1791-11-28 (static/transcriptions/1791/11/495.jpg)

538.)

Barnesley v Powel. The bill ought to be relieved against a writing of 16 Oct: 1736 purporting to be the will of plaintiff’s father under which the Defendant Mansel Powel claimed, and which was not without evidence to support it; although there was strong suspicion of forgery. It was also to be relieved against several acts of the plaintiff since his father’s death; such as a Decree of the Court of Exchequer against him, and a sentence in the Prerogative court, wherein the plaintiff’s consent to establish that will by a probate was obtained and conveyances and assurances made by him.”
Lord Hardwicke directed an issue to try the validity of the will, and in giving that direction, said – among other Things –
“it is unfit to for a court of Equity to determine a question of forgery by their own determination of the fact, unless where it is very plain, and no evidence to support it; which I cannot day there is not here, so as to set it aside.
And again
There are several instances of relief, notwithstanding a former decree, if obtained by fraud and imposition, which infects judgment at law, and decrees of all courts; and annuls the whole in the consideration of this court: as held by Lord Macclesfield in Richmond v. Tayleur. As to the sentence of the prerogative court, as at present advised that will create no difficulty, if the will is found forged; for then the plaintiff’s conduct appearing to have bene obtained by the misrepresentation of that forged will, that fraud infects that sentence; against which, the relief must be here: