Difference between revisions of "HCA 13/71 f.201v Annotate"

Latest revision as of 15:38, May 24, 2015

Image

HCA 13/71 f.201v: Right click on image for full size image in separate window

Transcription

delivery of the sayd three bayles back to the sayd de Richards, which
noate this deponent (being acquainted well with the sayd Trenchpaines hand
writeing and understanding the french tongue) verily beleveeth (although hee sawe not the same wriiten) was and is
the proper hand writing of the sayd Trenchpaine, and saith the sayd Trenchpaines
factor did alsoe affirme the same noate to bee his the sayd Trenchpaines hand=
writing and that hee save him write the same, whereup this deponent replyed to the sayd
de Richards and told him that hee this deponent could not deliver the sayd
bayles unto him although they were his, for that hee this deponent had signed
and delivered to the sayd Trenchpaine three bills of ladeing of one tenor for the
sayd three bayles, and that the sayd bills were signed with blankes as to the
name of the person for whose risque and Accompt they were laden and alsoe as to
the name of the person to whome they were to be delivered
and that for ought hee this deponent knew the sayd Trenchpaine had filled
up these blankes and therefore it was not safe for him this deponent to deliver
the sayd goods to the sayd de Richards
there upon and further to these articles (saving his subsequent deposition and
saving hee saith the sayd Trenshpaine did not at any tyme whilst this deponent
remayned with his sayd shipp at Morlaix acquainte this deponent that the sayd
three bayles of linnen were for Accompt of the arlate Lewis desormeaux
or that they were to be delivered to the arlate John Tufton or any other their
in London) hee cannot depose

To the 7the article hee saith hee cannot depose saving hee saith the linnens in
question were never in possesion of the arlate Lewis desormaux that this
deponent knoweth of or hath heard./

To the 8th article of the sayd allegation hee saith by reason the sayd de
Richards brought and left with this deponent the sayd noate under the sayd
Trenchpaines hands for delievery of the sayd limens in question bark to the
sayd de Richards and alsoe by reason the sayd
de Richards arrested his this deponent sayd shipp and the company of her hee this deponent
(not with standing hee had signed bills of
ladeing for them as aforesayd) was forced to give the sayd de Richards a noate under
his hands to deliever the sayd three bayles of limen at this Port of London
for Accompt of the sayd de Richards to the arlate Mr Barefoote or else
hee this deponent to pay him the sayd de Richards the value of the sayd three
bales of sayd linnens, and hee saith it is through the arrest made in this Court
of the sayd linnens on behalfe of the sayd Lewis desormaux that hee
hath not delivered the sayd linnens to the sayd Mr Barefoote according
to the sayd de Richards his order, And saith that the sayd de Richards
when hee caused this deponent to signe the sayd noate told this deponent
that the reason which hee required such a noate from this deponent
was for that hee the sayd de Richards for knew not whether the
sayd Trenchpaine had caused the sayd bills of ladeing formerly
signed for the same linnen to be filled up as laden for his the sayd
de Richards Accompt and risk or not (hee being the true owner of them as hee sayd)
And further to this article hee cannot depose./

To the 9th and 10th articles of the sayd allegation and the letter in them mentioned
hee saith hee knoweth and sawe that the sayd de Richards du Kargonell did on board
his this deponents shipp the Morlaix Merchant at Morlaix on the eleventh of
March last write and signe a letter in french (which letter this deponent heard read) wherein hee
wrote to the sayd Mr Barefoote to this effort to desyre the sayd Barefoote to agree
or accept of the consignation hee had made to him or in his name of three
fardles