Pleadings, 1685-1686: nos 91-120

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 91-120', in London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, (London, 2000) pp. 33-43. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/pp33-43 [accessed 21 May 2024].

. "Pleadings, 1685-1686: nos 91-120", in London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, (London, 2000) 33-43. British History Online, accessed May 21, 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/pp33-43.

. "Pleadings, 1685-1686: nos 91-120", London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, (London, 2000). 33-43. British History Online. Web. 21 May 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/pp33-43.

In this section

Pleadings, 1685-1686: nos 91-120

91. Phillips v Dunnett

P: (1) Samuell Phillips, mealman, Upper Shadwell, Midd. D: (1) Barnaby Dunnett, yeoman, Woodbridge, Suff; (2) Henry Browne, solicitor, Barnards Inn, Holborn, London, d3's agent; (3) Edward Pratt, solicitor, Woodbridge, Suff. C: (1) Francis Winnington, counsel for p. P seeks relief ag ds' suit in the Court of Common Pleas for payment for corn. In 1681, p asked d1 by letter to send corn to London, then countermanded the request, finding corn to be cheap in London & expensive in the country. D1 claims he never received a countermand & sent the corn, which p refused to buy from d1's agent, who allegedly sold it elsewhere. D1 with ds2-3 got a judgement in the Court of Common Pleas ag p for the price of the corn.

1685, Easter E 112/597 Bill. LMX 522.
1685, Easter E 112/597 Copy bill.
1685, Oct 23 E 112/597 Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer.
1685, Nov 4 E 112/597 Commission. For the answers of d1 & d3.
1685, Nov 12 E 112/597 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer.
1685, Nov 21 E 112/597 Answer. Swearing date of d3's answer.

92. Plukenett v Genew

P: (1) Leonard Plukenett gent., St. Margaret's in Westminster, Midd, R. & E. Plukenett's son & heir. D: (1) William Genew esq., E. Vangenew's son & executor; (2) Theodore Haacke gent., E. Vangenew's husband; (3) Thomas Lawrenson, d1's tenant; (4) John Rayly, d1's tenant. C: (1) Henry Trinder, counsel for p; (2) John Powell, counsel for ds1-2. Add: (1) Elizabeth Vangenew, deceased, d1's mother, d2's wife; (2) Robert Plukenett, deceased, p's father, E. Plukenett's husband; (3) Elizabeth Plukenett, deceased, p's mother, R. Plukenett's wife; (4) Fardinando Pew the elder, deceased, F. Pew the Y's father; (5) Fardinando Pew the younger, F. Pew the E's son. P, son of R. & E. Plukenett (both deceased), seeks repair of a messuage called the Helmet & buildings in King St., Westminster, which R. & E. Plukenett & F. Pew the E leased in 1655 for 31 years to E. Vangenew, who married d2 & died in 1668 leaving d1 her son & executor. Pew the E died leaving his son Pew the Y. D1 leased the premises to ds3-4, but claims the buildings were blown up by public authority to prevent the spread of fire. D1 also claims his brother Gerrard (deceased) bought Pew the Y's 1/2 of the premises, which d1 now owns.

1685, Hil E 112/588 Bill. LMX 2.
1685, Easter E 112/588 Demurrer. Ds1-2 deny this is a matter for equity.
1685, May 30 E 112/588 Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer.
1685, June 3 E 112/588 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer.
1685, Trin E 112/588 Replication. P asserts answers of ds1-2 are insufficient.

93. Plumer v Jeliffe

P: (1) Charles Plumer, mariner, London, employed by the Co. of Royal Adventurers of England. D: (1) John Jeliffe, factor, for the Co. of Royal Adventurers of England. C: (1) Will. Moses, counsel for p. Add: (1) Thomas Thurloe, chief agent, of the Co. of Royal Adventurers of England. P, hired in 1677 by the Co. of Royal Adventurers of England to the river Gambo & North Guinea as master of a yacht, the St. Maria, seeks payment of £21 5s 4d of a £71 5s 4d debt which d (the Co.'s factor) owed him for medical bills & debts incurred when the yacht was blown off course to Jamaica. D repaid p £50 in bills, & reportedly told p to collect the rest from the Co., which issued p 2 bills for £20 & £10. D sued p for the £10 bill in the Sheriff's Court in London, where p could not prove the debt.

1685, Mich E 112/590 Bill. LMX 114; dated 4 November.

94. Powis v Turner

P: (1) Rt. Hon. William, Earl of Powis, lord of the manor of Hendon, Midd.. D: (1) Samuel Turner esq., Maudlin, Sussex; (2) Edward Hobart gent., solicitor, Gray's Inn, Midd, p's former agent; (3) Howard Brock the younger gent., St. Andrews, Holborn, Midd. C: (1) Anthony Weldon, counsel for p; (2) Edward Ward, counsel for ds; (3) W. Killingworth, counsel for d2's rejoinder. Add: (1) Benjamin Huling, p's tenant, executed for high treason; (2) William Huling, p's tenant, executed for high treason. P, lord of the manor of Hendon, seeks recovery of premises copyhold of the manor which his agent d2 demised to d3 for £2000 after the previous tenants B. & W. Huling were executed for high treason. P claims while he was imprisoned in the Tower of London accused of conspiring ag Charles II, he agreed to lease the manorial tithes & ordinary profits to d1 in trust for d2 for 7 years at £400 per annum. P claims d2 possessed the manor, cut timber & wrongfully demised the copyhold premises to d3. D2 asserts he is lessee also of the forfeitures & extraordinary profits, & that p allowed him to cut timber.

1685, Mich E 112/591 Bill. LMX 134.
1686, Jan 25 E 112/591 Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer.
1686, Jan 27 E 112/591 Answer. Swearing date of d3's answer.
1686, April 7 E 112/591 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer (wrongly dated 1685?).
1686, May 22 E 112/591 Further answer. Swearing date of d3's further answer.
1686, Easter E 112/591 Replication. Dated 27 April; p asserts d2's answer is insufficient.
1686, Trin E 112/591 Replication. P asserts d1's answer is insufficient.
1686, Trin E 112/591 Rejoinder. D2 maintains his answer is sufficient.

95. Prettyman v Horne

P: (1) William Prettyman esq., Hatton Garden, London, remembrancer of his Majesty's first fruits and tenths in this Court. D: (1) Joseph Horne, merchant, London, W. Wheatly's executor; (2) Mathias Cupper, linen draper, St. Martin in the Fields, Midd, W. Wheatly's executor. C: (1) Edward Ward, counsel for p. Add: (1) William Wheatly gent., London, deceased. P seeks relief from the suits of ds (the late W. Wheatly's executors) in Chancery and the office of Common Pleas in the Exchequer for payment of a mortgage or foreclosure on lands p mortgaged to W. Wheatly, and a £2000 bond p issued as security on the mortgage. P claims ds refused to accept payment only of the mortgage and interest arrears.

1685, Easter E 112/589 Bill. LMX 40; dated 11 April.

96. Puckle v Pawlett

P: (1) Thomas Puckle, merchant, London, W. London's administrator. D: (1) Hon. Francis Pawlett, esq.; (2) Sir Andrew Henley the younger, bart., Sir A. Henley the E's son. C: (1) William Ettricke, counsel for p; (2) William Killingworth, counsel for d1; (3) C. Whitelocke, counsel for d2. Add: (1) William London, merchant, London, deceased; (2) Thomas Harewell gent., Westminster, Midd, W. London's executor & trustee; (3) Sir Andrew Henley the elder, Bramshill, Hants, bart., deceased, d2's father. P, administrator of W. London (deceased), seeks payment of a £50 debt London owed him, from a £600 penal bond (payable when d1 got married) which d1 issued W. London allegedly for £100 in gold. P claims London deposited the bond with d2's father Sir A. Henley the E, after whose death d2 transferred the bond back to d1, who then married. London's executor T. Harewell refused to execute his will. D2 denies ever having the bond & claims London transferred it to his father as security for a £100 loan. D1 denies borrowing £100 in gold, but claims 20 years ago while playing at dice London lent him £20 upon a bond, which should be cancelled as a gambling debt.

1685, Easter E 112/588 Bill. LMX 27.
1685, Easter E 112/588 Copy bill.
1685, Mich E 112/588 Demurrer. D1's demurrer claims the bond is extortionate & not a matter for equity.
1686, Jan 16 E 112/588 Affidavit. P swears on this date he does not possess the bond.
1686, Feb 18 E 112/588 Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer.
1686, June 23 E 112/588 Commission. For d1's answer.
1686, Oct 15 E 112/588 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer.

