HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0861 and id is 1 raw text is: DUKE OF LEEDS V. LORD AMHERST
[430] from the Colonial Court, and, in his own right and as the administrator of his
deceased brother, instituted the suit against the trustees of the settlement and his
surviving brothers and sisters.
No part of the £12,000 had been raised at the death of Stedman Rawlings; but,
afterwards, a sum of money was awarded as a compensation for the emancipation of the
slaves on the estate, and was invested in consols in the names of the trustees of the
settlement, and was the only fund that was subjected to the trusts of the settlement.
At the hearing of the cause it was objected that letters of administration to the
estate of Stedman Rawlings ought to be obtained from the Ecclesiastical Court in
England; and Whyte v. Rose (3 Queen's Bench Rep. 493) was cited in support of the
objection.
Mr. Bethel], Mr. James Parker, Mr. Bagshawe, Mr. Shapter and Mr. Bagshawe,
jun., appeared for the different parties.
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR held that the colonial administration was sufficient.
[431] THE DUKE OF LEEDS v. LORD AMHERST. Nov. 25, 1848.
Practice. Witness. Re-examination.
Leave given, under the circumstances of the case, to examine a witness before the
Master, after the decree, as to a matter with regard to which he had been examined
before the decree.
The bill sought relief in respect of certain acts of equitable waste which, it alleged,
commenced in 1809 ;(1) and one Mawe, a witness examined for the Plaintiff before the
hearing, deposed that those acts commenced in or about 1809. The decree declared
that the personal estate of the late Duke of Leeds (who had committed the waste),
was liable to account to the Plaintiff for all the benefits and profits received by the
late duke, from or by means of the acts of waste complained of by the bill and
committed by him on the estate in question; and directed the Master to take an
account of all the sums received by the late duke, by the sale of the materials of the
house and other buildings which he had pulled down; and to inquire and state what
ornamental timber, and saplings and young trees not fit to be cut, had been felled by
the late duke, and of the sums which he had received from the sale thereof.
After some proceedings had taken place in the Master's office under the decree,
Mr. Bethell and Mr. Lloyd moved that the Plaintiff might be at liberty to
examine Mawe before the Master, in order to show that part of the house was pulled
down in 1801, and that some of the timber was felled prior to 1809.
Mr. James Parker and Mr. G. L. Russell, for the [432] Defendants, said that the
object of the motion was, not only to examine a witness before the Master as to a
matter with regard to which he had been examined before the decree, but also to
enable him to contradict the evidence which he had given on that examination ; that
the interrogatories on which he had been examined were general as to the time at
which the pulling down of the house and the felling of the timber commenced; and
that he had deposed that those acts commenced in 1809 ; but the Plaintiff was now
trying to make him stretch his memory beyond 1809 and give evidence which was
quite different from that which he had given before: Rowley v. Adams.(2)
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR [Sir L. Shadwell], after observing that Mawe had deposed
that the pulling down of the house began in or about 1809 and not in 1809, and that
he did not understand what in or about meant, said that though the acts com-
plained of were limited by the bill to a particular time, yet the inquiry directed by
the decree was not so limited, but was general, and, therefore, he should grant the
motion.
(1) See ante, vol. xiv. p. 357.
16 Sim. 430.
(2) 1 My]. & Keen, 543.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0861&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)