baker v heart July legitimacy issue new trial S g atk admiral hosier die in a  marriage be allege to have be have with he the issue of which marriage be a  daughter who marry heart by who she have the defendant there be various  litigation after the admiral death about his real and personal estate and as  soon as possible a ejectment be bring on the demise of heart and his wife  claim as his daughter and a verdict be find for the lessors of the plaintiff  which affirm her legitimacy then there be a long dispute in the ecclesiastical  court concern the personal estate between the suppose widow vesey senior er p  only and the next of kin to who administration shall be grant which depend on  the question whether she be ever marry to he and it be as determine there that  she be not which be final affirm upon appeal to the delegate and  administration grant contrary to her claim upon application for a commission  of review note as to the nature of such commission of review see matthews v  Warner Ves Ves and ex part Fearon ibidem it be refuse here on great evidence  and on those two concurrent sentence then the plaintiff bring a bill here  against the widow and her daughter controvert the real estate and to have a  injunction and account and final determination which be hear may when two  issue be direct first whether the mother of the defendant be daughter and heir  of admiral hosier the second whether William baker late father of the  plaintiff be his heir it be direct to be try at the bar of the common plea but  at desire of the plaintiff be try at nisi prius there be a verdict for the  defendant and it now come upon the equity reserve and a application for a new  trial note notwithstanding what Lord Hardwicke be report to state post p it  appear from r l that the jury not only find the first issue in the affirmative  but negative the title of the plaintiff father in the second and see also  accord the report in atk where Lord hardwicke observation be explain Lord  chancellor I own I have have some doubt of what be proper for the court to do  for though I apprehend the last verdict not to be accord to the truth and  justice of the case yet there be objection against a new trial which have some  weight it be say to be a general rule not to grant a new trial after a trial  at bar and that it be to be consider here in that light as it be alter at  plaintiff desire but there be no certain rule for that and in the first case  of this kind in style a new trial be grant after a trial at bar the  application here be not to set aside the former verdict and in doubtful  question relate to inheritance a court of equity frequent grant vesey senior a  new trial without set aside the former verdict which be of great consequence  to the party for then it may be give in evidence though not conclusive either  party be at liberty to show on what ground it be obtain but court of law in  that case always set the former aside it be say that this be a matter of  inheritance and therefore proper to be try again as to that it never have  prevail as a general rule but accord to the circumstance of the case if there  be any doubt of the fact the court have often do it as in Edwin v Thomas for  Leighton v Leighton wm where several trial be grant because the inheritance be  to be bind as it be allege for the plaintiff it will be here he have no  opportunity to try it again in ejectment the contrary be urge for the  defendant I do not see which way this argument will conclude if a new  ejectment may be bring where be the prejudice to lie defendant to grant a new  trial for the plaintiff will only have cost here and accord to the case of  Sherwin v Lord bath Prec in Chan it will be still liable to a ejectment which  take off this objection against a new trial since it will not quiet the  defendant possession but it be say for the plaintiff that he will be absolute  bind because the court must give some direction as to the application of the  rend and profit come to the receiver hand who be appoint by the court to  account with the defendant and that therefore if a new ejectment shall be  bring the defendant may bring a bill for a perpetual injunction which will be  grant but the case cite for this be not entire applicable as in the case of  Vernon v Acherly see this cause full bro p c octavo ed where the court grant a  injunction because otherwise the execution of the trust decree will be  overturn and there will be no end of thing in the case of attorneygeneral v  Montgomery atk as to grant new trial after trial at bar c c see p W and atk  and see Stace v mabbot Ves sen Nov a injunction be also grant on the  foundation of the decree for execution of the trust so in another case of sir  Thomas Colbys will where the court have decree a partition and conveyance of a  estate so that a ejectment bring tend equal to overturn the decree of the  court as in other case to these the present case bear some analogy but do not  go quite so far for the appoint a receiver be only interlocutory and not a  judgement upon the merit in which the court have proper and final jurisdiction  this consequence indeed it will have that if the plaintiff recover on a new  ejectment bring he may have a action for those very mesne profit which the  court have before distribute but this be a middle case between both and vesey  senior er p never yet determine the objection therefore on both side as to the  bring a new ejectment be of no weight here the objection against a new trial  that this be a question of legitimacy and ought to be favour be of small  weight for that be true where the legitimacy claim be on a cohabitation which  be the case of Stapleton v Stapleton atk Aug where the only question be vesey  senior on the time of marriage whether before or after the birth of the old  son which therefore stand in a favourable light but the question b ere be  different and not to be favour the legitimacy of this daughter be first raise  and set up after the father death at which time she must be seventeen year old  and no pretence of cohabitation in his life but all the fact speak the  contrary both to that and the marriage which be attend with strong  circumstance of suspicion such as the licence be take out by the woman and  admiral hosier be describe by a wrong addition of mariner then it be insist  that there have be two concurrent verdict for the defendant two issue be  direct in order to try the whole right for though the first will be sufficient  if find for the defendant yet not if find for the plaintiff who must prove  himself heir as be must recover upon his own title the verdict be for the  defendant on the first issue and to the satisfaction of the judge who inform I  that the jury do not enter into the second point so that it can be take to be  a determination against the plaintiff on the second issue note the reporter be  mistake here vide Ves sen atk and the supplement p it be certain that the  former verdict be give in evidence on the latter trial and have great weight  with the jury if therefore there be any thing to impeach the former verdict it  take off the objection of two concurrent verdict and it do now plain appear  before I mosely that there have be malpractice which can not appear nor be  give in evidence in the manner it be offer upon the trial it be further object  by the defendant that there have be great delay and that several of his  witness in the first trial be dead which be certain unfortunate and must have  have some weight and occasion his evidence to be look on favourable in the  second trial and will do so again but witness be mortal and from the  circumstance it do not appear to have be unnatural to wait for the  determination of the court one will if possible reduce to a consistency the  different determination of the court which be a inconvenience arise from the  constitution and to be lament when it happen as it do in the case of Maxwell v  Montague vin ab title executor pl vide also atk so that it be proper that the  party shall have a opportunity of lie the whole before the court by a new  trial and that at the bar of r but as the defendant be a infant and in mean  circumstance the plaintiff must be content with nisi prius cost if find for he  Reg lib a fol