|Secondary shorebased occupation|
|Associated with ship(s)|
|Is apprentice of|
|Was apprentice of|
|Has opening text||Gyles Vandeputt|
|Has signoff text||Gillis Vandeput|
|Signoff image||(Invalid transcription image)|
|Language skills||English language|
|Res street||Saint Martin's Lane|
|First deposition age|
|Act book start page(s)|
|Personal answer start page(s)|
|Allegation start page(s)|
|Deposition start page(s)||HCA 13/70 f.148v Annotate, HCA 13/71 f.365r Annotate|
|Chancery start page(s)|
|Letter start page(s)|
|Miscellaneous start page(s)|
|Act book date(s)|
|Personal answer date(s)|
|Deposition date(s)||Dec 9 1654, Sep 16 1656|
|How complete is this biography?|
|Has infobox completed||No|
|Has synthesis completed||No|
|Has HCA evidence completed||No|
|Has source comment completed||No|
|Type of ship||N/A|
|Silver Ship litigation in 1650s|
|Role in Silver Ship litigation||None|
Gillis Vandeput [alt. Gyles Vandeputt; Giles Vandeput] (b.1622; d.?1656). Merchant.
Evidence from High Court of Admiralty
Twenty-four year old merchant Charles Vande Putt deposed in the High Court of Admiralty on June 9th 1637. The case concerned Giles Vandeput and the lading of French wine onto a bark named the Hopewell, bound from London to Bristol.
Charles Vande Putt stated that he was brother to Giles Vandeput and that in 1636 he had been the household servant of Giles, and that he lived with him. But by the time of his deposition, he "is come from him and tradeth for himselfe". He gave his 1637 address as the parish of Saint Dionis Backchurch.
Thirty-two year old Gillis Vandeput (signing himself Giles Vandeput deposed in the High Court of Admiralty on December 9th 1654. The case was that of the Lord Protector against the ship the Sampson (Master: Otto George). He gave his residence as the parish of Saint Martins Orgers in the city of London.
Vandeput stated that he had procured insurance policies to be taken out for the Antwerp merchant John Bollaert, who had requested this of Vandeput by letters of advice in late October 1652. These were for silver and plate on the Sampson, the Salvador and the Saint George, being shipped allegedly from Cadiz to Ostend.
Vandepout described himself as an Englishman, born in the City of London, where he had had his residence since his infancy.
Thirty-four year old Gillis Vandeput deposed in the High Court of Admiralty on September 16th 1656. He was examined concerning the ship the Hare in the field of Middleburg (Master: John Kein).
Vandeput had been aboard the ship the Hare in the field at the time of her second seizure by the English. After her first seizure, she had been cleared in the High Court of Admiralty, and had set out then for Cadiz. Vandeput was acting and testifying on behalf of two Amsterdam merchants , who had goods on board the ship - Edward Scott and Phillip van Houlten [alt. Hulten].
Vandeput claimed that on departure of the ship from London, Kein her master, had sent his purser to Vandeput's house with a colourable bill of sale, claiming that he had sold the ship to Gillis Vandeput. But in realtity the ship still belonged to Clement, Bulstrode and company. Vandeput claimed to have refused to accept the bill of sale and that he tore it up, not wanting to have "any hand in colouring any foreigners goods".
Comment on sources
Parliamentary Archives: HL/PO/PB/1/1623/21J1n38. Private Act, 21 James I, c. 3. An Act for the Naturalizing of Giles Vandeput of London, Merchant. 1623.
C 8/84/120 Short title: Vandeput v Robinson. Plaintiffs: Giles Vandeput. Defendants: Henry Robinson, Henry Robinson, John Robinson and Margaret Robinson his wife. Subject: property in St Michael, Paternoster, London. Document type: bill and answer. 1638.
C 5/404/343 Short title: Williamson v Vandeput. Plaintiffs: William Williamson. Defendants: Giles Vandeput and others. Subject: money matters. Document type: answer. 1646.
PROB 11/200/90 Will of Giles Vandeput, Mariner of Saint Margaret Pattens, City of London. 13 April 1647
Shropshire Archives. 5460/8/3/1. Memorandum of Fras Cressett of London, gent., declaring the £309 which by a defeasance of a recognizance in the penalty of £600 acknowledged by Rd Cressett, Robt Cressett and the said Fras Cressett before the Lord St John Chief Justice of Common Pleas on 10 December 1652, was paid about August last and the recognizance with the defeasance and letter of attorney made by Giles Vandeput, recognizee, were yielded up to the use of the recognizors for cancellation, and Fras promises Sir Robt Barkley, father-in-law of Robt Cressett. Docketed: "Francis Cressett's writing about the recogniz' of £600 to Gyles Vandeputt viz that the money due by defeas' thereon was pd & the recognis' yilded up to be cancelled. He refused to promise to me his endeavour for yilding up the recognis' upon my 1...d of 6d to him to make a good assu' psil" [assurance possible?]. Undated, post 1652
C 8/112/157 Short title: Sculler v Vandeput. Plaintiffs: Roger Sculler. Defendants: Giles Vandeput. Subject: property in Canvey Marsh, Essex. Document type: answer only. 1653.
1656PROB 11/256/708 Will of Giles Vandeput, Merchant of Saint Margaret Pattens, City of London. 08 November 1656