From Transcribe Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

with the suit Williams if he could have lent himself to the purposes of the said Williams which were very foreign to the interests of his creditors. This respondent will now briefly answer the other charges in the Plaintiff's Bill. 1st It is true that the said Williams did become surety for this respondent on a Bond payable to John Jordan which was assigned to James Henderson who recovered judgment on the said Bond in the Superior Court of Norfolk County some time in the year 1840 and that a [illegible] being issued on the said Judgment whilst this respondent was absent it was served on the body of the said Williams who executed a forthcoming Bond in discharge of his Body - but it is not true that the said Williams paid the said [illegible] Bond - On the Contrary it was paid by this respondent on the 3d June 1841 before judgment was moved for on said Bond as will appear by the said Bond and receipt of the Sheriff filed with Reid's deposition as Exhibit No 10 and the amount paid being the very sum charged in the Bill as having been paid by Williams viz the sum of $125.30 and what makes this charge the more remarkable is that in the year 1844 the said Williams represented to this respondent that he had paid off this Execution for him and that this respondent then paid to the said Williams the sum of $125.30 to reimburse him for said payment this respondent having forgotten that he had himself paid the said Bond and that in the final settlement of the accounts made by the said Reid the said Williams being satisfied of the mistake actually credited this respondent with the sum of $125.30 being amount overpaid him on Bond for J I Henderson as will appear by Exhibit No 6 filed with Reid's deposition. It is true that the said Williams paid for this respondent on the 19 Feby. 1841 the sum of $218.24 in full of an Execution in favor of Wilson Williams and the sum of $119.28 in full for an Execution in favor of Harriet Brewer Guardian of Jesse Brewer on Judgments for Bonds for which the said Williams was surety for this respondent. But it is also true that this respondent has refunded to the said Williams the said sums so paid by him on said Judgments - The money was refunded at various times in Cash paid to the said Williams and to others to whom he was indebted at his request and as the payments were made this respondent endorsed the payments on the receipt then held by Williams from the Sheriff of Norfolk County for the payments made by him in full of said Executions The sums thus refunded included the amount of $125.30 then claimed by Williams to have been paid on the Judgment in favor of Henderson & when the whole sum had been refunded the said receipt was surrendered by said Williams and is filed by said Reid as Exhibit No 11 with his deposition. This respondent relies upon the said paper and the deposition of Reid and the accounts stated by him as a full confirmation of the truth of this respondent's statement that the said sums have been refunded to the said Williams. This respondent utterly denies the truth of the allegation made by the Plaintiff that he shipped in September 1838 or at any other time on board the Brig Adams forty three pieces of timber or any other quantity which were afterwards sold by this respondent and the proceeds converted] to his own use - This respondent is utterly at a loss to conceive how the said Plaintiff could have ventured upon making such a charge - If the fact were true this respondent is advised that the Plaintiff could not properly seek the aid of this Court for the recovery of the value of said Timber as his remedy would be complete at law and it is not pretended that the said supposed transaction has any connexion with the partnership accounts - And the same objection would apply to the other claims made in the said Bill which have been already noticed - The said claim would also be barred by the statute of limitations it appearing on the face of the Bill that more than five years have elapsed since the cause of action arose - and this respondent relies on the fact that