| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 359 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
GEORGE VS. SPENCER. 359 amination would avail him nothing. Besides, it seems to me, that the details given in the answer upon this subject are well calculated to create confidence in its truth, as it can hardly be supposed, that any thing but a consciousness of speaking the truth, could have induced the respondent to place in the hands of her adversary the means of exposure, if she was dealing.in fiction. Can it be readily believed, that she would have said in her answer, the money was at several times placed in the hands of A. B. and C., if such was not the case, when an ap- plication to these parties, which she must have anticipated, would at once have brought upon her the consequences of de- tected falsehood! I cannot bring myself to believe in such in- fatuation. A great deal of stress has been laid by the complainant's so- licitor upon a supposed discrepancy between the answer of Mrs. Spencer and the proof in regard to the deposit with Priestly. The answer alleges, that at the time of the marriage of Mrs. Spencer, in 1825, she had in the hands of Dr. Cromwell about six hundred dollars, which, subsequently to her marriage, was, with the interest, withdrawn from him, and loaned on interest, to Edward Priestly. By a pass-book which it seems was used as evidence of the deposits made with Priestly, the money it appears, was not all placed in his hands at one time, and in one round sum, but at various times and in various amounts, commencing in May, 1834, and terminating in October, 1836, the whole amount so deposited being $872, and deducting some repayments, amount- ing with interest on the 1st of April, 1847, to $863 64. The discrepancy alleged, is, that the answer is understood as saying that the money previously in the hands of Cromwell was with- drawn in one entire sum, and so placed with Priestly, whilst the proof furnished by the pass-book shows this not to have been the case. tut according to my construction of the answer, this criticism, should not be suffered so far to prevail, as to bring it into discredit. The answer does not say that the money was withdrawn from Cromwell, in one round sum. It says, it was taken from him and lent to Priestly, and it is quite consistent |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
| Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 359 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives