170 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

minds to speculate upon, and to weave plausible theories of
unfairness in the transaction with which they are associated.

It is true, it is shown in this case, that the defendant cannot
read manuscript, and that, therefore, he could not have him-
self have examined and understood the settlement of January,
1834, which was the basis of the mortgage of the following
October; but, then it is in evidence, that that settlement
was made in the presence of the defendant, who could both
read and write, and who seems, from his proof, to have been
quite familiar with his business.

Looking to that settlement, and comparing it with the other
papers produced by the defendant, and seeing that to a great
extent its fairness is corroborated by those papers; and in view
also of the vague and indefinite character of the parol evidence
relied upon to show that the defendant was not allowed all the
credits to which he is said to have been entitled, I do not con-
sider myself warranted in saying, that fraud was practiced in
that settlement. But supposing the circumstances of suspicion
were more pregnant, than they present themselves to my mind,
there are other facts appearing in the case, which would go far
to repel the presumption of fraud.

The settlement does not appear to have been made in private,
with no persons present but the parties themselves, but, as is
shown by the proof, in the presence of a witness, who could
both read and write, and who seems from his own declarations
to have been quite familiar with the dealings between the par-
ties. There is, besides, another circumstance, which is well
calculated to rebut the presumption that any thing unfair was
contemplated by Beale Duvall.

The settlement in which the fraud is said to have been com-
mitted, was made on the 8th of January, 1834, and the mort-
gage only charged to be fraudulent, because founded upon that
settlement, was not executed until the 28th October following,
upwards of nine months afterwards.

During all this interval the settlement was open to examina-
tion by any person whom the defendant might ask to perform
that office for him, Duvall having given him a copy of it in his