97. Purley v Willymot

P: (1) Francis Purley esq., barrister, Inner Temple, London, p2's husband; (2) Elizabeth Purley, p1's wife, R. Ball's daughter & executrix; (3) Hellen Ball the younger, infant of 10 years, R. Ball & H. Ball the E's daughter, represented by ps4-5; (4) Edward Brown, clerk, p3's next friend; (5) Anne Brown, p4's wife, R. Ball's executrix, p3's next friend. D: (1) James Willymot esq., Kelshall, Herts, H. Ball the E's brother, p3's uncle. C: (1) Robert Clowes, counsel for ps; (2) Robert Foalkes, counsel for d. Add: (1) Richard Ball, doctor in divinity, deceased, master of the Temple, father of ps2-3, H. Ball the E's husband; (2) Hellen Ball the elder, deceased, R. Ball's wife, d's sister, p3's mother. Ps seek inj ag d's suit for payment of a £2000 bond which R. Ball (deceased in 1684, father of ps2-3) issued d in 1670 as security to buy & settle lands upon his intended wife, d's sister, H. Ball the E (deceased in 1681, p3's mother) within 12 months of their marriage. R. Ball died without executing the agreement, leaving p2 & p5 as his executrixes.

1685, Mich E 112/591 Bill. LMX 143.
1685, Nov 19 E 112/591 Answer. Swearing date.

98. Pye v St. John

P: (1) Meliora Pye, widow, p2's mother, Jacob Drax's administratrix de bonis non, M. Drax's legatee, Sir J. Drax's daughter; (2) Elizabeth Pye, p1's daughter under 21 years, with p1 as next friend, M. Drax's legatee, Sir J. Drax's grandchild; (3) Meliora Gumeldon, under 21 years, M. Drax's legatee, Sir J. Drax's grandchild; (4) Richard Gumeldon, under 21 years, M. Drax's legatee, Sir J. Drax's grandchild. D: (1) Sir Walter St. John, bart., H. Drax's executor; (2) John Bawden, merchant, H. Drax's executor; (3) Abraham Jackson gent., H. Drax's executor; (4) Warwick Bampfield esq., M. Drax's brother & executor; (5) Drax Shatterden, M. Drax's legatee; (6) Dorothy Shatterden, M. Drax's legatee. N/f: (1) Thomas Gumeldon esq., father & next friend of ps3-4. C: (1) Edward Ward, counsel for ps; (2) John Heames, counsel for ps; (3) John Nowes, counsel for ds1-2. Add: (1) Jacob Drax, deceased, M. Drax's son; (2) Dame Margaret Drax, deceased, Jacob Drax's mother & administratrix; (3) Sir James Drax, London, knight, deceased, M. Drax's husband; (4) James Drax gent., deceased, Sir J. Drax's son; (5) Henry Drax gent., deceased, Sir J. Drax's son. Ps seeks payment of legacies left them by M. Drax. In 1661 p1's father Sir J. Drax left a £100 annuity each to his widow M. Drax & son Jacob Drax, payable from an estate in Barbados by his elder sons & executors James & H. Drax. James Drax died in 1663, & Jacob Drax died intestate in 1679. In 1682 M. Drax sued H. Drax in this Court for non-payment of the annuities to herself and Jacob. H. Drax died & the suit was revived ag ds1-3, his executors, who paid some of the debt. M. Drax died leaving d4 her executor and ps & ds5-6 her legatees of the remaining annuity arrears. Ds1-2 claim H. Drax's estate is insufficient to pay his debts.

1685, Mich E 112/590 Bill. LMX 102, dated 16 November.
1686, June 9 E 112/590 Answer (with attachments). Swearing date of the answer of ds1-2; 3 schedules attached of accounts of H. Drax's estate.

99. Raynalls v Ward

P: (1) Mathew Raynalls, R. Raynalls' administrator. D: (1) Thomas Ward, d2's husband; (2) Love Ward, d1's wife, A. Reynalls' administratrix; (3) Robert Mechum; (4) Phillis Mechum; (5) Isabell Holmes. C: (1) Edward Umfrevile, counsel for p; (2) John Ansell, counsel for ds1-2. Add: (1) Richard Reynalls, parish of St. Clement Danes, Midd, deceased intestate, spelled Reynolds in ds1-2's answer, A. Reynalls' husband; (2) Anne Reynalls, deceased intestate, R. Reynalls' widow. P seeks possession of R. Reynalls' personal estate from ds. In 1680 R. Reynalls died intestate whereupon p claims he became his administrator & allowed his widow A. Reynalls to use the personal estate until her death in 1684 in d4's house. P asserts ds clandestinely possessed R. Reynalls' household goods, money & securities. D2 (A. Reynalls' cousin & administratrix) & d1 claim p only became R. Reynalls' administrator in 1685.

1685, Easter E 112/589 Bill. LMX 39.
1685, July 1 E 112/589 Answer. Answer of ds1-2, sworn by d2 on this date, sworn by d1 on 2 July; schedule below answer of papers re. A. Reynalls' estate.

