of currants, and laded the ship therewith, and consigned her back to Gates, and, in 1681, sent an account under respondent's own hand, wherein he acknowledged himself satisfied for the cargo; and, about 1682, respondent came into England, and Gates was for seven years after alive, and in very good reputation and ability; and respondent did not, during his lifetime, pretend to, or make any demand of any money for the said currants; but within that time borrowed of Gates, divers sums of money, and gave notes under his hand for so much received and borrowed, viz. 12th December, 1682, 25l. and 23d January, 5l. and 23d March, 1683, 20l. but Gates having died in 1689, respondent, several years after his death, exhibited his bill in Chancery against appellant and Agnes Gates, widow and administratrix of Daniel, for an account of the said currants; which bill, the defendants answered, and plaintiff replied, and examined witnesses, and hurried his cause to hearing before defendants had examined any witnesses; and 5th December, 1691, obtained a decree, that it should be referred to Sir John Franklyn, a Master, to take an account of what was due to plaintiff for the currants in question, and that defendants should pay the same; and defendants were to have a commission to examine as occasion should be. And defendants, 25th February, 1691, [58] moved the then Lords Commissioners for a commission to examine witnesses at Venice, Zant, and the Morea; but the same was denied, notwithstanding the decree, and though the alledged debt was contracted, and the money paid there, and the prime costs of the currants could not otherwise appear; and from that decree, appellant appealed to the Lords, and the said decree was affirmed 27th January, 1692. And the Master, 17th January, 1693, reported 6404l. 9s. 7d. due to respondent for principal and interest, but without sufficient proof to warrant the report, and without taking notice of the account under respondent's own hand, though proved in the cause; wherefore exceptions were taken to the said report, and the cause heard thereon 20th April, 1694, before the Lord Chancellor; who, on inspecting the said account under respondent's own hand, declared, he did not see sufficient cause to confirm the report, and therefore sent it back to the Master, to make a further report upon the whole matter; but respondent having, without procuring any further report, petitioned the Court, that the exceptions might be reheard; the same were reheard 24th July, 1696, when the Chancellor ordered, that a commission should issue out beyond sea for better clearing the account before the Master, and that respondent should join therein within a fortnight, or defendants to take a commission ex parte. And respondent accordingly joined in commission; but to prevent defendants having any fruit thereof, soon after petitioned the Lord Chancellor, to discharge the order for a commission; and thereupon, and on reading said order, made by the Lords, 27th January, 1692, the Lord Chancellor, 21st January, 1696, discharged the order for a commission; and further ordered, that respondent should apply by petition, to have a day appointed for re-arguing the exceptions, and that the defendants should be at liberty to petition the House of Lords, to explain their order of the 27th January, 1692. To prevent which application, respondent, within a week after, obtained an order for re-hearing the exceptions, and the Chancellor thereupon confirmed the report; and further ordered, that it should be referred back to the Master, to carry on the interest from the time of his report, and to tax respondent his costs of suit. Appellant admitted himself accountable to respondent for the cargo of currants, according to the Lords former order, and did not endeavour to alter the decree thereby affirmed; but insist-[59]-ed, that it did not appear by proofs in the cause, that any sum remained due to respondent for the currants; and that if appellant could have had an issue at law, directed by Chancery, to prove the payment, or a commission to examine his witnesses, respondents whole demand for the currants, would have appeared fully satisfied; and therefore appellant hoped the House would reverse the decretal order, or direct an issue to be tried at law, or would explain their former order about a commission; and appellant subjoined the following account, which he relied upon as evidence of payment for the currants, freighted by the ship the African:
179
