against they to take away their  legal right accompany with a prior and superior equity after hear counsel on  this appeal it be order and adjudge that the same shall be dismiss and the  order or decree therein complain of affirm jour vol p brown er p