Catalogue

Records regarding the legal dispute around the trust established by the will of James Nichols of Staindrop

Parties:
(1) Francis John Hart of Moor Row, Forcett (North Yorkshire), farmer and Margaret, his wife
(2) Richard Elgey of Moor Row, Forcett, farmer

Reciting:
- death of James Nichols of Staindrop, gentleman, seized real estate including (a)
- will of James Nichols of 24 July 1858 devising freehold dwellinghouse, garden and outbuildings in Staindrop in occupation of John Clark and cottages behind the dwellinghouse in occupation of Robert Walker and another, to his wife Margaret for her life, remainder to the use of his son John and his son-in-law Francis John Hart in trust for sale and in trust to pay sale monies to the testator's children: Elizabeth, wife of Christopher Eales; Margaret, wife of Francis John Hart; John Nichols in equal shares; the testator bequeathing his household goods to his wife with legacies: to his daughter Elizabeth Eales £350; his daughter Margaret Hart £250; his son-in-law John Nicholas £350; bequeathing the residue of his personal estate for investment, paying the proceeds to his wife Margaret for her life, remainder equally to his children;
- death of James Nichols on 20 October 1858 and proof of his will in Durham District Probate Registry on 4 November 1858;
- (1) had asked to borrow £200 from (2)

Operative Part:
- (2) gave £200 to (1);
- Margaret Hart, with concurrence of Francis John Hart, assigned her third share of the inheritance from her father James Nichols to (2) subject to equity of redemption, interest 5%

Taken by Joseph Dodds and William Crawford Newby from Margaret, wife of Francis John Hart acknowledging D/X 2208/14/1/1

- Q. Did John Nichols die without having been married? A. Unmarried
- Q. Where did he die and where was he buried? A. Sunderland
- Q. Who are the personal representatives of John Nichols? A. Elizabeth Eales and Margaret Hart
- Q. Did he leave a will? A. Hart stated that John left what he had to his two sisters and that he Hart was sole trustee.
- Q. If not has any one taken out administration to his effects? A. Further enquiry is being made.
- Q. Are Elizabeth Eales and Margaret Hart, John Nichols' next of kin? A. Yes
- Q. When did Margaret Nichols wife of Testator die? A. Jan 19th 1870 at 196 Kensington, Lambeth, Surrey and interred at Nunhead Cemetery
- Q. Where was she buried? A. Jan 27th 1870
- Q. Where [sic] the breaches of trust committed in the lifetime of John Nichols? A. No

"We have sent Writ of Summons to Mr Walker as desired".

"We think the Mortgage was an additional Security and that Mr Elgey was entitled to enforce his Bill of Sale notwithstanding the Mortgage unless there was some Agreement in fact that the Mortgage should be in substitution of the Bill of Sale".

"But Defendant it seems had given up the Farm & he may have then sold off the effects in whole or part upon the Farm & the effects now at Fossgate may be quite different to the effects on the premises. There is no Schedule showing the particulars of the property comprised in the Bill of Sale so as to identify them".

"As far as they can be identified otherwise we think they could be seized even now & notwithstanding the Writ having been issued unless the Mortgage was given upon a different understanding. We return the Mortgage & the Bill of Sale".

"The Defendant has been served this morning with Copy Writ received from your Agents. If you need affidavit of Service let me know"

"We received Affidavit of service this morning. On attending to sign Judgement we find the Defendant has appeared. We wait your further instructions".

"We have instructed Pleader to draw Declaration but as the approaching holidays do not count it will be some time before we can get Judgement".

"We have obtained Judgement herein and according to your former instructions will send down Execution tomorrow to York unless you countermand your instructions before post".

"McKenna v Elwood & anr"

"Plaintiffs Attorneys say that a cheque has been sent direct to their Client for the £75 claimed & they will give a receipt on payment of their Cists which we have taxed at £7.7. Shall we pay same?"

"Elgey v Hart"

"We have sent down Execution to the City of York to levy as below"

"Debt 200
Interest from 9th Novr 1868 £14.16
Costs £9.11
Levy £224.7
And £1.10 for Execution besides"

"The whole of this Dfts effects were seized under a Bill of Sale about the 1st of April and sold by Valuation on or about the 7th to a Mr Foster who is now in possn. Dft is now in very poor lodgings and earns a precarious living as barkpeeler. There are several Exns out against him from the Court of Record".

"We have inspected this Bill of Sale which is dated 23 March 1870 and filed 26 March".

"It is absolute to Christopher Eales of 196 Kensington Road, London in consideration of £500 money. It covers all the Effects, Stock in trade and Goodwill. We suspect it is a Swindle but there is no ground that we see for impeaching it except by your prior Bill of Sale".

"If you could at all establish that the Goods covered by it were the same you would probably be able to establish a better title, but there is no Schedule to your Deed and we do not know whether you have any evidence that the Goods are in any degree the same, of course they cannot be wholly so".

"We gather that Defendant is still carrying on business. If we can shew clearly on Affidavit that his profits and means are such as to enable him to pay we might get an order to arrest him, a third course will be to proceed in Bankruptcy & probably that is the only course open to us"

"The first thing is to ascertain whether Defendant has committed and act of Bank[rupt]cy which under Section 6 32 & 33 Vic Chap 71 may be 1st Assignment for benefit of Creditors generally. 2nd A fraudulent assignment. 3rd The old Acts of Bankruptcy such as Keeping House, or absenting himself & c. 4th Making declaration of Insolvency. 5th Seizure and Sale under Execution. 6th Non payment for seven days on Traders Debtors Summons".

"We suppose you cannot prove any of the first five & you will have to resort to the sixth".

"You will have to obtain a Summons in the local Bankruptcy Court which we presume will be York and when an Order has been made for payment you will have to petition there. The practical step in either to attend at York with an Affidavit under the Bankruptcy Act and apply for a Summons or to send the Affidavit to your local Agent there".

"We presume the York Court is the proper District".

"In reply to your letter asking whether there is any change of proceedings being averted in this matter. We beg to refer you to our letter of the 3rd wherein we ask you to forward us the particulars of your bill of sale viz date, Amount for which given, and the property comprised in it".

"On the receipt of this information we will at once communicate with our client but at present we are quite at a loss as to what Bill of Sale you allude to".

"We have this morning received a letter from our Client and without prejudice we have to inform you that Mr Eales is willing to give you £65 in cash and the whole of his interest in the bill of sale after the other creditors are satisfied for your clients interest under the Mtge & Bill of Sale. The Bill of Sale realized £64.11.4 and there [sic] creditors including Mr Eales to the amount of £597.3.0 we may state that there is due to Mr Eales alone the sum of £500. We think of paying the other creditors about 2% in the £. If your client will agree to this we will at once communicate with the creditors and try and get matters settled. Mr Eales has always told the creditors that he would divide the proceeds of the Bill of Sale with them".

"The handwriting is difficult to read but notes that the solicitors' client was willing to give £65 and interest at the value of 2/s in the pound - total £85".

"Will you please inform us if you hold the deeds relating to the property Mtged by Hart to your Client & if not who does. Also in whose name the Gas shares at present stand & who holds the coupons".

"In your letter to us of 14th of June last you state ¿If your client is disposed to pay £150 taking the documents in our client's possession he will as it appears to us consult his own interests¿. We should be much obliged if you will inform us to what documents you referred. Please inform us whether you or your client hold any deeds at all relating to the property in question. Also whether your client has been receiving any share of the Dividends due upon the gas shares and if so from whom he received. We must certainly know something more about the deeds &c before we can think of allowing our client to complete this matter".

"We have received a letter from our client Mr Eales in which he informs us that the deeds relating to the Staindrop property were read over to him by Mr Dodds in his own office in March last. Please inform us if this is the fact. Our Client of course expects the whole of the deeds to be given up to him. We shall be glad to hear from you as to this in order that if you have not the deeds we may be enabled to make enquiries elsewhere".

"We think you must be mistaken about these deeds. We have seen Hart and states he gave them up to you when his wife executed the Mtge deed. He says they consisted of the Probate of Nichols' will and two or three other title deeds. We shall therefore be much obliged if you will kindly have the deeds again looked for as from what Hart says it is evident that either Elgey or yourselves have them".

"We have made further enquiries about these deeds and without at all wishing to dispute either your or Mr Elgey's word we still think you must be mistaken. Hart is so very sure about having given them to you and speaks so very convincingly that we really must ask you to look again amongst your papers & deeds for them. If you have not got them perhaps you can give us some information about them as it is hardly likely you would take the Mtge without knowing something about the title or who held the deeds".

"We have seen Hart again this morning and mentioned to him what you said about the deeds. He declared that he received the deeds from his mother in law Mrs Nicholls on purpose to take them to you and that he gave them up at your office in Stockton in the presence of Mr Elgey the day his wife signed the mortgage. He also states that some time last year he went to your office and requwsted to be allowed to see the Probate of Mr Nicholls' will and that you allowed him to take it away with him and that he afterwards returned it. We think from this that it is very likely that when the probate was returned it was put away by itself instead of being placed with the other deeds and that this is the reason why you have only found the probate. Hart states that the conveyance of the property to his father in law Nicholls from a person of the name of Oliver was amongst the deeds".

"Our Client will certainly not consent to abandon the arrangement come to which on his side was entered into simply with a view to avoid dispute and litigation and the delay in completing has not been with us but through your mistake as to the custody of the deeds".

"With regard to agreeing to the sale and division of proceeds our Client will certainly consent to nothing of the kind, if for any reason the previous arrangement should not be completed, he will stand on his rights as a cestui qui [sic] trust and in that case in our opinion your client has no title whatever as against him".

"Not having received any answer to our last letter we now send the draft of the interested transfer of mtge for your perusal on behalf of Mr Elgey & shall be glad to receive the same approved by you".

"We shall be obliged by your returning to us the draft Transfer of Mtge at your earliest convenience as Mr Eales is very anxious to have this matter completed".

"We should very like to hear from you respecting this matter. It is now several weeks since we sent you our Draft. Mr Eales is anxious to get this business settled".

Notice by Richard Elgey, late of Moor Row, Forcett (North Yorkshire), now of Hill Top, near Winston (Yorkshire) and addressed to Dorothy Watkin, George Copeland and John Stephenson; reciting D/X 2208/14/1 and giving notice to tenants of the property in Staindrop to pay half the rent to himself.

Reciting D/X 2208/14/1 and D/X 2208/14/26; notice by Paley & Husband , as agents for Christopher Eales of 196 Kennington Road (Surrey), engineer and Elizabeth, his wife that her dwelling in D/X 2208/4/1 was vested, under the will of James Nichols of Staindrop, in Francis John Hart as trustee but without equity to convey or assign right to receive rent and stating that only Christopher and Elizabeth Eales were entitled to receive rent, not Richard Elgey and had called on Francis John Hart to administer the trust on pain of facing an action in Chancery.

Request by Francis John Hart, as surviving trustee under the will of James Nichols, to Paley & Husband of York, to sell the remaining real estate of James Nichols deceased and authorising them to demand deeds; witnessed by W. W. Paley.

As we have received no reply to our letters for some time and as Mr Elgey has given notice to one of the Tenants to pay a moiety of his rent to him we suppose you have determined not to carry out your part of the agreement. We shall therefore be obliged to proceed to sell the property under the Trusts of the will of Mr Nichols decd and for that purpose must request you to hand over to us the Probate of the Will of the late James Nichols and the Title deeds of the Property at Staindrop. We enclose you a copy of our authority from Hart we have also given the Tenants notice not to pay any part of their rent to Mr Elgey. We send a copy of the notice" [D/X 2208/14/27].

"We are surprised that we have received no answer to our letter of 12th December last and previous letters. We have now to demand that you give up to us as Solicitors of the Trustees under the Will of James Nichols deceased the Probate of the Will of the said James Nichols and the Title deeds of the property at Staindrop & which you have admitted you hold in order that we may be enabled to carry out the Trusts of the Will and we have now to inform you that if you neglect or refuse to give up to us the said Probate and Title deeds we shall file a Bill in Chancery for the administration of the estate of the sd James Nichols deceased under the direction of the Court which if we had possession of the deeds we should be able to do, without the assistance of the court and that when before the court we shall apply that the costs may be paid either by your client or by yourselves personally on the ground that you wrongfully retained possession of the said deeds & so caused the expense of applying to the court".

See D/X 2208/14/32

The document, drawn up by Sharp & Ullithorne of Grays Inn, London and comprising the following letters:

(I) D/X 2208/14/29

(II) D/X 2208/14/30

(III) Letter of 7 January 1871 from Dodds & Trotter to Paley & Husband of York: "Upon the amount of mortgage money and interest due to our client being discharged we shall at once advise him to deliver up the deeds to whoever is lawfully entitled to their custody";

(IV) Letter of 9 January 1871 from Paley & Husband of York to Dodds & Trotter: "As acting on behalf of Mr Hart, as Trustee only under the will of Mr Nichols & for Mr & Mrs Eales tho' only parties we believe how [sic] really beneficially interested in the trust estate (Mrs hart's share has been already retained out of the trust funds) we cannot recognise Mr Elgey's claim at all".

"We shall accept your letter of the 7th January inst as a refusal to part with the deeds to the Trustee to enable him to execute the trusts of the will unless we receive them on or before Monday next".

