E126/6 Transcript

National Archives document – Freston Suffolk

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/Com/E126no6/IMG_0090_1.htm

TNA E126/6.

This day being appointed for the hearing of the cause here depending by English Bill between Samuel Aldus clerk plaintiff and Nicholas defendant upon hearing of the said cause and of counsel on both sides. As so much as the said plaintiff by his said Bill prays relief for tythe wood in Freston in the county of Suffolk and it is probed by the witnesses [exhibited] on the defendant’s part that an agreement was made between the said plaintiff and defendant that the said defendant should pay unto the   complainant for all firewood as was tytheable after the rate of two shillings in the pound as be said defendant was to pay for the purchase thereof and the said plaintiff hath [?] the sum of forty five shillings and six pence according to the said agreement. It is therefore this day ordered by the Court that the said defendant shall be dismissed out of this court of an from the said Bill of Complaint and the matters here in contained with forty shillings cots yet [?] be matters in difference between the said parties may be composed and determined. It is further ordered by the court by and with consent of both parties that it shall be and it is thereby referred unto Francis Baron Esquire and Henry Parker Esquire to ascertain what is due from the said defendant unto the said plaintiff according to the said agreement and the said defendant is to pay the same unto the said plaintiff accordingly.


Hyall for the defendant.

Payne for the plaintiff.

Notes

TNA, PROB 11/375/159, Will of Samuel Aldus, Clerk of Ipswich, Suffolk, Proved 07 February 1684.

TNA, E 134/1655-56/Hil4 Samuel Aldus, clerk v. Nicholas Sicklemore: Rectory or parsonage of Freston, in the county of Suffolk. Tithes.: Suffolk. Date:    1655-56.

C31/38 Case of Robert Sandford v Richard Bateman

National Archives C31/38 (1664)

Transcript of one item of many which related to BATEMAN in Gloucestershire.

Chancery Case related to National Archives file C 9/36/49 Sandford v Bateman.  Plaintiffs: Robert Sandford.  Defendants: Richard Bateman and Mary Bateman his wife.  Subject: property in Stonehouse, Gloucestershire. Document type: bill, plea and demurrer Date: 1663

C31/38

777 Inter Robert SANDFORD and Richard BATEMAN and Mary his wife Andrew [?]

William HALL makes oath that he this deponent being employed by the defendants [?] Mary BATEMAN to attend the examination of a Commission for examination of witnesses in this cause which was appointed to be executed at Leonard Stanley in the county of Gloucester upon the seventh day of this instant April he this deponent did accordingly attend at the time and place aforesaid. And this deponent was then and there present in company with the plaintiff’s Commissioner and one Joseph DANGERFIELD who (as this deponent was informed both the inn keeper where the said commission was to be executed and also by others) had there bespoken entertainment for the plaintiff’s Commissioner and others and further deponeth that the said Plaintiff’s Commission and one the defendants Commissioners were met at the same house and before the said bond was opened he this deponent did serve Joseph DANGERFIELD with a [subpoena?] under seal of this court by delivering a label thereof unto the said Joseph DANGERFIELD and  knowing him the [served] it self under seal of this Court by which the said Joseph DANGERFIELD was commanded to appear before Anthony ARNOLD Gentleman and other others Commissioners to certify for the defendants in this cause and at the same him he this deponent did deliver and give unto the said Joseph DANGERFIELD one shilling in money and require him to be examined for the said defendants and after such service he the said DANGERFIELD did continue in the said house and dine with the Commissioners and other witnesses and persons then and there present and afterwards. And before he was examined did depart the said house and this deponent did make diligent enquiry both of the said DANGERFIELD’s brother and of the Innkeeper and others for him the said Joseph and yet he did not appear nor attend to be examined at the Commissioners during such time as the said Commissioner in execution nor whilst the said defendants commissioner stayed there after the said commission was executed returned and sealed up. And this deponent assuredly believes that the said Joseph DANGERFIELD is a material witness for the said defendants for that this deponent is informed that the said DANGERFIELD and his father and other have for many years been tenants to the Mill and lands in question. And further deposeth that neither he this deponent nor the said defendants or either of them to this deponent’s knowledge have seen read or been informed anything of the substance of contents of any of the depositions taken on this cause and that he this deponent upon this present 19th day of April delivered a note in writing to Mr JONES the plaintiff’s clerk in court the effect whereof was that the defendants by their counsel did intend to move at the next general seal or as soon after as counsel [?] heard to have this cause struck out of the [?] and that the same may not be heard the next term. 19th day of April 1664.

William HALL

AALT website also lists a C78 entry (see index http://www.uh.edu/waalt/index.php/C78_1665)

Original C78 document is at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/C78/C78no663/IMG_0240.htm

Case is described in AALT index as follows

Edward SANDFORD (complainant’s grandfather) settled by will lands in Gloucs., on his wife for life, then to his eldest son. She surrendered the tenements to her son, complainant’s father, who then mortgaged the lands to the defendant. Before the repayment of £355 the father died, at which point the complainant was only 8 years old and abroad, so that he was prevented from redeeming the lands. Edward SANDFORD (complainant’s grandfather) settled by will lands in Gloucs., on his wife for life, then to his eldest son. She surrendered the tenements to her son, complainant’s father, who then mortgaged the lands to the defendant. Before the repayment of £355 the father died, at which point the complainant was only 8 years old and abroad, so that he was prevented from redeeming the lands.”

[end]

Pro Patria or Maid of Dort Watermark

The illustrated watermark was observed in National Archives file C24/1354 (Chancery Town Depositions) dating from 1716.  There is a detailed article on this watermark at National Gallery of Australia (NGA) website (see link).

There are several different watermarks present in the file, suggesting that the paper came from different sources.  This is likely to be the different lawyers taken the depositions.

 

Chancery Masters Reports

National Archives File Reference  IND1/1944

Background

In the High Court of Chancery, the Master’s report back to the Court often formed the basis of the court’s final decrees.  The National Archives guide on their website http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/chancery-equity-suits-after-1558/ notes that these for 1606 to 1759 are indexed by IND 1/1878-2028.

One page (part of the Plaintiff names starting with ‘A’)  in one of these index volumes (IND1/1944) has been sampled.

A cross reference has been made in the National Archives discovery catalogue, to see any of pleadings (bills and answers) or depositions can be identified.   In most cases related papers been identified (see below). It should be noted however, that the matching is purely on the basis of the catalogue information and the original documents have not been checked.

The corresponding Masters reports will be in C 38/190 “A-F. Index in IND 1/1944” date 1675.

Again the original document C38/190) has not been checked to prove that it does indeed contain the listed reports.

[Page 3]

[…] Year of the reign of Charles the Second 27 – 1675

Archer v Forest Cert of Com 36

[Likely related case C 6/85/2 Archer v Forest. Plaintiffs: Rowland Archer. Defendants: Robert Forest, Eleanor Forest his wife and Giles Poole. Subject: manor of Little Hereford, Herefordshire.  1674].

Anton v Shawe – Baldwni

[Likely related case C 10/114/2 John Anton v John Shawe: money matters. Answer. 1675]

[Likely related case C 10/178/7 John Anton v John Shaw and John Luddington: money matters, Lincs. 1674]

Astxy v Jones – Child

[Likely related case – not found ]

Aske v Lawrence – Clarke

[Likely related case C 22/761/18  Aske v. Lawrence. 1675]

[Likely related case C 6/62/82  Lawrence v Aske. Plaintiffs: Richard Lawrence. Defendants: Anne Aske widow. Subject: money matters, Wiltshire. 1676]

Aboab v Weymans – Lowe

[Likely related case C 6/83/4  Aboab v Weymans. Plaintiffs: Jacob Aboab.  Defendants: Gerard Weymans and Justus Bode. Subject: money matters, Middlesex. 1674  ]

Attorney General v Stephens – Clerke

[Likely related case C 22/582/14 Attorney General v. Stephens].

Arwaker v Hickeringill – Lowe

[Likely related case C 7/16/25 Arwaker v Hickeringill. Plaintiffs: Thomas Arwaker.  Defendants: Edmund Hickeringill and another.  Place or subject: money, Middlesex.  Document type: bill and two answers. 1675].

Allen v Fanshawe – Lowe

[Likely related case C 7/587/3 Allen v Lord Fanshawe.  Plaintiffs: Thomas Allen. Defendants: Evelyn [Fanshawe] Viscount Fanshawe and others.  Place or subject: property in Ilford, Essex.  Document type: three answers and certificate.  1675]

[End of page]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KB121/385

Kings Bench File KB121/385

Document Image is available at the AALT website see http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/G3/KB122no385/aKB122no385fronts/IMG_0036.htm

[IMG_0036]

As yet Trinity Term Witness William Lord Mansfield

Middlesex to wit George NEALE puts in his place Peter WALLY his attorney against John BOLTON in a plea of Trespass on the case

Middlesex to wit the said John BOLTON puts in his place George JOLLIFFE his attorney at the suit of the said George in the plea aforesaid

Middlesex Be it remembered that heretofore that is to say in Easter term last past before our Lord the King at Westminster came George NEAL by Peter WALLY his attorney and brought here into Court of our said Lord the King then there his certain Bill against John BOLTON being in the custody of the Marshal of the Marshalsea of our Sovereign Lord the King before the King himself of a plea of trespass on the case and there are pledges of prosecution to wit John Doe and Richard Doe which said Bill follows in the words to wit:-

Middlesex to wit George NEALE complains against John BOLTON being in the custody of the Marshal of the Marshalsea of our Sovereign Lord the King before the King himself, For that whereas at the time of making the promise and undertaking hereinafter next mentioned a certain race was intended to run by and between certain horses called Trentham and Minister at the said then next horse race meeting at Newmarket In the county of Cambridge  and a certain other horse race was also intended to run by and between two other horses called Pumking and Membrino at the said then next horse race meeting at Newmarket aforesaid and thereupon afterwards to wit on the twelfth day April in the year of Our Lord 1774  at Westminster in the said County of Middlesex a certain discourse was had and moved by and between the said George and John of and concerning the said races and of and concerning which of the said horses were likely to win of the other and on such discourse so had and moved the said John then and there to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at Westminster aforesaid in the said county of Middlesex that the said George at the special instance  and request of him the said John the sum of two hundred guineas in case the said horses called Trentham and Pumking did not both win undertook to the said George then and there faithfully promised to pay him the sum of four hundred guineas in case the said horses called Trentham and Pumking did both win. And then the said George further says that the next Horse Race Meeting at Newmarket after the making of the said promise and undertaking of the said John was had and held at Newmarket aforesaid soon after the making of the said promise and undertaking of the said John to wit on the sixteenth day of April in the said year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-four [1774] that is to say at Westminster aforesaid in the said county of Middlesex. And the said George further says that the said horse called Minster did not at such next meeting run against the said horse called Trentham but the owner of the said horse called Minister then and there to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at Westminster aforesaid refused to permit or suffer his said horse called Minister to run against the said Horse called Trentham and the [?] there paid forfeit to the owners of the said horse called Trentham for the same and thereby the said horse called Trentham the [?] there to wit   on the same day and year last aforesaid at Westminster aforesaid did win of the said horse called Minister. And the said George further says that the said horse called Membrino did not at such next meeting run against the said horse called Pumking but  the owner of the said horse called Membrino then and there to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at Westminster aforesaid refused to permit or suffer his said horse called

[Next Page]

[IMG_0020 Reverse]

Membrino to run against the said Horse called Pumking and the [?] there paid forfeit to the owners of the said horse called Pumking for the same and thereby the said horse called Pumking the [?] there to wit   on the same day and year last aforesaid at Westminster aforesaid did win of the said horse called Membrino.

Whereof the said John afterwards to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at Westminster aforesaid had notice by reason of the promises he the said John became liable to pay and ought to pay to the said George the said sum of four hundred guineas but the said John not regarding his promise and undertaking by him made as aforesaid but contriving and fraudulently intending craftily and subtlety to deceive and defraud the said George in this behalf hath not paid to the said George the said sum of four hundred guineas or any part thereof although he the said John afterwards to wit on the same day and year last aforesaid at Westminster aforesaid in the said county was requested by the said George to do. But to pay the same or any part thereof to the said George he the said John hath hither to wholly refused and still doth refuse to the damage of the said George of five hundred pounds thereof bring suit.

Demurrer

And now at this day that is to say on Friday next after the morrow of the Holy Trinity in this same term to which day the said John had leave to Impark to the said Bill and then to answer the same as he should be advised before our Lord the King at Westminster come as well the said George by his attorney aforesaid as the said John by George JOLLIFFE his attorney. And the said John defends the wrong and Injury whence and says that the said declaration and the matters therein contained are not sufficient in law for the said George to have his aforesaid action thereof maintained against him to which said declaration in manner and form as the same is above made and set forth he the said John is not under necessity or in any wise bound by the law of the land to answer unto. And this he is ready to verify wherefore for want of sufficient declaration in this behalf the said John prays judgement and that the said George may be barred from having his aforesaid action maintained against him.

Joiner

And the said George saith that by anything by the said John above alleged he ought not to be barred from having his said action against the said John because he saith that the said declaration and the matters therein contained are sufficient in law for the said George to have his aforesaid action thereof maintained against him the said John which said declaration and the matter therein contained the said George is ready to verify prove as the Court shall award. And because the said John hath not answered the said declaration nor hitherto need the same the said George prays judgement and his damages by reason of the promises to be adjudged to him. But because the Court of the Lord the King nowhere is not yet advised what judgement to give in the premises a day is therefore given to the said parties to come before our Lord the King at Westminster until [blank] next after [blank] to hear judgement thereon for that the Court of the said Lord the King now here is not yet advised thereof.

F BULLER.

[end]

HCA38/58

Extract from National Archives Document HCA38/58

4th February 1718 Alteration als Catchpool

[Warrant for Arrest of Ship (document in Latin)]

[….] Nathaniel BATEMAN [….] the Alteration […] the Catchpool […] Thomas GROVE […] St Pauls Shadwell in county of Middlesex […] and Richard HILDER […] St Olavi Southwark in the County of Surrey […]Nathaniel BATEMAN […] Thomas GROVE […].

[New page]

[?] February 1718

[…] Alteration […] Catchpool […] Thomas GROVE […]

[New Page]

14th February 1718

Thomas SHERMAN parish St Andrews Holborn in County of Middlesex Salder who submitted.

[end]

 

E133/19/2

National Archives file E133/19/2

[IMG_0437]

James BATEMAN v Francis WATKYNS 1699

Deposition of Robert BRIGSTOCK of Croydon in the County of Surrey Butcher aged 45 years and upwards being [?] sworn and [?] 22 day January 1699 on the part and behalf of the said Complainant deponeth as follows:

… pounds of John HUMPHREY a maltster (with whom he believes …

[IMG_0439]

Francis TAYLER of Croydon in the County of Surrey Grocer aged 40 years or thereabouts being produced sworn and examined …

Anne WOOD wife of John WOOD of Croydon in the County of Surrey aged [58?] years and upwards being produced sworn and examined …

[IMG_0440]

Jane CRAY of Croydon in the County of Surrey and aged 50 years or thereabouts being produced sworn and examined …

[IMG_0441]

Interrogatories to be administered to witness to be produced Sworn and examined on [?] behalf of James BATEMAN plaintiff against Francis WATKYNS

[…]

[IMG_0443]

James BATEMAN v Francis WATKYNS 1699

James BROWN of the town and parish of Croydon in the County of Surrey Watchmaker aged [?] years or thereabouts  Sworn and examined …

[IMG_0445]

James BATEMAN v Francis WATKYNS 1699

Anne KING of the town and parish of Croydon in the County of Surrey Spinster aged 28 years ..

[IMG_0445]

James BATEMAN v Francis WATKYNS 1699

Francis TAYLOR of the town and parish of Croydon in the County of Surrey Grocer aged 41 years ..

