to pay the executrix (over and above 1000l. which she bad drawn out of the stock before) 5100l. at two payments, and secure the same by respondent's bonds; and to assign her a third of a debt of 3000l. owing for royal ordnance, and save her harmless from all debts owing by the stock, and that respondent should enjoy the rest of the estate; and that respondent and the executrix should release each other: pursuant to which award, respondent secured to the executrix the 5100l. by two bonds; and afterwards by indenture, dated 12th June, 1673, for a final end of all differences, and in consideration of 1000l. paid her, and 5100l. secured to her as aforesaid, and the third part of the 3000l. debt, owing for royal ordnance, assigned to her; the said executrix assigned and released to respondent all other wares, debts and things belonging to the partnership, and all actions and demands whatsoever relating to the partnership; [83] and the respondent, by another part of that indenture, in like manner, released the said executrix.
That respondent afterwards, with the executrix's consent, sold the 3000l. debt for 1500l. and paid her 500l. her third thereof; and also the said 5100l. in discharge of his bonds; and all rested in peace, till about Michaelmas Term, 1695, when the appellant exhibited her bill in Chancery, alleging divers errors, omissions, and under-valuations in said account, and that the partnership books had been withholden, and not laid before the arbitrators, whereby they were misguided to award the executrix less than her due share, (being, as alleged, one third of 30,028l.) and that the appellant being but six years old, and an orphan of the city of London, when the award was made, no act of executrix could bind her: And respondent having pleaded the statute of limitations, the award made, the several great sums paid in performance thereof, and the releases given above twenty years before the bill filed, which was not exhibited till near ten years after appellant had attained her age of 21 years, the court over-ruled the plea of the statute, and ordered the respondent to answer the bill; but reserved the benefit of the said plea as to the award till the hearing of the cause. And respondent afterwards fully answered, and denied the whole equity of the bill, and produced all the partnership books before Sir John Franklyn, a master of the said court, where appellant had free access by herself and agents, to inspect and take copies of what she thought fit; to which end she employed two accomptants, de die in diem, for several months before the hearing. And after examination of witnesses, the cause came to be heard; and then, upon appellant's producing an affidavit, that several books, or accounts, relating to the partnership iron-works in Sussex, were in the respondent's clerk's hands there, in Sussex, and not produced before the master, (although they afterwards appeared to be loose accounts kept by the clerks for their own discharge, and immaterial as to making up the account of the said joint stock) respondent was ordered to produce upon oath what duplicates he had of them before the master, and was examined upon interrogatories touching the same; and the court then gave appellant six or seven weeks time to reduce her objections to the account in writing, and to deliver them to the respondent, that he [84] might be provided to answer then at the hearing. And a paper of thirteen several objections, or errors, were accordingly delivered to the respondent; and the cause coming to be further heard (all books being brought into court) appellant endeavoured to support her supposed errors, and was heard by her council to five or six of them, one after the other, but was not able to make out any one of them; and the court declaring they would go through with them, appellant and her council declined so doing; wherefore the court having heard the depositions of witnesses on both sides read, and the cause having received a full hearing, over-ruled the objections, and dismissed the bill, but without costs; forasmuch as the court conceived the appellant had been misguided by the misinformation of her mother and respondent showed, that whereas it was objected that the sums awarded are less in proportion than her share of 30,028l. being the rest in March, 1670, which may be supposed to be much increased in the twenty months Charles Harvey afterwards lived, that the rest, or estimate of the 1st March, 1670, was made up of goods and debts; and the goods valued at a selling price, and that many of the debts then reckoned good, proved bad; and that it appears by the books, that Charles Harvey, after the 1st March, 1670, drew out 2439l. 14s. 6d. and then respondent must draw out double that sum, both which amounted to 7319l. 3s. 6d. and that peace being concluded with the Dutch after the first of March, 1670, all the iron guns and shot, and materials for
192
