John Whittingham - Revision history

ColinGreenstreet at 11:55, January 7, 2018

2018-01-07T11:55:00Z

ColinGreenstreet at 11:53, January 7, 2018

2018-01-07T11:53:41Z

ColinGreenstreet at 11:52, January 7, 2018

2018-01-07T11:52:08Z

ColinGreenstreet at 21:52, October 24, 2016

2016-10-24T21:52:20Z

ColinGreenstreet at 21:47, October 24, 2016

2016-10-24T21:47:53Z

ColinGreenstreet at 23:02, October 18, 2016

2016-10-18T23:02:51Z

ColinGreenstreet at 23:55, August 8, 2016

2016-08-08T23:55:07Z

ColinGreenstreet: Created page with "{{Banner}} {{SemBioLongInfoBoxThree |Person=John Whittingham |First name=John |Last name=Whittingham |Occupation=Blockmaker |Training=Not apprentice |Citizen=Unknown |Literacy..."

2016-08-07T20:04:43Z

Created page with "{{Banner}} {{SemBioLongInfoBoxThree |Person=John Whittingham |First name=John |Last name=Whittingham |Occupation=Blockmaker |Training=Not apprentice |Citizen=Unknown |Literacy..."

New page

{{Banner}}
{{SemBioLongInfoBoxThree
|Person=John Whittingham
|First name=John
|Last name=Whittingham
|Occupation=Blockmaker
|Training=Not apprentice
|Citizen=Unknown
|Literacy=Signature
|Has opening text=John Whittingham
|Has signoff text=John Whittingham
|Transcription image={{#transcription-image: }}
|Language skills=English language,
|Res town=Rederith
|Res county=Surrey
|Res country=England
|Birth year=1631
|Deposition start page(s)=HCA 13/70 f.373v Annotate,
|Deposition date(s)=Jun 16 1655
|Has infobox completed=Yes
|Has synthesis completed=No
|Has HCA evidence completed=No
|Has source comment completed=No
}}
==Biographical synthesis==
John Whittingham (b.ca.1631; d.?). Blockmaker,

Resident in Rederith in Surrey in 1655.

Married twice. The name of his first wife is unknown. His second wife was Elizabeth Dewell, daughter of Humphry Dewell, merchant, of Rederith, Surrey.<ref>George J. Armytage, Allegations for Marriage Licences Issued by the Vicar-general of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Canterbury, 1892), p.210</ref>

==Evidence from High Court of Admiralty==
Twenty-four year old John Whittingham deposed on June 16th 1655 in the High Court of Admiralty. He was examined on a libel on behalf of Thomas Lash in the case of "Lash against the ''Relief'' of London and John Edge her master."<ref>[[HCA 13/70 f.373v Annotate|HCA 13/70 f.373v]]</ref>

Whittingham stated that he had been in the service of Thomas Lash, who "did travell in blockworke and other requisites".<ref>[[HCA 13/70 f.374r Annotate|HCA 13/70 f.374r]]</ref> The ship the ''Relief'' of London had need of block work, which was delivered by Thomas Lash to John Edge, the ship's master. Whittingham stated that he had delivered the bulk of the goods "with his owne hands" and "entred them from time to time in the said producents shopp booke". The schedule of the disputed goods which Whittingham was shown was extracted from the shop book. The total amount due to Thomas Lash was £14-09 -01d. When John Edge failed to pay for the goods received., Thomas Lash followed the ship to Gravesend, where he confronted Edge, and Edge endorsed the account of goods and materials received by himm with his own handwriting.<ref>[[HCA 13/70 f.374r Annotate|HCA 13/70 f.374r]]</ref>

Whittingham claimed that non-payment for the goods had led to damage of forty to fifty shillings "hee being a tradesman in whose occupation soe much ready money to bee employed to the best advantage might very well produce in such a time a more considerable benefitt."<ref>[[HCA 13/70 f.374v Annotate|HCA 13/70 f.374v]]</ref>

==Comment on sources==
C 10/43/129 Edward Lash v Thomas Lash: money matters. Answer. 1651.

"June 4 John Whittingham, of Redrith, Surrey, Blockmaker, Widr, abt 30, & Elizabeth Dewell, Spr, abt 23, da. of Humphry Dewell, of the afsd par., Mercht, who consents; at Stepney, Midd, or (blank)."<ref>George J. Armytage, Allegations for Marriage Licences Issued by the Vicar-general of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Canterbury, 1892), p.210</ref>

The merchant Humphry Dewell is mentioned in a set of High Court of Admiralty interrogatories in a case involving Humphry Dewell, William Warren, John Shorter and Vincent Russlett and a ship named the ''Saint Joseph'', bound from London to Oratava in the Canaries.<ref>HCA 23/19, item no.72</ref>

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:53, January 7, 2018
Line 33:		Line 33:

	==Evidence from High Court of Admiralty==		==Evidence from High Court of Admiralty==
		+	'''June 1655'''
		+
	Twenty-four year old John Whittingham deposed on June 16th 1655 in the High Court of Admiralty. He was examined on a libel on behalf of Thomas Lash in the case of "Lash against the ''Relief'' of London and John Edge her master."<ref>[[HCA 13/70 f.373v Annotate\|HCA 13/70 f.373v]]</ref>		Twenty-four year old John Whittingham deposed on June 16th 1655 in the High Court of Admiralty. He was examined on a libel on behalf of Thomas Lash in the case of "Lash against the ''Relief'' of London and John Edge her master."<ref>[[HCA 13/70 f.373v Annotate\|HCA 13/70 f.373v]]</ref>

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:52, January 7, 2018
Line 49:		Line 49:

	The merchant Humphry Dewell is mentioned in a set of High Court of Admiralty interrogatories in a case involving Humphry Dewell, William Warren, John Shorter and Vincent Russlett and a ship named the ''Saint Joseph'', bound from London to Oratava in the Canaries.<ref>HCA 23/19, item no.72</ref>		The merchant Humphry Dewell is mentioned in a set of High Court of Admiralty interrogatories in a case involving Humphry Dewell, William Warren, John Shorter and Vincent Russlett and a ship named the ''Saint Joseph'', bound from London to Oratava in the Canaries.<ref>HCA 23/19, item no.72</ref>
		+
		+
		+	'''1695'''
		+
		+	ADM 106/481/211 Protection for John Whittingham, blockmaker, a lusty well set man, aged 23 years, brown hair, a fair complexion, a mole on the left cheek, employed by Jeremiah Barnard, Woolwich yard. 20 Mar 1695

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 |Res country=England
 |Birth year=1631
 |Deposition start page(s)=HCA 13/70 f.373v Annotate,
 |Deposition date(s)=Jun 16 1655

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 C 10/43/129 Edward Lash v Thomas Lash: money matters. Answer. 1651.
-''Date unclear'''
+'''Date unclear'''
 "June 4 John Whittingham, of Redrith, Surrey, Blockmaker, Widr, abt 30, & Elizabeth Dewell, Spr, abt 23, da. of Humphry Dewell, of the afsd par., Mercht, who consents; at Stepney, Midd, or (blank)."<ref>George J. Armytage, Allegations for Marriage Licences Issued by the Vicar-general of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Canterbury, 1892), p.210</ref>
 The merchant Humphry Dewell is mentioned in a set of High Court of Admiralty interrogatories in a case involving Humphry Dewell, William Warren, John Shorter and Vincent Russlett and a ship named the ''Saint Joseph'', bound from London to Oratava in the Canaries.<ref>HCA 23/19, item no.72</ref>

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 |Has HCA evidence completed=No
 |Has source comment completed=No
 |Role in Silver Ship litigation=None
 }}
@@ Line 39: / Line 40: @@
 ==Comment on sources==
 C 10/43/129 Edward Lash v Thomas Lash: money matters. Answer. 1651.
 "June 4 John Whittingham, of Redrith, Surrey, Blockmaker, Widr, abt 30, & Elizabeth Dewell, Spr, abt 23, da. of Humphry Dewell, of the afsd par., Mercht, who consents; at Stepney, Midd, or (blank)."<ref>George J. Armytage, Allegations for Marriage Licences Issued by the Vicar-general of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Canterbury, 1892), p.210</ref>
 The merchant Humphry Dewell is mentioned in a set of High Court of Admiralty interrogatories in a case involving Humphry Dewell, William Warren, John Shorter and Vincent Russlett and a ship named the ''Saint Joseph'', bound from London to Oratava in the Canaries.<ref>HCA 23/19, item no.72</ref>

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 |Has opening text=John Whittingham
 |Has signoff text=John Whittingham
-|Transcription image={{#transcription-image: }}
+|Transcription image={{#transcription-image:  }}
 |Language skills=English language,
 |Res town=Rederith
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 Twenty-four year old John Whittingham  deposed on June 16th 1655 in the High Court of Admiralty. He was examined on a libel on behalf of Thomas Lash in the case of "Lash against the ''Relief'' of London and John Edge her master."<ref>[[HCA 13/70 f.373v Annotate|HCA 13/70 f.373v]]</ref>
-Whittingham stated that he had been in the service of Thomas Lash, who "did travell in blockworke and other requisites".<ref>[[HCA 13/70 f.374r Annotate|HCA 13/70 f.374r]]</ref> The ship the ''Relief'' of London had need of block work, which was delivered by Thomas Lash to John Edge, the ship's master. Whittingham stated that he had delivered the bulk of the goods  "with his owne hands" and "entred them from time to time in the said producents shopp booke".  The schedule of the disputed goods which Whittingham was shown was extracted from the shop book. The total amount due to Thomas Lash was £14-09 -01d. When John Edge failed to pay for the goods received., Thomas Lash followed the ship to Gravesend, where he confronted Edge, and Edge endorsed the account of goods and materials received by himm with his own handwriting.<ref>[[HCA 13/70 f.374r Annotate|HCA 13/70 f.374r]]</ref>
+Whittingham stated that he had been in the service of Thomas Lash, who "did travell in blockworke and other requisites".<ref>[[HCA 13/70 f.374r Annotate|HCA 13/70 f.374r]]</ref> The ship the ''Relief'' of London had need of block work, which was delivered by Thomas Lash to John Edge, the ship's master. Whittingham stated that he had delivered the bulk of the goods  "with his owne hands" and "entred them from time to time in the said producents shopp booke".  The schedule of the disputed goods which Whittingham was shown was extracted from the shop book. The total amount due to Thomas Lash was £14-09 -01d. When John Edge failed to pay for the goods received., Thomas Lash followed the ship to Gravesend, where he confronted Edge, and Edge endorsed the account of goods and materials received by him with his own handwriting.<ref>[[HCA 13/70 f.374r Annotate|HCA 13/70 f.374r]]</ref>
 Whittingham claimed that non-payment for the goods had led to damage of forty to fifty shillings "hee being a tradesman in whose occupation soe much ready money to bee employed to the best advantage might very well produce in such a time a more considerable benefitt."<ref>[[HCA 13/70 f.374v Annotate|HCA 13/70 f.374v]]</ref>