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]

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]

PC1/38/117 National Archives

National Archives file PC1/38/117

(Image Reference IMG_0307.jpg)

Transcription of one item in this file:-

Treason (copy) The Keeper of Newgate’s account

NB The Original Account has [submitted?] to Mr ROSE [?] Minute 16th May 1797

Enter this account after the letter

“The Account of John KIRBY, Keeper of His Majesty’s Goal of Newgate for providing, meat, drink, lodging, colas, candles, [?] and attending the following persons charged with and on suspicion of High Treason – Committed by the Lords of His majesty’s Most Honourable Privy Council and brought by Habeas Corpus from the Tower; each of whom were ordered to be kept in separate apartments and no permitted to see them but by order from their Lordships and that in the presence of the said Keeper or his servants; vizt

William STONE paid him from the 20th February 1795 to 29th January 1796 by order of their Lordships 6/8 per day being in all 343 days as per STONE’s receipt  £114 6s 8d.

John ASHLEY committed the 29th May 1794 and continued until 30th October following was ordered to have all necessary charge for his Board 3/ per day being 155 days. £23 5s 0d.

To his lodgings, fire and attendance of one person during that time at 2/8 per day £20 13s 4d.

Richard HAYWARD committed the 29th May 1794 and continued until 16th December following being 202 days at the like allowance. £30 6s 0d.

To his lodgings, fire and attendance of one person during that time at 2/8 per day £26 18s 8d.

Thomas SPENCE committed the 29th May 1794 and continued until 22nd December following being 208 days at the like allowance. £31 4s 0d.

To his lodgings, fire and attendance of one person during that time at 2/8 per day £27 14s 8d.

John HILLIER committed the 29th May 1794 and continued until 22nd December following being 208 days at the like allowance. £31 4s 0d.

To his lodgings, fire and attendance of one person during that time at 2/8 per day £27 14s 8d.

Jean Baptiste ROUSELLE committed the 29th May 1794 and continued until 21st May 1795 being 358 days at the like allowance. £53 14s 0d.

To his lodgings, fire and attendance of one person during that time at 2/8 per day £47 14s 8d.

John Philip FRANKLOW committed the 6th June 1794 and continued until the 22nd December following being 200 days at the like allowance. £30 0s 0d.

To his lodgings, fire and attendance of one person during that time at 2/8 per day £26 13s 4d.

Carried Over £491 9s 0d.

[Next Page]

Brought Over £491 9s 0d.

 

John BAXTER committed the 8th July 1794 and continued until the 15th December following being 161 days at the like allowance. £24 3s 0d.

To his lodgings, fire and attendance during that time at 2/8 per day £21 9s 4d.

Thomas HOLECROFT committed the 10th October 1794 and continued until the 1st December following being 56 days at the like allowance. £8 8s 0d.

To his lodgings, fire, candle and attendance during that time at 2/8 per day £7 9s 4d.

John SMITH committed the 10th October 1794 and continued until the 9th May following being 212 days at the like allowance. £31 16s 0d.

To his lodgings, fire, candle and attendance during that time at 2/8 per day £28 5s 4d.

John Horne TOOKE brought from the Tower the 24th October 1794 and continued until 22nd November following being 30 days at the like allowance. £4 10s 0d.

To his lodgings, fire, candle and attendance at 2/8 per day £4 0s 0d.

Steward KYDD brought from the Tower the 24th October 1794 and continued until 1st December following being 39 days at the like allowance. £5 17s 0d.

To his lodgings, fire, candle and attendance during that time at 2/8 per day £5 4s 0d.

John Augustus BONNEY brought from the Tower the 24th October 1794 and continued until 17th November following being 25 days at the like allowance. £3 15s 0d.

To his lodgings, fire, candle and attendance during that time at 2/8 per day £3 6s 8d.

Thomas HARDY brought from the Tower the 24th October 1794 and continued until 5th November following being 13 days at the like allowance. £1 19s 0d.

To his lodgings, fire, candle and attendance during that time at 2/8 per day £1 14s 8d.