[IMG_0447]

Thomas BATEMAN v William PAGE  1616

Robert BREWSTER of Wellsand in the County [?] aged 47 or thereabouts..

[IMG_0449]

Edward [LUMAS?] of [?] London Gent aged 52 years or thereabouts sworn and examined …

[IMG_0450]

Richard DAWSON … sworn and examined

[IMG_0451]

Edmund BATEMAN … aged 31 years … sworn and examined

[IMG_0452]

Interrogatories on the part and behalf of Thomas BATEMAN Compliant and William PAGE defendant

Roger PAGE brother of William PAGE

…. Messuage or tenement in Sibbertoft in the county of Northampton …

[IMG_0453]

James BATEMAN Esq and John CHAPMAN v Thomas NUNN and Edward POODLE 1721

Thomas MILLS of Pinarty in the parish of Erith in the County of County husbandman aged 50 years and upwards sworn and examined …

… Mr WILLIAMS ….

[IMG_0458]

James BATEMAN Esq and John CHAPMAN v Thomas NUNN and Edward BODLE 1721

Anne IBBSON of the parish of Erith in the County of Kent spinster aged 20 years or thereabouts sworn and examined…

[IMG_0458]

James BATEMAN Esq and John CHAPMAN v Thomas NUNN and Edward BODLE 1721

Robert EWERS of the parish of Erith in the County of Kent husbandman aged 59 years or thereabouts sworn and examined…

[IMG_0464]

James BATEMAN Esq and John CHAPMAN v Thomas NUNN and Edward BODLE 1721

John BUCKLE of the parish of Erith in the County of Kent Gent aged 74 years or thereabouts sworn and examined…

[IMG_0467]

James BATEMAN Esq and John CHAPMAN v Thomas NUNN and Edward BODLE 1721

Interrogatory …

[IMG_0474]

James BATEMAN Esq and John CHAPMAN v Thomas NUNN and Edward BODLE 1721

John LOWE? of the parish of Erith in the County of Kent Gent aged 31 years a witness produced sworn and examined…

[IMG_0475]

James BATEMAN Esq and John CHAPMAN v Thomas NUNN and Edward BODLE 1721

Charles HARDING of the parish of [?] in the County of Kent Gent aged 61 years or thereabouts sworn and examined…

[IMG_0477]

James BATEMAN Esq and John CHAPMAN v Thomas NUNN and Edward BODLE 1721

George DORMAN of the parish of Sutton at Hone in the County of Kent Gent aged 67 years or thereabouts a witness produced sworn and examined…

[IMG_0478]

James BATEMAN Esq and John CHAPMAN v Thomas NUNN and Edward BODLE 1721

Interrogatory …

[IMG_0479]

Jonas BATEMAN v James NICKLIN 1805

William BENNETT of Counter Street Borough Market in the parish of St Saviour in the County of Surrey Porter to an Orange Merchant aged 56 years and upwards a witness produced sworn and examined.

[IMG_0480]

Jonas BATEMAN v James NICKLIN 1805

Interrogatory ….

[IMG_0494]

Jonas BATEMAN v James NICKLIN 1805

Interrogatory ….

[IMG_0500]

Jonas BATEMAN v James NICKLIN 1805

… James MILL of Ball [Cort?] bora Hill in the City of London Accountant aged 50 years or thereabouts produced sworn and examined …

[IMG_0502]

Jonas BATEMAN v James NICKLIN 1805

Interrogatory ….

[IMG_0507]

James WATTS Accountant …

[IMG_0509]

James BATEMAN v Katherine INDREY widow 1703

William BARTLETT living at Coulsden in the County of Surrey yeoman aged 60 years or thereabouts being a witness and ? sworn and examined …

Anne INDREYThomas INDREY deceased …

[IMG_0514]

James BATEMAN v Catherine INDREY widow, Thomas INDREY and Ann INDREY  1703

Interrogatories …

… did you know Thomas INDREY deceased the late husband of the defendant Catherine …

… concerning the purchase of the coppice wood in question in the parish of Croydon in the County of Surrey

[IMG_0517]

Nathaniel BATEMAN v Thomas GROVE

 

C11/252/23

The following is a transcript of a reply to a Bill of Complaint in the Court of Chancery in 1719.

C 11/252/23 National Archives File

Bill of Complaint ….

[Next page]

May 1719

The several answer of Thomas GROVE Mariner Defendant to the Bill of Complaint of John CLEMS, John CATCHPOOLE, Samuel DEBNAM, Nicholas PHILIPS, Philip TURNER, Richard HORNER, John DRIVER, Wm WOOLEY, Wm MEWES, William CLAPCOTT, John ALTHROUP, Edward JACKSON Merchant, Francis MIDDLETON, John JAX, Merchant, John GODFREY Merchant, and John SWADDLE Complainants. 

This defendant now and at all times hereafter saving and reserving to himself all and all manner of benefit and advantage of exception to the manifold errors ? and answering as the Complaint’s said Bill of Complaint  contained for answer thereunto or ? be much thereof as the defendant is advised materially counselled him this defendant to us ? //

Defendant answereth ? that he admits and believes it to be true that the said Bill of Complaint were about April One Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirteen ? respectively to such parts and shares of the ship called CATCHPOOLE as the Bill for the purpose sets forth. And this defendant believes that Nathaniel Bateman the Complaint in the said Bill of Complaint ? //

Defendant about 12 months afterwards purchased and was entitled to two and thirteenth part of the same ship. And this defendant about April (One thousand Seven Hundred and Thirteen purchased and was  to one sixteen part of the said ship. But this this Defendant saith and believes that the Complaint and this Defendant or part [owner] //

Other Defendant Bateman were all part owners of the said ? This defendant hath heard and believes that John CROSS of Ipswich in the County of Suffolk Upholder was at the same time owner of one  two and thirteen part of the said ship. And John FORT of the same place Mariner was also at the time of One sixty Four ? //

Of the same ship. And this defendant doth admit to be true that Richard BROWN in the Bill named was by the Complaint and the rest of the part owners of the said ship about the time in the Bill for that purposed mention, made Master or Commander of the said ship and that he so contained some time about the month of September //

One thousand seven hundred and Sixteen (1716) . And this Defendant doth also believes it to be true as the Bill for that purpose sets forth that after the death of Richard BROWN, Sarah BROWN his widow and Relict might take out Administration to him and possess herself of the estate and ? but what the ? //

Accounted unto or whether the same were sufficient for the payment of his debits this Defendant knoweth not nor can set forth. And this Defendant doth admit and believe it to be true that when the Complainant and the other part owners made the said Richard BROWN Master of the said ship they put into his hands one hundred and [forty?] //

Pounds as a stock to purchase coals at Newcastle aforesaid and that he was to give them an account  thereof and of the profits and produce of the same and of the freight profits and earnings of the said Ship. And this defendant saith that the said Richard BROWN did in such voyages traffic with the said stock and ?  //

Made six voyages to the best of this Defendant’s remembrance thereof from Newcastle aforesaid and from there to London and seven voyages to  Norway and back again. And this defendant doth also believe it to be true that the said Richard BROWN did such voyage traffic with stock …. Profit of the same produce thereof. And that he also ? several sums of money for the freight and carrying of the said ship but what was so made by the said Richard BROWN by the said stock and Produce thereof or what sums of money in particular and how much a for what by ages were … //

By the said Richard BROWN for the freight and earnings of the said Ship this defendant not knoweth nor can set forth. And this defendant saith that the said Richard BROWN whilst he so continued Master or Commander of the said ship as aforesaid did once every year as this defendant remembers account with the said part owners //

For the freight and earnings of the said Ship and paid unto them respectively as this Defendant believes what upon such account appeared to be respectively due to them for the same. But this defendant doth not know nor can set forth whether the said Richard BROWN kept any book or Books Journal or //

Journal or Account or Accounts concerning the said ship or the said voyages or the profits freight or earnings of the same, this Defendant never having had any such book or journals in his hands, custody or power, nor hath he ever seen any such to the best his knowledge and remembrance … //

