Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 302-345

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, 1784-1785: nos 302-345', in London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, (London, 2000) pp. 127-142. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/pp127-142 [accessed 21 May 2024].

. "Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 302-345", in London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, (London, 2000) 127-142. British History Online, accessed May 21, 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/pp127-142.

. "Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 302-345", London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, (London, 2000). 127-142. British History Online. Web. 21 May 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/pp127-142.

In this section

Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 302-345

302. Riley v Caesar

P: (1) John Riley, upholder, auctioneer, Long Acre, Westminster, Midd. D: (1) Carlos Caesar, grocer, Holborn Bridge, London; (2) Robert Jaques. C: (1) W. Ainge, counsel for p; (2) William Scafe, counsel for d1. Add: (1) John Glidden. P seeks inj ag d1's suit for payment of promissory note allegedly endorsed by p. P accuses ds of forging his signature on the note. D1 claims the note was tendered to him by J. Glidden, and that d1 recognised the endorser on the note as p (his and d2's previous landlord). D1 denies d2 has anything to do with the dispute.

1784, Mich E 112/1705 Bill. LMX 3816; cf. E 112/1708 LMX 3908 Caesar v Hankey.
1784, Nov 29 E 112/1705 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer.

303. Riley v Williams

P: (1) John Riley, victualler, Kensington, Midd. D: (1) David Williams gent., solicitor, Inner Temple, London. C: (1) E. King, counsel for p. Add: (1) William Williams, broker, Lambeth, Surrey, insolvent. P seeks inj ag d's suit for payment of a note of hand. To clear part of a debt d's friend W. Williams owed p, d paid p cash for his friend's note of hand. P signed the note supposedly to enable d to claim repayment from his friend later. Williams then became insolvent, so d claims p's endorsement of the note renders him liable to pay it.

1785, Easter E 112/1700 Bill. LMX 3687.

304. Roberts v Townsend

P: (1) Thomas Roberts esq., Castle St., Midd, d4's brother, D. Roberts's son; (2) Henry Leicester gent., clerk, Castle St., Midd, employed by D. Roberts. D: (1) Theyer Townsend, linen draper, Cheapside, London; (2) John Haslam, linen draper, Cheapside, London; (3) William Railton, linen draper, Cheapside, London; (4) John Roberts, army agent, p1's brother, D. Roberts's son; (5) William Randall the younger, Marsham St., Westminster, London; (6) Thomas Hume Bowles, the War Office; (7) James Hay, tailor, Charles St., Covent Garden, Midd; (8) Mr Birch, mercer, May's Buildings, Bedfordbury, Midd; (9) Mr Simpson, mercer, May's Buildings, Bedfordbury, Midd. C: (1) E. King, counsel for ps; (2) John Loyd, counsel for d7; (3) J. Pippard, counsel for ds1-3; (4) J. Bicknell, counsel for d5. Add: (1) David Roberts esq., Castle St., Midd, father of p1 & d4. Ps seek inj ag the suit of ds 1-3 for payment of a bill of exchange. Ps claim in 1784, d4 persuaded his brother p1 to draw a £250 bill of exchange in favour of p2, who endorsed it to d4, who promised to indemnify ps. D4 endorsed the bill to d5, who delivered it to d6, who paid it to d7, who transferred it to ds8-9, who delivered it to ds 1-3. Ds1-3 are suing ps & D. Roberts at KB for payment of the bill, to which D. Roberts has filed a bill in Chancery ag ds 1-3. Ds 1-3, d5 & d7 claim they were issued the bill as payment for goods or debts.

1785, Hil E 112/1711 Bill. LMX 3986.
1785, March 13 E 112/1711 Answer. Swearing date of d7's answer, filed 12 April; schedule below answer of clothes d6 bought from d7 with the bill.
1785, April 15 E 112/1711 Answer. Swearing date of the answer of ds 1-3, filed 16 April.
1785, April 30 E 112/1711 Answer. Swearing date of d5's answer.

305. Robinson v Franter

P: (1) Thomas Robinson, ironmonger, Benjamin St., West Smithfield, Midd. D: (1) James Franter, ironmonger, Dudley, Worcs; (2) Myles Bourn gent., Dudley, Worcs. C: (1) John Lloyd, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of bills of exchange. D1 drew 2 bills on p in favour of d2, which p accepted. P claims he later paid sufficient to cover the bills, but failed to secure the instruments which remained in d2's possession. Ds deny the bills were paid off and assert p still owes the money.

1784, Mich E 112/1705 Bill. LMX 3813.

306. Rogers v Dudman

P: (1) Victori Rogers, victualler, Hermitage St., Wapping, Midd. D: (1) John Dudman, slopseller, Wapping, Midd. C: (1) Thomas Lowes, counsel for p; (2) John Crode, counsel for d. P seeks inj ag d's suit at KB for a £100 note. In 1779, p, then an innkeeper, agreed to give credit to sailors at his inn to buy clothes in d's shop, for a commission from d. P claims he paid sums to d, but d never paid him the commission, & had him arrested for a £150 debt in 1781. P issued 2 notes for £50 & £100 to d, who allegedly agreed not to cash the £100 note in lieu of the commission. D has since had p arrested for the £100 note. D claims p forfeited the commission by not paying for the clothes on time.

1785, Trin E 112/3562 Bill. LMX 3562.
1785, June 27 E 112/1696 Answer. Swearing date; schedule below answer of accounts between d & p.

307. Ross v Austin

P: (1) Isaac Ross, shipbreaker, Rotherhithe, Surrey. D: (1) William Austin, mariner, Wapping, Midd. C: (1) Thomas Lowes, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag d's suit in the Court of Common Pleas for £20. P claims he paid £70 bail for d who absconded after being arrested for assault. Upon d's return, p made him captain of p's ship bound for Africa. D neglected to procure certificates when the ship was impressed into government service, & avoided giving an account of the cargo to p. D allegedly employed p to purchase a share in a ship for him, but called off the negotiation & paid p £20 as a gratuity. D is now suing p for the £20, allegedly claiming he only lent p the money.

1785, Easter E 112/1702 Bill. LMX 3722.

308. Ross v Bray

P: (1) Isaac Ross, shipbreaker, Rotherhithe, Surrey. D: (1) John Bray, lighterman to the Office of Ordnance, Prescott St., Goodmans Fields. C: (1) Geo. Wood, counsel for p; (2) F. Walker, counsel for d. P seeks discovery of sums received by d for the hire of p's sloop by the Office of Ordnance. P claims in 1780 he employed d to hire p's sloop, the Prince of Wales, to the Office of Ordnance. P claims the office employed the sloop for over 2 years, & paid d the earnings, who never paid p. D asserts the sloop needed repairs, for which d paid, & was not used for many voyages.

1784, Mich E 112/1702 Bill. LMX 3723; amended 7 June 1785 to request that d account with p for the earnings.
1785, April 8 E 112/1702 Answer. Swearing date; schedule below answer of d's accounts with p.
1785, Mich E 112/1702 Replication. P asserts d's answer is insufficient.
1785, Mich E 112/1702 Rejoinder. D maintains his answer is sufficient.

309. Rowe v Maxwell

P: (1) Milward Rowe esq., Palace of Kensington, Midd. D: (1) Charles Maxwell, chemist, apothecary, Fleet St., London; (2) Edward Ashwell esq., Leighton Buzzard, Beds, d1's trustee; (3) John Forbes, merchant, Aldermanbury, London, d1's trustee; (4) Margaret Maxwell, d1's daughter & beneficiary; (5) Charlotte Maxwell, d1's daughter & beneficiary; (6) Governor & Co., Bank of England. C: (1) John Spranger, counsel for p. Add: (1) Isabella Maxwell, St. Clements Danes, Westminster, Midd, deceased, d1's wife; (2) Henry Gardiner, deceased, I. Maxwell's nephew; (3) Thomas Hudson esq., Twickenham, Midd, deceased, d1's trustee. P seeks inj ag ds transferring bank annuities. P claims d1 issued him bonds for loans, with annuities as security. D1 then entrusted the annuities for his daughters and his wife's nephew (since deceased). D1 subsequently added houses as further security for the loan, and disclosed to p that the annuities were in trust. P claims he should at least be paid the dividends on the annuities.

1785, Hil E 112/1705 Bill. LMX 3828.

310. Rutter v Gibbons

P: (1) Samuel Rutter the younger, carcass butcher, Newgate Market, London. D: (1) Benjamin Gibbons gent., Hatton St., London. C: (1) William Scafe, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag d's suit at KB for payment of 2 promissory notes for £15 each. P claims before 1779 he owed d £30. In 1779 p went bankrupt, & his assignees possessed his estate, & issued p a certificate of assignment of his estate in 1781. D refused to sign p's certificate until p issued him the promissory notes for the £30. D then sued p for the notes. P claims the notes are void because the £30 debt was incurred before his bankruptcy.

1785, Easter E 112/1697 Bill. LMX 3583.

311. Scudamore v Smith

P: (1) John Scudamore esq., Stafford St., Hanover Sq., London. D: (1) Walter Smith, linen draper, Oxford St., London, bankrupt, partners with d2; (2) William Turner, linen draper, Oxford St., London, bankrupt, partners with d1; (3) Thomas Woolloton, assignee of ds1-2; (4) Charles Miller, assignee of ds1-2; (5) William Salte, assignee of ds1-2; (6) John Knight; (7) John Wilding, clerk, d8's servant; (8) John Henry Aickles. C: (1) Henry Boulton, counsel for p; (2) J. Stanley, counsel for ds1-5. P seeks inj ag the suit of ds1-2 in the Exchequer of Pleas for payment of a £250 bill of exchange which p issued with 3 other £250 bills to d7 (d8's clerk) in 1783. P claims d8 was supposed to get the bills discounted for him, but instead d8 endorsed one bill to d6, who endorsed it to ds1-2, who went bankrupt in 1784 with assignees ds3-5. P had an indictment preferred ag d8 at the Sessions of the Peace, Guildhall, but ds1-2 got a judgement for the bill in the Exchequer of Pleas. Ds1-2 claim they sold d6 goods for the bill.

1785, Hil E 112/1700 Bill. LMX 3665.
1786, Jan 24 E 112/1700 Answer. Swearing & filing date of answer of ds1-2; schedule below answer of d6's accounts with ds1-2.
1786, Feb 9 E 112/1700 Answer. Sworn by d3 & filed on this date; sworn by ds4-5 on 23 January 1786.
1786, Hil E 112/1700 Exception. P's exceptions to the answer of ds1-2 concern the indictment, & payment for the bills.
1786, May 10 E 112/1700 Amended bill. P seeks discovery of the 3 other bills.
1787, Nov 26 E 112/1700 Further answer. Swearing & filing date of further answer of ds1-2 to amended bill.
1787, Dec 14 E 112/1700 Exception. P's exceptions to the 1st further answer of ds1-2 concern d6's payment for goods bought with the bill from ds1-2.
1788, Feb 6 E 112/1700 Amended bill. 2nd amended bill concerns the due date for payment of the bills.
1788, Nov 18 E 112/1700 Further answer. Swearing date of further answer of ds3-5 to 2nd amended bill; filed 26 November.
1788, Nov 27 E 112/1700 Further answer. Filing date of further answer of ds1-2 to 2nd amended bill; sworn by d2 on 18 November; sworn by d1 on 25 November.

312. Sealy v Wilks

P: (1) William Sealy, wine merchant, London. D: (1) Joseph Wilks, merchant, London; (2) George Walker, wine merchant, Exchange Alley, London. C: (1) J. S. Harvey, counsel for p; (2) R. Richards, counsel for d1. Add: (1) Basil Righton, cooper, London. P seeks inj ag d1's suit at KB for payment of a bill of exchange. P claims in 1784 he & B. Righton drew bills of exchange for £128 12s & £231 12s respectively, & endorsed them to d2 for d1's use, to be paid off before the due date. P asserts d1 never used his £128 12s bill, but refused to give it back to be cancelled. D1 is now suing p at KB for the bill, alleging p issued the bill for goods received from d2, who endorsed it to d1.

