feifed in tail male there be no debts, the jewels fuitable to her quality to be worn as the ornaments of her perfon; yet by the old law they were abfolutely in the power of the husband: And if he by will devifed away the jewels, fuch devife fhould ftand good against the wife's claim of paraphernalia. Cro. Car. 343. and i Roll. Abr. 911. fec. 9. (C) Df what elfate of the husband, with respect to the nature and quality thereof, shall a woman be endowed. T June the 22d, 1738. At the Rolls. Sneyd v. Sneyd. Cafe 201. HE plaintiff's father, Ralph Sneyd, being, by virtue of The plaintiff's two fettlements, feised in tail male of feveral manors father, being and lands, and in poffeffion of great part thereof, and having of feveral minors purchased several others, intermarried with the defendant the and lands, and in plaintiff's mother, but no fettlement was made in confideration poffeflion of great of the marriage; and on the 18th of October 1733, he died inhaving purchafed teftate, leaving the plaintiff Dryden Sneyd, his eldest son, wherefeveral others, by the lands in the fettlement, and the eftates purchased by the with the defend- father, became vefted in the plaintiff, as the eldeft fon and heir ant the plaintiff's in tail. part thereof, and intermarried mother, and in October 1733 died inteftate. The plaintiff, as eldest fon and heir in tail, brings a bill to fet afide the affignment of dower for partiality, upon a fuggeftion that part of the eftate was copyhold and not liable thereto. If the husband became intitled to the copyhold eftates by copy of court roll, and granted them out again by copy of court roll, his wife is not intitled to dower; but if he became intitled otherwise than by copy of court roll, and did not grant them out again by copy of court roll, fhe is intitled to dower out of thofe eítates. The defendant claiming dower out of the plaintiff's estate, obtained judgment in a writ of dower against him, and dower was afterwards affigned by the fheriff; and the present bill is brought for an account of the rents of the real estate, and to fet afide the sheriff's affignment of dower for partiality, part of the eftate being copyhold, and not liable to dower, and yet eftimated upon the writ of inquiry for afcertaining of dower. The defendant infifled the copy hold was properly estimated, becaufe Ralph Sneyd, her hufband, had the freehold of the purchafed copyhold eftates in him as lord of the manor, which contained as well copyhold as freehold, and by him not granted out, and that she is therefore dowable of the faid copyhold, or that if he did grant them out, the inftantaneous feifin in the hufband, at the time of the purchase, was fufficient to intitle her to fuch dower, and that no after act of his could give away that right which was once attached in her, intitled to dower The Mafter of the Rolls*: Though no cafes have been cited Sir Joseph Jea of either fide, and feems to be a new point, yet I fhould think kyll that this inftantaneous feifin of the freehold of the purchased A wife is not copyhold eftates in the hufband, will not intitle the defendant's out of an inftanwife to her dower; for notwithstanding there may be no cafe taneous feifin. of the fame nature with this, yet it may be governed by reafon The confee of and general rules of law: As for inftance, the conufee of a fine feifed as is not fo feifed as to give his wife a title to dower; and in the cafe his wife a title of a ufe, the widow of a trustee has been determined to have to dower; nor in on claim of dower from fuch a momentary feifin. a fine is not fo the cafe of a ufe has the widow of a trustee any claim of dower from fuch a momentary feifin in her husband, I do therefore in the firft place decree, that the affignment of dower by the sheriff be fet afide, and that it be referred to a Mafter to inquire, whether the inteftate became intitled to the copyholds in question, by virtue of furrenders from the tenants by copy of court roll, or not? And whether he granted those eftates out again by copy of court roll, and not by leafe for years or lives? And if the inteftate became intitled by copy of court roll, and granted them out again by copy of court roll, then I am of opinion that the defendant Anne Sneyd is not intitled to dower out of thofe eftates. And as to the lands whereon the leafes for lives or years were renewed by the inteftate, I do order the Mafter to inquire which of those leafes were actually expired at the time of fuch renewal, and which not; and am of opinion, that the defendant Anne is not intitled to dower out of an inflantaneous feifin, but that She is intitled to dower out of thofe lands where the Mafter shall find. that the leafes were actually expired. November the 12th, 1739, and July the 21st, 1740. Hervey v. Hervey. Vide title Power, under the divifion, Of the right execution of a CA P. XLIII. Efcctment. Vide title Jointenants and Tenants in Common. САР. CA P. XLIV. Effate Tail. May the 2d, 1738. Ivie v. Ivie. Vide title Devife, under the divifion, What Words pafs an Eftate 2 Tr. Atk. 15. pl. 12. 