The Testimonies for John Ewer the Elder, Walter Ewer, and John Ewer the Younger - Page 15 - Transcript
“Of the Law in Maryland upon this principle that Mr Lee
“was not Agent of the Compy that his Authority was for
“special purposes well known in the Country. That Mr
“Lee carried an extensive Business on his private Account
“that the Credit given and Advances made must have been
“given and made to him and not the Company and that
“the withholding these Claims until after his death, when
“his Insolvency was known, was strong presumptive
“Evidence that they were unjust as they respected the Co
“or the Individuals of which it was composed—this is all
“Robert Alexander recollects respecting this Business
“some of the persons whose names are mentioned in the
“Accot of the Claims he knows, others he never heard of before
“how far they have adduced proof to convince these entreated
“with the management of the confiscated property
“in Maryland that they are entitled to payment out
“of the proceeds of that property, as how much of the
“Claims, if any has been paid Robt Alexander cannot
“say with respect to his opinion on the justness of
“these Claims, he thinks the Claimants had no just
“pretensions to demand payment of the Company
“and that had the Government remained in the
“same state as when there Claims were first made
“Messrs Russell Buchanan & Ewer would not
“have been compelled to pay the same
Robt Alexander
Craven Street }
10th Novr 1788}
Says his Opinion of the value is that if the Partner
“ship had been dissolved and the Lands & Stock had
“been sold in 1774 it would have sold for 25,000l
or 30,000l Sterling
Evd
[Transcribed by Elizabeth Lilly]
