Mr. Giffard's status as "stranger" in Massachusetts Bay

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar

John Brandon

Re: Mr. Giffard's status as "stranger" in Massachusetts Bay

Legg inn av John Brandon » 12 des 2006 21:43:12

Since this link has gone dead (already ?!), I might just note that the
source is: William Henry Whitmore, _A Bibliographical Sketch of the
Laws of the Massachusetts Colony from 1630 to 1686_.

John Brandon

Re: Mr. Giffard's status as "stranger" in Massachusetts Bay

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 des 2006 00:51:16

I suppose the basis for Gifford's bringing charges against Webb as
having "defamed him to his principals in England" is the following
passage in John Becx's letter of attorney to Gifford (found in the
Suffolk [Mass.] Deeds):

"Certaine psons there then Inhabiting [ie, in New England]
misrepresented vnto the said John Becx and them the said Adventur[e]rs
[ie, the English investors] who giueing Credit thereunto were seduced &
thereby induced to Countermaund his [Gifford's] further Agency in and
concerning the pr[e]misses, & therevpon to impowre intrust & imploy
Certaine [other] p[er]sons of New England ... who did not pursue the
directions [given] to them ..."

(p. 160)
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC2 ... on+giffard

I think this is John Becx implicitly admitting that he was wrong to
trust Henry Webb's assessment of John Gifford.

When John Leverett, a few years later, spoke of "Mr Reckes [ie, Beckes]
and Sefford [ie, Gefford], and company of iron-works," he may have been
naming the two major partners in the undertakings at that time.

(p. 448)
http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC1 ... #PPA448,M1

This convoluted history is not presented very clearly in Hartley's
_Ironworks on the Saugus_.

John Brandon

Re: Mr. Giffard's status as "stranger" in Massachusetts Bay

Legg inn av John Brandon » 15 des 2006 21:58:57

Two similar statements in separate volumes of _Records of the Governor
and Company of the Massachusetts Bay_ indicate the awareness of the
Massachusetts government that Gifford was an investor in the Ironworks
as well as the agent of the Adventurers:

Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, ed., _Records of the Governor and Company of
the Massachusetts Bay in New England_, 5 vols. in 6 (Boston: 1853-54),
vol. 3, pp. 370-71:

It was also put to the question by the whole Court, whether so much as
is or shalbe charged on Mr John Giffard, or he chargeth himselfe
withal, in reference to the iron workes, he ought not to discharg
himselfe
according to orders & instructions from his princypalls: resolved on
the affirmative, he ought.

Ibid., vol. 4, part 1, pp. 217-18:

3 quaest. Itt was also at the same time put to the quaestion by the
whole Court mett together, whither so much as is or shallbe charged on
Mr Jno Gyfford, or he chargeth himselfe withal, in reference to the
iron workes, he ought not to discharge himselfe according to his orders
and instructions from his principals. Itt was resolved on the
affirmative, that he ought so to discharge himselfe.

I take this to mean that the General Court wished to emphasize that,
though they knew Gifford was a partner in the works (ie, had invested
his own money in them), he was to strictly follow his instructions, not
merely to do as he himself judged best.

The two entries--one in vol. 3 and one in vol. 4--are oddly similar to
each other (though the second one is broken up into two parts a page
apart), and, as I remember, are rather widely separated in the record
books (I also seem to remember some chronological 'fudging' of adjacent
pages to one of the entries).

1. [20 Sept. 1654.] At this Court appeared Capt Robert Keane & Mr
Edward Hutchinson, atturney for Mr Josiah Winslow, deputyes & attorneys
for the undertakers of the iron workes, plaintiffs, & Mr John Giffard,
late agent to the undertakers of the iron workes, deffendant; & after
the Court had heard what the parties could & did say, the originall
attachments were read, & the verdict of the County Court at Boston:
thereupon it was put to the question, whether the Court be satisfied
that Mr John Giffard was agent for the undertakers of the iron workes:
it was resolved on the affirmative.
It was put to the question, whether the Court were satisfied
that Mr John Giffard was sued, at the last County Court, as agent: it
was resolved on the affirmative by the whole Court. It was also put to

the question by the whole Court, whether so much as is or shalbe
charged on Mr John Giffard, or he chargeth himselfe withal, in
reference to the iron workes, he ought not to discharg himselfe
according to orders & instructions from his princypalls: resolved on
the affirmative, he ought.
4thly. Whether the attachment, not distinguishing John Giffard
under the terme of agent, doe make the plaintiff liable to a non suite,
referring to the action: resolved on the negative.
It was put to the question, whether Mr Belingham & Mr Nowell be
capable of voating in the case: resolved on the affirmative.
It was also put to the question, whether this Court, in the
case of the undertakers of the iron workes & Mr Giffard, would so
accept of the first audite, as to begin where they left, reserving the
plaintiff just liberty in point of plea for damage in their second
action for
the defendant, not following his orders & instructions: it was resolved
on the affirmative. Per Curia.

