A few of snippets I came across on-line relating to Ecclesiastical Court records:
William Kissack was brought before the Conistory Court of the Bishop of Sodor and Man (on the Isle of Man) accused of incest and adultery with Ann, his wife's sister's daughter (his niece by marriage). He admitted to his sins and begged the forgiveness of the court.
There are several instances of the Kissack family in the records of the Consistory of Sodor and Man. A family argument saw Isabel Kissack accused of being a scold, having behaved 'in a base and bawdy manner' to Alice Kissack, calling her 'the wife of him that had the stone privy member'.
1882, the papers report: "Petty Session's Court - On Saturday thre eyoung men named John Kissack, Edward Kissack and John Cottier, from Foxdale, where brought before his Worship the High-Baliff, charged with being drunk and disorderly on the previous night. One of the Kissacks was find 18s. The other two were afterwards brought to the magistrates for attemptig to ressue a prisoner, and were fined 5s each and costs. Then the same John Kissack appeared in another suit singly to answer the charge of assulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, and fined 10s and costs.
In March 1860, the House of Key sat:
HOUSE OF KEYS.
Castletown, Tuesday, 20th March.
Catherine Kissack, Appellant v Wiilliam Kissack, Respondent.
Mr. Gell for appellant; Messrs. Callow and Corlett for respondent.
The respondent, as heir at law of his brother Thomas Kissack, deceased, filed his action at law against the appellant to recover the one moiety of certain lands in the parish of Jurby, viz: Loughan y Vondy, Lheaney voar Ballaghaie, and part of the Quarterland of Ballachurry. On the trial of the action on 13th July, 1859, the jury returned as their verdict, that the plaintiff do recover the lands actioned for, but without costs. From this verdict the appellant now appealed.
The counsel for the respondent now admitted, as they had done on the trial of the case at law, that the plaintiff was only entitled to one quarter of the lands in dispute and wished the jury to find a verdict to that effect, but the jury refused to vary the verdict which they had given. The respondents’ title as heir at law of his brother Thomas Kissack was set forth as follows: William Kissack (1) and Jane Kissack alias Quayle had issue six or seven sons, one of whom William Kissack (2) married Catherine Kissack alias Wade, the appellant, but had no issue; another son Nicholas Kissack (now deceased) married Catherine Kissack, and had issue two sons -1. Thomas Kissack the elder, who left the Island some years ago, and was alleged to have died in America unmarried, to whose estate administration has been granted by the Ecclesiastical Court of the Island 2. William Kissack (3) the plaintiff at law, but now the respondent
It appeared that Nicholas Christian and Margaret his wife, by deed dated 7th January, 1785, settled upon Jane Quayle, their cousin, the grantor Margaret Christian’s moiety of her purchased lands, situate in Jurby, called Loughan y Vondy, Lheaney voar Ballaghaie, and part of Ballachurry, subject however to the life interest of both the grantors. Jane Quayle the grantee married William Kissack, and is still living. Nicholas Christian by his will, dated 28th October 1787, devised his half of the lands unto Jane Kissack alias Quayle, the grantee in the former deed, whom he also appointed his sole executrix under the above deed and will, Jane Kissack became absolutely entitled to the whole of the lands. William Kissack (1) and Jane Kissack alias Quayle, by deed dated 12th May, 1826 settled upon their son William Kissack (2), (who was their eldest son and heir apparent) his heirs and assigns, all their whole estate and concern of houses and Jands situate in the parish of Jurby, as well quarterland as intack, one half thereof to be possessed on the decease of the first of the grantors and the other moiety thereof upon the decease of the survivor the grantee paying £200 to the survivor of the grantors, Jane Kissack, one of the grantors is still living, and is therefore in possession of one moiety of the lands, and Catherine Kissack, the appellant, as widow of William Kissack (2) is entitled to a widow right in his half of the lands, or in one quarter of the whole lands, so that the respondent, even if he established himself to be heir at law, could merely claim one quarter of the lands in dispute, Willian Kissack (2) having obtained possession of his moiety of the lands, farmed them jointly with his mother, Jane Kissack alias Quayle; the lands were subsequently divided by the Setting Quest of the Bishop's Land, and by lease dated 31st May 1845, to which the appellant and her son John Wade, the residuary legatees of the lessor are entitled, the mother Jane Kissack alias Quayle let to William Kissack (2) then being in possession of the whole of the lands, subject to his mother’s interest in one moiety thereof, executed, with a power of revocation, a sale in trust dated 1st January, 1849, to John Corlett, Berrag (the wife of William Kissack (2) being no party to the deed) of that, and those estates, lands, and premises, in the parish of Jurby, called and commonly known by the name of the Loughan, describing the same by boundaries, in trust, for the grantor and Catherine his wife until the death of the survivor, and upon the decease of the survivor, for Joha Wade, son of the grantor's wife Catherine, by a former marriage, for life, subject however toa rent charge of £5 to Esther Kissack for 20 years, and then to the heir-at-law of the grantor. The grantor William Kissack (2) died in October or November 1849, his will was proved 30th May, 1850, and his widow, Catherine Kissack alias Wade, was the defendant in the action, but is now the appellant.
The declaration, depositions, deeds, and administration of Thomas Kissack’s estate were produced and read.
Mr. Gell objected 1st, that no evidence had been given to shew that Nicholas Kissack was the second son of William Kissack (1), and Jane. his wife, as they had six or seven sons, or that if Nicholas Kissack was living, he would be the heir of William Kissack (2) ; 2nd, that the death of Thomas Kissack, the respondents brother, and that he died without issue had not been clearly and legally proved; and that, therefore, the respondent could not claim as the heir-at-law of Thomas Kissack. The production of the letters of administration was the only evidence of his death that was set forward, but that even admitting his death, that evidence would not warrant the House in concluding that he died without issue; the respondent had not brought forward one member of the family to give evidence on this point, which he was in law bound to do. Saunders on Pleading, p. 1006, (2) Phillips on Evidence, p. 285; 3rdly, that even supposing the respondent had proved his title, the verdict of the jury was wrong, as respondent could only obtain one quarter of the land.
Messrs. Callow and Corlett replied that sufficient evidence had been adduced to enable the House to overrule these objections and read over those portions of the evidence relative to this portion of the case. They admitted that William Kissack, (1) and his wife had six or seven children, but argued that it was not proved that all these children were sons; and contended that the fact of Thomas Kissack the respondent’s brother having left the Island and not having been heard of for upwards of 20 years, coupled with the production of letters of administration to his estate, granted by the Ecclesiastical Court of this Island, was sufficient proof of the death of Thomas Kissack. As to the third objection, they contended that inasmuch as the jury persisted in giving the verdict which they had done, although requested to vary it, that it was not any fault of the respondent.
The House overruled both objections.
The case was then heard on its merits, and the question raised was, whether under the deed from William Kissack (2) to John Corlett, Berrag, dated 1st July, 1849, the whole of the lands of the grantor passed under the designation of the “Loughan”.
The counsel on both sides commented at some length upon the evidence given on the trial of the action at law, as this question solely depended on the evidence and documents produced.
The House reversed the verdict of the Common Law Jury, without costs.
In December 1900....
Affairs of Kissack Bros., Crosby.
CLAIMS BY RELATIVES.
This matter came before Deemster Kneen gain, by adjournment, on Monday. Mr Lay said there were claims of Thomas Kissack and Margaret Kissack against the estate which he would like to have disposed of. Deemster Kneen: There were certain claims in preference?
Mr Lay: Yes, since the last Court the trustee has endeavored to come to an arrangement with them, but has failed. The debtor himself is the principal difficulty. His Honour said there were a number of claims amounting to considerable sums, and he would prefer that a jury should say whether they were to be allowed in preference out of the estate, or not. Mr lay said that Margeret Kissack had brought a suit against the trustee (Mr F. W. Briscoe) for possession of certain articles of furniture, and Thomas Kissack, father, had also brought a suit for other article/ He had written to their advocates urging them to bring the matter on, but he understood they had not been instructed by their client. His Honour advised Mr Lay to bring a petition to have the suits either brought on or abandoned. Mr Hughes-Games understood that his Honour would not adjudicate on these claims without a jury. After some discussion his Honour decided to dismiss the claims in bankruptcy, without prejudice to the right of the parties to recover if they could at common law. He said, however, that he expected them to go on at the Common Law Court in February. He had no doubt a!) the creditors understood that the family were working together for the common good, and they would be wise to come to come arrangement with the trustee. The bankrupt, Wilfred Kissack, began to complain to the Deemster of what he termed irregular proceedings of the trustee in dealing with the property of the estate. His Honour said the bankrupt, if he had any complaint to make, must make it in proper form through his advocate.