Page images
PDF
EPUB

defendant, who used every artifice to delay payment; by which means plaintiff's embarrassments were greatly increased. The bill further stated that about 16th Nov. 1790, defendant prevailed on the plaintiff to settle a general account on the foot of these advances, and on the foot of other dealings which had taken place between them, in which account defendant charged interest on the several sums for which plaintiff passed his bills or notes to defendant from the › days on which they became due, although plaintiff charged that the greater part of them were suffered to remain a long time unpaid: That plaintiff was obliged to pay large sums in discount to get money for these notes and bills; and that many of them had never been paid by defendant: that by these means a balance was made to appear against plaintiff to the amount of 1,008/. 158. and for this balance defendant prevailed on plaintiff to execute his bond with warrant of attorney for confessing judgment thereon. The bill charged that immediately after obtaining this bond, defendant required plaintiff to execute a lease to him of the lands of Poulagower and Knockavin agreeable to his promise, on the faith of which he alleged he had advanced him so much money; and that plaintiff under the pressure of his distresses and from the hope of defendant continuing to make him further advances, was prevailed upon to execute a lease of these lands at a rent of 2001. per ann. for three young lives, which lease was made to bear date the 1st April 1791, although really executed on the 16th Nov. 1790; and the rent was made to commence from 25th March 1791, as there was a subsisting lease of these lands which was not to expire until 25th March 1791, and defendant knew that plaintiff was restricted by his settlement from making leases in reversion: That this lease contained a covenant on the part of defendant to lay out a sum of 1251. in valuable improvements, which he had not done, and also a clause of surrender, which (the bill charged)

1803.

DREW

v.

POWER.

1803.

DREW

V.

POWER.

was inserted to give the lease an appearance of being made at so high a rent as to render it doubtful whether defendant could afford to hold it; but that such was the influence obtained by defendant over plaintiff in consequence of his dis tresses, that he made him execute the lease in whatever form he wished. The bill charged that this lease was made at a gross undervalue, and as evidence thereof it charged that de fendant immediately after set the lands at a profit of 103. per ann. and that they were then worth considerably more. It further stated, that defendant, still continuing to watch plain, tiff's necessities, and to supply him from time to time with small sums of money, at length agreed with plaintiff to pay off a certain number of his debts amounting together to a sum of 800l. and in consideration thereof he obtained from plaintiff a rent-charge on his estate of 470l. per ann.: That defendant upon obtaining this rent-charge made out a list of the debts to be discharged thereout, amounting to a sum of 1,808/. 15s. The first of these was the said bond of 1,008/. 158. passed to defendant; and at the foot of this list was written an acknowledgment by defendant in these words: "Received from F. Drew, Esq. a rent-charge on "the lands of, &c. for the above sum of 1,808/. 15s. to be paid “me at the rate of 4701. sterl. per ann. until I am paid all principal, interest and costs: and I do hereby promise to

[ocr errors]

66

pay H. B. 701. per ann. out of said rent-charge: and I "also promise to pay in two years after the date the above "sum of 800l. Feb. 17, 1791. Ed. Power." The bill next stated that on 30th June 1791, defendant insisted on plaintiff's coming to a settlement of accounts, and that after giving plaintiff some small credits (but not near so much as he was entitled to) defendant made up a balance against Plaintiff of £1,416: 14:9 1-2, for which he insisted on and obtained from plaintiff a bond and warrant of attorney for confessing judgment, and thereupon gave up the prior bond

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 VOL. I.

Bb

1803.

DREW

v.

POWER.

[blocks in formation]

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 neighbourhood 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 de fendant, 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 3991. 2s. 2d. which he had since paid, together with another sum of 831. 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 1,0087. 158. and the sums subsequently advanced or secured by defendant for the use of plaintiff, and that there

1803.

DREW

v.

POWER.

« PreviousContinue »