Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/395

with the appellant as soon as possible; but as to the £4341 14s. 11d. it was the balance of a settled account, and was always considered as such by the appellant himself, who, sixteen months after the execution of the mortgage for securing that balance, wrote a letter to Mr. Fraser, part of which was in the following words:

In the month of November 1764, the respondent intended to have proceeded at law against the appellant, to recover the said sum of £4341 14s. 11d. together with all interest due thereon; but he absconded till he had obtained the injunction of the Court of Exchequer, and by that means prevented the respondent from proceeding against him.

In Michaelmas Term 1764, the appellant filed his bill against the respondents, praying an injunction to stay the respondents proceedings at law against him, and also that the respondent William Lem might leave all his books of account between him and the appellant, and the bank and his bankers, with his clerk in Court; which put him under the necessity of copying most of the said books, to enable him to carry on his business of a merchant with the rest of his correspondents.

The respondents, on the 25th of November 1763, pat in their answer to this kill, and the appellant took thirty-eight exceptions to the answer, and upon arguing the same, the third exception was allowed; whereupon the respondents were obliged to put in a further answer to all the rest, it being the practice of the Court of Exchequer, when one exception is allowed, to admit all the subsequent exceptions without argument. (This practice has since been altered, and no exceptions are now allowed in that Court, but upon argument.)

On the 27th of February 1766, the appellant filed his amended bill, with very little, if any, variation from the original bill, stating to the effect already stated, and untruly suggesting that the [6] appellant did not understand merchants accounts; that the respondent William Lem, had taken unfair advantage thereof; that he was only a clerk at £40 a year, and was therefore incapable of lending the appellant £4341 14s. 11d.; that he had opened a book with his banker, and with the Bank of England, on purpose to confound the account between him and the appellant and that either by keeping back money, or by rendering an unfair account, or by some other means, the balance of £4341 14s. 11d. was not justly owing, and ought not to be paid to the respondent; and further stating, that the respondent Ann Lem was a separate trader.

Soon after the filing of this amended bill, the respondent William Lem entered into a treaty with the appellant, for accommodating their dispute in an amicable manner, which treaty continued till August 1769, when the respondent having teen often promised and often deceived, became at length fully convinced that the treaty was a mere pretence, and that the appellant's agents meant nothing but delay thereby, wherefore he broke off the treaty, and prepared his instructions for his solicitor, and filed his further answer as soon as he was able. Whereby the respondent denied, that Ann Lem ever was a separate trader, and the respondent William Lem absolutely denied the whole equity of the bill; and said, that the books and schedules annexed to his answers, were kept and stated in a regular manner, according to the custom of merchants, and that they contained a full and fair account of all money, bills, notes, produce or value, that were ever paid or received by the respondent, or any person by his order, or for his use, on the appellant's account, except such sums of which no entry had ever been made, as already stated. That the appellant was not ignorant of merchants accounts, but on the contrary understood them very well, and was capable of keeping a regular set of merchants books; and that the respondent almost daily accounted with the appellant for his cash, and all the other transactions of his business; and that he was