SD902. Messrs. Anderson & Kemble to Edward Moulton-Barrett (father)
Published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 4, 336 (in part).
Kingston
27 April 1838
Dear Sir
Barrett v Barrett
We have carefully considered the proposals for a compromise of the Suit and inclose our opinion, or remarks, thereon. On our first consideration of these proposals we were disposed to recommend them much more unreservedly than we find we can do, after comparing them with the present state of the proceedings. Indeed our opinion is that a compromise can only be recommended from prudential considerations arising out of the magnitude of the proceedings. But it clearly belongs to the higher department of the profession to give you that advice by which your course is to be determined. We shall be very anxious to learn how far that advice may coincide with the suggestions we have submitted. We remain,
Most respectfully
Dear Sir
Your faithful Servants
Anderson & Kemble
E. B. M. Barrett Esq
Messrs Anderson & Co
Mincing Lane London
Address, on integral page: Edward B. M. Barrett Esquire / Messrs Anderson & Co / Mincing Lane / London.
Publication: None traced.
Manuscript: Eton College Library.
Enclosures: Barrett vs Barrett / In considering the proposal for Compromise of the Suit, we think the following passages from the statement preliminary to the Judgment ought to be kept in view: / “Upon looking back to the Will of Edward Barrett and the circumstances under which it was made it is obvious that the provision for the release of the debt due from the Estate of his son George Goodin Barrett as the consideration for the Conveyance of the property mentioned in his Edward Barretts Will was made under the belief that he had become the purchaser of the two classes of Slaves which he had caused to be valued by the appraisers named by him while standing in the double capacity of lessor and personal representative of his Son the deceased lessor and altho’ he had taken an erroneous view of the effect of this valuation it is clear that the debt which he intended to release and devise by his Will to the heirs of George Goodin Barretts Spring Estate was the balance of the Sum Originally due from Geo Goodin Barrett after deducting the value of the Slaves in question.” / And again:—“Their Lordships are of opinion that the rejection of such an application was not repugnant to the terms of the former decree which only declared that Samuel Barrett was Entitled to Elect whether he would accept the conditions offered by the Will of Edward Barrett when the accounts between the Estates should have been taken without defining what those conditions were and their Lordships are of opinion that one of the Conditions necessarily implied by that bequest was that the value of the Slaves appraised as well as the Cattle should be first deducted from the amount of the debt due from George Goodin Barrett’s Estate and that his heirs should have the option of accepting the release of the balance as the consideration for the lands to be purchased by the heirs of Edward Barrett.” / And again:—“Without the full Examination of the accounts between the parties the amount of the Consideration to be paid for the Estates conveyed cannot be ascertained neither could it be known to what Extent the respondents would be Entitled still to retain their claim as creditors against the Estate of George Goodin Barrett in respect of the balance not released the amount of which must depend upon the comparison of the value of the slaves with the gross amount of the debt.” / In the first Bill and in the decree of 1808 the valuations of 1798 are distinctly recognized The first attempt to set these aside as insufficient to complete the Sale was in the supplementl Bill of 1816. / The Judgment of the Appellate Court of 19 Septemr 1836 distinctly recognized the amount of the valuation as the consideration paid for the Slaves at the time of the valuation in as much as their Lordship’s directed that amount to be deducted in Estimating the balance of the debt which is to be the consideration for the Conveyance of the outlying lands. / After this Judgment it appears to me impossible that a Court of Equity could decree mesne profits of these Slaves against the devisees of Oxford & Cambridge the bona fide holder whose ancestor had paid the price– And the conclusion I think appears still more inevitable when after the lapse of so much time and when the amount of the mesne profits had become ridiculously enormous the representative of G. G. Barrett come to make their Election under the Will of the said Edward Barrett and get quit of claims which would have more than obviated every claim of hire that could have been set up. / Were their views to be entertained at all (and it appears to me impossible that any Court could entertain them) and mesne profits were decreed, then surely the currency of interest in the released debt up to the time of election would be an equitable set off to the claim for