Pleadings, 1685-1686: nos 61-90

London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5. Originally published by London Record Society, London, 2000.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.

Citation:

, 'Pleadings, 1685-1686: nos 61-90', in London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, (London, 2000) pp. 22-33. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/22-33 [accessed 29 May 2024].

. "Pleadings, 1685-1686: nos 61-90", in London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, (London, 2000) 22-33. British History Online, accessed May 29, 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/22-33.

. "Pleadings, 1685-1686: nos 61-90", London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, (London, 2000). 22-33. British History Online. Web. 29 May 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/22-33.

In this section

Pleadings, 1685-1686: nos 61-90

61. Isaacson v Shaw

P: (1) Radolph Isaacson gent., Five Fields, Essex, Officer of the Customs under Charles II. D: (1) Sir John Shaw the younger, bart., Sir J. Shaw the E's son & executor; (2) Joseph Dawson gent., London. C: (1) Edward Ward, counsel for p; (2) William Ettricke, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Sir John Shaw the elder, Eltham, Kent, bart., deceased, d1's father, Farmer of the Customs under Charles II. P seeks payment of £6551 8s 3d which Sir J. Shaw the E (Farmer of the Customs, deceased in 1670) allegedly owed p for profits from receiving logwood and board & lodging. P claims d1 (Shaw the E's son & executor) or d2 have paid sums towards the debt, but have now caused a judgement to be recovered ag d1 affecting Shaw the E's estate, & have committed waste on the estate. D1 claims p issued him a release of all demands in 1681. D2 denies any interest in the estate.

1685, Mich E 112/591 Bill (with attachments). LMX 133; schedule attached of Sir J. Shaw the E's alleged debts to p.
1686, Feb 12 E 112/591 Answer. Swearing date of d1's plea & answer.
1686, Feb 16 E 112/591 Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer.

62. Jenings v Anderson

P: (1) William Jenings, Whitechapel, London, p2's husband; (2) Sarah Jenings, Whitechapel, London, p1's wife, J. Howard's widow & executrix or administratrix with the will annexed. D: (1) Thomas Anderson, innkeeper, London, the Crown Inn without Aldgate. C: (1) Samp. Warde, counsel for ps' bill; (2) Robert Rawlins, counsel for d; (3) Edward Ward, counsel for ps' exceptions. Add: (1) John Howard, smith, farrier, Whitechapel, London, deceased, p2's previous husband. Ps seek payment of bills totalling £81 4s for work which d, innkeeper, hired p2's previous husband J. Howard, smith & farrier (deceased), to perform. Howard appointed p2 as his executrix. D denies owing Howard for work, & claims Howard owed him for bonds & a horse.

1685, Mich E 112/590 Bill. LMX 92; dated 28 November.
1686, Jan 27 E 112/590 Answer. Swearing date, amended 15 April, sworn again on 4 June.
1686, Easter E 112/590 Exception. Ps' exceptions concern J. Howard's work & accounts with d.
1686, Mich E 112/590 Replication. Ps assert d's answer is insufficient.

63. Keeling v Boone

P: (1) Thomas Keeling, barber surgeon, London. D: (1) Mary Boone, R. Boone's widow & administratrix; (2) Mary Erwin, London; (3) William Boone, R. Boone's brother. C: (1) James Selby, counsel for p; (2) John Pratte, counsel for ds1-2. Add: (1) Richard Boone, vintner, Wapping, Midd, deceased intestate, d1's husband. P seeks payment of £28 he lent R. Boone in 1684 in return for a £55 penal bond as security. R. Boone died intestate, leaving d1 his widow & administratrix. In 1679 R. Boone had mortgaged 2 messuages to d2 for £200, which he had not repaid. P claims ds conspire to defraud him of the £28. D1 claims the estate is insufficient to pay debts.

1685, Easter E 112/588 Bill. LMX 19.
1685, May 27 E 112/588 Answer (with attachments). Swearing date of answer of ds1-2, also sworn 12 June; schedule attached of R. Boone's personal estate.

64. King v Hoyle

P: (1) Sarah King, widow of T. King deceased; sole daughter and heir of W. and G. Fox. D: (1) Samuel Hoyle, scrivener, London, G. Fox's brother, p's uncle; (2) Chamberlen Donne, parker (park-keeper), London, spelled Chamberlaine Dunn in bill. C: (1) Nat. Axtell, counsel for p; (2) Thomas Goodinge, counsel for d2. Add: (1) William Fox, pewterer, London, deceased, p's father, G. Fox's husband; (2) Grace Fox, London, deceased, p's mother, W. Fox's wife. P seeks recovery of deeds to lands in Wales and a leasehold messuage in Aldersgate which p claims ds fraudulently obtained from her father W. Fox after her mother died. P asserts ds committed her father to Bedlam (where he died before p was 21), and assumed the administration of his estate. D2 claims he bought the land from d1 who bought it fairly from Fox, whom d2 denies committing.

