Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/430

from time to time paid or remitted on her Ladyship's account, and to give receipts for them, and to apply them as wanted. It was in proof, that the greatest part of this 18,570l. 2s. 6½d. amounting to much more than the 11,632l. 16s. 4d. so applied by Lady Rachel, was remitted by Mr. Bryan out of the country originally and in the first instance to her Ladyship's house-steward or housekeeper; and those remittances began to be made about four years before Mrs. Jones came of age, that is, during the very time in which money was growing due to her Ladyship for maintenance; the payments during Mr. William Morgan's minority, were all restrained expressly either to the jointure, or to the maintenance account, but Mr. Bryan's remittances after 1746, were certainly not restrained to either account. The housekeeper's letters to Mr. Bryan are worded after this manner: "I have received your letter dated ———, inclosing a bill, value ———, for which I am accountable to Mr. Morgan." The said Mrs. Brompton, alone, received very near 10,000l. of the 18,570l. 2s. 6½d.; her account in her own hand-writing is thus intitled, "What sums have been received from Mr. Morgan and his steward by Mrs. Brompton." Hence it was submitted, that these remittances, at least, must be considered as between the owner of the estate and the jointress, in the light of general payments.

As to the latter part of the objection, it must be observed, that the account contained in the schedules to the assignment of the 25th of February 1775, was not an account delivered by the jointress, or by her order, to Mr. Charles Morgan, or to any owner of the estate; it was quite a private transaction between her Ladyship and Mr. and Mrs. Jones. That this account or calculation was hastily drawn out without her Ladyship's assistance or desire, and merely to obviate an objection which it was said, but [58] without sufficient ground, would lie to the assignment if it was general, and without at least some kind of specification of the property to be assigned. Mr. Jones had got possession of Mr. Bryan's books of account and papers, only a few weeks before the assignment was executed, and had not then had leisure to form any judgment of the amount or quality of the arrears; and the account which was found afterwards in 1778 at Mr. Mann's, shewed how erroneous this account was in other respects. Besides, this was res inter alios acta; Mr. Charles Morgan could not be injured, and could not therefore derive a benefit from it. Her Ladyship was uniform in her declarations, that she left the whole of both her claims for the jointure and maintenance to be adjusted, when her accounts against the estate should be finally settled. After all, as he who seeks equity must do equity, and as Mr. Charles Morgan was the suitor for equity in the present case, equity would not give him the aid he prayed, if he controverted Lady Rachel's appropriation of the 11,632l. 16s. 4d. in discharge of the arrears due to her for the maintenance of all her children, as it was the only means she had to reimburse herself the expenses incurred in the education of her eldest son; besides, as several payments to Lady Rachel's use had been discovered since the aforesaid hasty account of the 25th of February 1775 was drawn out, which payments were all credited in the schedules to the master's report; this was an additional reason, why the said hasty account should not be binding on either of the parties in this suit; indeed Mr. Charles Morgan had all along refused to be bound by it, though he insisted it should be binding on, Mr. and Mrs. Jones. But it was evident, that be himself once thought that they were not to be bound by the said hasty account; for a long time after a copy of this account was delivered to him, he examined Lady Rachel on this very subject in the following words; "Did you, in the life-time of the said Mr. Morgan, apply the general payments specified in your examination in this cause, in discharge of any sum or sums of money claimed to be due to you for the maintenance and education of your children?" Her evidence was full and decisive, and was stated in the sixth answer, in her second examination. Hence it was submitted, that, as the appellant was not satisfied (though in possession of a copy of the said hasty account of 1775) without examining Lady Rachel very particularly on the subject in question, he ought to be bound by her evidence, unless he could repel it by other proof.

If, however, it should be determined that the second exception of Mr. and Mrs. Jones to the master's report, dated the 13th of July 1782, was rightly over-ruled, and that Lady Rachel could not apply the 11,632l. 16s. 4d. as aforesaid, then it remained to be seen how the maintenance account would stand.