the negro hire. But, it appears to me that the Judgment of 19 Septmr 1836 entitles the devisees of Edwa Barrett to apply to the Court for a Conveyance from the representative of Geo Goodin Barrett according to the Covenants of the Lease of 1st June 1789. / The proposed terms of compromise involved the giving up of the Compensation money of these Slaves (which has almost been virtually awarded to E.B.M. Barrett already by the Judgment of the Appellate Court)—and that the hire in the hands of the Receiver should be retained for the complements—and the remainder of the apprenticeship given up to them. / My candid opinion is that there is no Equity in these terms. If the representatives of Geo Goodin Barrett get out of the Suit clear of Costs and of Mr E Barrett’s claim for the £30,000 legacy they ought in my opinion to consider themselves very well off. The Compenstn money and the receivers Balance ought under the Judgment of 19 Septmr 1836 to go to Mr Edward B M Barrett. / Another but a subordinate point has occupied my attention: the probable result of the accounting respecting the negro hire, if taken. / Of the 92 I observe that according to the original valuation only 42 are females: Of the 39 only 15. / The first record or alleged record of their names after the date of the valuation is the Schedule annexed to the Deed of 1809 “Coates to Barrett” which was Executed to dock the Entail under Geo. G. Barrett’s Will. The number of the Cambridge Negroes, as stated in that Schedule is 92, the same as in the valuation. I think therefore that it is incorrect inasmuch as it apppears from subsequent accounts that there was a great and a progressive decrease on those Estates. / The first Registry return of the Slaves on Oxford & Cambridge in 1817 shew the whole number to have been 295 males and 294 females—589. / The next return in 1820 shew births 34 and deaths 69, making a decrease by the excess of deaths over births in 3 years in the whole number on the Estates of 35. / The return of 1823 shews a decrease by the excess of deaths over births of 42. / That of 1826 states 97 (as the supposed survivors of the 92 and 40) drafted from the Estate into receivership at about that time. / These Returns at least serve to shew that the amount of the Claim must be materially less than that set up in the Suit which has been calculated on the principle of the Gangs keeping up to their Original numerical strength throughout the period since the Year 1798: and it may be that reckoning the interest on the original valuations from 1798 to this date and the hire in the progressively decreasing numbers until 1826 (which is the Extreme view of the case) the one would nearly compensate the other. / The most formidable part of the Expence would probably be the accounting in the Masters Office. Whether this could be obviated by an application by motion in the Suit founded on the Judgment of the Appellate Court of Sept 1836 for a Conveyance in terms of the Covenants of the Lease, or whether such an application would be competent I shall not pretend to determine. I leave it to the consideration of the eminent Counsel who argued the Cause on that occasion. I throw out the suggestion however thinking that it may possibly lead to a course by which the question that is of main importance to Mr E B M Barrett might be summarily disposed of—because such Conveyance would (necessarily I think) take a retrospective Effect and would be decreed to Ensure to the valuation of 1798, and it would I think entitle Mr Barrett both to the Compensation money and the Receivership moneys: and if Counsel should be decidedly of opinion that the application would succeed and would carry with the Consequential benefits I have supposed I presume Mr Barrett would not hesitate to adopt it. / It would of course be necessary to the success of such an application to be in a situation to shew that Mr E Barrett had at the time of his death claims on Geo. G. Barretts Estte to a larger amount than the valuations. There is no proof before the Court on this Subject excepting the report of Master McAnuff of which a large portion of the Vouchers are still Extant in the Master’s Office. If the Appellate Court confirm the Judgment of the Chancellor of Jamaica that Judgment will sufficiently vouch the debt without going into the accounts. / These are the views which have occurred to me as to the situation of Mr Barrett’s interests in the Suit. How far the views of Counsel may differ from mine or how far prudential considerations for the sake of getting quit of a vexatious suit and the remote hazard of Costs or other Consequences that may attend it ought to operate on Mr Barretts mind must be left to himself to determine. I have endeavoured to lay before him Every view of the Case that in my opinion is necessary to enable him satisfactorily to make up his mind upon the proposed Compromise and his future prospects in the Suit. / Wm Wemyss Anderson / Kingston 27 Apl 1838
___________________