"We consider the deposit of the deeds by Mr Hart a breach of trust in the first instance to which you and your clients fix [sic] full notice of the trusts have made yourselves parties and liable for all the consequences of such breach to the parties beneficially interested if you retain them longer such retention will be the chief occasion of the proceedings in Chancery which we shall after Monday next inevitably institute".

"You & your clients may probably be entitled to costs as against Mr Hart personally be [sic] we shall certainly ask the Court to make you liable as believe yourselves & the beneficiaries".

"We have been desirous to avoid taking this course but if the liberal manner in which our clients Mr Eales proposed to deal with the matter in order to avoid litigation & the way in which it has been first accepted & then repudiated we feel no hesitation".

(V) Letter of 13 January 1871 from Dodds & Trotter to Paley & Husband of York: "We are in receipt of your letter of the 9th instant".

"The statement that Mr Hart's share has already been retained out of the trust funds would have surprised us had we not been convinced for some time past that your client Hart who will not get his deserts until he is prosecuted criminally and Mr Eales have combined together to endeavour to prevent our client from receiving what is lawfully due to him".

"We think that if you take your proposed Chancery proceedings our client is far more likely to receive his money than under the administration of a man so thoroughly untrustworthy as Hart has proved himself to be. Had the Trustee been a respectable and responsible man we should not have hesitated to deliver the deeds to him upon a proper arrangement; but under the circumstances and especially after the assertions made in your letter to us we decline to pursue a course which would result in our clients [sic] being defrauded of his just claim".

"We have no wish that our Client should have the annoyance of defending a Chancery suit nor do we wish the wreck of the estate to be frittered away in Chancery proceedings but rather than submit to wholesale injustice such as your clients contemplate, we shall advise our client to retain the deeds until equity is done to him, or until the Court has decided that your clients have greater equity on their side than ours".

- reciting D/X 2208/14/1;
- title deeds relating to the property with probate of the will of James Nichols were deposited with Richard Elgey;
- Mary, wife of James Nichols and also trustee John Nichols were both dead;
- it was believed that the share of John Nichols accrue to Mrs Hart and Mrs Eales, his sisters and they were entitled to half each;
- "Hart is an unprincipled silly fellow who has possessed himself of such of the trust funds as consisted of money or securities and applied them to his own purposes and Mrs Eales will thereby lose a considerable part of her share of her father's estate. He has lately been Bankrupt and is now in very poor circumstances and utterly untrustworthy";
- a proposal had been made to Paley & Husband as solicitors for Mr and Mrs Eales (who were entitled to one third shares under the will of James Nichols) to transfer the mortgage together with a bill of sale of furniture given by Hart to Elgey and the sum of £85 was at first accepted but eventually withdrawn by Elgey;
- notice was then given to the tenants at Staindrop to pay one third of the rent to Elgey;
- "It will be seen that the last letter from Paley and Husband indicates a deliberate intention on their part to defraud Mr Elgey out of the money advanced by him on the security of the mortgage and we are convinced that if the deeds are delivered to Hart not one penny will ever be obtained from him";
- Counsel asked to give an opinion on: (1) whether the mortgage to Elgey as set out in this case is a good and valid mortgage; (2) whether Hart as surviving trustee was entitled to the custody of the deeds; (3) in the event of Elgey retaining the deeds and an administration suit being instituted upon whom would the costs fall; (4) what was the best course for Elgey to pursue to obtain payment of principal and interest due; (5) Hart's bankruptcy and present circumstances and whether they would be ground for his removal as a trustee

Opinion by Edward Fry of Lincoln's Inn: "I see no reason to doubt the validity of the mortgage of the 9th Novr 1865. Hart in his character of Trustee appears to have committed serious breaches of Trust: and it is clear that neither Hart nor any person claiming under him could take any part of the Trust estate until such breaches of Trust had been made good: so that any defalcations would fall on any property taken by him under the will even though mortgaged by him for valuable consideration. It becomes therefore important to consider whether Mr Elgey claims under Hart or under his wife, and whether husband and wife can for such a purpose be considered separate. After a consideration of the language of the will and of the provisions of the two statutes which seem to me to give validity to the mortgage (3 & 4 Wm 4 c.74 577 and 20 & 21 Vict c.57 s.1) my conclusion is that Mr Elgey claims under the wife and not under the husband, and that there is no right of retainer against the mortgaged share in respect of the breaches of Trust of Hart in his character of Trustee. The point has so far as I know never been decided and certainly admit of grave argument on both sides".

