and the sayd Patrick Creagh is an Inhabita … and the sayd Patrick Creagh is an Inhabitant of Limmerick and so hath bin<br />
all his tyme, and the sayd John White is an Inhabitant of Amsterdam<br />
as a merchant factor and there hath lived 6 or 7 yeares and hath a [?wife]<br />
there living with him; And the sayd producents are Bachilers.
To the 4. negatively.
To the .5. 6. an .7. he saith he knoweth nothing thereof.
To the .8. he cannot depose otherwise than as aforesayd
To the .9. he saith he cannot depose otherwise than as aforesayd. saving<br />
he saith he hath noe fixe habitation, but takes the advantage of<br />
merchandize and trade from place to place as occasion serves.
To the 10. 11. and 12. he saith he knoweth nothing thereof
To the 13. he cannot depose otherwise than as aforesayd.
To the 14. he referreth himselfe to his foregoeing depositions and<br />
cannot further depose
To the 15. and 16. he saith he knoweth nothing thereof saving hee<br />
saith he hath heard the sayd Daniel Arthur say that he hath Order<br />
to Clayme the moneyes in question.
To the 17. he saith. the sayd Daniel Arthur is a native of Limerick in<br />
Ireland, and a subiect of this Commonwealth. and hath heard that he<br />
hath bene in England upward of a yeare, and came from france<br />
about 4 yeares since. And further cannot depose.
Francwater [SIGNATURE, RH SIDE]
Repeated with his precontest}<br />
before the Judges in Court}.
The eighth day Of November 1653.
Phillip and Company against the shipp called the}<br />
''Saint John'' (whereof Joachem Mesters is master}<br />
and against detcliffe Stolley Claes Luds and}<br />
others Claymers comeing in for their}<br />
Smith ffranklin Suckly.}
Examined upon an allegation on the behalfe<br />
of the sayd detcliffe Stlley and others
'''Claes Vos''' of Hamburg merchant<br />
aged three and twenty yeares or thereabouts<br />
a witnes sworne and examined deposeth<br />
and saith as followeth. videlicet.
To the first Article of the sayd allegation This deponent saith the said<br />
shipp ''Saint John'' and her ladeing now in Controversy were in [?fact]<br />
uniustly aas he conceyveth taken and seized by an English frigott<br />
the name whereof or of the Captaine he knoweth not, in the moneth of<br />
September 1656. last past which he knoweth being aboard the said<br />
shipp at the tyme of seizure. And otherwise cannot depose.
To the second Article of the sayd allegation and to the schedule therein<br />
mentioned this deponent saith That att the tyme of the seizure of the<br />
sayd shipp as aforesayd there were on board the sayd shipp of the knowledge<br />
and sight of this deponents everall papers and bills of lading for<br />
and touching the Cargozone of goods laden aboard the sayd shipp but<br />
how many in certaine he knoweth not, and having seene and<br />
perused the schedule to the allegation annexed he saith that there [?were]<br />
on board the sayd shipp the tyme aforesayd for the Accompt of the sayd<br />
detcliffe Stolly 2 packes of peice goods of teh first marke in the
[FIRST MARKE, LH MARGIN]
margent, and 2 packes more and one small dry fatt of [?Peice ?goods]
[SECOND MARKE, LH MARGIN]
of the second marke in the margent, for which sayd 2 packes<br />
there were the tyme aforesayd two bills of lading aboard of different<br />
tenors, videlicet one for the sayd packes of the first marke and one for the<br />
sayd two packes and little fatt of the 2d marke, And saith that for<br />
[?XXX]rke, And saith that for<br />