Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/396

very capable of detecting any errors in such accounts, if there had been any. That the £4341 14s. 11d. was the balance of a settled account, and that it was considered as such by the appellant himself, during a period of eighteen months; and that the said £4341 14s. 11d. together with all interest due thereon, was then justly due and owing from the appellant to the respondent, after having allowed all proper credit to the appellant on every account whatsoever, and after having fairly and honestly accounted to the appellant, for all sums of money ever received by the respondent for the appellant, or for his use; and the respondent insisted on the settled account and mortgage, in bar of any account between the appellant and the respondent, antecedent to the 31st of December 1762, and hoped he should have the same benefit, as if he had pleaded the same.

The appellant took the same thirty-eight exceptions to this last answer, and also six additional exceptions, all which came on to be argued on the 18th of July 1770, when the Court having [7] heard the 3d, 4th, 5th, 7th, 33d, and 34th exceptions argued, ordered the same to be over-ruled with 40s. costs; and on the 19th of July, the Court having heard the 5th and 6th additional exceptions argued, ordered the same to be over-ruled with 40s, costs; and by another order of the same day, in shewing cause upon the merits, it was ordered that the injunction should be absolutely dissolved.

From these several orders the appellant thought proper to appeal; and as to the over-ruling of the exceptions it was contended (E. Thurlow, C. Ambler, J. Madocks), that the respondent had not discovered by his answer, the receipt of many large sums of money which were particularly pointed out by the bill, and the schedules annexed to it, to have been received by him; nor discovered what sums of money he drew out of the hands of the appellant's banker, or otherwise received on his account, and paid into his own bankers, and placed to his own account; nor had he produced his cash account to the appellant; and without doubt, these inquiries made by the bill ought to be answered, if they were relevant to the case. That they were so relevant was manifest, because the general question between the parties was, how much, if any thing, was justly due to the respondent from the appellant, upon the balance of all accounts between them; the mortgage having been given (as alleged by the bill) subject to such account, and being to stand as a security for what should be found justly due; and if upon taking the account nothing should appear to be due, or the balance should turn out in favour of the appellant, then the mortgage ought to be delivered up; so that the taking a general account between the parties was the object of the suit. And to the taking this account, it was essential to bare a discovery of all sums received and paid by the respondent for the appellant's use; and the production of the respondent's cash-books was also a material article of discovery, since they would not only furnish the appellant with a knowledge of many transactions, which it would be otherwise in the respondent's power to conceal, but would contribute also to warrant the accounts of the parties on both sides; as merchants cash books contain entries of all their receipts and payments universally. As to the objection, that the respondent was only clerk to the appellant, and therefore was not bound to render any account, nor was any way personally liable; it was answered, that suppose he had been no more than an ordinary clerk, yet it such clerk should secrete a sum received by him, and make false entries to balance the cash, or should bring his master in debt, surely his master has a right to a discovery, whether be has received and made entries of particular sums. But the case here, was not of a clerk hired merely to keep the books, who makes his entries entirely from vouchers given him by others; but of a clerk intrusted to pay and receive all his master's cash, and to make entries in the cash-books of every sum paid, and every sum received, and to manage and transact his affairs generally, and ought to be ready at any time to produce and verify an account of all his transactions by vouchers; and if he has acted fairly and [8] honestly, he can never be at a loss so to do. And a full and clear discovery was the more necessary in this case, a the respondent had given such inconsistent accounts in his several answers; saying in one, that he placed to account all his receipts and payments; and in the other, that he received and paid many sums of money of which he made no entries.

As to the order for dissolving the injunction on the merits, it was said, that