Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1144

respondents, and against John Mitford, Esquire, the administrator of William Mitford, one of the former six clerks, deceased, and who was a party to the agreement before mentioned; and he thereby stated, (among other things,) that, in the year 1750, he was articled to Mr. Robert Chester, then one of the sworn clerks of the said Court of Chancery, to whom 300 guineas were paid as a clerk's fee; and that he duly served a clerkship of five years, agreeable to law, and the established usage of the office; that some short time after the expiration of the said articles, in the year 1755, the appellant was, on the resignation of Mr. Francis Newdigate, for certain good considerations, duly admitted by the then Master of the Rolls, into the office of one of the sworn clerks of the court, in the division of Isaac Whittington, Esquire, then one of the six clerks; and that, upon that occasion, he took the usual oath of office; that thereupon Mr. Whittington and the appellant became entitled to certain fees and profits, in right of their several offices, which were separate and distinct, and independent of each other; and that such fees were payable by the suitor or client; and he also, by his bill, further stated, that there were certain duties and attendances due from, and necessary to be performed by the six clerks and the sworn clerks, in the due performance of which each was interested, as well as the suitor or client; and that each six clerk took an oath of office to advise the particular suitor by whom he was retained; and that he was also, by the course and divers ordinances of the court, bound to maintain one or more deputy or deputies, for transacting, in his absence, the separate and distinct duties of his own particular division: and he also further stated, that at the time the appellant was induced to become one of the sworn clerks, the said Mr. Whittington, in whose division he was, duly attended his office, and constantly employed a deputy to transact, in his absence, the business of his own particular division, without intermixing the records of that division with those of any other division; which deputy was also one of the sworn clerks in the said office and that the said Mr. Whittington, from the first day of Easter term 1755, to his death in 1773, received from the appellant a composition in lieu and satis-[555]-faction of all fees payable to him, as sworn clerk, from such suitors of the court as were the clients as well of him as of the appellant, without any dispute or difference between them; and that after Mr. Whittington's death, the respondent William Luther Sewell succeeded him in his said office in that division wherein the appellant was, and renewed with the appellant the same mode of composition for the like fees of office; and that such yearly composition, at first, was thirty guineas a year, payable half yearly, on the 1st day of Easter term and 1st day of Michaelmas term; but that the appellant afterwards, without any application from the respondent William Luther Sewell, increased the composition to forty guineas a year, payable in like manner; and that the appellant, for ten years last past and upwards, had accordingly paid to Mr. Sewell, half yearly, the said composition of forty guineas, on the 1st day of Easter terra, and 1st day of Michaelmas term, in every year, down to the 1st day of Michaelmas term 1785; and that the appellant had, on the 1st day of Easter term 1786, tendered to the respondent William Luther Sewell, the like half yearly payment, and had frequently since tendered the like subsequent half yearly payment, as the same became due; but that he had refused to receive the same.

And the appellant, by his bill, further stated, that he had in like manner paid to Robert Woodford, Esquire, formerly a six clerk, a composition of four guineas a year, payable half yearly, on the 1st day of Easter and Michaelmas terms, for the fees of office payable to the said Robert Woodford in his division, from such suitors as were the clients as well of the appellant as of Mr. Woodford, as his turnover six clerk, (that is, in such suits where the bill was filed in Mr. Whittington's division, and where the appellant filed the answer of a defendant, according to an ancient practice of the court, that where a bill is filed in the division of one six clerk, and a sixty clerk in the same division puts in the answer thereto, such sixty clerk is obliged to have recourse to a six clerk of another division, for the purpose of putting in such answer; and in that case the six clerk to whom recourse is so had, is called the Turnover six clerk,) and that he paid the same to the said Mr. Woodford, down to the year 1780, when, on his death, the respondent John Kipling succeeded him as six clerk, and the appellant then renewed the like composition with the said respondent John Kipling, and paid the same regularly until the 1st day of Easter term 1785; and that he