Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 152-181

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 152-181', in London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, (London, 2000) pp. 73-85. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/pp73-85 [accessed 30 May 2024].

. "Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 152-181", in London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, (London, 2000) 73-85. British History Online, accessed May 30, 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/pp73-85.

. "Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 152-181", London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, (London, 2000). 73-85. British History Online. Web. 30 May 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/pp73-85.

In this section

Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 152-181

152. Alexander v Sands

P: (1) Thomas Alexander, coffee house keeper, Cornhill, London; (2) Henry Pace, printer, Southwark, Surrey. D: (1) David Sands, upholder, Russell St., Bloomsbury, Midd; (2) James Wyatt gent., Queen Ann St. East, Midd: (3) Thomas Wyatt gent., New Inn; (4) Philip Astley gent., Lambeth, London; (5) John Astley gent., Lambeth, London; (6) Robert Johnson, stock broker, Pope's Head Alley, London; (7) Solomon De Medina, stock broker, Newington Green, London; (8) John Thorold Darwin, hatter, The Poultry, London; (9) James Richardson, stock broker, Bank Buildings, London; (10) John Carvick, stock broker, Bank Buildings, London; (11) James Branscomb, stock broker, Holborn, London; (12) John Wyatt, merchant, Walbrook; (13) James Ansell, auctioneer, Pall Mall, Midd. C: (1) Thomas Lowes. Add: (1) Edward Eagleton, bankrupt; (2) James Neatby. Ps seek payment of alleged debts from ds. In 1780, ps & ds became proprietors of the Noon Gazette; with p1 (treasurer), d4, d12, E. Eagleton (since bankrupt) & J. Neatby as the governing committee. The proprietors leased premises where p2 could print the newspaper. P1 quit the paper & claims ds owe him for rent he paid for p2's premises. P2 claims ds owe him for printing. Ds allegedly deny being indebted to ps.

1785, Hil E 112/1706 Bill. LMX 3846.

 

153. Allan v Brown

P: (1) James Allan, merchant & underwriter, London; (2) Robert Sinclair, merchant & underwriter, London; (3) Joseph Nailer, merchant & underwriter, London; (4) William Herries, merchant & underwriter, London; (5) Robert Christie, merchant & underwriter, London; (6) Thomas Fraser, merchant & underwriter, London; (7) William Atkinson, merchant & underwriter, London; (8) Charles Kensington, merchant & underwriter, London; (9) Gavin Elliot, merchant & underwriter, London; (10) Henry Pierson, merchant & underwriter, London; (11) James Margetson, merchant & underwriter, London; (12) Robert William Halked, merchant & underwriter, London; (13) Hananel Modigliani, merchant & underwriter, London; (14) George Curling, merchant & underwriter, London; (15) Thomas Gildart, merchant & underwriter, London; (16) Robert Vigne, merchant & underwriter, London; (17) Harry Thompson, merchant & underwriter, London; (18) George Henckell, merchant & underwriter, London; (19) John Whitmore, merchant & underwriter, London; (20) Henry William Guyon, merchant & underwriter, London; (21) Jacob Wilkinson, merchant & underwriter, London; (22) Nathan Modigliani, merchant & underwriter, London; (23) Arthur Edie, merchant & underwriter, London. D: (1) Peter Brown, merchant, St. Thomas, West Indies; (2) John Stevenson, merchant, St. Thomas, West Indies; (3) Henry Kelly, merchant, St. Thomas, West Indies; (4) David Milligan, merchant, London, d5's partner; (5) Grant Allen, merchant, London, d4's partner; (6) William Manning, merchant, London, d7's partner; (7) Benjamin Vaughan, merchant, London, d6's partner; (8) William Davis, merchant, London, d9's partner; (9) James Strachan, merchant, London, d8's partner. C: (1) J. Bicknell, counsel for ps; (2) John Lloyd, counsel for ds8-9; (3) Thomas Nedham, counsel for ds6-7. Ps seek inj ag ds' suits for payment of insurance policies. In 1783, ds4-5 took out a policy apparently on a cargo of indigo laden on a ship, the Altona (owned by ds 1-3), bound from the West Indies to Amsterdam. Ps 1-11 underwrote the policy for £1600. Ds6-7, on behalf of ds1-3, also took out a policy on indigo on the same ship, underwritten by p4, p6 & ps12-17 for £1500. Ds8-9 also took out a policy for cargo on the ship, underwritten by p6, ps18-22 & p23 for £1200. The ship was lost, & ps claim that it did not contain indigo. Ds are suing ps for payment of the policies. Ds8-9 claim their policy was for general goods, not just indigo.

1785, Easter E 112/1704 Bill. LMX 3779; mistakenly attached to part of E 112/1704 LMX 3784.
1787, April 1 E 112/1704 Answer. Swearing & filing date of the answer of ds8-9; schedule below answer of the £1200 policy.
1788, Easter E 112/1704 Replication. Ps assert answer of ds8-9 is insufficient.
1788, Easter E 112/1704 Rejoinder. Ds8-9 maintain their answer is sufficient.
1788, Nov 28 E 112/1704 Answer. Swearing & filing date of the answer of ds6-7; schedule below answer of the £1500 policy.

 

154. Allen v Morgan

P: (1) John Allen gent., parish of St. Bride, London. D: (1) John Morgan gent., Deptford, Kent; (2) James Hicks gent., Kennington Lane, Surrey. C: (1) J. Bicknell, counsel for p; (2) S. C. Cox, counsel for d1. P seeks inj ag d1's suit in the Court of Common Pleas for payment of a bill of exchange. P claims in 1784 he allowed d2 to draw a £69 bill of exchange upon him, which d2 promised to pay by the due date, but failed to do so. D2 endorsed the bill to d1, who has obtained a judgement in the Court of Common Pleas ag p for the bill.

1785, Easter E 112/1694 Bill. LMX 3529.
1785, May 11 E 112/1694 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer.

 

155. Angerstein v Middleton

P: (1) John Julius Angerstein, insurance broker, Throgmorton St., London; (2) Thomas Lewis, insurance broker, London; (3) James Mather, merchant, London. D: (1) Sir Charles Middleton, officer & commissioner of the navy, bart.; (2) Sir John Williams, officer & commissioner of the navy, knight; (3) Edward Hunt esq., officer & commissioner of the navy; (4) George Marsh esq., officer & commissioner of the navy; (5) George Rogers esq., officer & commissioner of the navy; (6) William Palmer esq., officer & commissioner of the navy; (7) Sir Richard Temple, officer & commissioner of the navy, bart.; (8) Edward Le Cras esq., officer & commissioner of the navy; (9) Samuel Wallis esq., officer & commissioner of the navy. C: (1) James Ibbetson, counsel for ps; (2) John Lloyd, counsel for ds; (3) Samuel Wallis, counsel for ds' answer to further amended bill. Add: (1) George Teer, navy captain, Deptford, Kent, ds' agent for transports, aged 53 years, ps' deponent. Ps seek payment for lost profits after ds discharged ps' ship from naval service. In 1780, ps bought a ship, the George III, repaired it & hired it for 12 months to ds, officers & commissioners of the navy. Ps claim in 1782, ds' agent G. Teer insisted ps repair & restock the ship again at Deptford, & ds witheld £8000 arrears for the ship's hire until p1 signed a new rental agreement with no stipulated time limit, promising p1 the ship would be sent on a 12 month voyage to the West Indies. Ds then dismissed the ship from service. Ps sued ds at KB for £10,000 lost profits. Ds deny promising to send the ship to the West Indies.

1785, Hil E 112/1704 Bill. LMX 3784.
1785, April 20 E 112/1704 Commission. For ds' answer.
1785, April 22 E 112/1704 Answer. Swearing date of ds' answer, filed 26 April.
1785, Trin E 112/1704 Exception. Ps' exception concerns whether G. Teer ordered the ship to be repaired & restocked for a 12 month voyage to the West Indies.
1785, Nov 7 E 112/1704 Amended bill. Ps reassert ds promised to send the ship to the West Indies.
1785, Nov 28 E 112/1704 Commission. For ds' answer to amended bill.
1786, Jan 20 E 112/1704 Answer (with attachments). Ds' answer to amended bill sworn on this date by d1 & ds3-9, and by d2 on 11 January; filed 23 January. Schedule attached of ds' instructions to G. Teer.
1786, Trin E 112/1704 Replication. Ps assert ds' answer to amended bill is insufficient.
1786, Trin E 112/1704 Rejoinder. Ds maintain their answer to amended bill is sufficient.
1787, May 12 E 112/1704 Amended bill. Further amended bill, mistakenly attached to E 112/1704 LMX 3779.
1787, Nov 16 E 112/1704 Answer. Answer to further amended bill of d1, ds4-6 & d8-9 (mistakenly attached to E 112/1704 LMX 3779), sworn by d9 & filed on this date, sworn by d1, ds4-6 & d8 on 7 November.
1788, Easter E 112/1704 Replication. Ps assert ds' answer to the further amended bill is insufficient.
1788, Easter E 112/1704 Rejoinder. Ds maintain their answer to the further amended bill is sufficient.

 

156. Appleby v Luttrell

P: (1) Ann Appleby, Queen Ann St. East, Marylebone, Midd. D: (1) Hon. John Luttrell, Kimpston, Hants. C: (1) James Agar, counsel for p; (2) E. King, counsel for d. Add: (1) Partridge, p's alleged fiance (no forename given). P, a spinster, seeks payment of child support from d. P claims in 1784, when she was pregnant with d's child, d issued her a £600 bond as security to pay for the delivery & child support. P allegedly bore a daughter, but d requested the bond back & destroyed it. D claims p's fiance, a Mr Partridge, demanded the bond to indemnify Partridge ag the child's upkeep, but that p miscarried & voluntarily returned the bond.

1785, Easter E 112/1706 Bill. LMX 3845.
1785, Oct 27 E 112/1706 Answer. Swearing date.

 

157. Arnold v Holker

P: (1) Benedict Arnold esq., Bryanstone St., Portman Sq., Midd, formerly of Philadelphia, America. D: (1) John Holker, Philadelphia, America; (2) Edward Bancroft, doctor of physic, Duke St., Westminster, Midd; (3) Richard Oxley, linen draper, Bread St., London. C: (1) E. King, counsel for p; (2) W. Scafe, counsel for ds2-3. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of a bond. P claims on 11 May 1779, he issued d1 a penal bond for £16,480 to secure the repayment of £8,204, the remainder of a £12,000 loan from d1. P claims d1 had advanced him the loan in the form of bills issued by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. P asserts by May 1779, the remaining £8,204 bills were only worth £340 15s because of currency depreciation. In 1780, p fled America where his estates were seized & put to the use of the United States. D1 transferred the bond to his creditors ds2-3, who now sue p for the bond in d1's name, asserting the bills were worth their face value at the time of issue, & only depreciated afterwards.

1784, Mich E 112/1713 Bill. LMX 4031.
1785, Feb 12 E 112/1713 Commission. For d1's answer.
1785, April 25 E 112/1713 Answer. Swearing date of d3's answer, filed 27 April.
1785, Aug 25 E 112/1713 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer, filed 3 February 1786.
1786, Feb 27 E 112/1713 Answer. Swearing & filing date of d2's answer.
1786, May 10 E 112/1713 Amended bill. P denies the bills were worth their face value at the time of issue.
1786, July 5 E 112/1713 Commission. For d1's further answer.
1788, April 25 E 112/1713 Further answer. Swearing date of d1's further answer.

 

158. Askew v Thompson

P: (1) Leonard Askew gent., Liverpool, Lancs, previously resident in Charlestown, N. Carolina, N. America. D: (1) William Thompson, glazier, Duchess St., Portland Pl., Midd, J. Thompson's executor; (2) Elizabeth Thompson, d3's mother, J. Thompson's wife; (3) Peter Tisdale Lane, d2's son; (4) John Earl, J. Thompson's executor. C: (1) W. Alexander, counsel for p. Add: (1) John Thompson, deceased, d2's husband. P seeks payment of annuities from ds. In 1781, p shipped goods aboard a ship, the Resolution, from Charlestown to be sold in England, & issued power of attorney to ds2-3 to receive the profits for him. D2's husband J. Thompson tried to claim the profits, then died leaving d1 & d4 his executors. P claims ds1-3 agreed to invest the profits in bank annuities in their names in trust for p, but now ds allegedly deny the annuities belong to p.

1785, Trin E 112/1706 Bill. LMX 3844.

 

159. Atkinson v Hartley

P: (1) William Atkinson, merchant, London; (2) John Wilson, merchant, London, J. Fletcher's assignee; (3) Alexander Champion, merchant, London, J. Fletcher's assignee; (4) Abraham Hake, merchant, London, J. Fletcher's assignee; (5) William Grove, merchant, London, J. Listard's assignee; (6) Peter De La Rive, merchant, London, J. Listard's assignee; (7) George Ernst De Hahn, merchant, London; (8) Thomas Bell, merchant, London, R. Bruce's assignee; (9) James Crabb, merchant, London, R. Bruce's assignee; (10) James Potts, merchant, London; (11) Thomas Wilson, merchant, London, T. Rowley's assignee; (12) Arthur Edwards, merchant, London, T. Rowley's assignee; (13) John Walker, merchant, London, T. Rowley's assignee; (14) William Atkinson, merchant, London, T. Rowley's assignee; (15) Hodgson Atkinson, merchant, London, T. Rowley's assignee; (16) George Farquhar Kinlock, merchant, London; (17) Thomas Carter, merchant, London, G. Cawthorn's assignee; (18) John Walker, merchant, London, G. Cawthorn's assignee. D: (1) Samuel Hartley, merchant, London; (2) Robert Beaver, ship's captain. C: (1) William Waller, counsel for ps; (2) J. Stanley, counsel for ds. Add: (1) John Fletcher, merchant, London, bankrupt; (2) John Listard, merchant, London, bankrupt; (3) Richard Bruce, merchant, London, bankrupt; (4) Thomas Rowley, merchant, London, bankrupt; (5) George Cawthorn, merchant, London, bankrupt; (6) Alexander Anderson the younger, broker, d1's employee. Ps, underwriters, seek repayment of an insurance policy. In 1779, d1's broker A. Anderson prepared a £1700 insurance policy upon d1's cargo on a ship, the Juno, bound for Africa and the West Indies, with d2 as captain. P1, J. Fletcher, J. Listard, p7, R. Bruce, p10, T. Rowley, p16 & G. Cawthorn underwrote the policy, which included a warranty that the ship was armed, but on the voyage the ship was captured by French frigates, & they had to pay d1. J. Fletcher went bankrupt with ps2-4 as his assignees; J. Listard went bankrupt with ps5-6 as assignees; G. Cawthorn went bankrupt with ps17-18 as assignees; R. Bruce went bankrupt with ps8-9 as assignees; & T. Rowley went bankrupt with ps 11-15 as assignees. Ps now claim the warranty rendered the policy void, but ds assert ps were still liable for payment.

1785, Trin E 112/1701 Bill. LMX 3693; filed 5 July 1785.
1785, Nov 7 E 112/1701 Answer (with attachments). Swearing date of d1's answer; schedules attached of the policy & d1's letters concerning the ship.
1786, Feb 13 E 112/1701 Commission. For d2's answer.
1786, May 3 E 112/1701 Answer (with attachments). Swearing date of d2's answer, filed 10 May; schedule attached of d2's instructions for the voyage.

 

160. Aylett v Welford

P: (1) Edward Aylett gent., Haymarket, Midd. D: (1) Mary Welford, Petty France, Midd; (2) William Langmore, steward of the manor of Stepney. C: (1) Thomas Lowes, counsel for p. P seeks inj to prevent ds from transferring d1's premises away. P claims in 1782, d1 mortgaged her messuage copyhold of the manor of Stepney or Stebunheath to p for £81 19s 3d, plus a further £20 in 1783, but did not execute a deed of mortgage. In 1785 p sought repayment or the deed to be drawn up, but d1 allegedly conspired with d2, steward of the manor of Stepney, in claiming the premises are subject to a prior mortgage or are to be sold.

1785, Trin E 112/1723 Bill. LMX 4299.

 

161. Baldwin v Bourke

P: (1) Christopher Baldwin, merchant, London. D: (1) John Bourke esq., I. Foster's administrator; (2) Edmund Pitts esq., I. Foster's administrator; (3) Thomas Foster, I. Foster's administrator; (4) James Bogle French esq., London, R. Christian's executor; (5) Justinian Casamajor esq., London, R. Christian's executor; (6) Mainswete Walrond, planter, Antigua. C: (1) J. Bicknell, counsel for ps; (2) J. Stanley, counsel for ds1-3; (3) Charles Abbot, counsel for ds4-5. Add: (1) Ingham Foster, ironmonger, Clements Lane, Lombard St., London, deceased; (2) Robert Christian, deceased. P seeks inj ag the suit of ds1-3 at KB for payment of bills of exchange. P claims in 1777 d6 (a plantation owner in Antigua) was indebted to R. Christian, who died, leaving ds4-5 as his surviving executors. D6 drew bills of exchange upon p totalling £6200 5s 11d with which to pay ds4-5 the debt. D6 issued p security of d6's plantation & regular consignment of sugar, with ds4-5 as trustees. In 1779, d6 stopped sending p sugar, so p refused payment of some of the bills. Ds4-5 sued p, ag which p got an inj in this Court. Now ds1-3, I. Foster's administrators, are suing p at KB for some of the bills, which ds4-6 had endorsed to I. Foster.

1784, Mich E 112/1720 Bill. LMX 4203.
1784, Nov 27 E 112/1720 Answer. Answer of ds4-5, sworn by d4 on this date, sworn by d5 & filed on 30 November.
1784, Dec 11 E 112/1720 Answer. Swearing date of answer of ds1-3, filed 13 December.
1785, Hil E 112/1720 Exception. P's exceptions to the answer of ds4-5 concern the compliance of ds4-6 with the trust deeds.

 

162. Barber v Taylor

P: (1) Miles Barber, merchant, London. D: (1) Robert Taylor, merchant, ship owner, London. C: (1) J. Stanley, counsel for p; (2) J. Pippard, counsel for d. P seeks relief from his indenture to compensate d, ship owner, for loss of vessel, its cargo of slaves and various supplies (after shipwreck). P claims he is overcharged, that ship's capacity was less than represented, and seeks proof of actual damages. D is suing at KB.

1785, Easter E 112/1701 Bill. LMX 3699.
1785, May 27 E 112/1701 Answer. Filing date.

 

163. Barrett v Dixon

P: (1) William Barrett, mariner, parish of St. George, Midd, father & executor of G. Barrett. D: (1) John Dixon, merchant, Magpie Alley, Fenchurch St., London, d2's partner; (2) William Eames, merchant, Sherborne Lane, London, d1's partner; (3) George Whitlock, clerk, Magpie Alley, Fenchurch St., London, d1's employee. C: (1) Thomas Nedham, counsel for p. Add: (1) George Barrett, seaman, deceased, p's son. P, father & executor of G. Barrett, seeks payment of his son's wages. P claims in 1781, his son was a seaman aboard a ship owned by ds1-2, the Empress of Russia, which sank. Ds1-2 apparently never paid G. Barrett his wages of £27. G. Barrett died in 1782, leaving p his executor. Ds allegedly deny having employed G. Barrett, or claim he was already paid.

1785, Trin E 112/1720 Bill. LMX 4209.

 

164. Barrett v Parker

P: (1) Mary Barrett, St. Mary White Chapel, Midd, N. Gamson's executrix. D: (1) James Parker, stationer, Chancery Lane, Midd, E. Parker's administrator. C: (1) William Waller, counsel for p. Add: (1) Nicholas Gamson, parish of St. Luke, Midd, deceased; (2) Edward Parker esq., Tooks Court, Holborn, Midd, deceased. P seeks to revive ag d her suit filed in this Court in 1783 ag E. Parker, seeking to redeem mortgaged premises. The suit abated when E. Parker died intestate in 1784, leaving d his administrator.

1785, Easter E 112/1719 Bill of revivor. LMX 4191.

 

165. Barron v Brest

P: (1) Thomas Barron gent., Salisbury St. in the Strand, Midd. D: (1) William George Brest, St Martin's Court, Midd. C: (1) Charles Shuter, counsel for p; (2) Thomas Lewis, counsel for d. Add: (1) William Mercer, Midd, d's partner. P seeks inj ag d's suit at KB for payment of a bond. P claims he issued d the bond for debts incurred while betting on the lottery at the office of d and his partner W. Mercer. P claims the bond is therefore invalid as a gambling debt. D asserts the bond was issued in exchange for a loan.

1785, Hil E 112/1708 Bill. LMX 3897.
1785, Feb 25 E 112/1708 Answer. Swearing date.

 

166. Bean v English

P: (1) Samuel Bean, merchant, Richmond, Surrey, bankrupt. D: (1) Thomas English, merchant, London; (2) Francis Roper. C: (1) J. Stanley, counsel for p; (2) J. Bicknell, counsel for d1; (3) J. Pippard, counsel for d2. Add: (1) Arthur Eddie, merchant, London, p's assignee; (2) Colin Mackenzie, merchant, London, p's assignee. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of a bill of exchange. In 1776, ds issued p a promissory note for £378 14s 2d, which p endorsed away, but was unable to pay by the due date. P allowed ds to draw a bill of exchange upon him as security for the note. P went bankrupt in 1779, with A. Eddie & C. Mackenzie as his assignees. Ds got a verdict at KB that p is liable to pay the bill of exchange, claiming the promissory note was presented to them for payment long after p's bankruptcy.

1784, Mich E 112/1693 Bill. LMX 3514.
1784, Dec 3 E 112/1693 Answer. Swearing & filing date of d1's answer.
1785, Jan 22 E 112/1693 Answer. Swearing & filing date of d2's answer.

 

167. Bickhaffer v Williams

P: (1) Henry Bickhaffer, tailor, Covent Garden, Midd, p2's husband; (2) Mary Bickhaffer, Covent Garden, Midd, p1's wife, C. Williams's granddaughter. D: (1) David Williams, C. Williams's son & executor. C: (1) William Waller, counsel for ps. Add: (1) Catherine Williams, Llandovery, Carm, deceased, p2's grandmother. Ps seek payment of a £50 legacy. Ps claim that in 1783 p2's grandmother C. Williams died, leaving her son d as executor, & bequeathing p2 £50. Ps claims d refuses to pay the legacy, allegedly denying C. Williams's estate was sufficient to pay her debts.

1785, Easter E 112/1718 Bill. LMX 4146.

 

168. Billingham v Merrett

P: (1) Thomas Billingham, corn chandler, Goswell St., Midd, J. Billingham's husband. D: (1) Mary Merrett. C: (1) E. King, counsel for p; (2) R. Richards, counsel for d. Add: (1) Jane Billingham, late of Goswell St., Midd, deceased, p's wife, niece of d's first husband Charles Wall. P seeks inj ag d's suit at KB for repayment of a loan d allegedly made to p's late wife, Jane. D claims Jane borrowed the money on p's behalf for his new business. P denies any such loan was made, and asserts d owes him debts instead.

1785, Trin E 112/1700 Bill. LMX 3686.
1786, Feb 3 E 112/1700 Answer. Swearing date, filed 4 February.
1786, Hil E 112/1700 Exception. P's exception to d's answer concerns the alleged loan.

 

169. Blackaby v Jones

P: (1) John Blackaby, porter, White Lyon Court, Birchin Lane, London. D: (1) Griffith Jones, porter, Gloster Row, Newington Butts, Surrey; (2) Russell Laugher, porter, Labour in Vain Hill, London; (3) Samuel Young, porter, Wagstaffs Buildings, Maiden Lane, Surrey; (4) Harris Rich, porter, Wagstaffs Buildings, Maiden Lane, Surrey. C: (1) John Fonblanque, counsel for p; (2) E. King, counsel for ds. P seeks disability payment from the society of porters. P claims in 1781, he & ds, partners as porters carrying goods for 20 years, formed a society to provide assistance for members who fell ill. P claims since 1783 he has been lame & unable to work, & the society paid him until 1784, but not thereafter. Ds claim p's illness is caused by heavy drinking, invalidating his claim upon the society.

1785, Trin E 112/1720 Bill. LMX 4204.
1785, Nov 1 E 112/1720 Answer. Swearing date of ds' answer, filed 7 November; schedule below answer of accounts between ds & p.
1786, Easter E 112/1720 Replication. P asserts ds' answer is insufficient.
1786, Easter E 112/1720 Rejoinder. Ds maintain their answer is sufficient.

 

170. Bliss v Beldon

P: (1) James Bliss gent., solicitor, Tooley St., Southwark, Surrey; (2) Michael Swan gent., solicitor, Tooley St., Southwark, Surrey, p1's common law agent. D: (1) Thomas Beldon the elder, Harn Lane, London; (2) Thomas Beldon the younger; (3) Elizabeth Holloway. C: (1) Charles Thompson, counsel for ps. Ps seek inj ag ds' suit at KB. Ps claim in 1774 d3 sought their help because ds 1-2 were suing her for a £26 debt. Ps claim d3 was uncooperative in defending the suit, & a verdict was awarded ag her in 1784 for £51 damages & costs, which she could not pay, & so was imprisoned. Ds1-2 allegedly conspired with d3 to sue ps in KB for negligence in conducting the suit.

1785, Trin E 112/1696 Bill. LMX 3566.

 

171. Boddam v Cracraft

P: (1) Thomas Boddam esq., Fore St., London, d's assignee; (2) Michael Bourke esq., Compton St., Midd, d's assignee. D: (1) Richard Cracraft, money scrivener, Philpot Lane, bankrupt. C: (1) Richard Hollist, counsel for ps; (2) J. Bicknell, counsel for d. Add: (1) Oliver Toulmin, merchant, Crutched Friars, London, deceased, d's assignee; (2) Alexander Stewart esq., Ballintry, Ireland. Ps seek inj ag d's suit in the Exchequer of Pleas for non-payment of d's salary. In 1779, d went bankrupt with ps & O. Toulmin (now deceased) as his assignees, who hired d to make an account of his own estate. A. Stewart got a verdict at KB for £1000 ag d for criminal conversations with Stewart's wife, to which d filed a writ of error, with ps as bail. Stewart agreed with ps not to proceed if his debts to d were set off ag the £1000 verdict. Toulmin died, & d has now got a judgement ag ps in the Exchequer of Pleas for £477 9s, arrears of his salary for drawing up his accounts. Ps claim they received few of d's debts, & could not pay the salary.

1785, Easter E 112/1703 Bill. LMX 3772.
1785, May 27 E 112/1703 Answer. Swearing date, filed 28 May.
1786, Hil E 112/1703 Replication. Ps assert d's answer is insufficient.
1786, Hil E 112/1703 Rejoinder. D maintains his answer is sufficient.

 

172. Boucher v Ogle

P: (1) Jonathan Boucher, clerk, Paddington, Midd. D: (1) Anne Ogle, Annapolis, Maryland, N. America, widow of Samuel Ogle, the late Governor of Maryland. C: (1) Charles Abbot, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag d's suit at KB for repayment of a bond. P had issued d the bond in return for a loan, with which p bought property in the colony of Maryland, N. America. P claims he repaid the bond to d's representative. In the ensuing War of Independence, p fled the colony and was dispossessed while d became a citizen of the new state. P claims he should have immunity from the suit.

1784, Mich E 112/1700 Bill. LMX 3666.

 

173. Bouvilla v Mortimer

P: (1) Elias Bouvilla gent., New Bond St., Hanover Sq., Midd; (2) Victor D'Hancarville gent., Queen Ann St., Westminster, Midd. D: (1) Peter Mortimer, New Bond St., Midd; (2) Robinson, J. J. A. Brunet's agent & attorney. C: (1) William Almack, counsel for ps. Add: (1) Jean Jacques Antonio Brunet, moneylender, d2's employer. Ps seek inj ag d1's suit in KB ag p1 for payment of 2 bills of exchange. In 1783, p2 drew 2 bills of exchange for £110 each upon p1, in order to get them discounted by d2, the agent of J. J. A. Brunet, moneylender. D2 never paid p2 the money, concealed himself when p2 got a warrant for his arrest, & endorsed the bills to d1, who is suing p1. D1 asserts d2 paid him the bills in exchange for goods.

1785, Hil E 112/1698 Bill. LMX 3637.
1785, April 6 E 112/1698 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer; schedule below answer of goods d2 bought from d1 with the bills.

 

174. Bowden v Corry

P: (1) Joseph Bowden, currier, Chelsea, Midd. D: (1) James Corry, yeoman, Chelsea, Midd. C: (1) R. Richards, counsel for p; (2) W. Ainge, counsel for d. P seeks inj ag d's suit for payment of debts incurred when d, p's lodger, allegedly replaced furniture seized by p's creditors from his house, on the understanding that p would repay d. P claims d's rent was in arrears and that d owed him other debts also.

