<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2009-01-03</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>John Pas</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed as part of batch B081116.pdcc.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A73538">
<STC T="S">3432.5</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99898460</BIBNO>
<VID>173374</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="petition">
<PB REF="1" MS="y"><!-- PDF PAGE 14 -->
<HEAD>Richard Bowdler, <HI>Plaintif.</HI> George Morgan, <HI>Defendant.</HI></HEAD>
<HEAD>This Bill is an humble Petition of <HI>Richard Bowdler</HI> and <HI>William Meggs,</HI> that a Report and Decree, <HI>thereupon made in the high Court of Chancerie betweene</HI> George Morgan <HI>and them, and others, and all Fines impo&s;ed</HI> vpon them for not performing of the &s;ame to be void, And that an Arbitrement made at the de&s;ire of the Parties may be e&s;ta|bli&s;hed and confirmed by Act of Parliament for the&s;e Cau&s;es.</HEAD>
<P>FIr&s;t, That <HI>Morgan</HI> was called to account by <HI>Bowdler,</HI> by Bill in Chauncery, as his Factor, for diuers yeares; That he might be releeued again&s;t certayne fal&s;e Accounts exhibited by him; whereunto <HI>Morgan</HI> did an&s;were, and preferred a cro&s;&s;e Bill again&s;t the Petitioners and others, charging them as Partners with matters of Account.</P>
<P>The Court by con&s;ent of the parties and their learned Councell, awarded a Commi&s;&s;ion to <HI>Rowland Backhou&s;e, Robert Ducy, Tho. Morley, Ralph Core,</HI> and <HI>Ro. Palmer,</HI> Merchants of London, with authoritie to examine and determine the&s;e Accounts and Differences, wherein for their &s;atisfa|ction they perv&s;ed and con&s;idered of all Bookes of Account, Bills of Exchange, Letters and other Writings produced concerning the &s;ame, but becau&s;e the Commi&s;&s;ion was returnable before they could conclude any thing, the parties importuned them to end the &s;aid Accounts and Diffe|rences by Arbitrement, and &s;ubmitted them&s;elues to their Award by &s;euerall Obligations of great &s;ummes of money, bearing date the 7. day of October 1018. And for the better &s;trengthning of their proceedings in the &s;aid Arbitrarie cour&s;e. The Lord Chancellor was plea&s;ed to graunt a Commi&s;&s;ion bearing date the 19. day of the &s;ame moneth, with power to take oath of the Parties and Witne&s;&s;es; and to determine the Diffe|rences or to certifie their proceedings. And his Lord&s;hip did write his honourable Letters to fiue other Merchants to giue their a&s;&s;i&s;tance, as oft as the &s;aid Arbitrators &s;hould thinke &s;it.</P>
<P>And after 160. meetings and exact examination of all Differences and Accounts afore&s;aid, the &s;aid Arbitrators being often aided by the &s;aid A&s;&s;i&s;tants, they did finde <HI>Morgan</HI> indebted vnto <HI>Bowdler</HI> in the &s;umme of 579<ABBR>l.</ABBR> 6<ABBR>s.</ABBR> which they did Award he &s;hould pay vnto <HI>Bowdler</HI> the 6. of Aprill following. And al&s;o by their &s;aid Award did order and determine what each Partie &s;hould performe to other, as particularly at large there|by appeareth.</P>
<P>Secondly, For that the &s;aid Arbitrement being after called in que&s;tion by the &s;aid <HI>Morgan</HI> by fal&s;e &s;ugge&s;tion that it was partially made: the &s;aid Arbitrators being required to certifie their proceedings to the Court, did &s;o certifie, An&s;wering thereby all Obiections, and declaring that <HI>William Meggs</HI> was no wi&s;e chargeable vnto <HI>Morgan,</HI> but that he was vniu&s;tly vexed by his &s;aid &s;uite: Neuerthele&s;&s;e, by Orders in the &s;aid Court the &s;aid Award was &s;u&s;pended which ought rather to haue beene put in execution. And the Bonds &s;ealed to performe the &s;ame were called into the Court, And all Bonds, Bills, &amp;c. which the Commi&s;&s;ioners had receiued of <HI>Morgan</HI> were redeliuered to him, albeit they appertayned to <HI>Bowdler</HI> as being accounted for before the Commi&s;&s;ioners.</P>
