case the parties differ, the parties do forthwith proceed to a new trial of the second issue directed in this cause, by the order bearing date the 7th day of December, 1813, in the manner directed by the said order. Watmore v. Watmore, M. R. 14th February, 1815. Reg. Lib. B. 1814. fol. 304.

NOTE.

For new trial after trial at bar. See No. II. Note, ante.

No. X.

DECREE ON FURTHER DIRECTIONS AFTER TRIAL OF ISSUE.

[The bill was for the discovery of a lease granted by a former owner of the manor, under whom the plaintiff claimed, to those under whom the defendant claimed, for lives, charging that the lives had expired. Upon the original hearing an issue was directed, which was found for the plaintiff.]

His Lordship doth think fit, and so order and decree that the said defendant do deliver possession of the lands mentioned in the said issue found for the plaintiff to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff be quieted in the possession thereof, against the said defendant, and all persons claiming under him. And that the said defendant do come to an account before the said Master, for the rents and profits of the said premises accrued since the 5th of November, 1728, the day on which the said last life in the said lease died, which have been received by the said defendant, or by any other person &c. For the better clearing of which account &c. [See Usual Directions, No. II. ante.] And it is ordered and decreed that the said defendant do pay unto the plaintiff what shall be found due to him on the balance of the said account; and that the said defendant do pay unto the plaintiff his costs, both at law and in this Court, to be taxed by the said Master. Edwin v. Morris, L. C. 31st January, 1747. Reg. Lib. A. 1746. fol. 217.

No. XI.

DECREE ON FURTHER DIRECTIONS, AFTER ISSUE ON BILL BY LORD OF A MANOR, ESTABLISHING HIS RIGHT TO A FINE.

His Lordship saw no cause to give the plaintiffs in the cross cause any relief; and doth therefore order, that the matter of the said cross bill do stand dismissed out of this court, with costs to be taxed by the said Master. And in the original cause his Lordship declared that a general fine was and is due and payable from the said defendants, the tenants, and all other the tenants of customary tenements, called tenant-right estates respectively, within the said honours, boroughs, and manor of Cockermouth &c. unto the plaintiff the Duke of Somerset, as the next admitting lord, after the death of the late Duchess of Somerset, his wife, according to the verdict found upon the said trial so directed. And doth therefore order and decree, that such the said Duke of Somerset's right to the said general fines be established. And it now appearing by the answer of the defendants, the tenants, to the said original bill, and also by the said cross bill of the said tenants, that several other of the plaintiff, the Duke of Somerset's tenants of tenant-right estates within the said honours, boroughs, and manors were concerned in the defence of the said original bill, and exhibiting the cross bill, and agreed to join in the expense thereof, his Lordship doth therefore order, that it be referred to the said Master to examine into the matter; and for that purpose that the articles mentioned in the said answer be produced before him by the defendants, the tenants, their agents and solicitors, and that they be examined on interrogatories concerning the same; and that whoever subscribed the said articles to carry on the suits shall, as between the plaintiff in the original cause, and the defendants the tenants, be considered in the original cause as defendants, and in the cross cause as plaintiffs, and be subject to pay the costs in like manner as the other defendants to the original bill; and that the defendants,

the tenants, do pay the costs in the original cause, both at law and in this court, to be taxed by the said Master. And as to the said fines, the plaintiff in the original bill having thereby waived the benefit of the forfeiture, his Lordship doth order and decree, that the defendants and the other tenants of such tenant-right estates within the said honours, manors, and boroughs, do pay their fines for their several tenements, according to their fines assessed by the plaintiffs' stewards or commissioners in open court. And if any particular tenant shall think the fine imposed on his tenement to be excessive, and do certify the same under his hand to the registrar of this court, before the 1st day of March next, and desires to try the same, that then the plaintiff, the Duke of Somerset, shall be discharged from his consent to waive the forfeiture as to such tenement, and be at liberty to bring his ejectment for the forfeiture, or other action for the said fines, as he shall be advised; to which action such particular tenant shall forthwith appear, and take a declaration, and try it the next assizes in Cumberland, or at bar, either by a common or special jury, as the Court upon motion shall direct. And on that trial the Duke of Somerset's right to a general fine shall be admitted; and the question at such trial is only to be, whether such fine be reasonable or unreasonable. And as to the defendant, the Earl of Hertford, the said original is to stand dismissed without costs. And the said Master is to tax the said Earl of Hertford his costs in the cross cause to be paid by the plaintiff's therein. Duke of Somerset v. France, L. C. 11th December 1725. Reg. Lib. A. 1725. fol. 40. S. C. 1 Strange, 654. Fortesc. 41. (Duke of Somerset v. Fream), 6 Vin. 109.

