Pleadings, 1685-1686: nos 31-60

Pleadings, 1685-1686: nos 31-60

31. Davis v Goldsmith

P: (1) Benjamin Davis the younger, chirurgeon, London, B. Davis the E's son. D: (1) Alice Goldsmith, St. Albans, Herts; (2) Joane Goldsmith; (3) Francis Goldsmith; (4) William Kilboe. C: (1) Paul Pulling, counsel for p; (2) Ja. Wittewronge, counsel for ds 1-2. Add: (1) Richard Davis, deceased, p's great-uncle; (2) Benjamin Davis the elder, deceased, p's father. P seeks possession of premises in Bedford left by his grandfather for his sons. P's great-uncle, R. Davis, possessed the estate as guardian of the eldest son, a lunatic. The second son, p's father, B. Davis the E, sued R. Davis in Chancery for the estate. B. Davis the E & R. Davis died. Now d1 allegedly conspires with ds2-3 & d4 (tenant of the premises) in claiming she bought the premises from R. Davis.

32. Dawes v Royal African Co.

P: (1) Nicholas Dawes, merchant, London; (2) Thomas Ducke, merchant, London; (3) Ransford Waterhouse, merchant, London; (4) Samuel Pett, merchant, London; (5) John Lowe, merchant, London; (6) Isaac Heath, merchant, London; (7) Christopher Dodsworth, merchant, London; (8) Benjamin Thompson, merchant, London, master of a ship, the Eaglet, in 1683. D: (1) Royal African Co., England; (2) Henry Greenhill esq., agent general for the Royal African Co. of England; (3) Sir Robert Sawyer, Attorney General, knight, also counsel for d1. C: (1) Edward Ward, counsel for ps; (2) John Hollis, counsel for d2; (3) Francis Browne, counsel for d1. Ps seek a writ of distringas ag d1, & recovery of £810 in gold dust which p8, master of a ship, the Eaglet, was transporting in 1683 when the ship was captured by pirates. P8 hid the gold in a canoe but his servants ran away with it. D2, agent general for the Royal African Co. of England, recovered it for p8 but later refused to return it to ps. Ds claim a 1672 charter of Charles II entitles only d1 to trade in that part of Africa, & to seize unlawful traders' goods & transfer 1/2 to the Crown.

33. Deeble v Wade

P: (1) Samuel Deeble, merchant, Totnes, Devon, p2's husband; (2) Grace Deeble, Totnes, Devon, p1's wife, S. Putt's administratrix. D: (1) Peter Wade, goldsmith, London. C: (1) Jo. Hely, counsel for ps. Add: (1) Samuel Putt, merchant, London, deceased. Ps seeks payment to p2 (administratrix of S. Putt, deceased in 1682) of money Putt allegedly entrusted to d, for which Putt received no receipts. D reportedly denies Putt left money outstanding, & has allegedly altered his accounts.

34. Dodsworth v Edwards

P: (1) Christopher Dodsworth, mercer, London, trustee for the children of R. Pooke & E. Andrews, E. Dodsworth's husband. D: (1) Benjamin Edwards gent., London, G. Pooke the E's nephew, d2's husband; (2) Sarah Edwards, d1's wife, daughter of R. Pooke & E. Andrews, sister of d3 & E. Dodsworth; (3) Susanna Charlton, daughter of R. Pooke & E. Andrews, sister of d2 & E. Dodsworth. C: (1) Ambrose Phillipps, counsel for p; (2) Edward Ward, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Richard Pooke, grocer, London, deceased intestate, father of ds2-3 & E. Dodsworth, E. Andrews' previous husband; (2) Elizabeth Andrews, deceased, R. Pooke's widow & administratrix, mother of ds2-3 & E. Dodsworth, Daniel Andrews' wife; (3) George Pooke the elder, deceased, uncle of ds2-3 & E. Dodsworth; (4) Stephen Charlton esq., barrister, Temple, London, deceased, d3's husband; (5) Daniel Andrews, merchant, London, E. Andrews' husband; (6) Elizabeth Dodsworth, p's wife, daughter of R. Pooke & E. Andrews, sister of ds2-3. P, trustee of London premises for ps2-3 & other children of R. Pooke (deceased intestate in 1647) appointed by R. Pooke's widow & executrix E. Andrews & her husband D. Andrews, seeks relief from ds' suit in this Court for payment of rents from the entrusted premises. P claims the fire of 1666 burnt houses on the premises including those left to ds2-3 by their uncle G. Pooke the E, & p was compelled to build new houses for which ds allegedly promised to reimburse him £560, but did not.

