Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 242-271

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

Citation:

'Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 242-271', in London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5, ed. Henry Horwitz, Jessica Cooke( London, 2000), British History Online https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/pp106-116 [accessed 21 November 2024].

242. Hardy v Bulmer

P: (1) Elizabeth Hardy, North St., Westminster, Midd. D: (1) Blackett Bulmer; (2) James Milbourne, carver, gilder, the Strand, Midd. C: (1) Charles Shuter, counsel for p; (2) W. Ainge, counsel for ds. Add: (1) John Riley, auctioneer, Long Acre, Westminster, Midd. P, a widow, seeks inj ag any suit of ds for payment of a bond. D1 lent money to p and received as security her household goods and her bond. P asserts she repaid the loan but d1 refused to return her goods, alleging that some had been stolen from his warehouse. Neither will d1 cancel her bond, which d1 had transferred to d2 (who had paid John Riley with it). P wants a true inventory of all the goods, payment for missing ones, and cancellation of the bond.



1785, Trin	E 112/1708	Bill. LMX 3909.
1785, July 2	E 112/1708	Answer. Swearing date of ds' answer.

243. Harrington v Salomons

P: (1) George Harrington gent., Brentford, Midd. D: (1) Henry Salomons, Coventry St., Haymarket, Midd; (2) Abraham Hendriks, Coventry St., Haymarket, Midd; (3) John Martyn, tailor, Rupert St., Westminster, Midd; (4) John Andrews, carpenter, Air St., Piccadilly, London; (5) William Taylor, stone mason, Berwick St., Soho, Midd. P seeks inj ag d2's suit at KB for payment of a bill of exchange. P claims in 1784, d1 agreed to lend him £100, for which p allowed 2 £50 bills of exchange to be drawn upon him in favour of d2. P also executed a warrant of attorney to confess judgement in KB for £200, as collateral security, at d1's request. P claims d1 never lent him the £100, but d2 paid the bills to d3, who paid one to d4, who paid it to d5. D2 threatens to sue out execution of the judgement in KB ag p, allegedly asserting d1 paid p the £100 in goods.



1785, Hil	E 112/1734	Bill. LMX 4539; truncated; attached to answer from different suit.

244. Harris v Bruere

P: (1) Mary Simeon Stuart Harris, Kennett, Cambs. D: (1) Goulstone Bruere esq., legatee of Sophia Stuart; (2) Joseph Kaye gent., attorney at law, N. Audley St., Grosvenor Sq., Midd, hired to recover arrears. C: (1) Robert Ledlie, counsel for p; (2) Thomas Lowes, counsel for d1; (3) William Walter, counsel for d2. Add: (1) Sophia Stuart, Warfield, Berks, deceased; (2) Mary Stuart, Lakenham, Suff, deceased. P, a spinster, seeks enforcement of the will of Mary Stuart who made p her sole executrix and legatee. Among the assets p alleged was Mary Stuart's legacy from Sophia Stuart, consisting of arrears of an annuity payable to Sophia. Those arrears were the subject of litigation between d1 and d2, and p also seeks inj to halt that litigation as part of p's claim via Mary to a share of the arrears.



1785, Easter	E 112/1708	Bill. LMX 3912.
[1785, undated]	E 112/1708	Answer. D1's answer.
1785, Nov 18	E 112/1708	Answer. Filing date of d2's answer.

245. Hayward v Hayward

P: (1) William Hayward, merchant, Fenchurch St., London, d1's brother. D: (1) Nathaniel Hayward, merchant, Philpott Lane, London, p's brother, bankrupt; (2) Elizabeth Hayward, Philpott Lane, London, d1's wife; (3) Samuel Prince esq., d1's creditor; (4) James Sutton, d1's assignee; (5) John Francis Rivaz, d1's assignee; (6) Luder Hoffham, d1's assignee. C: (1) R. Richards, counsel for p; (2) Richard Hollist, counsel for d3; (3) John Mitford, counsel for ds4-6. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of p's bond. P took on d1's failing business, and agreed to sell d1 an annuity in return for £1000. P signed d1's bond allowing p to buy the business in exchange for the annuity. P claims he was unhappy with the bond but signed it anyway. D1 did not pay the £1000, so p did not pay the annuity. D1 went bankrupt, and his creditor d3 and assignees d4, d5 and d6 demand payment of arrears of the annuity.



1784, Mich	E 112/1705	Bill. LMX 3827.
1785, Dec 8	E 112/1705	Answer. Filing date of d3's answer.
1786, June 3	E 112/1705	Answer. Filing date of d6's answer.
1787, May 24	E 112/1705	Answer. Filing date of the answer of ds4-5.

246. Hazlehurst v Hole

P: (1) Elizabeth Hazlehurst, Priest Alley, Tower Dock, London, R. Fawcett's cousin & legatee. D: (1) Benjamin Hole esq., Powis Place, Gt. Ormond St., Midd, R. Fawcett's executor & trustee; (2) John Seymour, surgeon, Theobalds Rd., Midd, R. Fawcett's executor & trustee; (3) William Holden, clerk, Chatteris, Ely, Cambs, R. Fawcett's alleged heir at law. C: (1) Arthur Onslow, counsel for p. Add: (1) Robert Fawcett gent., Southampton Row, Bloomsbury, Midd, deceased. P, a widow, seeks payment of £100 left to her by her cousin R. Fawcett, who died in 1784 appointing ds1-2 as his executors, entrusted to sell his estate & pay his debts & legacies. D3 allegedly claims to be R. Fawcett's heir at law, & disputes the will. Ds also apparently deny the estate is sufficient to pay the debts.



1785, Trin	E 112/1706	Bill. LMX 3857.

247. Heighway v Dawson

P: (1) Richard Heighway, attorney at law, Rathbone Place, Midd. D: (1) Thomas Dawson; (2) Andrew Thompson, tailor, Litchfield St., Midd. C: (1) J. Pippard, counsel for p; (3) Thomas Nedham, counsel for ds. P seeks inj ag d1's suit at c1 for payment of promissory notes. P had formerly hired d2 to make clothes, & d2 had hired p as his attorney. P claims d2 became indebted to him, could not pay, but offered to get promissory notes discounted for p. P issued the notes to d2, who did not pay p the discounted money, but endorsed the notes to d1. D1 now sues p for the notes. D2 asserts p owed him far more than he owed p, & that the account is now even.



1784, Mich	E 112/1694	Bill. LMX 3530.
1784, Dec 8	E 112/1694	Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer, filed 11 December.
1784, Dec 11	E 112/1694	Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer, filed 13 December.
1785, Easter	E 112/1694	Replication. P asserts ds' answers are insufficient.
1785, Easter	E 112/1694	Rejoinder. Ds maintain their answers are sufficient.

248. Higgins v Myers

P: (1) Hugh Higgins esq., parish of St. Marylebone, Midd. D: (1) Napthali Hart Myers, merchant, John St., America Sq., London, A. Grant's administrator; (2) Thomas Vardon, merchant, Grace Church St., London, A. Grant's administrator; (3) Peter Robinson, coppersmith, High St., St. Mary White Chapel, Midd, A. Grant's administrator; (4) Robert Tuite esq., Portman Sq., St. Marylebone, Midd, now abroad. C: (1) Robert Comyn, counsel for p. Add: (1) Alexander Grant, merchant, Billitter Lane, London, deceased intestate. P seeks discovery of A. Grant's estate from ds. In 1780, p claims he lent d4 £5000 upon a £10000 bond, with A. Grant as security. D4 went abroad without paying. A. Grant died intestate, and his creditors ds1-3 became his administrators. Ds1-3 allegedly deny d4 borrowed the money, or claim it has been repaid, or that A. Grant's estate is insufficient to pay the debt.



1784, Mich	E 112/1704	Bill. LMX 3778.

249. Hooper v Raben

P: (1) John Hooper gent., solicitor, London. D: (1) John Raben, coal merchant, Holborn, London; (2) John Devey gent., Mile End, Midd; (3) Mathias Fleming; (4) Thomas Hamlen, Southwark, Surrey. C: (1) S. S. Cox, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag d1's suit at KB for payment of a promissory note. P claims in 1784, he (as d2's solicitor) recovered sums due to d2, for which p issued d4 (d2's agent) a £14 promissory note. P claims d2 persuaded him to issue him another £14 note, promising to cancel the first. D4 endorsed the 1st note away. D2 endorsed the 2nd note to d1, who, in cooperation with ds2-3, is now suing p at KB for payment. Ds allegedly claim p issued the 2nd note for a separate debt.



1785, Hil	E 112/1717	Bill. LMX 4120.

250. Horsley v Fuller

P: (1) John Horsley, brass founder, Haberdasher's Walk, Hoxton, Midd. D: (1) Richard Fuller the younger, banker, London, partner of other ds; (2) John Halford, banker, London, partner of other ds; (3) John Vaughan, banker, London, partner of other ds. C: (1) Robert Ledlie, counsel for p; (2) William Alexander, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Richard Oakes, timber merchant, Snowhill, London; (2) Richard Fuller the elder, banker, London, deceased, ds' partner. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of bills of exchange. R. Oakes drew bills on p, promising to pay them off by the due date. Oakes discounted them at the bank of ds & R. Fuller the E. P claims the ds assured him that they held Oakes's premises as security and p would not have to pay the bills. Nonetheless, p filed a bill ag any suit for payment of the bills. Oakes went bankrupt, R. Fuller the elder died, and the surviving ds sued p for payment of the bills.



1784, Mich	E 112/1705	Bill. LMX 3820.
1784, Nov 20	E 112/1705	Answer. Swearing date of ds' answer.
1784, Mich	E 112/1705	Exception. P's exceptions concern compensation ds received for Oakes's bad debts from the sale of his premises, and payment by Oakes's debtors.
1785, Jan 16	E 112/1705	Amended bill. More detailed account of Oakes's dealings with ds.
1785, March 26	E 112/1705	Further answer. Filing date.

251. Horton v Biggar

P: (1) John Shadwell Horton esq., Bedford St., Covent Garden, London. D: (1) Robert Biggar, wholesale draper, London, d2's partner; (2) John Hamilton, wholesale draper, London, d1's partner. C: (1) Thomas Finch, counsel for p; (2) William Alexander, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Richard Hatchett, linen draper, Tavistock St., Covent Garden, London. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of 2 bills of exchange. P claims that in 1784 R. Hatchett owed debts to ds, & drew 2 bills of exchange totalling £246 10s 6d upon p to pay ds, promising to pay them off before the due dates. Hatchett since went insolvent & died, & ds had p arrested at KB for payment of the bills. Ds assert that Hatchett drew the bills upon p as payment for debts p owed Hatchett.



1785, Trin	E 112/1718	Bill. LMX 4165a.
1785, Oct 26	E 112/1718	Answer. Ds' answer, sworn by d2 on this date, sworn by d1 & filed on 27 October.

252. Hughes v Baldwyn

P: (1) John Hughes, sail maker, Red Lyon St., Wapping, Midd; (2) Edward Simon gent., Mile End, Old Town, Midd. D: (1) Richard Baldwyn, linen draper, Smithfield, London; (2) John Knight, yeoman, 9 Boulton Row, Piccadilly, London; (3) Thomas Woolloton, linen draper, Oxford St., Midd. C: (1) Charles Shuter, counsel for ps; (2) Thomas Evance, counsel for d1; (3) Richard Hollist, counsel for d3. Add: (1) John Henry Aickles, 9 Boulton Row, Piccadilly, London. Ps seek inj ag ds' suits at KB for payment of 2 bills of exchange. In 1783, p1 issued two £250 bills to J. H. Aickles in return for a £500 loan, which Aickles never advanced him. Ds then sued ps for the bills at KB. D3 asserts he received the bills in payment for debts & goods, & paid one of them to d1 in return for goods. D1 denies any acquaintance with d2 or Aickles.



1784, Mich	E 112/1717	Bill. LMX 4119.
1784, Nov 25	E 112/1717	Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer; schedule below answer of goods for which d3 paid d1 one bill.
1785, Hil	E 112/1717	Exception. Ps' exceptions to d1's answer concern the relationship between d2, J. H. Aickles, d1 & d3.
1785, Sept 14	E 112/1717	Answer (with attachments). Swearing date of d3's answer, filed 16 September; schedules attached of d3's accounts with d1, etc.
1786, April 13	E 112/1717	Further answer. Swearing date of d1's further answer, filed 15 April.
1786, Easter	E 112/1717	Replication. Ps assert d3's answer is insufficient.
1786, Easter	E 112/1717	Rejoinder. D3 maintains his answer is sufficient.

253. Hunter v Sharrer

P: (1) Thomas Hunter, warehouseman, Blackfriars, London. D: (1) Thomas Sharrer, silk broker, London, p's brother-in-law; (2) James Collins Walker, silkman, Carey Lane, London. C: (1) Robert Steele, counsel for p; (2) E. King, counsel for ds. Add: (1) Whittaker Wright, Macclesfield, Ches, misnamed William in original bill. P seeks inj ag d2's suit claiming penalties for an allegedly usurious promissory note d2 issued p, but then refused to pay. P sued d2 and secured payment, claiming d2 had issued the note as payment for silk brokered on p's behalf by d1. Ds assert the note was not issued for silk, but as security against a loan for a lesser amount than that stated in the note.



1785, Trin	E 112/1701	Bill. LMX 3695.
1785, June 28	E 112/1701	Answer. Filing date of ds' answer.
1785, Mich	E 112/1701	Exception. P's exceptions concern whether the note was issued for silk.
1785, Nov 16	E 112/1701	Amended bill. Corrects Wright's name; maintains silk was bought by p, then sold to Wright and d2.
1786, Jan 20	E 112/1701	Further answer. Swearing date of ds' further answer, denying d2 issued the note for silk, or that d1 was concerned in any such transaction.
1786, Hil	E 112/1701	Exception. P's exceptions to ds' further answer concern ds' transactions regarding the silk.

254. Ingram v Wiltshire

P: (1) Joseph Ingram, clerk, Oxon. D: (1) Richard Wiltshire, gambling house owner, 52 Berwick St., Soho., Midd. C: (1) John Lloyd, counsel for p; (2) J. Johnson, counsel for d. P seeks inj ag d's suit in KB for non-payment of penal bond supposedly covering both gambling debt and further loan, plus interest. Imprisoned for running illegal E.O. (evens or odds) gambling tables, d claims bond covers only loan not gambling debt. P denies this, but also seeks repayment of all his gambling losses.



1785, Trin	E 112/1701	Bill. LMX 3698.
1785, June 6	E 112/1701	Answer. Filing date.

255. Irwin v Eaton

P: (1) Joseph Irwin gent., Greenwich New Rd., Surrey. D: (1) Daniel Eaton, paper maker, late of Bowers Mill, Surrey; (2) William Priddle, attorney; (3) John Snelling; (4) John Mills; (5) William Mappleback. C: (1) R. Pratt, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag ds' suit at KB for payment of a bond p issued to d1 in return for a loan. P claims he paid d1 bills of exchange which exceeded the debt, and expected to receive in return the bond and the balance. Instead d1 transferred the bond to d2, his attorney. D2 and the other ds sued p at KB, had him imprisoned and his goods seized for non-payment of the bond.



1785, Hil	E 112/1708	Bill. LMX 3905.

256. Jackson v Mackreth

P: (1) Elizabeth Jackson, St. Paul's Churchyard, London, W. Jackson's widow & executrix. D: (1) Robert Mackreth esq., Cork St., Westminster, Midd; (2) Josiah Lucas esq., Hampton, Midd, d3's husband; (3) Mary Lucas, Hampton, Midd, d2's wife, J. Bennett's executrix; (4) John Raincock. C: (1) E. King, counsel for p; (2) Samuel Romilly, counsel for ds2-3; (3) Henry Boulton, counsel for ds' answers to amended bill. Add: (1) William Jackson, St. Mildreds in the Poultry, London, deceased, p's husband; (2) John Dawes, merchant, London; (3) Thomas Dawes, merchant, London; (4) Arthur Evans, deceased; (5) John Bennett, deceased. P (widow & executrix of W. Jackson, deceased in 1782) seeks inj ag the suits at cl of ds 1-3 for payment of bonds. In 1768, p's husband issued with J. Dawes & T. Dawes a £10,000 bond to A. Evans (since deceased), a £5000 bond to d1, & with d1 & d4 a £4000 bond to J. Bennett. P claims her husband's estate was insufficient to pay his debts. D1 asserts the estate is sufficient to pay the bonds or part thereof.



