The Case of Sir WILLIAM BASSET.  
THAT Sir Joseph Killigrew being seized in Fee of the Manor and Rectory of Laurack and Barton of Ints in Cornwall, did heretofore devise the same to Sir Henry Killigrew (his Brother) in tail, the Remainder to Elizabeth his only Daughter (the Plaintiffs Mother) in Fee Simple.  
That Sir Henry Killigrew, having suffered a Common Recovery, did by a Will he made the 12. of November 1644. mention to give the said Manor and Premises to Mrs. Jane Berkley for life, Remainder to Henry Hill (his Natural Son) in tail, Remainder to the right heirs of Sir Joseph Seymour; which Will he afterwards revoked by a latter Will, that is now suppressed, and left the Premises to descend, by his death, on the said Elizabeth, the Plaintiffs Mother, being his next heir as aforesaid.  
That upon the death of Sir Henry Killigrew, William Basset Esq and the said Elizabeth his Wife (the Plaintiffs Father and Mother) and whose heir he is, did enter upon the Premises, and being so in possession, and sequestered, Compounded at Goldsmiths-hall, and paid 570 l. for the same.  
That Edward Nosworthy Esq being Neighbour to the Premises, (after others in dislike of the Title had refused to deal therein) tempted by the hopes of making extraordinary advantages thereby, in 1651. agreed with Mrs. Berkley, not only for the purchase of her pretended Estate for life in the Premises, but also for the said Hill's Estate therein; and because he was an Infant, not above 15 years of Age, for the accomplishing Mr. Nosworthy's ends it was Articled as part of the Agreement, that Mrs. Berkley should place the said Hill (being left in her care) as an Apprentice to Mr. Nosworthy for 8 Years, that so he might have him in his possession, and the better opportunity to get conveyances from him, and for the strengthening of Mr. Nosworthy's Title, it was also agreed between them, that several old Statutes of great penalties then in Mrs. Berkley's power, on which there was little or nothing due, should be assigned to protect Mr. Nosworthy's purchase.  
That Nosworthy being conscious of the defect of his Title in or about the Year 1653. for corroboration thereof, obtained a Conveyance of the Premises from the pretended trusties at Drury-house, as sold for Sir Henry Killigrew's Delinquency; and though great sums are mentioned to be paid to the pretended Powers then in being for the same, nothing was really paid; but all the pretended purchase money reprized for the said old Statutes, and yet that so far availed him, that the Plaintiffs Father being sequestered for his Loyalty, durst not appear to set up his interest against the said pretended purchase during the time of the late Usurpation.  
That Mr. Nosworthy having then no way to hold the possession of the Premises any longer but by colour of the old Statutes (on which there was little or nothing due, as aforesaid) Henry Seymour Esq (who after the death of the Plaintiffs Father married the Plaintiffs Mother) did with her in her right in 1660. exhibit their Bill in the Exchequer against Nosworthy, to set aside those encumbrances and be admitted to try their Title. Whereupon by Order of that Court (as most just) it was tried at that Bar; whether the Will of Sir Henry Killigrew in 1644. were revoked? which upon two several Trials, one by a Jury of Gentlemen of Quality of Cornwall, the other of Berks, was found so to be, and Verdicts passed in both for the Plaintiffs Title.  
That notwithstanding those two Verdicts in regard the Plaintiffs refused to consent to another Trial at that Bar, the Bill was 22. Nou. 1666. dismissed out of that Court, but without prejudice to his right in Law or Equity.  
Thereupon in 1667. Mr. Seymour and his Lady preferred their Bill in Chancery, to which Mr. Nosworthy pleaded the Dismission in the Exchequer, and that he was a Purchaser really and bona fide for valuable consideration; which Plea coming to be heard by the Lord Keeper Bridgman, assisted with Judges, was overruled and Nosworthy ordered to answer, so as to bring the validity of the Will in 1644. into question, and to try whether it was revoked. Which Order Nosworthy refusing to obey, after many contempts returned against him, it was half a Year after ordered that the Issues should be taken as tried against him, and the cause to be heard in Trin. Term 1668. but before that day the Plaintiffs Mother died, and the Suit abated.  
That in Trin. Term. 1670. the now Plaintiff brought a Bill of Revivor, to which the Defendant demurred; which the Lord Keeper, assisted with two Judges, on solemn debate overruled.  
That after the Defendant had sat in contempt a Year and half more, it was in Feb. 1672. ordered, that the Defendant should put in his Plea by way of Answer, and accordingly an Answer was put in, and a Replication and Issue joined, Whether the Will in 1644. were revoked or not? and the Defendant joined in Commission and exhibited Interrogatories, and many Witnesses were examined for the Plaintiff, (to his great charge) and those depositions returned. But the Defendant having privilege, the Plaintiffs Clerk durst not pass publication. And then on the 8. of Decemb. 1673. the Defendant moved for a Commission to examine his Witnesses; which was ordered accordingly: and after all this got an Order in 1674. to confine all Examinations to this Issue, Whether the Defendant were a fair Purchaser or not? On which Examinations it was proved that the premises were worth 18000 l. and that Nosworthy paid but 2300 l. to Mrs. Berkley, and 500 l. to Hill; and that he got Conveyances from Hill by Fine and otherwise, whilst in his Infancy, and his Apprentice, on promises of marrying his Daughter to him, which afterwards he refused when he had gotten the Fine from him. And that Nosworthy's pretended purchase was not made till after others had refused to deal, as disliking the Title. And yet notwithstanding the Cause being heard the 16. of July 1674. the Plaintiffs Bill was ordered to stand Dismissed; and that all the Depositions taken to prove the Revocation of the Will of 1644. be suppressed and vacated; whereby he a Plaintiff in Chancery, is not only denied Relief in Equity, but barred from having any Remedy at Law, his Witnesses being many of them dead.  
Which Dismission is grounded upon a supposed Fact, that the Defendant is really and bona fide a purchaser of the Premises for full and valuable consideration without notice of the Plaintiffs Title, and so not to be impeached in any wise in a Court of Equity. Whereas the Defendant is neither a fair, nor an honest purchaser; but his pretended purchase was begun in a fraud, and carried on in deceit of an Infant, by getting a Fine and other Conveyances from him unduly in his Minority by Artifices and Tricks; and that without any adequate or competent consideration paid for the same. Which being matter of Fact, the Plaintiff cannot have any Relief therein by Bill of Review in the Chancery, or elsewhere. But is only Relievable by Appeal to the most High and Honourable House of LORDS (the Supreme Court of Judicature;) To whom he doth accordingly Appeal.