The Stanleys not only exercised the power of life and death, and all other authority of a King, but for at least 150 years were styled King. In an ancient grant of the Island it is stated, that it is appurtenant to the Island that whoever is Lord thereof shall be styled King, and crowned, etc.
The distinction between the double and single rents is made continually in the Records about this time. See grant from the Earl of Derby to John Cannell and others in 1650 of Kerroo-cruinn of single rent of, etc. The common idea that the double rents were first paid under the Act of Settlement is clearly erroneous.
The tenants claim by custom the clay under their lands and the right to dispose of it. This alleged right has been lately the subject of litigation in the case of Mylchreest v. The Brick and Tile Company, in which case the Chancery Court decreed in favour of the tenant's rights. [note 1]
[2] Under the first award of the Disafforesting Act of 1860 the customary tenants of the Island are declared entitled to a right to quarry stones for the use of their lands in the district called the Forest or Commons. [note 2]
Moar. [note 3] Anciently no personal action could be brought against the Moar during his year of office, because his estate was bound to the Lord for rents, etc. The Moar was bound to pay to the Lord "two marks of office silver." [note 4] This is reckoned in the Insular assessment as 8/10¾d. (See, per example, the Manorial assessment for 1643 of Conchan Parish.) The Moar was, however, entitled to be freed of the rent of a quarterland in respect of his office. See per example entries in the book of charges of Southside, 1643), allowed to the Moars everyone of them the rent charged for customs of one quarter of land freed by their offices, £10 4/5. [note 5] He is also entitled by custom to 2d from each tenant. [note 6] This is called the "Moar's tally."
"Purchase" is here used in its wide technical sense of "acquired by any title other than inheritance," except so far as it includes an heir claiming under a barganeeirey.
See in Liber Vastarum (1611) the case of sale of Orristal, in Michael, from Thomas Calse to Sir Hugh Cannell, made void for want of confirmation, the parties being also fined. See also case in Lib Cancellar, 1672. The folIowing is an instance of a licence to alien (Lib CancelIar, 1648, 15th die
Junii, 1648.)
Forasmuch as John Quilir, of the parish of Kirk Arbory, was divorced from one Ann Cloage, his then wife, for cause of adultery, as by ye recorde apeareth, and by the Church order hath liberty to marry, being ye innocent partie, and now, by God's permission, being intended to marry another wife, has craved licence to dispose of his estate to the issue of such a woman as he shall have fortune to marry, which is hereby granted by us, whose names are subscribed the day and year first before written
JOHN GRENEHALGH.
JOHN SHARPLE,
WILL SMYTH,
JOHN CANNELL.
Camaish's case, reported in Adv. N.B. p [note 7], cannot be supported by any principle of law known to the writer. It is distinctly opposed to Deemster Mylrea's statement of the law of the Island as to Alienation in his reply in CaIcott v. Stevenson.
The following copies will sufficiently show the nature of the entries on the Roll. Liber Vastarum, 1594.
Kirk Andreas. (Balylmyge.) Robert Lowye drawn, Phinlo McTeare entered. Calm McTeare for all. 5/8d.
Note— That the said Robert McLowye and the said Phinlo McTeare delyvered their several portions uppe by the strawe to the Captain, and the same by the Setting Enquest was left upon the said Calm.
Note— That the said William delivered it uppe by the strawe, in open Court, to the Captain, and the Setting Enquest delivered it to the said Patricke.
German, 1595. (Particles.) John Cubbon, drawn, Thomas Taubman, entered. 10/6.
Note— That the said Thomas Taubman is entered by consent of the said John, at the said John his request.
Jurby, 1599. (Intacke.) Dollin Moughtin, drawn, William Moughtin, fil cum ceter, entered. 2/3.
Note— Entered (his father being dead), as due unto him by descent, as the Setting Quest informeth.
Malew. St Lupi. (Greneby.) Thomas Moore, drawn, Christopher Shimmin, cu ceter, entered. 12/3.
Note— Thomas Moore, by delyvere of the strawe in Court, acknowledgeth it sould to Christopher Shimmin for ever.