1785, Easter E 112/1700 Bill. LMX 3663.
1785, April 21 E 112/1700 Answer. Filing date; 2 schedules of accounts included below answer.

 

175. Brassett v Brassett

P: (1) John Brassett, yeoman, St. Catherine's, Tower of London, Midd. D: (1) Charles Brassett gent., East Smithfield, Midd. C: (1) Thomas Nedham, counsel for p; (2) John Lloyd, counsel for d. P seeks discovery of debts d allegedly owes p. P claims since 1780 he had business dealings with d, who owes him several debts for goods. D denies he owes p, and asserts p only made this allegation after d sued p in this Court in 1784 for debts p apparently owes d.

1784, Mich E 112/1719 Bill. LMX 4192.
1785, Jan 26 E 112/1719 Answer. Swearing & filing date.
1785, Hil E 112/1719 Replication. P asserts d's answer is insufficient.
1785, Hil E 112/1719 Rejoinder. D maintains his answer is sufficient.

 

176. Bristow v Ewer

P: (1) John Bristow, engine maker, Ratcliff Highway, Midd. D: (1) Francis Ewer, carpenter, Princes Sq., Midd. P seeks inj ag d's suit at KB for non-payment of bills of exchange, drafts, and promissory notes which p issued d. P claims d asked to borrow the bills etc and promised to pay them off before the due date. D refused to return the bills etc, claiming p issued them in exchange for goods and loans.

1785, Trin E 112/1708 Bill. LMX 3906; no record of p's counsel.

 

177. Brown v Brown

P: (1) George Brown gent., attorney at law, Crane Court, Fleet St., London, brother of ds1-2. D: (1) Jane Brown, servant, Combermere, Ches, p's sister and d3's servant; (2) Sarah Brown, Hankelow, Ches, p's sister and d4's fiancee; (3) Thomas, Colonel D'Avenant esq., Market Drayton, Salop, d1's employer; (4) Philip Gregory, Wapping, Midd, d2's fiance. C: (1) F. E. Tomlins, counsel for p; (2) R. Richards, counsel for ds1-2. Add: (1) Thomas Pengree gent., Shoreditch, Midd, deceased. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of bonds p had issued as a result of a transaction in which p claims ds1-2, his sisters, (at his advice) lent money to T. Pengree, with Pengree's estate as security. Ds1-2 claim they lent the money not to Pengree but to p. Pengree went bankrupt and died. P claims d3 (d1's employer) blackmailed him into issuing his own bonds to cover his sisters' losses.

1784, Mich E 112/1705 Bill. LMX 3799.
1784, Nov 16 E 112/1705 Answer. Swearing and filing date of the answer of ds1-2.

 

178. Brown v Thackray

P: (1) George Brown gent., attorney at law, Crane Court, Fleet St., London. D: (1) William Thackray the elder, father of d2 & d17; (2) William Thackray the younger, d1's son, d17's brother; (3) Thomas Cornwall; (4) Francis Foster; (5) Robert Duckrell, pastry cook, Bond St., Midd, insolvent; (6) William Parker; (7) King, (no forename given); (8) Joseph Jellett, haberdasher, 2 Wimpole St., Marylebone, Midd, insolvent; (9) Henry Cox, innkeeper, Mitre Tavern, Fleet St., London; (10) Thomas Hill, sheriff's officer; (11) William Robertson; (12) Thomas Cooper; (13) Joseph Hedges; (14) Robert Lloyd; (15) Robert Nugent; (16) William Garrison; (17) Robert Thackray, Staple Inn, London, now imprisoned at KB, d1's son, d2's brother. C: (1) T. E. Tomlins. P seeks inj ag the suit of ds6-7 for payment of bills, & p also seeks payment of legal fees. P claims that in 1784 d17 hired p as attorney for ds4-5. P allowed d4 to draw 2 bills for £15 & £20 upon him for d5's use. D5 transferred the bills to ds6-7, then went insolvent. D5 issued p power of attorney to sell d5's estate. D5's estate was sold by d1 & the proceeds paid to d17. D8 agreed to buy d5's house, & part-paid p promissory notes, which p paid to ds9-10 at d5's request. D8's notes were not accepted because d8 was insolvent. Ds6-7 are suing p for the bills. Ds1-2 persuaded p to work for d11, who was in debt to ds12-14, with d3 as witness. D16 drew a draft for debts owed to p upon d17, which has not been paid.

1785, Trin E 112/1718 Bill. LMX 4145.