2-3. "Mr Elgey was clearly not entitled to receive the deeds; but having got them and the Trustee having committed breaches of Trust, and being of untrustworthy character, it is possible the Court might hold that Mr Elgey as a cestui que trust was justified in holding them, at least for a time. But this question, and also the 3rd as to the costs of an administration suit, depend upon the view which the Court might take of the evidence to be presented, which would no doubt be conflicting, as to Hart's conduct".

4th "Mr.Elgey had in my opinion better file a bill (or a plaint if the estate allows of it) in his character of assign of one third of the estate, to have the Trusts of the will carried into execution, and the fund secured, and to have a receiver appointed. He should by his Bill state his reasons for refusing to give up the Title deeds to Hart, and should offer to deposit them with the Record & Writ Clerks, or to deliver them to such person and in such manner as the Court shall direct".

6 [sic]. "It is not very clear on the case before me whether Hart would be removed from his Trusteeship on a summary application. I certainly do not recommend any such application, as I think that it would involve a contest as to the facts, and that even if successful it would probably not conclude the litigation".

"We are in receipt of your letter of the 14th inst".

"We are unconscious that anything contd in our ltr can warrant the assumption contd in yours, but perhaps you will be good enough to print out the particular expression to which you take exception".

"We gather from your letter that it has been written without communication with your client. We hope that when he hears from you he will not be like the plaintiff of whom it is said that where he heard Counsel eloquently describe injuries he was supposed to have sustained burst into tears and exclaimed ¿I never heard until now how much I had been injured".

- death of John Nichols unmarried at Staindrop on 6 March 1861 and was buried in the churchyard;
- John Nichols' next of kin and personal representatives were Elizabeth Eales and Margaret Hart;
- no will or letters of administration of John Nichols had been found in Principal Probate Registry;
- on John Nichol's death his mother took all his personal effects;
- Margaret, wife of James Nichols, died 19 January 1870 at 196 Kennington, Lambeth (Surrey) and was buried in Nunhead Cemetery;
- on 14 April 1870 Elgey sued Hart on a bill of sale of 9 May 1865 to secure £250 due from Hart to Elgey and to secure a further advance. The bill of sale was collateral security for the mortgage. On securing judgement and a writ being sent to the sheriff it was returned by his officer who said that all the defendant's effects were seized under a bill of sale of 23 March 1870 to Christopher Eales for £500 and afterwards sold by valuation. Hart was then in very poor lodgings earning a precarious living as a bark peeler and there were several executions out against him. Elgey they threatened proceedings in bankruptcy but on arrangement for transfer of the mortgage and bill of sale to Eales no further steps were taken.

Reciting
1. The will of James Nichols as in D/X 2208/14/1;
2. Death of James Nichols on 20 October 1858 and proof of his will on 4 November 1858 in Durham District Probate Registry;
3. Mortgage at D/X 2208/14/1;
4. At the time of D/X 2208/4/1 the title deeds and probate of the will of James Nichols were deposited with Elgey who had no notices of breach of trust by Hart;
5. Death of John Nichols, son of James, on 6 March 1861 intestate and unmarried leaving Hart as surviving trustee of the will of James Nichols; no letters of administration were taken out, his mother Margaret, taking possession of his effects; his surviving next of kin were his sisters Elizabeth Eales and Margaret Hart; Margaret Nichols died 19 January 1870;
6. Hart had taken possession of such part of the trust property consisting of money and securities and had applied them for his own purposes and was now insolvent; no sale had been made of the real estate in trust;
7. The mortgage principal of £200 with considerable arrears of interest remained due to Elgey; D/X 2208/14/27;
8. Hart refused to pay the mortgage principal and interest and demanded delivery of the deeds from Elgey to Hart - ¿Having regard to the previous conduct of the last named Defendant with reference to the trust property and to his untrustworthy character¿ Elgey was unwilling to deliver him the deeds but was willing to deliver them to the Clerk of Record & Writs;
9. Hart alleged he retained a share of his wife or his own share in her right in residuary trust estate for the loss it had sustained by his breaches of trust. Elgey alleged that Hart had no right of retention;
10. Elgey submitted that the trusts of Nichols' will should be carried into execution and a receiver appointed for rents and profits and annual income

Praying
1. The trusts of Nichols' will should be carried out;
2. Real and personal estate subject to the trusts of the will should be secured;
3. A receiver should be appointed of rents, profits and income;
4. All necessary accounts should be taken, directions given and enquiries made;
5. Elgey should have relief.

"We have seen Mr Procter on your letter and that of Messrs Paley & Co."