1686, Hil E 112/589 Bill. LMX 85; dated 5 February; entered as 1 James II.
1686, April 27 E 112/589 Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer.

65. Langrish v Burton

P: (1) Barrell Langrish, milliner, St. Martin in the Fields, Midd. D: (1) Deborah Burton, p's mother in law; (2) John Hales esq., barrister, Inner Temple, London; (3) Edward Carlton, St. Martin in the Fields, Midd; (4) William Hell; (5) John Johnston; (6) Jacob Whidden; (7) John Wilkinson; (8) James Chizard, attorney at law. C: (1) John Yalden, counsel for p; (2) John Powell, counsel for ds2-3. P seeks relief ag suits of ds1-3 for payment of debts. In 1682 p issued d1 (p's wife's mother) a £500 judgement for a £200 debt, d2 an £816 judgement for a £408 debt, & d3 a £440 judgement for a £220 debt, in return for ds1-3 securing p's goods ag his other creditors. P claims ds1-3 had his goods seized, undervalued & sold for £350 (deposited with d8) to repay his creditors. P also asserts his wife gave d1 his copies of the judgements. P claims ds1-3 & d8 conspire with d3's partners ds4-7 to retain his goods. Ds2-3 deny p's goods were under-valued, & claim p's debts are still largely due.

1685, Mich E 112/590 Bill. LMX 87.
1686, May 13 E 112/590 Answer. Swearing date of answer of ds2-3.

66. Lewin v Rackett

P: (1) Margaret Lewin, E. Lewin's widow & executrix. D: (1) Michael Rackett gent., merchant, the Minories, London; (2) Daniel Lewin, E. Lewin's son. C: (1) Edward Warde, counsel for p; (2) Humphrey Dolman, counsel for d1; (3) John Yalden, counsel for d2. Add: (1) Edmund Lewin esq., deceased, p's husband, d2's father; (2) Joseph Buckmaster, E. Lewin's tenant; (3) Underhill Brees. P, E. Lewin's widow & executrix, seeks payment of £135 17s 9 1/2d arrears of rent that J. Buckmaster owed for E. Lewin's premises. E. Lewin ejected Buckmaster, who sued in this Court, but E. Lewin died leaving the premises to his son d2. Buckmaster revived the suit ag p & d2 & got a verdict to pay arrears & costs in return for a new lease. Buckmaster deposited the money with d1, & d2 granted the lease to U. Brees. D2 claims he is entitled to the arrears of rent, while d1 is willing to deliver it to whom this Court decides.

1685, Easter E 112/588 Bill. LMX 5; dated 6 May.
1685, May 21 E 112/588 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer.
1685, June 21 E 112/588 Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer.

67. Lilburne v Thursby

P: (1) George Lilburne, druggist, London. D: (1) John Thursby, goldsmith, Lombard St., London; (2) John Coleman, merchant, London, R. Phillipps' assignee; (3) John Thorpe, merchant, London, R. Phillipps' assignee. C: (1) John Hely, counsel for p; (2) William Killingworth, counsel for d1; (3) Gi. Duncombe, counsel for ds2-3. Add: (1) Richard Phillipps, merchant, bankrupt. P seeks relief ag d1's suit in KB and any suit of ds2-3 (assignees of R. Phillipps, bankrupt) for payment of a £73 4s note p issued Phillipps in 1685. Before the note was due, Phillipps went bankrupt & absconded, so ds2-3 were appointed his assignees, & seek payment for the note. D1 likewise seeks payment, claiming Phillipps endorsed the note to him. Ds2-3 assert Phillipps went bankrupt before endorsing the note to d1.

1685, Mich E 112/589 Bill. LMX 79.
1685, Nov 3 E 112/589 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer.
1685, Nov 30 E 112/589 Answer. Swearing date of answer of ds2-3.

