The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-02 00:00:00

THE SUN. LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 2, 1835,

PRICES OF CANALS DOCK STOCKS,

ASStTRANCE COMPANIES; &c. &c.

LONDON, FRIDAY; MAY I.
Number Dividend Peee
of per CANALS. per
Shares. Annum. Paid. Share
1,760 'ai per cent. Ashton and Oldham ...Average 071. 16s. sh. 157
1,482 61. Ashby-le-Zouch
1,260 Basingstoke
Brecknock Ind AbergaventAt
1,0,,5 Si. 150. sh. 63
I,ooolsh. 121. Ms. Birmingham, i share 171. 10s. 241
yveragellllol...shh: 6551
4,031 Ditto and Liverpool Junct....ll 01. eh. all pd
6;10 ...... ... Bridgewater and Taunton -.IOU sh. all pd 64
4'o 11. Chelmer and Blackwater ....103. sh. 102
500 42/. Coventry 'oo/. sh.
4,546 Croydon Average 311.25. 10d. sit. 21
2,06.4 31. 10s. Dudley
600 6/. Derby 100/. sh. 120
3,5751
231 43'. Erewash 'OIL sh. 515
1,297 2.8/. Forth and Clyde Average 4001. Vs. sh. 60C
11,501 121. Grand Junction 101. sh. 238
2,8491 Grand Union 100/. sh. 23
1,521 Grand Surrey
120,0411. 41. per cent. Dit'o (optional) Loan lOO/. 73
3,1V6 Grand Western
600 13/. 12s. ed. 011awrganshire, Average cost 172/. 13s. 4d. 2SO
1,910 Gloucester and Berkley 10,4. sh. 15
74 101. Grantham .•..... l5O/. sh. 202
6,213 11. lOs 'Judders& Id Average 071. 6.5.60. sh. 33
100 Kensington 13) sh all pd. 10 '
25,328 11. Kennet and Avon, Average 391.83. 100. sh. 211
2,8971 •M. Leeds and Liverpool 1014. sh. 533
515 121. Leicester l4Ol eh. 149
907 41. Leicester and Nort hsmp•on... A ver 631. 10s. SO
550 5/. per cent. Liskeard and Looe Union 251. sh. all pd 25
7,) 1441. Loughborough Average 142/. 17s. sh. 1,600
2,409 Sl. Monmnuthshire lOW. sh. 180
250 91. Melton Mowbray lOW sh. 190
500 251. Mersey and Irwell 1001. sh. 56)
3,000
217 151. Neath 1001. sh. .
100
pd. 10
1,786 321. Oxford lO4l. sh. 61558
522 21. Oakham l3Ol. sh.
2,400 4/. Peak Forest Average about 781. sh. 104
21,418 14s. Regent's (or London) Aver. 311. 16s. ed. sh. 161
5,669 5/. per cent. l)ochdale Average 85/. sh. 12340
500 e/. Shropshire 1251 sh. 1
RIO percent. set Coal 150/ sh. 163
45,0001. 61 pe D Soittomer Lock Fund Stock 12/. 10s., sh. 12;
700 36/. Stafford and Worcester l4, 1. sh. 690
500 111. Shrewsbury 125/ sh. 2401
30t) St. Stourbridge
3,647 11. 10s. Stratford.on-Av :n ...Average 79/. 9s. ed. sh. 381
533 13/. Swansea 100/. sit. 205
3,762 IL Severn and Wye and Railway ...Av 35L sh. 19
?MO Ish. 32/. IN. Trent and Mersey, 1 share 1001. sh. 625
8,149 ..... ... Thames and Medway... Aver. 191. ss. 841. sh. 2
1,000 101.1 154 Warwick and Birmingham 100/. sh. 280
1,000j4h.
. 121. Watwick and Napton lOO/. sh. 218
0,003 31. 10a. Worcester and Birmingham... Av. 781.5 i. sh S7l
2..000 As. Wilts and Bea/. .. Average 1(1. 17s. Bd. sh. 5
800 61 Wyrley and Essington • 12.11. sh 73
isyt ~...... Wisbeach lO5l. sh. 45
903 11. Wey and Arun llOl. sh. 21

ROLLS COURT.