100. Robson v Jeyne

P: (1) William Robson gent., St. Margett Westminster, Midd, Sir Edward Villiers's agent. D: (1) Francis Jeyne, goldsmith, H. Jeyne's brother & administrator. C: (1) William Ettricke, counsel for p; (2) J. Viney, counsel for d. Add: (1) Henry Jeyne, captain of a regiment of foot soldiers, deceased, d's brother; (2) Sir Edward Villiers, Knight Marshall of his Majesty's Household. P, Sir E. Villiers's agent, seeks an inj ag d's suit at KB & payment of a £100 debt which H. Jeyne (deceased) owed his colonel, Sir E. Villiers, from 1677–9. D, H. Jeyne's brother & administrator, has had p arrested at KB for retaining H. Jeyne's pay, but p claims H. Jeyne had agreed to have his pay transferred to his creditors (including Sir E. Villiers) but then died.

1685, Mich E 112/594 Bill. LMX 333.
1685, Nov 16 E 112/594 Answer. Swearing date.

101. Rogers v Coney

P: (1) Richard Rogers, merchant, London. D: (1) William Coney, merchant, London; (2) Edmond Wright, merchant, London. C: (1) Edward Ward, counsel for p; (2) William Cherry, counsel for ds. Add: (1) John Letchington. P seeks relief ag d1's suit for payment of a £140 bond p issued d1 (as d2's trustee), together with a mortgage on messuages in Edmonton, as security for £70 lent by d2 to enable p to buy 1/8 of the ship, Elizabeth, from J. Letchington. P claims he entrusted d1 to sell the 1/8 part, whose proceeds d1 then refused to transfer to p. Ds claim p had already sold the messuages before mortgaging them to d1, and deny p repaid the loan by the due date.

1685, Mich E 112/590 Bill. LMX 98.
1686, May 10 E 112/590 Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer.
1686, May 21 E 112/590 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer.
1686, June 14 E 112/590 Answer. Swearing date of another answer by d2.

102. Rogers v Grueber

P: (1) Peter Rogers, victualler, Stepney, Midd. D: (1) Daniell Grueber, merchant, London; (2) Thomas Stone, mariner, London, master of a ship, the Charles, in 1684. C: (1) Robert Rawlins, counsel for p. P seeks relief ag d1's suit in KB for payment of a £120 bond which d2 (master of a ship, the Charles) issued in 1684 to d1 with p as security for a loan to fit the ship out for a voyage to Limerick & Seville. D2 & p agreed to repay d1's agents 283 pieces of eight in Spain. D1 reportedly never paid them the loan, so d2 & p only paid d1's agents items in lieu of the pieces of eight. The ship was wrecked leaving Spain. P claims ds now conspire to compel him to pay the full bond.

1685, Mich E 112/591 Bill. LMX 142.

103. Row v Buckle

P: (1) Anthony Row esq., purveyor to Charles II's stables, St. Giles in the Fields, Midd. D: (1) Robert Buckle. C: (1) Daniel Foucault, counsel for p; (2) William Banistre, counsel for d. Add: (1) John Coling, deceased, p's servant. P, previously purveyor to Charles II's stables, seeks inj ag d's suit for payment of £178 19s 6d which d claims p owes him for oats. P asserts his servant J. Coling (deceased) bought oats & beans from d, for which he drew bills upon p in advance. When Charles II died, p's employment ceased, allegedly leaving d with bills for goods not delivered.

1685, Mich E 112/589 Bill. LMX 77; dated 23 October; cf. E 112/589 LMX 78 Row v Moor.
1685, Nov 3 E 112/589 Answer (with attachments). Swearing date; account between p & d attached.
1685, Mich E 112/589 Exception. P's exceptions concern J. Coling's dealings, & p's account with d.

104. Row v Moor

P: (1) Anthony Row esq., purveyor to Charles II's stables, St. Giles in the Fields, Midd. D: (1) George Moor, corn merchant, Minories, London. C: (1) Daniel Foucault, counsel for p; (2) William Banistre, counsel for d. Add: (1) John Coling, deceased, p's servant. P, previously purveyor to Charles II's stables, seeks inj ag d's suit for payment of £85 which d claims p owes him for oats. P asserts his servant J. Coling (deceased) bought oats & beans from d, for which he drew bills upon p in advance. When Charles II died, p's employment ceased, allegedly leaving d with bills for goods not delivered.

1685, Mich E 112/589 Bill. LMX 78; dated 23 October; cf. E 112/589 LMX 77 Row v Buckle.
1685, Nov 3 E 112/589 Answer. Swearing date.