68. Lister v Awnsham

P: (1) Frances Lister, M. Lister's widow, daughter of H. & J. Mildmay; (2) Timothy Whitfield esq., barrister, Gray's Inn, Midd, p3's husband; (3) Mary Whitfield, p2's wife, p1's sister, daughter of H. & J. Mildmay. D: (1) Margaret Awnsham, G. Awnsham's widow & executrix. C: (1) Giles Duncombe, counsel for ps; (2) Thomas Jenner, counsel for d. Add: (1) Mathew Lister, deceased, p1's husband; (2) Gideon Awnsham, deceased, d in original bill, d's husband; (3) Margaret Awnsham, deceased, d in original bill, G. Awnsham's previous wife, sister of J. Mildmay & R. Awnsham; (4) Henry Mildmay esq., Heston, Midd, deceased, father of p1 & p3, J. Mildmay's husband; (5) Jane Mildmay, Heston, Midd, deceased, mother of p1 & p3, H. Mildmay's wife, sister of R. Awnsham & M. Awnsham the 1st; (6) Robert Awnsham, deceased, brother of J. Awnsham & M. Awnsham the 1st. Ps seek revival ag d (G. Awnsham's widow) of the 1682 suit in this Court of p1 & her husband M. Lister (deceased) ag G. Awnsham (deceased) & his previous wife M. Awnsham the 1st (deceased) for payment of rents from premises. R. Awnsham (deceased) had left the premises to J. Mildmay, her husband Henry (parents of p1 & p3), M. Awnsham the 1st & G. Awnsham. Ps claim some of the premises were sold, £1500 paid to G. & M. Awnsham the 1st, £1000 entrusted for p1 & p3 each (then minors), & rents from the residual premises were to go to p1 & p3. D claims ps have mistaken her for G. Awnsham's previous wife, & that the residual premises were never intended for p1 & p3.

1685, Hil E 112/589 Bill of revivor. LMX 44; dated 9 February.
1685, May 13 E 112/589 Answer. Swearing date.

69. Litton v Kinsey

P: (1) Rowland Litton esq., Ansty, Herts. D: (1) Thomas Kinsey, vintner, Crown Tavern, Bloomsbury, Midd; (2) Thomas Goodall gent., solicitor, d1's attorney; (3) Lionell Copley esq., Wadworth, Yorks; (4) Orlebar Wilson gent., solicitor, d3's attorney. C: (1) John Yalden, counsel for p; (2) G. Duncombe, counsel for ds1-2. P seeks relief from any suit of ds for payment of a £600 bond d3 issued d1 with p as security, conditioned for the payment of £330 for debts d3 owed d1, who had caused d3 to be arrested. P claims ds1-2 now conspire with ds3-4 to compel him to pay the bond, but ds1-2 claim p was aware of the liability when he became d3's security.

1685, Easter E 112/588 Bill. LMX 3.
1685, July 21 E 112/588 Answer. Swearing date of d1's plea & answer & d2's answer.

70. Love v Thornehill

P: (1) Barnaby Love, clerk, Wouston, Hants. D: (1) Robert Thornehill, London; (2) Anne Stevens, St. Martin in the Fields, Midd; (3) Thomas Tayler, d2's lessee; (4) Edward Love gent., p's son & alleged trustee. C: (1) Thomas Prichard, counsel for p; (2) John Powell, counsel for d4; (3) Edward Warde, counsel for d1. Add: (1) Hon. George, Earl of Berkeley. P seeks inj ag the suit of ds2-3 for a £100 penal bond which p issued d2 in 1670 with a warrant of attorney for entering a judgement on the bond as security for a £50 loan. P claims in 1672 he repaid d2, who deposited the judgment with the Earl of Berkeley, who assigned it to p's son & trustee d4, who assigned it to d1 for an alleged £17 10s loan. D1 claims p only repaid £15 to d2, who sold the judgement to the earl for £35, who paid it as wages to his servant d4, who sold it to d1 for £27.

1685, Easter E 112/588 Bill. LMX 9; dated 14 May.
[1685, undated] E 112/588 Plea. Plea of ds1-2, claiming p is outlawed after a suit for debt in the Court of Common Pleas.
1685, May 18 E 112/588 Answer. Swearing date of d4's answer.
1685, Oct 23 E 112/588 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer.

71. Ludlow v Vermuyden

P: (1) Nathaniell Ludlow gent., London, Dame E. Ludlow's son & executor. D: (1) Cornelius Vermuyden esq., Westminster, Midd. C: (1) Edward Ward, counsel for p; (2) John Rowes, counsel for d. Add: (1) Dame Elizabeth Ludlow, deceased, p's mother; (2) John Beck, merchant, London, deceased insolvent; (3) Edmund Ludlow esq., Westminster, Midd, convicted of high treason. P, son & executor of Dame E. Ludlow (deceased), seeks payment of £100 bond that d issued in 1657 with J. Beck (since deceased insolvent) for repayment of £50 to Edmund Ludlow allegedly in trust for Dame E. Ludlow. Edmund was convicted in high treason in 1660 & his goods were forfeit to the Crown. D requests relief ag p's suit as the bond is 30 years old, or claims that J. Beck's executors should also be sued.

1685, Easter E 112/589 Bill. LMX 50; dated 20 June.
1686, May 14 E 112/589 Answer. Swearing date.