1784, Mich	E 112/1693	Bill. LMX 3508.
1784, Nov 22	E 112/1693	Answer. Swearing & filing date of answer of ds2-3.
1784, Nov 23	E 112/1693	Answer. Swearing & filing date of d1's answer; schedules included below answer of d1 & W. Jackson's accounts.
1784, Mich	E 112/1693	Exception. P's exceptions to d1's answer concern the bonds possessed by d1.
1785, Hil	E 112/1693	Exception. P's exceptions to the answer of ds2-3 concern the bonds possessed by d1.
1785, Trin	E 112/1693	Replication. P asserts the answer of ds2-3 is insufficient.
1785, Trin	E 112/1693	Rejoinder. Ds2-3 maintain their answer is sufficient.
1785, Dec 13	E 112/1693	Amended bill. P's amended bill in particular seeks discovery of how d1 acquired all the bonds issued by W. Jackson.
1786, Jan 31	E 112/1693	Answer. Swearing & filing date of answer of ds2-3 to amended bill.
1786, Jan 31	E 112/1693	Answer. Swearing & filing date of d1's answer to amended bill.

257. Jackson v Whittenbury

P: (1) Joseph Jackson, letter founder, Salisbury Court, London, p2's husband; (2) Mary Jackson, Salisbury Court, London, p1's wife, J. W. Pasham's widow & executrix. D: (1) John Whittenbury, warehouseman, Watling St., London; (2) Samuel Swann, warehouseman, Watling St., London; (3) William Brocklehurst, warehouseman, Watling St., London; (4) John Collier, linen draper, Newgate St., London. C: (1) Charles Shuter, counsel for ps & d4; (2) J. Stanley, counsel for ds1-3. Add: (1) John Wheeler Pasham, printer, Shoemaker Row, Blackfriars, London, deceased, p2's former husband. Ps seeks inj ag the suit of ds1-3 at KB for payment of a promissory note. Ps claim in 1783, p2's late husband J. W. Pasham lent a £100 promissory note to d4, who agreed to pay it off by the due date, & issued it to ds1-3 for debts. Pasham died, leaving p2 his widow & executrix, who married p1. D4 could not pay off the note, & issued ds1-3 other notes instead. Ds1-3 refused to accept a composition in lieu of d4's debts, & are suing ps at KB for the note. D4 claims ds1-3 have been repaid & should cancel the note, but ds1-3 assert d4 still owes them for goods.



1785, Hil	E 112/1710	Bill. LMX 3981.
1785, Nov 15	E 112/1710	Commission. For the answer of ds1-3.
1785, Dec 9	E 112/1710	Answer. Answer of ds1-3, sworn by d1 & d3 on this date in Manchester; sworn by d2 on 16 December, filed 17 December.
1786, Jan 27	E 112/1710	Answer. Swearing date of d4's answer.
1786, June 23	E 112/1710	Amended bill. Ps add that ds1-3 have obtained a verdict at KB ag them.
1787, Feb 12	E 112/1710	Commission. For the answer of ds1-3 to ps' amended bill.
1787, April 21	E 112/1710	Answer. Answer of ds1-3, sworn by d1 & d3 on this date in Manchester, sworn by d2 on 12 May, filed 14 May; schedule below answer of goods ds1-3 issued d4.

258. James v Fearon

P: (1) William Ford James esq., barrister, Inner Temple, London. D: (1) Anthony Fearon, tailor, d in original bill, bankrupt; (2) John Robinson, woollen draper, Bedfordbury, London, d1's assignee; (3) James Rosier, button maker, parish of St. Clements Danes, London, d1's assignee. C: (1) Sylvester Douglas, counsel for p; (2) Josiah Brown, counsel for ds. P seeks to add ds2-3 to his bill filed in this Court ag A. Fearon seeking an inj ag Fearon's suits at KB for payment of alleged debts. P claims he had employed Fearon as a tailor from 1777–9, but Fearon did not issue him a true account of debts owed by p. In 1785, Fearon went bankrupt, and ds2-3 became his assignees, who threaten to revive Fearon's suits ag p.



1784, Mich	E 112/1786	Supplementary bill. LMX 6189.
1785, Feb 25	E 112/1786	Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer to original bill.
1785, June 1	E 112/1786	Answer. Swearing & filing date of the answer of ds2-3 to supplementary bill.

259. Jennings v Poole

P: (1) Thomas Jennings, merchant, London. D: (1) John Poole, stockbroker, London. C: (1) E. King, counsel for p; (2) J. Bicknell, counsel for d. P seeks inj ag d's suit for payment of £100 in promissory notes. In 1780 p issued d £4000 in bank annuities. The stock rose on the day of the contract, so p also issued d 2 promissory notes for £75 & £25. P claims d then persuaded him to wager that if the stock's value rose, p would pay d the difference. The stock rose, so p allegedly issued d £100 in promissory notes. P claims the notes, issued for a gambling debt, are void, but d is suing p for payment. D asserts he only seeks payment of the £75 & £25 notes issued as payment for the stock.



1784, Mich	E 112/1698	Bill. LMX 3638; cf. E 112/1706 LMX 3859 Jennings v Poole.
1785, April 28	E 112/1698	Answer. Swearing date, filed 29 April.
[1785, Easter, undated]	E 112/1698	Exception. P's exceptions to d's answer concern the notes allegedly issued after the wager.

260. Jennings v Poole

P: (1) Thomas Jennings, merchant, London. D: (1) John Poole, stockbroker, London. C: (1) E. King, counsel for p; (2) J. Bicknell, counsel for d. P seeks inj ag d's suit for payment of £100 in promissory notes. P claims in 1780 he bought £4000 in bank annuities from d, who persuaded him to wager ag the stock's value rising. The stock rose, so p allegedly issued d £100 in promissory notes. P claims the notes, issued for a gambling debt, are void. D now denies the notes were issued either as a gambling debt or for annuities, but claims p issued them in return for loans from d.



1784, Mich	E 112/1706	Amended bill. LMX 3859; amended 1 June 1785; cf. E 112/1698 LMX 3638 Jennings v Poole.
1786, July 10	E 112/1706	Further answer. Swearing date of d's further answer, filed 13 July.

261. Johnson v Whicker

P: (1) Elizabeth Johnson, Thames St., London. D: (1) John Whicker, cordwainer, Southwark, Surrey, d2's husband; (2) Mary Ann Whicker, Southwark, Surrey, d1's wife, under 21 years; (3) Thomas Mayow gent., Hackney, Midd, A. Mayow's husband, executor & trustee. C: (1) J. Hawkins, counsel for p; (2) J. Pippard, counsel for d1. Add: (1) Ann Mayow, deceased, d3's wife. P, a spinster, seeks payment of £200 in government securities. P claims that in 1768 d3's wife, A. Mayow, died leaving d3 as her executor & trustee to invest £200 in securities for the benefit of d2, for when she reached 21 years. In 1785, when d2 was 18 or 19 years old, her husband d1 sold the securities to p for £96. P claims that d3 refuses to transfer the securities, asserting they are entrusted for d2 until she is 21 years.



1785, Easter	E 112/1718	Bill. LMX 4141.
1785, May 4	E 112/1718	Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer, filed 9 May.

262. Johnston v Green

P: (1) William Johnston esq., stationer to the Board of Ordnance, Hampton Court, Midd. D: (1) Richard Green, clergyman, Strand, Westminster, Midd. C: (1) J. Bicknell, counsel for p; (2) J. Simeon, counsel for d. Add: (1) John Bullock, stationer to the Board of Ordnance; (2) Mary Green, pencutter, Strand, Westminster, Midd, d's wife. P, stationer to the Board of Ordinance, seeks inj ag d's suit at cl for payment of £66. In 1784, p claims he & J. Bullock bought pens & quills from d totalling £52 14s, at 12 months credit. P issued d a £25 promissory note in part payment, of which he paid d £15 15s. Before the 12 months were up, d got a verdict at cl ag p for £66. P claims he only owes d £37 19s, the remainder of the £52 14s debt. D asserts his wife Mary runs the pencutting business, & that she sold J. Bullock more pens than are listed in p's schedule.



