and appellant, Vaughan, her second husband, joined together to defraud all the creditors of John Thurston, her former husband, who [177] owed respondent 100l. money lent; and that respondent, among others, brought his action at law for the 100l. and appellants exhibited their bill in Chancery, and obtained an injunction, which respondent not being able to dissolve, exhibited his bill against appellants, for discovery of assets; and appellants, by their answer, denied their having any assets at all; and that on hearing both causes, Lord Somers gave a general direction for an account of the assets; and the Master was directed to state a matter specially, touching a demand of 15l. which respondent, as alleged, acknowledged he had received of one Cook, in part of his debt; and as to all other demands the bill was dismissed, and costs were reserved till the account taken, and in that direction appellants appeared to acquiesce; and that the Master certified assets sufficient to satisfy respondents debt, after all allowances, and likewise certified that respondent, to avoid further litigation, had agreed to discount the 15l. out of the debt. But to this report the appellants took ten several exceptions, to about fifty items of the account, eight of which exceptions were on the hearing over-ruled; and it was sent back to the Master, as to two exceptions only on peril of costs; but that appellants could not prevail there, though two commissions executed, and several witnesses examined on both sides; and that on another report made, appellants procured a strange council to sign a petition for re-hearing the exceptions, the council in the cause having refused it, and the Lord Keeper indulged appellants therein; and the exceptions were re-heard, and the former order was confirmed, and the decree signed and enrolled; and assets sufficient to pay respondent's debt, appearing in appellant's hands, the Lord Keeper, on hearing council on both sides, ordered that appellants should pay respondent costs of both suits, to be taxed by Sir Robert Legard; but made no order for any examination touching the 15l. which order was again confirmed on hearing council on both sides; and respondent insisted he was well intitled to his costs, assets having been denied and proved, otherwise he would lose above 200l. by recovering his just debt; and the rather, as the answer of the appellant, Catherine, was utterly falsified, she having sworn that her testator kept no book, and it having been proved by three witnesses that she kept the very book in her own custody, and that, as soon as her husband was dead, she secretly removed away by night the best of his household [178] goods, and they could never be heard of, and took all his ready money, and put it out at interest in her own name, and injoined the obligors with secrecy till after the inventory was taken, and that they had thereby, and by very vexatious litigation, defrauded the creditors, having brought a writ of error in the King's Bench to reverse a judgment for three shillings, obtained by a creditor in an inferior Court: And that respondent was eighty-five years old, and had been several years harassed in these suits for a small debt; and that this was a very unusual appeal, there being no complaint of the order on hearing, but of a subsequent order made on a re-hearing of exceptions, and the complaint general without assigning any particular error. (C. Coxe.)
Die Mercuri, 25 Februari, 1701. After hearing counsel upon this appeal, it was ordered that the same should be dismissed, and the decree, order, and proceedings complained of, affirmed; and that appellant should pay respondent twenty pounds for his costs.—Lords Journ. vol. xvii. p. 16.
Die Mercuri, 24 Februarii, 1701. (Lords Journ. xvii. p. 45.)
The Lords ordered this cause to be heard on Wednesday the 4th of March next, and that Dame Susanna Bridgeman might be heard by her council at the same time, if they should think fit: And thereupon the Lady Bridgeman preferred a petition
238
