Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1054

at different times on the said charge. The appellant was regularly served with such warrants, the last of which was dated the 7th of March 1783, to attend on Monday then next, at one of the clock in the afternoon, when the said charge was allowed by the Deputy Remembrancer, the appellant having neglected to attend the warrant, nor did he send any excuse for not attending.

The respondent, on the 25th February 1783, served the appellant with the Deputy's warrant, to bring in his discharge on Friday then next. And the respondent also served the appellant with several other warrants for the same purpose; but he neither brought in his discharge, in obedience to such warrants, nor sent any excuse for not bringing it in. Wherefore the respondent left a discharge, on behalf of the appellant, for monies paid by him, which, after deducting £150 advanced to him on account, amounted to £644 18s. 9d. and the respondent also allowed the appellant £172 13s. 4d. for his chaise-hire and expences to Hampshire, receiving rents, and for his time and trouble therein, and for his fees and disbursements; which two sums made £817 12s. 1d.

The Deputy, on the 10th March 1783, prepared a draft of his report, and warrants were taken out and regularly served on the appellant, and notice given him to attend the Deputy on settling the draft of his report, which the appellant neglected to attend. On Thursday the 8th of May 1783, a warrant was issued by the Deputy for the attendance of the parties at the signing of his report, on Wednesday 14th of May 1783, when the appellant attended to stop the signing the report, and then brought in a discharge, consisting of the above articles, amounting to £817 12s. 1d. and also claiming a further balance of £210 10s. paid Lady Stuart, and the sum of £500 for business done by the appellant for Sophia Stuart.

[422] The appellant served the respondent with warrants to proceed on the last mentioned discharge, which were attended on both sides; but the Deputy disallowed the charge of £210 10s. and also the charge of £500, the appellant producing no evidence in support of such charges, although he was called upon to do so, the said charges not being admitted by the respondent.

The Deputy made his report, dated 26th May 1783, and thereby certified, that he had taken an account of the clear monies received by the appellant, in respect of the annuity, amounting to £1659 17s. 5d. the particulars whereof were set forth in the first schedule to his report; and that he had also taken an account of the monies due to the appellant, on account of his disbursements, amounting to £817 12s. 1d. the particulars whereof were set forth in the second schedule to his report which sum of £817 12s. 1d. being deducted from the sum of £1659 17s. 5d. there remained due to the respondent on balance £842 5s. 4d.

The appellant moved the Court of Exchequer, on the 30th of May 1783, that it might be referred back to the Deputy Remembrancer, to review his report; and that the appellant might be permitted to attend him on his discharge already brought in, and to prove the same; but the court, on hearing of counsel for the appellant and respondent, disallowed the appellant's motion.

The Barons, on the 30th of May 1783, upon reading the former decree and report, ordered and decreed, that the said report should be confirmed; and that the appellant should forthwith pay to the respondent the sum of £842 5s. 4d. reported due to him; and likewise his costs of the suit, to be taxed by the Deputy Remembrancer. From this last decree the appellant appealed; but no case was printed on his part, nor did any counsel appear for him on the day appointed for hearing the appeal. On the part of the respondent it was insisted (F. Burton, J. Lloyd), that the appellant produced no evidence in support of his claim to the £500 for his bill of fees and disbursements, or the £210 10s. for monies alledged to be paid by him to Lady Stuart, by the direction of the respondent, although he was called upon so to do; and the same were not admitted by the respondent. That by the established practice of the Court of Exchequer, if a defendant conceives himself aggrieved by the Deputy Remembrancer's report, he is to file exceptions thereto, and such exceptions are set down to be argued in court; but if no exceptions are taken to the report, the court, of course, confirm the report, and thereupon give the proper directions. That no exceptions having in fact been filed by the appellant to the report now complained of, it was regularly confirmed, and the order of the 30th of May 1783, made thereon; the appellant (instead of producing any evidence in support of his discharge, or after-