His Honour the MASTER of the ROLLS, after going
through his petition and short cause paper, gave judgment
in the following cause :

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. THE IRONMONGERS' COMPANY.
His HONOUR had looked through the proceedings in
this case, and he certainly found it difficult to frame any
order at all consistent with the orders already made. The
testator in his will most anxiously kept separate the pur-
poses of his three gifts. He appropriated the first to a pur-
pose that could not be carried into effect, itnd the others to
purposes entirely distinct from the first—so entirely dis-
tinct that the only title necessary to a participation in the
first was to be a British subject, whilst the second was en-
tirely of a local nature, beinc, a gift to certain charity
schools in London and its suburbs. The third gift was
still more limited, for it was merely a remuneration to
the Ironmongers' Company for any trouble they might
sustain in managing the trusts created by the will.
This last gift being of no particular sum, but being in
proportion to the whole residue of the testator's pro-
perty, the remuneration to the Company of course
kept pace with the increase of that fund. By the de-
cree the reference, after inquiring whether the whole or
what part of the income could be applied to the uses
of the will, and, if none could be, then the Master was
to consider and approve of a scheme for its proper ap-
plication, and to consider whether any application could
be made without the assistance of Parliament. From the
terms of this reference it was clear that the whole matter
was open before the Master ; but, instead of applying him-
self to the first branch of the inquiry, the Master approved
of a scheme, appropriating the first moiety to the same
purposes as the other two-fourths, and he did this contrary
to the express terms of the will, which directed that the
first gift should never be applied to any other purpose than
that specified in the will. He (the Master of the Rolls)
mentioned this not because he could make any order upon

it, but because it diminished any regret he might otherwise
feel in sending the matter back to the Master ; and if the
Master's report were now regularly before him, he certainly
should feel hesitation in confirming it, at least without some
further investigation. The only thing that he could at pre-
sent do was to adopt the language of the order in appeal
and direct the Master to review his report, and in review-
_ _

ing his report so far as the appropriation of the surplus
income, to have regard to the other charitable bequests of
the testator.