105. Sawyer v Allan

P: (1) Sir Robert Sawyer, knight, Attorney General. D: (1) John Allan esq., Northants; (2) James Nelthrope esq., R. Nelthrope's father. C: (1) Edward Ward, counsel for d2. Add: (1) Richard Nelthrope esq., d2's son. P, Attorney General, seeks payment of d1's bond issued to d2, which p alleges was in exchange for £300 lent by d2's son R. Nelthrope. R. Nelthrope's estate is forfeit to the Crown as he conspired ag Charles II in the "late fanaticall plott" and absconded. D2 claims he lent his own money to d1, not his son's, so the bond should not be forfeit to the Crown.

1685, Easter E 112/590 Bill. LMX 91; dated 22 April.
1685, June 13 E 112/590 Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer.

106. Sawyer v Audley

P: (1) Sir Robert Sawyer, Attorney General, knight. D: (1) Edward Audley, broker, London, bankrupt, outlawed, d2's husband; (2) Anne Audley, d1's wife, T. Stretchley's sister; (3) Sir Robert Viner, knight, bart., president of Christ Church Hospital, London; (4) Sir John Moore, knight, executor of d3's place for him; (5) Nathaniell Hawes gent., treasurer of Christ Church Hospital; (6) John Farmer gent., steward of Christ Church Hospital. C: (1) Edward Ward, counsel for p; (2) Thomas Jenner, counsel for ds3-6. Add: (1) Thomas Stretchley gent., deceased, d2's brother; (2) George Witharidge. P seeks payment to the Crown of a £50 annuity T. Stretchley left to Christ Church Hospital, London, in trust for his sister d2, whose husband d1 was sued in 1683 in the Court of Common Pleas by G. Witharidge for a £100 bond, went bankrupt & was outlawed. P claims the annuity is forfeit to the Crown. Ds3-6 are willing to pay the annuity as the Court directs in return for indemnity.

1685, Hil E 112/589 Bill. LMX 63.
1685, June 19 E 112/589 Answer. Swearing date of answer of ds3-6.

107. Sawyer v Malthus

P: (1) Robert Sawyer, Attorney General, knight. D: (1) William Malthus; (2) Henry Pottenger; (3) John Butcher; (4) Thomas Weymondesold. C: (1) Edward Ward, counsel for p. Add: (1) Richard Peirce esq., grocer, London, His Majesty's farmer of scavage/shewage & portage duties. P, Attorney General, on behalf of R. Peirce, His Majesty's farmer of scavage/shewage & portage duties for alien ships entering the port of London, seeks payment of scavage/ shewage & portage duties by ds who have imported goods into London but failed to pay the duties. In 1684 p leased the duties for 7 years from the mayor & aldermen of London at £1200 per annum. Ds reportedly claim they are Englishmen, not aliens.

1685, Mich E 112/590 Bill. LMX 90; dated 16 November.

108. Sawyer v Mayor & Aldermen, London

P: (1) Sir Robert Sawyer, Attorney General, knight. D: (1) Mayor & Aldermen, London. P, Attorney General, seeks the cancellation of an indenture which ds, the Mayor & Aldermen of London (trustees of the orphans of freemen of London), entered into to mortgage and sell premises within London. P claims the indenture, intended to support the orphans, produced far fewer profits than intended.

1685, Trin E 112/588 Bill (with attachments). LMX 30; names of signatories of the indenture attached.

109. Sawyer v Slingsby

P: (1) Sir Robert Sawyer, knight, Attorney General, on behalf of the Moniers of his Majesty's Mint in the Tower of London. D: (1) Henry Slingsby esq., previously master & worker of his Majesty's gold & silver monies. C: (1) R. Lechmere, counsel for p; (2) Edward Warde, counsel for d. Add: (1) Thomas Anderson, Monier of his Majesty's mint in the Tower of London; (2) Daniell Robinson, Monier of his Majesty's mint in the Tower of London; (3) Matthias Harding, Monier of his Majesty's mint in the Tower of London; (4) James Wilder, Monier of his Majesty's mint in the Tower of London; (5) Thomas Hunt, Monier of his Majesty's mint in the Tower of London; (6) Edward Shirton, Monier of his Majesty's mint in the Tower of London; (7) Robert Seares, Monier of his Majesty's mint in the Tower of London; (8) Richard Collard, Monier of his Majesty's mint in the Tower of London; (9) Christopher Sutton, Monier of his Majesty's mint in the Tower of London; (10) John Nichols, Monier of his Majesty's mint in the Tower of London; (11) Sir Ralph Freeman, knight, deceased. P, Attorney General acting for the Moniers of his Majesty's Mint in the Tower of London, seeks payment of arrears of 3 shillings for coining each pound of gold & 8 pence for each pound of silver d allegedly owes the Moniers (totalling £1938 14s). In 1662, d & Sir R. Freeman (since deceased) were granted the office of master & worker of his Majesty's monies. D was suspended from the office in 1680. D claims he had to pay for the Moniers' negligence & mistakes in their work, & that they owe him money.

