Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/368

that Mr. Stephens, the new Deputy Remembrancer, by his report allowed the 8163l. 7s. 7d. and the six new items, amounting to 544l. 16s. 11d. to respondents, without stating any account in the course of agency, according to the directions of the decree: And that upon exceptions taken to this report by appellants, the Court, 10th February, 1708, confirmed it as to the 8163l. 7s. 7d. and directed an issue at law to try whether any part of the 544l. 16s. 11d. was included in the paper signed by Mr. Eden, the former Remembrancer; but refused to direct any issue to try whe-[418]-ther the sums charged as paid the officers, were due to them, or not: And appellants stated the single question on this appeal to be, whether the Remembrancer had in this report pursued the last decree? and if not, whether respondents should not account with appellants in the course of agency? without which, they contended, it would be impossible to make the accounts clear and even, according to the plain words of the articles; and insisted it was evident upon the face of the report, that he had not so accounted; because, by the first decree, the Court directed the account to be stated according to the articles, and the course of agency; and the last decree, on which the report should be founded, directed respondents to account in the same manner: And further, because whatever payments were made to any officer above his full pay, were advanced by the agent at his own peril, (unless by the Colonel's directions); and it was utterly impossible to distinguish such over-payments, until the accounts for each company should be stated in the course of agency. And instanced Capt. Cooke's account, which by Mr. Pearse's answer and items in the schedules would stand thus:

[419] And so of several other sums in like manner, which appellants insisted ought to have been paid to other companies, whose clearings the Colonel was forced to pay out of his own pocket; so that if the accounts were duly taken, he would appear indebted to the Colonel above 1000l. And insisted further, that this report most apparently injured appellants; and that the notion on which it was founded, viz. That all payments made by the agent to the officers, whether due to them or not, should be a good discharge against the Colonel, was unreasonable; for so every steward might pay half his master's servants double their wages, and leave the other half unpaid, and yet make up a good account of his stewardship; and that if such a precedent should prevail, it would put the whole army under the power of an agent, to pay them as unequally as he pleased. (William Ettric.)

The respondents on the other hand shewed: That Pearse, the agent, had been turned out by Colonel Beaumont in August, 1619, without receiving any satisfaction for his wages: And that of the 8163l. 7s. 7d. proved by Pearse, the Colonel, only objected to four items, and at his request Pearse again produced his vouchers for those sums, and the Colonel was then satisfied, and Mr. Eden certified the same accordingly; and thereupon the Colonel, during Pearse's life, never proceeded