WESTMINSTER--APRIL 24 AND 28.
MOODY V. GEARY—CEAPY V. MOODY.
His Honour the MASTER of the ROLLS gave judgment in
these causes, which came before the Court upon bill and cross-
bill, and were heard before his Honour on 13th, 14th, and lath
of January last, when Mr. Bickersteth and Mr. Wray ap-
peared as Counsel for Mr. Thos. Moody ; and Mr. Pemberton,
Mr. Spence, and Mr. Younge appeared as Counsel for Mrs.
Louisa Geary.
The original bill was filed on the 7th May, 1832, by Thomas
Moodie against Louisa Geary, and prayed that the partner-
ship might be declared to be dissolved, that the partnership
accounts might be taken from the last settlement, and that the
defendant might be decreed to be the purchaser of the part-
nership stock at Milford, and the plaintiff the purchaser of the
partnership stock at Stratford Subcastle, and that all proper
directions might be given for ascertaining the value of the part-
nership stock and effects at Milford and Stratford respectively,
for winding up the concern, for selling the partnership stock and
effects, and for the appointment of a receiver and manager until
the partnership affairs should be finally settled ; and for this pur-
pose the plaintiff, Thomas Moodie, relied upon the settlement
of the partnership accounts with the defendant, and the deed
of release she had executed on 27th of January 1830, in Lon-
don, and the accounts she had signed on 9th October, 1830,
and again on Bth October, 1831. The. cross bill was filed on
the sth of September, 1832, by Louisa Geary against Thomas
Moodie, and it prayed that the partnership might be declared
to be dissolved, and that the deed of release of the 27th of
January, 1830, and the settlements of the partnership and
private agency accounts signed by the plaintiff at that time,
might be declared to be fraudulent and void, or that plaintiff
might be at liberty to surcharge and 'falsify the accounts ; that
accounts might be taken of the partnership transactions during
the lifetime of John Phelps Geary, with Thomas Moody, and
of the private or agency accounts of Thomas Moody with
John P. Geary, and with his widow the plaintiff, and that
the partnership might be charged with a fair occupation rent of
the lands and premises at Milford from 24th June 1817, when
defendant's notice of dissolution expired, or from 14th De-
cember, 1823, the time of the death of J. P. Geary, and
that Thomas Moody might pay a fair rent for certain parts
of the premises at Stratford, occupied by him ; that the pre-
mises at Stratford might be declared to be partnership pro-
perty, and sold together with the partnership stock there.
The case made by the cross bill was, that on the 10th of
October 1799, Thomas Moody and the plaintiff's late husband,
J. P. Geary, agreed to enter into partnership together. The
stock then belonging to John Phelps Geary was valued at
1,5501. 15s. 6d., and that Moody some time afterwards paid
251. 7s. 9d., and gave the said John Phelps Geary a promis-
sory note for 7501., half of the remaining 1,5001., but no arti-
cles of partnership were executed till the 25th of June 1810.
On the 25th of June in that year, articles of partnership were
executed, reciting that Geary and Moody were equally entitled
to the stock in trade ; that Geary was entitled to the lands and
premises at Milford ; and that Geary and Moody were jointly
entitled to the premises at Stratford, where the business was
also carried on, under a lease granted by Lord Camelford to
the said J. P. Geary. Inventory of the stock and the debts
due to the trade had been made, amounting to 4,4231. 13s. 7d.,
over and above all the debts then due from the partnership ;
that they had agreed to continue in partnership, and that the
capital and stock and profits should be equally divided between
them—they agreed to continue the partnership for twenty-
one years, and to divide the profits equally between them ;
one-half f the 4,4231. 13s. 7A-d. should belong to Geary, and
the other half to Moody. The lease of the premises at Strat-
ford was to be renewed in Moody's name, but for the benefit
of the partnership, as part of the joint stock ; that Geary should
let to the partnership the lands and premises at Milford for
741. 9s. 6d. ; that the accounts should be settled on the 24th
of June in every year ; and that the parties, at the expiration,
or sooner determination of the partnership, or within thirty
days, should join in settling the accounts ; and that Geary
should accept and take all the stock in trade, except the lease
and stock at Stratford, according to the last valuation ; that
Moody should take the stock at Stratford, and that Geary
should pay to Moody so much money as, with the stock at
Stratford, would make up Moody's share of the joint stock,
money, and effects, according to the last valuation ; at the end
of twelve or eighteen months, each party to be at liberty to
give notice of dissolution at the end of the first seven or four-
teen years of the partnership term of twenty-one years. There
was a similar provision as to Moody's taking the lease and
premises at Stratford, in the event of the death of Geary
during the continuance of the partnership. The bill then
alleges that a notice of dissolution was given by Moody to
Geary, on the 17th of June 1816, to dissolve the partnership
on the 25th of June 1817, but explained to be only for the
purpose of some new arrangements ; and the bill alleges
that no definite arrangement was come to in the life-
time of J. P. Geary, but that the parties continued
to carry on the business till the death of J. P. Geary,
which took place on the 14th of December 1823, and that
Geary by his will, made the plaintiff, his widow, his residuary
legatee, and that she alone duly proved the will, and obtained
probate thereof. The bill then alleges that the plaintiff was
Ignorant of the articles of partnership of 25th June 1810, but
that the business continued to be carried on. In October
1824, she signed the partnership accounts, and also the part-
nership stock-book for 1824, without examination, and that
she, in the same way, signed the accounts in 1825, 1826, and
1827. In September 1829, and again in January 1830, the
plaintiff employed Mr. Hayward as her solicitor, to investigate
the accounts for 1828 and .1829 at Salisbury, which led to a
quarrel between Mr. Hayward and Mr. Moody, in conse-
quence of which Mr. Moody came to London with Mr. Hod-
ding, his solicitor, on 20th January 1830, in order to procure a
settlement of the accounts with Mrs. Geary personally, and
applied to her for that purpose ; that she (as Mr. Hayward
her solicitor was at Salisbury) consulted Mr. Lowless as her
solicitor, by recommendation of her brother-in law and Mr.
Cholmondeley ; that the accounts were, as the bill alleges, im-
perfectly and partially examined by them, and that on the
27th of January, 1830, Mr. Moody applied to her to sign the
accounts up to 24th June, 1828, and to 24th June, 1829,
which she did, and that a deed of release was thereupon pre-
pared and executed, which recited the aforesaid settlement of
accounts, and also the settlement of accounts of Moody's
agency, a balance of 1001. was found to be due to Moody.
The bill alleges that on 9th October, 1830, and on Bth
October, 1831, Moody produced other partnership accounts
of those years, which the plaintiff also signed. It then
proceeds to state the grounds upon which she proceeded
to open the accounts, and for this purpose it alleges that
the plaintiff has discovered that the accounts so signed by
her are false and fraudulent, and contain many errors both as
to debits and credits, and that the whole of the 750/. continued
to be due ; that Moodie never brought any capital into the bu-
siness ; and that the lands 'and. premises at Milford had been
let to the partnership at an inadequate rent, and that a full
occupation rent ought to be paid to her from 25th June, 1817,
or from Geary's death on 14th December, 1823 ; that part of
the lands was let, which during the partnership was placed to
the partnership account, and that from 1817 it ought to be
passed to the separate account of the plaintiff, and that -the
defendant ought to pay rent for the premises he occupied at
Stratford ; and that the lease of the premises at Stratford be-
longed to the partnership. The bill then after charging that
the annual accounts of the partnership, and the agency trans-
actions were not annually settled and signed by Geary in his
lifetime, and by the plaintiff since h's death, charges, that
Moody had not duly accounted, and that the accounts of the
partnership and of the agency, were not annually or regularly,
or duly stated and settled, and signed by and between Geary
and Moody; for that the said accounts were frequently for many
years in arrear, and as evidence thereof, charges that Moody,
in the letter of 25th Aug., 1818, to Wm. Cooper, the solicitor of
Geary, in relation to the partnership and the affairs thereof,
expressly states, " we have now three years settlement to make,"
and charges that, in point of fact, the said accounts remained
unsettled for many years prior to, and down to the death of
Geary, and that a balance was due to Geary on the accounts.
It then charges that if such accounts were settled and signed,
the same were erroneous. It then charges that the plaintiff
signed the account upon the faith of Moody's representations,
and without any examination, and that the deed of release of
January 27, 1830, was obtained by misrepresentation, and that
the recital in the deed of release that the accounts of the part-