1685, Trin E 112/588 Bill. LMX 8; dated 30 June; cf. E 112/588 LMX 6 Moniers v Slingsby & E 112/590 LMX 128 Slingsby v Anderson.
1685, Oct 23 E 112/588 Answer. Swearing date.
1686, Hil E 112/588 Replication. P asserts d's answer is insufficient.

110. Sawyer v St. Paul's

P: (1) Sir Robert Sawyer, Attorney General, knight. D: (1) Dean & Chapter of St. Paul's; (2) William Bonnett, E. Bonnet's alleged husband; (3) John Perry esq.; (4) Francis Scott, d1's agent. Add: (1) Elianora Cabourne, or Bonnett, d2's alleged wife, convicted of high treason; (2) Abraham Harrison, goldsmith. P, Attorney General, seeks a writ of distringas ag d1, & payment to the Crown of £100 by A. Harrison & £200 by d3. P claims E. Cabourne or Bonnett (d2's alleged wife) had lent money in other people's names (eg., £100 to Harrison & £200 to d3), was convicted of high treason in 1684 for clipping money, & her estate became forfeit to the Crown. D2 now reportedly claims he lent the £100 & sues Harrison in the Court of Common Pleas. D1 (having a grant of traitors' goods in their bailiwicks & their agent d4 are suing d3 for the £200.

1685, Mich E 112/590 Bill. LMX 127; dated 27 October.

111. Seys v Belwood

P: (1) Evan Seys, mariner, Ratcliffe, Midd. D: (1) William Belwood, merchant, London; (2) John Gibbons, merchant, London; (3) William Chevall gent.. C: (1) F. Fuller, counsel for p; (2) Sam. Dodd, counsel for d3. Add: (1) John Arderne, scrivener, d3's agent. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at the Sheriff's Court in London for payment of a £200 bond for which p claims he was only the security, and that d1 was the principal borrower from d2. P asserts d1 paid off the bond, but d2 claims he was not paid and transferred it to d3's agent, J. Arderne. D3 maintains p is the principal name on the bond and demands payment.

1685, Easter E 112/589 Bill. LMX 36.
1685, June 18 E 112/589 Answer. Swearing date of d3's answer.

112. Simpson v Gray

P: (1) Isabella Simpson, wiredrawer, St. Martin in the Fields, Midd, widow, p2's partner; (2) Alice Edwards, wiredrawer, St. Martin in the Fields, Midd, widow, p1's partner. D: (1) John Gray, vintner, London, E. Coleman's administrator. C: (1) Lewis Morgan, counsel for ps; (2) William Ettricke, counsel for d. Add: (1) Elizabeth Coleman, deceased intestate, widow. Ps, wiredrawers, seek payment from d of £14 4d which E. Coleman (deceased intestate) owed them for gold & silver thread. D, E. Coleman's administrator, claims E. Coleman owed him a penal bond for £45 + interest, which E. Coleman's estate (in d's possession) is insufficient to repay, & that this is not a matter for equity.

1685, Easter E 112/594 Bill. LMX 326.
1685, June 20 E 112/594 Answer (with attachments). Swearing date of d's answer & demurrer; inventory of E. Coleman's estate in d's possession attached.

