case William war gentleman appellant John pillage respondent Mews dig I the  appellant state that in appellant and Daniel gate send the ship old African  whereof he be sole owner with great sum of money and effect to Zante and the  Morea to bring home a cargo of currant for his account and consign her to  respondent then live at Zante who accord buy a cargo Colles er p of currant  and jade the ship there with and consign her back to gate and in send a  account under respondent own hand wherein he acknowledge himself satisfy for  the cargo and about respondent come into England and gate be for seven year  after alive and in very good reputation and ability and respondent do not  during his lifetime pretend to or make any demand of any money for the say  currant but within that time borrow of gate diverse sum of money and give note  under his hand for so much receive and borrow videlicet that December l and d  January l and d march l but gate have die in respondent several year after his  death exhibit his bill in chancery against appellant and Agnes gate widow and  administratrix of Daniel for a account of the say currant which bill the  defendant answer and plaintiff reply and examine witness and hurry his cause  to hear before defendant have examine any witness and that December obtain a  decree that it shall be refer to sir John franklin a master to take a account  of what be due to plaintiff for the currant in question and that defendant  shall pay the same and defendant be to have a commission to examine as  occasion shall be and defendant that February Colles move the then lord  commissioner for a commission to examine witness at Venice Zant and the Morea  but the same be deny notwithstanding the decree and though the allege debt be  contract and the money pay there and the prime cost of the currant can not  otherwise appear and from that decree appellant appeal to the lord and the say  decree be affirm that January and the master that January report l S d due to  respondent for principal and interest but without sufficient proof to warrant  the report and without take notice of the account under respondent own hand  though prove in the cause wherefore exception be take to the say report and  the cause hear thereonth April before the Lord chancellor who on inspect the  say account under respondent own hand declare he do not see sufficient cause  to confirm the report and therefore send it back to the master to make a  further report upon the whole matter but respondent have without procure any  further report petition the court that the exception may be reheard the same  be reheard that July when the chancellor order that a commission shall issue  out beyond sea for better clear the account before the master and that  respondent shall join therein within a fortnight or defendant to take a  commission ex part and respondent accord join in commission but to prevent  defendant have any fruit thereof soon after petition the Lord chancellor to  discharge the order for a commission and thereupon and on read say order make  by the lord that January the Lord Chancellor st January discharge the order  for a commission and further order that respondent shall apply by petition to  have a day appoint for rearguing the exception and that the defendant shall be  at liberty to petition the house of lord to explain the order of the that  January to prevent which application respondent within a week after obtain a  order for rehear the exception and the chancellor thereupon confirm the report  and further order that it shall be refer back to the master to carry on the  interest from the time of his report and to tax respondent his cost of suit  appellant admit himself Accountable to respondent for the cargo of currant  accord to the lord former order and do not endeavour to alter the decree  thereby affirm but insist Colles that it do not appear by proof in the cause  that any sum remain due to respondent for the currant and that if appellant  can have have a issue at law direct by chancery to prove the payment or a  commission to examine his witness respondent whole demand for the currant will  have appear full satisfy and therefore appellant hope the house will reverse  the decretal order or direct a issue to be try at law or will explain their  former order about a commission and appellant subjoin the follow account which  he rely upon as evidence of payment for the currant fraught by the ship the  African Colles er p Mr daniel gate dr august to fraught per cent on the  cequeens which be receive per contra 384January To cost charge of butt  carratels and roll of Nathaligo currant la per den on the ship African as per  factory JuneTo cambio at per cent on the per contra dollar draw for  Venetia 18000To provision and bro of deeto at per cent per4500To cambio at per  cent on the per contra balance and draw for Venetia to provision and bro at  per son do per16821999554Per contra Cr AugustBy cequeens receive of ship unity  from Mr William of Venetia per Colles by dollar receive from captain water  per110000By dollar embursed I of Mr wm war for part of the ship African cargo  of currant as per contra in and be dollars 9842181681By dollar draw on Mr gate  way Venetia by