nership and of tho- agency were at stated periods adjusted,
settled, and signed by Geary in his lifetime, were false, and
that the agency or private accounts from Jutie 1823, to June
1829, were not examined by Mr. Lowless, because the plaintiff
infortned him that Mr. Hayward had examined and was satis-
fied with them, which was not the fact, as she had since disco-

vered Mr. Hayward had not examined or approved of the ac-
counts as Moody represented, at the time of the execution of
deed of release on January 27, 1830, when he produced Mr.
Hayward's pencil memorandum, and stated that the vouchers
in support of the payments had been examined and given up
at S•ilisbury to Mr. Hayward for her. There are then several
charges as to the 7501. and the Stratford lease, and particu-
larly as to a certain laild called. Marsh Furlong, which had
been added to the prelnises at Stratford in 1813, which had
increased the expences of the partnership, and,• therefore, if
Moody had the land, he ought to pay. I have thus particu-
larly examined the case made by the cross-bill, because
I am of opinion that the form of this bill excludes a
portion of the case attempted to be made by the plaintiff. The
bill seeks to set aside the deed of release of Jan. 27, 1830,
and the transaction and settlement of accounts on Jan. 27,

1830, as fraudulent and void, and to surcharge and falsify
.he accounts. Now as to the latter object a decree for that

purpose can only be obtained where the bill alleges particular
errors, and the evidence proves such errors to exist in the
settled accounts. The bill undoubtedly alleges the note for
7501. is still due, but this was the very point in discussion pre-
vious to the settlement on the 27th January, 1830, and the

evidence proves that Mr. Lowless and Mr. Cholmondeley
having been requested by the plaintiff, Mrs. Geary, to look
into the accounts for the purpose of seeing whether it was
still due, they examined the accounts, and were satisfied and
acquiesced that it was accounted for. There is indeed evidence
to prove that this sum was at one time due, and was so down
to 1813, but that proves but little, for from the nature of the
transaction, the 7501. might be discharged without any actual
payment of money ; because it was the price that Moody was
to pay for one half of the stock on 10th October, 1799, then
valued at 1,5501. 15s. 6d. Now as soon as Moody realized
in the business 1,5001., by leaving his share of the profits of
the business, or by other means, the 7501. would be no longer
due ; and such was the case stated and acquiesced in ;
and the articles of partnership of 24th June, 1810, re-
cite that Moody was then entitled to one half of the stock,
and that stock then amounted to 4,4231. 13s. 7 d. ; so that
there must have been some capital paid in, or some accumula-
_ _