St Conchan, 1601. (Howstrake). John Lucas, drawn, James Banks, entered. p urn tut. 53/4.
Note— James Banks is entered and John Lucas drawn by consent of Wm. Lucas, to whom the right belonged after the decease of the said John Lucas.
Corna Beg. (Liber Vastarum, 1659.) Will Clucas, drawn, John Bridson, cu cetris, entered. 14/6.
Note— Paule Breidson having bought this land from the said Clucas, he, the said Paule, hath now resigned his interest unto the said John Breidson by a Bargain of Sayle acknowledged before ye Governor and other officers.
So late as 1688 it was decided by the Governor, Deemsters and Keys, that a sale of lands by the delivery of a straw, though not perfected by a sale, was in the case of Fargher v. Kewley, held good as against a subsequent purchaser for value, whose deed had been duly confirmed.
Parochi Jurby, 1601. (Intacks). Liber Vastarum. Patrick Christian and Christian Brewe, 6/. - Sir John Clarke, 1/2. - cu ceter.
Patrick Christian and his wife Christian hath by the delivery of a strawe in Court acknowledged to have sold [5] it away for ever to Sir John Clarke and his assigns. The sayd wife was privatlie examined in Court whether she consented to the sayle by compulsion of her husband and she voluntarilie confessed it was of her own free will and by noe constraint, in presence of the Court and the Setting Quest.
INSTANCES OF ENTRIES OF LIFE ESTATES.
Liber Vastarum, 1588. Malew. (Parochi Lupi). Commissary, Frances Clucas.
Note— The said Frances shall quietly suffer Margaret Clucas to occupie the one half during her natural life, according to the recoverie thereof had in the Court Rolls. 23/.
Liber Vastarum, 1595. Kirk German. (Arrodye). Thos. Gell, drawn, John McCannell, junr., and Issabell Stevenson, entered.
Note- That the said Issabell is entered during her widowhood, and hath no further right. 16/4.
By this Act, [note 8] which is still unrepealed, it is unlawful by any device to take a higher rate of interest than six per cent on any contract, mortgage, &c. The notion prevailing in the Island that it is lawful to add interest to principal upon an assignment, and to charge the interest on the gross amount without any new engagement to that effect on the part of the mortgagor, has been decided in several cases to be unlawful. One of these cases was Davidson v. Quayle and others. On the hearing of the case before the Chancery Court and the Privy Council, in order to prove the practice before the Act of Settlement to be as argued by the complainant, he produced and referred to a collection of copies of every mortgage entered on the records of the Island prior to 1703. [note 9]
March, 1846. In Cowin v. Craine the will of the Rev Patrick Kneale, which was in his own handwriting and found amongst his papers, but which was neither dated, signed nor witnessed, was received as a valid will. As a noncupative will it was not proved as required by the Statute. As a written will it was complete.
Christian v. Cowell. Lib Cancellarius, 1645, p. 35, xxx, Martic 1648.
