SD139. James Robertson to Edward Moulton-Barrett (father)
Published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 1, 311 (in part).
17 Bury Street, St. James’s, London
16th April 1810
Sir,
A few weeks ago I stated to your Solicitors,—Messrs Shawes, Le Blanc & Shawe, the date, boundaries and number of acres remaining to the Patent of John Pitcairne, which I had ascertained in the Country in examining my Jamaica papers.–
Respecting the Judgment obtained against me you will recollect that I expressed to you, Mr. Scarlett and Mr. Robert Shawe, in June last, my surprise that, instead of being against me, it was not in my favour; and I concluded that the reason was, that some articles in my account had not been credited;—and I proposed that when the account could be sent to me, it should be examined,—and if any articles appeared not to have been credited, they should be allowed for;—the Justice and propriety of which Mr Scarlett readily agreed to. Soon after my leaving London I received a letter from Messrs Ross & McDougal, my solicitors at law in Jamaica,—informing me that Mr Lamont, one of my principal Witnesses, (who rented your Wharf at Falmouth,) and who knew all my transactions with the late Mr Barrett’s Executors, though subpœnad, did not attend in Court,—and the cause was brought to trial without him, notwithstanding the materiality of his evidence being duly sworn to;—by which means several considerabale articles in my Account unknown to Mr William Plummer, (who had had no concern in these affairs after Mr Barrett’s death,) did not come in evidence to the Jury. One article it may be sufficient to mention at present, to wit:–
In June Grand Court 1799, long after Mr Barrett’s death, an Ejectment was brought against you by Mr Stogdon’s Executors, for land in the Town of Falmouth in the Parish of Trelawney, entitled Doe ex |dem|. Miles & al. vs Scarlett & al.– Application was made to me to execute that Ejectment as the Surveyor on your behalf, with which I complied. I enclose herein a copy of the Order of the Grand Court, agreeably to which the work was executed. Mr Lamont acted for you at Falmouth, and furnished me with negroes for carrying on the survey. My demand for executing that Ejectment cannot be credited in your Judgment against me,—because the Ejectment originated long after the death of Mr Barrett, whose Executors brought the Action against me.
Before I left Jamaica in 1802 I was anxious to have this business amiably settled, and Mr H. W. Plummer and I were proceeding in it, when the public business of Jamaica required my going to London. Had that settlement taken place, not only the transactions prior to Mr Barrett’s death, but all those subsequent to it, would have been included. But, notwithstanding my willingness, at all times, for an amicable settlement, yet an action was brought against me by Mr Barretts Executors in my absence from Jamaica,—and, consequently, no credit could be allowed to me, in that action, for business done subsequently to Mr Barrett’s death.–
I am desirous, therefore, that you should allow me two years for the payment of this Judgment, in which time the circumstance I have Stated will be fully ascertained;—and if it shall appear that my Account in the Ejectment already mentioned was not credited in your Judgment against me, it may be deducted therefrom– In the mean time I am ready to execute the title of the patent of John Pitcairne to you, and, requesting to be favoured with your answer, I am, very respectfully,
Sir,
Your most obedient,
humble Servant,
James Robertson
E. M. Barrett, Esquire.
Publication: None traced.
Manuscript: Eton College Library.
___________________