113. Slingsby v Anderson

P: (1) Henry Slingsby esq., former master & worker of his Majesty's gold and silver monies. D: (1) Thomas Anderson, Provost of his Majesty's mint, Tower of London; (2) Daniell Robinson, Monier of his Majesty's mint, Tower of London; (3) Mathias Harding, Monier of his Majesty's mint, Tower of London; (4) James Wilder, Monier of his Majesty's mint, Tower of London; (5) Thomas Hunt, Monier of his Majesty's mint, Tower of London; (6) Edward Shirton, Monier of his Majesty's mint, Tower of London; (7) Robert Seares, Monier of his Majesty's mint, Tower of London; (8) Richard Collard, Monier of his Majesty's mint, Tower of London; (9) Christopher Sutton, Monier of his Majesty's mint, Tower of London; (10) John Nicholls, Monier of his Majesty's mint, Tower of London; (11) John Briant, apprentice to the Moniers; (12) Philip Apps, apprentice to the Moniers; (13) Michaell Garnett, apprentice to the Moniers; (14) John Russell, apprentice to the Moniers; (15) Robert Colborne, apprentice to the Moniers; (16) Sir Robert Sawyer, Attorney General, knight. C: (1) Edward Ward, counsel for p; (3) Samuel Dodd, counsel for ds. P, master & worker of his Majesty's monies from 1662–1680, seeks reimbursement for fines & relief from the suits in this Court of ds, the Provost & Moniers of his Majesty's mint & the Attorney General. P claims he employed the moniers to make gold & silver coins, but that he had to pay fines for negligence & errors in their work. P was suspended from his office in 1680. Ds are suing p for breach of an agreement he allegedly made in 1676 to pay the moniers 3 shillings for coining each pound of gold, & 8 pence for each pound of silver. Ds11-15 claim they were only apprentices to the moniers.

1685, Mich E 112/590 Bill. LMX 128; dated 30 November. cf. E 112/588 LMX 6 Moniers v Slingsby & E 112/588 LMX 8 Sawyer v Slingsby.
1685, Dec 23 E 112/590 Answer. Swearing date of d11's answer & disclaimer.
1685, Dec 23 E 112/590 Answer. Swearing date of d12's answer & disclaimer.
1685, Dec 23 E 112/590 Answer. Swearing date of d13's answer & disclaimer.
1685, Dec 23 E 112/590 Answer. Swearing date of d14's answer & disclaimer.
1685, Dec 23 E 112/590 Answer. Swearing date of d15's answer & disclaimer.
1685, Dec 23 E 112/590 Plea. Swearing date of the plea of ds1-10, who request the Court's judgement whether they need answer as they have agreed accounts with p elsewhere.
1686, Feb 10 E 112/590 Answer (with attachments). Answer of ds1-4 & ds6-10; sworn by ds1-4, ds6-7 & ds9-10 on this date, and sworn by d8 on 23 February 1686. Schedule attached of accounts between ds1-10 & p.

114. Smith v Chudleigh

P: (1) John Smith, merchant, London. D: (1) Hugh Chudleigh gent., Westminster, London. C: (1) J. Hely, counsel for p; (2) William Ettricke, counsel for d. P seeks inj ag d's suit for payment of an £85 5s 6d bill and 2 bills for £106 6s each which p issued d 2 or 3 years ago, for which p was to receive those sums from d's debtors. P allegedly only received £100 which he transferred to d, who reportedly promised to cancel the bills. D asserts p received full payment for the bills.

1685, Trin E 112/589 Bill. LMX 57; dated 23 June.
1685, July 3 E 112/589 Answer. Swearing date.

115. Smith v Rigby

P: (1) Thomas Smith, butcher, Cookham, Berks; (2) George Smith, wheelwright, Maidenhead, Berks; (3) John Wray, yeoman, Cookham, Berks; (4) Thomas Austen, yeoman, Cookham, Berks; (5) John Smith, yeoman, Cookham, Berks. D: (1) Elinor Rigby, London, d2's mother; (2) Mary Rigby, d1's daughter. C: (1) M. Davies, counsel for ps; (2) Thomas Jenner, counsel for ds. Ps seek inj ag ds' suit at KB allegedly granting ds a judgement for payment of £100 bond issued in 1678 by p1 (principal borrower) and the other ps (securing the bond), plus interest and legal charges. Ds filed a previous suit in 1680 ag p5 who paid £10. Ps claim they agreed to pay only the principal of the bond at £10 per year.

1686, Hil E 112/590 Bill. LMX 93; dated 1 February.
1686, Feb 10 E 112/590 Answer. Swearing date of ds' answer.

116. Smith v Waters

P: (1) William Smith, Isleworth, Midd, T. Smith's brother & administrator. D: (1) Ann Waters, Buckingham, Bucks, T. Smith's sister & alleged trustee; (2) William Rice, J. Rice's husband. C: (1) S. Houghton, counsel for p; (2) Sam. Dodd, counsel for d2. Add: (1) Thomas Smith, Isleworth, Midd, deceased intestate, brother of p, d1 & J. Rice; (2) Joan Rice, d2's wife, T. Smith's sister. P, brother & administrator of T. Smith (deceased intestate in 1683), seeks possession of T. Smith's estate. P claims T. Smith got distemper 10 years ago & his sister d1 tried to gain custody of his estate. D2 (married to T. Smith's sister J. Rice) claims T. Smith lodged in his house & assigned his estate to him in return for a £400 bond d2 issued as security to d1 as trustee.