John RICHTER brought from the Tower the 24th October 1794 and continued until 15th December following being 53 days at the like allowance. £7 19s 0d.

To his lodgings, fire, candle and attendance during that time at 2/8 per day £7 1s 4d.

John THELWALL brought from the Tower the 24th October 1794 and continued until 5th December following being 43 days at the like allowance. £6 9s 0d.

To his lodgings, fire, candle and attendance during that time at 2/8 per day £5 14s 8d.

Jeremiah JOYCE brought from the same place the 24th October 1794 and continued until 1st December following being 39 days at the like allowance. £5 17s 0d.

To his lodgings, fire, candle and attendance during that time at 2/8 per day £5 4s 0d.

Carried over £681 11s 4d.

[Next Page]

Brought forward £681 11s 4d

John Augustus BONNEY brought from the same place and continued one day. £0 3s 0d.

To his lodging, Fire, Candle and attendance £0 2s 8d.

Paul Thomas Le MAITRE, John SMITH, George HIGGINS – Indicted for High Treason – Ordered by the Lords of the Privy Council to be paid each of them 13s 4d per week from 15th January 1796 until 4th March following being 7 weeks. £By a subsequent order their allowance was augmented to each on14 0s 0

C100/72 National Archives File

 

Partial Transcript of National Archives file C100/72

Volume 5

16th May 1698

Masters Side

Ladies hole Cecilia Labree (Convicted)

Hole Executed 18th May Thomas Jennings in a sledge Coining      [No trace in POB]

Prison Court [or Convict] in Since

John Short als Shaw 17th May Coining and Counterfeiting              [No trace in POB]

 

23rd May 1698

Masters Side

Ladies hole Cecilia Labree (Convicted)

Prison Court [or Convict] in Since

fW to the [?] 20th May [?] Anthony Cavenear 27th May H Treason

 

30th May 1698 ; 6th June 1698; 13th June 1698; 20th June 1698 ; 27th June 1698; 4th July 1698; 11th July 1698; 18th July 1698 ;25th July 1698; 5th August 1698 ; 29th August 1698; 19th September 1698; 26th September 1698

Masters Side

Ladies hole Cecilia Labree (Convicted)

19th September 1698 “Comd S. 29” [Completed Sentence 29th [September]]

 

20th February 1698/9

Middle Ward

Wm Chaloner – Law

John Ignatius Lawson – Law

 

6th March 1698/99

Middle ward

John Ignatius Lawson

Hole

Wm Chaloner – Condemned

 

13th March 1698/99

Middle ward

John Ignatius Lawson

Hole

Wm Chaloner – Condemed

 

20th March 1698/99

Middle Ward

John Ignatius Lawson

Hole

Wm Chaloner – Condemned  Executed 22March

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benjamin DIDIER Affidavit

Extract from National Archives file KB1/19/1

This document relates to Kings Bench case WILLIAMS v GRIFFITHS (1773) See list of related Affidavits and other background material

[The IMG references reference(s) are the number of the image taken when the document was copied]

[IMG_2780]

