The case of Elizabeth Fenton widow, the relict and administratrix, of Richard Fenton gent. deceased respondent to the petition of William Crabb and Tho. Goldsmith appealants, humbly offered to the Lords spiritual and temporal in Parliament assembled. Fenton, Elizabeth, fl. 1680. 1680 Approx. 11 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 1 1-bit group-IV TIFF page image. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2009-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). B02578 Wing C911B ESTC R173517 53298983 ocm 53298983 179760 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. B02578) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 179760) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English Books, 1641-1700 ; 2802:4) The case of Elizabeth Fenton widow, the relict and administratrix, of Richard Fenton gent. deceased respondent to the petition of William Crabb and Tho. Goldsmith appealants, humbly offered to the Lords spiritual and temporal in Parliament assembled. Fenton, Elizabeth, fl. 1680. 1 sheet ([1] p.) s.n., [Bristol : 1680] Caption title. Place and date of publication suggested by Wing (2nd ed.). Reproduction of original in: University of Chicago Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Fenton, Richard, fl. 1655 -- Estate -- Early works to 1800. Decedents' estates -- Cases -- Early works to 1800. Broadsides -- England -- 17th century. 2008-03 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2008-04 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2008-05 John Pas Sampled and proofread 2008-05 John Pas Text and markup reviewed and edited 2008-09 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion The Case of Elizabeth Fenton Widow , the Relict and Administratrix , of Richard Fenton Gent. deceased Respondent to the Petition of William Crabb and Tho. Goldsmith Appealants , Humbly offered to the Consideration , of the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament Assembled . THE said Richard Fenton being Owner of the ⅜ parts of the Ship Rainbow of Bristol , whereof William Crabb and Thomas Goldsmith , ( now Appealants from a Decree of the High Court of Chancery ) And Richard Crabb , Alexander Gray , and Henry Haines , had each of them one 8th . part . They together in the year 1655. let the Ship to Freight , on a Voyage to Virginia ; which she performed , and returned safe to Bristol , where the Appealants and Richard Crabb received her Freight , and other Profits arising by the said Voyage , ⅜ parts whereof Appertained to the aforesaid Richard Fenton . The said Part-Owners gave no Account of the aforesaid Frieght and Profits to the said Fenton , but instead thereof set forth the said Ship a second Voyage to Virginia : Whereto she was Freighted , and set Sail , made her Voyage , and returned safe ; but before such her return the said Richard Fenton dyed intestate . After whose decease Letters of Administration of his Goods and Chattels were granted to Elizabeth his Wife , whereby she became justly intituled to all his Personal Estate . And particularly to ⅜ parts of the Freight of the Ship Rainbow , for the aforesaid two Voyages . All which the said Part-Owners Received . Elizabeth Fenton demanded her Husbands and Intestates proportion of the said Ship , for the aforesaid Two Voyages from the Appealants , and other the Part-Owners ; who refused to Accompt for the same , pretending that one Stafford was imployed by all the Owners , to Let the said Ship and receive the Freight thereof , which he had done , and therefore was onely Accountable for the same . And thereupon prevailed with the said Elizabeth Fenton to referre the aforesaid matters in controversie to Arbitration . And Arbitrators for that purpose were appointed , before whom ( when the said Elizabeth was absent , and could not Attend ) the Books of Account of the aforesaid Stafford were produced , relating to the aforesaid Ship , and two several Freights . And they thereupon ( by surprize upon the said Elizabeth Fenton made their Award , whereby they directed and ordered only 14 l. to be paid her for her proportion , of the Profits and Freight of the aforesaid two Voyages , ( when there was 1000 l. due . ) And the Appealants having Lett out the Ship a third Voyage , at 24 l. 7 s. 6 d. per Month. in which Voyage she continued about 16 Months . Attached the said Fentons proportion thereof to compell her to submit to the said Award . Thereupon she preferred her Bill in the High and Honourable Court of Chancery , to have an Accompt of the said three Voyages , and to set aside the undue Award made as aforesaid , which cause came to be heard 12 July 17 Car. nunc . Whereupon the aforesaid Award was set aside , and Account directed to be taken by a Master , who ( being assisted by Merchants ) after Examination of Witnesses , and hearing Council , reported , 747 l. 16 s. 6 d. due to the Respondent , Elizabeth Fenton . The Appealants prevailed for a Reference , upon which the Report aforesaid was confirmed , and afterwards decreed , and the decree Signed , and Enrolled . Whereupon the Appealants and Richard Crabb aforesaid , brought their Bill of review , assigning the same Errors they now do in their Appeal to this most Honourable House , upon which they obtained an Order that paying 247 l. 16 s. 6 d. And securing 500 l. more ( remainder of the 747 l. 16 s. 6 d. decreed ) all proceeding upon the said Decree should be stayed . To which Bill of review the said Elizabeth put in her Answer , and Witnesses being thereupon examined , and publication past , the Cause also came to be heard on the 22 April 22 Car. nunc . Upon which hearing the Court proposed , That the said Fenton should go back to the first Referrees to review the account . Or that she should pay back the 247 l. 16 s. 6 d. aforesaid ( which was impossible for her to do ) And then the Court would name new Referrees . The said Elizabeth Fenton being necessitated to make Choice of One of these two proposals , chose to go back to the former Referrees , who made their second Award without hearing the Respondent , which was afterwards set aside also ; and a second referrence made to a Master to take an Account of the aforesaid three Voyages , which referrence being transferred to Sir John Coell be proceeded therein , and 10 April . 