35. Draper v Ottiwell

P: (1) Richard Draper, milliner, London, M. Ottiwell's administrator. D: (1) Joseph Ottiwell, clerk, Elesmere, Salop, M. Ottiwell's father, d2's husband; (2) Elizabeth Ottiwell, Elesmere, Salop, M. Ottiwell's mother, d1's wife; (3) Nathaniel Williams, clerk, Malpas, Ches, d4's husband; (4) Frances Williams, Malpas, Ches, d3's wife; (5) Francis Nichols, Wrexham, Denb. C: (1) Giles Duncombe, counsel for p. Add: (1) Mary Ottiwell, milliner, seamstress, Wrexham, Denb, deceased intestate, daughter of ds 1-2. P seeks discovery of the personal estate of M. Ottiwell (deceased intestate) and payment of a £35 debt from it. P claims ds possessed the estate, so p took out letters of administration entitling him to receive payment from it. Ds 1-2, M. Ottiwell's parents, claim the estate is insufficient to pay the debts, and ds3-4 deny any involvement whatsoever.

36. Edwards v Dodsworth

P: (1) Benjamin Edwards gent., London, p2's husband; (2) Sarah Edwards, London, p1's wife, daughter of R. & E. Pooke, sister of p3, E. Dodsworth, G. Pooke & S. Pooke; (3) Susanna Charleton, daughter of R. & E. Pooke, sister of p2, E. Dodsworth G. Pooke & S. Pooke. D: (1) Christopher Dodsworth, London, E. Dodsworth's husband. C: (1) Edward Ward, counsel for ps; (2) Ambrose Phillipps, counsel for d's answer; (3) W. Williams, counsel for d's further answer. Add: (1) Richard Pooke, grocer, London, deceased intestate, E. Pooke's husband, father of ps2-3, G. Pooke, S. Pooke & E. Dodsworth; (2) Elizabeth Andrewes, D. Andrewes's wife, R. Pooke's widow & administratrix, mother of ps2-3; (3) Daniel Andrewes, merchant, London, E. Andrewes's husband; (4) Elizabeth Dodsworth, London, d's wife, R. Pooke's daughter, sister of ps2-3, G. Pooke & S. Pooke, G. Pooke's administratrix; (5) George Pooke, deceased, R. Pooke's son, brother of ps2-3, E. Dodsworth & S. Pooke; (6) Stephen Pooke, R. Pooke's son, brother of ps2-3, E. Dodsworth & G. Pooke. Ps seek payment to ps2-3 of 1/4 share each of profits from London premises left by R. Pooke (deceased intestate in 1657, father of ps2-3, E. Dodsworth, G. Pooke & S. Pooke), which Elizabeth, his widow & administratrix, entrusted for his children before she married D. Andrewes. The premises were burnt in the great fire of 1666, & d (as his wife's husband & next friend of R. Pooke's other children) recovered the premises from the trustees, bought S. Pooke's share & sold some of the premises. G. Pooke died & E. Dodsworth became his administratrix.

37. Evans v Smith

P: (1) Edward Evans, tobacco pipemaker, London. D: (1) Dennis Smith, merchant, Poole, Dors; (2) George Morton, factor, employed by d1; (3) John Hunt, tobacco pipemaker, Salisbury Court. C: (1) W. Williams, counsel for p; (2) Whitlock Deane, counsel for ds. P seeks relief ag d1's suit for payment of debts totalling £320 for tobacco pipe clay which d1 agreed to supply only to p & d3 in 1685 for one year. P claims d1, his factor d2, & d3 have sold large quantities of clay to other parties. Ds claim p refused to account with d1 for clay sold, so d1 had p arrested & caused p's customers to pay d1 directly.

