SD989. Messrs. Anderson & Kemble to Edward Moulton-Barrett (father)
Published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 4, 348 (in part).
Kingston
26 Feby 1839
Dear Sir
Barrett V Vermont
We have to acknowledge receipt of a letter from your Son Mr Saml M Barrett enclosing Counsels opinion in this case: and quite acquiesce in the propriety of ceasing to prosecute the suit. It was instituted originally on the advice of Mr Batty. The questions involved were purely legal ones, and it is therefore plainly incumbent on us to act upon the decided advice we have got from quarters entitled to more reliance. We are indeed badly off for Counsel here, and it is our wish in all cases of importance to be guided in the institution of Suits, or in the course of our defences, by English opinion. They can now be got in a very short time—sometimes as early as some of the Island Counsel will give them.
Barrett V Barrett
Mr Richd Barrett had signified by his Solicitor Mr Land that he would acquiesce in an order being entered up directing the Commissioners to pay over the dividends on the Retreat and Cinnamon Hill Compensation money to you (which is all you can under E Barretts will seek): We accordingly prepared a short affidavit and motion to be entered up as of consent at the last sittings of the Court, but to our great surprise & disappointment he said he had supposed we referred only to some slaves private property, but that the whole of Edwd Barretts slaves must remain to ensure the claim, of the complainants in the suit. This surprised us more, because a motion had been made and granted in your brothers lifetime for his private compensation monies out of these properties, and therefore we doubt much the honor and sincerity of Mr R Barrett in the matter. We were anxious to save the expense of a formal application going into the merits of your claim to these monies but now we see we shall have no alternative. Mr Land told us a few weeks ago that another power of Attorney authorising a compromise of the suit in certain terms had been forwarded: and whether the tactics of the Speaker in reference to this matter has connection with that we cannot say; tho’ we suspect it may have.
It was necessary to enable us to make any application on the suit that I should be revived against your Brothers Executor—it became by that event of his death an abated suit. The proceedings to revive, that is the Bill, was filed at the Expence of your opponents. We incurred a trifling expense to compel them, because we could not otherwise have been in a situation to make an application about the Compensation monies.
Who is now your |Precaration| Attorney in law matters. Your son Mr Edward ought also to be duly represented on account of the suit. If your opponents are to persist, we must shew front by setting out the £30,000 legacy. Mr Meddliter does not like to write an opinion on it, because he says he is Counsel for the Creditor Complainant in “Dyer V Barrett“: but he thinks it may be supported. There are three ways of asserting it. 1st by defence in the suit Barrett V Barrett: 2d by petitioning to be made a party in Dyer V Barrett or 3d by filing a Bill separately for it. But without an English opinion I could not move in so important a matter with the least comfort.
We shall be anxious to hear from you fully on the several points touched on here. On money matters we shall in future confine ourselves to you alone. With much respect we remain
Dear Sir
Your faithful Servants
Anderson & Kemble
Address, on integral page: E. B. M. Barrett Esq / 50 Wimpole Street / Cavendish Square / London.
Docket: Mr Anderson / Feby 26. 1839 / Recd March 1. / Ans. April 15.
Publication: None traced.
Manuscript: Eton College Library.
___________________