Benjamin DIDIER of the parish of Saint Nicholas in the Borough of Harwich in the County of Essex Gentleman Clerk of the Peace of the said Borough maketh Oath and saith that this deponent at the request of Joseph ORLEBAR Esquire Mayor of the borough attended a meeting of him the said Mayor Griffith DAVIES Esquire late Mayor of the said Borough and Humphrey RANT Esquire Recorder for the [?] being of the same Borough three justices of the said Borough next unto the port of Harwich held at the House of Roger HINDE known by the sign of three cups in the parish of Saint Nicholas in the Borough of Harwich aforesaid on Tuesday the 4th day of February in order to examine witnesses and adjust the [?] of [?] for [?] schooner called Unity of Philadelphia William WILLIAMS Master  with her cargo and crew the then vessel being brought into the said port and this deponent saith that when he had wrote the preamble of the meeting Mr John ELLET of Ipswich who called himself solicitor for the owners and proprietors of the said schooner made several objections against any further proceedings of the said justices but the only one of which any notice was taken by the said Justices was to the setting or acting of the said Griffith DAVIES Esquire Collector of the Customers as a Justice of the Peace to which objection Humphrey RANT Esquire the said Recorder answered that if Mr DAVIES was not interested in the event of the meeting (which Mr DAVIES declared he was not) he Mr RANT thought the said Mr DAVIES not withstanding his being Collector of the Customs might act in that case as a justice of the Peace and this deponent saith that  when they were about to call witnesses the said Mr ELLET further objected that the said schooner and her cargo were not being brought unto the said port Harwich thirty days preceding that meeting which being before the time prescribed by the statues of the 12th year of Queen Anne and that last objection was allowed by the said justices as the only good one and  thereupon that assembly was dissolved. And this this deponent further saith that on Tuesday the eleventh day of February last he attended the Justices at the General Licensing of Victuallers held at the Guildhall for the said Borough and as soon as [..] the said John ELLET demanded of the said Collector Griffith DAVIES therelease and discharge of the said schooner and Roger HINES offered himself as security to answer for the demands of salvage when the said Mr DAVIES expressing himself doubtful, Mr John HINES brother to the said Roger HINES asked the said Mr DAVIES whether he would take his security and walked away towards the window. Where upon this deponent he and Mr DAVIES say that John HINES he believe had some substance. And that he would take his security which being reported to Mr John HINES he answered that he had only asked whether Mr DAVIES would take but had not said that he would give his security.

[IMG_2181]

And that this deponent believed if he went immediately to [?] DAVIES’S house then bond would be accepted. And this deponent saith that the said John ELLET followed this deponent and came before the said collector but the said William SHEARMAN being doubtful whether he should on behalf or Mr Samuel BEARY accept the said bond the said John ELLET peremptorily demanded of the said Collector the discharge of the said schooner saying he had offered him sufficient security when this deponent [observed?]  to the said John ELLET that the security was not made to the said Collector as Samuel BEARY was the only oblige named in the Bond and this deponent finding the said John ELLET bent on mischief by some notices he was about to give to the Collector advised Mr SHEARMAN to accept of the bond on behalf of Mr BEARY which he did and immediately the [?] the said Collector consented to the discharge of the said schooner with cargo [..] on Monday the 27th day April last being the day of the General Quarter Session of the Peace for the said Borough Harwich [?] this deponent about two hours after the [?] was over waited on the Mayor and Recorder at the said Inn called the Three Cups to which they had gone  from the Hall and there dined and [?] after this deponent was desired to so [?] the said Mayor acquainted the said Recorder that John ELLET had given him  paper demanding true copies of the examinations of Samuel BEARY Daniel MACQUIRE Andrew otherwise Anden ANDERSON Robert GEORGE William ENFER and John WHITING (taken in writing on oath the said twenty seventh day of February last soon after which the said Griffith DAVIES Esquire [?] in and [?] when the said Recorder told the said Mayor that the said John ELLET had no right to demand such copies which they were not obliged to give till required by the Court of Kings Bench after which the said John ELLET came into the [?] and asked whether the [?] [?] he had demanded were ready for him when the said Griffith DAVIES esquire took the said paper demanding copies as aforesaid dated 17th April 1772 (being that very day) in his hand and asked the said John ELLET who GREGG and POTT signed to the said Writing were, to which the said John ELLET answered they were  Attorneys in London upon which this deponent told the said John ELLET the said Recorders opinion that the Justices were not obliged to deliver copies to any attorney without some Order from the Court of King’s Bench when the said John ELLET addressing himself to the said Mr DAVIES asked if he should take this deponent’s answer for his also if he refused to give him copies and several other questions to which neither the said Mayor or the said Mr DAVIES giving any answer this deponent told the said John ELLET that these Gentleman [?] him too well to answer his [?] questions  or finish him with matter for an affidavit which this deponent did not doubt his making as full as he could as this deponent understood he had given notice of moving for an information against the Justices whereupon the said John ELLET immediately quitted the room laughing or affecting to laugh.

B DIDIER

Sworn at Harwich in the county of Essex this 12th day of June in the our Lord 1772 before me Bw LONG Junior by Commission