1784, Mich E 112/1703 Bill. LMX 3760; cf E 112/1703 LMX 3763 Righton v Wilks.
1784, Nov 23 E 112/1703 Answer. Swearing & filing date of d1's answer.
1784, Mich E 112/1703 Exception. P's exceptions to d1's answer concern d1's acquisition of the bill of exchange.

313. Shoolbred v Fowle

P: (1) John Shoolbred, merchant, London. D: (1) Thomas Fowle, haberdasher, Newgate St., London; (2) William Stark, merchant, London; (3) William McLeod, merchant, Charles Town, S. Carolina., d4's partner; (4) John Bethune, merchant, Charles Town, S. Carolina, d3's partner; (5) Henry Shoolbred, p's agent. C: (1) William Walter, counsel for p; (2) J. Pippard, counsel for ds. P seeks relief from ds' suit at KB for debts which p claims are overstated by mistake. P incurred the debts with his partners when their ship & cargo sailing from Charles Town, S. Carolina to East Florida and West Indies was captured by Americans, and the partners were evacuated from Charles Town.

1784, Mich E 112/1701 Bill. LMX 3700.
1786, Feb 28 E 112/1701 Answer. Filing date.
1786, Feb 28 E 112/1701 Answer. Filing date.

314. Singleton v Mitchell

P: (1) Lawrence Singleton gent., London. D: (1) Thomas Mitchell the elder, tailor, Bucklers Bury, London, previously W. Singleton's colleague; (2) Thomas Mitchell the younger, tailor, Bucklers Bury, London; (3) Thomas Tooley, tailor. C: (1) Thomas Lowes, counsel for p; (2) R. Richards, counsel for ds. Add: (1) William Singleton, trader, deceased, p's father. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of a debt that p alleges is unjustly inflated. P claims ds compelled him to sign a note under threat of imprisonment, but ds claim the debt is accurate, arising from tailor's bills, loans made by ds to p, & debts p's father W. Singleton owed ds.

1785, Easter E 112/1700 Bill. LMX 3664.
1786, May 10 E 112/1700 Answer. Filing date of ds' answer; schedule of accounts included.

315. Skynner v Durrant

P: (1) Richard Skynner. D: (1) John Durrant. C: (1) W. Scafe, counsel for p; (2) Thomas Evance, counsel for d. P seeks inj ag d's suit at KB for payment for a bag of tea. P claims d had hired him to transport goods by horse, at a cost of £20. P bought 4 bags of tea from d, whose price would be set off ag d's £20 debt to p. P asserts that only 3 bags were delivered, but d is suing him at KB for the price of the fourth bag. D claims he is suing p, not for a fourth bag, but for £5 7s 3d still owing for the 3 bags after the £20 was set off.

1785, Trin E 112/1703 Bill. LMX 3761.
1785, Nov 15 E 112/1703 Answer. Swearing date, filed 16 November.

316. Smart v Morris

P: (1) Richard Smart gent., Eastham, Essex. D: (1) Thomas Morris, upholder, St. Paul's Church Yard, London. C: (1) John Henniker, counsel for p. Add: (1) William Worth gent., Plaistow, Essex. P seeks discovery of any other incumbrances upon d's mortgaged premises. In 1782, d allegedly mortgaged his 2 messuages in St. Paul's Church Yard to W. Worth for £350. In 1784 W. Worth transferred the mortgage to p for £350. D apparently paid p some of the mortgage, but then denied ever mortgaging the premises to Worth, or claimed the premises are subject to incumbrances prior to p's mortgage.

1785, Trin E 112/1704 Bill. LMX 3781.

317. Smith v Douglas

P: (1) William Smith esq., Clapham, Surrey, assignee of ds1-2; (2) John Randall esq., Southampton St., Bloomsbury, Midd, assignee of ds1-2; (3) James Jackson, ropemaker, New Rd., St. George in the East, Midd, assignee of ds1-2. D: (1) Thomas Douglas, mariner, dealer, chapman, Holborn, London, bankrupt; (2) James Adams, merchant, dealer, chapman, Mincing Lane, London, bankrupt; (3) Samuel Hartley, merchant, London. C: (1) John Mitford, counsel for ps; (2) J. Stanley, counsel for d3. Add: (1) John Shoolbred, merchant, nominated by ps to ascertain true accounts. Ps, assignees of the estates of ds1-2, bankrupts, seek discovery of the disposal of elephant ivory acquired in Africa by d2 for d1, owner of ship of which d2 was master. Ps allege d1 and d3, a merchant, defrauded d2 of his part of the ivory.

1785, Trin E 112/1701 Bill. LMX 3694; 2 schedules of accounts between d1 & d3 included below bill.
1785, Nov 7 E 112/1701 Answer. Filing date of d3's answer.
1786, Hil E 112/1701 Exception. Ps' exceptions to d3's answer concern d3's shipping of the ivory & the insurance thereon.
1786, Trin E 112/1701 Amended bill. Ps allege more explicitly d3's collusion to defraud.
1787, Feb 12 E 112/1701 Further answer. Filing date of d3's further answer, including copy of his correspondence with Messrs Buchanan & Co., insurers of the ivory.

318. Smith v Robertson

P: (1) Elizabeth Smith, Gt. Russell St., Bloomsbury, Midd, J. Smith's sister; (2) Eleanor Smith, Gt. Russell St., Bloomsbury, Midd, J. Smith's sister. D: (1) William Robertson esq., Clapham, Surrey, J. Smith's agent. C: (1) John Mitford, counsel for ps; (2) F. Walker, counsel for d. Add: (1) James Smith, naval lieutenant, deceased, ps' brother. Ps, spinsters, seek discovery of a true account of the finances of their brother J. Smith (deceased) from d, his agent. Ps, sole heirs and beneficiaries in their brother's will, claim d witholds some of the deceased's assets. D disputes their accounting.

1785, Hil E 112/1701 Bill. LMX 3718.
1785, May 14 E 112/1701 Answer. Filing date.
1785, Trin E 112/1701 Replication. Ps deny d's answer is sufficient.
1785, Trin E 112/1701 Rejoinder. D maintains his answer is sufficient.

319. Smith v Thompson

P: (1) John Smith, clerk, Taunton, Som, J. Andrews's employee. D: (1) William Thompson, innholder, the Saracen's Head, Friday St., London. C: (1) E. King, counsel for p; (2) Josiah Brown, counsel for d. Add: (1) John Andrews, currier, Taunton, Som; (2) William Osborne, bookkeeper, Gerrards Hall, Basing Lane, London, J. Andrews's employee. P seeks inj ag d's suit at KB for payment of 3 drafts for money. In 1784, p (J. Andrews's clerk) issued d 3 drafts for £154 18s in his own name upon W. Osborne (J. Andrews's bookkeeper), as alleged security for payment for the housing of J. Andrews's wagon at d's inn. D now sues p for the drafts. D claims p issued the drafts as payment, not security, on behalf of J. Andrews, who is under 21 years.

1785, Trin E 112/1703 Bill. LMX 3766.
1785, Nov 7 E 112/1703 Answer. Swearing & filing date.
1785, Mich E 112/1703 Exception. P's exception asks whether d had not promised to consider the drafts as security rather than payment.

320. Sowerby v Myers

P: (1) Robert Sowerby, slopseller, Fenchurch St., London. D: (1) Jonas Myers, silversmith & slopseller, Chatham, Kent, d2's brother; (2) Lazarus Myers, silversmith, Chatham, Kent, d1's brother. C: (1) Thomas Evance, counsel for p; (2) J. Pippard, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Thomas Lowten gent., solicitor, Inner Temple, London, arbitrator of the dispute in KB. P seeks payment of 2 promissory notes from ds. P claims in 1783 he accepted cash & the 2 notes for a composition of 15 shillings in the pound from d1, who could not pay a £204 14s debt he owed p. When ds did not pay the notes, p had them arrested at KB, where the dispute was referred to the arbitration of T. Lowten, who awarded damages to p. Ds then obtained an inj ag p in this Court, alleging p had agreed to accept only 5 shillings in the pound composition, with the notes as security only.

1785, Trin E 112/1696 Bill. LMX 3564.
1785, June 13 E 112/1696 Answer. Swearing & filing date of ds' answer.

321. Stacpoole v Barnhouse

P: (1) Joseph Stacpoole esq., barrister, Middle Temple, London; (2) Philip Bromfield esq., captain in the service of the East India Company, Soho, Midd. D: (1) John Barnhouse, sailor, 3rd mate on a ship, the St. Anne. C: (1) James Sheridan, counsel for ps; (2) John Lloyd, counsel for d. Add: (1) Sir William James, Eltham Park Farm, Kent, bart., deceased; (2) Thomas Wetherhead, yeoman, London, agent for J. Anthony & the crew of the St. Anne; (3) Joseph Anthony, ship's captain, the St. Anne. Ps seek inj ag d's suit at KB. Ps claim that in 1782 Sir W. James's privateer, the St. Anne (commanded by J. Anthony), captured 2 French ships, later condemned as droits & perquisites of Admiralty. James petitioned for recovery of profits from the ships' sale, but died. In 1784 the Court of Admiralty awarded the profits, including a £6000 share to the crew, most of whom were born on the estate of p1's family in Ireland. The crew appointed p1 & p2 (James's friend) as their trustees of the £6000. D, 3rd mate on the St. Anne, claims ps refused to pay his share to J. Anthony & his agent T. Wetherhead, & now sues ps at KB.

1785, Hil E 112/1785 Bill. LMX 6169.
1785, Nov 21 E 112/1785 Answer. Swearing & filing date.
1785, Nov 28 E 112/1785 Exception. Ps' exceptions concern whether dissued his power of attorney to J. Anthony.

322. Stephenson v Pearson

P: (1) Christopher Stephenson, merchant, Shadwell, Midd. D: (1) Margaret Pearson, North Shields, Northumb. C: (1) W. Waller, counsel for p. Add: (1) John Stephenson, ship's captain. P seeks payment from d of £38 15s for beef & pork. P claims in 1783 he delivered the meat to J. Stephenson, captain of d's ship, the Two Friends, bound for Madeira & America. J. Stephenson failed to pay p before setting sail. Last Trinity term, p sued d at KB for payment, but could not prove d's ownership of the ship. D asserts she owned only a 32nd share of the ship, & that J. Stephenson was the principal owner, & that the ship sank on the voyage.

1784, Mich E 112/1695 Bill. LMX 3550.
1785, Feb 12 E 112/1695 Commission. For d's answer.
1785, April 19 E 112/1695 Answer. Swearing date, filed 2 May.

323. Stevens v Wills

P: (1) John Stevens, victualler, Saffron Hill, Midd. D: (1) Thomas Wills, pressmaker, Giltspur St., London, d2's husband; (2) Sarah Wills, Giltspur Lane, London, d1's wife. C: (1) John Lloyd, counsel for p; (2) William Waller, counsel for ds. P seeks payment of a £140 mortgage on premises copyhold of the manor of Highbury in Islington which ds made to p in 1784. Ds have not paid the mortgage. Ds offer p possession of the premises until they can redeem them.

1785, Easter E 112/1698 Bill. LMX 3635.
1786, Feb 24 E 112/1698 Answer. Swearing date of ds' answer.
1786, Easter E 112/1698 Replication. P asserts ds' answer is insufficient.
1786, Easter E 112/1698 Rejoinder. Ds maintain their answer is sufficient.

324. Stevenson v Axe

P: (1) John Stevenson, mariner, Islington, Midd. D: (1) William Axe, tailor, Birchin Lane, London; (2) Isaac Pratt, hardwareman, Carey St., Midd. C: (1) Richard Hollist, counsel for p; (2) Thomas Nedham, counsel for d1. P seeks inj ag d1's suit at KB for payment of a £560 respondentia bond. In 1774, p was hired by the EIC as chief mate of a ship, the Rochford, bound for China. P had ironmongery and cloth delivered to the ship by ds, for which p paid with blank respondentia bonds. Ds filled in the bonds to the amount of £560. On the voyage, p discovered the cloth to be damaged, & could only sell it at a discounted price. Ds now sue p at KB for the full bond. D1 denies the cloth was damaged.

1785, Easter E 112/1698 Bill. LMX 3631.
1785, May 2 E 112/1698 Answer. Swearing & filing date of d1's answer; schedule included below answer of accounts between d1 & p.

325. Stokoe v Byrne

P: (1) Mary Stokoe, Paternoster Row, Spitalfields, Midd, over 70 years old. D: (1) Patrick Byrne, Hog Lane, Oxford Rd., Midd, d2's husband; (2) Catherine Byrne, d1's wife. C: (1) R. Richards, counsel for p. P, a spinster, seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of an alleged bond. P claims in 1781 d2 lived in her house as her servant. P, over 70 years old, claims she entrusted the management of her affairs to d2, who abused p, ran up debts in p's name, stole p's money, & brought her husband d1 & child from Ireland to live in p's house. Ds eventually left the house, but are suing p for an alleged bond which they claim p owes them.

1785, Hil E 112/1702 Bill. LMX 3745.

326. Stuart v Careless

P: (1) James Stuart gent., Finchley, Midd. D: (1) William Careless, hairdresser, parish of St. James, Westminster. C: (1) William Alexander, counsel for p; (2) John Holt, counsel for d. P seeks execution of a lease by d. P claims in 1774, he leased a messuage in Warwick St., parish of St. James, to d, for 21 years at £42 per annum. D allegedly demolished & altered parts of the messuage, reducing the value of the property, and then quit the premises, all contrary to the lease. D pleads that he may not be sued because the lease was never executed (though he often requested p to do so), & that he agreed only to rent the premises on a yearly basis, not for 21 years.

1784, Mich E 112/1699 Bill. LMX 3646.
1785, April 11 E 112/1699 Answer. Swearing date of d's plea & answer, filed 12 April.
1785, Trin E 112/1699 Exception. P's exceptions to d's answer concern the particulars of their agreement to let the premises.
1785, Nov 8 E 112/1699 Further answer. Swearing date of d's further answer, filed 9 November.
1786, Hil E 112/1699 Replication. P asserts d's answers are insufficient.
1786, Hil E 112/1699 Rejoinder. D maintains his answers are sufficient.
1786, Jan 23 E 112/1699 Amended bill. P claims d promised to execute the lease.

327. Swaine v Cope

P: (1) William Swaine, hop merchant, Southwark, Surrey, p2's partner & d4's trustee; (2) John Swaine, hop merchant, Southwark, Surrey, p1's partner. D: (1) John Cope the younger, yeoman, Ayton, Yorks, d4's brother & trustee, J. Cope the E's son & executor; (2) Ann Cope, J. Cope the E's widow & executrix; (3) George Wadbrook, malster, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, d4's trustee; (4) Thomas Cope, brewer, parish of St. Luke, Midd, d1's brother, J. Cope the E's son. C: (1) W. Ainge, counsel for ps. Add: (1) John Cope the elder, father of d1 & d4. Ps, for themselves & the other creditors of d4 in 1780, seek repayment of debts owed them by d4. In 1780, d4 assigned his estate to p1, d1 & d3 in trust to pay off his creditors. D1, d4 & their father J. Cope the E persuaded ps to pay off d3 & allow them to continue running d4's brewing business, in return for a dividend of 8 shillings in the pound. In 1781, J. Cope the E died, leaving d2 (his widow) & d1 his executors. Ps claim the business was mismanaged & will not now yield the value of the dividend.

1785, Easter E 112/1716 Bill. LMX 4089.

328. Thackray v Garford

P: (1) Robert Thackray, broker, merchant, London; (2) William Hanson, broker, merchant, London. D: (1) John Garford, broker, London; (2) Mr Samuel Baker, merchant, Lynn, Norf. C: (1) E. King, counsel for ps; (2) John Lloyd, counsel for ds. Ps seek inj ag d2's suit in KB for breach of supposed contract negotiated by d1. D2 is suing for lost profits in a deal for whale oil which ps deny ever concluding.

1784, Mich E 112/1701 Bill. LMX 3702.
1785, April 27 E 112/1701 Answer. Filing date of d1's answer.
1785, April 27 E 112/1701 Answer. Filing date of d2's answer.

329. Thorne v Shafto

P: (1) Thomas Thorne, C. Barrow's assignee; (2) George Addis, C. Barrow's assignee; (3) Thomas Winsloe esq., College Priest, Devon, C. Barrow's assignee. D: (1) Robert Shafto, A. Shafto's husband; (2) John Shafto; (3) Frances Duncombe, T. Duncombe's daughter; (4) George Marchant; (5) Rt. Hon. Jacob, Earl of Radnor, d6's husband; (6) Ann, Countess of Radnor, d5's wife, heiress of Lord Feversham; (7) James Bowater esq., d8's husband; (8) Frances Bowater, d7's wife, heiress of Lord Feversham; (9) Jonathan Collett, administrator de bonis non of T. Betts. C: (1) J. A. Stainsby, counsel for ps. Add: (1) Charles Barrow, bankrupt; (2) Thomas Duncombe esq., deceased, d3's father, d1's father in law; (3) Rt. Hon. Anthony, Lord Feversham, deceased, Baron of Downton, Wilts; (4) Thomas Betts, glass manufacturer, St. Martin in the Fields, Midd; (5) Ann Shafto, d1's wife, T. Duncombe's daughter. Ps, as assignees of C. Barrow (bankrupt), are assuming the prosecution of Barrow's suit in this Court. In 1779, Barrow sued T. Duncombe & ds4-9 in this Court to compel them to execute a lease. In 1755, Lord Feversham had leased a messuage to T. Betts for 47 years, who in 1758 leased it to d4, who sold his interest in it to Barrow in 1770. Lord Feversham died leaving the premises to T. Duncombe, who sued to eject Barrow at KB in 1778. In 1780 T. Duncombe died, so Barrow revived his suit ag T. Duncombe's daughters d3 & Ann Shafto, d1's wife. In 1782, Barrow went bankrupt with ps as his assignees, who now seek execution of the lease & inj ag ds' suit at KB.

1785, Hil E 112/1702 Supplementary bill. LMX 3724.

330. Tweedie v Wilson

P: (1) Walter Tweedie, silversmith, Holiwell St., St. Clements Danes, Midd. D: (1) Elizabeth Wilson, warehousewoman, parish of St. Mary le Strand, Midd. C: (1) Robert Ledlie, counsel for p. P seeks for the lease of 2 properties to be assigned to him. P claims d agreed to sell him the premises which he already rents. P paid a deposit, but did not pay the balance because d did not assign the lease. D allegedly asserts she never agreed to sell the property.

1785, Easter E 112/1708 Bill. LMX 3907.

331. Twigg v Moorhouse

P: (1) Joseph Twigg, gauze weaver, Gutter Lane, London, partner & brother of ps2-3; (2) William Twigg, gauze weaver, Gutter Lane, London, partner & brother of p1 & p3; (3) Samuel Twigg, gauze weaver, Gutter Lane, London, partner & brother of ps1-2. D: (1) Joseph Moorhouse the elder, banker, Lombard St., London; (2) William Willis, banker, Lombard St., London; (3) John Tysoe Reade, banker, Lombard St., London; (4) Joseph Moorhouse the younger, banker, Lombard St., London; (5) James Wood, banker, Lombard St., London; (6) Thomas Ludlam, personal representative of W. Copeland; (7) Benjamin Dixon, personal representative of W. Copeland. C: (1) John Mitford, counsel for ps; (2) J. S. Harvey, counsel for ds1-5; (3) J. A. Stainsby, counsel for d7. Add: (1) William Copeland, merchant, Cannon St., London, deceased; (2) Samuel Glover, merchant, Coleman St., London, bankrupt; (3) Samuel Huxley, merchant, Coleman St., London, bankrupt. Ps seek inj ag ds' suit at c1 for payment of a £250 promissory note. In 1783, ps issued the note to S. Glover & S. Huxley, who agreed to pay it off by the due date. Glover & Huxley endorsed it to W. Copeland (since deceased), who deposited it with his bankers, ds1-5. Glover & Huxley went bankrupt, & ps allegedly paid Copeland 1/2 the value of the note. Copeland died owing ds1-5, who, with Copeland's representatives, ds6-7, are suing ps for the note.

1784, Mich E 112/1698 Bill. LMX 3641.
1784, Dec 11 E 112/1698 Answer (with attachments). Swearing date of answer of ds1-5, filed 13 December; schedule attached of W. Copeland's accounts with the bank of ds1-5.
1785, Jan 27 E 112/1698 Answer. Swearing & filing date of d7's answer.
1785, Hil E 112/1698 Exception. Ps' exceptions to answer of ds1-5 concern the promisory note in the accounts of ds1-5.

332. Vezian v Jacobs

P: (1) Andrew Vezian, merchant, London. D: (1) Michael Jacobs; (2) George Frederick Stras. C: (1) J. S. Harvey, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag d1's suit at KB for payment of a promissory note. P claims in 1783, d2 borrowed a £130 promissory note from him, promising to pay it off by the due date. D2 endorsed the note to d1, possibly as a result of a wager on the stock market. D1 sought payment for it from p, & has now obtained a judgement ag p at KB.

1785, Hil E 112/1711 Bill. LMX 3991.

333. Von Holm v Sheperd

P: (1) John Von Holm, tobacconist, Little Hermitage St., Midd, parish of St. George in the East.. D: (1) William Sheperd, mariner, Old Bethlem, London. C: (1) William Walter, counsel for p. P and d jointly owned a ship trading to Holland, which d sold or exchanged at Rotterdam. P seeks half share of proceeds from last voyage and from sale of ship, but d claims p has already received his share.

1785, Hil E 112/1701 Bill. LMX 3705.

334. Wallace v Swaddle

P: (1) Michael Wallace, merchant, Halifax, Nova Scotia. D: (1) Hannah Swaddle, Newington Butts, Surrey; (2) James Mac Taggart, merchant, Bristol, W. Foster's administrator; (3) John Thomas, Newcastle upon Tyne, Northumb, d4's husband; (4) Isabella Thomas, Newcastle upon Tyne, Northumb, d3's wife; (5) Philip Protheroe, merchant, Bristol, d6's partner; (6) Mark Davis, merchant, Bristol, d5's partner; (7) Barbara Foster, Jamaica, W. Foster's widow. C: (1) William Alexander, counsel for p & d2; (2) Robert Dallas, counsel for ds5-6; (3) William Cooke, counsel for ds3-4. Add: (1) William Foster, ship's captain, deceased intestate, B. Foster's husband. P seeks inj ag any suit of d1 ag d2, & payment for his ship, the Britannia. In 1781 p hired W. Foster to captain the Britannia from Nova Scotia to the West Indies. At Jamaica W. Foster sold the ship & cargo, omitted to pay p the proceeds, but bought another ship, the Commerce. In 1782 W. Foster insured the Commerce's voyage from Jamaica to Bristol with ds5-6, but the ship sank with all hands, & d2 bought W. Foster's administration from ds3-4. D1, W. Foster's creditor, threatens to sue d2 for payment of W. Foster's debts. P claims ds5-6 refuse to pay him from the insurance, but have instead paid d2 & d7. Ds5-6 claim to be willing to pay the remaining insurance as the Court directs.

1785, Hil E 112/1713 Bill. LMX 4023.
1785, June 15 E 112/1713 Commission. For d2's answer.
1785, Nov 21 E 112/1713 Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer; schedule below answer of accounts of W. Foster's estate.
1786, April 21 E 112/1713 Answer. Swearing date of the answer of ds3-4.
1787, Feb 12 E 112/1713 Commission. For the answer of ds5-6.
1787, April 17 E 112/1713 Answer. Swearing date of the answer of ds5-6; schedule below answer of W. Foster's accounts with ds5-6.
1788, Trin E 112/1713 Replication. P asserts the answers of ds2-6 are insufficient.
1788, Trin E 112/1713 Rejoinder. D2 & ds5-6 maintain their answers are sufficient.