Capt Robert Keane, plaintiff, & Mr John Giffard, defendant, being in
Court, & pleading to their case, the Court demaunded of the said
Giffard that he would show his orders & instructions, to peruse his
owne charges of guifts, expences, &c, which he absolutely refused; &
when the Court moved him to give a particular answer, to ease the
colour of deceit, in mowing forty acors of grasse for six cattle only,
(if he could,) which he had confessed, he said he had answered the
audit, & would answer no otherwise; the Court thereupon declared, that
then they would examine as they might, & judge accordingly; & after the
whole Court had heard what the plaintiffs & defendant could say, &
perused severall of the
evidences & auditors returne, they proceeded as followeth:--

Whereas there is an action of thirteen thowsand pounds uppon
accoumpt depending in this Court, betweene Mr Josiah Winslow & Capt
Robert Keane, deputyes & atturneyes for the undertakers of the iron
workes, playntiffs, agaynst Mr John Giffard, late agent, defendant, the
Court finds that upon the sayd Giffards presenteing his bookes of
accoumpts in a County Court, by their order, where the action was first

comenced, the said Court refferd the auditing of the said acounts to
certayne select meet persons, who, having spent much time about the
same, made a returne, so far as they had proceeded, but left the
consideration of many particulers in Mr Giffards charge, which they
wanted evidence to pass, to the value of three thowsand five hundred
seventy two pounds sixteene shillings & eleven pence, to the
consideration & determination of the Court; but this sum, consisting
of too many particulers for the Court to examine, was agayne referd,
together with the effects of the iron workes, to other auditors, who,
after much time expended about the same, made their returne, & left
the defendant debtor, upon the whole, the sume hereafter exprest,
agaynst which the playntiffs made some just & considerable objections,
which occasioned this Court to enter into a more strict consideration &
examination of the whole account, wherein they find many false charges,
vaust expences, & guifts, some tons of iron disposed of, which he gives
not the iron works credite for, the profitt of the farme, &c, which he
made use of for himselfe, not brought to accounts, together with divers
other improbable disbursments put upon account. The Court also find
that the last auditors had respect only to the accoumpts as they stood
in the bookes, without reference to the deffendants orders or
comission, & so issued the same in an arbitrary way, & much of it
without proffe, which this Court could not allow off; but after much
time spent in the case, finding the account intricate, & very many of
the particulers contaynd in fowre papers left by the first auditors to
the determination of the Court, to the valu of three thowsand five
hundred seventy two pounds sixteen shillings & eleven pence, very
doubtfull & suspicious, the playntiffs also objecting against the
whole, as being done without order, & the deffendant refusing to show
his orders of comission for the same, the Court judged it meet that the
deffendant should be allowed two thowsand & five hundred pounds of the
the fowre papers, & that execution issued out from this Court for the
playntiffs for the rest, together with the eyght hundred & odd pounds
exprest in the foot of the audite, leaving the defendant to his
liberty, by due proffe according to his orders & instructions, to prove
what he may or can more, the defendants payinge the workmens wages, &
giving securitie for the same.

Its ordered, that the second action for breach of covenant, &c,
in refference to Mr John Giffard, in the case of the iron workes, be
referd to the next Generall Court, in May.
-----------

