Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
judgement_n action_n case_n verdict_n 3,368 5 11.5648 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
B06638 To the King's most excellent Majesty. The humble petition of Rober Williams of London Mariner, Your Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subject. Williams, Roger, mariner. 1681 (1681) Wing W2771; ESTC R215610 4,217 2

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

To the KING 's Most Excellent MAJESTY The Humble Petition of Roger Williams of London Mariner Your Majesty's most Loyal and Dutiful Subject Humbly Complaining SHeweth unto Your most Sacred Majesty That Your Petitioner having been employed by one Edward Melish of London Merchant to be Master of a small Ship called the Valentine of about 60 Tun in the years 1672. and 1673. from London to Fare in Portugal and from thence to Newfound-land to buy Fish and to carry the same to Oporto and to come from Oporto to London In which Voyage Your Petitioner proceeded but in his Return to London was taken by a Dutch Privateer not far from the Downs Afterwards Your Petitioner was forc'd to pay the Sea-men their wages for the prosperous Voyages Melish from time to time promising to pay Your Petitioner but not doing it in the space of near 3 years time Your Petitioner su'd him in the Admiralty for his own and Sea-mens wages amounting to near 200 l. Whereupon Melish exhibited his Bill in Chancery against Your Petitioner pretending breach of Orders and that Your Petitioner refused to give an Account of the Goods and Moneys wherewith he was intrusted in the foresaid Voyages and thereby and by other false suggestions he obtained an Injunction to stop Your Petitioners Proceedings in the Admiralty for the wages till a hearing in Chancery and after a tedious and to Your Petitioner a Chargeable Proceeding there the Cause came to hearing in Easter-Term 1679. and the Lord Chancellor then decreed that Sir Samuel Clerk K nt one of the Masters of that Court should inspect Your Petitioners Account which Account had been given in to Melish six years before and no objection made against it till Your Petitioner su'd for his wages And his Lordship also decreed that Your Petitioner should have his and his Sea-mens wages but no consideration for the long detaining it yet that the said Master should make all other just fitting allowances on both sides and what the Master should report due to either party should accordingly be paid But as to Mellish's pretended breach of Orders his Lordship left Mellish to his remedy at Law if he should be so advised and further declared that if Mellish did not try it that Terus his Lordship would take it for granted there was no breach of Orders whereupon Mellish brought his Action against Your Petitioner for refusing to go back from Oporto to Newfound-land in Septemb. 1673. and for neglecting to put into some Port in the West of England in his way from Oporto to London whereby the said Ship was taken and laid his Damages to 2000 l. though Your Petitioner gained for Mellish in the said Voyages above 1000 l. more then his Losses And Mellish having laid his Action in London and brought the same to Tryal and after appearing at Guild-hall several times as if he would try his Cause he prevailed to have it put off divers times to Your Petitioners extraordinary Charge till such time as Your Petitioners Occasions forc'd him beyond-Sea and until Mellish had obtain'd a Jury of most Merchants some of them being Brothers to those to whom a considerable part of the Goods in the Ship when lost were consign'd as afterwards appear'd and some of them were afterwards of that remaquable Grand-Jury that refus'd to find the Bill against the Earl of Shaftsbury yet very freely gave a Verdict against Your Petitioner for 200 l. for refusing to go from Oporto to Newfound-land and for not putting into some Port of the West of England though it was fully proved the Ship was so rotten and decay'd that she was not capable to perform the Voyage to Newfound-land and that the Ships Rudder broke off before Your Petitioner got near the English Coast that when he came into the Channel the Wind blew so hard N. and N. W. that he could not possibly put into any Port in the West of England and no proof was made to the contrary * I. Cause of Complaint And Your Petitioner further sheweth unto Your Sacred Majesty that after many motions made in the Common-Pleas where the Action was brought for a new Tryal which is usual in such Cases And though the Lord Chief-Justice North before whom the Cause was try'd acknowledg'd that Your Petitioners Agents were Out-solicited and that if he had been of the Jury he would not have given such a Verdict yet he gave Judgment against Your Petitioner for 230 l. the 30 l. being for Cost of Suit and soon after Mellish obtain'd an Order from the Lord Chancellor that the said 230 l. should be deducted out of Your Petitioners demands before Sir Samuel Clerk whereupon Your Petitioner exhibited a Bill before his Lordship to be relieved against the said Verdict by having a new Tryal by an Indifferent Jury And such Proceedings were thereupon had that the Cause was by his Lordships own Order set down to be heard on the 11th of January 1681. and ought to have been heard in course a long time since but by Mellish's Art and Skill it is hitherto kept off from hearing And Your Petitioner further sheweth unto Your Sacred Majesty that during the Transactions aforesaid Sir Samuel Clerk inspected Your Petitioners Account and having made unjust abatements of what Your Petitioner paid for Fish for Mellish at Newfound-land though Your Petitioners Account is no way disproved and though Your Petitioner accounts for those Fish at far cheaper rates than others have paid from the year 1672. till this time as is most manifestly proved And the said Sir Samuel Clark did make Your Petitioner account to Mellish for Your Petitioners own Fish that Your Petitioner brought from Newfound-land as Fish caught by Your Petitioner at Sea because Your Petitioner could not at that time of day being 8 years after prove he bought them for his own use although Mellish's Factor proves Your Petitioner carried from Faro to Newfound-land as much Wines and other Commodities as would have purchased so much Fish according to the Bargain made for Mellish * II. Cause of Complaint and Sir Samuel Clerk abated considerably of the wages thereby incroaching on the course of Tryals by the Common-Law as to what the said Fish cost at Newfound-land and how much Fish was caught and how much wages Your Petitioner and Sea-men were to have by agreement the same being all matters of Fact and tryable by Jury in regard the Original Contract touching the same was was made in England And the said Sir Samuel Clark made Your Petitioner account twice for the same things and made such other unjust allowances whereby not only Your Petitioner and Sea-mens wages were wholly swallowed up but Your Petitioner was thereby made Debter to Mellish in near 300 l. and about July 1681. Sir Samuel Clerk made his Report accordingly and Mellish obtained an Order that the said Report should stand confirmed unless cause were shown to the contrary And it so happened that before the time was expired for