tion of profit on Moody's account. How, then, can the Court
open the account upon the ground that this 7501. is still due ?
Mrs. Geary, therefore, has made no case to open the accounts.
I will now consider the other ground taken—namely, the at-
tempt to set aside the deed of release of the 27th January,
1830, and settlement of accounts on its execution on the
ground of fraud. The particular facts in support of this part
of the case, are these : that certain annual accounts, purport-
ing in the books to have been signed by Geary in his life time,
were not signed by him, and that the signatures of Geary's
name to 111D-se tmruql accounts are so many forgeries. Now
had this been so alleged in the bill, and had the bill iTon^, en
to state that such forgeries of the name of Geary had been
used by Moody, for the purpose of inducing Mrs. Geary to
settle and sign the accounts of 27th January, 1830, and she
did so upon the faith of such forged signatures being genuine
signatures of her husband Geary, and all this had been proved,

a very strong case would have been established for setting aside
the deed of release and the settlement• of accounts of the 27th
of Jan. 1830 ; but no such case (it is most extraordinary) is
charged in the bill, or put in issue. Mrs. Geary must be the very
best judge whether these apparent signatures of Geary to these
annual accounts were her husband's or were forged signatures ;

but the Bill only alleges that the accounts were not annually
or duly settled and signed by Geary in his life time, for that
they were frequently and for many years in arrear, and conti-
nued unsettled down to Geary's death; if these signatures had
been irregularly obtained, and it had been material, this should
have been put in issue ; but the issue attempted to be proved is
that these forged signatures to these annual accounts were used
as instruments of fraud to procure the execution of the deed
of release by her, and the settlement of the accounts on the
27th January, 1830 ; but to support evidence on that point
there is no sufficient allegation in the Bill. It was impossible
for the defendant in the cross bill to come prepared to meet
such a case. He has examined a witness or two to prove the
hand-writing of Geary in the usual way, where no issue is
raised ; but he has never been called upon to prove that these
alleged forged signatures to the annual accounts are the ge-
nuine signatures of Geary, in answer to those allegations of
the plaintiff, that these signatures " John Phelps Geary" are
forgeries. I am, therefore, of opinion that I cannot take into
consideration Mrs. Geary's evidence, to shew that these signa-
tures of John P. Geary are forgeries, for the purpose for which
it is charged in the cross bill. There is therefore no allegation
to impeach the settlement of the accogios on 27th January,
1830, upon that ground, and if that belriettiimpeached it is im-
material whether -these particular recounts were signed or not
by Geary ; because, although the Bill alleges that the recitals
in the release were false, which stated that all the annual ac-
counts were from time to time settled, adjusted, and signed by
Geary, it does not allege as to what accounts such recitals
were false, and the settlement of accounts on 27th January,
1830, proceed upon the faith of such false recited facts ;
and there were other subsequent settlements of accounts
on Bth October, 1830, and again on 9th October, 1831,
and if all the accounts previously were not impeached, these,
and the settlements of accounts after Mr. Geary's death, could
not be impeached on the ground of fraud. It is material now
to consider the evidence which took place at the time the deed
of release, of 27th January, 1830, was executed. It appears
from the evidence, that Mr. Hayward, Mrs. Geary's solicitor
in September, 1829, investigated, at Salisbury, the accounts
for her ; and again, at Salisbury, in January, 1830, a quarrel
took place between him and Mr. Moody, which caused the in-
vestigation to be incomplete by him at Salisbury, and led to
Mr. Moody, with Mr. Hodding his solicitor, going to Lon-
don, and the meeting which afterwards took place in London,
on he 22d January, 1830, with Mrs. Geary on Moody's ar-
rival, when she consulted her brother-in-law Mr. Cholmon-
deley, and by his advice employed Mr. Lowless as her solici-
tor, who met Hodding on 22d January, 1830, without waiting
for Mr. Hayward's return. Mr. Hayward says, on his arrival
on the 23d of January,. 1830, he had two or three interviews
afterwards with Mr. Lowless, for the purpose of explaining
to him the result of his incomplete investigation of the ac-
counts, his inquiries, and se. on. Mi. Lowless, before the
accounts were signed, and the dee!, of release executed
on the 27th of January, 1830, had the benefit of Mr. Hay-
ward's suggestions. Mr. nodding, Mr. Moody's solicitor,
states, that on their arrival, having applied, on 21st January,
1830, to Mrs. Geary as to the settlement of the accounts, he