72. Major v Manning

P: (1) Thomas Major, mercer, London, d4's assignee. D: (1) Edward Manning esq., St Mary Cray, Kent, A. Bonham's brother & administrator, T. Bonham's residual administrator; (2) Henry Adderley, M. Bonham's executor, omitted in amended bill; (3) Thomas Peachell, M. Bonham's executor, omitted in amended bill; (4) William Shorte, cheesemonger, London, bankrupt, A. Shorte's husband. C: (1) Nat. Axtell, counsel for p; (2) Edwin Wyatt, counsel for d1; (3) Edward Ward, counsel for ds2-3. Add: (1) Alice Shorte, d4's wife; (2) Thomas Bonham, deceased, A. Bonham's husband, M. Bonham's father; (3) Ann Bonham, deceased intestate, T. Bonham's widow & executrix; (4) Margaret Bonham, deceased, T. Bonham's daughter. P, assignee of d4 (bankrupt), seeks payment of legacies & money which T. Bonham (deceased), his widow & executrix A. Bonham (deceased intestate) & daughter M. Bonham (deceased) allegedly left to A. Shorte, d4's wife. A. Bonham's brother d1 became her administrator, & ds2-3 are M. Bonham's executors. P claims ds retain the legacies, d1 holds £300 & ds2-3 hold £200 due to d4 & his wife. D1 claims d4 & his wife dispute T. Bonham's will, & denies receiving M. Bonham's legacy to A. Shorte. Ds2-3 claim M. Bonham only left A. Shorte £50 for when she reaches 21 years.

1685, Mich E 112/589 Bill. LMX 80; dated 12 November; cf. E 112/598 LMX 556 Manning v Higgins.
1685, Nov 27 E 112/589 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer.
1688, Jan 23 E 112/589 Amended bill. Date of amended bill, which omits ds2-3 & asserts d1 possesses all the legacies & money due to d4.
1688, June 14 E 112/589 Answer. Swearing date of answer of ds2-3.

73. Manning v Higgins

P: (1) Edward Manning esq., St. Mary Cray, Kent, T. Bonham's residual administrator, A. Bonham's brother & administrator. D: (1) Baldwin Higgins; (2) Graveley Norton, scrivener, Chancery Lane, London. C: (1) Edwin Wyatt, counsel for p; (2) William Peisley, counsel for d2. Add: (1) Thomas Bonham esq., Valens in Daggenham, Essex, deceased unadministered, A. Bonham's husband; (2) Anne Bonham, Valens in Daggenham, Essex, deceased intestate, p's sister, T. Bonham's widow & executrix. P, residual administrator of T. Bonham & administrator of T. Bonham's widow Anne (p's sister), seeks discovery & payment of sums T. Bonham had entrusted to d2. T. Bonham died in 1676, leaving his widow & executrix Anne, who died intestate in 1678 leaving her husband's estate unadministered. P claims d2 also colludes in concealing a £100 bond d1 owed T. Bonham. D2 claims he has accounted for all the sums, including d1's bond.

1685, Mich E 112/598 Bill. LMX 556 (cf. E 112/589 LMX 80 Major v Manning).
1685, Nov 17 E 112/598 Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer.
1686, Hil E 112/598 Exception. P's exceptions to d2's answer concern T. Bonham's personal estate still in d2's hands.
1686, May 14 E 112/598 Further answer. Swearing date of d2's further answer.

74. Mathew v Neave

P: (1) Nathaniell Mathew the elder gent., London, E. Mathew's father & administrator, J. Mathew's father; (2) Nathaniell Mathew the younger, J. Mathew's son; (3) Abraham Kewids, dyer, Wansworth, London, p4's husband; (4) Mary Kewids, p3's wife, J. Mathew's daughter; (5) Thomas Mathew, J. Mathew's son; (6) Elizabeth Harwell. D: (1) John Neave the younger, J. Neave the E's son & surviving executor; (2) Henry Church, J. Neave the E's grandson; (3) William Weaver, d4's husband; (4) Martha Weaver, d3's wife, J. Darbyshire's mother, M. Darbyshire's mother & administrator; (5) Edward Harwell, J. Harwell's uncle & trustee, uncle of ds6-7; (6) Elizabeth Harwell, sister of J. Harwell & d7; (7) Mary Harwell, sister of J. Harwell & d6; (8) ? Church, d2's sister (no forename recorded); (9) ? Church, d2's sister (no forename recorded). C: (1) Francis Browne, counsel for ps; (2) Edward Ward, counsel for ds3-4; (3) Sam. Dodd, counsel for d5. Add: (1) John Neave the elder, clothier, Ipswich, Suff, deceased, d1's father, grandfather of d2, J. Harwell, J. Darbyshire & J. Mathew; (2) John Mathew, deceased, father of p2 & ps4-5, p1's son, J. Neave the E's grandson; (3) John Harwell, deceased, J. Neave the E's grandson, brother of ds6-7; (4) John Darbyshire, deceased, d4's son, J. Neave the E's grandson; (5) Elizabeth Mathew, deceased intestate, p1's daughter, J. Mathew's sister; (6) Martha Darbyshire, deceased, d4's daughter, J. Darbyshire's sister. Ps seeks payment to p1 (father of J. Mathew, deceased, & father & administrator of E. Mathew, deceased), p2 & ps4-5 (J. Mathew's children), & p6, of a share of legacies left by J. Neave the E to his grandchildren d2, J. Mathew, J. Harwell (deceased) & J. Darbyshire (deceased), payable within 2 years, with d1 as surviving executor. Should the legatees die within 2 years of J. Neave the E's death, the legacies would descend to their siblings. Ps claim entitlement to J. Mathew's legacy, & part of those of J. Harwell & J. Darbyshire who allegedly died within 2 years. D5 denies J. Harwell died within 2 years.