1785, Hil	E 112/1702	Bill. LMX 3727; 2 schedules below bill of pens & quills P allegedly bought from d.
1785, Feb 18	E 112/1702	Answer. Swearing & filing date; 2 schedules below answer of pens p allegedly bought.
1785, April 13	E 112/1702	Amended bill. P refers to his colleague J. Bullock & d's wife M. Green; 2 schedules below amended bill of pens p & J. Bullock allegedly bought.
1785, April 21	E 112/1702	Answer. Swearing & filing date of d's answer to amended bill.

263. Jonas v Jonas

P: (1) Lazarus Jonas, merchant, parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, Midd, formerly Lazarus Solomon. D: (1) Dorothy Jonas, merchant, Catherine Square, Midd, (The Widow Jonas, Son and Co. are defendants); (2) Nathaniel Barber, tobacconist, East Smithfield, nr Tower Hill, Midd, assignee of bankrupt d1's estates. C: (1) J. Morgan, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag ds' suit for payment of allegedly unpaid accounts, and also seeks proof of actual accounts. P claims d1, now bankrupt, actually owes him money, and together with d2, assignee of d1's estates, collude to extort money from him.



1785, Trin	E 112/1701	Bill. LMX 3714.

264. Jones v Cartwright

P: (1) Rice Jones gent., officer of Revenue of Excise, East St., St. George the Martyr, Midd. D: (1) George William Cartwright, officer of Revenue of Excise. C: (1) R. Richards, counsel for p. P, an Excise officer, seeks inj to prevent d, another Excise officer, from receiving further monies from the General Excise Office as commn for seizing smuggled goods which were subsequently condemned and sold off. P alleges that d reneged on their partnership to divide the proceeds of the goods equally.



1785, Hil	E 112/1701	Bill. LMX 3720.

265. Kane v Cullen

P: (1) Michael Kane gent., Great Russell St., Bloomsbury, Midd. D: (1) Thomas Cullen gent., Ostend. C: (1) J. Johnson, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag d's suit for payment of a bond. P claims in 1784 he allowed d to draw several bills of exchange upon him, to be paid off by the due date. D was unable to pay the bills, & asked p for a £600 bond & a warrant of attorney to confess a judgement for £166, with which to raise money to pay off the bills. P issued d the same, but d is now suing p at KB for the bond, allegedly claiming p issued it in return for a valuable consideration.



1785, Hil	E 112/1704	Bill. LMX 3783.

266. Kelly v Meyrick

P: (1) John Kelly esq., Theobalds, Herts. D: (1) John Meyrick esq., Parliament St., Midd, agent to the 33rd Regiment of Foot; (2) James Meyrick esq., Parliament St., Midd, agent to the 33rd Regiment of Foot. C: (1) William Waller, counsel for p; (2) Arthur Onslow, counsel for ds. P seeks discovery of actual price ds received for p's army commissions. P claims that in 1779 he bought an ensign's commission in the 33rd Regiment of Foot for £400, and later a lieutenant's commission for £200. In 1783, p directed ds, agents for the regiment, to sell his commissions. Ds assert they sold the commissions for £400 in total, but p claims they received a far higher price.



1785, Trin	E 112/1718	Bill. LMX 4143.
1786, Feb 1	E 112/1718	Answer. Swearing & filing date of ds' answer.

