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/ssactsengr0200 and id is 1 raw text is: WILDES V. A.-G. OF TRINIDAD [1840]
expressly averred, or may be inferred from the statements in them, that [197] a
proper inventory or account of them had been rendered to the Ecclesiastical Court.
Another precedent furnished by the Appellants (ante, No. xv.), shows that a fraudulent
account is not necessarily followed by a decla-[198]-ration of the liability of the
Executor to the full amount of the debts; but the prayer of the Petition in that case
was only for presentment of the Executor, for not giving a proper account and pay-
ment of all the money the Executor had misapplied, and the Decree was for an
amended inventory and costs.
From these sources of information, we think that the law of the Island is, that if
there be a fraudulent omission of any of the assets, of which the personal repre-
sentative has taken possesssion, he is liable for the full amount of debts, and this law
has probably been adopted from the civil law, particularly as modified by the law of
Scotland, where the heir who enters is liable, if he fraudulently omit anything from
the inventory which, he shall be found to have intermeddled with or possessed.
Adopting this as the rule of law, we think that the Courts below were warranted,
by the evidence, in con-[199]-cluding that there had been an omission from the
inventory of a fraudulent nature. One of the witnesses deposes, that either £23 or
£25 was taken out of the desk in the deceased's bed-room, on the day of his death, by
the Defendant. There was reasonable evidence that it was the deceased's desk, and
that the Defendant below had no access to it in. his lifetime, and all mention of that
sum is omitted in the account rendered by the Defendant.
This evidence, if believed (and there is no reason to disbelieve it), called for
explanation by the Defendant, and as no explanation was given, or attempted to be
given, the Courts below were fully warranted in considering that this sum was
omitted, in order to prevent the Defendant being called upon to pay it to the creditors.
This single item is sufficient to support the view of the case taken in both of the
Courts below, without entering into a discussion as to. the other small items which
have not been entered, or improperly entered, in the accounts rendered by the Appel-
lant. We therefore think that the judgment of the Court below must be affirmed, and
with costs.
[Mews' Dig. tit. EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR, III. LIABILITIES, c. For Per-
sonal Acts and Omissions. As to transmission of documents or information
to Privy Council from Court below (3 Moo. P.C. 183), see Mason v. A.-G. of
Jamaica, 1843, 4 Moo. P.C. 231; M'Carthy v. Judah, 1858, 12 Moo. P.C. 47;
and cf. Le Quesne v. Nicolle, 1829, 1 Knapp, 257. As to benefit of inventory
in Scots Law (3 Moo. P.C. 182), see Stair, iii. 4, 32; More's Notes, 321 ; Bankt.
ii. 311; Ersk. iii. 8, 68-71; Bell's Com. i. 706; Bell's Princ. ss. 1926-28; Bell,
Convey. ii. 1114. See also Freyhans v., Cramer, 1829, 1 Knapp, 107.]
[200] ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE ISLAND
OF TRINIDAD.
GEORGE WILDES and JOHN PICKERSGILL,-Appellants; The ATTORNEY-
GENERAL of Trinidad,-Respondent * [July 2, 1840].
The Crown have no, preferential claim against the Estate of the Treasurer of
Trinidad for monies not forming part of the public revenue of the Island,
and effects of the deceased (ante, No. ii.). This appears to be granted as of course,
a day (ante, No. v.) being given to show cause, whereupon witnesses are examined
on both sides by interrogatories, and the time enlarged, if required, upon further
application to the Court for that purpose. The order ultimately made may be
direct, or on terms, or if the allegations (ante, Nos. iv. viii. x. xi. xiii. xv.) in the
petition are not proved, the same will be dismissed with costs.
* Present: Mr. Baron Parke, Mr. Justice Bosanquet, Mr. Justice Erskine and
the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington.
III MOORE, 197](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0200&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)