Difference between revisions of "MRP: C6/85/17 f. 1"

From MarineLives
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(14 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==C6/85/17 f. 1==
+
'''C6/85/17 f. 1'''
  
'''Editiorial history'''
+
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
 +
 
 +
'''Editorial history'''
  
 
23/11/11, CSG: Made digital images
 
23/11/11, CSG: Made digital images
 
23/11/11, CSG: Started transcription
 
23/11/11, CSG: Started transcription
 
----
 
----
===Abstract & context===
+
__TOC__
 +
----
 +
==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.
 +
 
 +
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..."<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"
 +
 
 +
----
 +
==Suggested links==
 +
 
 +
See [[MRP: C6/85/17 f. 2|C6/85/17 f. 2]]
 +
See [[MRP: C6/85/17 f. 3|C6/85/17 f. 3]]
 +
 
 +
See also C 6/126/38 Short title: Davis v Isaackson. Plaintiffs: Giles Davis. Defendants: Anthony Isaackson and John Williams. Subject: money matters. Document type: plea. 1655
 +
 
 +
See also C 6/137/61 Short title: Middleton v Soame. Plaintiffs: Simon Middleton, John Soame, William Romney, Ralph Freeman, Sir William Playters kt and Sir Thomas Abdy baronet. Defendants: Sir Thomas Soame kt and Giles Davis. Subject: money matters, Middlesex. Document type: bill, answer. 1657
 +
----
 +
==To do==
  
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 gegally 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. Dabies 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.
 
  
 
----
 
----
===Transcription===
+
==Transcription==
  
 
//14 X 6:br 1654//
 
//14 X 6:br 1654//
Line 66: Line 95:
 
//rest of yo:r Orato:rs goods yf the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston shoud dislike thereof but before yo:r Orato:r did or could give them notice of the said condicionall bargain the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston by their Letters date att//
 
//rest of yo:r Orato:rs goods yf the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston shoud dislike thereof but before yo:r Orato:r did or could give them notice of the said condicionall bargain the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston by their Letters date att//
  
//Smyrna on or about the Two and Twentyth day of August one Thousand sixe hundred fforty eight did give order and direccon to yo:r Orato:r to deliver the said pap and silkes unto William Gough Merchant then resident in Gallata of Constantinople//
+
//Smyrna on or about the Two and Twentyth day of August one Thousand sixe hundred fforty eight did give order and direccon to yo:r Orato:r to deliver the said pap and silkes unto William Gough<ref>Alison Games has identified William Gough's will. See 'Will of William Gough, 4 August 1649, in Constantinople Chancery Book, 1648-1651, SP 105/174, 163-166, TNA:PRO', in Alison Games, ''The web of empire: English cosmopolitans in an age of expansion, 1560-1660'' (Oxford, 2008), fn. 68, p. ?</ref> Merchant then resident in Gallata of Constantinople//
  
 
//aforesaid since decd but did not then give and legall power unto the said William Gough either by Letter of Attorney or otherwise to receive the said goods from yo:r Orato:r or to give him any legall dischardge for the same or to ?come to an Accompt//
 
//aforesaid since decd but did not then give and legall power unto the said William Gough either by Letter of Attorney or otherwise to receive the said goods from yo:r Orato:r or to give him any legall dischardge for the same or to ?come to an Accompt//
Line 182: Line 211:
 
//Peter ?Balls [Signature, bottom RH corner]//
 
//Peter ?Balls [Signature, bottom RH corner]//
  
 +
----
 +
==Notes==
 +
===William Gough===
  
 +
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, 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===
  
 +
"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 (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 (1649-1660)'' (London, XXXX), p. 291</ref>
 
----
 
----
===Commentary===
+
===Merchant dispute settlement in Constantinople===
 
+
See [[MRP: C6/85/17 f. 2|C6/85/17 f. 2]]
+
See [[MRP: C6/85/17 f. 3|C6/85/17 f. 3]]
+
  
 +
SP 105: Levant Company: Registers of the Chancery at Constantinople, mainly concerning petitions to the British ambassador, commercial disputes and orders and appointments
 +
- SP 105/174 1648-1651
 +
- SP 105/175 1656-1668
  
 
----
 
----
===Possible primary sources===
+
==Possible primary sources==
 +
 
 +
C 5/51/8 Bendish v. Gough 1669
 +
C 6/47/59 Short title: Gough v Bendish. Plaintiffs: Robert Gough. Defendants: Sir Thomas Bendish baronet. Subject: personal estate of the deceased William Gough.Document type: answer only. 1665
 +
C 9/30/56 Gough v. Bendish, bart 1663
 +
C 9/33/39 Gough v. Bendish, bart 1664
  
 
PROB 11/138 Dale 64-109 Will of John Barnardiston, Merchant of Saint Lawrence Jewry, City of London 03 October 1621
 
PROB 11/138 Dale 64-109 Will of John Barnardiston, Merchant of Saint Lawrence Jewry, City of London 03 October 1621

Latest revision as of 21:59, February 1, 2012

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

Editorial history

23/11/11, CSG: Made digital images
23/11/11, CSG: Started transcription






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 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) 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.[1]

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..."[2]

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"



Suggested links


See C6/85/17 f. 2
See C6/85/17 f. 3

See also C 6/126/38 Short title: Davis v Isaackson. Plaintiffs: Giles Davis. Defendants: Anthony Isaackson and John Williams. Subject: money matters. Document type: plea. 1655

See also C 6/137/61 Short title: Middleton v Soame. Plaintiffs: Simon Middleton, John Soame, William Romney, Ralph Freeman, Sir William Playters kt and Sir Thomas Abdy baronet. Defendants: Sir Thomas Soame kt and Giles Davis. Subject: money matters, Middlesex. Document type: bill, answer. 1657



To do



Transcription


//14 X 6:br 1654//
//Hales//

//To the Right honoble the Lords Com:rs//
//for the great seale of England//


//XXXX Complayning sheweth unto yo:r Lord:pps yo.r Orato:r Gyles Davies of London Merchant That whereas yo:r Orato:r being heretofore resident att Gallata of Constantinople in Turkey beyond the seas as a Merchant and ffacto:r there and haveing//

//intercourse of Trade and Commerce w:th Nathaniell Barnardiston and Samuell Barnardiston of London Merchants heretofore resideing att Smyrna in Turkey aforesaid they the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston haveing//

//ioyned themselves in Company and haveing about the month of June one Thousand sixe hundred fforty sixe consigned unto yo:r Orato:r Two and Twenty Bayles of Venice paper and haveing also in or about the month of September one//

//Thousand sixe hundred fforty sixe consigned unto yo:r Orato:r at Constantinople aforesaid for their owne Accompt ??One case of Venice silkes did then by their Letter and severall other Letters and order and Comission unto yo:r Orato:r to sell the//

//said paper and silkes soe consigned unto him at the price currant for ready money w:ch said paper and silkes soe consigned yo:r Orato:r Accordingly received at Gallata of Constantinople for the Custome whereof and other charges in and a//

//bout the receivinge of the same yo.r Orato:r expended severall summes of mony soe that there is due unto yo:r Orato:r for the said charges and for pvision belonging unto yo:r Prato.r as ffacto:r for receiving & keeping of the said goods XXXXXXXXXXX//

//& innety & XXX XX XXXX being one hundred thirty ffower pounds and sixteene shillings sterling mony or thereabouts As in and by the Accompt hereunto Annexed w:ch yo:r Orato:r humbly prayeth may bee taken as parte of his bill may more at Large Appeare After the receipt of which//

//said goods soe consigned as aforesaid yo:r Orato:r did earnestly indeavo:r the sale thereof According to the said dyreccons and comission of the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston but could not Accordingly sell the same nor in any way XXXX//

//Notw:thstanding yo:r Orato:rs utmost endeavo:rs complyt w:th the said dyreccons and comission of w:ch yo:r Orato:r by his severall Letters did advise the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston whereupon the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston//

//did afterwards by their Lre give order dyreccon and comission unto yo:r Orato:r to put of or Barter the said case of Venice silkes and pap for fyne Grograine yearne and by their severall other Letters dated in or about the Twentieth day of December//

//and the ffive and Twentyth day of ffebruary one Thousand sixe hundred fforty seaven did advise yo:r Oarto:r That yf he could soe put of and barter the said goods for Grogaine yarne That they would approve thereof w:ch yo:r Orato:r did carefully//

//endeavo:r And to that end yo:r Oarto:r did by a note in writeing under his hand bearing date on or about the Nynth day of March one Thousand sixe hundred fforty seaven make XXX XXX for bartering the said paper and silkes to Alee Offendee TurkX//

//Merchant togeather w:th divers other goods belonging to yo:r said Orato:r for Grograine yarne and other comodities to bee delivered at Smyrna aforesaid But the said Alee Offendee not agreeing to or in anywise excepting the said propossicon//

//soe made as aforesaid the same never became a bargaine or contract neither was there any thing acted or done in psursuance of the said proposiccon but the said paper and silkes and other goods in the said proposicon XXXX still remayne//

//in yo:r Orato:rs hands notw:thstanding the said proposicon And the truth is yo:r Orator well knowing that the said proposiccon was not a conclusive bargaine and that there was noe manner of hopes or likelyhood That the said Alee Offendee would deale//

//to Compleat a bargaine yo:r Orato:r did not advise the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston of the same But onely advised them yo:r Orato:r hoped in some tyme to barter and put of the said pap and silkes according to this direccon//

//and comission but the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston haveing little hopes that yo:r Orato:r could make sale or barter the said pap and goods according to their comission unto yo:r Orato:r to the said pap and silkes till further order And yo:r//

//Orato:r further sheweth that about the tyme or after the said order of the Two and Twentyth day of June one Thousand sixe hundred fforty eight he haveing in his possession the said pap and silkes and having then some discourse q:th the said Alee

//Offendee in and about the bartereing of divers of yo:r Orato:rs pper goods And the said pap and silkes w:ch then lay dead in yo:r Orato:rs hands w:thout any pbability of a beneficiall disposall thereof for the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston but yo:r Orator//

//being inclinable and haveing a reall intent to be serviceable to the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston in the bartering and putting of the said pap and silkes yo:r Orato:r did come to an agreem:t w:th the said Alee Offendee and did sell the said//

//pap and silke togeather w:th other goods belonging to yo:r Orato:r in barter for Grograine yarne and other goods to bee delivered at Smyrna According to the former order and comission of the said Nathaniell and samuell Barnardiston neverthelesse//

//condiionally yf they the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston after ?not ??given to them by yo:r Orato:r of the said sale should Accept and allow thereof and w:ch a power left to yo:r Orato:r not to include the said pap and silkes in the bargaine w:th the//

//rest of yo:r Orato:rs goods yf the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston shoud dislike thereof but before yo:r Orato:r did or could give them notice of the said condicionall bargain the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston by their Letters date att//

//Smyrna on or about the Two and Twentyth day of August one Thousand sixe hundred fforty eight did give order and direccon to yo:r Orato:r to deliver the said pap and silkes unto William Gough[3] Merchant then resident in Gallata of Constantinople//

//aforesaid since decd but did not then give and legall power unto the said William Gough either by Letter of Attorney or otherwise to receive the said goods from yo:r Orato:r or to give him any legall dischardge for the same or to ?come to an Accompt//

//w:th or to give Allowance or satisffaccon to yo:r Orato:r for what was due to him (either for charges touching the receipt and keeping of the said goods or otherwise) from the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston or to pay unto him what should bee//

//Justly did XX to him upon ballance of such Accompt betweene them But the said William ?Gough then onely demanded the said goods of yo:r Orato:r w:ch yo:r Orato:r pferred to deliver unto the said William Gough so that he would come to an Accompt w:th y:r

//Orato:r for the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston and to pay unto yo:r Oarto:r what should bee due unto him upon such Accompt and for the charges of the receiving and keeping of the said goods in the said Accompt Annexed menconned w:ch the//

//said William ??Gough utterly refused do doe whereupon yo:r Orato:r did not deliver him the said goods but by his letters dated at Gallata on or about the ffifth and Twentyth seaventh day of September one Thousand sixe hundred fforty eight did//

//advise the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston then at Smyrna of the said condiconall sale of the said goods and ?w:thall did then deliver unto the said William Gough to be sent unto the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston XXXXX//

//Accompt of the sale of the said goods and Accompt Currant of all matters betweene yo:r Oarto:r and them yf the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston should Allow of the said Bargaine as by the said Letters or one of them both XXXXXXXXXXXx//

//Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardston received and yett have the same or some other by their delivery (y:t yo:r Oarto:r had the same to pduce would more at large Appeare) But the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston by their Letters XXXXXXXXX//

//yo:r Orato:r dated at Smyrna on or about the Twentie eight day of September one Thousand sixe hundred fforty eight did disallow the sale whereby the same tooke noe effect and did also by their writing purporting a Letter of Attorney XXXXXXXXXXXX//

//on or about the sixteenth day of November one Thousand sixe hundred fforty eight constitute and Appoint the said William Gough their Attorney to receive
of yo:r Orato:r all XXX goods effects or summe of summes of money as were then in XXXXXXXXXXX//

//due from him to the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston and to Accompt w:th yo:r Orato:r concernying the same whereuponyo:r Orato:r having all the

//used amongst Merchants and ffactory their That the Principall Merchant ought to Accept of any bargaine made by his ffacto:r or of his owne goods

//Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston did and doe very well know whereupon yo:r Orato:r did ?after XX deliver unto the said William Gough all the said pap and

//Accompt w:th yo:r Orato:r and pay him what was Justly due from the said Barnardistons in respect of the Charges

//said pap and silkes but did demand the first cost for the said pap and silkes and interest for the same at Twenty in the hundred from the tyme

//unto dollars Three Thousand ffive hundred Thirty eight  ?as pXs twenty underp:rtence that yo:r Orato:r had sold the said pap and silkes contrary to the dire

//the said pap and silkes were not at the tyme that they were consigned unto yo:r Orato:r as aforesaid nor att any tyme since nor yett are worth

//by XXXXX so w:xh they the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston and William Gough very well know the said Nathaniell and Samuell

//satisfaccon

//goods

//Gough dyeing

//and keeping

//in those pts

//and w:ch divers other psons unknowne unto yo:r Orato:r But well knowne to them w:ch he desires they may discover and when they shall be discovered

//had broken the comission of the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston by selling the said pap and silkes although they well know that yo:r Orato:r


//deliver the same unto the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston and their Assignes as aforesaid They the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston James Muddiford Anthony Isaackson and John Williams or some or one of them togeather w:th the said//

//other confederates knowne unto yo:r Orato:r did in or about the month of September one Thousand sixe hundred fforty Nyne at Gallata aforesaid by some indirect unlawfull and uniust meanes contrary to the custome used amongst Merchants and//

//the ffactory there And w:thout any lawfull warrant or Authority in that behalfe and contrary to all right equity and good conscience did

//cloth being really worth seaventy dollars appece w:thin all amounting to dollars ?ffower Thousand seaven hundred and

//the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston

//dollars one Thousand

//since were ready and proffered for to be delivered unto the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston and their Assignes at Constantinople Smyrna and other places and the said confederates at the tyme of the obteyning of the said clothe ?might have received the said

//pap and silkes but they refused the same And shortly after they the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston James Muddiford Anthony Isaackson and John Williaims and the other confederates unknowne to yo:r Orato:r having for obteyned yo:r Orato:r said cloth as aforesaid did sell the same//

//and they some or one of them received the whole mony for w:ch the said cloths were sold for or were really worth Accounting unto dollars 4700 being of English sterling money the somme of One Thousand three hundred nine pounds being much more than any p:rtence//

//could bee for satisfaccon of the said pap and silkes w:ch summe soe raysed by sale of the said cloth they the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston James Muddiford Anthony Isaackson and John Williams and other confederates or some or one of them have disposed//

//and ymployed to their ome or one of theirselves and doe refuse to give yo:r Orato:r any Accompt or satisfaccon for the said cloth or of the mony raysed by sale therof or any

//??doe and have already refused to Accept of the said pap and silkes being their owne goods although the same have beene often tendred unto them and theire Assignes as aforesaid

//the ?same or the interest thereof although they have beene often tymes in frendly manner or thereunto required soe that there remaynes due unto yo:r Orato:r from the said

//keeping the said pap and silkes and for the ?interest thereof of English pounds Three hundred ffifty three pounds twelve shillings & seaven pence And from the said Nathaniell and Samuell Barnardiston James Muddiford

//XXXX

//XXXX

//XXXX

//to have

//XXXX

//and

//XXXX

//and willing

//from
Barnardiston James Muddiford Anthony Isackson and John Williams may by the same Justice of this Co:rt pay unto yo:r Orato:r the full value of the said sixty eight//

//XXXX
according to y.e Accompt annexed & Custome used in Turkey And to y:t and y:t y:e said Nathaniell & Samuell Barnardiston James Muddiford Anthony//

//XXXX
by y:e direction & order of this co:rt as is agreable to equity & good conscience may it please yo:r Lord:pps the p:rmisses considered To grant unto yo:r Orato:r writt of subpena to bee yssuing//

//XXXX
John Williams & to y:e other confederates when they shallbe discovered thereby comanding them & every of them at a crteine day & under a crteine payne therein to bee//

//XXXX
as to yo:r hono:s shall seeme meete w:th equity And yo:r Orato:r shall pray xr.//


//Peter ?Balls [Signature, bottom RH corner]//



Notes

William Gough


PROB 11/211 Pembroke 1-54 Will of William Gouch, Merchant of Galata15 March 1650[4]

- "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..."[5]

"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..."[6]



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..."[7]

"[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 ..."[8]

"[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..."[9]



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
- SP 105/174 1648-1651
- SP 105/175 1656-1668



Possible primary sources


C 5/51/8 Bendish v. Gough 1669
C 6/47/59 Short title: Gough v Bendish. Plaintiffs: Robert Gough. Defendants: Sir Thomas Bendish baronet. Subject: personal estate of the deceased William Gough.Document type: answer only. 1665
C 9/30/56 Gough v. Bendish, bart 1663
C 9/33/39 Gough v. Bendish, bart 1664

PROB 11/138 Dale 64-109 Will of John Barnardiston, Merchant of Saint Lawrence Jewry, City of London 03 October 1621
PROB 11/301 Nabbs 211-259 Will of John Williams, Merchant being now bound out on a Voyage to the Island of Bardados in the Ship Bendish of London 08 September 1660
PROB 11/350 Bence 1-54 Will of William Barnardiston, Merchant of London 22 February 1676
PROB 11/357 Reeve 56-105 Will of Nathaniell Barnardiston, Merchant of London 16 July 1678 Reeve 56-105
PROB 11/363 Will of Nathaniel Barnardiston of Hackney, Middlesex 29 July 1680 Bath 60-123
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
  1. 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
  2. Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1649-1660) (London, XXXX), p. 79 CHECK PAGE REFERENCE
  3. Alison Games has identified William Gough's will. See 'Will of William Gough, 4 August 1649, in Constantinople Chancery Book, 1648-1651, SP 105/174, 163-166, TNA:PRO', in Alison Games, The web of empire: English cosmopolitans in an age of expansion, 1560-1660 (Oxford, 2008), fn. 68, p. ?
  4. The spelling of William Gough's name appears to be an electronic indexing error by the compilers of TNA's Documents Online
  5. Frederick Arthur Crisp (ed.), Abstracts of Somersetshire wills etc: copied from the manuscript collections of the late Rev. Frederick Brown (XXXX, 1888), p. 60
  6. Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1649-1660) (London, XXXX), p. 79 CHECK PAGE REFERENCE
  7. Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1649-1660) (London, XXXX), p. 79 CHECK PAGE REFERENCE
  8. Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1649-1660) (London, XXXX), p. 290
  9. Mary Anne Everett Wood Green, Calendar of state papers, Domestic series: of the Commonwealth (1649-1660) (London, XXXX), p. 291