1685, Mich E 112/590 Bill. LMX 86.
1686, Feb 3 E 112/590 Plea. Swearing date of d5's plea.
1686, April 27 E 112/590 Answer. Swearing date of answer of ds3-4.

75. Maynard v Maynard

P: (1) Gabriel Maynard, Hanwell, Midd, d1's brother, T. Maynard's son. D: (1) John Maynard, p's brother, T. Maynard's son; (2) William Greenhill, customary tenant of the manor of Harrow; (3) Richard Snapp, customary tenant of the manor of Harrow. C: (1) John Hawles, counsel for p; (2) Henry Appleton, counsel for d1. Add: (1) Thomas Maynard, yeoman, Roxheth, Midd, deceased, father of p & d1. P, d1's brother & son of T. Maynard (deceased), seeks possession of a close copyhold of the manor of Harrow, Midd., which his father allegedly surrendered to ds2-3 for p's use for life. P claims d1 conspired with ds2-3 to seize the premises & receive the rents. D1 claims their father never surrendered the close, so it descends to d1.

1685, Trin E 112/597 Bill. LMX 528.
1685, June 30 E 112/597 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer.

76. Miller v Birkhead

P: (1) Andrew Miller gent., solicitor, Gray's Inn, Midd. D: (1) Edward Birkhead, timber merchant. C: (1) R. Cooke, counsel for p; (2) R. Freeman, counsel for d. Add: (1) John Stone, attorney in KB. P seeks inj ag d's suit in KB for completion of payment for timber p bought from d in 1681 to build houses in Longlane, Southwark. P claims he paid d fully for the timber, which was rotten, so d promised to reimburse him, but instead hired J. Stone, attorney in KB, to sue him. D denies the timber was rotten & claims p paid only £24 10s 6d of the full price £27 12s 2d, & still owes £3 1s 8d.

1685, Easter E 112/589 Bill. LMX 48; dated 23 April.
1685, June 1 E 112/589 Answer. Swearing date of d's plea & answer.

77. Milner v Geoard

P: (1) Jonathan Milner, cutler, London. D: (1) John Geoard, merchant, London, otherwise spelled Geoart, R. Geoard's husband. C: (1) ? Bennett, counsel for p. Add: (1) Rebecca Geoard, Avemary Lane, London, d's wife, J. Parke's sister; (2) Jane Parke, R. Geoard's sister. P seeks payment of 100 guinea bond allegedly owed by d. P claims he agreed to introduce d to sisters Jane and Rebecca Parke in return for 100 guineas if d married one of them. P also claims he lent d 5 guineas and sold him goods for which d did not pay. D married Rebecca, but now reportedly denies issuing the bond, receiving the loan or buying the goods.

1685, Mich E 112/590 Bill. LMX 104.

78. Mole v Rugeley

P: (1) John Mole gent., London. D: (1) Henry Rugeley, milliner, Exeter Exchange in the Strand, Midd; (2) Charles Wilson, attorney, in the Court of Common Pleas. C: (1) J. Winchcombe, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag ds' suit in the Court of Common Pleas for payment of £20 for milliner's wares. P claims in 1684 he bought millinery from d1 on the basis that d1 would receive back & deduct the cost of unused goods. P returned some parcels, but d1 allegedly charged him for more wares than he had originally ordered. D1 hired d2 to sue p.

1685, Trin E 112/593 Bill. LMX 269; dated 25 June.
1686, Hil E 112/593 Replication. P asserts d1's (missing) answer is insufficient.

