4 1803. DREW υ. POWER. was inserted to give the lease an appearance of being made แ 66 : and also the deed of rent-charge; and that defendant had by these different means acquired such a command over plaintiff that immediately after the execution of this bond he procured him to execute at a gross under-value, a lease for three lives of another part of his estate which was to be shortly out of lease this lease bore date the 30th June 1791, but some time after defendant got possession thereunder, recollecting that plaintiff was not empowered to execute a lease in reversion, he on 1st Feb. 1793 obliged him to change the date to the 25th March 1792, the day on which a former lease of these lands expired. The bill then stated, that defendant soon after obtained a grant in custodiam of all plaintiff's estate on the foot of his judgment; and other creditors of plaintiff also became pressing for their demands, and that defendant by taking upon himself these demands, obtained from plaintiff another lease of part of his demesne lands next adjoining his mansion-house, at a gross under-value, for a term of four years; and at length finding that nothing more was to be obtained from him, he ceased advancing any more money. The bill specified several of the debts mentioned in the list which defendant had undertaken to pay, which were left unpaid by him and levied out of plaintiff's estate, with a large addition for costs, and charged that the amount of these made part of the consideration for which plaintiff executed the last bond to defendant; but that defendant notwithstanding. refused to give plaintiff credit for the amount, and also refuses to give credit for several other over-charges in that account; some of which the bill stated, and to avoid prolixity, referred to the accounts for the rest. The bill prayed an account on the foot of the several dealings and transactions between plaintiff and defendant, and that in such account plaintiff might get credit for the fair value of the lands let to defendant, and that on payment of the balance, the several leases obtained by defendant might be set aside and satisfaction acknowleded on the 1803. DREW V. POWER. judgment, and all proceedings stayed on the custodiam ; and that defendant might set out an account of the sums received thereunder; and an account of what he made by re-demising the lands in bill; and an injunction against further proceedings on foot of the judgment and custodiam. The defendant by his answer admitted the embarrassed # situation of plaintiff; but attributed it to his own misconduct, and denied that he by any undue means obtained a promise of the leases in bill mentioned; but said that having seen the lands of Poulagower and Knockavin advertised in the public newspapers to be let for three lives or thirty-one years, defendant proposed to become tenant thereto at a certain rent which plaintiff refused, alleging he had been offered more; but proposed that a gentleman in the neighbour. hood who was a good judge of land should ascertain the value; and that this person having valued them at a rent of 2001. per ann. the plaintiff, without any condition whatsoever, by indenture of lease bearing date 1st April 1791, (which was the time as defendant believed that said lease was actually executed) demised said two denominations to defendant for three lives at the said rent of 2001. per ann. which defendant insisted was the fair value to a solvent tenant; which lease was prepared by a clerk of plaintiff's, and under his directions: he said, that to the best of his recollection and belief he made no other kind of application to plaintiff for this lease, and denied that he obtained it in consideration of a loan of money. He admitted that shortly after the execution of this lease he drew bills and passed notes, and also advanced money for the use of the plaintiff, but said he did so voluntarily and from regard for plaintiff and not from the motives suggested in bill. He admitted an account was settled between him and plaintiff on 16th Nov. 1790; on which a balance was found to be due to defendant of 1,008/. 15s. and in sisted that all the bills and notes charged against plaintiff in that account had been paid, and that there was no over-charge of any kind therein; and that plaintiff freely executed to him a bond and warrant for securing this balance. He said that in 1791 he set about making improvements, and let said lands in different parcels to near thirty poor tenants, who in expectation of the benefit which would result from defendant's improvements agreed to pay such yearly rents as would (if paid) have given defendant a profit of 100l. per ann. or thereabouts; but said these tenants never did nor were they able to pay these rents, and that defendant never did in any one year receive above 50l. per ann. profit. The answer then set forth, that plaintiff applied to defendant and informed him that a further sum of 800%. would pay off all his remaining debts, and proposed to defendant, if he would take upon himself to discharge these debts that plaintiff would execute a rent-charge for securing him the sum already due and this further advance; and that in consequence of this application defendant took upon himself the payment of these debts, and plaintiff executed to him a deed of rent-charge as stated in bill; that a list was made of the creditors to be paid; that defendant did in the March following execute securities to several of the creditors amounting in the whole to a sum of 399l. 28. 2d. which he had since paid, together with another sum of 83. 17s. 2d. for the use of plaintiff'; but there being prior creditors of plaintiff's, not included in the list, and of whose debts defendant was not then apprized, and the rent-charge being in consequence likely to be ineffectual, defendant admitted that he applied to plaintiff to settle accounts in or about June 1791, on the foot of the aforesaid bond for 1,008/. 15s. and the sums subsequently advanced or secured by defendant for the use of plaintiff, and that there 1803. DREW V. POWER. 1803. DREW V. POWER. upon plaintiff made up a balance of 1,416/. 14s. 9d. against himself, and voluntarily executed a bond, and warrant for the amount. He denied that he made use of this occasion or availed himself in any manner of plaintiff's situation for the purpose of obtaining a second lease, but said that having been himself tenant to plaintiff for part of the lands of Skarriff, and another denomination called Ballyminoge having been held by persons who were unable to pay the reserved rent, and the lease of another part of the lands of Sharriff being to expire on the 25th March 1792, plaintiff solicited defendant to become tenant to the whole at a yearly rent of 791. 3s. 9d. which was a fair value; and that defendant having agreed thereto, plaintiff did by indented deed demise the said lands to defendant at said rent for his own and two other lives, which lease he believed was executed on the day it bore date, the 5th January 1792. But ́ defendant having some time in 1790, discovered that said lease might be considered as a reversionary lease with regard to some part of the lands, he applied to plaintiff to have the same rectified, who thereupon on 5th February 1793, did, in the presence of the subscribing witnesses, change the date from 5th January 1792, as defendant believes, to 25th March 1792, and re-deliver the said lease. Defendant admitted issuing a custodiam on the foot of his judgment, but had not thereunder meddled with any rents of plaintiff's estate, save the rent payable by himself which he had retained: he denied ever having solicited the lease of the demesne lands, but said that it was proposed to him by plaintiff, and was of so little value that he assigned his interest to another person at the same rent he held from plaintiff, and that said lease had since expired. He denied having made any overcharge in account, and answered specially as to the items charged by the bill; and insisted inasmuch as plaintiff himself had drawn up and settled the said accounts, which accounts were finally closed and ratified as before mentioned, |