The Sun.
London, England, 1830-08-02 00:00:00

4t,
LAW INTELLIGENCE.. (TIIIS DAY.)

COURT OP CHANCERY.
JUVGMUNT --•HUNGATY V. 01.11COICINS.
The Loan CHANCELLOIR, on taking his seat, delivered
his judgment upon this appeal petition. He said, in this
me the question is upon the sufficiency of a plea. The
bill states that Sir Philip Hungate, in the year 1654, was
seized in fee of certain property in the county of York
therein described ; it also goes on to trace a descent from
Sir Philip to Mary Hungate, who was the heiress-at-law
of Sir Philip, and married Sir Edward Gascoigne in
1730 ; of that marriage Sir Thomas Gascoigne was the
issue; he died without children, and there was no other issue
of that marriage (as hr stated in the bill) of Sir Edward
and Mary Gascoigne. The plaintiff further states is
his will, his own title as heir at law to Sir Phillip Hun-
gate, deducing that title from William, the second grand-
son of Sir Phillip, and as heir at law, ex-parte materna,
of Sir Thomas Gatenigne. lie then sets out the whole.
of his title to the property in question, sufficiently obscure,
certainly ; but the result to be collected from the whole is,
that Sir Thomas Gascoigne was entitled only to an estate
for life in the property, and that after the death of Sir T.
the fee of the property rested in the plaintiff. The plaintiff
also sets out the marriage settlement made between Sir
Edward Gascoigne and Mary Hungate in 1730, and
states, that by virtue of that settlement, and e►idence
contained. in the recital of it, that it appears (as the
fact really was) that Sir Thos. Gascoigne was interested in
the property only for his life, aril that after his death
the whole interest devol►ed to the plaintiff. He alleges
that the deed of 1730 was registered at York with the Clerk
of the Peace for the City; that it has been abstracted
from the registrar, and that it, or some copy or abstract of
it, is in the possession of the defendant ; be claims, there-
fore, a discovery of the contents of this deed, and that as
an ejectment was pending at the time the bill wrs filed,
an injunction to restrain the defendant from setting up
any outstanding term, or in the alternative, that the Court
would be pleased to declare the respective iute•
rest. of the parties. To this bill the defendant
Richard Gascoigne, pleads that in 1766, and
before that time, Sir Thome' Gascoigne was seised
in fee-tail of the property, that he afterwards suffered a
recovery, the use of which were to himself in fee, and
that he devised the property to the defendant. The ques-
tion then in the cause was, as to the validity of that plea.
In the plea the defendant states a subsequent and incon-
sistent title to that set up by the plaintiff--subsequent, I
mean to the slate of that deed (1730) of which discovery
is prayed. Ile passes over entirely the title of the plain-
tiff; he passes over all consideration with respect Is) the
Ideed of 1730, and in no wise connects his title with the
plaintiff. Now lam of opinion that the defendant, rely-
ing on a subsequent title, not connecting his title iu any
way with that on which the plaintiff rests, net denying the
plaintiff's title, notohjecting to any substantive part of it, not
denying the possession of the deed of 1730, ani not deny-
ing the existence of that deed, that etch a plea cannot
stand. That it was incumbent on the defendant in some
way or other to connect his title with the plaintiff's, or to
traverse the ground of that title or some substantial part
of it, or to deny the sited of 1730, or to deny that it was
in his possession, or that he knew anything of the contents
of it.—As the plea in my judgment cannot 'tend, the ap-
peal must be overruled, the judgment of the Vice-Chan-
cellor be affirtned, and the appellant receive back the de-
posit.