79. Moniers v Slingsby

P: (1) Provost & Corporation of Moniers, his Majesty's Mint, Tower of London. D: (1) Henry Slingsby esq., master & worker of his Majesty's gold & silver monies. C: (1) Thomas Prichard, counsel for ps; (2) Edward Warde, counsel for d. Ps, Provost & Corporation of Moniers of his Majesty's Mint in the Tower of London, seek payment of £16108 19s 1d for the years 1676-80 following an agreement d, master & worker of his Majesty's gold & silver monies, made with ps to pay them 3 shillings for coining each pound of gold, & 8 pence for each pound of silver. Ps claim d paid some of the debt but not all. D pleads that ps are not entitled to style themselves a corporation.

1685, Easter E 112/588 Bill. LMX 6; dated 6 May; cf. E 112/588 LMX 8 Sawyer v Slingsby & E 112/590 LMX 128 Slingsby v Anderson.
1685, June 11 E 112/588 Plea. Swearing date of d's plea.

80. Neale v Lyford

P: (1) Thomas Neale, St. Andrews, Holborn, Midd, infant of 17 years, son of F. Neale & A. Lyford. D: (1) Thomas Lyford gent., Berks, A. Lyford's husband. N/ f: (1) James Smith gent., St. Andrews, Holborn, Midd, p's next friend & guardian. C: (1) William Rowney, counsel for p; (2) Sa. Dodd, counsel for d. Add: (1) Francis Neale gent., Staines, Midd, deceased, p's father, A. Lyford's previous husband; (2) Anne Lyford, deceased, p's mother, d's wife, F. Neale's widow & executrix. P, infant of 17 years, with his next friend J. Smith, seeks inj to prevent d from committing waste upon premises p's father F. Neale (deceased in 1677) left to his widow & executrix Anne for her life, then to p & other sons. Anne re-married d & died in 1680. P asserts d wrongly claims to be p's guardian, retains the premises, receives rents & fells timber. D claims he promised Anne to be p's guardian, & only felled 3 small elm trees.

1685, Mich E 112/593 Bill. LMX 271.
1685, Dec 24 E 112/593 Answer (with attachments). Swearing date; accounts attached of rents d received from premises.
1686, Mich E 112/593 Replication. P asserts d's answer is insufficient.

81. Nelson v Williamson

P: (1) Thomas Nelson, distiller, Ratcliffe, Midd. D: (1) Searne Williamson, Norway, R. Menlove's administrator; (2) Champion Ashby, merchant, London, part owner of a ship, the William and Betty, d1's attorney. C: (1) Richard Knapp, counsel for p. Add: (1) Rowland Menlove, mariner, Ratcliffe, Midd, deceased; (2) John Clarke, merchant, London. P seeks payment of a £60 penal bond R. Menlove issued him in 1682 for a £31 loan. Menlove later issued a £250 bond with d2 (part owner of a ship, the William and Betty) to J. Clarke for the repayment of £127 10s to repair the ship, for which d2 indemnified Menlove & appointed him ship's master. In 1683 Menlove sailed the ship to Guinea & drowned. D1 (Menlove's administrator) issued d2 his power of attorney to receive debts owed to Menlove, & ds now refuse to repay p's bond.

1685, Easter E 112/589 Bill (with attachments). LMX 68; cf. E 112/589 LMX 60 Strong v Ashby; inventory attached of R. Menlove's goods on board the ship.

82. Newby v Manning

P: (1) George Newby gent., Leicester, Leics, H. Newby the E's brother & administrator, H. Newby the Y's uncle & administrator. D: (1) Thomas Manning, S. Newby's son & executor, d2's husband; (2) Mary Manning, d1's wife; (3) William Bradford, tailor, S. Newby's trustee; (4) Samuell Berry, carpenter, S. Newby's trustee; (5) Jonathan Shaw, scrivener, S. Newby's trustee; (6) Lady Lumley; (7) Sir John Chickley; (8) Mr Howard; (9) Dr Merriott; (10) Lady Keeling; (11) Alice Jordan; (12) Mr Spencer; (13) Mr Cozens; (14) Mr Stockdell; (15) Mr Bull; (16) Mr Wright; (17) Mr White; (18) Mr Kingsbury. C: (1) John Powell, counsel for p; (2) Henry Hatsell, counsel for ds1-2; (3) Richard Holford, counsel for ds3-5. Add: (1) Henry Newby the elder, woodmonger, London, deceased intestate, p's brother, H. Newby the Y's father; (2) Henry Newby the younger, deceased, H. Newby the E's son, p's nephew; (3) Sarah Newby, deceased, H. Newby the E's widow & administratrix, d1's mother. P (H. Newby the E's brother & administrator, and H. Newby the Y's uncle & administrator) seeks possession of leasehold premises H. Newby the E allegedly entrusted for his son H. Newby the Y & p before his marriage to S. Newby. H. Newby the E died intestate in 1681 and S. Newby became his administratrix, assigned some of the leasehold premises to ds3-5 in trust for herself & the rest to ds6-18, & died leaving d1 her son & executor.