And this defendant saith that he hath heard and believes that since the death of the said Richard BROWN, the said Sarah BROWN hath received? Of the john RIGG of London Merchant the sum of one hundred and sixty pounds for the fruit of the said ship but what other sums of money the said Sarah BROWN //

Hath received of any other person on account aforesaid this Defendant doth not know nor can set forth. And this defendant further saith that the said Ship being on a voyage from the port of London to Christiania [Oslo] in Norway (his being then on Board the said ship) was in the same voyage in the mouth September in the year of one thousand //

Seven hundred and sixteen (1716) and taken by a Swedish privateer and carried into the port of Gottenburgh in the territory of the Kingdom of Sweden and there condemned (as the Defendant believes) as and for prize by the Swedish Court of Admiralty there) but what were the names of the persons who took the said ship he knoweth [not whether] the Capture of //

The said ship was lawful or whether the said Ship was lawful prize and ? or lawfully condemned as such or whether the persons or persons  in he look upon him or them to make the Bill of Sale thereof hereinafter mentioned had mentioned, had any power right or authority to do so otherwise by force, he this Defendant cannot take upon himself [to say or answer].//

But since this Defendant is that such capture thereof was power and force of arms much against the will of this Defendant and (as this Defendant believes) against the wills of the rest of the said Ship’s crew and what they could not help nor withstand and this Defendant most ? believes that unless the said Ship [was] … //

Brought and purchased again after such capture and condemnation thereof aforesaid and from such the captors in the manner hereinafter mentioned and set forth. They the said Captors of those having by reason they would have retained and kept the said Ship in their hands ?  ? [and] to their //

Own use. And this Defendant further saith that this Defendant further saith that this Defendant being on board the said ship when she was so taken and carried by Swedes with him into Gottenburgh [Gothenburg] aforesaid, he this Defendant immediately after such condemnation thereof as aforesaid sent an account thereof to the other Defendant Nathanial Bateman then //

Residing of London who after received advise of the capture and condemnation of the said ship sending several letters to this Defendant and to one Jacob SAHLGREEN [SALHGREN] his other Defendant Bateman’s correspondent thereat at Gottenburgh thereby desiring or authorising this Defendant and SAHLGREEN //

To purchase the said ship from the Swedes, he this defendant there upon after several treaties and propositions had and made for the purchase of the said ship at length by direction of the said SAHLGREEN agreed for the purchase of the same and for the of seven thousand //

Silver mint dollars which in English money amounted to the value £772 7 shillings and 2 pence as this Defendant computed the same. And this defendant being willing to keep and continue a sixteenth part owner of the said ship as he was before such the //

Capture aforesaid he this defendant in order thereunto did advance , answer and pay to the said Jacob SAHLLGREEN one sixteenth part of the said seven hundred 72 pounds and 7 shillings 3 pence for the purchase of the said ship, and the stores and //

Tackle and furniture thereunto belonging and upon payment of the said 7000 silver mint dollars by the said SALHGREEN for the purchase of the said ship. A Bill of Sale was sometime in the month February 1717 was where of? (as he this Defendant most //

As ? unto the said Jacob SALHGREEN by the said Swedish Captor or Captors having or pretending a right to the said Ship by force of such capture and condemnation thereof as a foresaid and soon after the said Bill of Sale was so made of the said Ship to the said SAHLGREEN aforesaid he the said //

SAHLGREEN by some deed of writing under his hand employed on the back or written under the said Bill of Sale dud declare that the said Bill of sale so taken by him of the said ship was In Trust as to the fifteen sixteenths part thereof for the said Nathaniel BATEMAN ?  and the other sixteenth //

Part thereof for the part thereof for this defendant and thereupon the said Jacob SAHLGREEN delivered the said Bill of Sale and declaration of Trust to this Defendant. And this Defendant further saith that the said Richard Brown (the former Master of the ship) and most of the said Ships Crew upon the capture thereof //

Forced and carried by the Swedish privateer and soon afterwards cast away in a storm at Seafas this defendant hath heard and believes) and the rest of the said Ships crew being carried into Gottenburg aforesaid soon after returning home to England and none of them (as this Defendant knows ….. //

This defendant. He this defendant did thereupon on the seventh day of February in the year of our Lord 1716 by the direction of the said Jacob SAHLGREEN enter upon the Command of the said and took procession thereof in order to navigate to London ….. //

And this defendant further saith that he this Defendant thereupon applied himself to the said Jacob SAHLGREEN for to supply this defendant with money to refit the said ship and other necessary occasions relating thereto. And the said Jacob SAHLGREEN by the direction and appointment as this Defendant … of the said other //

Defendant Nathaniel BATEMAN did advance to this Defendant for the purpose foresaid 1071 silver mint Dollars and stivers then amounting to the sum of one hundred and nineteen pounds in English Money (as this defendant computes) ….. money this Defendant believes //

Were afterwards answered and paid to the said SAHLGREEN by the said other Defendant Nathaniel BATEMAN, or by his order. And this Defendant thereupon refitted the said ship and hired several sailors and brought and laid in stores and provisions for her voyage to London about ….. One Hundred //

Twenty and three silver mint dollars and twenty one stivers which amounts to the sum of one hundred twenty and one pounds one shilling and three English money (as this Defendant computes the same). And this defendant having so refitted the said ship as aforesaid for the reason agreed with the said Jacob SAHLGREEN for the freight //

Hereof for the port of London. And the said Jacob SALHGREEN having loaded and shipped on board the said ship at Gottenburgh aforesaid several quantities of goods of several persons this Defendant on the ninth day of July One thousand Seven Hundred and Seventeen (1717) to …. As to the time //

Set sail for the said Port of London. And this defendant saith that after he had been out at sea two or three days he met with such stormy and tempestuous weather that the said ship suffered greatly thereby in her sails and rigging and lost her main mast and was so disabled …. Being lost and being by //

Distress of weather forced into Folbatta in the Kingdom of Sweden was there set upon and seized by a Danish Galley and by her taken and carried away from there to the or Mogach in Denmark and about two days afterwards the said Danes in Sailaig the said …. To Christiania in  //

Norway aforesaid run the said ship against a rock and thereby very much damaged her and made her very leaky and having brought the said ship to Christiania aforesaid they there condemned her as prize in the Court of Admiralty there. And this Defendant saith that he ….protest or an //

Appeal in the Court of Christiania aforesaid from or against the said condemnation he sent an account thereof and also of the damages the said ship had suffered as a aforesaid to the said other Defendant Nathaniel Bateman then at London who thereupon as this Defendant hath heard and believes … to the Courts of great //

? and Denmark for the releasement of the said ship and having upon such application obtained a releasement of the said ship, he there upon sent several letters to this Defendant at Christiania to refit the said ship and directed that this defendant to draw Bills of Exchange for what …be required for //

That purpose. And thereupon this defendant according to such directions did draw two Bills of Exchange on the said Nathaniel Bateman for two hundred sixty and five pounds in English money. And one other Bill of Exchange on one Mr VICTORIN a merchant at London whose goods was shipped on the said ship which said three //

Bills of Exchange this defendant believes were all answered or paid by the said other Defendant Nathaniel BATEMAN. And this defendant further saith that he this Defendant soon after received of the said Nathaniel BATEMAN’s Agent at Christiania aforesaid One thousand five hundred seventy and seven dollars two quarter and nine //

Shillings amounting in English money to the sum of 337 pounds 1 shilling and 8 pence only as this Defendant computes the same the said BATEMAN’s agents who paid this Defendant the said money insisting upon an allowance of twenty seven pounds eight shillings four pence so many dollars as //

Amounted to that same in value for their trouble and confession there abouts which this Defendant was obliged to allow to them before they would pay this Defendant the said monies. And this Defendant being furnished with monies as aforesaid he caused the said ship to be unloaded of her freight and repaired the damages she had [sustained?] as //

Aforesaid and furnished her with necessitates and provisions for her voyage to London in which and on other necessary occasions relating to the said that this Defendant laid out and disbursed One thousand eight hundred sixty and five pounds three shillings and seventeen strives which in Enlish money [?] sum of three hundred //

