<div1 type="SM_PSpage" id="LMSMPS50201PS502010033"> <xptr type="pageFacsimile" doc="LMSMPS502010033"></xptr>
<p n="154">that year and the life has been renewed and executed every year since till<lb></lb>
the last which was for £110: P Anum and expired the 5th of January last past,<lb></lb>
since which Mrs Seymore does admitt She has Demanded £110: Kent for the<lb></lb>
future which the said Geary declines to comply with.</p>
<p n="155">The Comittee hereupon Submit</p>
<p n="156"> <note type="authorial" place="margin">(1)<lb></lb>
agreed to</note>
<lb></lb>
That the first Agreement which the said Geary claims a performance of<lb></lb>
and alledges to be broke mims juste by Mrs Seymor's demanding a hundred<lb></lb>
pounds a Year is not Subsisting (1) Because it was in Terms so long as both<lb></lb>
parties should agree, and was waived by the Second about a Year after,<lb></lb>
which Second was carryed into Execution as also by the several Annual<lb></lb>
ones made and executed since, which were variant from it.</p>
<p n="157"> <note type="authorial" place="margin">(2)<lb></lb>
agreed to</note>
<lb></lb>
The last of them expiring 5th January last The Comittee Submitt that<lb></lb>
there is now no Subsisting Agreement between the parties at all.</p>
<p n="158">The Comitte however in Order to lay before the Court more fully the<lb></lb>
State of the Case between the said Seymor and Geary have examined into<lb></lb>
the accounts paid before them by both the said parties relating to the Receipts<lb></lb>
and Disbursements in the office of Cryer and Housekeeper. and do find that<lb></lb>
in the most considerable Articles there is little variance between them.</p>
<p n="159">Viz: in the accounts of Disbursements for your Entertainment for 6 years<lb></lb>
ending January Sessions 1720/21 amounting to the Summ of £1467:19s:0d<lb></lb>
the parties do not differ more than £2:11s: which the said Geary charges as<lb></lb>
expended more than Mrs Seymore.</p>
<p n="160">In the Article of Receipts from the<del>then Housekeeper</del>
Sheriff for Dinners and<lb></lb>
over Wine received from the Clark of the peace amounting for 6 Years ending<lb></lb>
last January Sessions to £1463: 4s: the difference between the said two.<lb></lb>
accounts are but £8:14s: which the said Geary charges less than the said Seymore.</p>
<p n="161">Your Comittee finding those accounts agree so near could the rather depend<lb></lb>
upon them in order to form a Judgment of the Truth of the whole account.</p>
<p n="162">Your Comittee did likewise peruse the annual Demands of the said Geary in<lb></lb>
his account for wear and tear of Linnen Etc and for loss by Licences not delivered<lb></lb>
out and did think the said Demands reasonable though no particular account<lb></lb>
was produced of them.</p>
<p n="163">Upon the whole of the said Geary's account which the Comittee finding to be<lb></lb>
true in the largest and most material Articles have reason to think it is so in<lb></lb>
the rest it appears that the said Geary has for 6 years past ending last Sessions<lb></lb>
received from Licences Fees of the Cryer and Mony paid by the Sheriff and<lb></lb>
over Wine the Summ of £2815 and has expended in Kent provisions including<lb></lb>
the allowances above mentioned for wear and tear, Licences not delivered<lb></lb>
out and petty charges the Summ of £2591: so that the clear gain of the said<lb></lb>
Geary for 6 years amounts to £224: which is every year £37:6s:8d</p>
<p n="164">The Comittee Submit it to the Judgment of the Court whether such a Summ<lb></lb>
is reasonable wages for the Services of the said Geary is obliged to perform Viz:</p>
<p n="165">His Attendance with his Wife and Sons every Sessions so buy in provisions<lb></lb>
to Dress them to wait at Table.</p>
<p n="166">For delivering Orders of Court to the several Constables in all parts of the<lb></lb>
County.</p>
<p n="167">For attending the renewing of Licences all over the County and maintaining</p>
</div1>

View as Text