Mr 984218June Williams and partner 600000JulyBy balance hereof  which I draw on you way Venetia per Mr William and  partner 2277711999554Zant 5th July John pillage the respondent make this case  that appellant join with Bonnell of London merchant to who respondent have be  apprentice to send respondent as their factor to Zant in company of Mr  Pendarves then consul of the Morea and in Daniel gate and appellant send  respondent a separate commission to buy up all the Nathalico and Morea currant  or so much as the ship African can carry and order respondent to draw bill for  the money on their correspondent William and Anseme at Venice and that  respondent shall have per cent commission and respondent accord jade the ship  with currant which cost about l sterling and thereupon draw bill on the  correspondent at Venice for about dollar and confide in the honesty and order  of gate and appellant suffer the ship to depart for England with the currant  and forward a account and therein give credit for all the money so draw for at  Venice error except but the appellant and gate send order to William and  partner not to accept respondent bill which be all protest so that the money  remain still due as much as if Colles no such credit have be give and the ship  arrive safe with the currant and appellant be so possess thereof and design  never to pay for they appellant as be full prove in the cause in chancery  write to one taverner who have former be his apprentice and then live in the  house with respondent at Zant to do respondent all the prejudice he can and  prevent the payment of this money and taverner by appellant order and  approbation endeavour to take away respondent life and for that purpose make  himself a pair of shoe of a hat to go soft to cut respondent throat as he  sleep in bed but his heart fail he he hire five ruffian to murder respondent  who have by good accident be often divert from execute the bloody purpose two  of they repent and discover the truth to respondent and be both afterward  shoot to death for the same and respondent on this discovery go to taverner  apartment find he be run away with respondent cash book and paper to Colles er  p the value of dollar among which be the protest bill from Venice and  respondent be force to fly to England to save his life and be there incapable  for want of his book and paper to sue for his say just debt and under extreme  necessity for money for his subsistence gate take the advantage thereof and  make the respondent give he a note for l as borrow and respondent be force to  retire into the country for several year till appellant in Trinity term have  bring his bill in the exchequer against gate for a account and share of the  currant aforesaid and gate have answer appellant be decree his share and a  account accord whereupon respondent in Trinity term bring his bill in chancery  against appellant and Agnes gate widow and administratrix of Daniel gate for a  account and satisfaction for the currant aforesaid and they have answer  appellant deny he be partner with gate in the say currant and several witness  be examine the cause be hear that December and on read the proof and the  proceed in the exchequer there be a order for that purpose the court be  satisfy that appellant be partner with gate for the currant and that they  ought to account to respondent for the same and refer it to the master as  state by appellant and the master have be several time attend by both Colles  side on the charge and discharge the court be move that February and council  for appellant and gate be full hear as to have a commission to examine beyond  sea and the court then declare that there be no cause for either party to have  a commission in take the account on which the master accord proceed and  appellant and gate exhibit several interrogatory on which respondent be  examine and full answer the same on oath and prove the whole money due and  several witness be examine before the master and the particular price and the  buy up of the currant full prove and Anselm one of the correspondent at Venice  be also examine before the master both on appellant and respondent part and  can not prove one penny pay for those currant but say that there be a free  commission send to respondent in particular to buy up a cargo of currant and  that no money be remit or pay respondent on that particular account by he or  his partner William but that several sum be remit by they to Pendarves and  respondent as partner upon their joint account in relation to other concern  and the master be ready to make his report appellant in January prefer his  petition and appeal to the lord allege that the cargo have be pay for by money  and effect send by the very same ship and complain that the decree be very  unjust and also that the say order of the that of February whereby they be to  have no commission be unjust and pray a reversal to which appeal respondent  put in his answer and upon hear council on both side that of January the say  appeal be dismiss withl cost and the decree affirm and thereupon the master  make his report that of January and certify due to respondent for ready money  by he pay for the currant and interest to the time of hear l S d which report  be duly confirm upon full debate and respondent have sue a sequestration  thereon appellant fraudulent convey away his estate and Agnes gate run away  with her effect and appellant bring a second appeal to the lord for the same  purpose with his former appeal which respondent insist ought to be dismiss  because the account insist on by appellant as a receipt for the price of the  currant be no more than a account current save error and the bill for which  respondent therein give credit not be pay but Colles afterward protest the  money be still due to the respondent as if no such credit give and if this  account have be as pretend a state account appellant can have produce receipt  for the money and also respondent letter wherein he must have acknowledge the  receipt thereof and Anselm who be the man that must have remit the money swear  no money be pay and for appellant suggestion that money and effect sufficient  be send by the ship to buy up the currant the commander who carry her over  have be examine and prove only dollar send with the ship for which they have  credit and as to the objection that respondent have give a note under his hand  to gate for l as borrow and receive it be prove in the cause that gate take  advantage of the necessity respondent be reduce to at his come to England and  make Colles er p respondent give such note before he will part with the money  therefore it be no argument of respondent be pay especial after the many shift  and evasion use in this cause and it be prove in the cause that appellant have  often confess the abuse aforesaid and the aforesaid money to be due and  declare he be not the only man who have wrong respondent and that all he have  in the world and put his hand to his throat say and this too shall be at your  service to make you satisfaction and as to the objection that a commission to  examine abroad be deny that order be particular complain against in the former  appeal and affirm and the appeal dismiss with cost and though appellant and  gate have a order for a commission before the hear in chancery and respondent  join therein yet they never send the same away but keep it by they above half  a year and on hear the former appeal the lord be satisfy of the proof and will  not grant appellant any commission and the present appeal be for the same  effect and purpose with the former appeal respondent hope that this appeal  will likewise be dismiss with cost die March of purifying after hear council  on the petition and appeal of William war from a order of the court of  chancery in a cause between John Prd complainant and petitioner and Agnes  Yates widow and administratrix of Daniel Yates defendant pray a reversal of  that order or that petitioner may be relieve by explain a order of Colles the  lord of the this be a error in the journal book there be no order of the lord  in this cause of that day the date intend be the that January that of January  it be order and adjudge by the lord that the petition and appeal be dismiss  and the order complain of affirm Dighton v Grenvillle hill er report date case  christopher Dighton plaintiff bernard Grenville defendant in error cite in  John v pink Ch at pp arg the writ of error be bring to reverse a judgement  give in the court of king bench in a cause in ejectment wherein Dighton on the  demise of the earl of Huntingdon and Scarsdale be plaintiff and Grenville  defendant and the plaintiff in error make this case that the say earl be seize  in possession of the manor of mark and diverse land and tenement in mark in  the county of York in right of their wife daughter and coheir of sir John  Lewis decease who have purchase the same from Thomas Lewis defendant under  colour of a extent on a old statute evict the earl who thereupon bring their  ejectment which be try at the king bench bar easter term and the jury find a  special verdict to this effect that Thomas Lewis that April James I  acknowledge a statute of l to William knight afterwards th November car I  another of l to Richard Gerrard and afterward that may car I another of l to  sir jervase Elwaies and Richard Burroughs and that execution be sue out upon  all these statute and the premise in question extend and that the estate and  interest of knight and Gerrard under say extent be that July assign to Edward  Lewis and that Thomas Lewis be in actual possession afterwards th may for l  sell the premise to sir John Lewis and in Trinity levy a fine with  proclamation thereof to he and that John Lewis by will devise the premise to  his brother Edward Lewis and the heir male of his body and for want of such  issue to his the say John Colles Lewis daughter afterward marry to the lessors  of the plaintiff and that John Lewis die and the premise then and at the time  of the make the say will be in the possession of Edward Lewis and that Edward  Lewis be in actual possession he in Michaelmas term car two levy a fine with  proclamation the last proclamation be that June car two which be to the use of  himself Colles er p and his heir and die without issue whereby the premise  descend to the daughter of John Lewis who be also heir to Edward who enter and  be seize and marry the say earl they