1685, Easter E 112/589 Bill. LMX 59.
1685, May 26 E 112/589 Answer. Swearing date of answer of ds3-5.
1685, May 30 E 112/589 Answer. Swearing date of answer of ds1-2.

83. Nichols v Villiers

P: (1) Mathew Nichols gent., Under Marshall of the king's household, St. Martin in the Fields, Midd. D: (1) Sir Edward Villiers, Knight Marshall of the king's household, judge of the King's Palace Court; (2) John Pim, merchant, London. C: (1) William Ettricke, counsel for p; (2) Rob. Merrett, counsel for d2. Add: (1) Thomas Gavell, vintner, London; (2) Christopher Lowman, keeper of King's Palace Court prison. P, Under Marshall of his Majesty's household, seeks inj ag ds' suit for payment of a £200 bond p had issued d1, Knight Marshall of the household, judge of the King's Palace Court, as security to perform his office. In 1685 d2 delivered p a writ ag T. Gavell for £60. C. Lowman (keeper of the prison of King's Palace Court) became surety for Gavell, who then failed to appear in Court. Though p had Gavell arrested at Lowman's suit, d2 persuaded d1 to sue p for the £200 bond, claiming p should have imprisoned Gavell in the first place.

1685, Mich E 112/593 Bill. LMX 272.
1685, Nov 14 E 112/593 Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer.

84. Osbaldeston v Wilson

P: (1) William Osbaldeston, linen draper, Westminster, London; (2) Thomas Jolley, tailor, Westminster, London; (3) John Lauthorne, joiner, Westminster, London. D: (1) Hannah Wilson, Westminster, London. C: (1) Henry Trinder, counsel for ps; (2) William Wogan, counsel for d. Ps seek relief from d's suit for payment of a £100 bond. P1 claims in 1682 d assigned him a messuage in Drury Lane with 18 months on the lease, promising to procure a further lease for him, which she then refused to transfer, & sued to eject p1 at KB. P1 brought a writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber, & issued the £100 bond with ps2-3 as security to quit the premises by a certain date. P asserts d allowed him a further 4 or 5 days to quit, but d now claims the bond is forfeit. D denies agreeing to assign p a further lease.

1685, Hil E 112/590 Bill. LMX 89; dated 7 February.
1685, May 8 E 112/590 Answer. Swearing date.

85. Padwicke v Scott

P: (1) John Padwicke, pavier, London. D: (1) Bartholomew Scott, lighterman, White Chapel, Midd. C: (1) Rich. Knapp, counsel for p; (2) Edward Couldinge, counsel for d. P seeks recovery of his house and goods which d seized using a warrant of attorney for a judgement for £50 which p had previously issued while extremely ill to d, allegedly as security for p's family. P also claims d pretends to have lent p's wife £30. D seeks relief from p's suit claiming they came to a full account and executed each other a general release.

1685, Mich E 112/590 Bill. LMX 124.
1685, Dec 1 E 112/590 Plea. Swearing date of d's plea.

86. Parsons v Grant

P: (1) Richard Parsons, carpenter, Twickenham, Midd. D: (1) John Grant, brewer, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey. C: (1) Francis Fuller, counsel for p's bill; (2) H. Trinder, counsel for d; (3) W. Williams, counsel for p's replication. Add: (1) John Weston gent., Isleworth, Midd, deceased; (2) Amy Parsons, Twickenham, Midd, deceased, p's mother; (3) John Forth esq., Hackney, Midd, deceased; (4) Sir William Hicke, Ruckholt, Essex, bart. P seeks possession of mortgage deeds or repayment of mortgage on p's cottage from d. P & his mother A. Parsons (deceased) had mortgaged the cottage in 1668 for £50 to J. Weston, who transferred the mortgage in 1672 to J. Forth (deceased). D claims he bought a brewery from Forth in 1675, whose stock included the mortgage. D claims he delivered up the mortgage deeds when Sir W. Hicke paid the mortgage for p in 1678, which p denies.

1685, Easter E 112/588 Bill. LMX 25 (cf. E 112/589 LMX 38 Grant v Parsons).
1685, July 18 E 112/588 Answer. Swearing date of d's plea & answer.
1686, Hil E 112/588 Replication. P's replication denies d delivered up the mortgage deeds.