declined to proceed with her, unless she appointed some soli-
citor to meet him, and Mr. Lowless was appointed. Mr.
Nodding on the part of Mr. Moody, and Mr. Cholmondeley
and Mr. Lowless on the part of Mrs. Geary, met him on the
22d of January, 1830, and the books A and B were exa-
mined, and such other books and papers as they thought
necessary. Mr. -Lowless states the 7501., thQ rent of the
cottages, and the salary of Mr. Moody, and the amount
of the debts due to the firm, were the objects of their
examination ; they were satisfied, and acquiesced that the
7501. was accounted for, and that Mr. Hayward was
mistaken, and that Mr. Moody gave up the point as
to the rent of the cottage, and in the result 1841. appearing to
be due to Moody he agreed to take 1001., giving up the 841.
on account of the rent. Mr. Cholmondeley gives much the
same account of the transaction, and says, that on the 26th of
January, 1830, he and Mr. Lowless having satisfied them-
selves and acquiesced that the 7501. was accounted for, but Mrs.
Geary and Mr. Hayward having told Mr. Lowless that they
were not satisfied, and were of a contrary opinion, no settle-
ment then took place. On the next morning Mrs. Geary took
the opinion of Mr. Cholmondeley, and Mr. Lowless agreed to
settle the accounts, and executed the deed of release, which
were accordingly settled and signed. All this by Mrs Geary
and her brother. in-law was acquiesced in for a considerable
time ; for, as Mr. Lowless states, that on the 9th of October,
1830, and on the Bth of October, 1831, he and Mr. Cholmon-
deley met Mr. Moody to settle the accounts up to that time,
and he did examine them, and Mrs. Geary thereupon signed
them. The result as to the partnership accounts is, that after
as much of the examination of the accounts as Mrs. Geary
thought necessary, she was satisfied of and acquiesed in their
accuracy, and they were accordingly settled and signed, and the
deed of release of Jan. 27, 1830, executed under the advice of
her brother-in-law and Mr. Lowless, her solicitor. That the
case attempted to set aside the deed of release, the transac-
tion and settlement, fails 'for the reasons I have before stated.
It is now necessary to advert to the account of Mr. Moody's
agency with John Phelps Geary, which was settled at the same
time, but with respect to which the facts are different. As to
the agency or private account; the bill alleges that this agency
account was never examined by Mr. Lowless, in consequence
of Mrs. Geary having informed him that Mr. Hayward had
examined and was satisfied with the accounts, and which she
then believed to be true. She had since discovered that such
accounts had not then been examined or approved by Mr.
Hayward. By way of amendment, the bill states that Mr.
Moody produced these agency accounts, with the memoran-
dum in pencil of Mr. Hayward, purporting that these accounts
up to 24th June, 1829, had-been settled and arranged, and
the vouchers for the receipts and payments had been given up
to the plaintiff Mrs Geary, and which Moody represented to
be the fact ; but that the plaintiff had discovered, and the fact
was, that the memorandum was written in pencil by Mr. Hay-
ward merely as the form of a memorandum to be copied in
ink at the foot of the agency account on settling and signing
the same, but that such accounts never were so examined and
finally settled, and the vouchers never were given up. Such
is the statement, and Mr. -Hayward is examined, who proves
it. Mrs. Geary then alleges, that in January, 1830, when
Mr. Hayward was advising her, and the communication took
place with her solicitor Mr. Lowless, relative to the accounts,
that he believed these accounts to have been examined and
found to be correct by Mr. Hayward, as his memorandum in
pencil imports. It is apparent that these agency accounts
have been examined by Mrs. Geary's signing the same on the
9th of October, 1830. Mr. Lowless says that these accounts
were not examined by him, because from this pencil memoran-
dum he supposed that they had been duly examined' and ap-
proved by Mr. Hayward ; but Mr. Lowless, by his written me-
morandum in ink,appears to have examined these agency ac-
counts, and compared them with the vouchers on the 9th of
October, 1830. Taking, therefore, Mr. Hayward's and Mr.
Hodding's statements together, it comes only to this, that ow-
ing to a pencil memorandum of one of Mrs. Geary's solicitors,
another of her solicitors, Mr. Lowless, on the 27th January,
1830, did not examine these agency accounts, but these agency
accounts were afterwards, on the 9th of October, 1830, signed
by her—the deed of release being executed by her previously,
—not by any procurement of Mr. Moody ; and in these agency
accounts, so signed, no error is proved. I am, therefore, of
opinion, that Mrs. Geary's case, as to this, also fails, and these
accounts must be taken on the footing of the last settlement.
There were some points in the case as to Marsh Furlong at
Stratford. lam of opinion that it must be considered as part