MRP: C10/60/30 f. 3
C10/60/30 f. 3
Abstract
ABSTRACT TO BE COMPLETED
Transcription
[TO BE COMPLETED]
//The Answer of Jane Noke widdow one of the Defendants of the Bill of Complaint of William Loves Esq., Thomas Bretton, Thomas Pearle, Symon Delboe, Martin Nowell, Ffrancis Dashwood, Esq and Martha his wife, Edward Pearce, James Clitherow, Abraham Sayon, John White, Edwin Browne, and Abraham Bush Marchants Complainants//
Notes on the document
Dated. 14th February 1660. This answer deals with the complaint regarding the King Ferdinand. The Answer starts by stating that William Noke asked Nathaniel Temms to subscribe £500 for stock in the King Ferdinand on his behalf, which he did. Believes that the trustees gave instructions for GO and WN to provide a cargo in Surat for the KF worth about £14,000. Believes GO and WN bought goods to the value of £14,000 on their own credit, expecting the payment to be satisfied from the proceeds of the sales in Macao and additional money brought with CO. But it so happened that on his arrival in Surat from Macao CO “had not halfe sufficeint of the ready money or other estate or effects of the said comp:a or any of them to enable him to pay the same.” All the ready money and goods brought with CO to Surat did not amount to more than £8,000, so there was a significant shortage of funds to pay for the goods provided by GO and WN on their own credit in antic ipation of his arrival. In the absence of sufficient funds GO, WN and CO followed the letter of advice and bought goods to the value of only £7789-13s, within the £8000 limit, of the type of goods that they had previously been directed to buy in Surat. It is untrue that GO, WN and CO undervalued the goods and money brought from China, as alleged by the complainants. States that prior to CO’s arrival GO and WN bought goods “ to a very great value”, but is unaware what the value of the goods were, or what the nature of the goods was. “Being confident of the just and upright dealings of the said William Noke towards the Comp:a” his widow denied that the two had puchased the goods on their own account and then attempted to pass them off as the company's. Asserts that WN and GO “did afterwards susteyne very greate damage and losse therby in respect the ship called King fferdinando”, since the ship arrived “very late in the year and did not bring thither in money goods or other effects sufficient to satisfy for the one halfe of the said goods bought and provided for by the said George Oxinden and William Noke aforesaid insomuch that the said George Oxinden and William Noke were thereby enforced to stay and continue in India till they could find some meanes to satisfye the Engagem:t which they there lay under for the said goods so bought upon their creditt as aforesaid to theire damage of three thousand pounds and upwards as this said def:t hath heard and hopeth in due time to make it appear and to the farr greater damage of this def:t by the irreparable losse of the life of her late deare husband the said William Noke occasioned as she might everily beleiveth through his great greife a d disquiet of mind by meanes of the said disappointm:t." Points out that authority for decisions regarding the King Ferdinand lay solely with CO. States that CO “seeing an improbabilities of the said ships returne that yeare in saftie to England …did contrive to employ the said shipp in a voiage from Surat to Persia for the benefitt and profitt of the said Comp:lls and did make such a voyage accordingly, but the said William Noke dying in India before the retowrne of the said ship from Persia to Surrat aforesaid” it was George Oxenden alone who completed what had been the joint responsibility of GO and WN. Believes that GO has charged this defendant with one half of the £3700 owing to him and William Noke at his death by William Love and the other trustees, on whose account GO and WN purchased and supplied the goods of sufficient quantity to meet their obligations to the trustees. Asserts that given the loss and damages, together with interest and profit, incurred the total amount the complainants are indebted to WN and GO by not sending sufficient funds to satisfy the engament is about £8000. States that she understands there is the intention to claim or make appear that the GO and WN never delivered any goods to CO, but understands there is a valid receipt of goods from CO. States that it is unjust that she should have waited so long for just recompense.
Commentary