19. pl. 17, 39, 40, 98, CA P. XLV. Evidence, Witnelles, and P200f. 99, 140. pl. 127, (A) What will be admitted as evidence, and will amount to 189. pl. 160, 239. pl. 189. 3 Tr. Atk. 77. Bul. Ni. Pri, tit. 12 Vin. Abr. Bur. 147. 2 Bur. 1189. 3 Bur. 1255, 7256. 4 Bur. 2270, 2485, &c. fufficient proof. P. 444. (B) Where parol, oz collateral evidence, will oz will not be ad= mitted to explain, confirm, oz contradict what appears on the face of a deed of a will. P. 447• (C) De examining witnesses de bene effe, and establishing their (D) Dk the fufficiency oz disability of a witness. P.451. 5 Bur. 2688. (A) What will be admitted as evidence, and will amount Black. Rep. palim. 2 Black. Rep. 1148, 1149. to fufficient p200f. Cafe 202. This court will May the 5th, 1737. Graves v. Euftace Budgel, Efq; T was moved on the defendant's behalf, that certain witneffes of the plaintiff's, who were to prove exhibits, might allow the proving be examined vivâ voce at the hearing of the cause; and that an of exhibits viva order of the late Chancellor, for a commiffion to examine them voce at the hear ing, but not to in the country, might be discharged. let in other ex aminations, and this only at the application of the party who is to make use of the exhibits, but no inftance where it is allowed at the application of the contrary party. The motion was founded on two things. First, The great importance of these exhibits to the merits of the caufe, being receipts of the defendant, which he infifted were forged, and had denied in his answer. Secondly, The ill state of health of the defendant disabling him to go down into the country to attend the commiffion, in fupport of which an affidavit of his phyfician was read. On these matters it was prayed that the witnesses might be examined vivâ voce at the hearing, that the defendant might have an opportunity of cross-examining them, and fifting their evidence; and a cafe of the Dutchefs of Newcastle was mentioned by Mr. Fazakerley, where it was fo allowed. This was also prayed in honour of the defendant, he having denied the receipts. Lord Chancellor : I cannot allow the motion; the constant and established proceedings of this court are upon written evidence, like the proceedings upon the civil or canon law. This is the course of the court, and the course of the court is the law of the court; and though there are cafes of witneffes being fo examined, yet they have been allowed but sparingly, and only after publication, where doubts have appeared in their depofitions, and the examination has been to clear fuch doubts, and inform the confcience of the court. There never was a cafe, where witneffes have been allowed to be examined at large at the hearing; and though it might be defirable to allow this, yet the fixed and fettled proceedings of the court cannot be broke through for it. The utmost latitude the court have taken in this, is to allow the proving of exhibits vivâ voce at the hearing, but not to let in other examinations; and this is allowed only where the application is by the party who is to make use of the exhibits: But there never was a cafe where it was allowed on the application of the contrary party; if he is fufpicious of fraud, he has notice, and may crofs-examine the witneffes. Eafter term, 1737. Fry v. Wood. Cafe 203 Greed in this case, where a person has been examined in Where a perfon A at law between the fanne parties, been a ed here, his depo his depofition may be used in evidence, if it can be proved that fition may be the witness is dead, or by reason of fickness, &c. is not able to read at law beattend, or that he is out of the kingdom, or otherwise not a- parties menable to the procefs of the court. tween the fame Cafe 204. Where an original note is loft, W In Michaelmas vacation, 1737. Goodier v. Lake. HERE an original note of hand is loft, and a copy of it is offered in evidence to serve any particular purpose and a copy of it is in a caufe, you muft fhew fufficient probability to fatisfy the offered in evi- court that the original note was genuine, before you will be thew the original allowed to read the copy. dence, you muft note was genuine, before you will be allowed to read the copy. June the 18th, 1737. Medcalf v. Ives. Vide title Award and Arbitrament, under the divifion, For what Caufes fet afide. Michaelmas term, 1744. Omichund v. Barker. Vide title Alien. December the 4th, 1749. Ramkiffenfeat v. Barker. Vide title Alien. May the 23d, 1747. Eade v. Thomas Lingood, and others. Vide title Bankrupt under the divifion, Rule as to Examinations taken before Commissioners. Evidence. Vide title Power. Hilary |