Court Papers 1736

[MKG]

I see what you're thinking, Roger, but I'm not sure that a superscripted £ would have been how it was done. Thinking ...

Peter, that second bit is helpful because it confirms that superscripts were being used - there are examples of "ye" (for the) all over the place. And there's another example of the very superscripted thing (between "in" and "for") that we're wondering about.

Well, now I have something to puzzle over before the football results come in 

Mike

EDIT: I also wonder why, if we're looking at "bound over to appear" sums, they should be so different. That would appear to be a presumption of greater guilt, wouldn't it?

[MKG]

I think I see a chink of light - Peter may have been correct with his "last sesions".

So, how about "to answer an indictment assess'd last sesions"?

If the case had already been assessed, that would allow Roger's £10 and £1 - the men may have been turning up to pay fines. It may be helpful to see the last line which has been chopped off in the scan - is it a date?

Any thoughts?

Mike

[Roger in Sussex]

I also wonder why, if we're looking at "bound over to appear" sums, they should be so different. That would appear to be a presumption of greater guilt, wouldn't it?

Or maybe the court thought a Pipemaker would be more likely than a Gentleman (perhaps owning a large local estate?) to abscond. This is from 1736 after all 

[bristolloggerheads]

The bit chopped off is:

"Taken & acknowledged ye 18th May 1736 before J U Smitheman"

The earlier entry was taken & acknowledged at a later date - 1st June 1736

[MKG]

The chink has become a torchbeam, I think. I was getting bogged down with the long s which, of course, should sometimes be an f. The two men are basically bound over in the sums of £10 and £1 "to answer an indictment deferr'd last sesions by James Grosvenor".

The de at the beginning of deferr'd is a normal d with a superscripted e. J U Smitheman is taking over the case last heard by James Grosvenor - presumably both magistrates.

Are we getting warm?

Mike

[bristolloggerheads]

I think the indictment was a charge brought by James Grosvenor - not that he was hearing the case. (As he could only make his mark)

Peter

The earlier entry also seems to mention Taylor  - I can't work out what that is all about either.

[Roger in Sussex]

Peter,

I'm inclined to think like Mike, that James Grosvenor was a magistrate or some such. The + mark might have been made later to indicate that the money had (or hadn't) been forfeited.

Do Grosvenor or Smitheman appear anywhere else in your documents?

Roger

[MKG]

Only if it is, indeed, anyone's mark - I'm not at all sure about that. And deferred looks better every time I look at it. However, a change is as good as a rest - perhaps it will look different later - so on to example No. 2.

Mike

First go ...

Thos. Bowen ** ye named plain(tiff?) Taylor in £1 for ye ***** by Sarah ye wife of Geo. Polly

Any good?

[bristolloggerheads]

Smitheman was definately a very important landowner and no doubt a magistrate. All I can find of any James Grosvenor anywhere in Shropshire is this reference:

103/1/5/222
Date 15 November 1728
Title Warranty and authorisation
Description From Thomas Kynaston to Thomas Dicken and Ralph Wilson, attorneys of Common Pleas, to act on his behalf in an action brought against him by Edward Lloyd for debt of £1,200 and to appear for Lewis Evans of Wem in an action brought by James Grosvenor on demise of Lloyd for 1m., 30a., 30a. meadow, 30a. pasture in Loppington.

Peter