2. [21 November 1654.] Att this Court appeared Capt Robert Keayne &
Mr Edward Hutchinson, attourney for Mr Josiah Winslow, as deputies &
attourneyes for the undertakers of the iron works, plaitiffes, and Mr
John Gyfford, late agent to the said undertakers, defendant; and after
the Court had heard what the parties could and did say, the originall
attachments were read, ye verdict of the County Court at Boston
thereuppon:--
1. Itt was putt to the question, whither the Court be satisfied
that Mr Jno Gyfford was agent for the undertakers of the ironworkes.
Itt was resolved on the affirmative.
2 quaest. Itt was putt to the quaestion, whither the Court be
sattisfied that Mr Jno Gyfford was sued at the last County Court as
agent. Itt was resolved on the affirmative by the whole Court met
together.
3 quaest. Itt was also at the same time put to the quaestion by
the whole Court mett together, whither so much as is or shallbe charged
on Mr Jno Gyfford, or he chargeth himselfe withal, in reference to the
iron workes, he ought not to discharge himselfe according to his orders
and instructions from his principals. Itt was resolved on the
affirmative, that he ought so to discharge himselfe.
4 quaest. Whither the attachments not distinguishing Jno Gyfford
under the terme of agent doe make the plaintiffs liable to a non suit,
referring to the action. This quaestion was resolved by the whole
Court on the negative.
Itt was put to the quaestion, whither the worshipfull Richard
Bellingham, Esq., and Mr Increase Nowell be capable of voating in the
case depending betwixt Capt Keayne & Mr Winslow, plaintiffs, and Jno
Gyfford, defendant, in reference to pretended relacions. Itt was
resolved on the affirmative by the whole Courte.
Itt was also put to the quaestion, whither this Courte, in the
case of the undertakers of the iron works, by their deputies,
plaintiffs, & Mr Jno Gifford, defendant, would so accept of the first
audit as to
beginne where they left, reserving the plaintives just liberty in point
of plea for damage in theire second action for the defendants not
following his orders and instruccions. Itt was resolved on the
affirmative by the whole Court.

[24 November 1654.] Capt Robert Kaine, plaintiffe, and Mr Jno Gyfford,
defendant, being in Court & pleading to their case, the Court demaunded
of the said Jno Gyfford, the defendant, that he would show his orders
and instruccions to prove his oune charge of expences,
guifts, &c, which he absolutely refused; and when the Court moved him
to give a particular answer, to ease the coulor of deceipt in mowing
forty acres of grasse for sixe catle only, (if he could,) which he had
confessed, he said he had answered to the audit, & would answer no
otherwise. The Court thereuppon declared, that then they should
examine as they might, and judge accordingly.
After the whole Court had heard what the plaintiffs &
defendants could say, & perused severall of the evidences & auditors
retourne, they proceeded as follows: Whereas there is an accion of
thirteene
thowsand pounds upon accoumpt depending in this Court betwixt Mr Josiah
Winslow & Capt Robert Keayne, deputies and attourneys for the
undertakers of the iron workes, plaintiffs, against Mr Jno Gifford,
late agent, defendant, the Court findes that, upon the said Giffords
presenting his bookes of accompt in a County Court by theire order,
where the action was first commenced, the said Court refered the
auditing of the said accompts to certaine select meete persons, who,
having spent much time about the same, made a retourne so farr as they
had proceeded, but left the consideracion of many particulars in Mr
Giffords charge, which they wanted evidenc to passe, to the valew of
three thowsand five hundred seventy-two pounds sixteene shillings and
eleven pence, to the consideracion and determination of the Court; but
this some consisting of too many particulars for the Court to examine,
was againe referred, together with the effects of the iron workes, to
other auditors, who, after much time expended about the same, made
theire retourne, and left the defendant debtor upon the whole the some
hereafter exprest, against which the plaintiffs made many just and
considerable objections, which occasioned this Court to enter into a
more strict consideracion & examination of the whole accompt, wherein
they finde many false charges, vast expences & guifts, some tons of
iron disposed of more then he gives the iron works credit for, the
proffitt of the ffarme, &c, which he made use of for himself, not
brought to account, together with diverse other improbable
disbursements putt upon accoumpt. The Court also found that the last
auditors had respect only to the accoumpts as they stood in the books,
without reference to the defendant orders or commission, and so issued
the same in an arbitrary way, and much of it without proofe, which this
Court could not allow off; but after much time spent about this case,
finding the whole accoumpts intricate, & very many of the
particulars conteyned in fower papers left by the first auditors to the
determinacion of the Court, to the valew of three thowsand five hundred
seventy two pounds sixteene shllings & eleven pence, very doubtful and
suspitious, the plaintiffs also objecting against the
whole as being donne without order, and the defendant peremptorily
refusing to shew his order or commission for the same, the Court judged
it meete to order, that the defendant should be allowed two thousand
and five hundred pounds out of the fower papers, and that
execution issue out from this Court for the plaintiffs for the rest,
together with the eight hundred and odd pounds, exprest in the foote of
the audit, leaving the defendant to his liberty, by due proofe,
according to his orders and instructions, to prove what he may or cann
more, the defendant paying the workemens wages, and giving securitie
for the same.
Itt is ordered, that the 2d action for breach of covenants, &c,
in reference to Mr Jno Gyfford, in the case of the iron workes, be
referred to the next Generall Court in May next.

One sees why Gifford complained of "rigorous handling" ...


Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»