enter and be seize in right of their wife  and that th July administration to Burroughs the survive connusee of the l  statute be commit to whether wife of the defendant Grenville as to that  statute and the extent thereon and that grenville wife be also administratrix  of Gerrard the second connusee and she and her husband saint July car two  acknowledge satisfaction on that statute which be thereupon vacate and that  defendant in right of his wife administratrix to Burroughs that September car  two enter upon the say earl into the premise and be possess this special  verdict be several time argue and in easter term James two judgement be give  by the then chief justice wright for defendant and the earl thereupon bring a  writ of error in the exchequer Chamber where the matter be many time argue and  in Trinity term the judgement of the king bench be reverse by the opinion of  six judge namely chief justice pollexfen chief baron Atkins justice Ventris  and Rokeby baron Lechmere and baron Turton against two namely justice Powell  decease and justice Nevil vent and thereupon the earl go back into the king  bench to have execution of the judgement pronounce in the exchequer Chamber  which the judge refuse to award by reason of a allege mistake in the writ of  error the writ say because in the record and process and also in give  judgement of a plaint which be before the late king Charles whereas it shall  have say because in the record and process of a plaint which be before the  late king Charles and in give judgement on the same plaint before the late  Colles king james the action be bring in king Charles time and the judgement  give in king James and upon this the earl be force to bring a new writ of  error whereon the judgement of the king bench be afterward affirm for Mr  Grenville in the exchequer Chamber there be three judge for reverse to wit  justice Rokeby baron Lechmere and baron Turton and three for affirm namely the  chief justice Treby justice Nevil and justice Powell so that a majority be  require to reverse the judgement it be of course to stand sir Robert Atkins  who opinion be with the earl have a few day before surrender his place and  plaintiff state that the question which arise upon this special verdict be  whether the estate and interest by the extent on the l statute be bar by the  fine levy by Edward Lewis and five year non claim for that the interest of the  extent on knight and Gerrard statute be vest in Edward Lewis and the  inheritance afterward come to he the estate by virtue of those extent be drown  in the inheritance and extinguish by the fine which he levy and the extent on  the l statute claim by Grenville come to take place when the extent on the two  former prior statute be remove and no claim nor entry be make by virtue of the  last extent within five year after the fine the interest by that extent be as  insist upon thereby absolute bar in order as plaintiff state to remedy which  mrs Grenville procure letter of administration to herself of Gerrard personal  estate and then acknowledge satisfaction of his statute the interest whereof  it be contend be long before drown and extinguish and thereby pretend to get a  new right to enter into the premise by virtue of the extent on the l statute  and whether mrs Grenville shall have five year more to make her claim after  her own acknowledge satisfaction on Gerrard statute which have as be allege be  discharge before by the extent be drown in the inheritance be as plaintiff  contend the main question in this cause but plaintiff insist that mrs  Grenville can not by the acknowledge satisfaction on Gerrard statute gain any  new right to enter to avoid the fine above nine year before inasmuch as a  entry may and then shall have be make into the extend estate and plaintiff  contend that the contrary Colles opinion will tend much to weaken the security  of a fine and non claim and that it will be of pernicious consequence to  purchaser and owner of estate if such old dormant encumbrance can be at any  time set up against a fine and non claim and so support by vacate a statute  the interest of which be long before Colles er p extinguish and that if so  estate may be encumber which have be long enjoy without interruption b shower  Edward Northey the defendant in support of the judgement state that Thomas  Lewis be seize and acknowledge the three statute upon each of which the  premise be extend and that the executor of knight the connusee of the first  statute and the executor of Gerrard the connusee of the second statute assign  over their estate and extend interest unto Edward Lewis and that Thomas Lewis  the connusor by deed that andth may convey the premise to John Lewis and his  heir and levy a fine with proclamation to he and that John Lewis devise to the  say Edward as state by plaintiff and that Edward after John death levy a fine  and die without issue and that thereupon the earl of Huntingdon and Scarsdale  in right of their lady enter upon the premise and that whether the wife of  defendant Grenville obtain administration of Burroughs and Gerrard and with  defendant her husband enter satisfaction on Gerrard statute and afterward  enter under the extent on the statute to