- Comments (0) Change font
If columns/tables do not appear straight, change font
Durham 24th Sept 1743 My Lord In obedience to your Lordship’s order I have searched for the proceedings in this Cause, mentioned in your Lordship’s letter, & on the other side is a Copy of the Finall order made therein, But I have not been able, after a very diligent search, to find the account or the Report thereof made by the Deputy Register But I will renew my search, and if the account or Report can be found, a copy thereof shall be sent to your Lordship, by your Lordship’s most obedient humble servt Jno Mann In [……..] Dunelm primo die Aprilis Anno Dei 1685 [……] Regni Dei [……..] [……] […….] Dei gra [……] [Anglis] […….] [……]& […….] Regis Fides Defensoris & [……] Inter […….] Dormer [……] Attornatum [generalis] Reverendi in […..] Nathanalis […] Epi Dunelmis […..] et Humfridium Wharton [….] & [……] [……] Forasmuch as upon the full hearing of the Cause & Councill on both sides upon the Second day of September in the year of our Lord 1679. It was decreed therein by this Court (among other things) That the sd Deft should go to an account wth the said Reverend Father the Lord Bpp of Durham before the Deputy Regr for the ninth Lot of all the Lead Oare got out of the Lead Mynes within the parishes of Stanhope and Wolsingham within the County Palatine of Durham antiently belonging to the Office of Moor Master & late demised to the sd Deft Humphrey Wharton by the Right Revd Father John late Ld. Bpp of Durham (the immediate predecessor to the present Ld. Bpp above sd.) by Indre of Lease under the County Palatine Seal in due form executed for the Three Lives of him the sd Deft & his Sons Robt & Christopher Wharton & the longest liver of them Whereupon the sd Ninth Lot (among other things) is reserved to the sd Bpp & his Successors during the continuance of the sd Term to be clean washed & payable at the sd Mynes at Four Terms in the Year (to witt) at Pentecost, Lamas, Martinmas & Candlemas as the same arises out of the Sd Mynes Since wch Lease the sd late Bpp dyed & the sd present Lord Bpp is & ever since the 20th day of Novr in the year of our Lord 1674 hath been the lawfull Successor in the sd Bpprick from wch time the sd Account is directed to begin & both sides to examine & to have all just allowances therein In pursuance whereof the sd parties having [proceed] in the sd Account wth effect & the Deputy Regr having made his Report thereof in writing on the 18th day of September last whereunto the Deft filed Exceptions which were set down to be heard at [Mr] Chancellors Chamber in Grays Inn London by order of Court made at the last Sitting held here upon hearing Councell on both sides & with [consent] of parties And the sd Report & Exceptions coming to a hearing accordingly & Councell on both sides being heard thereupon some points being specially reported and there seeming great uncertainty in the proofs touching the quantities & value of the Lead Oare & Ninth Lot in question It was thereupon referred to a Tryall at Law by Order of this Court to be tried before [Mr] Chancellor in the Court of Pleas of this County palatine at this Sitting upon a [feigned] issue , to trye what the Quantum & reall value was of the sd Lead Oare got in the Mynes in Question included in the Defts Lease above sd from the 20th day of Novr 1674 untill the 12th day of February 1676 And what the Ninth Lot amounted to for that time and after such Tryall both sides to resort to this Court for such further Order as should be agreable to [Sustire] Which Tryall being accordingly had by a select Jury struck & agreed on both sides in pursuance of the sd last Order in the Court of Pleas held the 31st day of March last past after a long Evidence & a full debate by the Councell learned on each side the Verdict therein passed for the plaintiff that within the time of the issue above specifyed 1575 Bing Load of Lead Oar were got out of the Mynes in question wch was of the value of 24s every Bing the Ninth Lot whereof was of the clear value of £210 whereupon this Court being now humbly moved by [Mr] Attorney general & Mr Serjeant Jefferson of Councell on the Complts part for Confirmation of the sd Verdict & the paymt of the value of the Ninth Lot thereby found according to the intent of the [Decree] And upon hearing of Mr Serjeant Stringer & Serjeant Shaftoe & other learned Councill for the Deft no sufficient cause being shown to the contrary but assenting thereto & only praying a reasonable time for the paymt wch was not opposed by Mr Attorney It is thereupon now thought fit and Ordered by the Right Worshipfull [Sr] John Otway Knight Chancellor of the County palatine of Durham & Sadberge by Consent of the Councell on both sides that the sd Verdict be hereby allowed & confirmed And the sd Deft Humphrey Wharton shall on or before the 11th day of November next coming satisfy and pay to the said Reverend Father the present Lord Bpp of Durham or his Ass the Sum of Two hundred & ten pounds found by the sd Verdict for the value of the Ninth Lott of the Lead Oare in question in full satisfaction of all such Lott Oare within the time of the sd Issue (to witt) between the 20th day of November 1674 & the 12th day of February 1676 without further order or delay Jo. Otway [On front leaf:] Apr.1.1685 [The] case of Chancery for Mr Wharton’s paymt of the Bp the Sum of 210l for his 9th lot being the full ninth part of 1575 Bings of lead at one pound four Shill per Bing or 1890 li gotten between 20 Nov. 1674 & the 12 Feb. 1676 In pursuit of a Verdict of the Jury who tryed the cause, & gave the Bp this Sum as a full ninth pt 210 li is the price of 175 Bings at 1l:4sh pr Bing the 9th pt of 1575 Bings is 175 Bings W[he]r[e]as [struck out: ‘deducting a full’] a full tenth [load] out of 1890 li had been pd the Rector, the Bp could not have been adjudged 210 for his 9th
DCRO D/Bo/F/120. The document Mann copied out for Chandler will have been part of the evidence Chandler was mustering for his discussions with Blackett and the Rector of Stanhope about lott and tithe ore in 1743. It is valuable as a record of the decision in the earlier case of Crewe versus Wharton. The note on the front leaf is probably in Bishop Chandler’s own hand and concerns the argument with Rector Keene of Stanhope about when the Rector’s tithe or tenth should be taken from the total value of the lead ore produced.