335. Waters v Hooper

P: (1) William Waters, Richmond Buildings, Soho, Midd; (2) James Soundy, Long Acre, Covent Garden, Midd. D: (1) Mathew Hooper, grocer, Fleet Market, London, d2's husband; (2) Hannah Hooper, Fleet Market, London, d1's wife. C: (1) Michael Schooll, counsel for ps; (2) Richard Hollist, counsel for ds. Add: (1) William Crawford, upholsterer, High Holborn, Midd, ps' creditor; (2) Samuel Payne, linen draper, Southampton St., Covent Garden, Midd, bankrupt, ps' creditor; (3) Jacob Fletcher, wine merchant, St. Martin in the Fields, London, ps' creditor. Ps seek inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of a draft. In 1779, ps bought furniture on credit to stock a hotel, which they then failed to open. Ps agreed to assign the stock to their creditors, W. Crawford, S. Payne & J. Fletcher in trust to pay their debts. Ps also issued a £50 9s draft to Payne, who endorsed it to d1, & then went bankrupt. D1 refused to become ps' creditor under the trust, &, with his wife d2, sues ps at KB.

1785, Trin E 112/1722 Bill. LMX 4256.
1786, July 3 E 112/1722 Answer. Swearing date of ds' answer, filed 5 July.

336. Watkins v Towers

P: (1) George Watkins, silk weaver, Wood St., Cheapside, London. D: (1) John Towers, trustee of the Union Fire Office; (2) Henry Rutt, trustee of the Union Fire Office; (3) Francis Hamilton, trustee of the Union Fire Office. C: (1) Thomas Lowes, counsel for p; (2) J. Stanley, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Samuel Clarke, weaver, Printing House Lane, Blackfriars, London. P seeks payment of an insurance policy. In 1781, p bought the workshop, stock in trade & furniture of S. Clarke for £700. P insured the premises ag fire with ds, trustees of the Union Fire Office, at a cost of £10 10s. P's premises were then destroyed by fire & p sought compensation from ds. Ds refuse to pay fully for the policy, claiming that p could not produce an adequate account of his property, much of which, ds suspect, was not on the premises during the fire.

1785, Trin E 112/1707 Bill. LMX 3875.
1786, May 4 E 112/1707 Answer. Swearing date of ds' answer, filed 3 May.
1786, Mich E 112/1707 Replication. P asserts ds' answer is insufficient.
1786, Mich E 112/1707 Rejoinder. Ds maintain their answer is sufficient.

337. Webb v Bridge

P: (1) Daniel Webb gent., Fleet St., London. D: (1) Thomas Bridge, broker, Bread St., London. C: (1) Thomas Lowes, counsel for p. Add: (1) Olginpea Bridge, p's wife, d's sister; (2) Joseph Williams, planter, New Black River, Jamaica, d's attorney. P seeks inj to prevent d from selling an estate in Jamaica, & seeks the equity of redemption of the estate. P claims in 1759 he married Olginpea, the sister of d, his broker. In 1761, p mortgaged his estate in Jamaica to d for £1500. In 1771, p made absolute conveyance of the estate to d as security for the mortgage, after p's cattle & slaves were stolen. In 1778, p went insolvent with d as his assignee. In 1781, d's attorney J. Williams seized the estate. P claims the profits from the estate will have paid off his debts to d by now.

1785, Trin E 112/1703 Bill. LMX 3751.

338. Wewitzer v Middleton

P: (1) Ralph Wewitzer gent., Covent Garden, Midd. D: (1) Jane Middleton, W. Middleton's widow, re-named Britton, d2's wife, in amended bill; (2) Richard Britton, Chelsea, Midd, d1's husband. C: (1) J. Johnson, counsel for p; (2) J. Pippard, counsel for ds. Add: (1) William Middleton, Chelsea, Midd, deceased intestate, d1's previous husband. P seeks inj ag d2's suit for payment of a promissory note. In 1780, W. Middleton had p arrested for an alleged £14 debt. P had his effects sold to pay his creditors, & issued W. Middleton a £20 promissory note. P's creditors lodged a detainer causing p to be imprisoned in KB. W. Middleton died intestate in 1782, leaving d1 his widow. In 1783, d2 had p arrested at KB for non-payment of the note. Ds claim they are now married, & allege p issued W. Middleton the note as payment for goods.

1785, Easter E 112/1720 Bill. LMX 4211.
1785, May 6 E 112/1720 Answer. Swearing & filing date of ds' answer.
1785, Trin E 112/1720 Exception. P's exceptions to ds' answer ask whether d1 is W. Middleton's administratrix, & how d2 acquired the note.
1785, July 2 E 112/1720 Amended bill. P re-names d1 as d2's wife.
1786, Jan 20 E 112/1720 Further answer. Swearing date of ds' further answer, filed 24 January; 2 schedules below of p's imprisonment & debts.
1786, Hil E 112/1720 Exception. P's exceptions to ds' further answer concern the amount of the promisory note.
1786, Trin E 112/1720 Replication. P asserts ds' answers are insufficient.
1786, Trin E 112/1720 Rejoinder. Ds maintain their answers are sufficient.

339. Wilkinson v Kaye

P: (1) Thomas Wilkinson, tallow chandler, Conduit St., Midd. D: (1) Joseph Kaye gent., Hanover Square, Midd. C: (1) W. Ainge, counsel for p. Add: (1) John Allanby gent., Fleet St., London, deceased. P seeks relief from d's suit in the Court of Common Pleas for payment of rent. P claims in 1768, d & J. Allanby (since deceased) leased a messuage in Bond St. to him at £50 per annum for 21 years. In 1777 the messuage burnt down, & p has lived elsewhere ever since. D asserts p continues in possession of the premises & is liable for the rent since 1777, for which d sued p in 1784 in the Court of Common Pleas.