1685, Mich E 112/589 Bill. LMX 81; dated 22 November.
1685, Nov 26 E 112/589 Answer (with attachments). Swearing date of d2's plea & answer; schedule attached of T. Smith's personal estate.

117. Smyth v Child

P: (1) Sir James Smyth, knight, Lord Mayor of London; (2) Sir William Turner, London, knight, alderman; (3) Sir James Edwards, London, knight, alderman; (4) Sir John Moore, London, knight, alderman; (5) Sir William Prichard, London, knight, alderman; (6) Sir Henry Tulse, London, knight, alderman; (7) Sir Robert Geffery, London, knight, alderman; (8) Peter Rich esq., London, alderman, chamberlain. D: (1) Sir Josiah Child, merchant, London, bart.. C: (1) Thomas Jenner, counsel for ps. Ps seek d's acceptance of a new lease for Buttolph wharf and messuages issued by the City of London in 1672 adding 18 years and reducing the annual rent from £50 to £30 after d's houses were burnt in the 1666 fire. Ps sued d in Chancery to compel him to accept the new lease and pay arrears of the reduced rent, but d sued ps at KB.

1685, Hil E 112/588 Bill. LMX 11; dated 10 February.

118. Solby v Watker

P: (1) Thomas Solby gent., London, G. Solby's son, brother of d1 & d3. D: (1) Elizabeth Watker, G. Solby's daughter & executrix, sister of p & d3; (2) William Bowles, d3's husband; (3) Anne Bowles, d2's wife, G. Solby's daughter, sister of p & d1. C: (1) Edward Wynne, counsel for p. Add: (1) George Solby, apothecary, London, deceased, freeman of London, father of p, d1 & d3. P seeks 1/2 the personal estate of his father G. Solby (deceased in 1684) according to a custom that 1/2 the personal estate of a deceased wifeless freeman of London must go to his child who had received nothing from the estate, with the other 1/2 going to his executor for his other children who had benefitted from the estate. P claims G. Solby before his death issued d1 (his daughter & executrix) £200 to pay his debts, which she has not done.

1685, Trin E 112/589 Bill. LMX 34; dated 30 June.

119. Soper v Fowler

P: (1) Charles Soper, draper, London, p2's husband; (2) Mary Soper, London, p1's wife. D: (1) Matthias Fowler, vintner, London. C: (1) William Dobbins, counsel for ps. Add: (1) Richard Weoly, barber, chirurgeon, London; (2) Stephen Crisp, mercer, Colchester, Essex. P seeks payment of rent from d for leasehold premises in Priest's Court, Foster Lane, London, which p bought from R. Weoly & S. Crisp in 1681. D had leased the premises for 21 years from Weoly in 1669 at £25 per annum. The leases were burnt by a fire in p's house in Carter Lane, and now d reportedly refuses to pay p rent, has converted the premises into the Half Moon Tavern, & claims Weoly had allowed him an abatement of £10 per annum.

1685, Mich E 112/590 Bill. LMX 99; dated 7 November.

120. St. Peter's, Westminster v Acheson

P: (1) Dean & Chapter, St. Peter's, Westminster; (2) Elizabeth Dickenson, G. Dickenson's daughter & executrix; (3) ? Smith, (no forename given) E. Tresham's executrix; (4) John Clendon esq.; (5) Nicholas Fownes; (6) Ellen Davies. D: (1) Dame Martha Acheson, J. Moore's daughter, R. Atkins' widow; (2) Sir William Trumball, doctor of laws; (3) John Harboard; (4) Rowland Blackborne. C: (1) Henry Trinder, counsel for ps; (2) Edward Ward, counsel for d1. Add: (1) John Moore esq., St. Martin in the Fields, Midd, deceased, d1's father; (2) John Dickenson the elder, deceased, p2's grandfather; (3) George Dickenson, deceased, p2's father; (4) Richard Atkins, deceased, d1's husband. Ps (Dean & Chapter of St. Peter's, Westminster, and their tenants of 1/2 premises in the Strand) seek relief from the suits of d1 to eject ps. Ps claim d1 & her husband assigned 1/2 the leasehold premises to p2's father G. Dickenson in 1643 in satisfaction of a £2500 debt that d1's father J. Moore owed p2's grandfather J. Dickenson. D1 assigned the remaining 1/2 premises to ds2-4, & now claims she is entitled to the freehold of p2's 1/2 premises.

1685, Trin E 112/588 Bill. LMX 22.
1685, Nov 20 E 112/588 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer.