brown case John Floyer appellant richard johnson respondent that February a  new trial be grant upon read some letter of the defendant wherein he have put  a great value upon the premise in question than what have be find by the jury  upon the former trial although these letter be in the plaintiff power previous  to the former trial and may have be then produce if he have think fit viner  vol p note to can the appellant by contract in write date the that of  September agree to purchase of the respondent two leasehold estate in the  county of Surrey at sixteen year purchase be beneficial lease for year usual  renew every seven year and one of the lease be hold under the hospital at  Croydon be to be renew by the respondent and make up a term of year at least  after execute this contract the appellant make several offer and proposal to  the respondent by letter and otherwise in order to settle and adjust the  annual value of the premise which be to be the measure of the purchase  amicable between themselves and wherein the appellant will have yield almost  to any term to prevent a suit but the respondent know the appellant have  little or no experience in country affair and hope by that mean to make a  advantage always decline close with any proposal the appellant make and be  still add or insist on something more with design to work up the appellant to  give a exorbitant price for the premise in this manner near two year be spend  and the appellant find no hope of a accommodation he in Hilary term file his  bill in the court of exchequer against the respondent for a specific  performance of the contract at year purchase accord to the real annual value  of the premise the respondent by his answer insist that he and the appellant  have come to a agreement together to settle and adjust the value of the  premise at pound per and and therefore rely upon it that brown er p the  purchase ought to be make and compute accord to that valuation and further  insist that have at the appellant request renew the hospital lease for year  whereas by the contract he be oblige to renew only for he have pay pound  extraordinary in his fine on that account which the appellant ought to allow  in Michaelmas term the respondent think proper to file his cross bill against  the appellant to oblige he to go on with his purchase at year value after the  rate of pound per and upon the appellant suppose agreement to estimate the  premise at that rate and likewise demand a allowance brown of pound for the  appellant share of the fine for the two year extraordinary in the hospital  lease suggest that the appellant promise and agree to pay the same the  appellant by his answer to this cross bill deny he ever agree to value or  accept the premise at pound per and or at any other certain rate whatsoever  but admit he have make several overture and proposal to the respondent about  settle the annual value of the premise amicable between themselves but which  the respondent will never close or agree with and as to the demand of pound  for his share of the fine for renew the hospital lease the appellant deny be  ever agree to pay any certain sum but admit he do agree to allow a proportion  of the fine for the two additional year which he be ready and submit to pay on  the that of June both cause be hear when it be order and decree that the  contract of the that of September for the purchase of the premise at year  value shall be perform and in regard it do not appear to the court that the  annual value of the premise be ever settle or agree betwixt the party it be  order that it shall be refer to the deputy remembrancer to consider and adjust  the annual value of the premise and accord to that rate discount all proper  allowance to compute and ascertain what the quantum of the purchase money do  amount to and to compute interest thereon after the rate of pound per cent per  and from ladyday the time when the contract ought to have be perform discount  what shall appear to have be pay in part or on account of the say purchase and  to see what proportion of the fine the appellant ought to pay and allow for  renew the hospital lease which be to be add to the purchase money and the  deputy be also to take a account of the rend and profit of the premise make or  receive by the respondent or which without his wilful default may have be make  or receive by he from ladyday which be to be allow the appellant out of his  purchase money and the consideration of cost and all further direction be  reserve until after the deputy shall make his report pursuant to this decree  the deputy make his report by consent of party date the that of April and  therein state the proof on both side as to the annual value of the premise but  certify that by reason of the contrariety in the evidence he have not be able  to settle the value and therefore have not proceed to take the account direct  by the decree on the d of may follow the cause be hear upon the special matter  of this report when the court direct a issue to be try at the next assize for  the county of Surrey to try what be the yearly value of the premise in  question at ladyday when the contract for the purchase shall have be perform  and it be further order that the sheriff shall return a good jury who be to  have a view and that after the brown trial the cause shall come on again for  the final direction of the court accord this issue be try before Mr justice  dorm and ten of the jury have be upon the view and after a long examination of  witness the jury find a verdict to the satisfaction of the judge that the  yearly value of the premise in question at ladyday be pound per and on the  that of December the cause come on upon the equity reserve when the respondent  move for a new trial and upon read some passage in the original bill and in  the appellant answer to the cross bill and two letter write by the appellant  to the respondent from whence it appear that the appellant himself have  estimate the premise at a great yearly value than be find by the jury the  court be please to order that a new trial of the issue shall be have upon the  respondent pay the cost of the former trial to be tax by the deputy and that  the former verdict shall stand but shall not be give in evidence upon the new  trial but from this order the appellant appeal because it be not find upon any  brown er p certificate of the judge who try the issue nor upon any affidavit  or suggestion of any corruption or misbehaviour either in the jury or the  appellant or his agent and it be contend p York p ware that the expression in  the appellant bill answer and letter upon which only it appear that the new  trial be direct be no evidence in law to prove or ascertain the annual value  of the premise in question or if they be yet they be such evidence as arise  long before the trial be have and such as be always in the respondent own  power he may have produce at the trial if he have think fit that if a trial so  fair and impartial have and which be admit to be well and proper direct be not  to determine the question between the party as to the yearly value of the  premise it be scarce possible to conceive what trial shall and for the court  to enter into the consideration of the quantum of such yearly value after they  have direct it to be try by a jury and it have be try accord be in effect to  set aside their own direction and decree or at least to make it vain and  nugatory and that the set aside a trial at law so solemnly have without  consult the judge who preside at such trial and without the least charge or  imputation of partiality or corruption in the jury or party will tend very  much to weaken and overturn that excellent part of the commonlaw trial by jury  and to create endless expense and vexation to suitor it be therefore hope that  the say order of the that of December will be reverse and discharge and  inasmuch as the cause then stand for the final direction of the court upon the  equity reserve that their lordship will be please to make such order and  decree as the court of exchequer ought then to have make namely to order that  the deputy remembrancer shall compute the purchase money to brown be pay by  the appellant accord to the annual value of the premise as find by the last  verdict and carry on the account of interest and profit pursuant to the decree  of the that of June that upon the appellant payment or tender of the purchase  money as it shall be settle by the deputy the respondent shall execute a  assignment of the lease and premise in question to the appellant or to who he  shall direct with the approbation of the deputy and at such time and place as  he shall appoint that the respondent shall procure all proper party to join  therein and shall forthwith bring before and leave with the deputy the  original lease and all other deed and write relate to the premise that the  respondent cross bill shall be dismiss with cost and that the appellant shall  have his cost both at law and in equity to be tax by the deputy and allow and  deduct to he out of his purchase money on the other side it be insist t  Lutwyche c Talbot that from the appellant bill answer and letter and all the  proceed in the cause it manifest appear that the yearly value of the land at  pound as find by the jury can not be the full and real value and therefore a  new trial be proper direct that in case the value of the land shall remain fix  at pound per and which it will be without a new trial the appellant will  become a purchaser of those land for pound in when land sell very high which  cost the respondent with the appellant privity pound in the year when land  sell much cheap and which likewise cost he pound for a renewal fine and  several considerable sum in improvement it be therefore hope that the order  will be affirm and the appeal dismiss with cost but after hear counsel on this  appeal it be order and adjudge that so much of the say order as prohibit the  former verdict be give in evidence at the new trial shall be reverse and it be  order and declare that the appellant shall be at liberty to give the former  verdict in evidence at the new trial and it be further order that a view of  the premise in question shall be have as direct at the former trial jour vol p  brown er p