Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/424

of Mr. Thomas Morgan the elder, and that no part of this arrear was satisfied till the month of October 1780; part of it was then discharged, and the remaining part of it was discharged in the February following. Secondly, that the irregularity of Mr. Thomas Morgan the father, in payment of the jointure, made it necessary for Lady Rachel to sell out the sum of 1650l. Bank stock, which would otherwise have remained in the funds; so that it appeared not only that the delay in question existed, but that it occasioned Mrs. Jones a personal loss of 1845l. 7s. being the sum for which the 1650l. Bank stock was sold. Thirdly, that her Ladyship claimed the arrears from Mr. Thomas Morgan the father, and that he not only refused to pay them, but denied her Ladyship's right to claim them from him. Fourthly, that her Ladyship's claim to the arrears of her jointure, though suspended, was never given up. The suspension of the claim was accounted for in a very satisfactory manner, from her Ladyship's bad health, and melancholy state of mind during great part of her son's life; from the false information given her by Mr. Thomas Morgan the father, and Mr. Jackson her own attorney, that the estate was not answerable for the arrears of her jointure, contracted in Mr. William Morgan's life-time; from Mr. William Morgan's distressed circumstances; from the probability, that as her Ladyship did not during this period of time, from 1746 to 1763, attend to her own affairs, and as her servants would not be ready to inform her of any thing to Mr. Morgan's disadvantage, the circumstances of the jointure being so much in arrear might be long concealed from her; from Mr. Thomas Morgan the son, having in his possession all the books, [49] papers, and vouchers of Mr. Bryan, which were not delivered to Mr. and Mrs. Jones till the year 1775, the very year when the ejectments were brought; from the litigations which ensued soon after the death of Mr. William Morgan, respecting the efficacy of his father's will, to deprive Mrs. Jones of the family estate; for which Lady Rachel swore, that when she was undeceived, when she did know that the estate was subject to the arrears, she did not then assert her right to them, because the title to that estate was then in dispute, or not ultimately decided. On the other hand, her Ladyship's repeated demands for her arrears, the pressing letters written for them by Mrs. Brompton, the payments made by the Mr. Morgans being made upon account only, and never expressed to be made in full up to any particular time, her Ladyship's own testimony in her two examinations, and her immediate exertions to secure the arrears for her daughter, when her motives for forbearing to make her demands for them were at an end, her selling out the 1845l. 7s. (the only stock she had), and the renouncing the administration to her son in favour of Mrs. Jones, placed it beyond all doubt, that her Ladyship only suspended her claims for them, but never meant to give up her right to them. It might be true, that when accounts have been closed or abandoned, a non-claim for a considerable number of years may be a bar to a demand; but Lady Rachel's case was the case of an unsettled open account, and all the payments made and receipts given were expressed to be on account only. This, ex vi termini, and unsupported by any other evidence (however it might he insufficient to establish a right) certainly proved the existence of a claim; and in this case the existence of a claim was positive proof of the right, as Mr. Charles Morgan could not have any argument against the existence of the right, but that the claim never was made.

It was further said, that Lady Rachel refused to produce and leave with the master, any of the deeds or writings which her Ladyship was by the decree directed to produce.

Her Ladyship offered to produce all the papers in her custody of which she had any knowledge, but till she had opened every box and searched into every place where it was possible for any of these papers to be, she could not think it lawful for her to swear she had produced all the deeds, papers, and writings in her custody; she had already put in two long examinations, which had almost exhausted her, and for that purpose she had made every search and inquiry where there was any reasonable probability of her finding any evidence relative to the matter in question. Besides, Mr. Charles Morgan thought the result of this search either would be or would not be favourable to him. If he thought it would be favourable, why did he not enforce her ladyship's obedience to the orders of the court? In doing this be would only have continued in the same rigid line of conduct, by which he had compelled her Ladyship to submit to the two long ex-