Ninety and four pounds thirteen shillings and six pence as this defendant computes the same. And this defendant further saith that he having repaired and refitted the said ship as aforesaid he navigated and conducted her to the port of London where the said ship was on or about the fifteenth day June One Thousand Seven hundred and Eighteen //

Unloaded the freight taken on board as aforesaid. And this Defendant further saith that after the said ship was unloaded of her Freight as aforesaid the said other Defendant Nathaniel Bateman employed this Defendant as Master of the said ship upon two  several voyages from the port of London to ? and Denmark? And back again //

For freight. And the said other defendant Nathaniel Bateman agreed to give or allow to this defendant for his wages the sum of 12 pounds for sth of the said Voyages to Norway foresaid and back again . And this Defendant further saith that he laid out and disbursed in the said two Norway voyages for stores and provisions for//

The said Ship and for wages paid to the sailors and otherwise on account thereof to the amount of one hundred and eight pounds fifteen shillings and ten pence as this Defendant computes the same of which this Defendant received of the said other Defendant Nathaniel Bateman at several times the sum of ? three pounds ? //

Shillings and one penny and no more as this Defendant remembers. But this Defendant hath not received from the said Nathaniel Bateman or any other person whatsoever any sum or sums of money whatsoever due to this Defendant  for his wages since the time this Defendant enter on the Command of the Ship at Gottenburgh aforesaid. And this Defendant saith //

That for the saving the expense thereof he hath not set forth the particulars of his account and disbursements relating to the said several voyages herein before mentioned made by this Defendant. But this Defendant saith that in case the Complainant’s desire the same this Defendant is ready and willing to set to parchment Account of all //

Monies disbursed  and laid out or received by this Defendant on Account of the said Ship since the time this Defendant ? upon the Command thereof as aforesaid. And this Defendant denies that he ever refused to let the Complaints have or enjoy their shares of the sais ship or ? into the management of the same or to receive any benefit of //

The same. But he this defendant saith that he this defendant approaching the condemnation of the said ship at Gottenburgh aforesaid to be alegall consideration and that the purchase so made of the said fifteen sixteenth parts thereof by the said other defendant Nathaniel Bateman aforesaid ? a good title to property //

Of the same parts in the said other Defendant Nathaniel Bateman and the ? ? or resisting upon the said parts and shares in the said ship (as this Defendant knows) of till very lately , he this defendant (then looking upon the said other Defendant Nathaniel Bateman as the only part owner of the said ship [besides?] this //

Defendant believes the orders and directions of the said other Defendant Nathaniel Bateman management and conduct of the said ship whilst this defendant continued Master thereof which was from the time defendant so took upon himself the Command  thereof at Gottenburgh aforesaid till the twenty eighth day of //

February last past when said other defendant Bateman turned this Defendant the position and Command of the said ship and put one John JOHNSTONE into the position and command thereof who (as this defendant believes) still continues in the position and Command of the said ship. And this Defendant saith //

That he this Defendant never made any voyages with the said ship since this defendant embarked upon the command thereof as aforesaid save as herein is before mentioned. But this defendant saith that he doth not know nor set forth what profits have made by the freight and earnings of the said ship since this //

Defendant ? Upon the command thereof and took possession thereof as aforesaid he this Defendant nor any other In Trust for him never having executed the same nor any part thereof . But the same hath been all executed as this Defendant by the said other Defendant Nathaniel Bateman. And this Defendant own //

wages? that he this defendant ever produced that he and the said other defendant Nathaniel Bateman were by virtue of the said Bill of Sale wholly entitled to the said ship exclusive of any right or title the Complainants might have therein nor that the Complaints by ? aforesaid had  lost their property in the said ship //

and were in no way or ? to any parts or shares of the said same nor to any amount of the Freight and Earnings of the said Ship. As by the Bill is falsely suggested. But whether the said Nathaniel Bateman is entitled under the said Bill of Sale and Declaration of Trust heein before mentioned to ? //

sixteenth parts of the said ship or whether the Complainants have by such capture and condemnation aforesaid lost their property in the same ship or whether the person who made such Bill of sale had any right or power to make the same or to sell the said Ship. This defendant saith that he ? ?? //

same doth not in any wise concern this defendant. But the other Defendant Bateman in regard he this Defendant doth not nor ever did since the capture and condemnation of the said ship aforesaid, ? or misist to make a title under the said sail Bill of Exchange and Declaration of Trust aforesaid But only to [one sixteenth part] //

of the said ship which was the part or share which this Defendant purchased and was owner of before such capture and condemnation of the said ship as aforesaid. And this Defendant saith that he brought from Gottenburg aforesaid a copy of the Decree or

the condemnation of the said ship but this Defendant cannot set forth the same as the said Bill of sale and declaration of Trust , he this Defendant  not having the same or either of them in his Custody or power he having soon after his return from Gottenburgh believed the same to the

Nathaniel Bateman in whose custody this defendant believes the same still remains. And this defendant saith that he hath heard and believes the same to be true that it is customary and this defendant believes the same to be just and equitable) that when a ship belonging to several part owners is taken

And ransomed or redeemed by some or one of them that the rest or other part owners of such ship on paying their proportionble shares of the charges shall be let in to have the benefit of such ransom or redemption   and be let in again to have their parts or shares of such

And this defendant saith that he doth not know nor can set forth whether the Complainants had any notice of the purchasing the said ship or taking a Bill of sale of the same as aforesaid, or if they had had such notice whether   they would have paid their shares of said ransom or [redemption]

But this defendant is inclined to believe that the said Complainants in case they had had had such notice would have paid their shares of such ransom or redemption. In regard the said ship in this Defendant’s judgement was purchased at much less than the real value thereof

Of the said Complainant’s offer the said other Defendant Nathaniel Bateman (but not this defendant) to pay their share of the money paid by the said Nathaniel Bateman for the ransom or redemption of the said ship. And this defendant denies all manner of

Complainant’s said Bill of Complaint contained. Without that that any other matter or thing in the Complaint said Bill of Complaint contained material or effectual in the Law for this Defendant to make and answer unto and not herein and hereby well and sufficiently answered unto …

Denied is true. All which ? and Kings this Defendant is ready to answer account? And prove and as this Honourable Court shall and ? and humbly prays to be heard ….

[end]

E133/19/2

Extract from National Archives File E133/19/2

E – Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of the Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
Records of the King’s Remembrancer
E 133 – Exchequer: King’s Remembrancer: Barons’ Depositions
E 133/19/2 – Bateman v Grove


 

Nathaniel BATEMAN v Thomas GROVE

Interrogatories to be administered to witnesses to be produced sworn and examined before […] The Deputy of his Majesty’s [?] of this Court of Exchequer on the part and behalf of Thomas GROVE in certain causes deponding in the said Court between Nathaniel BATEMAN  plaintiff and the said Thomas GROVE Defendant the said Thomas GROVE Complainant and the said Nathaniel BATEMAN defendant.

[Item. Do you know the parties] Complainant and Defendant in the title of the Interrogatory named or either of them and which of them and how  […] them declare.

[Item. Do you know the] ship or vessel called the Catchpoole in question in this cause and of what burthen was the said ship or vessel. Did the [ … ] at any time and when as you know or have heard sail on any voyages to Norway. If yes when or about what time did […] last of the said Voyages and was the Master or Commander of the said ship at such her [?] Did the said ship after her return from the last of the said voyage lye bye in the River of Thames and for how long time? If yes who was the Master or Commander of the said Ship during all or any part of the time she lay bye or continued in the said River of Thames. And did such person who was Master or Commander of the said ship during such time continue on Board of and looks after and take care of the said ship. It is usual or customary for a Master or Commander of a ship lying in this river to be allowed wages but [?] where of such ship for such their looking after and taking care of such ship. If yes what is generally allowed per month for the same. And what wages or allowance do you think the Master or Commander of the said ship the Catchpoole did deserve for such his looking after and taking care of the said ship during the time she so lay in the River of Thames. Declare the same with the reason of your knowledge or belief therein.

