1675 MORRIS V. HENCHMAN. Martin est magister), ejusque, &c., et contra Thomam Henchman, Willielmum Bolton, Johannem Crump, Johannem Harwood, et Georgium Butler, mercatores et in parte exercitatores dicta navis in specie, ac omnes, &c. Another case, 24th February, 1674. 1675 THE WILLIAM DE YARMOUTH. Negotium averagii sive probationis tempestatis procellæ sive damni promotum per Jacobum Croskeys, magistrum, et Willielmum Porter et alios proprietarios navis vocatæ the William de Yarmouth contra Thomam Papillon, Alexandum Merriall, Johannem Daniell juniorem, Laurentium Martel viduam Thomæ Seward, Herbertum Aylwen, Johannem Hough, Johannem Perry, Gulielmum de Carbonel, et Michaelem Godfrey, jus titulum aut interesse in bonis in dictâ nave apud Caen in Galliâ onustis et ad hunc portum London adductis habentes seu habere prætendentes. Exton. Quo die Exton exhibuit procuratorium suum pro dictis Jacobo Crosskeys et Willielmo Potter et aliis proprietariis dictæ navis, et fecit se, &c., et allegavit nonnulla bona in dictâ nave apud Caen onusta et abinde ad hunc portum London ratione et occasione tempestatis sive procellæ in cursu dictæ navis a portu de Caen prædicto ad hunc portum London contingentis damnum et detrimentum passa fuisse et sustinuisse. Quare petiit dictos Thomam Papillon (here follow the names of the other defendants) personaliter si, &c., alioquin per affixionem, &c., citandos fore ad concessendum (?) in cœnaculo Dominorum Advocatorum, &c., die Jovis quarto die mensis Martii prox. inter horas nonam et undecimamante meridiem ejusdem diei ad vidend. allnem (allegationem?) ex parte dicti Crosskeys et Wmi Potter et sociorum tempestatem, procellam, sive damnum prædictum concernend. (?) dari et admitti et testes desuper produci recipi jurari et examinari, eorumque dicta et depositiones publicari in perpetuam rei memoriam, ulterioremque processum fieri juxta juris in eâ parte exigen. 1675 visur. et auditur. ulteriusque factur. et receptur. quod justum fuerit The William in hâc parte, cum intimatione, &c. Quod dictus Dominus Surro- DE YARMOUTH. gatus (Dr. Richard Lloyd) ad petitionem dicti Exton decrevit. HARPER v. GRAVENOR. THE LAMB AND THE ADVENTURE. This appears to have been a suit to recover damages for a collision, in which the plaintiff's ship was lost. A decree for half the loss was made by Sir Richard Lloyd sitting as surrogate for Sir L. Jenkins, Judge of the Admiralty Court; see Assignation Book, 6th July, 1777; 11th December, 1678. The case was appealed, and the sentence of Sir R. Lloyd was affirmed by the Delegates on the 7th of May, 1678. The sentence of the Delegates is preserved, but affords no further information. Georgius Harper et socii proprietarii navis Le Lamb, cujus Ric. Lovell est magister, ejusque, &c., contra navem Le Adventure de London, cujus Joh. Coleman est magister, et contra Wm Gravenor, Georg. Browne, et socios pro interesse, &c., intervenientes. Smith. Franklin. Smith exhibited an affidavit certified by the Bailiffs of Great Yarmouth, which to all effects of law was admitted upon his petition and read, and after reading whereof and of the other proofs the Judge pronounced that he finds that the sum of £135 was the prime cost of the vessel, and that the sum of £61 5s. was afterwards paid to the shipwrights, and £11 38. was paid to the smith for reparations and meliorations, amounting in all to £207 88., and the Judge thereupon at Smith's petition did condemn Franklin's clients in the moiety thereof, to witt, £103 148., lawfull money of England, to be paid to the said George Harper & Company, Smith's clients, or their lawful attorney; and did order and decree that the said Franklin's clients and their baile should be monished to pay the same to the said Harper & Company before the 20th of next January, or otherwise to be attached and kept in safe custody of the Court, Franklin dissenting. 1677 1678 CLARKE v. THE FAIRFIELD. The following entry, referring apparently to a conflict of jurisdiction between the Admiralty and Common Law Courts, appears in the Admiralty Assignation Book under date 5th September, 1678. Thomas Clarke con. cimbam sive vecturam quandam vocatam The Fairfield, ejusque, &c., nuper ad Edmundum Handley sed nunc ad Edwardum Beauchamp spectantem et contra dictum Handley in specie ac omnes, &c. Miller. Machardi (?). Ad audiendum voluntatem Domini super petitionem Exton. Chapman. Et. . . . ad petitionem Chapman. . That the Marshall of this Court shall restore the possession of the said lighter The Fairfield, with her tackle, apparel, and furniture, to Thomas Winston, Esquire, Sheriff of Surrey, or to his under Sherriffe, or order, in whose possession she was by virtue of an execution at common law at the time of the arrest made by the authority of this Court; he, the said Thomas Winston or his deputy first depositing in the Registry of this Court the sum of ten pounds of lawful money of England and submitting the same to the judgment and condemnation of this Court as to the charges of the said Thomas Clark in obtaining a primum decretum in this Court against the said lighter, or such part thereof (if any) as this Court shall so order; in præsentiâ dicti Extin, attestant, &c. 1679 SNARY v. HEATH. 13th May, 1679. Ad. Assign. Book. Action by master for wages. Not appealed. Johannes Snary nuper magister navis cujusdam vocatæ The Mary de London contra eandem navem ejusque, &c., ac contra omnes, &c., necnon Isaacum Heath et socios pro interesse intervenientes. Ad audiendum hanc causam sumarie ad petitionem Barrett. The said John Snary consented to take after the rate of £5 a month for his services for (?) the eight months he served in the ship. Suckley alleged that the said Snary was to go the voyage by the . . . . ., and that he refused to go by the used not have above £15 or £20 for the whole voyage. and The Judge finalites interloguendo did decree that there should be paid to the said John Snary the sum of £30 for his services for the whole voyage, and condemned the said Heath & Company in £4 for expenses, and monished Mr. Stone (?) present in Court to pay the said £30 and £4 by Monday next, otherwise to be attached. 1679 SNARY v. HEATH. PILKINGTON v. THE ORRORY. LE ORRORY. The entry below in the Admiralty Court Assignation Book, 4th Nov. 1679, seems to relate to an attempt to carry into execution by process of the Admiralty Court in England, a sentence made by the Admiralty Court in Ireland. There was no appeal. Thomas Pilkington ac Wilmus Kiffin et socii contra navem Le Orrory, cujus Zacharias Stilgoe est magister, ejusque, &c., et ad dictos Pilkington, Kiffin, et socios spectantem et contra dictum Stilgoe in specie ac omnes, &c. Suckley. Rock, Senior. Franklin. The Judge declared that he cannot by law put in execution the sentence or decree made in Ireland. Dominus assignavit Suckley et Franklin ad faciendum sumariam probationem possessonis partium suarum et in super (?) informand. Et Dominus ad petitionem Suckley continuavit . . . in prox. 1679 1679 NEWMAN v. CROFT. This was a suit to recover damages for a collision between the Lamb and the Rose and Crown, for which the latter was solely to blame. Sentence for full damages was given against her; see Admiralty Court Act Book, 18th December, 1679. Thomas Newman et socii proprietarii navis le Lamb, cujus And. Neal est magister, contra navem le Rose and Crown, cujus Thomas Crofte est Magister, ejusque, &c., necnon dictum Crofte pro interesse suo intervenientem. Quibus die et loco perlectis probationibus aliisque in hâc causân factis Dominus declaravit ut sequitur. That it was sufficiently proved that the ship the Rose and Crown did give the blow to the said ship the Lamb, and proceeding to state the damage sustained thereby, that by the particular witnesses' oaths and the depositions of Andrew Veal, the master, that what was paid for the repairs of the damage to the said ship Lamb was as follows, viz. : Tum Smith porrexit sententiam in scriptis conceptam, quam petiit fieri ac jus, &c., in præsentiâ Suckley dissentientis et petentis justitiam sibi et parti suæ in hâc causâ fieri et ministrari. Unde Dominus legit tulit et promulgavit dictam sententiam pronunciando condemnando et cætera faciendo prout in eâdem continetur, præsentibus tum et ibidem una cum me notario publico, &c. &c., procuribus, Suckley protestante de gravamine et de appellando. |