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.
'Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 272-301', 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/pp117-127 [accessed 24 November 2024].
'Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 272-301', in London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5. Edited by Henry Horwitz, Jessica Cooke( London, 2000), British History Online, accessed November 24, 2024, https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/pp117-127.
"Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 272-301". London and Middlesex Exchequer Equity Pleadings, 1685-6 and 1784-5. Ed. Henry Horwitz, Jessica Cooke(London, 2000), , British History Online. Web. 24 November 2024. https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol35/pp117-127.
In this section
Pleadings, 1784-1785: nos 272-301
272. Lee v Butler
P: (1) Robert Lee, mariner, parish of St. Paul, Shadwell, Midd. D: (1) John Butler, seaman, parish of St. Paul, Shadwell, Midd. C: (1) Charles Shuter, counsel for p. Add: (1) Robert Lumley, mariner, Scarborough, Yorks. P seeks inj ag d's suit for non-payment of wages. P hired d as seaman on voyage to W. Indies but paid the promised wages to Robert Lumley, a mariner apparently entitled to the money as d was his indentured apprentice.
273. Levy v Lloyd
P: (1) Israel Levy, silversmith, Deptford, Kent. D: (1) Edward Lloyd, innkeeper, Deptford, Kent. C: (1) J. Bicknell, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag d's suit in the Court of Common Pleas seeking a refund for goods p sold d. P claims in 1780, d was appointed boatswain of the East India Company's ship, the Neptune, & bought goods from p in return for a £128 respondentia bond. P claims d sold the goods in the East Indies at a profit, but after his return in 1783, d sued p, alleging the goods were not worth £128.
274. Lincoln v Oriel
P: (1) Charles Lincoln, optician, Leadenhall St., London. D: (1) Philip Oriel, stationer, Aldersgate, London, J. Fryday's executor; (2) Mary Fryday, under 21 years, J. Fryday's natural daughter; (3) Elizabeth Fryday, under 21 years, J. Fryday's natural daughter. N/f: (1) Samuel Kinsey gent., guardian & next friend of ds2-3. C: (1) Josiah Brown, counsel for p; (2) E. King, counsel for d1; (3) Thomas Evance, counsel for ds2-3; (4) J. Johnson, counsel for d1's answer to amended bill. Add: (1) Mary Fryday, Chelsea Rd., Hanover Square, Midd, deceased, J. Fryday's widow & executor; (2) John Fryday, deceased, M. Fryday the E's husband, father of ds2-3. P seeks payment of a mortgage or foreclosure on ds' 2 houses. P claims in 1777, M. Fryday (J. Fryday's widow) & d1, J. Fryday's executors, mortgaged 2 houses in Chelsea Rd. to p for £200, which they never repaid to p. M. Fryday died in 1783. Ds2-3, J. Fryday's natural daughters, claim J. Fryday left the premises to M. Fryday only for her lifetime, to descend to ds2-3 after her death.
275. Longman v Rennett
P: (1) James Longman, music seller, shopkeeper, Cheapside, London, p2's partner; (2) Francis Broderip, music seller, shopkeeper, Cheapside, London, p1's partner. D: (1) Charles Rennett, attorney at law, Inner Temple, London; (2) Charles Dibdin gent., composer, St. George in the Fields, Surrey. C: (1) W. Scafe, counsel for ps. Ps seek inj to prevent d1 printing or selling d2's music. Ps claim that in 1769 p1 bought the copyright for d2's musical works, The Padlock, The Recruiting Serjeant & The Jubilee for a term of 14 years with a reversionary term of a further 14 years. Ds allegedly deny p1 bought a reversionary term, & assert that the second term of 14 years has been bought by d1, who prints & sells the music, & has sought an inj in this Court to prevent ps from doing the same.
276. Lowe v Frord
P: (1) James Lowe, J. Ward's executor. D: (1) John Frord, administrator of his wife Elizabeth; (2) Robert Paterson, J. Phillips's executor. C: (1) J. A. Stainsby, counsel for p. Add: (1) Joseph Ward, parish of St. Marylebone, Midd, deceased; (2) Robert Peele, deceased, J. Ward's assignee; (3) Robert Mort, deceased, J. Ward's assignee; (4) Alexander Purvis, deceased, E. Frord's former husband; (5) John Phillips, deceased; (6) Joshua Hurst; (7) Elizabeth Frord, deceased, d1's wife, A. Purvis's widow & executrix. P, J. Ward's executor, seeks revival & execution of a decree which J. Ward (insolvent) obtained in 1771 in this Court compelling his assignees R. Peele & R. Mort, & A. Purvis, J. Phillips & J. Hurst to return the residue of J. Ward's estate to him after paying his debts. In 1779, J. Ward died, leaving p his executor. Ward's assignees have died, so p is reviving the decree ag ds, their legal heirs.
277. Lowes v Hill
P: (1) Thomas Lowes esq., barrister, Middle Temple, London. D: (1) John Hill, upholsterer, Gough Square, London; (2) Edward Shove, draper, Fleet St., London; (3) William Justice, merchant, Bradford, Lancs. C: (1) J. Johnson, counsel for p; (2) R. Richards, counsel for d2. P seeks inj ag d2's suit for payment of bills of exchange and a promissory note which p issued ds2-3 to release d1 from imprisonment for debt, on the understanding that d1 would pay them off before the due date. D1 has not paid them off.
| 1785, Easter | E 112/1700 | Bill. LMX 3662. |
| 1785, April 25 | E 112/1700 | Answer. Filing date of d2' answer. |
278. Marsh v Brown
P: (1) William Marsh, King St., Bloomsbury, Midd. D: (1) Joshua Brown, carpenter, Winslow St., St. Mary le Bone, Midd. C: (1) R. Richards, counsel for p. P seeks discovery of all documents concerning two loans p made to d, upon the security of d's two houses. P alleges principal and interest on the mortgage have not been paid, and seeks foreclosure.
279. McLean v Kinnaird
P: (1) John McLean, Kingston, Jamaica; (2) John Moore, Kingston, Jamaica. D: (1) George, Lord Kinnaird, d2's husband; (2) Elizabeth, Lady Kinnaird, d1's wife. C: (1) Richard Hollist, counsel for ps. Add: (1) Allan McLean, deceased, former plaintiff; (2) Griffin Ransom esq., deceased, former defendant; (3) William Gray; (4) John Macdonald; (5) Thomas Smith; (6) Attorney General. Ps seek revival of a suit filed in this Court in 1782 by p1 & A. McLean seeking an inj ag the suit at law of G. Ransom, W. Gray, John Macdonald, T. Smith & the AG for payment of a bill of exchange. The suit abated when G. Ransom died, leaving d2, his daughter & administratrix. A. McLean also died, & ps seek revival.
280. Miller v Clarke
P: (1) John Miller, merchant, New York, N. America. D: (1) Richard Clarke, merchant, New Broad St., London; (2) Elias Smerdon, merchant, Copthall Buildings, London; (3) Thomas Lempriere, merchant, Winchester St., London, bankrupt; (4) Owen Neill, ship's captain; (5) Benjamin Kidney, merchant, Laurence Poultney Lane, London, d3's assignee; (6) Henry Smerdon, Rotterdam, Holland; (7) John Ellis, Rotterdam, Holland; (8) John Fiot, merchant, College Hill, London, d3's assignee. C: (1) William Alexander, counsel for p; (2) John Mitford, counsel for d1; (3) J. Bicknell, counsel for d2. P seeks inj to prevent d1 paying d2 for a ship, the London. P claims in 1783 in New York, at d3's request, he bought the ship (registered in his name) & cargo, with d4 as ship's captain & p's trustee. D4 sailed the ship to Newfoundland, Italy & London, paid the cargo profits to d2, & allowed d3 to sell the ship to ds6-7, who sold it to d2, who has chartered it to d1. D3 allegedly went bankrupt in 1784, with d5 & d8 as his assignees, who claim the ship. P claims d3 never reimbursed him, so he is intitled to the ship & cargo.
281. Miller v Tate
P: (1) John Miller, merchant, London. D: (1) John Tate, merchant, Bucklersbury, London, d6's trustee; (2) John Barton, merchant, Milk St., London, d6's trustee; (3) Arthur Edie, merchant, Tokenhouse Yard, London, d6's trustee; (4) William Grove, merchant, Broad St., London, d6's trustee; (5) James Senols, upholsterer, Fenchurch St., London, d6's trustee; (6) Elias Smerdon, merchant, Copthall Buildings, London. C: (1) William Alexander, counsel for p. Add: (1) Richard Clarke, merchant, New Broad St., London; (2) Thomas Lempriere, merchant, Winchester St., London, bankrupt; (3) Owen Neill, ship's captain; (4) Benjamin Kidney, merchant, Laurence Poultney Lane, London, T. Lempriere's assignee; (5) Henry Smerdon, Rotterdam, Holland; (6) John Ellis, Rotterdam, Holland; (7) John Fiot, merchant, College Hill, London, T. Lempriere's assignee. P, by way of supplement, seeks for ds1-5 to be added as defendants to his bill filed in this Court in 1784 ag d6, T. Lempriere, O. Neill, R. Clarke, B. Kidney, J. Fiot, H. Smerdon & J. Ellis, seeking possession from d6 of a ship, the London. P now adds that d6, being pressed by creditors, has transferred his estate to ds1-5 to pay his debts.
282. Mills v Sharp
P: (1) Thomas Mills, publican of the Marshall and Anchor, the Minories, London. D: (1) Thomas Sharp, carpenter, the Minories, London. C: (1) Thomas Nedham, counsel for p; (2) John Mitford, counsel for d. Add: (1) Bartholomew Edwards, Haydon Sq., Little Minories, London, previously arbitrator between p and d. P seeks inj ag d's suit, and discovery of d's accounts. D sues for payment for carpentry work he performed at p's public house. P claims d borrowed money and bought goods on account from p, amounting to a sum greater than the carpentry bill. D asserts he repaid the borrowed money, and will deduct the price of goods from the carpentry bill. Previous attempts to settle by the arbitration of B. Edwards failed.
283. Mullens v Sutton
P: (1) Nathan Mullens, jeweller, Bristol; (2) Francis Broderip, music seller, Cheapside, London; (3) Joseph Walton, oilman, Little Britain, London. D: (1) James Sutton, goldsmith, late of Cheapside, London, d2's partner; (2) James Bult, goldsmith, Cheapside, London, d1's partner; (3) Solomon Henry. C: (1) William Walter, counsel for p; (2) Thomas Nedham, counsel for d3. Ps seek inj ag d3's suit for recovery of leasehold premises assigned by d1 to d3 before ds1-2 went bankrupt. Ps, assignees of the estates of ds1-2, suspect an agreement between d1 & d3 to return the premises to d1 when he is solvent again.
284. Nelthropp v Brantingham
P: (1) Henry Nelthropp, attorney of KB, Birmingham, Warw; (2) William Hough esq., Bloomsbury, Midd; (3) Joseph Harris, merchant, London. D: (1) Thomas Brantingham, white lead manufacturer, Devonshire St., London, a Quaker; (2) Henry Noah, Crosby Sq., Bishopgate St., London; (3) Ephraim Hart; (4) Charles Geary Eames. C: (1) J. Johnson, counsel for ps; (2) Thomas Nedham, counsel for d1. Ps seek inj ag d1's suit at KB for payment of bills of exchange. Ps claim in 1781 ds agreed to lend them £500 upon bills of exchange, if they advanced d1 £100. Ps apparently issued the £100 & bills, but ds never paid them. D2 allegedly claimed the bills were picked from his pocket & issued ps indemnification. D1 denies any involvement other than that he sold white lead to d2, who paid him with ps' bills of exchange, for which d1 is now suing ps.
| 1785, Hil | E 112/1692 | Bill. LMX 3499. |
| 1785, Feb 11 | E 112/1692 | Answer. Swearing date of d1's answer; 2 schedules below answer of white lead d1 sold d2, & ps' bills of exchange which d2 paid d1. |
285. Neville v Galbraith
P: (1) Thomas Neville esq., New Norfolk St., Midd, previously resident in Jamaica. D: (1) Archibald Galbraith, merchant, Jamaica. C: (1) J. Stanley, counsel for p; (2) J. Bicknell, counsel for d. Add: (1) George Campbell, merchant, Jamaica, deceased, d's partner. P seeks inj ag d's suit at KB for payment for cargo. In 1783, d got a judgement ag p for £263 15s in the Supreme Court of Judicature for Jamaica. D claims in 1780 a privateer, the Ballatoe, owned by d & his partner G. Campbell (since deceased), together with p's ship, the Lady Parker, captured an enemy ship, the Anna Catherina, laden with sugar. D asserts p received all the profits from the sale of sugar, & sued p for a share. D is now suing p at KB on the judgement. P claims he paid d & Campbell their share already.
286. Partridge v Emes
P: (1) Charles Partridge, cider merchant, Thames St., London. D: (1) Edward Emes the younger, broker & auctioneer. C: (1) Thomas Lowes, counsel for p; (2) John Crode, counsel for d. Add: (1) John Hanna esq., Westminster, Midd. P seeks compensation from d for his furniture & goods. In 1783, p mortgaged his premises in Thames St. & Kennington, Surrey, to J. Hanna for a £20 annuity. In 1784 p was imprisoned in KB, & requested d to pay off the mortgage. P claims d duped him into issuing as security an absolute bill of sale of his premises, upon which d has now possessed p's furniture & goods, worth more than the mortgage. P claims d has also refused to accept payment of the mortgage. D asserts the sale of the furniture only covers p's debts to him.
| 1784, Mich | E 112/1716 | Bill. LMX 4091. |
| 1785, Jan 12 | E 112/1716 | Answer. Swearing date; schedule below answer of d's accounts with p. |
287. Passman v Haffey
P: (1) John Passman, slopseller, Leadenhall St., London, p2's husband; (2) Mary Passman, Leadenhall St., London, p1's wife, T. Rogers's daughter & administratrix. D: (1) John Haffey gent., slopseller; (2) Christopher Corrall. C: (1) Richard Hollist, counsel for ps. Add: (1) Thomas Rogers gent., deceased intestate, p2's father. Ps seeks revival of the suit filed in this Court in 1782 by p1 & T. Rogers (p2's father), seeking inj from any suit of ds for payment of a £1000 bond, which p1 & T. Rogers paid for d1's trade as slopseller. Ps claim the trade was misrepresented to them & seek cancellation of the bond. The suit abated when T. Rogers died intestate in 1784, leaving p2 his administratrix.
288. Passman v Woodmason
P: (1) John Passman, slopseller, Leadenhall St., London, p2's husband; (2) Mary Passman, Leadenhall St., London, p1's wife, T. Rogers's daughter & administratrix. D: (1) James Woodmason, stationer, Leadenhall St., London, J. Haffey's assignee; (2) Robert Wigram, merchant, Crossby Square, London, J. Haffey's assignee; (3) Christopher Corrall. C: (1) Richard Hollist, counsel for ps; (2) T. Pippard, counsel for ds1-2; (3) W. Scafe, counsel for d3. Add: (1) Thomas Rogers gent., deceased intestate, p2's father; (2) John Haffey gent., slopseller, bankrupt. Ps seek inj ag any suit of ds1-2 for payment of a £1000 bond. In 1782, p1 & T. Rogers (p2's father) got an inj in this Court ag J. Haffey & d3, claiming d1 had misrepresented Haffey's trade as slopseller to persuade p1 & Rogers to buy the trade for £1000 bond. In 1784, ps revived the suit when it abated after Rogers died intestate, leaving p2 his administratrix. Ps add as supplement that J. Haffey has gone bankrupt, & they now seek cancellation of the bond by his assignees, ds1-2. D1 denies misrepresenting the trade to p1 & Rogers.
289. Pattman v Percivall
P: (1) John Pattman gent., Lyon St., Bloomsbury, Midd. D: (1) Samuel Percivall, victualler, Long Acre, Midd; (2) John Bell, attorney at law, New Compton St., Soho, Midd, employed by p & d1. C: (1) John Lloyd, counsel for p. Add: (1) Thomas Baker, tallow chandler, St. Martin's Lane, Midd. P seeks payment of a debt from the sale of T. Baker's stock. P claims in 1784 T. Baker executed a warrant of attorney for confessing a judgement at KB to p & d1, to whom T. Baker owed debts. P & d1 later employed d2 to sue out execution on the judgement ag T. Baker's stock in trade. P claims ds sold the stock for £115 10s. Ds allegedly deny receiving profits from the sale of stock, or deny T. Baker executed the warrant to p for any debt.
290. Poelnitz v Corbett
P: (1) Hon. Frederick, Baron de Poelnitz, Charlotte St., Rathbone Place, Midd, p2's husband; (2) Hon. Anna, Baroness de Poelnitz, Charlotte St., Rathbone Place, Midd, p1's wife, previously wife of Hugh, Earl of Percy. D: (1) Andrew Corbett esq., married to p2's sister; (2) Herman Berens, merchant, London, p1's agent; (3) Joseph Berens, merchant, London, p1's agent. C: (1) Richard Reynolds, counsel for ps. Add: (1) Hon. Hugh, Earl of Percy, son & heir of Hugh, Duke of Northumberland, p2's previous husband; (2) Abraham Chambers esq., Hanover Sq., Midd. Ps seek inj ag d1's suit in the Mayoralty Court of London for payment of £562 10s. D1 claims in 1776, p2 received £900 from A. Chambers, in return for a £150 annuity, for which d1 was security. In 1779, p2 was divorced by her previous husband, Hugh, Earl of Percy, & received a £1600 annuity. P2 since married p1. D1 claims he had to pay Chambers £562 10s arrears of the £150 annuity, which p2 now owes him. P2 asserts she has not been liable for the debt since her divorce. D1 has obtained a verdict ag ps, & has attached £562 10s and an account of the annuity in the hands of ds2-3, p1's agents.
| 1784, Mich | E 112/1698 | Bill. LMX 3632. |
| 1785, Jan 22 | E 112/1698 | Answer. Swearing & filing date of d1's answer; schedule included below answer of p2's debt to d1. |
291. Pooley v Smith
P: (1) Thomas Pooley gent., Isleworth, Midd, M. Jones's executor. D: (1) Thomas Smith, customs officer, Tower St., Midd, M. Jones's trustee of £100 annuities; (2) Governor & Co., Bank of England. C: (1) James Agar, counsel for p; (2) Richard Jackson, counsel for d2. Add: (1) Margaret Jones, Hanover Square, Midd, deceased. P seeks an inj ag d1 & a writ of distringas ag d2, the Bank of England, preventing them from selling bank annuities or d1 receiving dividends therefrom. P claims in 1784, M. Jones bought £100 Bank of England annuities in her name & that of d, her trustee. M. Jones then died, leaving p her executor. D now refuses to transfer the annuities to p, allegedly claiming he alone paid for the annuities.
| 1785, Trin | E 112/1706 | Bill. LMX 3863, filed 20 July 1785. |
| 1785, Nov 24 | E 112/1706 | Answer. Swearing date of d2's answer, filed 25 November. |
292. Prichard v Rogers
P: (1) Joshua Jones Prichard gent., Doctors Commons, London. D: (1) Vitorino Rogers, victualler, Wapping, Midd; (2) Joseph Mayo, mariner. C: (1) J. Jones, counsel for p. P seeks inj ag d2's suit in the Court of Common Pleas for payment of £31. P claims in 1781, d1 (as d2's attorney) hired p to commence an action at KB to recover £31 owed to d2 from a voyage on a ship, the Lively Privateer. P claims he spent £14 17s 5d in prosecuting the suit, & recovered the full £31. P claims he is willing to pay the £31 to d1, as d2's attorney, in addition to £10 10s costs p owes d1, but that d2 now denies d1 is his attorney, & is suing p for the £31. P also claims d1 has not paid his £14 17s 5d costs.
293. Priestman v Ayley
P: (1) William Priestman, Princes St., Soho, Midd. D: (1) Mary Ayley. C: (1) J. Pippard, counsel for p; (2) Joseph Stacpoole, counsel for d. P seeks inj ag d's suits in the Palace Court for £5 maintenance of p's alleged child. In 1775 p claims he had several encounters with d in a tavern. In 1776, d sought an allowance from p, claiming she had given birth to p's daughter, but apparently refused to make an affidavit to that effect. D brought several suits ag p for £5 maintenance for the child. P denies the child is his, asserting d is a prostitute. D claims she is an honest woman, & denies p asked her to make any affidavit.
| 1785, Trin | E 112/1698 | Bill. LMX 3636. |
| 1785, June 21 | E 112/1698 | Answer. Swearing date, filed 23 June. |
| 1785, Trin | E 112/1698 | Exception. P's exceptions concern d's suits ag him for maintenance. |
294. Pringle v De Berdt
P: (1) William Pringle, merchant, Glanville St., Rathbone P1., Midd; (2) James Mather, merchant, Birchin Lane, London; (3) John Sims, merchant, London St., London, added when bill was amended; (4) Ebba Stevenson, Canon St., London, P. Stevenson's widow & administratrix. D: (1) Dennis De Berdt, merchant, London. C: (1) William Hood, counsel for ps; (2) James Frower, counsel for d. Add: (1) Peter Stevenson, deceased, p4's husband. Ps seek inj ag d's suit for payment of an insurance policy. In 1784, d drew up a £500 policy on a ship, the Ann, bound from Maryland to London, with ps 1-3 & P. Stevenson as underwriters. The Ann sank, & ps allege the captain had been incompetent & the ship in poor condition, though d had assured them otherwise. P. Stevenson died, leaving p4 his widow & administratrix. Ps deny they are liable to pay the policy. D denies misleading ps.
| 1785, Easter | E 112/1713 | Bill. LMX 4092; amended 7 February 1786 to include p3. |
| 1786, May 13 | E 112/1716 | Answer. Swearing date, resworn 17 May, filed 18 May. |
295. Randolph v Tombs
P: (1) William Randolph, merchant, Bristol, Bristol; (2) William Jones, merchant, Bristol, Bristol; (3) Levi Ames, merchant, Bristol, Bristol; (4) Thomas William Jolly, merchant, London; (5) Thomas Walker, ship's captain, Bristol, Bristol, commander of the Prince Alfred. D: (1) Richard Tombs, ship builder, Bristol, Bristol; (2) Anthonio Jose de Souza, ship's captain, d3's son, commander of the brig, Santa Anna; (3) Luis de Souza, imprisoned in KB, d2's father, part owner of the Santa Anna; (4) Anselmus Anthony Hartsen, Amsterdam, part owner of the Santa Anna's cargo; (5) Jacob de Fflines, Amsterdam, part owner of the Santa Anna's cargo; (6) Theophilus Christian Blauchenhagen, merchant, London, issued power of attorney by ds4-5; (7) Henry Cutler, merchant, London, issued power of attorney by ds4-5; (8) Caetano Dias Santos, merchant, London; (9) George Barclay; (10) William Boulton. C: (1) R. Richards, counsel for ps; (2) J. Stanley, counsel for d1; (3) Richard Hollis, counsel for d3; (4) John Mitford, counsel for ds6-7; (5) Cha. Shuter, counsel for d8; (6) J. Jones, counsel for ds9-10. Add: (1) William Drake, admiral, commander in chief in the Downs. Ps 1-4, owners of a private ship of war, the Prince Alfred, & p5, the ship's captain, seek inj ag d1's suit at KB for £1002 19s 7d repair costs for a Portuguese brig, the Santa Anna, captained by d2 which p5 captured. The Court of Admiralty, Bristol, restored the brig to its owners & awarded repair costs & £7000 damages ag the ps. Ps claim d1 issued an estimate of £396 11s 11d, but then claimed this was only part of the cost. D3 (d2's father, part-owner of the brig) claims p5 had ignored Admiral W. Drake's certificate proving the brig's neutrality. D3 assigned the brig to ds9-10 as security for loans, and d8 has had d3 imprisoned for debts. Ds6-7 received power of attorney from owners of the brig's cargo including ds4-5.
296. Rawlinson v Wyatt
P: (1) Jane Wise Rawlinson, Bampton, Midd, C. Rawlinson's widow & executrix. D: (1) James Wyatt, architect, Queen Ann St. East, Midd; (2) Samuel Wyatt, architect, Berwick St., Soho, Midd. C: (1) W. Scafe, counsel for p; (2) J. Johnson, counsel for d2. Add: (1) Charles Rawlinson gent., Lestwitheel, Corn, deceased, p's husband. P claims in 1772 her husband C. Rawlinson obtained a 14-year patent for his invention of a method for slating roofs. In 1785 C. Rawlinson died leaving p his executrix. P claims ds have employed the slating method without paying 2s 6d per square yard to her, as holder of the patent. D2 asserts he paid C. Rawlinson, & subsequently p, for his use of the method.