Item. Are you acquainted with the method and custom of borrowing money upon Bottomree at Gottenburg in Sweden. If yes […] Or allowance per Captain is usually made or given at Gottenburg aforesaid on borrowing money on Bottomree on a ship bound from thence on a Voyage to London. Declare what you know have heard or do believe touching the matters aforesaid required of [?] interrogatory with the [?] of answer.

Item Do you know or are acquainted with the [?] of exchange between Christiania in Norway and London, Is it usual and customary in case a Person who borrows or takes up […] Christiana and draws a bill for [?] Sterling payable in London to give or allow any and what premium to the person who lends or advances the same in Christiana by way of difference on exchange or otherwise. If yes what was the premium or allowance usually made on that account on or about the month of August AD 1717. Declare what you Know have heard or believe touching the matters enquired of in this third interrogatory fully and at large with the reasons and circumstances of such knowledge and belief.

Item. Did the defendant Bateman at any time and when sell or dispose of the said ship called the Catchpoole. If yes to whom and for what Sum or sums of money did the said Defendant Bateman or any other person by his order or for the use at any time and when receive the money for which the said ship was sold or any and what part thereof or in your presence or hearing declare or acknowledge that he had done. Declare what you know have heard or believe touching the same.

Item have you seen and perused the paper writing or receipt or receipts produced and shown unto you at the time of your examination. Are you acquainted with the [manner?] and [?] of the hand writing of all or any and which of the parties whose names are subscribed or set to the said [?] or receipt or receipts or any or which of them (if yes) is or are the name of such person or persons [?] or [?] the same purports to be as you know or believe.

Item. It is usual for Masters or Commanders of ships […] to keep a boy or servant on board such their ships. If yes Is it usual for the Owners of such ships to allow or pay such Master any and what sum or sums of money per month for the wages of a boy or servant. Declare what you know or believe with the reason of the knowledge or belief.

Item What other matter or thing do you know or can you depose that will make for the benefit and advantage […] Declare.

[end]

E133/61/12 Grove v Bateman

National Archives File E133/61/12

[IMG_0638]

BARONS DEPSOITIONS DATE 1719 GROVE V BATEMAN

Deposition of witnesses taken before the Hon’ble St James MONTAGU Knt one of the Barons of His Majesty’s Court of Exchequer at Westminster in a cause depending in the Exchequer Chamber there wherein Thomas GROVE is Complainant and Nathaniel BATEMAN is defendant for and on the behalf of the said Complaint.

Jonas MOTTS of Wapping in the parish of Stepney in the County of Middlesex Mariner aged about 68 years and upwards sworn and examined the 22nd day of June 1719 on the part and behalf of the said Complainant deposits and saith as follows

1 To the first Interrogatory this deponent saith that he doth know the Compliant and has known for about 12 months but does not know the defendant.

2 To the second Interrogatory this deponent saith that in July last to the best of this deponent’s remembrance he being master of the ship or vessel called the Betty Gally was a Christiana in Norway at which time the ship called the Catchpoole was brought up [?] without a main mast by the Danes of Which said ship was of the [Barthen?] of four hundred tons and saith that the said Danes in bringing up the said ship the Catchpoole to Christina as aforesaid they [?] upon a rock which so shattered her and made her so leaky that she could not be kept dry her pumps in so much that she was forced to be unladen and [?] all which was done at the expense and charges of the Complainant and saith that seven pounds per month is the usual and customary wages allowed to Masters of such ships or vessels in such voyages and further saith that the said Complainant is a master or commander of such a ship further saith not to his [?]

3 & 4 To the third and and fourth interrogatories this deponent saith that during the time that the said ship the Catchpoole was at Christiana as aforesaid he this deponent whose ship lay side by side with the said ship. Jonas MOTTS.

[?] Catchpoole did see goods stores and provisions come on board of the said ship and people often working therein which were all provided and paid for by the Complainant as this deponent verily believes and saith that he hath seen and diligently [perused?] the paper  writing now produced and shown unto him at this the time of his examination entitled an account of money received and disbursed by Thomas GROVE at Christiania in Norway for and on the account of the ship called the Alteration – being the same ship and saith that the several sums of money therein charged [?] by the said Complainant for the use of said […]  rates and charges to the several [?] items therein contained are all of them very reasonable may this deponent is of opinion that the said Complainant hath rather wronged himself by undercharging then anybody else by overcharging this deponent having paid more himself for some particular things mentioned in the said Account which he had occasion for in his Ship at the same time and place and further saith not to the several other matters equired after in these interrogatories.

  1. To the fifth interrogatory this deponent saith that when the said ship the Catchpole was brought up to Christiania as aforesaid she had lost her main mast and was very much damaged in her hull by her striking upon a rock through the negligence or ignorance of the said Danes who brought her up [?] as before set forth.
  2. To the sixth interrogatory this deponent saith that it is a constant custom for merchants and others freighters of merchandise ships to pay and allow to the Master of such ships a sum of money sometimes more and sometimes less as shall be agreed between the said freighters and Masters for and in respect of all goods and merchandise as shipped or board such ships or vessels which is called a Captaken or Capleagon and saith that the same doth always belong of right to such Masters over and above the freight paid for such goods and no merchant ever refuseth to pay the same the said Masters.
  3. To the eighth interrogatory this deponent saith that sometime about September last to the best of this deponent’s remembrance.

Jonas MOTTS

[Next Page]

[…] the Catchpoole and Cargo were condemned as prize in the Admiralty Court at Christiania aforesaid against which condemnation the Complainant appealed to the Admiralty Court at Copenhagen and employed a [?] there where against ship and cargo were[…]  discharged but what the sad Complainant paid his said [Promeator?] or what his expense might be in and about that affair he this deponent cannot say but saith that sometime before that he this deponent ‘ ship and cargo were condemned in the said Admiralty Court as prize at Christiana from [which?] said Condemnation this deponent likewise appealed to the Admiralty at Copenhagen aforesaid where this deponent had his ship discharged but this deponent was forced to leave his cargo at Christiana the expenses and charges [?] cost his account above two hundred dollars and this deponent cannot but think that affairs must cost the Compliant a great deal more money.

Jonas MOTTS.


[The pervious part of this deposition is missing]

[Next Page]

[…] Interrogatory this deponent saith that when the said ship the Catchpoole set sail from Gottenburg in order to return to England under the Complainants command she by [?] of weather in a storm lost her main mast and all her rigging and in order to regain those losses put into a little port call Hillberk in Sweden and whilst the said ship was in that little port a Danish Ship came into the said Port and took the said ship the Catchpoole and put Danish Officers on board her who [?] the said ship the Catchpoole and all her crew to Christiania in Norway in which passage the said ship the Catchpoole be run upon a rock (being then the command of the said Danish Officer) by reason whereof she proved leaky and took in water all which damages so sustained and suffered by the said ship the Catchpoole were repaired and made good at the charge and expense of the Complainant during the time that  the said ship the Catchpoole continued at Christiana.

  1. To the sixth interrogatory this deponent saith that it is always customary for merchants or other freighters of shipping to allow and pay to the Master or Commander of such ships a certain sum of money which goes under the denomination of Captaken or Capleagon which is sometimes more and sometimes less according to the nature and quantity of the goods and merchandise se shipped on board and no other person ever made ant demand of or claimed any right or title to the same but the Master or Commander of such Ship.