1675. made his Report , That the Respondent declaring her unwillingness that Stafford should be imployed , and that the Appealants had promised she should have a just Account of the aforesaid three Voyages , and that no wrong should be done her , but that she should receive her proportion of the Profits of the said Ship , And that the Appealants undertook the management thereof ; after which he proceeded upon the said Accounts , stated the same , and Reported above 500 l. due to the Respondent Elizabeth . The Appealants procured a new Referrence , with Order , that the aforesaid Stafford should be Examined , which was done accordingly : upon which , the said Master made another Report , and made some further Abatement by the Respondents consent in order to an Accommodation . To which Report , though in their Favour , the Appealants took Exceptions . The said Exceptions coming to be Argued , the Lord Chancellor approved , and Confirmed what the Master had done in Rejecting Staffords Evidence ; and upon some of the Exceptions , referred it back to the same Master , who having the Assistance of many Eminent Merchants in London , Made his Third Report ; To which the Appealants excepting , many Hearings were thereupon had , and a Re-referrence made , with Direction for the said Master to State the Particulars of the Account , with the Values of the Cargo ; which being done , he made his Fourth Report , and thereby certified 555 l. 8 s. 5 d. ½ due to the Respondent . To which Report , the Appealants also Excepted . The Exceptions being Argued , were Over-ruled ; and the Report confirmed by Decree of the Court , since Signed and Inrolled . From which Decree , after Twenty Years proceeding in Chancery , and above 1000 l. Charges spent by the Respondent , by the Appealants Vexatious Prosecution ( to Her , and her five Childrens Ruine ) the Appealants for further Vexation , have Appealed from the Decree pronounced upon the aforesaid Bill of Review , above Ten years since ; Alledging , That the Award aforesaid is set aside by Surprize , without consent of Parties or proof of any undue Means used in obtaining thereof . That the Appealants , Gray and Haynes two of the Part-Owners in the said Ship Rainbow , were no Parties to the Decree ; Nevertheless the Sum Reported due to the Respondent , is Decreed to be paid by them ; Therefore , and forasmuch as Staffords Evidence was supprest , and the Decree made only against the Appealants , who were but two of the five Part-Owners , with the said Richard Fenton in the said Ship : And Forasmuch as they Received never one peny of Money for the Freight of her , for the first two Voyages , but only for the Third , for which they were ready to Account . Therefore pray a Reversal of the aforesaid Decree . But the Respondent humbly Hopes for , and Prays the Justice of this most Honourable House and then doubts not but to be Discharged from this Supream Court , and receive all Costs for the Charge and Vexation she is put unto . And , For Reasons for Dismissing the Appealants Appeal , this Respondent Humbly Offers . That all the proceedings in the High Court of Chancery , have been and are Just and agreeable to Equity ; and such as against which the Appealants ought not to expect Relief . Because by Sir John Coells Report , It Appears , the Appealants did themselves undertake and agree to Account for , and make Good what should be due to the Respondent for the Freight aforesaid , and so no need to make other Parties which otherwise would have been done . It Appeared , the Awards before-mentioned were obtained on False Allegations , and by Surprize ; And ( as so procured ) were justly set aside . Staffords Evidence was set aside for very good Reason , it appearing he had sworn an Account to be Perused and Allowed by the Respondents Husband , whenas by Substantial Evidence it was made Appear , that he was Dead long before the Account was Writ ; besides other Falsities , Upon the whole Matter , the Respondent Humbly layes her self , and five Fatherless Children , with this her Sad and Deplorable Condition , at your Lordships Feet ; And submits it to your Grave Judgment and Serious Consideration . Whether , After two several Decrees of the High Court of Chancery , and Twenty Years Litigation , meerly upon Matters of Account 〈◊〉 where Masters have since the Decree been Attended above 100 times upon those Accounts , and no Exceptions all that time taken to the Decree , nor any Appeal to this Honourable House from the same , till after four several Reports made , and those duly Confirmed ; ( after Exceptions put in thereto by the Appealants , were Argued ) Whether , after all these Solemn proceedings , The Appealants , now finding that they are to pay this Respondent Money , ( though not half so much as the Charges she hath been put unto for Recovering the same ) They shall be admitted to Appeal to this most Honourable House to be Relieved , against a Decree to which themselves have submitted by all their Subsequent proceedings before the Master in that Court ; Whereas if there had been any Just Cause of Complaint against the said Decree , they might have Appealed from the same before their proceeding to Account , which ( it is Humbly Conceived ) is no less than a Submission to the same , and owning it to be Just . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div B02578-e10 Hillary 1660. July 23 , 1675. Feb. 26.27 Reg. nunc . May 25 , 1677. Feb 20 , 1678. First . Secondly . First . Secondly . Thirdly .