 

179. Brown v Wiltshire

P: (1) William Brown, cabinet maker, Turnstyle, Holborn, Midd. D: (1) Richard Wiltshire, victualler, Red Lion Passage, High Holborn, Midd, amended bill alters address to Blackfriars Rd., & occupation to lottery office keeper; (2) William Clark gent., St. James's Place, Midd; (3) Joseph Lee, sheriff's officer, parish of St. Clement Danes, Midd, added to supplementary bill. C: (1) William Waller, counsel for p; (2) Henry Boulton, counsel for p in supplementary bill; (3) J. Johnson, counsel for d1. P seeks inj ag the suits of ds1-2 in the Palace Court & at KB for a £60 debt. P claims he & ds1-2 were partners in a lottery business, from which ds1-2 owed him debts. Ds1-2 denied owing p, & instead sued him in 1784 for a £60 debt p allegedly owed them. As a supplement, p adds that when his bail bonds were not accepted, d3, sheriff's officer, also brought actions ag him.

1785, Hil E 112/1701 Bill. LMX 3708.
1785, Jan 31 E 112/1701 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer, filed 1 February.
1785, Trin E 112/1701 Replication. P asserts d1's answer is insufficient.
1785, Trin E 112/1701 Rejoinder. D1 maintains his answer is sufficient.
1785, May 9 E 112/1701 Amended bill. Alters d1's address & occupation.
1785, Nov 18 E 112/1701 Answer. Swearing & filing date of d1's answer.
1786, Easter E 112/1701 Supplementary bill. Includes d3.

 

180. Brownell v Lambert

P: (1) Robert Christian Brownell the elder esq., shipwright, St. James's St., Midd, P. Brownell's husband, father of ds2-3. D: (1) Lewis Lambert, d2's assignee; (2) Robert Christian Brownell the younger gent., Southwark, Surrey, son of p & P. Brownell, insolvent; (3) John Brownell gent., Hammersmith, Midd, son of p & P. Brownell. C: (1) W. Scafe, counsel for p; (2) William Waller, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Thomas Horn, shipwright, Stepney, Midd, deceased, P. Brownell's father; (2) Phillis Brownell, p's wife, T. Horn's daughter, mother of ds2-3; (3) Mary Fenwick, T. Horn's executrix, deceased; (4) Henry Fourt, T. Horn's executor, deceased; (5) John Seacombe, T. Horn's executor, deceased. P seeks inj ag ds' suit for payment of £1000. In 1753, T. Horn entrusted £1000 to be paid after his death to his daughter Phillis, p's wife. T. Horn died in 1757, leaving M. Fenwick, H. Sourt & J. Seacombe his executors, who paid p £1000 in annuities in 1764. Ds2-3 (the sons of p & Phillis) & d1 (assignee of the estate of d2, who is insolvent) assert p was paid the £1000 immediately after T. Horn's death, & that the annuities were later paid for the benefit of ds2-3. Ds are suing p for the money.

1784, Mich E 112/1720 Bill. LMX 4206.
1784, Nov 19 E 112/1720 Answer. Swearing date of d3's answer.
1784, Nov 20 E 112/1720 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer.
1784, Nov 27 E 112/1720 Amended bill. P claims he received the annuities in payment for the trust and no other payment for ds2-3.
1784, Dec 11 E 112/1720 Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer to amended bill, filed 13 December.
1784, Dec 11 E 112/1720 Answer. Swearing date of d3's answer to amended bill, filed 13 December.
1784, Dec 16 E 112/1720 Exception. P's exceptions to the answers of d1 & d3 concern p's alleged use of the annuities to support ds2-3.
1785, Feb 8 E 112/1720 Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer to amended bill.

 

181. Burdett v Lillyman

P: (1) Thomas Francis Burdett esq., Bartlett's Buildings, Holborn, London, formerly T. F. Pritchard, before marrying E. Burdett. D: (1) William Lillyman, Midd, d5's assignee; (2) Joseph Fenemore, Midd, d5's assignee; (3) George Hanxwell, Midd, d5's assignee; (4) William Freeman, merchant, Bath, Som; (5) John Ellis, butcher, Glanville St., Marylebone, Midd, bankrupt. C: (1) William Mellish, counsel for p; (2) R. Richards, counsel for ds1-3 & d5; (3) Thomas Evance, counsel for d4. Add: (1) Elizabeth Burdett, p's wife. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of a bond. P claims in 1781, he issued a bond for £195 16s 9d to d5 as security for debts owed by himself & his wife E. Burdett. D5 transferred the bond to his creditor d4. In 1782, d5 went bankrupt, with ds 1-3 as his assignees. Ds have got a judgement at KB ag p for the bond, claiming p has never paid the debt for which the bond was issued as security.

1785, Hil E 112/1710 Bill. LMX 3975.
1785, Feb 10 E 112/1710 Answer. Swearing date of d5's answer, filed 11 February; schedule below answer of accounts between p & d5.
1785, Feb 10 E 112/1710 Answer. Swearing date of the answer of ds 1-3, filed 11 February.
1785, June 15 E 112/1710 Commission. For d4's answer.
1785, Sept 9 E 112/1710 Answer. Swearing date of d4's answer, filed 9 November.