38. Fisher v Baltin

P: (1) John Fisher gent., solicitor, Middle Temple, London, P. Palmer's executor. D: (1) Thomas Baltin, sadler, St. Martins in the Fields, Midd, P. Palmer's executor. C: (1) Edward Ward, counsel for p; (2) Ro. Warren, counsel for d. Add: (1) Penelope Palmer, St. Martins in the Fields, Midd, deceased; (2) Viscountess Baltinglasse, P. Palmer's debtor. P seeks payment of £48 17s 6d which P. Palmer owed him upon 5 bonds, & £30 Palmer willed him after her death in d's house in 1684, leaving p & d as executors. Palmer's estate included securities owed by Viscountess Baltinglasse & others. P claims d conspires with Palmer's debtors to defraud him of the bonds & legacy. D claims Palmer's estate is insufficient to pay all debts, as she had issued d a £479 6s 8d judgement in the Court of Common Pleas for board & lodging bills.

39. Gardner v Gardner

P: (1) Robert Gardner, haberdasher, London, N. Gardner's son and executor. D: (1) Frances Gardner, p's stepmother, N. Gardner's widow. C: (1) Nicholas Courtney, counsel for p; (2) Richard Catlyn, counsel for d. Add: (1) Nathaniel Gardner, deceased, p's father, d's husband; (2) Benjamin Bonwicke gent., Reigate, Surrey. P, N. Gardner's son & executor, seeks discovery of personal estate and rents which d (p's stepmother and N. Gardner's widow) allegedly retained after N. Gardner's death. D claims N. Gardner was bound for £1000 to her brother B. Bonwicke to leave d £100, which p has not done. D also claims N. Gardner had given her items from his personal estate.

40. Gibbs v Bebington

P: (1) Marmaduke Gibbs esq., barrister, Gray's Inn, Midd. D: (1) Michael Bebington esq., St. Martin in the Fields, Midd; (2) Isaac Dorisla, merchant, London; (3) William Jobson, St. Martin in the Fields, Midd. C: (1) Thomas Lyng, counsel for p. Add: (1) John Vaughan esq., late receiver of the 18-month tax for South Wales & Monmouthshire, 1672–3; (2) Richard Gwynn esq., Swansea, Glam; (3) David Thomas gent., Lisworney, Glam. P seeks inj ag any suit of d at KB for payment of an £800 judgement p issued d in 1682 as security for a £150 loan d made D. Thomas. In 1678 d had become bound to Queen Katherine for £640 to perform his duties as receiver & bailiff for Northants & Bucks, with p as security. In 1679 R. Gwynn had paid the Crown £1372 3s 4d, as security for J. Vaughan, receiver of the 18-month tax in 1672–3 for South Wales and Monmouthshire. The Crown entrusted the arrears of taxes to d3 for p, d1 & d2. P claims d agreed to discharge the £800 judgement in return for p's share of the arrears of taxes. When p sought to remove himself as security for d's bond to the Queen, ds conspired to deny the trust was ever set up.

41. Gittings v Dickinson

P: (1) William Gittings, parish of St. Brides, London, p2's next friend; son & administrator of Edward Gittings; (2) Edmund Gittings, p1's brother under 21 years. D: (1) William Dickinson esq., previous administrator of Edward Gittings. C: (1) William Bannaster, counsel for ps; (2) Ed. Ward, counsel for d. Add: (1) Edward Gittings, marchant tailor, London, deceased intestate, ps' father. Ps seek payment of p2's share of the estate of Edward Gittings (deceased intestate in 1679) from d, previous administrator. 4 of Edward's 5 children are now over 21 years, and p1 has assumed the administration. P2 (15 years old) seeks his share to become an apprentice attorney, which d is only willing to transfer if this Court indemnifies him.

42. Gomes v Humphryes

P: (1) Antonio Gomes, yeoman, St. Martin in the Fields, Midd, previously of Lisbon, Portugal. D: (1) Edward Humphryes, broker, St. Martin in the Fields, Midd. C: (1) Thomas Montgomery, counsel for p; (2) Edward Ward, counsel for d. P, previously d's lodger, seeks discovery of accounts for the sale of Navarre wines and other goods p asked d to sell for him, and an inj ag d's suit for payment of arrears of rent from p. D claims his wife sold the wine, which was inferior, and the small proceeds have already been paid to p.

