Difference between revisions of "HCA 13/71 f.188r Annotate"

Revision as of 13:45, May 1, 2014

Image

P1130533

Transcription

To the 8th hee saith, That in case the said shipp had not bin sayed XXXXXXXX ˹engaged˺ by
contract as aforesaid and buissin˺ soe in expectation of her lading by then ˹the said Jagoe˺ XXX said
Bowtill, shee might very well have had another freight or imployed as
advantagious and beneficiall or more than the voiage for which they had contracted
with him ˹the said Marriott˺ which hee this deponent knoweth, for that at Limrick in Ireland this
deponent then being, a frieght was offered ˹her˺ from thence to Kingsale in Ireland
and so to Minihead or Bristoll in Englandand thereto Waterford And
further cannot depose./:

To the 9th hee saith, That the said Nathaniel Marriott by reason of the stayeing of the only said ˹(shipp˺
and not peformance of Covents as aforesaid by the said Jagoe and Bowtill hath
in this deponents judgement and according to his Conscience upon his oath suffered
dammage to the valew of three hundred pounds and upwards, shee having beeing in
a Capacity to have gained as much in the time of her said detention, and by and since
of which shee hath bin hindred by the meanes aforesaid, having since performed onely
one Voiage from dartmouth to Newhaven, in ffrance wherein shee onely screned
30 li sterling or thereabouts, being forced to take that freight purposely to be freed
from the debt and engagements shee had contracted at dartmouth by meanes aforesaid
and she said Nathaniel Marriot being absent in Ireland, and thereby not in a
readnesse to supply her wants. The premisses hee depose upon grounds of knowledge
as aforesaid being well acquainted with the occurrences of and concerning the said
shipp both before aged since the Contract predeposed./

To the 10th hee saith, That the said Jagoe hath been required both by the depo:nent
and the said Roger Ball and the said Bowtill by this depo:nent to make way in
and give satisfaction for an in the promises according to the said, ˹Contract˺ which they
have refused and delayed and still refuse and delay to doe, And further
referreth himselfse to the Articles and proceedings of this Court./

To the 11th hee saith the said Thomas Jagoes was and is a Merchant inhabitant at
Dartmouth aforesaid, and the said William Bowtill, ˹here at London˺ they being Englishmen
and subjects of this Commonwealth./

To the last hee saith his foregoeing deposition is true./

Repeated before Doctor Godolphin:/

Thomas Marryott [SIGNATURE, RH SIDE]

********************************

The third of May 1656 [CENTRE HEADING]

Complaine against Brandling}

Examined upon the foresaid allegation given in
on the behalfe of the said Brandling and
Company

Rp. 2us

Samuel Warner of Ipswich shipwright aged 37
yeears or thereabouts sworne and examined.

To the first and third article of the said allegation hee saith and deposeth
that immediately before the lading of the hemp with the shipp the
Primrose arlate brought to London the voyage wherein (in her returne
from London) shee not with the stormes in question, namely about a
moneth before such hee returne from London, hee this deponent being
a shipwright was by his precontest William Marsh the master of the
said shipp imployed to worke, and with one tonnes paye did wike
upon her at Ipswich to calke and fitt her for that voyage, wherein
hee saith they used all care and dilegence they being called upon and
administered to doe the worke well and make her very tight and staunch
because shee was to carry hemp for London, which and saith that this deponent
and

Suggested links

HCA 13/71 Page Log & Planner
HCA 3/47 Page Log & Planner