1784, Mich E 112/1732 Bill. LMX 4494; amended 27 January 1785 to include details of p's lease & payment of rent.
1784, Nov 27 E 112/1732 Answer. Swearing date.
[1785, undated] E 112/1732 Exception. P's exceptions concern p's lease & payment of rent.

340. Williams v Dixon

P: (1) David Williams, glazier & builder, Great Marylebone St., Midd. D: (1) James Dixon, glass merchant. C: (1) R. Richards, counsel for p. Add: (1) Edward Wilmot, p's attorney. P seeks inj ag d's suit at law for foreclosure or repayment of mortgages. In 1778, p mortgaged his house in Marylebone St. to d for £1071 15s 10d, which d claimed p owed him for glass. In 1779, p mortgaged another house to d for a £600 debt d claimed p owed him. P also issued d bonds as security for both mortgages. In 1783, d sought to foreclose, so p transferred another mortgage held by p's attorney, E. Wilmot, to d. D now sues p for repayment of the mortgages.

1785, Hil E 112/1699 Bill. LMX 3657; amended 30 April 1785.

341. Williams v Jordan

P: (1) William Williams gent., Kington, Heref. D: (1) Thomas Jordan gent., brewer, Goodmans Fields, Midd; (2) John Searle; (3) Thomas Simpson; (4) John Huggan. C: (1) R. Richards, counsel for p. Add: (1) John Rogers Morgan, brewer, Vine Court, Goodmans Fields, Midd, bankrupt. P seeks inj ag d1's suit for payment of a £500 bond. In 1780 d1 employed as a managing clerk J. R. Morgan, who executed d1 a £500 bond to ensure Morgan's satisfactory performance of the post, with p as security. In 1783 Morgan quit the post, but d1 did not surrender the bond, nor pay Morgan's wages. Morgan went bankrupt, with ds2-4 as assignees. D1 now sues p for the bond, claiming Morgan owes him money.

1785, Easter E 112/1747 Bill. LMX 4953.
1785, April 29 E 112/1747 Answer (with attachments). Swearing & filing date of d1's answer; schedule attached of d1's accounts with Morgan.

342. Wilson v Carr

P: (1) Sir Thomas Spencer Wilson, Charlton House, Kent, bart., p2's husband; (2) Dame Jane Spencer Wilson, Charlton House, Kent, p1's wife, J. Maryon's grand-neice, M. M. Weller's daughter. D: (1) Samuel Carr. C: (1) W. Ainge, counsel for ps. Add: (1) John Maryon, clerk, White Roothing, Essex, deceased, p2's grand-uncle, impropriate rector of Hampstead; (2) Margaretta Maria Weller, deceased, p's mother. Ps seek payment to p2 (impropriate rector of Hampstead) for great tithes from d, who farms parish land. In 1760, p2's grand-uncle J. Maryon willed the rectory to p2's mother M. M. Weller for her life time (deceased in 1777), then to p2. D allegedly claims his land is exempt from payment or subject only to a modus, but ps assert they got a decree in this Court earlier in the year compelling another parishioner to pay for the full tithes.

1785, Trin E 112/1702 Bill. LMX 3748; cf. E 112/1710 LMX 3964 Wilson v Errington.

343. Wilson v Errington

P: (1) Sir Thomas Spencer Wilson, Charlton House, Kent, bart., p2's husband; (2) Dame Jane Spencer Wilson, Charlton House, Kent, p1's wife, impropriate rector of Hampstead. D: (1) Joseph Errington; (2) John Webb; (3) Joseph Berks; (4) Thomas Alsop; (5) Richard Marsh. C: (1) W. Ainge, counsel for ps; (2) Richard Hollist, counsel for d1 & ds3-4; (3) F. Walker, counsel for d5. Ps seek payment to p2 (impropriate rector of Hampstead) for great tithes from ds, who farm titheable parish land. Ps assert they got a decree in this Court earlier in the year compelling another parishioner to pay for the full tithes. D1 & ds3-5 claim their land is within St. John's Wood, part of the monastery of Kilburne, & therefore exempt from tithes.

Alternative titles: Wilson v Marsh.

1785, Trin E 112/1710 Bill. LMX 3964; cf. E 112/1702 LMX 3748 Wilson v Carr.
1785, Dec 3 E 112/1710 Answer. Swearing date of d5's answer, filed 5 December.
1786, Jan 23 E 112/1710 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer, filed 31 January.
1786, Jan 23 E 112/1710 Answer. Swearing & filing date of the answer of ds3-4.

344. Windale v Houstoun

P: (1) William Windale gent., Jermyn St., Westminster, Midd. D: (1) George Hawles Houstoun gent., attorney, London, attorney of the Court of the Mayor of London. C: (1) J. Johnson, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag d's suit for payment of a £600 bond. P claims in 1784, d, one of the 4 attornies of the Court of the Mayor of London, sold his office to p for £1110, part of which p paid with a £600 bond. P claims since his purchase, d has refused to allow him the profits accuring to the office, or an associated collection of books. D allegedly asserts that when he was drunk, p compelled him to agree to sell the office.

1785, Hil E 112/1696 Bill (with attachments). LMX 3570 (mistakenly attached to a replication from E 112/1688 3370).

345. Woodhouse v Adderley

P: (1) Charles Woodhouse gent., Kensington, Midd, p2's son; (2) Harcourt Woodhouse esq., Welwyn, Herts, p1's father. D: (1) Thomas Adderley gent., Lee near Lewisham, Kent; (2) William Hemmings, bricklayer, Lambeth Marsh, Surrey; (3) Edward House, distiller, Old Bailey, London, d4's partner; (4) William Bateman, distiller, Old Bailey, London, d3's partner. C: (1) Thomas Lowes, counsel for ps. Ps seeks inj ag any suit of ds for payment of 2 bills of exchange. In 1783, p1 drew 2 bills of exchange for £100 each upon p2 & endorsed them for ds1-2 to discount for p1. Ds1-2 never paid p1 the money, but d2 endorsed one bill to ds3-4. Ds1-2 allegedly claim p1 issued the bills as security for a debt, & threaten to sue ps.

1785, Trin E 112/1702 Bill. LMX 3738.