Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/420

William Jones and his wife presented a cross-appeal, and thereby stated the second exception taken by them to the master's report of the 18th of July 1782; insisting that the master ought to have considered several sums, amounting together to 11,632l. 16s. 4d. which he had allowed in part of discharge of the rent-charge of 2000l. & year, as applicable to the maintenance and education of the children of Lady Rachel Morgan, in which case there would remain due for the arrears of the rent-charge the sum of 28,457l. 7s. 8d. And also their exception to the master's report of the 19th of December 1783, whereby they insisted, that the master ought not to have certified that the said Elizabeth went to live with her brother William Morgan on the 8th of July 1747, but ought to have certified, that she was maintained by Lady Rachel her mother, from the death of Sir William Morgan her father to the 29th March 1750, when she attained her age of 21 years; and ought to have allowed 5537l. 10s. Sd. for her maintenance and education for suck time. They also appealed from so much of the order of the 30th of April 1783, as over-ruled their second exception to the report of 13th of July 1782, and from so much of the order of the 14th of May 1784, as over-ruled their exception to the report of the 19th of December 1783. And against the order of the 4th of August 1784, as being in part erroneous and defective, inasmuch as the same had directed the interest of the arrears of the rent-charge of 2000l. per annum, to be computed only from the time when the appellant sled his bill; whereas they insisted, the interest ought to be computed from the several times when the respective parts of the arrears became due; and if their Lordships should think that the second exception to the report of the 13th of July 1782, ought to have been over-ruled, as it had been, then they insisted, that the order of the 4th of August 1784 was erroneous [43] and defective, in not having directed the whole, but a part only, of the money which became due for the maintenance of the younger children of Lady Rachel to be paid into the Bank.

But it was submitted, that there was not any colour or foundation for this cross-appeal, in regard to the over-ruling the second exception; as well for the reasons assigned in the original appeal, as that credit was expressly given for the sums now claimed as applicable to maintenance in the schedule to the deed of February 1775, (made without a valuable consideration,) as having been received on account of the rent-charge; and the greater part of this maintenance was claimed for the eldest son, for whom there was not any provision of maintenance, and the term of 500 years extended only to the maintenance of the younger children. With regard to the exception to the report of the 19th of December 1783, it was to be observed, that in the schedule to the assignment of maintenance, Lady Rachel claimed it only to the 8th of July 1747, when the respondent Elizabeth went to live with her brother. And it was further submitted, that the court had gone too far already in the directions for computation of interest, which ought not to be computed until after the principal sum was liquidated and ascertained.

On behalf of the respondents to the original appeal it was contended (R. P. Arden, J. Mansfield), that by the settlement of 1723, all the arrears which, during Lady Rachel Morgan's life, became due for her jointure, were a charge upon the estate, and must be considered to remain upon it, till proof was brought of their being actually discharged. The burthen of the proof in this case lay upon Mr. Charles Morgan; he had accordingly attempted to prove, that Mr. William Morgan discharged so much of the jointure as became due in his life-time; but he had not supported this attempt by receipts, accounts, or other positive facts, and all the presumptive circumstances, by which he endeavoured to establish it, were fallacious, and met by stubborn facts and proofs on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Jones. And surely, if ever there was a case in which the arrears of a jointure ought to be paid to the utmost farthing, the present was that case; in which the jointress Lady Rachel Morgan not only found her husband's large estate given by his will to a collateral relation, in disinherison of his own daughter, who was too young to have offended him, and without that daughter's having a single shilling given to her by her father, in recompence for so great a loss; but also found, to add still further to the hardships of the case, that this same daughter was not even entitled to the twenty thousand pounds which Lady Rachel brought into the family; but only to twelve thousand pounds, as her brother lived to be of age; and yet it was never doubted by any of the family, till the settlement was examined after William