THE Case of Hugh Vaughan & John Vaughan, Executors of Charles Vaughan, Upon the APPEAL of Warwick Bamfield, Esq; Son and Heir of Thomas Bamfield.  
UPON the said Charles Vaughan's lending the said Thomas Bamfield 1000 l. 
20 Martii 1631  the said Thomas Bamfield demised his Barton of Hawdington to the said Charles for 50 years at a Pepper-Corn-Rent, who the next day redemised the same to the said Thomas for 49 years, paying to Charles and his Executors for 42 years of the Term 80 l. per Annum (which was then the Interest of the 1000 l. at 8 l. per Cent.) at Michaelmas and Lady Day; Thomas Bamfield covenanting to pay all the Taxes. In which Indenture was a Proviso, That if the 80 l. per Annum were behind six Months, or if Thomas Bamfield or his Heirs should not, the next day after any of the said Feasts of Michaelmas or Lady Day, during the 42 years, pay to Charles Vaughan or his Executors the 1000 l. and Arrears of the 80 l. per Annum (if any) the Indenture of re-demise to be void. And Vaughan Covenanted upon payment of the 80 l. per Annum and 1000 l. to re-convey to Bamfield and his Heirs.  
Thomas Bamfield paid the 80 l. per Annum to 1640, and afterwards till 1648. it was Atrear, whereupon Charles Vaughan exhibited a Bill in Chancery against him to compel him to pay the 1000 l. and Arrears of the 80 l. per Annum, or else that the Premises might be Decreed to him during the residue of the Term absolutely. And Bamfield insisted that the Premises were sequestered, and therefore he ought not to pay the Rent, owning that the 1000 l. was to be paid. And Bamfield exhibited his Bill to be freed of the Rend Arrear, because of the Sequestration, and to have Abatement of Parliament Taxes, alleging the Conveyance to be a Security for the 1000 l.  
Those Causes were heard, 
In April 1652.  and Bamfield was Decreed to pay the Arrears of the 80 l. per Annum, deducting Parliament Taxes; and he to hold the Premises liable to the Rent and Covenants and Agreements in the Re-demise.  
And upon that Account 10 l. per Annum was abated for Taxes, and so only 70 l. per Annum was paid.  
The 42 years expired, 
At Lady-day 1674  and the 1000 l. not being paid, the Executors of Charles Vaughan brought an Ejectment to recover the Premises for the remainder of the 50 years to satisfy the 1000 l. and had a Verdict; whereupon the said Warwick as Heir and Executor to his Father, exhibited his Bill in Chancery, pretending that the 80 l. per Annum being paid, the 1000 l. aught to be sunk and never paid. And prayed relief against the Verdict.  
And the Executors insisting that the Interest only had been paid, and that the Principal aught to have been paid: And upon Bamfield's obtaining an Injunction, It was Ordered by consent, that if the Court should adjudge it a Mortgage, he would be Decreed to redeem the Premises, for else the Incumbent would have kept the Executor out of possession, that the 1000 l. would not have been raised during the Term.  
Upon the hearing, 
3 Julii 1675.  the Court conceived it to be a Mortgage, and directed an Account to be taken how much had been paid above the Common Interest since Interest was reduced to 6 l. per Cent (which was 1650.) and that to be discompted out of the Principal. And what due Bamfield was Decreed to pay in a year, and thereupon the Executors to reconvey.  
The Master Reported due to the Executors 623 l. 
In May 1676.  10 s. (as remaining of the 1000 l.) which Report was Decreed, and the Money should long since have been paid, but for this Appeal.  

As to the pretended Agreement to have the 1000 l. sunk on payment of 80 l. per Annum, for 42 years, there is no proof of it, and no reason for it. 

For money was then at 8 l. per Cent. and no probability of changing; and it would be absurd to think any man lends his Money to lose the principal so he may have the Interest for a time only.  
But in this Case (by Bamfield's means) the whole 80 l. per Annum was paid but for Nine Years, and for the other 33 years only 70 l. per Annum was paid, the rest being abated upon the Decree in 1651; So the Vaughan's have not had the whole 80 l. per Annum.     
Also the Bargain was more for Bamfield's advantage than Vaughan's; for if Money had risen to 10 l. per Cent. Vaughan could have had but 8 l. per Cent. during the Term, and was forced to let it lie at that rate all the Term; for it was at Bamfield's election only, to pay the principal or not; and whatever occasion Vaughan had had for his Money, he could not have called it in. Besides, if the Interest fell to 6 l. per Annum, Bamfield might by the Deeds at any time have paid in his Money, and saved 20 l. per Annum of what he agreed to pay, which he would never do, but paid the 80 l. per Annum for some time, and 70 l. for the rest.  
And though Bamfield did from 1651. pay after the rate of 70 l. per Annum, yet the Chancery has deducted 10 l. per Annum of it (which was above the Interest at 6 l. per Cent.) and also Interest for that 10 l. per Annum ever since; whereby the 1000 l. principal is sunk to 623 l. And yet Bamfield would be so unconscionable, to have the Executors lose that too.  
The Executors conceive they have hardship put upon them so to have the principal Debt sunk by 10 l. per Annum, and hope they shall not be stripped of the residue of their Just Debt, upon a pretence, for which, as there is no Proof, so there is no Reason, Justice or Conscience.