ACCOUNT.
Case 1.—Matthew Pitt, Esq.,—Appellant; George Page,—Respondent [8th May 1716].
[Mew's Dig. i. 86, 126.]
Viner, vol. 6. p. 332. ca. 36. p. 365. ca. 11. 2 Eq. ca. ab. 237. ca. 7.
By indenture, dated the 20th of April, 1706, the appellant demised to the respondent, a farm in South-Burcomb, in the county of Wilts, for a term of six years, under the yearly rent of £160. And by this lease, the respondent covenanted, that he would not fell or cut any of the underwood, growing upon the premises, in order for sale, which should not be of seven years growth.
The respondent accordingly entered upon this farm, but not having money enough to stock it, he, at different times, borrowed of the appellant several sums of money, amounting in the whole to £524; and, for securing the re-payment thereof, with interest, he executed three several bonds, with warrants of attorney to confess judgments thereon.
At the end of two years, the respondent had neither paid any part of the yearly rent of the farm, or one farthing of the principal money and interest due upon the bonds; and therefore, on the 20th of November 1708, the appellant caused part of the respondent's stock and goods to be distrained for the rent, and other part thereof to be taken in execution upon the judgments. But the whole falling short in value of what was due to the appellant, he offered to abate the respondent £80 and deliver the effects back again, if he would give the appellant security for his debt and rent. This the respondent not being able to comply with, and finding that he could not any longer continue the farm, he surrendered up his lease.
However, in Easter term 1709, the respondent thought proper to exhibit his bill in the Court of Exchequer against the appellant; suggesting, that he had fraudulently and surreptitiously obtained the lease to be surrendered, and had also made an exorbitant distress and execution; and therefore prayed, that the appellant might be compelled to deliver back the lease, and account for the stock and goods.
On the 29th of June 1710, the cause was heard; when the Court directed an account to be taken of what was due to the [2] defendant for rent, at the time of the distress, and of what was due to him on the several bonds, at the time of levying the execution; and likewise an account of the value of the goods so seised and taken.
These accounts were accordingly taken; and, after great litigation therein, the Deputy Remembrancer, by his report of the 3d of March 1714, certified, that there was due to the defendant, for rent at the time of his making the distress, £320; that the value of the goods distrained was £274 2s.; that there was also due to the
376