43. Goodall v Lattimer

P: (1) John Goodall, butcher, London. D: (1) John Lattimer, cook, London; (2) William Morgan, tapster, London. C: (1) Paul Pullein, counsel for p. P seeks payment of a £20 debt allegedly owed to him by d1, with whom he did business. D1 reportedly promised to pay p when he received payment of a debt from d2, but now d1 allegedly denies owing p, and d2 denies owing d1.

44. Gowen v Cope

P: (1) William Gowen, chirurgion, London. D: (1) Mary Cope, W. Cope's widow & executrix; (2) Daniell Hill, linen draper, London. C: (1) Robert Gillmore, counsel for p; (2) Sam. Dodd, counsel for d1. Add: (1) William Cope, ship's captain, deceased, d1's husband, master of a ship, the George and Betty; (2) Thomas Beard, chief mate, deceased. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of £400 in goods & £1000 in gold allegedly left by W. Cope, captain of a ship, the George and Betty, on a voyage in 1682 from Guinea to Barbados. P was chirurgion on the voyage, authorised to take command when W. Cope and T. Beard, the 1st mate, died. W. Cope had instructed p to sell his goods & transfer the proceeds & his effects to d1, his wife, who would recompense p. P claims he paid d1 £600 & £200 for clothes, which d1 denies receiving & claims p retains the goods & money.

45. Grant v Parsons

P: (1) John Grant gent., Kingston upon Thames, Surrey. D: (1) Richard Parsons; (2) Henry Craycroft, formerly p's agent at the brewhouse; (3) Daniel Forth, J. Forth's administrator; (4) Henry Forth, J. Forth's son and heir. C: (1) Henry Trinder, counsel for p; (2) Fr. Fuller, counsel for d1. Add: (1) John Forth esq., London, deceased. P seeks relief from d1's suit in this Court claiming p had no authority to receive payment of a mortgage on d1's messuage owed to a brewhouse which p bought from J. Forth (deceased). P's agent d2 allegedly told d1 that p was so unauthorised, also alleged by ds3-4 (J. Forth's administrator and son). D1 claims p's deeds to the brewhouse recording the mortgage now compromise d1's title to the messuage.

46. Gratinger v Salisbury

P: (1) Jacob Gratinger, shoemaker, St. Martin le Grand, London, allegedly sells abroad shoes unfit for sale in England. D: (1) Gilbert Salisbury, shoemaker, St. Martin le Grand, London; (2) John Coopestake, d1's nephew & servant; (3) Edward Lambert, scrivener, St. Martin le Grand, London. C: (1) Thomas Jones, counsel for p; (2) Edward Baldwyn, counsel for d1 & d3. P seeks inj ag d1's suit in the Court of Common Pleas for payment for shoes p bought from d's nephew & servant d2. P claims he bought shoes from d2, who embezzled the money. Ds 1-2 then conspired with d3 to imprison p & his wife for receiving stolen goods & had p's goods seized. D1 claims p did not pay d2 for the shoes, & denies seizing p's goods but suggests the parish churchwardens may have seized them as indemnity ag the charge of p's wife & children.

47. Hall v Winter

P: (1) Edward Hall gent., London. D: (1) Daniel Winter, Farnham, Surrey; (2) Thomas Sutton. C: (1) John Dorrington, counsel for p; (2) William Killingworth, counsel for d1. P seeks repayment of a £20 deposit which d2 paid on p's behalf to d1 for £220 worth of wheat in 1684. P claims d1 agreed to house the wheat until January 1685 in return for rent, but ds then sold it. D1 denies agreeing to house it, & claims after p's deposit was paid, the price of wheat dropped, d2 claimed p had small pox & could not collect it, & never paid the balance.

48. Hankinson v Manning

P: (1) John Hankinson, p2's husband, p3's guardian; (2) Sarah Hankinson, p1's wife, p3's sister; (3) Elizabeth Bullock, p2's sister, under 21 years. D: (1) Thomas Manning, S. Newby's son and trustee; (2) William Bradford, Blackfriars, London, S. Newby's trustee. C: (1) Francis Winnington, counsel for ps; (2) Henry Hatsell, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Sarah Newby, London, deceased, grandmother of ds2-3, named Mary in bill; (2) Joseph Bullock, S. Newby's son, father of ps2-3; (3) Launcelot Monroe, fishmonger, London. Ps seek profits supposedly left to J. Bullock and his daughters ps2-3 by S. Newby from a messuage (with ds as trustees), and silver, a diamond ring, bedding and furniture Newby left to p2. Ds claim Newby changed her mind and sold the messuage to d2 and L. Monroe, gave the bedding and furniture to d1's wife, and sold and pawned the silver and ring.