267. Kent v Isaac

P: (1) Rowley Kent, surgeon, Bethnall Green, Midd, bankrupt. D: (1) Gershon Isaac, Bury St., St. Mary Axe, London, bankrupt, signs his name in Hebrew characters; (2) John Faux, silversmith, Worship St., London, d1's assignee; (3) Alexander Phillips, Bury St., St Mary Axe, London, d1's assignee; (4) Hananel Mendes da Costa, included as d in amended bill; (5) Jacob Mendes da Costa, included as d in amended bill. C: (1) John Bicknell, counsel for p; (2) Charles Abbot, counsel for ds. P seeks inj ag suit in KB of ds2-3, d1's assignees, for payment of p's bond to d1 (bankrupt). P had issued the bond to d1, who stood as security for another bond of p's. P (now also bankrupt) claims he repaid d1 with bills of exchange, and that the bond should have been cancelled. Ds claim that p paid d1 for other debts, not the bond.



1785, Easter	E 112/1701	Bill. LMX 3715.
1785, April 21	E 112/1701	Answer. Filing date of the answer of ds1-3.
1785, April 30	E 112/1701	Amended bill. P claims his payments to d1 covered not only his bond to d1, but also their further joint bond to ds4-5, and p's purchase of jewellery from d1.
1785, May 27	E 112/1701	Further answer. Ds 1-3 deny d1 was bound to offset p's bills of exchange ag the bond, the joint bond to ds4-5 or p's purchase of jewellery, claiming the bills were worth less than p alleges.
1785, May 30	E 112/1701	Answer. Swearing date of the answer of ds4-5 to amended bill.

268. Kenworthy v Allen

P: (1) John Kenworthy, linen draper, Ironmonger Lane, London, p2's partner; (2) Edward Kenworthy, linen draper, Ironmonger Lane, London, p1's partner. D: (1) Thomas Allen, d6's assignee; (2) Robert Macky, d6's assignee; (3) Thomas Greg, d6's assignee; (4) Stratford Canning, d6's assignee; (5) Henry Smith, d6's assignee; (6) John Marlar, bankrupt. C: (1) Richard Hollist, counsel for ps. Add: (1) James Pell, deceased; (2) Richard Down. Ps seeks inj ag the suit of ds 1-5 for payment of a promissory note. In 1781, ps sought an inj in this Court ag any suit of d6 (bankrupt), his assignees ds1-5, & J. Pell (since deceased) & R. Down for payment of a £8000 promissory note, which ps claim they only lent d6. Ps add by way of supplement that d6's bankruptcy was collusive with ds1-5.



1784, Mich	E 112/1709	Supplementary bill. LMX 3958.

269. Keys v Horne

P: (1) Michael Keys, St. Martin in the Fields, Midd, p2's husband; (2) Eleanor Keys, St Martin in the Fields, Midd, p1's wife and B. Horne's executrix. D: (1) Thomas Horne, initially designated B. Horne's brother, then uncle; (2) Henry Sterry, Hatton Gardens, London. C: (1) J. Johnson, counsel for ps. Add: (1) Benjamin Horne, St. Georges Fields, Southwark, Surrey, deceased. P1 & his wife p2, executrix of B. Horne (deceased), seek payment of a half share of bank annuities standing in the names of B. Horne & ds, his alleged trustees, left to p2. Ds allegedly deny they are B. Horne's trustees of the annuities, & claim ignorance of the will.



1784, Mich	E 112/1700	Bill. LMX 3669.

270. Kynaston v Millar

P: (1) Thomas Kynaston esq., Grosvenor Place, Hanover Sq., Midd, impropriate rector of St. Botolph without Aldgate. D: (1) William Millar, the Minories, London. C: (1) John Reade, counsel for p. P, impropriate rector of St. Botolph without Aldgate since 1760, seeks payment for arrears of tithes from d, who has occupied a house in the Minories for ten years. D allegedly denies his house lies within the rectory.



1785, Easter	E 112/1696	Bill. LMX 3555.

271. Kynaston v Sermitte

P: (1) Thomas Kynaston esq., Grosvenor Place, Hanover Sq., Midd, impropriate rector of St. Botolph without Aldgate. D: (1) Thomas Sermitte, Houndsditch, High St. Aldgate, London. C: (1) John Reade, counsel for p. P, impropriate rector of St. Botolph without Aldgate since 1760, seeks payment for arrears of tithes from d, who has occupied a house in Houndsditch for two years. D allegedly denies his house lies within the rectory.



1785, Easter	E 112/1696	Bill. LMX 3556.