Supporting Documents

SD676.  Richard Quarrells to Samuel Moulton-Barrett (uncle)

Published in The Brownings’ Correspondence, 2, 361 (in part).

Oct. 15th 1828

Dear Sir

On receipt of your favor of the 16th I referred to the Office of records in Spanish Town & found that as of October Grand Court 1819 your brother & you recovered judgment in Ejectment against Mr Richard Barrett for an undivided moiety of “all that piece or parcel of Land Situate lying & being in the parish of St Anns in the County of Middlesex containing 89 acres be the same more or less bounding North on South now or late belonging to John Wilson & Thomas |Humble| East on South now or late belonging to Wm Robertsen and west on South now or late belonging to John Wilson & George Gallimore”– On this judgment a writ of possession is issued and under it the agent of your brother & Self was admitted into possession of Such undivided moiety, & Richard Barrett as to the other undivided moiety retained Joint possession with your agent or overseer Bramwell– Mr Richard Barrett’s possession cannot therefore be considered tortuous or adverse to yours and on application to his Soliticitor in Bernard in Spanish Town yesterday I received an assurance that your right to possession was not questioned and that you would not receive any obstruction in the exercise of acts of ownership– This certainly is at variance with the tenor of Mr Richard Barrett’s letter to you of the 29. Aug. last in which he expresses his doubts as to the validity of your claims but when this is coupled with his assurance that he will not contest the point with you if an application to his Solicitors resolves your right to [illegible word]—his conduct seems less a result of any deliberate opposition to the orders of Court than of misapprehension as to the nature of your rights. Mr. R. Barrett seems to have laboured under the erroneous impression that the claim [illegible word] by Mr & Mrs Stirling was for your moiety of the land, instead of which (as was distinctly conceded to me by his solicitor yesterday) this claim is for the other moiety.

With regard to the pimento gathered on the 89 acres (to a moiety of which you are of course entitled) Mr Scarlett could say nothing and Mr R. Barrett was so entirely occupied with his judicial duties that I could not obtain a meeting with him–– Giving Mr R. Barrett[’]s possession of your estates as Receiver he is accountable as to the moiety of this Pimento on his Receivership accounts which have not as yet been tabled and if he omits to give due credits in this respect it is a matter of objection in the Master[’]s Office– Mr Gayleard the master to whom I applied yesterday informed me that he has been preparing his Report of the Receiver’s Accounts, but in reference to the documents in his possession found no credit for pimento gathered on the Land in question. Mr R. Barrett shall be applied to by me on this subject—as to the moiety of the produce since your appointment Mr R∙B. must account to you and should he refuse, you have your remedy by an action at Law or by Attachment in the Court of Chancery—the latter would perhaps be the most speedy and effectual method but there must first be an Application to account and a refusal—such an application shall be made.

Ever faith &c.—

Richard Quarrells

S. M. Barrett Esq.

Publication: None traced.

Source: Copy at Eton College Library.

___________________