Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/277

him from appellant: And appellant insisted, that such alleged application of the 70l. could not be just; for if Tasker paid it him, towards satisfaction of appellant's mortgage, then he ought not to apply any part of it towards satisfaction of John White's mortgage; and if it was paid towards discharge of John White's mortgage, then he ought not to apply any part of it towards the discharge of his, respondent White's debt due from appellant: And further stated, that the Master, 21st March, 1699, made his report, and charged respondent Thomas with the 37l. received by respondent White for interest money, with the 90l. re-[226]-ceived by White from Lewis, and the 50l. received by him from Tasker; and the Master gave this reason, viz. because White by his answer confessed, that those two sums were received by virtue of the appellant's mortgage; and reported the matter of the 70l. received from Tasker specially, as it appeared upon White's examination: And that respondent Thomas took exceptions to this report, which were argued 16th December, 1700, before the Lord Keeper; who declared, that respondent Thomas ought not to be charged both with the 90l. received from Lewis, and the 37l. received from White, for that White had deducted (as he might) the 37l. out of the 90l. and therefore his Lordship charged respondent Thomas only with the 90l. and as to the 70l. received by respondent White from Tasker, besides the 50l. which Thomas had brought to account as received, his Lordship declared that it ought not to be applied to the account of the respondent Thomas's mortgage, but did not give any directions how it should be applied, and ordered the Master to take the account as to principal and interest, according to those directions, and to tax Thomas his costs: And that appellant, 2d August, 1701, procured this matter to be re-heard, when the former order was affirmed; and appellant insisted, that according to this order, respondent Thomas was discharged of the 37l. which he had charged himself with, and given appellant credit for in his answer; and that White was allowed to deduct it out of the 90l. although by his answer he insisted to retain only 18l. of it to his own use; and that as to the 70l. respondent White had liberty to keep it, and apply it as he pleased; whereas, in justice, it ought to be applied towards discharge of appellant's mortgage; and that White had done unjustly in concealing it for thirteen years together, and in not having discovered it by his answer, nor until he was driven to produce his books before the Master, and then confessed it to be in his hands, not applied to one person or another: And appellant shewed, that it was moreover proved in the cause, that upon discourse between appellant and respondent White, about the debt due from Tasker to appellant, White confessed that he had caused Tasker to be several times arrested, and had received several sums of money of him, which implied that such arrest was for appellant's debt; and insisted that the money paid by Tasker, ought to be [227] applied towards discharge of the debt he was so arrested for: And insisted further, that the respondent Thomas ought to be charged as well with the 37l. he confessed to have received for interest money, as with the 50l. and 70l. received from Tasker, and the 90l. from Lewis; or, at all events, if White he allowed to retain 37l. which he pretended to have paid Thomas for interest money before he received it, he should retain it out of the 70l. he had still in his hands, and answer the overplus of the 70l. to Thomas, towards the discharge of his mortgage; and that the costs should be laid upon White, who had been the chief occasion of them. (Abel Kettlebery.)

The respondent Thomas on his part alleged, that there appeared extraordinary shifting and vexation on appellant's part, to keep him out of a just debt: And stated, that before appellant's assignment to Elizabeth Thomas, John White had lent Tasker 200l. on a mortgage, and that Benjamin White was trusted as a scrivener by all parties, and procured the money, and made all the securities, and had, as usual amongst scriveners, paid Elizabeth Thomas 37l. of his own money for interest; and that Lewis had paid 90l. and Tasker 120l. to Benjamin White, without mentioning on what, or whose particular account; and that respondent Thomas had sued appellant on his bond, and obtained judgment; and appellant had filed his bill, to be relieved against that judgment, on pretence that the debt due to Mrs. Thomas, or the greater part of it, had been paid either to her or to Benjamin White, her scrivener, although White never paid over the money to her; and that