159 Dike v Harris

159 DIKE V HARRIS

Zachary Dike, merchant v Richard Harris of the city of London, merchant

No date

Abstract

The cause and result of Dike's complaint against Harris is unknown, but Harris petitioned the Earl Marshal that Dike and his partner Walter Ward had long been indebted to him for over £2,000. Harris explained that he had commenced a suit for the recovery of this debt in Chancery and the Lord Keeper had referred the cause to arbitration. No further proceedings survive.

Initial proceedings

EM286, Defendant's petition

Recited that Dike had obtained a warrant for bringing the petitioner before the Earl Marshal, and that Dike and his partner, Walter Ward, had long been indebted to Harris for over £2,000 by their bill made at Naples. Harris explained that he had commenced a suit for the recovery of this debt and had been forced to exhibit his bill in Chancery, which Dike answered by confessing the bill, but seeking to avoid satisfaction. The Lord Keeper had lately referred the cause at short notice to Mr Abbot, Mr Leat and Mr Fishborne. The petitioner wished to attend his counsel and prayed that the Earl Marshal would either recall his warrant or postpone its execution until the Commissioners had reported the state of the petitioner's cause.

No date.

No signatures.

Notes

The defendant may have been Richard, eldest son of Josias Harris of London, apothecary, and Priscilla, daughter of William Brookes. Zachary Dike did not appear among the 1633-5 nor 1664 Visitations of London.

J. Jackson Howard and J. L. Chester (eds.), The Visitation of London, 1633, 1634 and, 1635, vol. I (Publications of the Harleian Society, 15, 1880), p. 351.

Documents

• Initial proceedings
  • Defendant's petition: EM286 (no date)

People mentioned in the case

• Abbot, Mr
• Brookes, Priscilla
• Brookes, William
• Dike, Zachary, merchant
• Fishborne, Mr
• Harris, Josias, apothecary
• Harris, Priscilla
• Harris, Richard, merchant
• Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
• Leat, Mr
• Ward, Walter

Places mentioned in the case

• London

Topics of the case

• arbitration
• Court of Chancery
• debt
• other courts