Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/432

maintenance paid amounted to 5411l. 6s. Now, had this sum been paid on account of the maintenance of the younger children only, it is clear Mr. and Mrs. Jones must in this case lose the whole maintenance of Mr. William Morgan, unless part of the general payments be applied in the manner before-mentioned; but it would be exceedingly hard, if Lady Rachel were to lose the whole of her eldest son's maintenance, especially as part of the settled estate, to the amount of more than 600l. a-year, belonged to Mr. William Morgan exclusively, and was included in neither of the terms for securing the jointure or the maintenance. And the fact is, that the above sum of 5411l. was absolutely and expressly paid, as well on account of the eldest son as of the younger children, out of the rents and profits of the infant's estate, the same being paid in these words; "Paid Lady Rachel Morgan, towards the maintenance and support of her eldest son Mr. William Morgan, and of her several younger children." And the receiver's accounts being regularly passed, and the reports of them filed, it was submitted, that some part at least of this 5411l. so expressly paid, must be applied to the maintenance of Mr. William Morgan. It is clear that the master was of this opinion, because had he conceived that no part of this 5411l. was applicable to the maintenance of Mr. William Morgan, in that case he could not have had the least difficulty in stating what remained due on account of the younger children, for then he would have had nothing more to do, than to have deducted the whole 5411l. out of the sum stated by him to have been provided by the settlement for the maintenance of the younger children; but Mr. William Morgan's maintenance not being referred to the master, and the payments being made on his account as well as on account of the younger children, the master therefore certified that he was unable to state what remained due on account of the younger children. Besides, had not the above 5411l. been expressly paid and received on account of the maintenance of the eldest son as well as the other children, it could not be supposed that Lady [61] Rachel would have educated her eldest son after the rate of 500l. a-year out of her own income without having any allowance. It was therefore presumed to be but reasonable, that 5000l. should be applied out of the money expressed to be paid towards the maintenance of all the children, in satisfaction of the eldest son's maintenance; especially as the maintenance of the eldest son cost his mother a great deal more than the maintenance of all her other children. And if 5000l. should be applied for the eldest son, even then Mr. and Mrs. Jones must be content to lose 2463l. of his maintenance, unless part of the general payments should be applied in the manner proposed as above, than which nothing could be more fair or equitable.

It was further objected, that Lady Rachel took credit for the maintenance of Mrs. Jones, down to the 29th of March 1750; but it was stated in the schedules to Lady Rachel's assignment of 1775, that Mrs. Jones went to live with her brother Mr. William Morgan on the 8th day of July 1747; and therefore her allowance for maintenance should only be computed up to that time, and so the court had determined.

But it was submitted, that the strongest proof was brought in this cause, that she then, in July 1747, only paid a visit of a few months to her uncle, which occasioned the mistake in the schedule, and returned to her mother, and continued to reside with her, and to be maintained by her, until a very few weeks before she attained her age of twenty-one years. This was proved by her own and Lady Rachel's most positive testimony; had the contrary been the fact, the most positive proof might have been brought of it. The only argument by which Mr. Charles Morgan attempted to prove it, was from the mistake in the schedule annexed to the second indenture of 1775. But the very hasty manner in which this schedule was made out, showed that no argument could be brought from it to prove the point in question, especially in direct contradiction to the most positive and solemn affirmations on oath of Lady Rachel and Mrs. Jones herself. The mistake in the schedule was easily accounted for; these assignments were drawn in London, in February 1775, and Mrs. Jones, who know the facts, was then in the country. Mr. Jones had often heard her say, that she went into the country in July 1747: and thence he concluded in February 1770, that she went in July 1747 to live with her brother, and accordingly the matter was so stated in the schedules through hurry and mistake. The question therefore was, Whether Mr. Charles Morgen could take advantage of this mistake in a private confidential deed of trust, to which