297. Raymond v Farquharson
P: (1) Sir Charles Raymond, London, bart.. D: (1) James Farquharson esq., Gough Square, London. C: (1) R. Richards, counsel for p; (2) Richard Hollist, counsel for d. P seeks inj ag d's suit at KB for payment of an insurance policy. P claims in 1781, he & d were part-owners of a ship in the service of the East India Company, the Blandford, bound for Bengal, underwritten by p. They agreed with other ship-owners for the EIC to insure each other mutually for return voyages only. The Blandford was captured on the apparent outward journey between Madras & Bengal. D now sues p for the insurance, alleging the ship was returning from Madras, its ultimate destination.
298. Rennett v Haxby
P: (1) Charles Rennett gent., solicitor, Inner Temple, London. D: (1) Thomas Haxby, music seller, York, Yorks. C: (1) Robert Ledlie, counsel for p. P adds a supplement to his bill ag d seeking compensation for breach of copyright. In 1783 p sued d in this Court, claiming he had sole copyright to Bach's operas 16 & 18, Bach's 3rd set of concertos & other music books, of which d had been selling pirate copies. By way of supplement, p claims that in 1784 he bought the 14-year copyrights for John Garth's 6 sonatas & Charles Dibdin's operas, of which d has also been selling pirate copies.
299. Rennett v Longman
P: (1) Charles Rennett gent., Inner Temple, London. D: (1) James Longman, music seller, Cheapside, London; (2) Francis Fane Broderip, music seller, Cheapside, London. C: (1) Robert Ledlie, counsel for p; (2) William Waller, counsel for ds. Add: (1) John Garth, composer, Durh. P seeks to supplement his bill filed in 1780 in this Court ag ds seeking compensation & an inj to prevent ds breaching copyright. P claimed he owns the copyright for works by Bach, Fischer & other music books, of which ds had printed, imported & sold pirate copies. P adds as supplement that since his bill was filed ds have continued to sell pirate copies, including J. Garth's works, whose copyright p owns. Ds claim they stopped selling Garth's works when p bought the copyright.
300. Rennett v Thompson
P: (1) Charles Rennett gent., solicitor, Inner Temple, London. D: (1) Samuel Thompson, music seller, St. Paul's Church Yard, London, partner of ds2-3; (2) Ann Thompson, music seller, St. Paul's Church Yard, London, partner of d1 & d3; (3) Peter Thompson, music seller, St. Paul's Church Yard, London, partner of ds 1-2. C: (1) Robert Ledlie, counsel for p; (2) Charles Shuter, counsel for ds. Add: (1) John Garth, composer, Durh; (2) Charles Dibdin, composer, London; (3) James Longman, music seller, Cheapside, London, prior owner of some of the music with previous partner Charles Lukey (deceased); (4) Francis Fane Broderip, music seller, Cheapside, London, J. Longman's partner. P seeks inj ag any suit of ds, Messrs Thompson & Co., challenging p's sole right to print and sell the music of certain operas; p also seeks inj ag ds printing or selling copies of the operas. P claims he bought sole copyright after the rights of ds (previous holders) reverted to the composers at the end of a 14-year term. Ds claim they own the music outright because the composers never reclaimed their copyright.
301. Righton v Wilks
P: (1) Basil Righton, cooper, London. D: (1) Joseph Wilks, merchant, London; (2) George Walker, wine merchant, Exchange Alley, London. C: (1) J. S. Harvey, counsel for p; (2) R. Richards, counsel for d1. Add: (1) William Sealy, wine merchant, London. P seeks inj ag d1's suit at KB for payment of a bill of exchange. P claims in 1784 he & W. Sealy drew bills of exchange for £231 12s & £128 12s respectively, & endorsed them to d2 for d1's use, to be paid off before the due date. P asserts d1 never used his £231 12s bill, but refused to give it back to be cancelled. D1 is now suing p at KB for the bill, alleging p issued the bill for goods received from d2, who endorsed it to d1.