Sir Charles Quoole, Clerke for and in ye behalf of David Christian, his sone in law, complayneth against William Cowle, of Kirk Bride, and Margaret Gouldsmith also Cowle, wife of ye said William, for ye wrongfull detanyage from ye said David of a certain tenement and intackes thereunto belonginge, situate in ye said parish, which is comen and fallen due by right of descent unto him upon ye deatb and decease of his father, being of ye rent of £ii xix/v, and of a certain close in Trint lez-ayre of ye rent of v/iii appeared, and notwithstanding yt it appears that ye complainant, David Christian, his father did by his last will bequeath unto his wife, the said Margaret Gouldsmith his eldest son and his tenement until ye child came to ye age of 21 years. And forasmuch as she was to have half of ye said tenement by ye law of ye country during ye time of her widowhoode notwithstanding ye said will, yet in regard of her marriage to ye defendant Cowle, after her first husband's decease, she hath lost that her widow right. And forasmuch also as by and upon her contract with ye said latter husband she hath made all her estate in goods whatsoever unto him, and so disabled herself for having any power to leave or bequeath anything to ye children of ye first husband by whom she got ye most of yt her estate, and for yt shee and her said husband Cowle refused to pay any of ye fine due to his Lo/d by ye last composicion made for ye said tenant, notwithstandinge yt they were several times demanded ye same soe that ye said fine was wholly paid out of ye said child's goods. And forasmuch further that by a late Statute made and enacted in A.D. 1645 [note 10], it is declared yt any estate in lands, milnes, etc., that by right of descent come to any person within this Isle, yt ye same shall come and fall ymediately after ye death and decease of such person unto his eldest son, or in default [7] thereof, to his eldest daughter, or for want of either of them to his next of kin and to no other manner of person or persons whatsoever, etc., as by ye said Statute more at large apeareth whereby this Court conceiveth yt it is concluded that children of xiii years of age at or after ye decease of their father, ought to enter upon their estates and tenements, and yt any will to the contrary thereof made is not effectual, exceptinge only there be not an assignment, guift, or grant for or upon some just cause or reason made by any such person, and ye same be first made known to ye Captaine and other officers, as is in ye said Statute nominated and by them approved and allowed of as by ye said Statute alsoe appeareth. This Court, therefore, by force and virtue of ye said Statute, upon ye reasons afformentioned, are of opinion and do order and decree that ye complainant, David Christian, shall enter upon ye estate and tenement aforesaid falling by right of descent unto him by and upon ye death and decease of his said father, being now of ye age of 14 years, notwithstanding the will so made as aforesaid. The complainant enter thereupon at Michaelmas next, entringe upon ye grasse in ye meantime according to law.
Garrett v. Callister. Lib Plitor, 1666. Finloe Quarke on behalf of Patoone Garrett v. W. Callister, for recovery of lntack of 1/11½ rent in Lezayre. Verdict for Plaintiff. Traversed by defendant. Judgement of Keys, 29th July, 1670.
We, as many of ye 24 Keys, being this day convened by virtue of the Deputy Governor's order touchinge a difference of a parcell Intache land of iii/ of rent dependinge betwixt Patoone Garrett and W. Callister. We find in ye setting Booke for ye year 1604 yt Robert Kinred who was ye first lnclosure of ye said rent and was then drawen and his sone Gilbert entered as right tenant who we apprehend and are of oppinion was ye first descent, and in the Settinge Booke for ye year 1620 ye said Gilbert was drawn and his daughter Kath Kinred and Dan Garrett her husband was entered who had no other child save only ye said Kath who was ye second descent and dyed intestate ye Court decreed her Children her administrators, and two of ye said administrators sould ye parcel unto ye said Callister. Therefore wee give for our oppinion (ye said parcell of lntacke being chattels), yt ye said two administrators Ewan and Wm. Garrett might sell and dispose of ye said parcell unto ye said Callister, having not passed three descents, accordinge as ye costume of ye country requires, and ye validity of ye lease we leave to our Honorable Lord.
Kneale v. Kneale. Lib Plitor 1722. Christian Kneale v. Thomas Kneale, Santon. For recovery of a parcel of [8] Intack land, due to plaintiff on the death of his father, of 2/6 rent, 7th January, l723. Verdict— Traverse Jury's verdict affirming ditto, September, 1723. Keys judgment, 15th Jan., 1724.
We, the Keys of Man, now assembled, having naturally weighed and considered the verdict of a Sheading and Traverse jury for and concerning the right and title to a parcel of Intack Land in the parish of Kirk St Ann, of 2/6 yearly Lord's rent, actioned for by Christopher Kneale, plaintiff, and now in the possession of his brother, Thomas Kneale, defendant, doe find by the rental, A. D. 1603, that one Donald Kneale was the first of the name entered for the same, from whom John Kneale, father of the plaintiff and defendant, was only the third descent, which said John, in A. D. 1770-1713, willed it to the defendant, which by the laws and customs of the Isle he had a right to do, being Intack, and, therefore, we say that the juries have proceeded legally by leaving ye defendant in possession. 12th July, 1737, re-heard by the Keys and affirmed.
