Crossle Record
Page 58
Defts heard and believe said Wm Smith was obliged to proceed to prove said will in special form, in as much that a Commission was issued out of the Prerog. Court into Great Britain to examine the witnesses of Francis Beatty’s will who had arrived there from Gibraltar; and that by said Commission which was returned to the Prerog. Court it appears it appears (duplicate sic) by the depositions of witnesses that said will was fairly obtained and was properly executed by Francis Beatty. That accordingly Wm Smith on 2 Dec. 1728 filed his bill in the Court of Exchequer on account of the rents of said leasehold praying to be decreed a moiety thereof. That Charles Beatty after he had notice of the will of Francis Beatty in 1728, about 18 years after the death of Robert Beatty took out letters of admon of Robert as principal creditor in the diocese of Clogher in which diocese said lands are situated, upon pretence he had paid several debts for Robert and ought to be reimbursed out of said lands, but he never pretended he had any title to any proportion thereof as brother to Robert Beatty, and these Defts insist that in regard of the will of John Beatty it is expressly mentioned said lands should be divided between said Samuel and Robert, and that Samuel having died soon after his father in minority aged about 8 or 9 years all the interest of same became vested in Robert by survivorship, who accordingly entered thereon and received the profits without any interposition of the exors of John Beatty or claim of said Charles Betty or Plt Arthur Beatty or Ann (sic) Smith for upwards of 30 years before said Robert died. That if Arthur Beatty ever had a right, as he pretends by his bill, yet he is debarred by the laws of their kingdom arising out of the length of time, being upwards of 50 years of quiet enjoyment, against any demand of Plt. Arthur Beatty. That Wm Smith by his said bill did not pretend that admon had been taken by Charles Beatty to Robert in trust for said Francis Beatty. These Defts. "severally say they heard and believe that the said Robert Beatty and Jane King were legally married and that said Francis was not born til near twelve months after the said marriage and that they cohibitted (sic) together as man and wife for near 20 years and till the time of the Death (sic) of the said Robert and that the said Jane Beatty after the death of the said Robert Beatty her husband had a pension settled upon her by the Crown as the Widow of the said Robert and that the said Charles Beatty paid her several sums of money as her share and proportion of the profits of said premises. These Defts do not believe said Charles Beatty by virtue of sd letters of admon got posson (sic) of sd premises, but under a letter of attorney as aforesaid and that sd admon was granted 17 or 18 years after Charles got possession of the lands. This Deft Richard Bartlett saith that after Charles Beatty had consented to the validity of the will of Francis Beatty and after the filing of said bill by Wm Smith and Charles Beatty being served with subpoena to
[Transcriber Note: Left margin of this page contains a sentence: "This date is wrong. Correct date 26 Aug. 1717, see pp (sic).” It does not list any page numbers to see. Handwriting seems somewhat tighter than Crossle’s handwriting, yet the same letter formation of the period.].
|