"Mr Procter is clear that the suit is maintainable by the Pltf as assignee of Mrs Hart's share. Also that it is not demmurable [sic] for want of parties".

"The offer of a settlement without litigation having been made Mr Procter thinks it would not be advisable to decline altogether. He thinks with us that their real object is to get the sale back into their own hands and that they would not agree to your proposal that the property should be offer [sic] for sale by you".

"If however they are willing to consent to that Mr Procter thinks that your suggested answer to their proposal is the best one that can be made".

"We are in receipt of yours of the 27th ulto. Our Counsel advises that the suit we have instituted is maintainable by the plt as assignee of Mr hart's share and also that it is not demurrable for want of parties. We cannot accept your proposal but we are willing without prejudice to consent to the follows: Proceedings to be stayed. An agreet to be entered into betw Mr & Mrs Eales, Mr & Mrs Hart & Mr Elgey to state a joint case for the opinion of Counsel & to be bound by his opinion. In the event of Counsel's opinion being entirely adverse to us, we would agree to deliver up the deeds but if in our favor then that we should hold them & that the property shd be offered for sale by auction by us & under our direction, rent, conveyg & the pctise being completed at our offices. The reserve did not exceed a sum to be named by a competent valuer. Cost to be paid out of the trust estate except those relatg to yr proceedings with a view to file a bill which we are not disposed to recognise in any way whatever".

"We think your proposal too vague ever to lead to a settlement of the matter if concurred in by our clients. The only question for counsel to decide it appears to us is suppose the estate realized & the money in Court, how would the Court direct it to be dealt with as between you & Mr & Mrs Eales. We are willing to abide the opinio of Cnounsel upon this point and should prefer that decision as cheaper to all parties than a Chancery suit. We think our proposal a fair & as far as the question of costs goes a most liberal one towards your client, but if there are any particulars in which you think it should be modified we shall be glad to consider them, but for the reasons we have above stated we cannot advise our clients to acquiesce in the course you propose, tho' we think your views appear sufficiently near to our own to admit of the probability of agreement. We should not object to counsel's opinion being taken before instead of after sale as suggested by us & perhaps it would be better".

"Without prejudice. Your tone in corresponding with us for some reason we cannot explain. Seems purposely wanting in the courtesy observed by the members of our profession to each other.¿ Paley & Husband objected to the charge of wasting time as ¿uncalled for as it is unprofessional & unbecoming". The letter foes on to state they had altered Dobbs & Trotter's proposal and advised their client to agree to it.

"We wrote to you on Mr Eales' behalf on the subject of these matters some months ago, and had the pleasure of an interview with your Mr Dodds in London but the business was not then in a state which admitted of any definite proposal being made on either side".

"Mr Eales now informs us that proceedings in Chancery have been commenced by you on Mr Elgey's behalf, and has brought in a sketch of a proposed arrangement for settlement and stopping the litigation".

"If you will kindly let us have an appointment with Mr Dodds who we presume will be in London next week we have hopes of being able to come to terms of settlement".

"We are obliged by your letter".

"Mr Eales is much vexed that such a disposition should have been shown in the matter by the Solicitors who have represented him, as his wish all along has been to have the matter settled in a way would be just and right between himself and Mr Elgey; he states that when he was last in Yorkshire he intimated to Messrs Paley & Husband his intention of seeing Mr Elgey and undertaking to manage the matter with him, but he was dissuaded by them from doing so".

"Mr Eales instructed us to say that he is willing to purchase Mr Elgey's interest in the property or to sell his own interest to Mr Elgey. Will you let us know your view about this proposal".

"We are instructed by Mr Eales to offer, without prejudice, £120 for Mr Elgey's interest in the available property; considering all the circumstances and the state of the purchase property Mr Eales feels that he is making a fair offer, indeed he has gone to the utmost limit for the sake of a settlement".

"Property in Staindrop is not very saleable just now yet we think if offered for sale it could realise £300. Mrs Watkin is leaving the large house she has not paid the last half year's rent. Hoping you are well with kind love".

"We have I am sorry to say been unable to find the deeds. We have tried all whom we thought likely and have two or three parties enquiring for us I fear they are going to be bad to find".

"You must do as you think best both about settling the house and punishing him. I fear he has not any money he has been writing a begging letter to his Father telling him he is almost hungered".

"Baby is better the rest all well".

"Should we find them I will let you know at once".

"The inclosed is all we have been able to make out respecting the Gas Shares at Staindrop it seems Hart has grossly exaggerated the amount. I hope you are well and will enjoy the Banquet".

