Upon this second award, we must say that the umpire has a way of his own for other things as well as for estimating loads of dung. He values the articles at 384l. 18s. This valuation may have been a sort of off-hand guess, as if it had been quite immaterial to Mr. Elsee what became of his property, as we have already stated that he was never consulted as to its disposal. But as we happen to know the items, we may afford the reader some means of judging of the nature of the award, by putting something like a fair value upon them.
| The fixtures had been previously valued by Mr. Driver for the crown, at | 30 | 0 | 0 |
| 123 loads of hay, at 60s. | 369 | 0 | 0 |
| 196 acres of straw, at their own estimate of two load per acre, at 25s. per load | 480 | 0 | 0 |
| Chaff | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| 889 | 0 | 0 | |
| From which deduct the sum paid by Mr. Ellis to Mr. Elsee by Mr. Drivers order, [59]. | 349 | 11 | 0 |
| And we shall have a loss to Mr. Elsee of | 539 | 9 | 0 |
The loss sustained in this transaction, in which Mr. Elsee embarked solely with a view of accommodating all parties, and of carrying into effect the wishes of the Commissioners, as expressed by their surveyor, was upwards of five hundred pounds; the sum which was ultimately paid him he did not receive for three years, in consequence of the unauthorised transfer of the debt of the crown to Mr. Ellis, and which might have been lost altogether, if any misfortune had befallen the latter gentleman; and these things, coupled with the order to pay down the enormous sum awarded to the commissioners, render it impossible to conclude that Mr. Elsee has been justly dealt with; and there will neither be law, nor equity, left to boast of, if a revision of these proceedings cannot be obtained, against the influence of Mr. Driver.
If any such circumstances had existed in an agreement between private subjects, there is no question but that both the awards would have been easily set aside; but with the crown for an antagonist, and the equity side of the exchequer for the scene of action, a contest was indeed desperate, in the face of the enmity of a leading agent of the powerful party; so that after Mr. Elsee had presented a memorial to the commissioners, who were induced probably by some misrepresentations from going into the merits of the case; and after having disputed the validity of the general award, on the trial of an information in the nature of an action for debt, filed upon it by the Attorney General, the result was what might be very naturally anticipated, from the conditions of the agreement which he had been entrapped to sign. He was compelled to pay the sum that had been awarded, and to bear the additional expence of his useless endeavour to protect his own interests. At this period the losses of Mr. Elsee amounted to about three thousand pounds, but he was destined to be a still greater sufferer. We have before mentioned that the Attorney General filed an exchequer process for certain dung, claimed under the agreement, instead of the more simple, cheap, and equitable mode of sending the matter for assessment to a sheriff’s jury. Now, though Mr. Elsee had no business to have signed such a document, he was of course bound by its conditions when he had done so, and was ready to comply with them, and to carry back two loads of dung for every load of hay, and one load of dung for every load of straw carried off.—The dung was ready for the purpose; and he only waited to know what was to be brought, and to obtain credit for what he had carried, which he never had been able to do.
The exchequer process terminated in a reference to Mr. Bolland, whose general reputation stands on high ground; but who appears in this instance to have wanted that degree of practical knowledge, which was requisite to enable a referee to appreciate the value of the testimony given on both sides of the question; and it is difficult to guess at the principles that governed the decision, except on the supposition that Mr. Bolland is a better lawyer than he is a farmer.
Mr. Elsee attended to prove that he had carried a large quantity of dung, which he estimated, and proved by his witnesses, left 130 ton to his credit, after deducting the quantity in return for the wheat straw. He then shewed by his books, in which the accounts of every day had been regularly entered, in a way that set all contradiction and suspicion at defiance, and by the production of the market tickets, that the gross amount of all the hay carried from the farm, amounted to 119 loads; and that the account stood as follows:—
| All the hay and straw taken from the farm consisted of 119 loads of hay, weighing 18 cwt. per load | 107 | 2 | 0 |
| 47 loads of straw, at their estimation, weighing 11 cwt. 2 qrs. 8 lb. per load | 27 | 5 | 0 |
| 166 loads, or tons | 134 | 7 | 0 |
This straw was carried corn and all to Chigwell Row, at 17 loads, with three horses, but called 47 one horse or nominal loads of 11 cwt. 2 qrs. 8 lbs. and the quantity of dung to be returned as under stated:—
| 47 one horse loads, at 11 cwt. 2 qrs. 8 lbs. each | 27 | 5 | 0 |
| 119 loads of hay, at 18 cwt. each | 107 | 0 | 0 |
| Add 119 loads to make two for one | 107 | 0 | 0 |
| The whole quantity of dung due, in tons | 241 | 5 | 0 |
The dung admitted to have been carried, consisted of 143 tons, and therefore about 99 tons in addition would have balanced the account. The value of this dung, at 5s. per load was 25l. and at this price any quantity could be obtained at Romford, as Mr. Elsee proved by various respectable witnesses. Yet after this statement, can it be believed that Mr. Bolland should award Mr. Elsee to pay the sum of 336l. 16s. 6d. besides all the expences of the witnesses on both sides, and half the expences of the reference! To us, this is utterly unaccountable.