Cottiman v. Cooper. Common Law Book, 1746. Eliz. Cottiman, als Cort, als Cooper, for and in behalf of herself and of her children Thomas and Jane Cottiman, Elizabeth and Esther Cort, complaineth against William Cooper, sen., and William Cooper, jun., and Philip Moor, jun., for that the defendants wrongfully and unjustly detain from the plaintiffs tbe quarter part of certain cottages and Intacks in Peel town with the houses thereon erected, of 8d annual rent or thereabouts, as will be made to appear. Damages £100. The defendants, William Cooper, sen., and William Cooper, jun., appeared for themselves, and W. Curghey appeared for Phill Moor, jun. Verdict 8th Oct., 1747. Enquest File, 1747. No. 47.
We whose names ensue being a Sheading jury of Glenfaba Sheading, we do find that the premises or concerns actioned for have continued in the undisturbed possession of the Bridsons' first and the Coopers' successively, for a long tract of time, in the nature of the rest of their holding or tenement (which is indisputedly inheritance) as appear by several entryes for several generations, and that in a lineal and hereditary descent (in our apprehension), constituting heirship, and since that nothing material has been produced to us to show that the premises were ever inventoryed as chattels in any succession of posterity to give the least pretence of the denomination of children's goods in all that time and succession of gener- [9] ations, during which there were other children formerly as well as the indisputable heirs to claim, if they could pretend a right to ye premises, for all which reasons determining us according to our judgement, capacity, and impartial consideration of the case we do say that the Plaintiffs' recover nothing, and this we give for our answer.
On Page 11 will be found "Analysis of the Law of Descent".
Note 1: The decision of the Chancery Court was afterwards affirmed on appeal to Her Majesty in Council. The right of the tenants to sand was also in question in the rent, and was decided in favour of the tenants. See pages 11 and 12.
Note 2: The Isle of Man Disafforesting Act, 1860, (Revised Statutes, vol. iii, p. 78). Under sec. 10 of the Act, the Commissioners under the Act, were directed to make enquiry as to certain rights of digging and taking stone from the uninclosed forest, or some part thereof, claimed by divers of Her Majesty's subjects for their own or neighbours' use. The decision of the Commissioners was given in a Memorandum dated 13th September, 1861. It was to this effect — That every occupier, for the time being, of any land within the Manor of Man,— (that is, the lands called the Lord's lands),— was then entitled to take stone from any open quarry upon the uninclosed lands ofthe Forest, for the purpose of making or repairing the Lord's Wall, or the fences or buildings upon the land by him occupied within the Manor. The Lord's Wall is the boundary wall between the enclosed lands and the uninclosed lands of the Forest. It probably included, also, the boundary wall between the enclosed or demesne lands of the Lord, and those of the Manorial tenants, or others, and that between the Lord's lands and the lands of the other Baronies). This decision was subject to an Appeal to Her Majesty in Council, but no appeal was made. The first award is dated 13th March, 1865.
Note 4: Customary Laws, No. 10. (Revised Statutes, vo1. I, p. 5.)
Note 5: £10 4s 5d to the Southside Moars; not to each Moar.
Note 6: Possibly 2d for each Quarterland; hardly from each tenant.
Note 7: Probably the case referred to in the text as "Camaish's case" is an error for "Cubbon's case," (John Cubbon v. Margaret Cubbon), reported in Adv. N.B. 345. In this case the Plaintiff, who was the heir-at-law of William Cubbon, deceased, disputed the claim of the defendant, the widow of deceased, to dower in his real estate, she and her husband having been by the Ecclesiastical Caurt divorced a mensa et thoro by reason of her adultery. It was declared by a jury on the trial of an issue, that the defendant had not forfeited her rights of dower, and such
verdict was affirmed by the House of Keys.
Note 8: The Act commonly called the Usury Act, (A.D. 1691). Revised Statutes, vol. I, p. 144.
Note 9: The practice referred to was applicable, it is believed, to pure Mortgages— that is, Mortgages not containing any Bond or personal covenant on the part of the Mortgagee, to pay the amount due under the Mortgage. It was considered that any such practice could not apply to a Bond or Covenant to pay the principal money and interest only.