case thomas TILSLEY and whether POTTENGER appellant ANGELOTT wright respondent  the appellant make this case that Richard Tilsley of London merchant by his  will make in December bequeathe all his personal estate except some few legacy  to appellant whether his then wife and appellant Thomas his son and Elizabeth  Tilsley his daughter since decease and make his cousin John Tilsley and other  his partner executor in trust for his wife and child and die in October leave  a sum of l S d ready money in his dwell house in Coleman street and a far  great sum in bag in his warehouse in Welsh hall under guildhall beside a large  stock in trade and the executor John Tilsley immediate take the ready money  find in testator dwell house into his poss Colles er p sion and the bag find  in Welsh hall be remove to Christ hospital by the precedent and governor  thereof landlord of Welsh hall in use law to have and that November a  inventory be take of testator estate entitle a inventory of his good chattle c  see value and appraise wherein the sum of l S d so find in his house be  express set down as his proper estate but in this inventory the money find in  Welsh hall be Colles not specify otherwise than under the general name of his  stock in trade and his part of the profit thereof and that John Tilsley be the  only act executor and pay appellant several sum but testator daughter  Elizabeth be a infant and not entitle to receive her share appellant do not  call John Tilsley to account till after her death and in appellant prefer  their bill in chancery against the executor for a discovery and account and  John Tilsley in his answer set forth the inventory take that November and  distinguish the l S d as the proper estate of Richard Tilsley and set forth  likewise his receipt of the l S d from Christ hospital which he call money  belong to the estate in partnership and have give a evasive account of other  sum charge upon he by the bill appellant take exception to his answer but  before they can be argue John Tilsley die and make respondent Angelott wright  his executrix so that appellant lose the benefit of their exception and in  appellant revive their suit against respondent who answer and the cause be  hear d may before the Lord keeper and a account direct of both Richard and  John Tilsleys estate and respondent be decree to be answerable for John  Tilsleys receipt as far as his estate can extend and that November the master  report that John Tilsley have receive of Richard estate l S d include say sum  of l S d and l S d and have disburse l S d and that there remain due to  appellant l S d to be pay by respondent out of the estate leave her by John  which the master report to be l S d to this report respondent except and  insist that the l S d be part of the l S d find in Welsh hall and not a  distinct sum and in the exception be argue and the court direct a trial at law  upon this single issue videlicet whether the l S d be include in the l S d  which issue be try in Trinity before holt chief justice where respondent offer  in evidence a pocket book pretend to be keep and write by John Tilsley wherein  be a memorandum that he have pay to William Pemberton one of Richard Tilsleys  partner l S d out of the l S d and because l S d and l S d make l S d they  will infer that the l S d specify in the inventory be Richard Tilsleys Colles  part of the l S d find in Welsh hall and allege that the inventory be not  exhibit till April which book be not prove to be John Tilsleys handwriting  though if so no evidence in law and so the chief justice declare but one of  appellant council unwary admit the jury to see that book they be mislead by it  as some of they since acknowledge upon oath and agree to a verdict for  respondent which the appellant council perceive suffer a nonsuit and in  appellant apply for a new trial which the chancellor declare he be tie up by  the rule of the court from grant unless the judge shall certify the case  proper for one which the chief justice decline to do because appellant have  through ignorance neglect to apply while the cause be fresh in his memory and  therefore the Lord chancellor order that the l S d shall be take as include in  the l S d and this decree be sign and enrol which respondent insist ought to  be reverse and a new trial grant because defendant John Tilsley in the  schedule to his answer call the l S d the proper estate of Richard and call  the l S d money belong to the partner which if the first sum have be include  in the second he will not have do but will have distinguish and because there  be several good ring and other thing beside the bag of money find in Welsh  hall not notice in the inventory which be a argument that the inventory be  only make up of Richard Tilsleys estate and that no part of the l S d which be  not number when that inventory be take will be include in the inventory and  because Richard Tilsleys daughter have l bequeathe her by the will to be pay  at which she die under age never receive and appellant be now entitle to and  if the l S d be Colles er p include in the l S d the daughter can have have no  portion at all have she live and the executor will hardly have part with all  the estate till she be satisfy or he have her discharge and because it be  prove in the cause and at the trial that Richard Tilsley leave a great sum in  ready money in his house in Coleman street beside that in Welsh hall and no  account be give of the money find in his dwellinghouse save by the inventory  which though not exhibit till April be take that November at which time it be  impossible for the executor to Colles know how much of the money find in Welsh  hall belong to Richard Tilsley because that money be not tell over till the d  February follow and because no pocket book can be give in evidence in  discharge of the party who keep it but even so the memorandum enter there will  not support the inference make from it for John Tilsley admit the capital  stock in trade between Richard Tilsley and his partner to be l and Richard  Tilsleys share l so that Richard Tilsleys dividend of l S d will be l S d and  further because the jury be mislead by illegal evidence and some have so  acknowledge on oath and the form of proceed in chancery ought not to outweigh  the merit of a cause and appellant insist that new trial be frequent grant in  the commonlaw court where the evidence doubtful or the jury misguide by  illegal evidence and a new trial may have be grant in this case if appellant  have not ignorant mistake the manner of apply for one in due time and submit  that a new trial will not take away respondent right but only bring it under a  fresh examination and give appellant a opportunity of assert they which they  be in a great measure deprive of at the former trial by their own solicitor  who conceal many material paper from they I Beresford the respondent state  that Richard Tilsley be in partnership with William Pemberton Robert Pemberton  and Edward Phillips and keep the cash and manage the trade at a place under  guild hall belong to Christ hospital call the Welsh hall and there keep his  own cash as well as the cash of the partner and make his will and appoint  William Pemberton and Philips his partner and John Tilsley executor and die as  state by appellant and that Pemberton and Tilsley prove the will and that  November begin to take a inventory but do not exhibit it till April that after  when they prefer it in the prerogative court of Canterbury and in that  inventory be a item of l S d mention to be in ready money at testator decease  proper belong to his estate but not mention to be in testator house and in  Hillary term the appellant Ann be marry to James Pottenger be and she exhibit  a new bill in chancery Colles though she receive her three accord to the say  inventory on a former bill for a account of the say Richard estate which the  say John Tilsley that June answer and annex a copy of the inventory as the  whole estate of the say Richard and also annex two account one of the  particular receipt of money the other of his particular disbursement among  which former there be mention of l S d receive in cash belong to the estate of  Richard Tilsley and partner in a chest at Christ hospital and among the  payment there be mention of l S d pay to Pemberton to make up the cash in  partnership and soon after the say John Tilsley die have make his will and the  respondent sole executor thereof against who the plaintiff now appellant  revive that suit and the cause be hear and the master report as state by  appellant to which report both side take several exception and respondent  first exception which be the matter now in question be that the master have  charge respondent with all the money mention in the say account which John  Tilsley have confess to have receive and have moreover charge respondent with  the l S d mention in the inventory to belong proper to his estate whereas the  l S d be part of the l S d mention in the account of particular receipt to be  in cash belong to the estate of say Richard Tilsley and partner as appear by  deduct the l S d pay to Pemberton from the l S d the remainder be the l S d  mention in the inventory on hear the cause on which exception the chancellor  order the party to proceed to a trial in London whether the l S d be any part  of the l S d or not and to resort to the court for further direction and on  the trial after a full Colles er p hear of witness on each side and  examination by the court and jury of book and paper produce on each side the  jury be ready to give a verdict the appellant voluntary become nonsuit and  thereby give up the cause after which the cause be hear before the chancellor  who order that respondent say exception be allow and that the l S d be take as  part of the l S d and overrule the other exception on both side and refer it  back to the master to make his Colles further report therein but the appellant  petition for and obtain a rehear of the say exception and on a full debate the  chancellor order the master to proceed accord to former order and saint may  the master make his further report and certify due to the appellant l S d  which report be duly confirm after which appellant summon respondent twice  before Lord chief justice holt to obtain his certificate for a new trial who  upon hear council on both side see no cause to certify any ground for a new  trial which the court of chancery also refuse to grant though often move for  that purpose and the decree be now sign and enrol respondent hope the say  decree shall be affirm because respondent be only executrix of a executor and  a utter stranger to this whole affair which be transact above twenty year  since and because the issue be direct to be try at law on a fair and full hear  of council on both side and not by any consent of appellant council or at the  importunity of respondent council and last because the trial be have by a  substantial jury of London upon a full and long examination of the whole  matter upon produce all the book relate to the say partnership and hear the  whole evidence and allegation on either side t powys e Northey die Marturii  June after hear council on both side on this appeal it be order and adjudge by  the lord that the say petition and appeal be dismiss and the several order and  report complain of be affirm lord journ vol xvi