"The figures in your letter of the 8th instant are not very clear, are we to read the sum you ask Mr Eales to pay as £130, £150 or £180".

"Mr Nicholls' estate consists of the Freehold property at Staindrop and 12 £5 shares in the Staindrop Gas Company".

"The shares in the Sunderland and South Shields Water Compy: were the property of John Nicholls, the Son of the Testator, who gave them to his mother, who gave them by his will to Mr Eales and Mr Hart".

"Our client has offered the full value for the moiety of the property, he will take that sum for his share".

"As you observe our Correspondence is strictly without prejudice".

"Richard thinks he is clearly entitled to £150 out of the Sunderland and South Shields Water Comp and £30 out of the £60 in the Staindrop Gas Works as £30 of it belonged to Hart and his wife. When she signed her right away to Richard she had not possession of them but it was on the understanding that we were to be repaid when she came into possession of them at the death of her mother and we think that our deal ought to take effect before the one which she has made to Mr Eales if so we should not lose very much".

"Richard has seen Mr Hewson at Bd Castle today he has promised to pay the remainder of the money a month today and not truck any more of the ¿ until after that time if he will give him a few pounds back as the old stock is so very bad".

"We are willing to take £150 for the Freehold property at Staindrop. Have we no right to a share of Gas Shares at Staindrop and also those in the Sunderland and South Shields Water Company as I gather from the copy of the deed made by Mrs Hart to Mr Eales that there are 39 £5 shares in the S & SS Water Compy we leave it entirely to you".

"P. S. If we have any interest in those shares ought we not to be paid in full or should we sell the property and can we force a sale of the shares".

¿We had better see you on this matter, if you will be so good as to make an appointment at your office¿.

¿We shall be glad if you can name some hour tomorrow for us to call on you, as our engagements do not permit of our doing so today¿.

¿Mr Eales has just had a loss in his family, which has prevented him from seeing us, as he wished to do before we called on you again¿.

"We have been prevented by special engagements from calling on you: we can fix Thursday at 12 if we are unable to call on you tomorrow".

"We are delayed for want of some information from Messrs Paley & Husband, which we are promised on Mr Husband's return from his vacation in a few days".

"The delay has been caused solely by us waiting to hear from Messrs Paley & Husband; we think we may soon say that we shall be able to send you the draft of the necessary deed for perusal, in the course of the week".

"We shall be much obliged if you will return us the draft transfer of mortgage we sent you on the 18th of October in last year for your perusal".

"We wrote Messrs Paley & Husband for the draft transfer of this mortgage to our clients, which they had prepared and have charged in their Bill of costs, and they reply that you have it; it is quite possible that if you hand it to us approved we may be able to adopt it".

"We believe you have the title Deeds of the property".

"We shall hand you draft transfer of Mortgage for perusal by book post tomorrow".

"We now send you draft transfer of Mortgage as promised yesterday".

"If the Deft: does not require the Bill to be dismissed the Plt will not be prejudiced by the matter simply being allowed to drop".

"By book post we send you draft transfer of Mortgage and for engrossment examination and execution".

"If you will be so good as to let us know when it is executed and that you have the title deeds ready to hand over to us, together with an authority from your client to Mr Eales to receive his proportion of the rents, we will remit you the amount agreed to be paid by Mr Eales".

"With respect to the dismissal of the Bill filed against Hart, we are not concerned for him and know nothing of the matter".

"The amount to be paid to your client is the consideration stated in the deed. Any arrears of rent our client is to have, if he can receive them and for that purpose we want Mr Elgey's authority, he having given notice as we understand to pay ninety of the rents to him".

"Herewith I return the Transfer of Mortgage. I am glad to find this annoying business will soon be done with. There will be 3 years of interest due to us on the ninth day of November next which I hope you will be able to get from them".

"I hope by this time Mama is quite well again. I was sorry to hear of her severe illness".

"I must wish Anne and you each many happy returns of your birthdays and with kind love to all"

"You have hardly given us sufficient notice, will you name some other day later in the week, say Wednesday, or possibly we had better make no more appointments if you can give us a Notice not of more than three days: our clients ¿ prevents his being able to see us when we ask for his attendance".

Parties:
(1) Richard Elgey of Moor Row, Forcett (North Yorkshire), farmer;
(2) Christopher Eales of 196 Kennington Road (Surrey), gentleman

Reciting:
- Agreement of 9 May 1865 between (i) Francis John Hart of Moor Row, farmer and (ii) Richard Elgey in which (i) was indebted to (ii) for £250 and to secure repayment (i) assigned to (ii) all his household goods, furniture, stock in trade, plate and plated articles, household linen, books, china and other household effects, horses, saddles, harness and other accoutrements and also all implements of husbandry, crops and grain and his dead stock and other goods, chattels and effects around (i)'s dwellinghouse in Moor Row;
- D/X 2208/14/1;
- £200 and some arrears of interest in all amounting to £225 was still owing to (1);
- (1) had requested repayment but Francis John Hart could not pay and had agreed to transfer his security in the mortgage of 9 May 1865 and D/X 2208/14/1 to (2) on payment of £140

Operative Part:
- (2) paid £140 to (1);
- (1) assigned the principal sum of £200 to (2) for his own benefit;
- (1) assigned all personal estate of Francis John Hart at Moor Row to (2)

Witness:
- Robert Clark of Barforth Hill, farmer

¿We do not find with the deeds a withdrawal by your client of the notice given to him to the tenants of the freehold property, to pay him a moiety of the rent; will you kindly let us have this, or a note from yourselves would probably be sufficient¿.

Effects sworn under £2,000

Dwellinghouse & effects said to be worth £200 at the least

To deduct
Legacy to Eliz Eales £350
Legacy to Marg Hart £250
Legacy to Jno Nichols £350

"The mtge to Mr Elgey is a mtge of Hart's 1/3 share of & in the mos to arise from the sale of the property. This does not confer an estate in the land & therefor I do not think Mr Elgey is entitled to give the tenants notice to pay the rent to him. His plan would be to give the trees of Mr Nichols' will (Hart & Nichols) notice to pay Hart's share in the rents & profits over to him, and by vire of the power of attorney contained in the mtge made for a sale of conversion of the property & the payment of his mtge moy & int. I see no reason to doubt the validity of the mtge, there is only one objection & that is consequent upon the state of the case viz. that it confers no estate, the only means the mtgee has is either to sell the share by auction or use to give the trees notice to sell & convert. Wm Brown".

"I presume notice of the charge would be given to Mr Nichols the other trustee to be living".

"I am inclined to think that any arrangement entered into by us on behalf of our clients for the asst of the mtge & bill of sale to Messrs P & H's client will not destroy our client's right to enforce a sale & conversions of Hart's share in Nichols' estate. There seems to me to be a distinct ¿ to assure the mtge & bill of sale proposed by ourselves & accepted by Messrs P & H but whether it is binding & whether they wd have a remedy over agst our client on his enfrocg a sale & conversion. I do not feel competent to say. William Brown".

"I have been out of York when your letter came but I sent you the copy as I promised as to the gas shares they are as I stated to you all untouched to my knowledge as I never did anything with them and any other information respecting them or any other of the property I cannot give you as I know nothing more than you do the shares at Sunderland I never saw with kind regards to you all hoping you are all well"

"Enclosed I send you the copy of the memorandum made between Christopher Eales and my wife and hope that something may be done to satisfy your claim as I did not wish you to be left without your money which I think he does not care if he only get his be so kind as to present the deed with our kind regards to all".

"I received yours through my Father to request payment or Mr E Elgies money and beg to say I will discharge it the later part of this month or the first week in March the money will be paid in by that time".

"Agreement to be entered into between Mr & Mrs Eales Mr & Mrs Hart and Mr Elgey to state a joint case for the opinion of Counsel upon the following question supposing the estate remaining unrealized to be realized & case the money paid into Court & all questions of costs disposed of how would the Court direct the money to be dealt with as between Mr Elgey and Mr & Mrs Eales. The property at Staindrop to be offered for sale by auction by Mess Dodds & Trotter or under their direction (with Notice to Mr & Mrs Eales) Hart conveying and the purchase being completed at their offices. The reserve bid not to exceed a sum to be agreed on or named by a competent valuer - costs to be paid out of the Trust Estate & the residue of the money to be disposed of in accordance with the opinion of Counsel. No proceedings in the suit to be taken by either party without 10 days notice pending the preparation & execution of the Agreement¿ Annotated ¿We do not care who sells so long as the property is fairly sold. So you can take the sale under any circumstances".

- he was a mason employed by the plaintiffs;
- describing repairs he made to the Wheat Sheaf Inn at Piercebridge

- he had recently become tenant;
- describing issues he found with the building;
- he had not heard of damage to the defendant's furniture

- he was assistant secretary to the plaintiffs;
- explanation of events before Thomas Pallister became tenant of Wheat Sheaf Inn, Piercebridge