Hi Spendlove,
Glover v East (1842) is the case I am currently syudying. I have a complete copy of all the testimony in the case, which dragged on until 1847, and from what I can see Sarah Glover would have quite a difficult job to prove any wrongdoing on East's part, since she seems to have used him as a financial adviser since the death of her husband in 1831 and had consented to the etablishment of a joint fund in the names of East, Glover and Mansfield from the outset. The court documents include financial accounts, from which it is clear that Sarah Glover had countersigned each year, certifying the accounts to be accurate and to have her approval.
That East was fiddling I have no doubt but he was doing so in a manner which Sarah seems to have countenanced. Her sister, Elizabeth, seems to have ben a meek creature who simply went along with Sarah's wishes. I have a digital photograph of the mortgage deed on the coaching inn, from which it is clear that Sarah and Elizabeth are granting the mortgage, arranged so that East could make a profit on the sale of the inn. However, Sarah denies any knowledge of this transaction or that she had been consulted beforehand. In his defence East claims to have exercised full control over the joint fund since its inception, claiming that it had been set up to protect the interests of two vulnerable and unworldly ladies.
My only problem is that there are various forms of judgement in Chancery. I don't know which was used or when it was passed down, so I will have to make a trip to the National Archive at Kew to get the answer.
Regards,
Keith
