Page 23 - BOOK OF B B AND FONS

The Blaker Society

and now on a Rehearing, the Court decreed Bayly and his Wife to convey the
Premisses, and to execute the Trust.
But before the said Decree was made, Bayly (pendente lite) had conveyed
the Premisses to one Blaker, (the Defendant) and Surman died before any
Execution of the Decree; and no Care was taken to revive it against Bayly and
his Wife. 'Thereupon Blaker enters upon the Premisses, and receives the Profits,
and Thomas Bland (not yet discovering the Fogery) exhibited another Bill
against him, on behalf of the Charity, and made Bayly and his Wife, and others,
Parties to the said Bill, and Confederates.
Blaker pleaded, that he was a Purchaser for a valuable Consideration paid
to Bayly and his Wife without Notice of any Incumbrance; but it appearing that
the Purchase was made pendente lite, that Plea was over-ruled; and in Easter-
9
Term 17 Car. 2. a Decree passed against him to reconvey the Premisses to the
said Tho. Bland, and to deliver the Writings to him.
But Blaker to evade this Decree, pretended that he had convey’d the
Premisses, and deliver’d the Writings to one Page, who set up a Title under
Colour of an old dormant Entail, made by one of his Ancestors, who was
Owner of this Estate, and of whom George Bland purchased the same, and hath
brought several Bills here, and Actions at Law; but never discovered his
pretended Title from Bayly or Blaker till of late, after the Death of the said
Thomas Bland, who died about six Years since: And soon afterwards one
Wright (another of the Defendants) by Combination with the rest, sued out a
Commission of charitable Uses, and obtained a Decree on the pretended Will of
George Bland, and got into Possession.
But the Plaintiffs having discovered the Forgery, put in Exceptions to the
said Decree, and Wright put in his Answer, and the Plaintiffs reply’d, and upon
Hearing the Cause in July 1674, and the forged Will produced, a Trial was
directed upon this Issue, whether the Writing produced was the real Will of
Geo. Bland; and the Jury found that it was not; and thereupon in May 1675,
upon a farther Hearing the Decree of the Commissioners was reversed, and the
Plaintiff restored to the Possession.
But Page having brought an Ejectment upon his pretended Purchase from
Blaker, or upon the old Entail, the Plaintiffs now exhibited their Bill to be
relieved against him, and to be quieted in their Possession; and that he may
convey the Premisses to Margaret and her Heirs, and to execute the Trust, &c.
Page pleaded his Purchase as before, and his Title by Virtue of the
Entail, and answer’d that Blaker by his Order had conveyed the Premisses to
Fletcher and Hobson and their Heirs, in Trust for him and his Heirs; and that
Blaker purchased of Bayly and his Wife, without Notice of any Trust, under
which Purchase the Possession hath been enjoy’d; and that Hobson, who is the
surviving Trustee, stands entrusted for him the said Page and his Heirs.

9 Easter 1665