Difference between revisions of "HCA 13/71 f.375v Annotate"

Revision as of 06:06, April 24, 2014

Image

P1130914

Transcription

of the sayd schedule arlate to be his this deponents marke which
hee made thereto at the tyme of the sealing and delivery thereof by the
sayd Syndersby And further to th[?o]se articles and the schedule aforesayd
hee cannot depose/

To the third and 4th articles of the sayd libell hee saith that of his this
deponents sight and knowledge the arlate daniell Tibballs did worke
upon and repayre the sayd vessell the Jane and doe Carpenters worke
about her and the arlate Wi[?n]churst did doe some smiths worke about
her in order to her repayreing but the tyme when they soe wrought upon
her hee remembreth not but well knoweth and remembreth that both
the sayd Tibballs and Winchurst did confesse and acknowledge to this
deponent that they were paid for this worke by them soe done to her by the
arlate Sampson Edwards And further to these articles hee cannot depose

To the 5th 6th 7th and 8th articles pf the sayd libell and the schedule in the seaventh
article mentioned hee saith hee cannot depose./

To the 9th hee saith hee referreth him selfe to the Regist[?ray] of this Court And
further cannot depose

To the 10th hee saith hee knoweth the arlate Richard Stephens whome he
1beleeveth to bee a subiect of this Commonwealth and subiect to the authority of
this Court, and the arlate Leigh hee knoweth not And further cannot depose

To the 11th hee saith his foregoeing deposition is true/

To the Interrogatories/ [CENTRE HEADING]

To the first hee saith hee is noe way concerned in this suite nor
will it bee profitt or preiudice to him which soe ever of the parties therein
doe prevaile, or bee overthrowne therein./

To the 2 Interrogatorie hee saith the bill of sale by him predeposed made by the sayd
Syndersby to the sayd Edwards was made the say of the date thereof and
in presense of this deponent and the sayd Aldworth but the place where he
remembreth not and further to this Interrogatorie hee cannot answere/

Repeated before Col Cock

the marke of the sayd
Richard R S [MARKE] Speareman./ [MARKE, RH SIDE]

*****************************************

The 26th of August 1656/

Abraham Corsellis and Andrew d[?e]binham against}
the shipp called the Sarah of Leith belonging to}
Colonell Samuell Atkins, and against George}
Bilton and Maurice Trent comming in for their}
interest: Suckley ffrancklin}

Examined upon an allegation on the behalfe of
the sayd Abraham Corsellis and Andrew
d[?e]binham./

Rp. Et. 1us.

William Cumley of Wapping in the
parish of Stepney and County of Middlesex Mariner aged
fifty yeares or thereabouts a wittnes sworne and
examined saith and deposeth as followeth videlicet./

To the first second third and foweth articles of the sayd allegation he
saith that upon the two and twentith day of Aprill 1656 this deponent was
constituted and made Master of the arlate shipp [?rge] Sarah of Leith and
was soe constituted by Mr Collins a Merchant of London and Mr Thomas [XXXX GUTTER]
a Goldsmith liveing neere Saint Pauls Church London who as they affirmeth
were authorized and intrusted for the shipping of a Master on board the
shipp by the arlate Colonell Samuell Atkins who was as they affirmed the sole Owner and
proprietor

Suggested links

HCA 13/71 Page Log & Planner
HCA 3/47 Page Log & Planner