SD672. William P. Grignon to Samuel Moulton-Barrett (uncle)
Published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 2, 360 (in part).
Montego Bay
Sept 23, 1828
My dear Sir
Mr Reynolds has given me your letter to him, also that of Mr Richd Barrett to you and not having anything else to write you about has requested me to address you and to give you what information I can on the subject of Retreat in St. Anns recovered in 1826. I have not any Documents here that can explain & must therefore trust to memory. Your Grandfather & your Uncle Geo. G Barrett were jointly possessed as tenants in common of the land before mentioned. In 1819 an ejectment was sent out in the names of yourself & brother as residuary devices under the will of your Grandfather & a judgment recovered for a moiety of the land & a writ of possession was issued in 1824 & possession delivered to Bramwell as appears by the contract which I return you. At the trial of this Ejectment it was discovered that the other moiety of the land belonged to Mrs Stirling, & Mr Hilton mentioned the circumstance to Mr Cleghorn Mrs Stirling[’]s attorney & an ejectment was sent out but which failed in consequence of the death of Mr Syms the principle evidence in your trial. I think Mrs Stirling[’]s claim arose from blocking the heir at law of G. G. Barrett who had purchased the land after the execution of the will & consequently it could not pass under the will. How her claim was founded however can be of no consequence to you. It is evident that it was not a claim to your moiety for had it been so the |Debts| no doubt would have set it up at the trial to defend your right of recovery & if it had escaped their observation Mr Hilton wd. not have given information to Mr S Attys to take property from you which you had recovered. Yourself & brother are jointly interested in the whole moiety & Mr Stirling has no interest in that moiety. You are authorized to take possession of the land & if you should be obstructed in doing so, you will be entitled to be put into possession under proceedings for forcible detained; so it is probable that an attachment would be granted against those keeping you out of possession. I conceive Mr. R. Barrett can be compelled to account for the rents & profits for the time he was Billed & that you are entitled to half the profits previous to the appointment of a [illegible word] as he will in law be presumed to know of the recovery in Ejectment & execution of the writ of possession & his possession was consequently yours besides were he to give up possession it could by no possibility injure any claim of Mrs Stirling & would only [illegible word] those whom he represents from the inconvenience & [illegible word] of defending the ejectment. I do not think you will incur any blames in giving Mr R. Barrett a few weeks to consult his lawyers. Mr Bernard was either in my office or in that of Taylor at the time the Ejectment was tried & must be fully aware of the |merits| of it. In any other particulars you can get Bram[w]ell & West to search for the brief in the Court.
Yours &c
(Sig.) Wm. P. Grignon.
S. M. Barrett Esq.
Spa. Town
Publication: None traced.
Source: Copy at Eton College Library.
___________________
