| Title: | W.J.A. [Alexander?], London, to James Moty, Quebec. |
|---|---|
| ID | 29 |
| Collection | Irish Emigration Database |
| File | Alexander, William J/48 |
| Year | 1858 |
| Sender | Alexander, William J. |
| Sender Gender | male |
| Sender Occupation | solicitor |
| Sender Religion | unknown |
| Origin | London, England |
| Destination | Quebec, Canada |
| Recipient | Moty, James |
| Recipient Gender | male |
| Relationship | business |
| Source | D 2433/B/20/33: Deposited by the Trustees of the Caledon Estates. |
| Archive | The Public Record Office, Northern Ireland. |
| Doc. No. | 9601097 |
| Date | 05/11/1858 |
| Partial Date | |
| Doc. Type | LET |
| Log | Document added by LT, 05:01:96. |
| Word Count | 516 |
| Genre | |
| Note | |
| Transcript | 22 St.James Place London. 5th Nov.1858. Sir As I am always absent from England during the months of Aug.[August?] Sept.[September?] & Oct.[October?] I have only now read your letter of Aug.[August?] 27 on my return to London. I have no doubt that the Duplicate which you state you had sent to Mr.Smyly has, from the same cause, only now reached his hands. As you have placed the matter of your claim in the hands of your solicitors Messrs Bischoff Coxe & Bumpas, of course all communications from the executors of the late Earl of Caledon on the subject will be addressed to those gentlemen & I merely write to you at present lest I should be suspected of [---?] of courtesy in leaving your letter without reply. I have also to repeat my viability to comply with your request to return to you a letter written by me to the late Earl of Caledon on the 27th Sept.[September?] 1842. That letter has nothing whatever to do with your claim either directly or indirectly, & you must know as a lawyer, that neither the person to whom it was addressed, nor indeed any one, except myself, wd [would?] give any [right?] of property in it whatsoever as againgst the master. I remain [&c?] James Moty E [Esquire?] W.J.A. Barrister at Law 19 Esplanade Quebec London 2nd March 1858 Sir, It was not possible to comply with the request in your letter of Jan.[January?] 29 but the letters [therein?] [transmitted?] from the late Earl of Caledon to you, wd [would?] be sent back to you by [the?] [next?] mail, as it was necessary to send them over to Mr.Smyly for his [perusal?] [to? [consider?]. I have already mentioned to you that he is, like me, an [Executor?] of the Earl of Caledon, & that in all executorial matters we [met?]jointly. I now [enclose?] to you the letters in question being 6 in number. The letter from myself to his Lordships dated 27 Sept 1842 I retain of course, in as much as it does not bear on the matter in discussion between you and the Exors [Executors?] in any way whatsoever, & is indeed my property. You are [altogether?] mistaken in supposing that my letter of Jan 6 implied, or was intended to imply any want of veracity on yr [your?] part. I should as a fact that neither Mr.Smyly nor I had been able to find, after a [trial?] search amongst his Lordships papers, any letters from you, or any mention of your name; but I never doubted, after receiving yr [your?] [assertion?] to that effect that you were in possession of letters from Ld.[Lord?] Caledon, & I [did?] [truably?] [noted?] at the conclusion of my letter, that [-----?] [statement?] of your position was abundantly sufficient to vouch for your respectability & character without any reference to the officer & or [gentleman?] whose names you mentioned in your first letter. To the subject of your claim Mr.S.[Smyly?] & I have again given our best [concern?] & we cannot [admit?] that yr [your?] letter of Jan 29 brings forward my additional argument for our departure from our original [views?]. The wives of Colonel Browne & Broughton having repaid your debts ([incurred?] by [themselves?]) after long intervals, cannot of course force the decision of Exors [Executors?] who have [still?] [duties?] to perform to [their?] Testator Estate; irrespective of all personal feelings; & we can well understand that a [principal?], to whom all the vices are known, [may?] [sense?] no difficulties, when his S---?] may be precluded by a sense of duty, or enforced by the courts here in each case from getting to a claim made after May 3rd, according to your own candid statement. It is quite clear that in point of law the Exors [Executors?] cannot be held liable & we very much doubt when we wd [would?] he justified as Exors [Executors?], in considering the question under any other than a legal aspect. As the P.S. of your first letter mentioned however a highly respectable & imminent firm of solicitors [here?] Bischoff [Cox?] & Co. with whom I have become to be well acquainted, we must be quite ready to confer with them to hear any arguments or suggestions which they may then prefer to readdress in St.James, in which they may think likely to alter the decision to which, as I before mentioned our duty reluctantly compels us to come. I remain &c (signed) W.J. A. [W.J. Alexander?] James Moty Esq [Esquire?] Barrister Quebec. |
