Genealogy Record for Shadrach Williams

HOME

CEMETERY

COOKING

FAMILY

GENEALOGY

HA-HA

JOURNAL

PHOTO

RV - CAMPER

TRAVEL

Biographical material for

Shadrach Williams

From 27 November 1626 Chancery Proceedings

Shadrach Williams vs. Bridgeman

"27 November 1626. Complaint to Sir Thomas Coventry, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England, shows that your orator, Sydrack Williams of London, merchant, about the month of February 1621, and William Clobery of London, merchant, were partners in trading and commerce in serges and perpetuanas, and so continued until July 1622, that one Thomas Bridgeman of Exon in Devon, gentleman, had serges and perpetuanas that were hardly merchantable, and, seeing that your orator and his partner were diligent merchants, he pretended that he was of their acquaintance at the time of the beginning of the partnership, and agreed to see them serges and perpetuanas from Devon of the best quality, at reasonable prices, and they relied on his representations and accepted said serges and perpetuanas. On or about July 1622 the partnership was dissolved, and an accounting was made, and the orator agreed to pay one half of the account, namely 150 pounds, and in July 1622 the orator gave said Bridgeman a bond for 300 pounds, with Clobery as his surety, to pay the same in six months, and he paid most of it, namely 100 pounds, and he was willing and ready to pay the rest, but Bridgeman would not accept, and desired the orator to keep the rest, saying that he had no occasion then to use the 50 pounds, and that he would not take advantage of the bond. A difference hath now arisen between William Clobery and Bridgeman for other and larger sums, and Bridgeman is now seeking to recover on the bond against Clobery, although he is only a surety, and he refuses to accept the residue although often requested by the orator in a friendly manner, and he has refused to cancel the bond, contrary to equity and good conscience. Moreover, the bond was for overvalued serges and perpetuanas, and the orator has no remedy at law, and cannot take advantage of the verbal promise, and prays a discovery against Bridgeman as to the true value of the goods, and if he did not overvalue the same, and if he did not tell the orator that he paid ready money for the goods, whereas he took long credits, and if the orator did not often tender and offer to pay the bond, and if he did not refuse payment, and if the reason for such refusal was not to put the bond in suit against William Clobery, and if he hath not given out speeches to that purpose and effect, and prays for a writ of subpoena against said Bridgeman and other relief according to equity and good conscience."

Record from the Public Records Office in London, England.

From 1628 Chancery Proceedings

Shadrach Williams vs. John Freeman

"28 May 1628. Complaint to Thomas Coventry, Lord Keeper, by Sydrack Williams of London, merchant, shows that in or about April 1627 he entered into a contract with one John Freeman of Dedham, Suffolk, clothier, to buy twenty Suffolk cloths within twenty days thereafter, viz., six violets, seven blues, and seven azures, at 10 pounds per cloth, to be paid for at the feast of the Nativities next ensuing, and Freeman, having three of the cloths in London which he could not vend or sell, delivered them as sample and pattern to the orator, and promised to deliver the other seventeen in the twenty days, so that, relying thereon, the orator forebore to buy other cloths for four or five months thereafter. Freeman then delivered fourteen of the cloths in October, when the time for shipping was past, and shortly thereafter pretended to have occasion to use money in London, and the orator, although the cloths were delivered late, and the money not yet due, unwillingly, at Freeman's request, loaned him 10 pounds. Freeman has not yet delivered the other three cloths, to wit, of violet, and nevertheless denies the receipt of the 10 pounds, and has commenced an action at common law for the price of the seventeen cloths. The orator cannot call to mind who was present at the agreement for the twenty cloths or at the lending of the 10 pounds, and prays that Freeman may be examined as to these points, and for a writ of subpoena, as he has no bar at the common law."