49. Hardwick v Fortune

P: (1) Ralph Hardwick, merchant, London. D: (1) Edward Fortune, ship's master, part owner of a ship, the Sidmouth. C: (1) Edward Ward, counsel for p; (2) Ambrose Phillips, counsel for d. Add: (1) Abraham Lee, p's agent. P seeks relief ag d's suit for payment of £1000 after p hired d (master of a ship, the Sidmouth) to transport wheat from Chichester to Teneriffe & the Canary Islands, and a cargo of wines back. P claims d delayed his arrival at Chichester & the price of wheat had risen, that the ship was leaky & p's agent refused to load it with the wines. D asserts he had the ship surveyed, pumped out & pronounced seaworthy.

50. Harris v Daniel

P: (1) John Harris, E. Harris's son, brother of ps2-3 & p5, A. Ely's administrator; (2) Spicer Harris, E. Harris's son, brother of p1, p3 & p5, A. Ely's administrator; (3) Benjamin Harris, E. Harris's son, brother of ps1-2 & p5, A. Ely's administrator; (4) Ralph Studd, p5's husband, A. Ely's administrator; (5) Rebecca Studd, p4's wife, E. Harris's daughter, sister of ps1-3, A. Ely's administratrix. D: (1) Sir Peter Daniel, knight, W. Osbalston's executor; (2) Robert Townson, W. Osbalston's executor; (3) Robert Osbalston the younger, W. Osbalston's son & sole executor upon his majority in 1681. C: (1) F. Crawford?, counsel for ps (name damaged); (2) Henry Hatsell, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Elizabeth Harris, deceased, mother of ps1-3 & p5, D. Spicer's neice; (2) David Spicer gent., parish of St. Olave's, Southwark, Surrey, deceased, E. Harris's uncle, A. Ely's brother; (3) Anne Ely, deceased, W. Ely's wife, D. Spicer's sister; (4) William Ely, silk throster, St. Olave's, Southwark, Surrey, deceased, A. Ely's husband; (5) Robert Osbalston the elder, haberdasher, London, deceased, d3's grandfather, D. Spicer's executor; (6) Elizabeth Spicer, deceased, D. Spicer's widow & executrix; (7) William Osbalston, mercer, St. Olave, London, deceased, R. Osbalston the E's son, d3's father. Ps seeks payment of duties from lighthouses in Kent which D. Spicer (deceased in 1650) willed to his sister A. Ely (deceased) & his neice E. Harris (mother of ps1-3 & p5), leaving as executors his widow E. Spicer (deceased in 1658) & R. Osbalston the E (deceased in 1669 leaving his son W. Osbalston). W. Osbalston died in 1678 leaving ds1-2 as executors & his son d3, who possess the lighthouses & receive the duties. Ps became A. Ely's administrators. Ds claim d3's father & grandfather bought the interests of p1 & W. Ely (A. Ely's husband) in the lighthouses.

51. Harris v Jeffryes

P: (1) Richard Harris the elder, chandler, St. Giles without Cripplegate, London, p2's father; (2) Richard Harris the younger, glazier, St. Giles without Cripplegate, London, p1's son. D: (1) Robert Jeffryes, bricklayer, London. C: (1) Godfrey Thacker, counsel for ps; (2) Thomas Dickins, counsel for d. Ps seek inj ag d's suit at KB for £80 bond p2 issued with p1 as security for performance by p2 of £43 worth of glazier's work. Ps claim in 1684 d sold p2 a leasehold messuage in Rotherithe, Surrey, for £83: £40 in cash & £43 worth of glazier's work. P2 asserts d prevented him from performing the work, then had him arrested. D claims p2 only performed £11 worth of work, which was inferior & 6 weeks late, so d had to hire another glazier.

52. Harrison v Wolstenholme

P: (1) Richard Harrison esq., Balls, Herts, Sir J. Harrison's son, heir & executor. D: (1) Sir Thomas Wolstenholme, bart., Sir J. Wolstenholme's son, heir & executor, d2's father; (2) Thomas Wolstenholme esq., d1's son, Dr L. Wright's administrator. C: (1) Richard Holford, counsel for p's bill; (2) Francis Brown, counsel for p's replication; (3) Henry Trinder, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Sir John Harrison, deceased, knight, p's father, member of the House of Commons, farmer of the customs; (2) Sir John Wolstenholme, deceased, d1's father, member of the House of Commons, farmer of the customs; (3) Sir Paul Pindar, member of the House of Commons, farmer of the customs; (4) Dr Lawrence Wright, doctor of physic, deceased, Lady Vere's trustee; (5) Lady Vere. P seeks relief ag ds' suit for payment of a £4000 bond d1's father Sir J. Wolstenholme issued in 1640 with p's father Sir J. Harrison & Sir P. Pindar (members of the House of Commons & farmers of the customs under Charles I) to Dr L. Wright as Lady Vere's trustee for a £2000 loan. D1 claims his father was compelled to repay more than his share of a £150,000 fine to the Crown & a £50,000 loan owed by the farmers, including Lady Vere's bond. P claims this bond was repaid, that Sir J. Wolstenholme was not just surety but equally liable for the debts, & that Sir J. Harrison paid his share.

53. Hartus v Kettlewell

P: (1) Henry Hartus, stationer, St. Dunstan in the West, London. D: (1) Robert Kettlewell, bookseller, St. Dunstan in the West, London, d2's husband; (2) Bridget Kettlewell, St. Dunstan in the West, London, d1's wife, W. Moore's widow, d3's daughter, named Elizabeth in bill; (3) Valentine Howard, d2's father. C: (1) Whitlock Deane, counsel for p; (2) John Barnesley, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Joseph Martin, merchant, London, absconded; (2) William Moore, silkman, London, deceased; (3) John Arnold, goldsmith, London, absconded. P seeks payment of £110 bond from J. Martin, with W. Moore and J. Arnold as security. Martin and Arnold have absconded, and Moore died leaving d2 his executrix who possessed his estate and married d1. P asserts ds should pay the bond from Moore's estate, but ds claim Moore died owing debts and the estate is insufficient to pay the bond.

54. Harvey v Bull

P: (1) Hon. Dame Elizabeth Harvey, Swallow St., Midd. D: (1) Richard Bull gent., St. Martin in the Fields, Midd. C: (1) Samuel Keck, counsel for p; (2) Edward Ward, counsel for d. P, a widow, seeks abatement of a 21 year lease from d allowing her access through a passageway between her house and d's coachyard. P claims she later discovered that the passage was a common way but d demands full payment of the lease. D asserts he built the passage on a common footpath, but that he is entitled to charge rent for coaches and horses.

55. Harvey v Munday

P: (1) Gideon Harvey, doctor in physic. D: (1) Josiah Munday, yeoman, Hillingdon, Midd. C: (1) Sa. Johnson, counsel for p; (2) E. Reeve, counsel for d. Add: (1) Dudley Pennard, mercer, Amersham, Bucks, J. Pennard's son; (2) Jane Pennard, D. Pennard's mother. P seeks possession of a messuage in the manor of Cowley Hall at Hillingdon whose tenancy he allegedly bought from D. & J. Pennard a year ago. D claims he leased it from the Pennards two years ago, but was persuaded to rent rooms in it to p, who locked d and his family out when they were away from home.

56. Hathersich v Shute

P: (1) Job Hathersich, mercer, Litchfield, Staffs. D: (1) Margaret Shute, Z. Shute's widow & executrix; (2) Thomas Rowney; (3) Cawen Mason, previously p's servant/agent. C: (1) John Yalden, counsel for p; (2) Richard Holford, counsel for d1. Add: (1) Zachary Shute, linen draper, London, deceased, d1's husband. P seeks possession of his remaining real & personal estate which he assigned in 1679 to his creditors, in particular to pay Z. Shute debts of £2300 & £823. P claims in 1675 he became receiver for the revenues of Excise & Hearth Money in Litchfield on Z. Shute's behalf, but that in 1679 Z. Shute confined & forced him to issue a £3000 bond to the Crown as security for the revenues. Z. Shute died leaving his widow & executrix d1. D3 (previously p's agent) & d2 have allegedly received sums from p's debtors & threaten to pay them to d1. D1 is suing p for the £3000 bond to the Crown, claiming she has only received £105 16s from p's estate.

57. Hensley v Fuller

P: (1) Joseph Hensley, cooper, London. D: (1) Richard Fuller, vintner, London; (2) Anthony Beverley, J. Beverley's father. C: (1) Lewis Owen, counsel for p; (2) F. Fuller, counsel for d1; (3) John Viney, counsel for d2. Add: (1) John Beverley, vintner, d2's son. P seeks payment of £152 2s 8d which ds allegedly owe him for wine. P claims in 1683 d1, d2 & his son J. Beverley bought a pipe of canary wine, a hogshead of port wine, & subsequent wines, for which they still owe £152 2s 8d. P claims d2 issued d1 a £200 warrant of attorney in KB for d1 to pay p fully, d1 had d2's goods seized, but did not pay p. D1 denies he was party to d2's purchases from p after the pipe & hogshead, but claims the warrant was for a £100 debt d2 owed him.

58. Hilliard v Cooke

P: (1) Thomas Hilliard, merchant. D: (1) Thomas Cooke, goldsmith, London; (2) Nicholas Cary, goldsmith, London; (3) Thomas Kilburne, goldsmith, London; (4) Edward Caple, goldsmith, London. C: (1) Henry Hatsell, counsel for p. Add: (1) Thomas Yoatly, merchant, London; (2) Arthur Cooke, currier, parish of St. Paul, Shadwell, Midd. P seeks discovery of the sum outstanding on a mortgage he made to ds3-4 of his premises in Ivelchester, Somerset, in 1676 with T. Yoatly & A. Cooke as trustees. P did not repay on time, so ds3-4 took possession & assigned the premises to ds1-2 as their trustees, reportedly as security for an £800 debt ds3-4 owe ds1-2.

59. How v Hicks

P: (1) Dame Sarah How, Sir R. How's widow & administratrix. D: (1) Sir Michael Hicks, knight, d2's husband, Sir W. Hicks's son; (2) Dame Susannah Hicks, Sir R. How's daughter, d1's wife; (3) James Reading esq., St. Mary Newington, Surrey, trustee for ds 1-2, d4 & Sir W. Hicks; (4) Thomas Lowfield, mercer, London. C: (1) Edward Ward, counsel for p; (2) William Cherry, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Sir Richard How, London, deceased intestate, knight, alderman of the City of London, p's husband; (2) Sir William Hicks, Ruckholts, Essex, bart., deceased, d1's father; (3) Thomas Browne gent., scrivener, Cornhill, London, deceased, trustee for ds 1-2, d4 & Sir W. Hicks. P, Sir R. How's widow & administratrix, seeks relief from any suit of ds for payment of a £5000 penal bond that Sir R. How issued to repay £2575 (with security of a mortgage on his leasehold premises) to d3 & T. Browne (deceased), entrusted by ds 1-2, d4 & d1's father Sir W. Hicks to purchase property. Sir R. How died intestate in 1683, & p claims ds refuse to accept payment of the £2575 & threaten to possess the mortgaged premises. Ds claim to be willing to accept the £2575 in return for indemnity.

60. Hughes v Webb

P: (1) John Hughes, draper, London; (2) Christopher Markham, bailiff for St. Clements Danes; (3) William Hayes, bailiff for St. Clements Danes. D: (1) Thomas Webb, salesman, tailor, parish of St. Clements Danes, Midd, absconded; (2) Mary Webb, d1's mother; (3) Peter Courtney gent., attorney. C: (1) Jo. Methwen, counsel for ps. Ps seek payment of d1's debts to p1, & relief ag ds' suit in the Court of Common Pleas for £14. P1 claims in 1682 he supplied d1 with cloth worth £28 9s 5d, & lent him £3 10s. D1 absconded without paying. In 1683 p1 caused 4 attachments to be taken out of the Duchy Court of Lancaster for the Liberty of St. Clements Danes (of which ps2-3 are bailiffs), & p1 received £5 from a sale of d1's goods. D1's mother d2 hired d3 who obtained a judgement in KB for £14 damages for the goods.