STAC 5/P8/23

From Rpalmer
Jump to: navigation, search

STAC 5/P8/23 - I D - 21 Eliz - London - John Phippes v William Drowght Sr, Robert Scales see STAC Philips

Transcribed by Helen Good

Interrogatories to be ministered on the part of John Phippes Complainant to Robert Scales defendant

1. Imprimis whether do you know the said William Drowght the elder citizen and Brown Baker of London and William Drowght the younger his son.

2. Item whether did you know the said William Drowght the younger serve this said John Phippes complainant and how long is it since he departed out of the service of the said John Phippes complainant and whether was the said William Drowght the elder privy and assenting to his departure.

3. Item whether do you know of any variance between the sad complainant and the said William Drowght the elder for the receiving and keeping the same William ; the younger from the service of the said complainant and whether to your knowledge hath the said John Phippes complainant required to have again the said William Drowght the younger and whether hath the said William Drowght the elder refused to deliver him and whether hath the said William Drowght the elder employed him in the art of silkman and how long hath he exercised the same and to whose use.

4. Item whether were you examined in London touching any matter between the said complainant and the said William Drowght the elder and where were you examined and before whom, who ministered you an oath what caused and procured you to be examined whether had you any process to command you to testify for the said William Drowght the elder or whether came you to be examined at the only instance and procurements of the said William Drowght the elder.

5. Item whether after the departure of the said William Drowght the younger from the service of the said complainant did the said William Drowght the elder receive and take the said William Drowght of the younger into his house and how long after his departure did he receive him what was the cause why he received him into his house having before placed him with the said John Phippes in service.

6. Item whether do you know of any request or promise made by the said John Phippes the complainant to the said William Drowght the elder touching the receiving the said William Drowght the younger and whether was the same made before the time or after that the said William Drowght the elder had received the said William Drowght the younger and how long before or after and what was the same request and whether did the said William Drowght the elder grant and agree do the same request and promise of the said John Phippes complainant at the time of the making thereof.

7. Item what conference had you with the said William Drowght the elder or the same William Drowght the younger or any other touching that which you should say at that time of your examination.

8. Item whether do you know what is become of the said Robert Wheeler and Isabel his wife and William Drowght the younger and where they are to be found.

Interrogatories to be ministered on the part of John Phippes complainant to William Drowght the elder defendant

1. Imprimis whether did you put to service to the said complainant the said William Drowght your son, and for how many years was it agreed between you and the complainant that the said William Drowght the younger should serve the said complainant, and what money did you give with your said son to the said complainant, how long continued your said son with the said complainant, and whether to your knowledge did your said son depart out of the service of the said the complainant without his good will, and whether did you procure or will him to depart from the said complainant, and whether after his departure did you receive him into your house and ever since that time detain him from the said complainant, and whether have you since employed him in the faculty of a silkman, and whether hath he exercised the same science to his own use or to your use or to both his and your uses, and for how many years since his departure hath he used the same science.

2. Item whether after the departure of your said son from the from the said complainant did you receive and take him into your house at the request of the said complainant, and where did he make that request to you before you took him into your house, if he made any such request unto you how long was it before the time you received him into your house, and whether did you receive and take him into your house upon such request made unto you.

3. Item whether did the said the complainant promise you that in consideration you would take your son again at his request he would repay unto you that said 20 marks to him delivered with your said son, and whether were you therewith contented and upon that request and promise did you take your son again, and if there were any such promise how long after the departure of your sad son was it, and where and in whose presence.

4. Item whether after that the said William Drowght the younger departed from the said complainant and that you had taken him into your house did not the said complainant come to you and require you to have him again, and whether did you refuse to let the said complainant have him again, and whether was not there a great variance between you and the said complainant for the withholding from the said complainant the said William Drowght your son, and whether hath not the same variance continued ever since the departure of your said son from the said complainant.

5. Item whether such variance being between you did not you and this said complainant refer yourselves to the arbitrament of four persons two chosen on the part of the said complainant videlicet John Hills skinner and Bartilmewe Isbent silkweaver and two other on your part and what are their names were.

6. Item whether did you and the said complainant come before the said four Arbiters, and whether did they hear the said matter in variance between you.

7. Item whether did the said complainant in your presence and before the said Arbiters complain that you had taken away his boy meaning your son and that you had set him up in occupying and exercising the trade that he learned of the said complainant and that you did detain your said son from the said complainants, and whether did you allege before the said Arbiter that you had taken your son again at the request of the said complainant and is that it was agreed between you and said complainant that you should have was said 20 marks

8. Item whether did you produce before the said Arbiters the said Robert Wheeler and Isabell his wife and Robert Scales or any of them and by them or any of them did you make proof that you took your said son again at the request of the said complainant.

9. Item if you did not produce them what was the cause thereof, was not the said Robert Scales your own servant at that time, was not Robert Wheeler your son in law and Isabell his wife your own daughter and were not all they then dwelling in London, and might you not as well have had them before your Arbiters then as since. and if you might how chance you did not use the testimonies of them or some of them before your said Arbiters

10. Item whether did the Arbiters of the said the complainant agree or yield in your presence that the said complainant should give you anything in recompense for anything you required before them, And whether did your Arbiters or one of them yield in your presence that you should give the said complainant 20 shillings in recompense of the injury that the said complainant pretended you had done him in receiving against his will and the withholding his servant from his service, and nevertheless were not you contented to come to an end, so that you and said complainant might be quiet one against the other.

11. Item whether did not you before the said Artbitors stand against the said complainant upon the evil usage your said son by the wife of the same complainant and that he was driven away and for fear of evil usage durst not come again, and also whether the said complainant complaining to Mr George Eaton then Chamberlain of London for that time being did you stand upon any other matter than the misusage aforesaid pretended, and whether did you before him allege for yourself that you had taken him again at the request of the said complainant.

12. Item whether did you ever sue or make request to the said complainant to pay the said twenty marks before your last suit in the Mayor’s Court, what reason had you that you never before that time in that sort demand it, and if you did take again your said son at the request of the said Complainant what reason moved you to sue the said complainant by the space of three years or thereabouts in the said Court holden before the Lord Mayor and Alderman for not teaching finding nor instructing your said son in the art aforesaid, alleging that from the time that he came first to the service of the said complainant till the time of your said first suit your said son was always ready to serve the said complainant.

13. Item whether did you produce as a witness the said William Drowght your son against the said complainant in your first suit in the Lord Mayor’s Court, and whether was he there sworn in your presence and did depose that he was driven away out of the service of the said complainant and ever since that time was ready to serve the said complainant in the art and faculty aforesaid, and whether was it true in your conscience and knowledge that your said son was always ready to serve the said complainant since the time he was first put to the said complainant by you till the time of your said first suit in the Lord Mayor’s Court commenced.

14. Item whether did the said complainant in the Lord Mayor’s Court put the declaration of your last suit there and the matter therein contained upon your oath and did require that you might swear your declaration to be true according to the custom of the City and whether were you sworn to it or did you refuse to be sworn to it.

15. Item whether did you procure or persuade directly or indirectly the said William Drowght your son to testify for you as is aforesaid, and likewise the said Robert Wheeler and Isabell his wife and Robert Scales to depose as is set down in their examinations in the Lord Mayor’s Court, and whether did you cause the said examinations to be published in evidence for you in your last suit, and whether since have you conveyed and kept out of the way the said Robert Wheeler and Isabell his wife and your said son or any of them, and whether be you privy or consenting to the keeping them out of the way and where they are and where they were since process were served on you and the said Robert Scales, and as you think where now may they be had.