George BANNISTER [or BANNISZER]


 

[IMG_0642]

[?] GWENE of the parish of St John Wapping in the County of Middlesex Mariner aged 23 years or thereabouts sworn and examined the 20th day of October 1719 on the part and behalf of the Complainant deponent and saith as follows

  1. To the First interrogatory this deponent saith he doth know both the Complainant and the defendant and hath known the Complainant about twelve months and the defendant about eight months.
  2. To the second interrogatory this deponent saith that he doth know the ship or vessel lately called the Catchpoole and now called the Alteration (as this deponent hath heard in this [?] [?] after) which said ship is a vessel of [?] four hundred ton and this deponent hath heard that the Complainant is a Port owner of the said ship and hath a sixteenth part of her but this deponent doth not know who are the other part owners of the said ship and further saith that the said complainant about three years ago [was Master or ?] Commander of the said ship but for how long time this deponent cannot certainly set forth but saith that for and during the time that the said Complainant was Master or Commander of the said ship two or three voyages to Gottenburg in Denmark and some ports in Norway. And this deponent further saith that the usual rate for wages given by owners of such ships of the like burthen with the said ship the Catchpole to the Masters or Commanders of such ships in such voyages is six pounds per month and this deponent doth believe that the Complainant might deserve more which this deponent can the better say because he hath been commander of a ship that made several voyages to Gottenburg aforesaid under this deponents Command of a Loss burhen then the said ship the Catchpole and was allowed and paid by the owners of his ship in those voyages after the rate of six pounds per month for his wages and this deponent further saith that he doth believe the complainant to be a person experienced in the art of navigation and every way qualified to navigate such a ship in such a voyage as Master or Commander of her and further saith not to this interrogatory.6. To the sixth interrogatory this deponent saith that it is customary for merchants and other freighters of merchandise ships or vessels to pay to the Masters of such ships or vessels for the merchandise on board, a crown and half for the same which is a permission purely belonging to the Master of such ships and not to the owners which said permission is known by the captaken or Capleagon and this deponent further saith that there is another [?] called Primage where is six pence against loss for all merchandise put on board such ship which entirely belongs to the Master of such ship and to the [?] of the same.

[?] GWENE

[IMG_0643]

[End of page]

[?] William LOCKE of the [?] Shadwell [near?] the Tower of London, [?] aged 24 years or thereabouts, sworn and examined the 20th day November 1719 on the part and behalf of the Complainant deponent and saith as follows

To the Third interrogatory  this deponent saith that he as an attorney being employed by one Druolory DRUM a mariner on board the ship the Catchpoole or Alteration in this interrogatory mentioned, to sue the Complainant GROVE as Master of the said Ship for the sum of eleven pounds and eighteen shillings for wages due to him the said DRUM he this deponent in order to get the said money desired the said DRUM to go down to the Complainant with this deponent to prevail upon said Complainant to pay the money without any [?] upon which the said Complainant gave DRUM a note under his hand for payment of the said Eleven pounds and Eighteen Shillings and within a small time after the said note was given the said DRUM told this deponent that the Complainant GROVE had paid him the money due  upon the said not and satisfied this deponent for his trouble and further saith not to the several other matters enquired after in this interrogatory.

7. To the seventh interrogatory this deponent saith that he hath seen and perused the paper writing now produced and showed unto him at this the time of his examination bearing date at Christiana the 26th November 1717 and signed Henry BOITT purporting to be a [?] given by him the said Henry BOITT to the said Complaint Thomas GROVE and saith that the same is all of the proper handwriting of him the said Henry BOITT (as this deponent verily believes, he being very well acquainted with the Hand Writing of him the said Henry BOITT and having often seen him write and particularly his name and further saith not to the several other matters enquired after in this interrogatory.W LOCKE.

[End of Page]

[?] Peter VONDEN of Falmouth Street in the parish of Shadwell in the County of Middlesex, Rigger aged 40 years and upwards sworn and examined on the 20th day of November 1719 on the part and behalf of the Complainants deponeth and saith as follows

  1. To the first interrogatory this deponent saith that he doth know both the Compliant and defendant and hath known them severally for about sixteen months.
  2. To the second interrogatory this deponent saith that he both know the ship or vessel lately called the Catchpoole but now called the Alteration (in the Interrogatory  word after) which is of about the burthen of three hundred and fifty tons of which said ship or vessel the Compliant was Commander or Master and (as this deponent believes) was likewise a part owner of the same during the whole time that this deponent belonged to her which was for about the space of six months which expired about 10 months ago but when he first became Master of the said ship this deponent cannot set forth but saith that during the time that this deponent belonged to the said ship as aforesaid she made two voyages to Christiania in Norway under the command of the said Complainant and further saith that the usual or customary rate for wages of the masters or commanders of ships of the like burthen with the said ship the Catchpoole is seven pounds per month and saith that the Complainant is a person well skilled in the art of Navigation and every way qualified to navigate a ship of that burthen in such like or any other voyage.
  3. 4. To the third and fourth interrogatories this deponent saith that the Complainant did find and provide several quantities of stores provisions materials and necessaries for the said ship the Catchpoole now the Alternation in the time before mentioned voyages to the amount of a considerable sum of money and saith hat he hath seen and perused the paper writing now produced and shown unto him at the time of his examination purporting to be an account of necessaries and provisions furnished and provided by the Complainant Thomas GROVE for the ship formerly called the Catchpoole now called the Alteration in and upon account of two voyages to Norway and of moneys by him paid and expended upon the same account. And saith that the several matters and things in the several [forms?]  therein expressed were [?] by the said Complainant for the use of the said and ship’s crew  and the moneys therein  mentioned and expressed to be paid for the same were so paid and satisfied by the Complainant All except the first item which is for three barrels of beer and for beef and several other necessaries for the ship 3:18:6 which this deponent knows nothing of but believes the same to be charged in some  other voyage when this deponent was not in the said ship And saith that the several prices set down [?] to other several items contained in the said paper writing are usual and common prices and rates paid for such matters and things at the several and respective times and places therein set forth to the best of this deponents judgement.[Next Page]    [IMG_0646]John HARVEY lodging at the Sign of South Shields at the end of Fox lane in Wapping Mariner aged 17 years or thereabouts sworn and examined the 14th day December 1719 on the part and be behalf of the Compliant deponeth and saith as followeth

Peter VONDEN his mark.

[Next Page]

6. To the sixth interrogatory this deponent saith that it is a usual and customary thing […] freighters of merchandise shippers to allow certain [perqualifier?] to the Master or Commander of such ship over and above the freight for the same and further saith not to this interrogatory.

[…] interrogation this deponent saith that when he first came […] the Catchpoole she wanted her main Mast which this deponent was told she had lost in a former voyage to Gottenburg in Denmark and this deponent helped to put the new main mast in at which time the Compliant was Master or Commander of the said ship and shipped this deponent on board the said ship and further saith not to this interrogatory.

Peter VONDEN His Mark

[IMG_0645]

To the first interrogatory this deponent saith that he doth know the Complainant and hath known him for about three years last past doth likewise know the defendant and hath known him about two years.

  1. To the second Interrogatory this deponent saith that he doth know the ship or vessel lately called the Catchpoole but now called Alteration (in this Interrogatory enquired after)  which is a ship of upwards of three hundred tons which this deponent ran the better say because he going a Gunners Boy on board a French ship which went from St Malo in France to Gottenburg the said French ship and cargo were there sold and this deponent discharged by reason whereof he this deponent wanted a passage from thence into England and was admitted as a [?] on board the said ship the Catchpoole for that purpose […] but in the passage home to England the said ship the Catchpoole having lost her main mast by bad weather was forced to put in at a port in Sweden (but this deponent hath forgotten the name of the said port) at which time a Danish Galley came and took the said ship the Catchpoole as prize and carried her up to Christiania in Norway and during the time that the said ship the Catchpole staid there this deponent was [?] on board the said ship as a servant to the Compliant and came home to England in that capacity in the said ship the Catchpoole   and in the same station did make another voyage in the said ship the Catchpoole to a place called Christian Sands in Norway and came back again to England in the same ship in the same station and saith that the whole time that this deponent was on board the said ship the Catchpoole as aforesaid was about fourteen months during which time the said Complainant was Captain or Commander of the said ship the Catchpoole now called the Alteration as aforesaid but when first he became for or how long he contained so after this deponent leaving the said ship this deponent cannot set forth and this deponent further saith that the defendant BATEMAN was

JOHN HARVEY his mark

[Next Page]

[IMG_0647]

 

[….] part owners of the said ship the Catchpoole but also were [there?] others this deponent doth not know and saith that the Complainant is a person well skilled and experienced in the art of navigation and every way qualified to sail and navigate any ship of the like burthen with the said ship the Catchpoole in the before mentioned or any other such like voyages to the best of this deponent’s judgement and further saith not to the several other matters particularly enquired after in the interrogatory.