A A

No. XII.

DECREE.-CASE.

[The devise by the codicil was to trustees and their heirs, in trust for the defendant Millington Buckley, at twenty-one years, for life, and in the mean time the rents and profits were directed to be applied in payment of debts and legacies. By the will, the same estates had been devised to charitable uses.]

His Lordship doth order that a case be made upon the said testator's will and codicils, and the Act of Parliament to prevent the disposition of lands, whereby the same become unalienable, for the opinion of the judges of the Court of King's Bench; and that the same be settled by the said Master, in case the parties differ about the same. And upon the case so stated, it is further ordered, that the question be, whether the said testator's real estate in Stretton and Shrewsbury be well devised by the said codicil, dated the 17th day of March, 1735, to the defendant Millington Buckley for life, with remainders over to his first and every sons in tail male, the said Millington Buckley having attained his age of 21 years. And the judges of the Court of King's Bench are to be attended with the said case. And his Lordship doth reserve the consideration of all further directions until after the judges shall have made their certificate; and thereupon such further order shall be made as shall be just. Attorney-General v. Lloyd, L. C. 1st August, 1747. Reg. Lib. A. 1746. fol. 689.

For judge's certificate upon a case. See 2 Turn. Pract. 79.

NOTE.

When a case is directed, the Court sometimes refers it to the Master to settle it. Ceal v. Ashurst, 2 Dick. 474. and orders there referred to. At other times the facts to be stated are stated by the. Court in the order. Ashburnham v. Kirkall, 1 Dick. 73. Harman v. Spottiswood, there cited. And see Decree in Prebble v. Boghurst, 1 Swan. 313. note. The usual direction is that it should be settled by the Master in case the parties differ. Attorney-General v. Lloyd, Prebble v. Boghurst, supra. Vawser v. Jeffery, 2 Swan.

supra.

For Master's certificate of having settled the case. Prac. 78.

See 2 Turner's

The case should not state a speculative question, but the fact by which the question is raised. Bliss v. Collins, 1 J. & W. 427.

A case upon the construction of a will as to equitable estates should state the devises as legal ones. Houston v. Hughes, 6 B. & C. 413. 421. And see Questions put to the Judges by the House of Lords. Thellusson v. Woodford, 11 Ves. 132.

By the rules of the King's Bench the signature of counsel on both sides is required. Bliss v. Collins, 1 J. & W. 426. If the counsel will not sign it, they are understood to waive the benefit of it. S. C. Ib. 427. The defendant was ordered to procure the signature of his counsel to a case, or to shew cause to the contrary. S. C. Ib. 428. For mode of proceeding upon a case at law. See 1 Newl. Prac. 355.

No. XIII.

ORDER TO AMEND CASE.

His Lordship doth order that the case whereupon the judges of the Court of King's Bench have certified their opinion be amended by introducing therein a statement of the facts that &c. and by inserting therein the following extract from the will of Richard Lowe, the testator in the said case named, that is to say &c. And it is ordered that the said case when so amended be referred back to the said judges for their opinion, whether the facts so introduced are admissible in evidence in the said case, and if so, whether on the case so amended as aforesaid they are of the same opinion as before certified by them, or how otherwise. And his Lordship doth reserve the consideration of all further directions until after the judges shall have made their certificate. And any of the parties are to be at liberty to apply to this Court as they shall be advised. Lowe v. Manners, L. C. 1st November, 1822. Reg Lib. B. 1821. fol. 2041.