Elwaies and Burroughs and that  thereupon the earl in plaintiff name in Hillary and car two bring a ejectment  in the king bench against the defendant Bernard Grenville and that after a  long trial at bar a special verdict be find and very often solemnly argue and  judgement give for defendant and that afterward a writ of error be bring in  the exchequer Chamber and there after many solemn argument the former  judgement in the court of king bench affirm and that to reverse these two  judgement the plaintiff bring a writ of error in the house of lord and that  the only thing insist upon by plaintiff part be that defendant extend interest  on Elwaies and burrow statute for l be bar either by the fine levy by Thomas  or by the fine levy by Edward Lewis and five year non claim after these fine  defendant insist that the judgement Colles give be well warrant by law because  the extend interest upon knight statute be the first statute be merge by be  assign over to the same person to who Gerrard extent on the second statute be  assign and that the extent on Gerrard statute be a reversion or at least in  nature of a reversionary interest drown and merge the extent upon knight  statute which be a interest for year in possession and defendant insist that  the fine levy by Thomas Lewis who be but tenant at will with reversion in fee  expectant on the three several extent operate only upon the reversion in fee  and do not divest the extend interest upon the respective statute of Gerrard  and Burroughs and that consequent five year non claim do not bar those extent  and further that the fine afterward levy by Edward Lewis he be possess of the  extend interest upon Gerrard statute with a reversion of Burroughss upon his  extent with reversion in tail to the say Edward Lewis operate as a forfeiture  of Gerrard extent of which though Burroughs may immediate have take advantage  he be not compellable to do so and admit Gerrard extent be bar by the fine of  Thomas Lewis and five year non claim yet as to Burroughs and all stranger the  right have existence in law and that it be not necessary to make any claim  upon burrow statute until Gerrard statute appear satisfy on record and  defendant make his claim by entry within five year after satisfaction enter  upon record on Gerrard statute be sufficient to prevent burrow extent from be  bar by the fine and further insist that this case do not differ in reason from  the common and know case a tenant for life remainder in fee to b disseizsed  seize levy a fine and there be five year non claim though the estate of tenant  for life be bar and the remainderman may enter upon the five year non claim by  tenant for life yet he may wave such entry and shall have a new five year  after the death of the tenant for life to make his claim so in the principal  case though Burroughs may have he so please have enter upon the five year non  claim by Gerrard yet he may stay till Gerrard estate which stand in his way be  spend and expect till satisfaction be enter upon the record of Gerrard statute  for as the death of tenant for life be the proper and natural determination of  a estate for life so the enter satisfaction Colles upon record be the proper  and natural determination of a extent upon a statute and in the one case as  well as the other before such determination the remainderman or reversioner be  not compellable to make his claim to avoid the fine n wright t powys Colles er  p mod vent show comb carth skin holt viner ringtail xi thirteen xv xvi xviii  nineteen sheet that this be a cause of great legal expectation appear by  numerous book in which it be detail and by the time and solemnity with which  it be determine by the lord for the chief justice of the king bench bring up  the writ of error to the lord that march Monday th march defendant in error be  order to join issue by Thursday next and that day that march the lord appoint  Wednesday next to hear Council argue the error and th march on defendant  petition appoint the argument for Friday and no other business to intervene  and on that day saint march after hear Council to argue the error order that  the Lord chief justice of the common plea who that day sit speaker shall  report to the house what be offer thereupon on Thursday theth of April next  and that all the twelve judge shall then attend the house and on that day the  report be further adjourn to Monday next and order that all the judge in town  do then attend and all the lord to be summon and on that day that April order  that the report be make on Thursday next all the judge to attend and all the  lord to be summon and die Jupiter that April upon report of what be offer by  Council the one and twenty of march last to argue the error assign upon a writ  of error bring into this house the that day of march last from his majesty  court of king bench wherein judgement be enter for Bernard Grenville Esq and  afterward affirm in the exchequer Chamber against Christopher Dighton and  after hear the judge and due consideration of the case it be order and adjudge  by the lord that the judgement give in the king bench and the affirmation  thereof in the exchequer Chamber be affirm and the record remand lord journ  vol xvi p