  1. To the fifth interrogatory this deponent cannot depose further than what is set forth in his deposition to the second interrogatory.
  2. To the ninth and last interrogatory this deponent saith he never [received?] any sum of money whatsoever from the defendant BATEMAN upon account of wages for his this deponents service on board the said ship the Catchpoole now called the Alteration or upon any other account whatsoever either directly or indirectly.

John HARVEY his mark.

[Next Page]

[IMG_0648]

William LAMBLEY of [?] in the county of Suffolk mariner aged [74?] years or thereabouts sworn and examined the 21st day December 1719 on the part and be behalf of the Compliant deponeth and saith as followeth

  1. To the first interrogatory this deponent saith that he doth know both the Complainant and Defendant and known the Compliant near twenty years and the defendant since his childhood.
  2. To the second interrogatory this deponent saith that he doth know the ship or vessel lately called the Catchpole and now called the Alteration (in this interrogatory enquired after)   which of the burthen of about four hundred tons. And saith that about three years ago this deponent being carried from England to Christiania in Norway was there [?] on board the said vessel or ship called the Catchpoole now the Alteration as afore mentioned but the certain times this deponent cannot set forth and continued on board the said ship in her voyage home from Christiana aforesaid to England and also in another voyage from England to Post ground in Norway and back again both which voyages continued for the space of three months and upwards during which whole this deponent looked upon the Compliant GROVE to be the Master and Commander of the said ship and nobody else and saith that the said complainant GROVE is a person well skilled in the art of navigation and every way qualified to sail or navigate any ship or vessel of the like burthen with the before mentioned ship in that or any other voyages whatsoever and further saith not to this integratory.

 

  1. And 4. To the third and fourth interrogatories this deponent saith that the Complainant did provide and furnish several stores provisions and necessaries for the before mentioned voyages in which this deponent was employed on board as aforesaid and saith that he hath perused the paper writing now produced and showed unto hum at this the time of his examination and that the same doth contain an account of monies paid for seamen’s wages and otherwise by the Complainant for and on the account of the ship called the Catchpoole als Alteration and also of supply and other necessaries furnished and provided by the by the [?] for the [?] ship by the Complainant in the said [?] before mentioned voyage and saith that each and every of the particular items mentions and expressed in the before mentioned paper were provided and paid by the Complainant for the said ship’s use and service as this deponent verily believes and saith that the several sums of money set down and charged against every particular item in the said paper writing were paid by the complainant as therein is set forth and that the rates and prices therein expressed are usual and reasonable rates for such work done or stores provided as were paid at the times and places therein  specified and further saith not unto the several other matters particularly enquired after in these interrogatories.

William LAMBLY his mark

[Next Page]

[IMG_0649]

To the [?] this deponent saith that in the said ships return from Christiana in Norway aforesaid to England being the fifth voyage that this deponent was employed on board her she happened to have a violent storm fall upon her hear a place called the Dogger in which she lost her main Mast and sails and all of rig belonging to it at which time the Compliant was Master or Commander as before set forth.

William LAMBLEY his mark


[Next Page] [IMG_0651]

Interrogatories to be administered to Witness to be produced sworn and examined on the part and behalf of Thomas GROVE Complainant against Nathaniel BATEMAN defendant

Imprimis

  1. Do you know the parties Complainant and Defendant in the title of the interrogatory named or either and which of them and how long have you known them or either and which of them. Declare the truth according to the best of your knowledge.
  2. Item. Do you know the ship or vessel lately called the Catchpoole and now called the Alteration in this cause and  of what burthen is the said ship or vessel and who by name is the owner or are the part owners of the same ship and who by name now is and since the seventh day of February in the year of our Lord 1716 have or hath been master or Masters or Commander or Commanders of the same ship and for how long time ; and the time when they respectively first were or become first Masters thereof; and how and upon what occasion and what voyage or voyages hath the same ship made and to what port or ports and where beyond the seas and under whose command at any time or times and when within the space of three years last past; and how much per month is the usual or customary rate for wages to be given or paid by owners of ships of the like burthen with the said ship; to the Masters of such ships employed in voyages to Christiana in Norway and Gothenburg in Denmark or other parts thereabouts.    And whether or not is the said Complainant well skilled and experienced in the Art of Navigation and qualified to sail or navigate a ship or vessel of such burthen as the ship aforesaid as Mast or Commander thereof upon such like voyages as aforesaid. As you know have heard or do believe Declare.
  3. Do you know of any and what stores provisions work materials or necessaries that have at any time or times and the particular times when and where have been found done provided furnished or delivered and by what and whom for the use or on account of the said ship or vessel the Catchpoole or Alteration in the proceeding interrogatory mentioned; or in or about the fitting repairing or out setting of the said ship or vessel. And do you know of any and what sum or sums of money that have or hath at any time or times and the particular times when and place where, been paid or laid out disbursed or expended by the Complainant as Master of the said ship and ship’s Crew or in or about the repair amending fitting or outset of the said ship or for seamen’s wages or any otherwise for the use or enjoyment of the said ship. As you know have heard or do believe Declare.
  4. Item. Have you seen and perused the paper writings or account now produced and shown unto you at the time of this your examination and do you know or believe that all or any and which of the several sums of money therein mentioned set down and charged were out paid or expended by the Complainant or by his Order for the use or service of the said ship in the preceding interrogatory named for or on account of the several matters and things as the same are in the said account therein mentioned or charged to be paid and is or and the rates prices and sums of money therein charged or any and which of them the usual and reasonable rates and prices or such as at the times and places of payment thereof was or were  then usually paid for such Goods Stores work matters and things as are therein set down and charged  Declare the same according to the best of your knowledge or belief thereof together with the reasons of such your belief thereof.
  5. Do you know or have you heard that the said ship or vessel in the preceding interrogatory named did at any time or times and when and where during the time that the said ship was out upon any voyage or voyages suffer any and what damage in her hull masts rigging or otherwise and how by storm tempest [?] of weather and who by name was the Master or Commander thereof at the time or times when the said ship or vessel had or received any such damage as aforesaid Declare.
  6. Item. Is it customary for merchants or others freighters of merchandise ships or vessels to pay the Master of such ships or vessels any and what sum of money or to make any other and what allowances to such Masters under the denomination of Captaken or Capleagen for or in respect of and what goods or merchandise shipped on board such ships or vessels at freight over and above the freight for the same goods. And to whom such perquisite or customary allowance called Captaken or Capleagen belong or is usually paid or given unto. As you have heard or do believe declare.
  7. Item.  Have you seen and perused the […] the time of your examination, are you acquainted with the manor and character of the hand writing of all or any and which of the parties whose names are subscribed or set to the said paper writings or receipts or any and which of them. If yes is or are the name or names of such parties so respectively set to all or any name or names the same purports to be as you know or believe.
  8. Item. Waa the ship called the Catchpoole in the preceding interrogatory mentioned at any time and when considered as prize [?] Court and in what place beyond the seas did the said Complainant as you know or believe employ any [pro?] or any other person and when to appeal against such Condemnation and carry on the proceedings thereon. Did this Complainant pay to such person as was so employed by him any and what sum or sums of money on that account or what might the expense of such appeal and proceedings thereon amount unto as you know or believe. And did you ever employ any such promator or any other person and when and where to appeal against the Condemnation of any and what ship and  what sum or sums of money did you pay to such person so by you employed for the same and what sum of money is usually expended on such occasions. Declare what you know have heard or believe relating to the matters enquired of in this Interrogatory with your reasons for the same.

Item. What other matter or thing do you know or can depose that will make for the benefit and advantage of the Complainant in this cause. Declare.

[end]


Jonas MOTTS jurat […] [January?] 1719

Georgius BANNISTER jurat […] July 1719

Willus GWENE […] 1719

Jeremias Gulies LOCKE Petrus VONDON […]

Johes HARVEY jurat […] 1719

Willus LAMBLEY jurat […] 1719

GROVE v BATEMAN 1719