HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0710 and id is 1 raw text is: PURCELL V. M'NAMARA
Bills brought by the younger children for an account of the personal estate
and sale of a sufficient part of the real estates for payment of their portions ; which
was directed by the several decrees made in the causes. Borlace Richmond Webb,
the tenant for life, had left all the title-deeds and writings belonging to the estates
with the Master. The accounts had been taken, and a sufficient part of the real
estate sold ; and the portions of the younger children discharged. Borlace Rich-
mond Webb died many years ago. John Richmond Webb is the present tenant
for life ; and all incumbrances on the real estates being discharged, he is desirous
to have the custody of the said title-deeds and writings ; and therefore it is prayed,
that the said deeds and writings, belonging to the estates, that remained unsold,
in the custody of the Master, may be delivered to the Plaintiff John Richmond Webb ;
which upon hearing an affidavit of the service of notice of this motion upon all
parties concerned read, is ordered accordingly.
3d August 1757. It was moved on behalf of his sisters to discharge that order,
and that the deeds might be kept in Court for safe custody.
Lord Keeper Henley refused to discharge the order ; stating it as his opinion,
that the tenant for life should have the possession of the deeds, when they were not
brought into Court under an order of Court for safe custody.
(2) Trin. Term 1769. Reg. Book, A. 1768, folio 354.
Ordered, that the deeds and writings relating to the said estates brought before
and left with the Master by the Defendant Alexander Small, the trustee, together
with such others as are in the custody of him and the other trustees or either of
them, be delivered to the Defendant Alexander Small, the late infant.
By the testator's Will, stated in the above order, it appears, the testator devised
his estates at Clifton and Hanmead in Bucks to trustees ; upon trust, to them, their
executors and administrators, for the term of 100 years, without impeachment
of waste ; which term was therein mentioned to be for the better securing annuities
by the Will given to testator's wife ; and after the determination of that estate
and subject thereto to the use of his the testator's son, the Defendant Alexander
Small, and his assigns for his life without impeachment of waste ; remainder to his
first and other sons in tail male ; remainder to daughters, &e.
[324] PURCELL V. M'NAMARA. March 23d, April 1st, 1803.
After publication passed liberty given to exhibit articles, as to the credit of a witness,
who had been cross-examined, by general interrogatories, and as to such par-
ticular facts only as are not material to what is in issue in the cause.
A motion was made after publication in this cause, that the Plaintiff may be
at liberty to exhibit articles, as to the credit of a witness ; interrogating to particular
facts :viz. ; whether he had not been a woollen-draper, and insolvent ; which upon
his cross-examination he had answered in the negative.
Mr. Romilly and Mr. Hart in support of the motion referred to the Practical
Register (edition by Mr. Wyatt, page 424) and Hinde's Chancery Practice (page 374).
The Solicitor General, Mr. Mansfield, and Mr. Pemberton, for the Defendant.
The only point, to which they can now examine, is the general point, whether
the witness is of credit sufficient to be believed on his oath ; and even that is to be
sparingly granted, and upon exceptions, with notice and a copy to be delivered
to the adverse party. (Ord. Ch. 105.) But there is no instance of liberty given to
contradict any fact. This witness was cross-examined at great length, particularly
as to his insolvency. It is reasonable, that after publication passed there should
be an opportunity of discrediting him by proving, that he is not to be believed upon
his oath. But if that is to extend to an examination to contradict facts sworn to
in the depositions published, where is it to stop 7
Mr. Romilly, in Reply. At law there are two modes of impeaching the credit
of a witness : one, by producing witnesses to swear, he is not to be believed upon his
oath : the other by putting questions to him, and getting [325] witnesses to prove,
that his answers are not true. That there has been a cross-examination may be an
answer to an objection to his competence, but is no answer as to his credit. The
practice is, not to file exceptions, but to exhibit interrogatories ; which course was
taken in Paris v. Paris, before Lord Alvanley, at the Rolls about two years ago ;
379
8 VES. JUN. 324.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0710&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)