Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/426

Again it is said, that Lady Rachel herself never claimed or intended to claim any of these arrears of her jointure; that, by the account settled between Mr. Bryan and Mr. William Morgan, on the 25th of November 1748, it appeared, that Lady Rachel was paid her annuity up to Michaelmas 1742. Now, the present claim was from Lady-day 1731, the half year preceding the death of Sir William Morgan; that by an account of the arrears of the jointure to January 1770, brought out of the hands of Lady Rachel, Mr. Thomas Morgan, the father, was only charged with the arrears from July 1763, when Mr. William Morgan died, and no claim was made of any arrears prior to that time; that by this account it appeared, that the payments were regularly made to the year 1770, when there was a balance due to Lady Rachel of 97l. 18s. 7d. That Lady Rachel acquiesced in this account; and Mr. and Mrs. Jones were bound by her acquiescence.

But it was proved, that Mr. Thomas Morgan, the father, never did pay the annuity regularly; that at Michaelmas 1764, three half-yearly payments, or 3000l. of the annuity had become due since his possession of the estate; that at that time, be had paid on account of this annuity 445l. 10s. 6d. and no more; and that no part even of this small sun was paid to her Ladyship till June 1764; that this long delay of payment had reduced Lady Rachel to such distress, that she was obliged, about Christmas 1763, in order to satisfy the demands made on her, to dispose of the only stock she had; that Lady Rachel had sworn, in her answer to the third interrogatory in her first examination,

that she well knew at and after her son's death, that there were large arrears due to her, though she did not know the amount of them, as the account was unsettled; and that soon after her said son's death, [52] she claimed them from Mr. Thomas Morgan, the father, who positively refused to pay them, insisting, that the estate in his hands was not subject to any part of the arrears; and that he also assured her Ladyship, that he should not pay her any thing on account even of the annuity growing due since his own possession, until he had received sufficient for that purpose from the rents and profits of the said estate.

Her Ladyship swore also in her answer to the fifth interrogatory, in her second examination, "that Mr. Thomas Morgan, the father, refused to pay her the arrears of her annuity incurred due in her son's lifetime." Hence it was evident, that her Ladyship claimed these arrears from Mr. Thomas Morgan, the father; for had there been no such claim, it is impossible there could have been such refusal of payment. Indeed it appeared, that Mr. Charles Morgan was himself perfectly satisfied, after Lady Rachel had been examined, that this claim was made at the time before-mentioned; for had he entertained any doubt about the fact, he would have bad that doubt cleared up in her Ladyship's second examination, where he did not once interrogate her about her having claimed those arrears. But, besides this, Mr. Jackson, who was her Ladyship's agent at the very time when this claim was made on Mr. Thomas Morgan, was living in the year 1779, long after her Ladyship was examined, and could consequently have given his evidence as to what he knew of this claim, had any doubt been then entertained about it. Besides, Lady Rachel, soon after her son's death, renounced the administration to his personal estate in favour of Mrs. Jones, and afterwards assigned all her right and interest in the personal estate to her; her Ladyship therefore knew, that it would be a long time before all the arrears of rent in the tenants hands, and due at her son's decease, would be received by the administratrix, in order to answer her son's debts; and knowing also (as appeared from the above evidence) that Mr. Thomas Morgan, the father, had declared he would pay her nothing on account of her annuity, until he had received sufficient for that purpose from the rents and profits of the estates, her Ladyship could have no expectation of receiving any thing from the estate, or Mr. Thomas Morgan, the father, until a long time after her son's decease. In this distressful situation, she sold the only stock she had, and thereby raised the sum of 1845l. 7s. But would she have taken this step if she had entertained the least hopes of receiving, at the usual times, any money from the estate? The fact of selling the Bank stock at the time aforesaid, confirmed her Ladyship's evidence of the claim of the arrears having been made on Mr. Thomas Morgan, the father, beyond a possibility of doubt. As to the account of the annuity up to January 1770, it was in proof, that neither her Ladyship, nor any one on her behalf, had