"31 May 1628. Answer of John Freeman. The orator, even if he did not receive the cloths, has a remedy at common law in an action on the case, but the defendant says that in or about April 1627 he agreed to deliver twenty cloths, vis., seven "blewes", seven azures, and six violets, by Midsummer next ensuing, and complainant was to pay 10 pounds per cloths, or 200 pounds in all, by the Feast of the Nativities. He did deliver three violets, four blues and four azures, which the complainant first saw at the house of the defendant's brother, Symon Freeman, and one George Massy, both clothworkers in Fenchurch Street, London. The complainant marked and sealed these, and the defendant thereafter delivered three more, and the rest, being six, he did not deliver until, as he confesses, three weeks after Midsummer, which was not a long time, and although of proper colors and equal goodness, the complainant turned back three of the six, which the defendant sold afterwards for more than the complainant had agreed to pay. The complainant had promised to pay the rest to the defendant's brother, and, although the brother often asked for it, he failed to pay, so that the defendant came up to London to solicit payment, and he promised from day to day to pay but failed to do so, until the defendant had to go home on account of his trade, without pay, and the expenses of his trip to London of 20 marks and also the loss of the use of his money. There was no agreement to deliver the cloths in twenty days, as bill untruly alleges. The time for shipping the cloths was not past when they were delivered, nor for long after, for the defendant says that the usual time for the Turkish merchants to ship and vend such bouts of cloth is not until about Michaelmas, nor sooner, which is the usual time that the Turkey merchants ship their cloths for to be transported, and the complainant so shipped them, as he had them three months before they were shipped, so that the complainant was not damaged. The defendant has properly commenced an action in the King's Bench, as he has a right to do, to recover the price of the cloths delivered...."

Records from the Public Records Office in London, England.

From about 1636 Court of Requests Proceedings

Shadrach Williams vs. William Langhorne

"The complaint of Sidrach Williams of Putney in the county of Surry, gentleman, shews that for many years since passed he has used to trade and traffic in the way of merchandise, as was well known to William Langhorne and Thomas Harbie, who about 1625 were partners and both resident at Legorne in Italy, as factors for divers merchants. They solicited the complainant to send them from England a ship laden with red herrings, and the complainant was to credit them with one-fourth for the use of the said Langhorne and Harbin, which amounted to £430. 6s. 9d. In December 1625 the Mayflower sailed from Yarmouth, and arrived in convenient time at Legorne in Italie; and the barrels of herrings were discharged and delivered to them. And now your complainant hoped that they would pay him the money due him for the cost and charge of one-fourth of the said herrings; but they have utterly refused so to pay, and the said Harby is now since deceased, and the said money is due for about eleven years. The complainant prays that Langhorne may answer whether about 1625 he was a partner of Harby, and whether they were resident in Legorne as factors to several merchants in the said country, and if, either alone or with Harby, he did not write letters to the complainant to send a shipload of red herrings, they to have one-fourth on their own account, and if he did not so send the Mayflower of Yarmouth with 1475 barrels of red herrings, and whether they did not receive them, and why they have not paid him for one-fourth thereof."

"The answer of William Langhorne. The defendant denies that either Harby or himself did solicit the said Williams to send the ship laden with red herrings, but says that at the time mentioned he had his abode at Legorne and the complainant dwelt in London. The complainant was willing to adventure to those parts, and asked the defendants to advise him concerning prices at Legorne, which he did. The defendant confesses that Thomas Harby was in the adventure of herrings, but denies that either Harby or himself ever asked the complainant to give them credit for a one-fourth part thereof, nor did they need the complainant's credit, for Thomas Harby then paid to the complainant in London £420 on account, namely twelve shillings more than a one-fourth part of the herrings came unto, as is witnessed under the complainant's hand and is ready to be produced in court, and there a one-fourth part was set forth in the bill to the use of the said Harby; and the defendant denies that it amounted to £430. 9s. 9d. He confesses that the ship did arrive safely at Legorne and the said barrels were delivered to the defendants upon the agreement.
The account was made up about December 1625, and it there appears that the one-fourth part came up to less than the £420 paid to the complainant, namely, he was overpaid, as well as 12s. 12d. and £42. 8s. 4d. that was owing by the complainant to the defendant and Harby for their half part of the net proceeds of 20 barrels of argol, and this credit later was allowed by the complainant. Moreover, two years after, in 1627, the defendant came to London from Leghorn, and had other tradings with the complainant for 290 pigs of lead, and the complainant in the account allowed them for other sums of money owing them. Thomas Harby is now dead, and he died in Florence, in parts beyond the seas, about five or six years agone, and he had been a short time before in London, where he was for six months, and this complainant never made any demand and never claimed any such thing as is now contained in this pretended bill of complaint."

Record from the Records of the Court of Requests, Charles I, B. 44, Part 2, Public Records Office in London, England.

From Court of Requests Proceedings

Shadrach Williams vs. Bartholomew Gilman

"The complaint of Sidrach Williams of London, merchant, shews that for many years he traded with Bartholomew Gilman of London, merchant, in sea horse* teeth, and that he had security for Gilman's account for money owed complainant. Gilman evaded making an accounting. In 1623 many ships were bound for Greenland. The complainant and Gilman sent the complainant's servant, John Duosley, to Hull, to buy sea horse teeth for both of them. Gilman has never paid for his share. They procured a letter of credit for £200 from Thomas Crathorne, Clerk of the Customs in London, to John Lister and Thomas Fen of Hull, merchants. They brought 228 sea horse teeth, weighing 470 pounds, 8 ounces, and valued at £156. 7s. 8d., as computed by Edward Dexter, servant of Gilman. The sea horse teeth were shipped overseas in Gilman's name and at his request, to enhance his credit. They were sent from London to Constantinople, to a merchant there, one Anthony Wilson, and complainant believed that he would receive satisfaction for his share and demanded the proceeds of his share. Shortly after there was war with Spain and the French King, and at that time the complainant, who was trafficking overseas, sustained great losses; and after the peace he travelled to Italy, seeking to recover some part of his estate in diverse men's hands there. When he was returning to England out of Italy, he was seized and imprisoned by the Inquisition at Milan, and, if he had then died, the complainants wife and children would have been defrauded by Gilman, who, when he heard of the complainant's imprisonment, denied his debt; but, on the complainant's return, he promised to account for the proceeds of the moiety of the sea horse teeth, but has failed to do so."

* walrus

Record from the Records of the Court of Requests, Charles I, B. 751, Public Records Office in London, England.

Abstract of 1644 Records of the Court of Requests

Shadrach and Roger Williams vs.
Chauncey, Wright, Davis, King & Bartopp

15 August 1644. Addressed "To the right honorable the Lords and others the Commissioners for the great seal of England", it recites the complaint of "Sidrach Williams, citizen and Merchant tailor of London, and Roger Williams of London, clerke," that whereas Alice Williams, widow, their deceased Mother, "was in her life time possessed of a personall estate of great value in leases moneyes debts upon specialties and divers other goods and chattels (her own debts being discharged) And amongst the said severall leases the said Alice Williams was possessed and interessed for the term of thirty and fyfty years or thereabouts, yet to come and unexpired, of Two Messuages or Tenements in Cow Lane in the parish of St. Sepulcher without Newgate, London"; and whereas she bequeathed legacies of one hundred pounds and two hundred pounds, respectively, to her sons Shadrach and Roger, to be paid in yearly installments of ten pounds to each; and whereas "the said Alice Williams therein Constituted and appointed one Robert Williams her Sonne sole Executor and thereby willed that her executor should give . . . security to John Davies, Robert King and Robert Bartopp, overseers of her will for the due payment of the said legacyes by assignment. Of the said lease or leases of her dwelling house and other Tenemtes."; and whereas "yor. orator Sidrach Williams (your other orator, Roger being then also beyond the Seas) relying upon the integrity and in sufficiency of the said Robert, and also upon the fidelity and honesty of the said overseers touching the execution of the said trust did forbeare to presse the speedy and Sudden performance thereof," but "Conceyved that the said Messuages and houses were sufficiently tyed and bound for the said legacyes by the said Will, so that yor. orators, as was conceived could not receyve any prejudice therein. And thereupon yor. orator, Sidrach Williams having then very urgent occassions to go into the parts beyond the Seas to manage his grade and affairs of a merchant was by the reason thereof inforced to goe into Italy and other parts beyond the Seas and there continued for the Space of Seven yeares to gather or thereabouts without returning into England, yor other orator, Roger, remayning then alsoe beyond the Seas --"
"But now so it is, may it please yor. Honors, that the said Robert shortly after yor. orators, being beyond the Seas failed in Creditt and became unexpectedly much impoverished by reason of some accidentall misfortunes, and the said Robert Williams and the said Overseers combined and confederated together with Walter Chauncey Citizen and goldsmith of London and John Wright of the Strand in the County of Middx. coachman to defeat and defraud yor. orators. of their said legacyes and also neglected the trust originally reposed in them for Securing yor. orators. legacyes by assignment. as aforesaid and do yet share and divide the said houses amongst them; And now the said Walter Chauncey and John Wright, (the said Robert having Conveyed himself beyond the Seas as your orator. is informed) give out in Speeches that they have severally lent unto the said Robert Williams the Executor the Severall and respective Somes of twoe hundred poundes by way of mortgage upon the said houses and pretend that they have severall deeds of mortgages thereof. Whereas yor. orators. by the originall intention of the said Will ought to have had their legacyes secured by the said houses as aforesaid and the said Robert Williams the Executor ought not to have destroyed the said trust by mortgaging the said houses. . . ."

28 August 1644. The answer of two of the defendants, Chauncey and Wright. They deny the charges "to be just and true in such manner as they are herein sett forth." So far as complainant Roger Williams is concerned the charges refer to earlier litigation which Shadrach had entered into in behalf of himself and Roger. "Roger Williams together with the sayd Complt. Sydrack Williams did heretofore exhibit a petition to the right Honble. the Committee for obstructions in Courts of Justice against these debts. Concerning the same matters now complayned of, upon which petition by an order of the 12th of Oct. last it was ordered by the said Committee . . . that the now defts. should exhibit their Bill in Chancery and that the now Complts. should forthwith appeare gratis and answere the said Bill. . . . In pursuance of which order . . . the sayd Sydracke Williams answered but the said Roger Williams should have no bnefitt of the sayd proceedings in regard hee doth not answeare the sayd bill. . . ." The defendants "demand the judgement of this Honble. Court whether they shall be put to any further or other answer unto soe much of the sayd bill of complaynt these defts. pray to be dismist with their reasonable costs on that behalfe wrongfully sustayned."

Abstracted from the Records of the Court of Requests, London, England.




	Biographical material for Shadrach Williams

	From 27 November 1626 Chancery Proceedings Shadrach Williams vs. Bridgeman "27 November 1626. Complaint to Sir Thomas Coventry, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England, shows that your orator, Sydrack Williams of London, merchant, about the month of February 1621, and William Clobery of London, merchant, were partners in trading and commerce in serges and perpetuanas, and so continued until July 1622, that one Thomas Bridgeman of Exon in Devon, gentleman, had serges and perpetuanas that were hardly merchantable, and, seeing that your orator and his partner were diligent merchants, he pretended that he was of their acquaintance at the time of the beginning of the partnership, and agreed to see them serges and perpetuanas from Devon of the best quality, at reasonable prices, and they relied on his representations and accepted said serges and perpetuanas. On or about July 1622 the partnership was dissolved, and an accounting was made, and the orator agreed to pay one half of the account, namely 150 pounds, and in July 1622 the orator gave said Bridgeman a bond for 300 pounds, with Clobery as his surety, to pay the same in six months, and he paid most of it, namely 100 pounds, and he was willing and ready to pay the rest, but Bridgeman would not accept, and desired the orator to keep the rest, saying that he had no occasion then to use the 50 pounds, and that he would not take advantage of the bond. A difference hath now arisen between William Clobery and Bridgeman for other and larger sums, and Bridgeman is now seeking to recover on the bond against Clobery, although he is only a surety, and he refuses to accept the residue although often requested by the orator in a friendly manner, and he has refused to cancel the bond, contrary to equity and good conscience. Moreover, the bond was for overvalued serges and perpetuanas, and the orator has no remedy at law, and cannot take advantage of the verbal promise, and prays a discovery against Bridgeman as to the true value of the goods, and if he did not overvalue the same, and if he did not tell the orator that he paid ready money for the goods, whereas he took long credits, and if the orator did not often tender and offer to pay the bond, and if he did not refuse payment, and if the reason for such refusal was not to put the bond in suit against William Clobery, and if he hath not given out speeches to that purpose and effect, and prays for a writ of subpoena against said Bridgeman and other relief according to equity and good conscience." Record from the Public Records Office in London, England.

	From 1628 Chancery Proceedings Shadrach Williams vs. John Freeman "28 May 1628. Complaint to Thomas Coventry, Lord Keeper, by Sydrack Williams of London, merchant, shows that in or about April 1627 he entered into a contract with one John Freeman of Dedham, Suffolk, clothier, to buy twenty Suffolk cloths within twenty days thereafter, viz., six violets, seven blues, and seven azures, at 10 pounds per cloth, to be paid for at the feast of the Nativities next ensuing, and Freeman, having three of the cloths in London which he could not vend or sell, delivered them as sample and pattern to the orator, and promised to deliver the other seventeen in the twenty days, so that, relying thereon, the orator forebore to buy other cloths for four or five months thereafter. Freeman then delivered fourteen of the cloths in October, when the time for shipping was past, and shortly thereafter pretended to have occasion to use money in London, and the orator, although the cloths were delivered late, and the money not yet due, unwillingly, at Freeman's request, loaned him 10 pounds. Freeman has not yet delivered the other three cloths, to wit, of violet, and nevertheless denies the receipt of the 10 pounds, and has commenced an action at common law for the price of the seventeen cloths. The orator cannot call to mind who was present at the agreement for the twenty cloths or at the lending of the 10 pounds, and prays that Freeman may be examined as to these points, and for a writ of subpoena, as he has no bar at the common law." "31 May 1628. Answer of John Freeman. The orator, even if he did not receive the cloths, has a remedy at common law in an action on the case, but the defendant says that in or about April 1627 he agreed to deliver twenty cloths, vis., seven "blewes", seven azures, and six violets, by Midsummer next ensuing, and complainant was to pay 10 pounds per cloths, or 200 pounds in all, by the Feast of the Nativities. He did deliver three violets, four blues and four azures, which the complainant first saw at the house of the defendant's brother, Symon Freeman, and one George Massy, both clothworkers in Fenchurch Street, London. The complainant marked and sealed these, and the defendant thereafter delivered three more, and the rest, being six, he did not deliver until, as he confesses, three weeks after Midsummer, which was not a long time, and although of proper colors and equal goodness, the complainant turned back three of the six, which the defendant sold afterwards for more than the complainant had agreed to pay. The complainant had promised to pay the rest to the defendant's brother, and, although the brother often asked for it, he failed to pay, so that the defendant came up to London to solicit payment, and he promised from day to day to pay but failed to do so, until the defendant had to go home on account of his trade, without pay, and the expenses of his trip to London of 20 marks and also the loss of the use of his money. There was no agreement to deliver the cloths in twenty days, as bill untruly alleges. The time for shipping the cloths was not past when they were delivered, nor for long after, for the defendant says that the usual time for the Turkish merchants to ship and vend such bouts of cloth is not until about Michaelmas, nor sooner, which is the usual time that the Turkey merchants ship their cloths for to be transported, and the complainant so shipped them, as he had them three months before they were shipped, so that the complainant was not damaged. The defendant has properly commenced an action in the King's Bench, as he has a right to do, to recover the price of the cloths delivered...." Records from the Public Records Office in London, England.

	From about 1636 Court of Requests Proceedings Shadrach Williams vs. William Langhorne "The complaint of Sidrach Williams of Putney in the county of Surry, gentleman, shews that for many years since passed he has used to trade and traffic in the way of merchandise, as was well known to William Langhorne and Thomas Harbie, who about 1625 were partners and both resident at Legorne in Italy, as factors for divers merchants. They solicited the complainant to send them from England a ship laden with red herrings, and the complainant was to credit them with one-fourth for the use of the said Langhorne and Harbin, which amounted to £430. 6s. 9d. In December 1625 the Mayflower sailed from Yarmouth, and arrived in convenient time at Legorne in Italie; and the barrels of herrings were discharged and delivered to them. And now your complainant hoped that they would pay him the money due him for the cost and charge of one-fourth of the said herrings; but they have utterly refused so to pay, and the said Harby is now since deceased, and the said money is due for about eleven years. The complainant prays that Langhorne may answer whether about 1625 he was a partner of Harby, and whether they were resident in Legorne as factors to several merchants in the said country, and if, either alone or with Harby, he did not write letters to the complainant to send a shipload of red herrings, they to have one-fourth on their own account, and if he did not so send the Mayflower of Yarmouth with 1475 barrels of red herrings, and whether they did not receive them, and why they have not paid him for one-fourth thereof." "The answer of William Langhorne. The defendant denies that either Harby or himself did solicit the said Williams to send the ship laden with red herrings, but says that at the time mentioned he had his abode at Legorne and the complainant dwelt in London. The complainant was willing to adventure to those parts, and asked the defendants to advise him concerning prices at Legorne, which he did. The defendant confesses that Thomas Harby was in the adventure of herrings, but denies that either Harby or himself ever asked the complainant to give them credit for a one-fourth part thereof, nor did they need the complainant's credit, for Thomas Harby then paid to the complainant in London £420 on account, namely twelve shillings more than a one-fourth part of the herrings came unto, as is witnessed under the complainant's hand and is ready to be produced in court, and there a one-fourth part was set forth in the bill to the use of the said Harby; and the defendant denies that it amounted to £430. 9s. 9d. He confesses that the ship did arrive safely at Legorne and the said barrels were delivered to the defendants upon the agreement. The account was made up about December 1625, and it there appears that the one-fourth part came up to less than the £420 paid to the complainant, namely, he was overpaid, as well as 12s. 12d. and £42. 8s. 4d. that was owing by the complainant to the defendant and Harby for their half part of the net proceeds of 20 barrels of argol, and this credit later was allowed by the complainant. Moreover, two years after, in 1627, the defendant came to London from Leghorn, and had other tradings with the complainant for 290 pigs of lead, and the complainant in the account allowed them for other sums of money owing them. Thomas Harby is now dead, and he died in Florence, in parts beyond the seas, about five or six years agone, and he had been a short time before in London, where he was for six months, and this complainant never made any demand and never claimed any such thing as is now contained in this pretended bill of complaint." Record from the Records of the Court of Requests, Charles I, B. 44, Part 2, Public Records Office in London, England.

	From Court of Requests Proceedings Shadrach Williams vs. Bartholomew Gilman "The complaint of Sidrach Williams of London, merchant, shews that for many years he traded with Bartholomew Gilman of London, merchant, in sea horse* teeth, and that he had security for Gilman's account for money owed complainant. Gilman evaded making an accounting. In 1623 many ships were bound for Greenland. The complainant and Gilman sent the complainant's servant, John Duosley, to Hull, to buy sea horse teeth for both of them. Gilman has never paid for his share. They procured a letter of credit for £200 from Thomas Crathorne, Clerk of the Customs in London, to John Lister and Thomas Fen of Hull, merchants. They brought 228 sea horse teeth, weighing 470 pounds, 8 ounces, and valued at £156. 7s. 8d., as computed by Edward Dexter, servant of Gilman. The sea horse teeth were shipped overseas in Gilman's name and at his request, to enhance his credit. They were sent from London to Constantinople, to a merchant there, one Anthony Wilson, and complainant believed that he would receive satisfaction for his share and demanded the proceeds of his share. Shortly after there was war with Spain and the French King, and at that time the complainant, who was trafficking overseas, sustained great losses; and after the peace he travelled to Italy, seeking to recover some part of his estate in diverse men's hands there. When he was returning to England out of Italy, he was seized and imprisoned by the Inquisition at Milan, and, if he had then died, the complainants wife and children would have been defrauded by Gilman, who, when he heard of the complainant's imprisonment, denied his debt; but, on the complainant's return, he promised to account for the proceeds of the moiety of the sea horse teeth, but has failed to do so." * walrus Record from the Records of the Court of Requests, Charles I, B. 751, Public Records Office in London, England.

	Abstract of 1644 Records of the Court of Requests Shadrach and Roger Williams vs. Chauncey, Wright, Davis, King & Bartopp 15 August 1644. Addressed "To the right honorable the Lords and others the Commissioners for the great seal of England", it recites the complaint of "Sidrach Williams, citizen and Merchant tailor of London, and Roger Williams of London, clerke," that whereas Alice Williams, widow, their deceased Mother, "was in her life time possessed of a personall estate of great value in leases moneyes debts upon specialties and divers other goods and chattels (her own debts being discharged) And amongst the said severall leases the said Alice Williams was possessed and interessed for the term of thirty and fyfty years or thereabouts, yet to come and unexpired, of Two Messuages or Tenements in Cow Lane in the parish of St. Sepulcher without Newgate, London"; and whereas she bequeathed legacies of one hundred pounds and two hundred pounds, respectively, to her sons Shadrach and Roger, to be paid in yearly installments of ten pounds to each; and whereas "the said Alice Williams therein Constituted and appointed one Robert Williams her Sonne sole Executor and thereby willed that her executor should give . . . security to John Davies, Robert King and Robert Bartopp, overseers of her will for the due payment of the said legacyes by assignment. Of the said lease or leases of her dwelling house and other Tenemtes."; and whereas "yor. orator Sidrach Williams (your other orator, Roger being then also beyond the Seas) relying upon the integrity and in sufficiency of the said Robert, and also upon the fidelity and honesty of the said overseers touching the execution of the said trust did forbeare to presse the speedy and Sudden performance thereof," but "Conceyved that the said Messuages and houses were sufficiently tyed and bound for the said legacyes by the said Will, so that yor. orators, as was conceived could not receyve any prejudice therein. And thereupon yor. orator, Sidrach Williams having then very urgent occassions to go into the parts beyond the Seas to manage his grade and affairs of a merchant was by the reason thereof inforced to goe into Italy and other parts beyond the Seas and there continued for the Space of Seven yeares to gather or thereabouts without returning into England, yor other orator, Roger, remayning then alsoe beyond the Seas --" "But now so it is, may it please yor. Honors, that the said Robert shortly after yor. orators, being beyond the Seas failed in Creditt and became unexpectedly much impoverished by reason of some accidentall misfortunes, and the said Robert Williams and the said Overseers combined and confederated together with Walter Chauncey Citizen and goldsmith of London and John Wright of the Strand in the County of Middx. coachman to defeat and defraud yor. orators. of their said legacyes and also neglected the trust originally reposed in them for Securing yor. orators. legacyes by assignment. as aforesaid and do yet share and divide the said houses amongst them; And now the said Walter Chauncey and John Wright, (the said Robert having Conveyed himself beyond the Seas as your orator. is informed) give out in Speeches that they have severally lent unto the said Robert Williams the Executor the Severall and respective Somes of twoe hundred poundes by way of mortgage upon the said houses and pretend that they have severall deeds of mortgages thereof. Whereas yor. orators. by the originall intention of the said Will ought to have had their legacyes secured by the said houses as aforesaid and the said Robert Williams the Executor ought not to have destroyed the said trust by mortgaging the said houses. . . ." 28 August 1644. The answer of two of the defendants, Chauncey and Wright. They deny the charges "to be just and true in such manner as they are herein sett forth." So far as complainant Roger Williams is concerned the charges refer to earlier litigation which Shadrach had entered into in behalf of himself and Roger. "Roger Williams together with the sayd Complt. Sydrack Williams did heretofore exhibit a petition to the right Honble. the Committee for obstructions in Courts of Justice against these debts. Concerning the same matters now complayned of, upon which petition by an order of the 12th of Oct. last it was ordered by the said Committee . . . that the now defts. should exhibit their Bill in Chancery and that the now Complts. should forthwith appeare gratis and answere the said Bill. . . . In pursuance of which order . . . the sayd Sydracke Williams answered but the said Roger Williams should have no bnefitt of the sayd proceedings in regard hee doth not answeare the sayd bill. . . ." The defendants "demand the judgement of this Honble. Court whether they shall be put to any further or other answer unto soe much of the sayd bill of complaynt these defts. pray to be dismist with their reasonable costs on that behalfe wrongfully sustayned." Abstracted from the Records of the Court of Requests, London, England.