Knight v Marquess of Waterford and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1835 |
| Date | 01 January 1835 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 160 E.R. 296
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER IN EQUITY
Discussed, Holmes v. Baddeley, 1844, 1 Ch. 476. See further, 4 Y. & C. Ex. 283.
knight v. marquess of waterford and others. Dec. 14th, 1835, Feb. 25th, July 1st, 1836.-In a suit for tithes instituted by a rector against a party who was both patron of the rectory and lord of the manor in which the land for which the tithes claimed were situate, suggesting that a customary payment of 401. per annum, alleged by the defendant to have been made from time immemorial in lieu of all tithes, was founded on a series of corrupt contracts by way of resignation bonds and otherwise, between successive patrons and rectors Held, upon a supplemental bill of discovery, tiled by the rector, that the defendant was bound to produce all such private documents in his custody relating to the matters inquired after by the bill as did not constitute his title to the inheritance of the manor, or the lands of which the tithes were claimed, or the inheritance of the tithes.-The plaintiff is not bound by the defendant's construction of documents in his possession (not his title deeds), if it be clear from the circumstances that they may relate to the plaintiffs title -Upon a rector's bill for tithes, arid a supplemental bill for discovery of documents impeaching the defence, held that the defendant was not bound to produce certain old briefs in his possession, in order to prove the plaintiff's allegation that a former rector's bill, which had been met by the same defence, was dismissed in consequence of collusion between the parties.-Held, also, that the defendant was not bound to produce certain leases which had been granted by his predecessors of the lands for which the tithes were sought -A plaintiff is not entitled to the production of documents which cannot, from their nature, be evidence of his title, though they may impeach that of the defendant.-Cases stated for the opinion of counsel, whether of old date, or made with reference to or in contemplation of an existing suit or action, are not evidence against the party on whose behalf they are stated, or whose interests they affect; therefore, if they tend to impeach that party's title, he is not compellable by suit in equity to produce them.-Confidential letters between solicitor and client are similarly protected.-Upon a bill by tectorfor tithes against a lord of a manor who claims tithes within the manor, the defendant may be ordered to produce old maps of the manor, and also the court-tolls, unless they relate to the title of his own lands within the manor.-An answer to a former fcill for the same matter, though not filed, is to be deemed a public document, unless the contrary be shewn, if, therefore, it relate to the plaintiff's title in an existing suit, the defendant, in whose custody it is, will be ordered to produce it, unless he can swear that it was not intended to be used as an answer. [Discussed, Holmes v. Bculddey, 1844, 1 Ch. 476. See further, 4 Y. & C. Ex. 283.] The plaintiff was rector of the parish of Ford, in the county of Northumberland, and the Marquess of Waterford was patron of the rectory of Ford, and also lord of the raaflor of Ford, and an owner and occupier of land within the rectory. id the year 1830 the plaintiff filed his bill in this Court against the Marquess of Waterford, and several other persons his tenants, being occupiers within the rectory of Ford, for an account and payment of the great and small [23] tithes of the land in their several occupations. To that bill, the Marquess, who was then a minor, put in an answer by has guardian, stating his belief that the manor of Ford, containing eight thousand acres, had been from time immemorial comprised within the parish of Fcrd, and that there had been payable from time immemorial by the lord or owner of that manor for the time being, by equal half-yearly payments, to the parson of the pansbl of Ford for the time being, the yearly sum of 401. for the maintenance of divine worship there, in lieu of all manner of tithes arising &c. within the manor of Ford ; and that the lord or owner of that manor for the time being, or his assigns, had 2Y.&C.EX.M- KNIGHT V. MARQUESS OF WATERFORD 297 from time immemorial been entitled in respect of the said yearly sum of 40L, to all the tithes within that manor, or any part thereof. The defendant made no answer to a charge contained in the bill, as to deeds and documents in his custody. The Marquess of Waterford having come of age, the plaintiff filed a supplemental bill of discovery against him and the other defendants, suggesting that the lords of the manor of Ford, who were patrons of the rectory, and under whom the defendant, the Marquess of Waterford, claimed, used to take bonds from peisons about to be presented to the rectory, conditioned for the acceptance of an annual sum of 401., in satisfaction of the tithea withiti the manor of Ford , that when no such bonds were given, the rectors, soon after their induction, used to make leases of those tithes to the lords of that manor, and that 401. a year, or some such annual sum, was the rent reserved on such leases ; that at all events, by some instruments or agreements, the sum of 401, was fixed as the whole amount to be received by the lectors from the lords, for the tithes within the manor of Ford, or parish of Foid , and that the 401., alleged by the Marquess to be an immemoiial customary payment, had its origin in such bonds and leases, or other instruments or agreements. The bill then con-[24]-tamed other statements impeaching the defence to the original bill, namely, that, about the year 1573, a claim was made and a suit instituted m respect of the tithes within the manor of Ford, by the then rector against the then lord of the manor; that a decree was made, referring the matters in dispute to arbitration, and that an award was made establishing the rector's light, that a considerable district, called Catlord Law, formerly belonging to the lords of the manor of Ford, and being part and parcel of that manor, and held as such, was, about the year 1660, sold by the then lord of the manor to a family of the name of Carr, and that the occupiers of that land had ever since paid tithes to the rectois of Ford, that another district, called Heatherslaw, situate within the par ish of Ford, and forming part of lands for which the 401. was claimed to be paid in lieu of tithes, was formerly a manor of itself, and paid tithes in land to the rector until purchased some time between 1685 and 1717, by the then lord of the manor, after which time the tithes of Heatherslaw were introduced into the leases, bonds, and othei instruments, whereby the sum of 401. was received by the rectors of Ford, in lieu of the tithes of the lands, the property of the lord of the manor of Ford. The bill then alleged that the defendant, the Marquess of Waterford, had in his possession, custody, or power, divers of the before-mentioned bonds, leases, or other instruments and agreements, and also the before-mentioned award ; and also divers old deeds, instruments, and writings, including the deeds of conveyance, or some of them, or scene copy of or extract from or abstract of them, or some of them, proving the allegations in the bill respecting Catford law arid Heatherslaw , and also divers other deeds, papers, and writings, which would shew that no such immemorial payment of 401 existed, or which would in some way tend to shew the plaintiff's title to tithes in kind within the manor of Ford. [25] The Marquess, by his answer, admitted that Catford Law formed part of the man or of Ford, and had been sold as stated by the bill, and that since such sale the occupiers of it lad paid tithes to the i ector, but he alleged that this was in order to avoid litigation. He stated that he had not in his possession the conveyance deeds of Catford Law, but that he had those of Heatherslaw, and that they were included in the second schedule to his answer. He denied the other material allegations of the bill In answer to the gerier.il charge as to deeds and documents, he alleged in substance as follows.-That he hath in hia possession divers deeds and evidences oi title, papers, and writings relating to the tithes of the parish of Ford, but that such deeds, &e., all relate to his, the defendant's, title to the said manor or the lauds theiein, or the tithes thereof, and that the same do not relate to the plamtifi's title to any tithes whatever within the parish or manor, that he hath, in the tirst part of the second...
To continue reading
Request your trial