Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/312

give any further allowance out of the said new impost than a year for payment, or 10l. per cent. discount for prompt payment; and that Parliament having given so great allowance to the merchant out of the new impost, did not intend by referring to the rules in the book of rates, to give further allowance of 5l. per cent. beyond the 10l. per cent. but that the rules were referred to for the methods of collecting the new duty, and that this was taken to be the intent of the Parliament, ever since giving the new impost; and constantly and readily paid by all merchants, and never doubted till appellant made the question; and that to determine it otherwise now, would draw back from her Majesty above 100,000l. in lieu of what had been so paid in the last reign, and be a vast loss to her Majesty in her customs for the future. (T. Powys. Sim. Harcourt.)

Die Mercurii, 15 Decembris, 1703. After hearing council this day at the bar to argue the errors assigned in this cause, it was adjudged by the Lords, that the judgment given in the Court of Exchequer, and the affirmance thereof in the Exchequer Chamber, should be affirmed, and that the writ of error, and transcript thereof, be remitted to the court of Exchequer, to the end execution might be had thereupon, as if no such writ of error had been brought.—Lords Journ. vol. xvii. P. 349.

The appellant made this case: That Sir William Williams, 25th June, 1695, made his will, and appellant and John Evans executors, and that Viscountess Dowager Bulkley had secured 2600l. to Sir William, by mortgage, dated 18th September, 1695, and that Sir William owed appellant 2000l. with interest by his bond, dated 19th December, 1696, besides 300l. with interest, secured by Sir William's bond and judgment, to Nicholas Hall, in trust for appellant, and died in December, 1696, and that Evans alone proved his will; and that a bill in Chancery was exhibited in May, 1699, by Lady Bulkley against Evans and appellant, to be relieved against proceedings at law for the money she owed Sir William; and she, to obtain an injunction, brought 1392l. into Court; and that Evans proposed that out of that 1392l. and the first money to be received by Sir William's personal estate, he Evans should be paid 1500l. and upwards; 742l. 7s. 10d. whereof be pretended he had paid to Sir William's creditors, and expended the remainder in suits relating to the executorship, and that he would make such his payments and disbursements appear by sufficient vouchers, which should enable appellant to account in case Evans should hapen to die; and that upon those terms appellant was prevailed on to sign and seal a writing to the effect aforesaid, dated 6th May, 1699, which was prepared and engrossed during the time of a visit made by appellant to Evans, at his lodgings at Barnet; but that Evans during his life could never be prevailed upon to give appellant copies of his receipts or vouchers; but died in January, 1699, having made his will, and Beata his wife executrix, who afterwards intermarried with respondent John; and that they exhibited their bill in Chancery for performance of that [300] agreement, and to have satisfaction for 1500l. more pretended to be due to him by Sir William's bond: And that appellant by his answer insisted that the agreement was gained upon the terms aforesaid, which never were performed: And that appellant had a right by law to retain the assets of his testator, towards satisfaction of the debt due to himself in the first place; and that the cause was speeded beyond the ordinary rules, and an order obtained for publication before appellant had compleated his examination; and that the Master of the Rolls on Tuesday, 3d November, 1702, on the usual affidavit, ordered that publication should be enlarged till Friday, which appellant's clerk was forthwith to have personal notice; pursuant to which order, Thomas Price, Esq.; and