MRP: C6/85/17 f. 1 - Revision history

Francescagreenstreet at 21:59, February 1, 2012

2012-02-01T21:59:34Z

Francescagreenstreet at 18:05, February 1, 2012

2012-02-01T18:05:41Z

Francescagreenstreet at 08:04, January 2, 2012

2012-01-02T08:04:30Z

ColinGreenstreet at 07:39, November 25, 2011

2011-11-25T07:39:46Z

ColinGreenstreet at 07:38, November 25, 2011

2011-11-25T07:38:46Z

ColinGreenstreet at 07:26, November 25, 2011

2011-11-25T07:26:18Z

ColinGreenstreet at 06:42, November 25, 2011

2011-11-25T06:42:26Z

ColinGreenstreet at 06:41, November 25, 2011

2011-11-25T06:41:45Z

ColinGreenstreet at 06:40, November 25, 2011

2011-11-25T06:40:29Z

ColinGreenstreet at 19:00, November 24, 2011

2011-11-24T19:00:08Z

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 ----
-===Transcription===
+==Suggested links==
 //14 X 6:br 1654//
@@ Line 199: / Line 212: @@
 ----
-===Commentary===
+==Notes==
-See [[MRP: C6/85/17 f. 2|C6/85/17 f. 2]]
+PROB 11/211 Pembroke 1-54 Will of William Gouch, Merchant of Galata15 March 1650<ref>The spelling of William Gough's name appears to be an electronic indexing error by the compilers of TNA's Documents Online</ref>
-See [[MRP: C6/85/17 f. 3|C6/85/17 f. 3]]
 - "William Gough, Merchant, resident at Callata of Constantinople, son of John Gough, in Somerset, gent.  Will dated Aug. 21, 1649, proved Mar. 15, 1649-50  [39 Pembroke]  My brother Francis Gough, sick in Smyrna.  John, Hugh, Gregory, Mary, Amy, Elizabeth & Zenobia Gough, my brothers & sisters, 500 dollars each.  M:r John Dodington, M:r Rob:t Frampton, & c., 10 dollars for rings.  My brother Robert Gough at Frensham D..., Hants..."<ref>Frederick Arthur Crisp (ed.), ''Abstracts of Somersetshire wills etc: copied from the manuscript collections of the late Rev. Frederick Brown'' (XXXX, 1888), p. 60</ref>
 "for a perusal of those accounts, and so much of Gough's estate be detained as may answer our debt; and let the accounts be audited, and a list of all the bills he drew upon the company be sent to us, and the same constantly observed in future.  The list of our exceptions to the Constantinople accounts..."<ref>Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, ''Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1649-1660)'' (London, XXXX), p. 79 CHECK PAGE REFERENCE</ref>
+----
-'''Gyles (alias Giles) Davies'''
+===Gyles (alias Giles) Davies===
 "There has been a complaint long depending here of your sentence against Giles Davies, one of that factory, and on his petition, we have taken a view of that business, and conceive it to be hard measure of you to give Nath. Barnardiston the goods of other men, when his own remained in the hands of Davies.  Consider the matter and cause Barnardiston to be satisfied with his own..."<ref>Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, ''Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1649-1660)'' (London, XXXX), p. 79 CHECK PAGE REFERENCE</ref>
@@ Line 224: / Line 228: @@
 "[1651] ...Touching your sequestration of 242 dollars due from us to Robt. Frampton, and 1,278 to Giles Davies, for money lent us towards the expense caused by them, we find that their principals here, viz. Wm. Vincent, Geo. Smith, and others, claim an interest in those moneys, and therefore..."<ref>Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, ''Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1649-1660)'' (London, XXXX), p. 291</ref>
+----
-'''Merchant dispute settlement in Constantinople'''
+===Merchant dispute settlement in Constantinople===
 SP 105: Levant Company: Registers of the Chancery at Constantinople, mainly concerning petitions to the British ambassador, commercial disputes and orders and appointments
@@ Line 232: / Line 236: @@
 ----
-===Possible primary sources===
+==Possible primary sources==
 PROB 11/138 Dale 64-109 Will of John Barnardiston, Merchant of Saint Lawrence Jewry, City of London 03 October 1621
@@ Line 241: / Line 250: @@
 PROB 11/408 Fane 1-48 Will of Arthur Barnardiston of Saint Leonard Shoreditch, Middlesex 16 January 1692
 PROB 11/524 Young 226-276 Sentence of Samuel Barnardiston or Bernadiston of Kensington, Middlesex 03 December 1711

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==C6/85/17 f. 1==
+'''C6/85/17 f. 1'''
 C 6/85/17 Short title: Davies v Barnardiston. Plaintiffs: Giles Davies. Defendants: Nathaniel Barnardiston, Samuel Barnardiston, James Middiford, Anthony Isaacson and John Williams. Subject: money matters, Middlesex. Document type: bill, plea, schedule. 1655
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 /11/11, CSG: Started transcription
 ----
-===Abstract & context===
+__TOC__
 The London merchant Gyles Davies exhibited in 1654 in Chancery a Bill of Complaint against the brothers and London merchants Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston, together with co-defendants James Muddiford (alias Modyford), Anthony Issackson and John Williams, together with confederates unknown.

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ===Abstract & context===
-The London merchant Gyles Davies exhibited in 1654 in Chancery a Bill of Complaint against the brothers and London merchants Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston, together with co-defendants James Muddiford (alias Modyford), Anthony Issackson and John Williams, together with confederates unknown.  Attached to the Bill of Complaint was a schedule of charges and costs [[MRP: C6/85/17 f. 2|C6/85/17 f. 2]], which Davies claimed were due unto him from the defendants for  services he had performed as a factor for them six years before, in 1647 and 1648.  At that time Gyles Davies and been located in Gallata, Constantinople, and the Barnardiston brothers had been located in Smyrna, both within Turkey.  Davies claimed in his Bill that he had been the legally empowered factor of the Barnardiston brothers, and that he had been consigned in Gallata a parcel of Venetian paper and silks to sell, barter, or exchange. Davies had allegedly made a provisional bargain for their sale when he received a new letter of instruction to transfer the goods to William Gough, another merchant.  In the absence of legal authority he had not done so.  Subsequently the Barnardiston brothers refused to pay his charges and costs, contrary to the practice of merchants in Turkey.
+The London merchant Gyles Davies exhibited in 1654 in Chancery a Bill of Complaint against the brothers and London merchants Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston, together with co-defendants James Muddiford (alias Modyford), Anthony Issackson and John Williams, together with confederates unknown.
-In the joint and several pleas of Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston, and James Muddiford (alias Modyford) [[MRP: C6/85/17 f. 3|C6/85/17 f. 3]], a different story emerges.  These defendants argued that they had brought the alleged breach of their commission by Gyles Davies  to court before the English ambassador in Constantinople, Sir Thomas Bendish.  Bendish had found for the Barnardiston brothers.  Further, Gyles Davies had allegedly been found in contempt of that court, and as a result a parcel of his broad cloth had been seized and sold at public auction.  The defendants to the Chancery suit argued that they had no case to answer, the matter already having been settled at law, and that there was no equitable reason for the case to be reexamined in Chancery.  Moreover to do so would be damaging to the rule of law in Turkey amongst English merchants.  It is likely that records of the case as heard by Sir Thomas Bendish were recorded in the registers of the English Chancery at Constantinople.<ref>SP 105: Levant Company: Registers of the Chancery at Constantinople, mainly concerning petitions to the British ambassador, commercial disputes and orders and appointments.  See SP 105/175 1656-1668t</ref>
+Attached to the Bill of Complaint was a schedule of charges and costs [[MRP: C6/85/17 f. 2|C6/85/17 f. 2]], which Davies claimed were due unto him from the defendants for services he had performed as a factor for them six years before, in 1647 and 1648.
 The ambassador's decision appears to have led to some discontent amongst Levant merchants back in London.  Gyles Davies petitioned the London Court of the Levant merchants, who considered the matter.  They wrote to Sir Thomas Bendish conceiving "it to be hard measure of you to give Nath. Barnardiston the goods of other men, when his own remained in the hands of Davies."  They suggested that Bendish should "consider the matter and cause Barnardiston to be satisfied with his own..."<ref>Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, ''Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1649-1660)'' (London, XXXX), p. 79 CHECK PAGE REFERENCE</ref>

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 In the joint and several pleas of Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston, and James Muddiford (alias Modyford) [[MRP: C6/85/17 f. 3|C6/85/17 f. 3]], a different story emerges.  These defendants argued that they had brought the alleged breach of their commission by Gyles Davies  to court before the English ambassador in Constantinople, Sir Thomas Bendish.  Bendish had found for the Barnardiston brothers.  Further, Gyles Davies had allegedly been found in contempt of that court, and as a result a parcel of his broad cloth had been seized and sold at public auction.  The defendants to the Chancery suit argued that they had no case to answer, the matter already having been settled at law, and that there was no equitable reason for the case to be reexamined in Chancery.  Moreover to do so would be damaging to the rule of law in Turkey amongst English merchants.  It is likely that records of the case as heard by Sir Thomas Bendish were recorded in the registers of the English Chancery at Constantinople.<ref>SP 105: Levant Company: Registers of the Chancery at Constantinople, mainly concerning petitions to the British ambassador, commercial disputes and orders and appointments.  See SP 105/175 1656-1668t</ref>
-The ambassador's decision appears to have led to some discontent amongst Levant merchants back in London.  Gyles Davies petitioned the London Court of the Levant merchants, who considered the matter.  They wrote to Sir Thomas Bendish conceiving "it to be hard measure of you to give Nath. Barnardiston the goods of other men, when his own remained in the hands of Davies."  They suggested that Bendish should "consider the matter and cause Barnardiston to be satisfied with his own..."Consider the matter and cause Barnardiston to be satisfied with his own..."<ref>Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, ''Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1649-1660)'' (London, XXXX), p. 79 CHECK PAGE REFERENCE</ref>
+The ambassador's decision appears to have led to some discontent amongst Levant merchants back in London.  Gyles Davies petitioned the London Court of the Levant merchants, who considered the matter.  They wrote to Sir Thomas Bendish conceiving "it to be hard measure of you to give Nath. Barnardiston the goods of other men, when his own remained in the hands of Davies."  They suggested that Bendish should "consider the matter and cause Barnardiston to be satisfied with his own..."<ref>Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, ''Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1649-1660)'' (London, XXXX), p. 79 CHECK PAGE REFERENCE</ref>
 A separate Chancery document related to the above case is catalogued as C 6/126/38 and is dated 1655, the year after the bill of complaint discussed above.  It is described in the catalogue as "Davis v Isaackson. Plaintiffs: Giles Davis. Defendants: Anthony Isaackson and John Williams. Subject: money matters. Document type: plea. 1655"

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 The London merchant Gyles Davies exhibited in 1654 in Chancery a Bill of Complaint against the brothers and London merchants Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston, together with co-defendants James Muddiford (alias Modyford), Anthony Issackson and John Williams, together with confederates unknown.  Attached to the Bill of Complaint was a schedule of charges and costs [[MRP: C6/85/17 f. 2|C6/85/17 f. 2]], which Davies claimed were due unto him from the defendants for  services he had performed as a factor for them six years before, in 1647 and 1648.  At that time Gyles Davies and been located in Gallata, Constantinople, and the Barnardiston brothers had been located in Smyrna, both within Turkey.  Davies claimed in his Bill that he had been the legally empowered factor of the Barnardiston brothers, and that he had been consigned in Gallata a parcel of Venetian paper and silks to sell, barter, or exchange. Davies had allegedly made a provisional bargain for their sale when he received a new letter of instruction to transfer the goods to William Gough, another merchant.  In the absence of legal authority he had not done so.  Subsequently the Barnardiston brothers refused to pay his charges and costs, contrary to the practice of merchants in Turkey.
-In the joint and several pleas of Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston, and James Muddiford (alias Modyford) [[MRP: C6/85/17 f. 3|C6/85/17 f. 3]], a different story emerges.  These defendants argued that they had brought the alleged breach of their commission by Gyles Davies  to court before the English ambassador in Constantinople, Sir Thomas Bendish.  Bendish had found for the Barnardiston brothers.  Further, Gyles Davies had allegedly been found in contempt of that court, and as a result a parcel of his broad cloth had been seized and sold at public auction.  The defendants to the Chancery suit argued that they had no case to answer, the matter already having been settled at law, and that there was no equitable reason for the case to be reexamined in Chancery.  Moreover to do so would be damaging to the rule of law in Turkey amongst English merchants.
+In the joint and several pleas of Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston, and James Muddiford (alias Modyford) [[MRP: C6/85/17 f. 3|C6/85/17 f. 3]], a different story emerges.  These defendants argued that they had brought the alleged breach of their commission by Gyles Davies  to court before the English ambassador in Constantinople, Sir Thomas Bendish.  Bendish had found for the Barnardiston brothers.  Further, Gyles Davies had allegedly been found in contempt of that court, and as a result a parcel of his broad cloth had been seized and sold at public auction.  The defendants to the Chancery suit argued that they had no case to answer, the matter already having been settled at law, and that there was no equitable reason for the case to be reexamined in Chancery.  Moreover to do so would be damaging to the rule of law in Turkey amongst English merchants.  It is likely that records of the case as heard by Sir Thomas Bendish were recorded in the registers of the English Chancery at Constantinople.<ref>SP 105: Levant Company: Registers of the Chancery at Constantinople, mainly concerning petitions to the British ambassador, commercial disputes and orders and appointments.  See SP 105/175 1656-1668t</ref>
-A separate Chancery document related to the above case is catalogued as C 6/126/38 and is dated 1655, the year after the bill of complaint discussed above.  It is decribed in the catalogue as "Davis v Isaackson. Plaintiffs: Giles Davis. Defendants: Anthony Isaackson and John Williams. Subject: money matters. Document type: plea. 1655"
+The ambassador's decision appears to have led to some discontent amongst Levant merchants back in London.  Gyles Davies petitioned the London Court of the Levant merchants, who considered the matter.  They wrote to Sir Thomas Bendish conceiving "it to be hard measure of you to give Nath. Barnardiston the goods of other men, when his own remained in the hands of Davies."  They suggested that Bendish should "consider the matter and cause Barnardiston to be satisfied with his own..."Consider the matter and cause Barnardiston to be satisfied with his own..."<ref>Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, ''Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1649-1660)'' (London, XXXX), p. 79 CHECK PAGE REFERENCE</ref>
 ----
@@ Line 203: / Line 205: @@
 PROB 11/211 Pembroke 1-54 Will of William Gouch, Merchant of Galata15 March 1650<ref>The spelling of William Gough's name appears to be an electronic indexing error by the compilers of TNA's Documents Online</ref>
-- "William Gough, Merchant, resident at Callata of Constantinople, son of John Gough, in Somerset, gent.  Will dated Aug. 21, 1649, proved Mar. 15, 1649-50  [39 Pembroke]  My brother Francis Gough, sick in Smyrna.  John, Hugh, Gregory, Mary, Amy, Elizabeth & Zenobia Gough, my brothers & sisters, 500 dollars each.  M:r John Dodington, M:r Rob:t Frampton, & c., 10 dollars for rings.  My brother Robert Gough at Frensham D..., Hants..."<ref>Frederick Arthur Crisp (ed.), ''Abstracts of Somersetshire wills etc: copied from the manuscript collections of the late Rev. Frederick Brown'' (XXXX, 18888), p. 60</ref>
+- "William Gough, Merchant, resident at Callata of Constantinople, son of John Gough, in Somerset, gent.  Will dated Aug. 21, 1649, proved Mar. 15, 1649-50  [39 Pembroke]  My brother Francis Gough, sick in Smyrna.  John, Hugh, Gregory, Mary, Amy, Elizabeth & Zenobia Gough, my brothers & sisters, 500 dollars each.  M:r John Dodington, M:r Rob:t Frampton, & c., 10 dollars for rings.  My brother Robert Gough at Frensham D..., Hants..."<ref>Frederick Arthur Crisp (ed.), ''Abstracts of Somersetshire wills etc: copied from the manuscript collections of the late Rev. Frederick Brown'' (XXXX, 1888), p. 60</ref>
-"for a perusal of those accounts, and so much of Gough's estate be detained as may answer our debt; and let the accounts be audited, and a list of all the bills he drew upon the company be sent to us, and the same constantly observed in future.  The list of our exceptions to the Constantinople accounts..."<ref>Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, ''Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1949-1660)'' (London, XXXX), p. 79 CHECK PAGE REFERENCE</ref>
+"for a perusal of those accounts, and so much of Gough's estate be detained as may answer our debt; and let the accounts be audited, and a list of all the bills he drew upon the company be sent to us, and the same constantly observed in future.  The list of our exceptions to the Constantinople accounts..."<ref>Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, ''Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1649-1660)'' (London, XXXX), p. 79 CHECK PAGE REFERENCE</ref>
 '''Gyles (alias Giles) Davies'''
-"There has been a complaint long depending here of your sentence against Giles Davies, one of that factory, and on his petition, we have taken a view of that business, and conceive it to be hard measure of you to give Nath. Barnardiston the goods of other men, when his own remained in the hands of Davies.  Consider the matter and cause Barnardiston to be satisfied with his own..."<ref>Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, ''Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1949-1660)'' (London, XXXX), p. 79 CHECK PAGE REFERENCE</ref>
+"There has been a complaint long depending here of your sentence against Giles Davies, one of that factory, and on his petition, we have taken a view of that business, and conceive it to be hard measure of you to give Nath. Barnardiston the goods of other men, when his own remained in the hands of Davies.  Consider the matter and cause Barnardiston to be satisfied with his own..."<ref>Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, ''Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1649-1660)'' (London, XXXX), p. 79 CHECK PAGE REFERENCE</ref>
-"[1651] ...The difference between Barnardiston and Davies we named in our last, which may direct you a way for raising money upon extraordinary occasions there, wherein we have been little beholden to ..."<ref>Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, ''Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1949-1660)'' (London, XXXX), p. 290</ref>
+"[1651] ...The difference between Barnardiston and Davies we named in our last, which may direct you a way for raising money upon extraordinary occasions there, wherein we have been little beholden to ..."<ref>Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, ''Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1649-1660)'' (London, XXXX), p. 290</ref>
-"[1651] ...Touching your sequestration of 242 dollars due from us to Robt. Frampton, and 1,278 to Giles Davies, for money lent us towards the expense caused by them, we find that their principals here, viz. Wm. Vincent, Geo. Smith, and others, claim an interest in those moneys, and therefore..."<ref>Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, ''Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1949-1660)'' (London, XXXX), p. 291</ref>
+"[1651] ...Touching your sequestration of 242 dollars due from us to Robt. Frampton, and 1,278 to Giles Davies, for money lent us towards the expense caused by them, we find that their principals here, viz. Wm. Vincent, Geo. Smith, and others, claim an interest in those moneys, and therefore..."<ref>Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, ''Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1649-1660)'' (London, XXXX), p. 291</ref>
 '''Merchant dispute settlement in Constantinople'''

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:40, November 25, 2011
Line 11:		Line 11:

	The London merchant Gyles Davies exhibited in 1654 in Chancery a Bill of Complaint against the brothers and London merchants Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston, together with co-defendants James Muddiford (alias Modyford), Anthony Issackson and John Williams, together with confederates unknown. Attached to the Bill of Complaint was a schedule of charges and costs which Davies claimed were due unto him from the defendants for services he had performed as a factor for them six years before, in 1647 and 1648. At that time Gyles Davies and been located in Gallata, Constantinople, and the Barnardiston brothers had been located in Smyrna, both within Turkey. Davies claimed in his Bill that he had been the legally empowered factor of the Barbardiston brothers, and that he had been consigned in Gallata a parcel of Venetian paper and silks to sell, barter, or exchange. Davies had allegedly made a provisional bargain for their sale when he received a new letter of instruction to transfer the goods to William Gough, another merchant. In the absence of legal authority he had not done so. Subsequently the Barnardiston brothers refused to pay his charges and costs, contrary to the practice of merchants in Turkey.		The London merchant Gyles Davies exhibited in 1654 in Chancery a Bill of Complaint against the brothers and London merchants Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston, together with co-defendants James Muddiford (alias Modyford), Anthony Issackson and John Williams, together with confederates unknown. Attached to the Bill of Complaint was a schedule of charges and costs which Davies claimed were due unto him from the defendants for services he had performed as a factor for them six years before, in 1647 and 1648. At that time Gyles Davies and been located in Gallata, Constantinople, and the Barnardiston brothers had been located in Smyrna, both within Turkey. Davies claimed in his Bill that he had been the legally empowered factor of the Barbardiston brothers, and that he had been consigned in Gallata a parcel of Venetian paper and silks to sell, barter, or exchange. Davies had allegedly made a provisional bargain for their sale when he received a new letter of instruction to transfer the goods to William Gough, another merchant. In the absence of legal authority he had not done so. Subsequently the Barnardiston brothers refused to pay his charges and costs, contrary to the practice of merchants in Turkey.
		+
		+	In the joint and several pleas of Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston, and James Muddiford (alias Modyford) [[MRP: C6/85/17 f. 3\|C6/85/17 f. 3]], a different story emerges. These defendants argued that they had brought the alleged breach of their commission by Gyles Davies to court before the English ambassador in Constantinople, Sir Thomas Bendish. Bendish had found for the Barnardiston brothers. Further, Gyles Davies had allegedly been found in contempt of that court, and as a result a parcel of his broad cloth had been seized and sold at public auction. The defendants to the Chancery suit argued that they had no case to answer, the matter already having been settled at law, and that there was no equitable reason for the case to be reexamined in Chancery. Moreover to do so would be damaging to the rule of law in Turkey amongst English merchants.
		+
		+	Further Chancery documents related to the above case are catalogued as CXX/XX/XX.
		+
		+

	----		----