87. Paul v Heber

P: (1) James Paul esq., London, Sir W. Paul's son & executor. D: (1) Reginald Heber, merchant, London; (2) Maurice Drady, merchant. C: (1) John Bernard, counsel for d1. Add: (1) Sir William Paul, Brawicke, Berks, knight, deceased, p's father, lessee of the prisage & butlerage of wines in English ports; (2) James Farrier, merchant, France. P, legatee from his late father, Sir W. Paul, of a lease of the prisage & butlerage of wines imported into the ports of England, seeks payment of duties for wine which ds allegedly imported through the port of Cowes, Isle of Wight, in May 1685. D1 claims J. Farrier imported the wine & asked d1 to pay the duties & receive the wine as security for repayment, which d1 did at the Custom House, London.

1685, Mich E 112/594 Bill. LMX 334 (lower part of the bill is truncated).
1686, April 20 E 112/594 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer.

88. Payne v Grove

P: (1) Richard Payne gent., solicitor, Lincoln's Inn, Midd, attorney in the Court of Common Pleas. D: (1) Elizabeth Grove, J. Grove's widow & executrix, F. Wilkinson the E's daughter; (2) Francis Wilkinson the younger, F. Wilkinson the E's executor, d3's husband; (3) Mary Wilkinson, d2's wife. C: (1) W. Brookes, counsel for p; (2) John King, counsel for ds. Add: (1) John Grove, coal merchant, St. Mary Overs, Southwark, Surrey, deceased, d1's husband; (2) William Buckerfield, J. Grove's debtor; (3) James Cox, J. Grove's debtor; (4) Francis Wilkinson the elder, deceased, d1's father. P seeks payment of £40 fees which J. Grove allegedly owed p as his attorney. P claims in 1680 J. Grove hired him to negotiate with J. Grove's creditors to annul their commission of bankruptcy. P sued J. Grove in the Court of Common Pleas for the fees, but J. Grove died in 1682 leaving his widow & executrix d1. Ds claim J. Grove's estate is insufficient to pay debts as he owed £400 on a bond & judgement to d1's father F. Wilkinson the E, whose executor d2 is entitled to receive it.

1685, Trin E 112/588 Bill. LMX 26.
1685, July 23 E 112/588 Answer (with attachments). Swearing date of ds' answer; 2 schedules attached of J. Grove's personal estate & debts repaid to it.
1686, Easter E 112/588 Replication. P's replication asserts ds' answer is insufficient.

89. Pendleton v Keightley

P: (1) Edmund Pendleton, master card maker, London. D: (1) Thomas Keightley esq., London. C: (1) Daniell Foucault, counsel for p. P (one of the Masters of Co. of Cardmakers) seeks inj ag d's suit for payment of a £500 bond which p issued him in 1683 as security for an agreement d made to seal and stamp p's playing cards for 11 years. D reportedly claimed he had a patent to seal cards & receive duties thereon. The agreement allegedly stipulated p could only make cards for d, not exceeding 14 gross per week, & that p's name was inserted in place of d's name. D reportedly did not pay p for the cards, but had him arrested.

1685, Easter E 112/589 Bill. LMX 45; dated 6 April.

90. Percivall v Webb

P: (1) Thomas Percivall gent., Chippenham, Cambs. D: (1) William Webb, merchant tailor, Hatton Garden, Midd; (2) Richard Shaw gent., Burwell, Cambs, Sir J. Russell's agent; (3) Dame Frances Russell, Sir J. Russell's widow; (4) Jeremiah White, d3's agent. C: (1) Edward Ward, counsel for p; (2) Samuel Dodd, counsel for ds1-2; (3) John Hely, counsel for d3. Add: (1) Sir John Russell, bart., deceased, d3's husband. P seeks relief ag d1's suit at c1 for payment of a bond. P claims he & ds1-2 ran a malting trade from 1666–9, but that d2 lent the profits to his employer, Sir J. Russell, for which d2 issued d1 a bond. In 1675 p allegedly allowed d1 to draw bills upon him for debts owed by Sir J. Russell (then deceased), at d3's request. In 1680 p allegedly agreed to become security for the bond d2 owed d1. Now d1 is suing p for the bond. Ds1-2 claim they repaid p for sums owed, & that p issued d1 the bond for a loan.

1685, Mich E 112/590 Bill. LMX 88, dated 28 November.
1686, April 21 E 112/590 Answer (with attachments). Swearing date of the answer of ds1-2; 3 schedules attached of accounts of the malting trade between p & ds1-2.
1686, Easter E 112/590 Plea. D3 requests the Court's judgement whether she must answer p's bill, as p has been outlawed for debt in a separate suit.
1686, Nov 8 E 112/590 Answer. Swearing date of d3's answer.
1687, Easter E 112/590 Replication. P's replication maintains the answer of ds1-2 is insufficient.