Main content

Title: W.J.A. [Alexander?], London, to James Moty, Quebec.
CollectionIrish Emigration Database
FileAlexander, William J/48
SenderAlexander, William J.
Sender Gendermale
Sender Occupationsolicitor
Sender Religionunknown
OriginLondon, England
DestinationQuebec, Canada
RecipientMoty, James
Recipient Gendermale
SourceD 2433/B/20/33: Deposited by the Trustees of the Caledon Estates.
ArchiveThe Public Record Office, Northern Ireland.
Doc. No.9601097
Partial Date
Doc. TypeLET
LogDocument added by LT, 05:01:96.
Word Count516
Transcript22 St.James Place
5th Nov.1858.
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

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
I remain &c
(signed) W.J. A. [W.J. Alexander?]

James Moty Esq [Esquire?]