<P>Thirdly, Becau&s;e the truth of <HI>Bowdlers</HI> cau&s;e, being a di&s;couerie of fal&s;ities and mi&s;pri&s;ions in a Factors Accounts, could not bee &s;o euident by examination vpon fixed Intergatories, as it was apparant to the Commi&s;&s;ioners that had therein proceeded as afore; His Lord&s;hip cau&s;ed them to certifie particularly the Rea&s;ons that moued them to make the &s;aid arbitrement, which they did accordingly. Whereupon (for that the &s;aid Ar|bitrement was grounded a&s;well vpon examination of Witne&s;&s;es as vpon <HI>Morgans</HI> confe&s;&s;ion and otherwi&s;e, And that particular Relation thereof was made by the &s;aid <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="pdcc" EXTENT="1 span"> Witne&s;&s;es but the Cau&s;e comming to hearing the 18. day of December then following, by order of Chancerit the &s;aid Award and Certificat were made void, and the Commi&s;&s;ioners branded with infamie and di&s;grace without being called to an&s;were for them&s;elues. And without a Bill exhibited to &s;hew the defects of their Award, And a new Reference to Sir <HI>Robert Rich</HI> and Sir <HI>William Bird,</HI> two Ma&s;ters of the Chancerie, and foure other Merchants was made to examine the &s;aid Accounts and Diffe|rences, but without power to examine vpon oath.</P>
<P>Fourthly, For that the &s;aid Ma&s;ters and Merchants were directed by the Chancerie to proceed onely vpon proofes taken in Court, and vpon Depo&s;itions taken before the &s;aid Arbitrators and vpon Accounts, Letters and Writings, &s;uch as could bee iu&s;tified by two Witne&s;&s;es, (neither Arbitrators nor Parties) to haue beene produced and allowed before the Arbitrators, which kind of proofe was not po&s;&s;ible to be made, for that there was none pre&s;ent at the debating of the Cau&s;e, but the Arbitrator and Parties whereby <HI>Bowdler</HI> was bereaued of the benefit of his proofes, and of <HI>Morgans</HI> confe&s;sion, And depriued of the meanes to manife&s;t the truth. Al&s;o the Depo&s;itions taken on <HI>Bowdlers</HI> behalfe before the Arbi|trators were reiected, but all Depo&s;itions on the &s;aid <HI>Morgans</HI> behalfe were allowed; whereupon the &s;aid Ma&s;ters with their A&s;&s;i&s;tants reported, that the &s;aid <HI>Bowdler</HI> was indebted to <HI>Morgan</HI> in the &s;umme 7486<ABBR>l.</ABBR> 1<ABBR>s.</ABBR> 10<ABBR>d.</ABBR> And the &s;ame report was decreed notwith&s;tanding any thing that was offred again&s;t it.</P>
<P>Fiftly, Albeit <HI>Meggs</HI> were admitted to &s;upplimentall proofes, and the two Ma&s;ters were to con&s;ider whether <HI>Meggs</HI> were partner with <HI>Bowdler,</HI> and whether <HI>Meggs</HI> his lending <HI>Bowdler</HI> his credit did occa&s;ion <HI>Morgans</HI> ingagements; and what e&s;tate of <HI>Bowdler</HI> came to <HI>Meggs</HI> his hands, and when; yet after &s;upplimentall proofe made by <HI>Meggs</HI> and <HI>Morgan;</HI> The two Ma&s;ters did certifie that <HI>Meggs</HI> was Partner with <HI>Bowdler;</HI> and that <HI>Morgans</HI> ingagements were occa&s;ioned by <HI>Meggs</HI> his a&s;&s;i&s;ting <HI>Bowdler</HI> with his credit: And that there was of <HI>Bowdlers</HI> e&s;tate in the hands of <HI>Meggs</HI> the &s;umme of 10063<ABBR>l.</ABBR> 11<ABBR>s.</ABBR> 7<ABBR>d.</ABBR> Whereas it is mo&s;t apparant that <HI>Meggs</HI> was not Partner with <HI>Bowdler</HI> in <HI>Morgans</HI> imployments, Nor that <HI>Morgans</HI> ingagements were occa&s;ioned by his lending his credit to <HI>Bowdler,</HI> nor that he had any e&s;tate of <HI>Bowdlers</HI> in his hands, but that <HI>Bowdler</HI> was iu&s;tly indebted to <HI>Meggs</HI> in 1500. And it is mo&s;t cleare that <HI>Meggs</HI> is not to be charged vnto <HI>Morgan</HI> by the cu&s;tome of Merchants, nor by the Law for a&s;&s;i&s;ting <HI>Bowdler</HI> with his credit; And there is nothing to leade the Ma&s;ters to conceaue that the &s;aid <HI>Meggs</HI> &s;hould haue of the &s;aid <HI>Bowdlers</HI> e&s;tate in his hands the &s;umme of 10063<ABBR>l.</ABBR> 11<ABBR>s.</ABBR> 7<ABBR>d.</ABBR> But this report induced his Lord&s;hip to decree, That <HI>Meggs</HI> &s;hould be a&s;well char|ged as <HI>Bowdler</HI> with the payment of the &s;aid 7486<ABBR>l.</ABBR> 1<ABBR>s.</ABBR> 10<ABBR>d.</ABBR> And the fift of December la&s;t his Lord&s;hip impo&s;ed a Fine of one Thou&s;and pounds a peece vpon the &s;aid <HI>Meggs</HI> and <HI>Bowdler</HI> for <HI>non</HI>-performance of the &s;aid Decree; And thereupon a <HI>Scire facias</HI> hath beene Awarded.</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="petition proper">
<P>Fora&s;much, As no redre&s;&s;e of &s;uch Decrees is to bee had but in Parliament: The humble Petition of <HI>Bowdler</HI> and <HI>Meggs</HI> is, that all the pro|ceedings in Chancerie may be declared to be void, And the &s;aid Award e&s;tabli&s;hed by Act of Parliament, to bee performed for the Cau&s;es and Rea&s;ons afore&s;aid.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
