Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/246

11s. 1d. per contra, debtor 739l. 11s. 6¼d. and that at the time of making out said accounts, Robert Morris was well and abroad, and might reasonably be supposed to have been present there-at, living near a month after the date of the accounts current, though he died before they were delivered to respondent, Mary's friends; and that in such accounts, as to the value of the stock in trade, and the state thereof at her husband's death, respondents acquiesced, though there were therein several great omissions to their prejudice; and that the surviving partners encouraged the partnership creditors to arrest respondent, Mary, in several actions for great sums of monies, amounting to 6000l. or upwards; to which she pleaded plene administravit, and brought her bill in Chancery, but never, proceeded farther than bill and answer, as the plaintiffs at law let their suits fall, and threatened to sue respondent, John, as heir to his father: And that thereupon Edward Maplesden, Esq. grandfather and guardian to respondent, John, brought a bill in Chancery to have the partnership books produced, and the two accounts before mentioned proved, and that the account current might stand as a stated account, and respondents not to be compelled to pay farther [161] than according to that account: And appellants exhibited their cross bill against respondents and others, praying that the defendants therein should pay their proportions of monies appellants pretended to have paid, and were decreed to pay an account of the partnership; and that respondents, 5th December, 1695, answered to the effect stated by appellant, and examined witnesses in their cause; and on the hearing before the Master of the Rolls, he declared respondents ought not to be charged farther than by the account delivered by the surviving partners; and decreed that account to stand as a stated account, with liberty to the representatives of any of the partners to falsify and surcharge; and that in as much as appellant, Margaret, had not given notice to discontinue the partnership, she ought to be considered to have continued it, which would appear by the books which appellants did not produce at the hearing, though served with an order for the purpose; wherefore appellant, Margaret, was ordered to be examined on interrogatories before a Master, for the discovery of the books, and other matters relating to the partnership; and that a general account was decreed in appellant's cause, to the end of the partnership trade between the representatives of the partners, exclusive of respondents, and costs reserved till after the account taken: And that appellants, 15th March, 1696, petitioned the late Lord Chancellor for a re-hearing, which was granted; and thereupon his Lordship confirmed the former decree, and ordered the appellants to produce on oath all books relating to the partnership, in their custody or power; and the master to look into them, & examine whether appellant, Margaret, carried on the trade, and how the books came to be produced at the re-hearing and not before: And that thereupon respondent, John, exhibited before the Master three several sets of interrogatories against appellants, to which the appellants, after great delay, put in improbable and unsatisfactory answers, and had not hitherto produced the debt book, nor any other partnership book, since Godfrey Harrison's death; wearied with which delays, respondent, John Harrison, ordered his solicitor to proceed upon the account before the Master, and the Master, 21st October, 1699, made a special report, to which the respondents took exceptions, and petitioned the late Lord Chancellor for a day; which being granted, appellants served the respondents [162] with an other order from the said Lord Chancellor, to re-hear the causes when the exceptions came on; and 15th December, 1699, upon the re-hearing the said causes, with the exceptions, and special matter of the said report, the appellant's petition was dismissed with costs, and one of respondents exceptions allowed, and the matter sent back to the Master; but the court did not vary the former decree: And, 20th November last, the Master made his farther report, to which respondents excepted, and it being ready to come on to be argued; appellants, for delay, served respondents with an order to re-hear; which third re-hearing was suspended by the appeal to the Lords: And respondents insisted the decrees ought to be confirmed with costs, for all these vexatious and dilatory proceedings, and that the plain meaning of the agreement was to entitle the executor of the partner dying, to an account within a month after, while matters were fresh in memory, that the executor might not be involved in disputes with the surviving partners, and the executor or administrator might recently know the