Robert Lowndes v John Stafford, 1725

National Archives, C 11/1194/3

This case from the Court of Chancery shows the poor state of Robert Lowndes' finances before his death in 1727. It seems to have been due to relatively small debts incurred in London piling up rather than to any particular financial disaster. He seems to have tried to extricate himself by claiming ignorance, and is unlikely to have got far against serious businessmen and lawyers, although the outcome isn't known. The inventory of Winslow Hall in 1727 shows that not too much property can have been seized by the bailiffs. The text has been summarised below. The pages were sewn together in the wrong order.

f.1.  Complaint of Robert Lowndes, 28 May 11 George [1725]

Robert Lowndes of Winslow esq. contracted debts with the tradesmen Brocklesby of Westminster, vintner, and Dixon of St Clement Danes, fishmonger.  They employed John Stafford of St Giles in the Fields as their attorney.  He lent Lowndes money and pretended to pay the creditors.

Lowndes gave Stafford a note [i.e. a promissory note] payable to Tuffnell of Old Palace Yard, Westminster.  He paid Stafford £40 at the White Hart at Aylesbury, and 4 or 5 guineas at other times at Winslow or Aylesbury, to a total of at least £100 above the £40.  Lowndes took no note or receipts.

Stafford advised Lowndes to raise the money to pay off Tuffnell, and £30 to pay Richard Kent, to whom at Stafford’s persuasion Lowndes had confessed a judgment of £60.

Stafford persuaded Lowndes to give him a note for several large sums amounting to at least £300. At a meeting on 24 June last [1724], Stafford pretended £71 was due under a judgment.  He demanded £391 18s 9d, from which he deducted £160 already received.  He got Lowndes to execute a warrant of attorney for confessing judgment [i.e. written authorisation for someone to acknowledge his debt] in the name of William Torr in trust for Stafford for £250.  Lowndes executed a general release [i.e. relinquished all claims between them].  Stafford delivered up some notes and vouchers.  He acknowledged that £232 was the principal sum, £18 interest and charges. 

Lowndes has left a memorandum with Mr Markham his Clerk in Court, and 15 notes and vouchers. 

Stafford has caused execution to be taken [i.e. asked the sheriff to send in the bailiffs], and seized Lowndes’ household goods, corn, hay, horses and cattle at Winslow and caused them to be inventoried and threatens to sell them.  He told Lowndes that if he gave him £20 and a guinea for his journey, he would prevail on his clients to stop the execution.

[signed] Tho: Bedford

A schedule of Lowndes' debts and Stafford's charges was added at the bottom of the page:

[col.1] The Schedule to wh(i)ch ye Bill Referrs Mr Lowndes's Acc(ou)nt	£	s	d
Note dated ye 14th day of Dec(emb)er 1720 for 60li vallue rec(eiv)ed	60	0	0
Three years and a halfe and a fortnights Interest	10	12	6
Tuffnell v Lowndes ar' [=esquire] } Debt due upon Judgem(en)t 1st July 1721	71	0	0
3 years Interest	10	13	0
Costs Ca(pias ad) sa(tisfaciendum) & fi(eri) fa(cias) & Renewing them three sev(er)all Termes 3li 6s reviving Judgement by sci(re) fac(ias) &c &c 1li 10	4	16	0
Stafford gen'[?] &c v Eundem [=the same man] } Money due upon note 20th July 1721	10	10	0
Costs upon enquiry 9li Fi(eri) fa(cias) Ca(pias ad) sa(tisfaciendum) Fee &c 1li	10	10	0
3 years Interest	1	10	0
[col.2] Torr v Eund(em) Mony due upon note 31th July 1721	10	10	0
Costs upon Inquiry &c	10	0	0
Three [3 deletions] yrs Interest Except 1 month	1	10	0
Calcott v Eund(em) Money due upon note 14th Oct 1721	15	15	0
Costs upon Inquiry &c	10	0	0
Two years eight months Interest	2	2	0
	------------
	229	8	6
Money due to me upon acc(ou)nt stated at Alysbury 16 March 1721	43	0	0
Two years 3 months Interest	4	16	9
Money due upon acc(ou)nt stated 30th Dec 1721	18	3	6
Two years and halfes Interest	2	5	0
16th March 1721 money pd by Mr Lowndes Ord(e)r As p(er) note	9	9	0
2 years 3 months Interest	1	1	0
2 Journeys to Missington 2 days each horse hire expences &c	6	6	0
[col.3] Mony due upon note 26th July 1722	15	15	0
One years ii months Interest	1	10	0
Jug(men)t vacac(i)on Sum(m)er last was 12 months attending backwards & forwards sev(er)all times at Buckingham Alesbury Wendover Winsloe high Wickham &c for near a month	15	15	0
Charges upon Dixons acco(un)t	5	7	0
2 Journeys to Alyesbury by Mr Lowndes's order 3 dayes each horsehire & Expences	10	10	0
Bonds releases warr(an)ts of attorney &c	1	1	0
Mony due upon note 10th June 1723	6	6	0
years Interest	0	6	0
30 June 1720 No. Drawn upon Harbin p(er) 5li 5s4 years Interest 1li	6	5	0
note 21th April 1724	14	14	0
	------------
	162	10	3
	229	8	6
	-----------
Totall	391	18	9
[Insertion between 2nd & 3rd columns]
Charge in ye whole 391:18:9 reced 160£ rem' 231:18:9
[col.4] Memorandum 24th June 1724 I do hereby acknowledge (tha)t ye Warr(an)t of attorney Given by Robert Lowndes Esq to Wm Torr for two hundred and fifty poundes That only two hundred and thirty two pounds is ye principle sum(m)e & (tha)t ye eighteen poundes surplus menc(i)oned in ye s(ai)d Warr(an)t is to secure the Interest & other Incident charges & that the name of William Torr is only used in Trust for me as Witness my hand [signed] Jno. Stafford

f.3.  Another copy of Robert Lowndes’ complaint, dated 20 Jan 1724/5

f.4.  John Stafford’s plea and answer, 10 Feb 1724/5

Sums which he received before 24 June 1724 from Lowndes and transactions between them:

Stafford has been for several years employed as an attorney by several persons to prosecute Lowndes for money due to them: 4 years ago by Richard Brocklesby for money due to him a considerable time. Stafford brought an action on behalf of Brocklesby leading to the taking out of executions.  Lowndes promised to pay but did not, so Stafford sued out [i.e. issued] a writ of execution on the judgment and went with it to Lowndes’ house [in London] “rather then putt an Officer in possession which the pl(aintiff) was very thankfull for”.

Lowndes promised that if Stafford would come down to his house at “Winckloe” in a week or fortnight the money should be paid and “he would gratifye this Def(endan)t for his trouble & for the Charge of his Journey being near a hundred Miles theither & back againe”.

Stafford took several journeys to no purpose and at last was prevailed upon by Lowndes to take his own note for the debt, costs and charges.  Stafford with his own money discharged Brocklesby’s debt and the execution.  Lowndes promised a reward for his kindness.

After several journeys and meetings Stafford was forced to bring an action on the note.  He ordered and endorsed the note to Samuel Tuffnell, and brought an action in Tuffnell’s name.  He prosecuted to judgment and took out execution but never levied it, at Lowndes’ request.

On 24 June last Lowndes met Stafford and Mr Edwards (Lowndes’ attorney and under-sheriff for Bucks) to settle accounts.  Edwards examined the accounts and vouchers. £232 was due, as Lowndes agreed. Lowndes agreed to confess a judgment in the name of William Torr of St Martin’s in the Fields butcher in trust for Stafford.  Stafford took a warrant of attorney for £250 including further interest and charges.  Lowndes executed a general release to Stafford and took the accounts and papers and vouchers.

Stafford promised that if Lowndes paid £100 in part of the £232 before the first day of Michaelmas Term last, he should have until the beginning of this present Hilary Term to pay the residue. Lowndes did not pay or perform any promises.  Stafford “having Experienced the many Disappointments the plt had been guilty off in his promisses for payment of money” caused execution to be taken out upon the judgment to Torr, and to be delivered to the Sheriff of Bucks.  Lowndes’ goods were taken in execution.

There was a bond but not a warrant of attorney to Richard Kent for £69.

About 2 years ago Stafford was employed by Edward Dixon, a fishmonger near Temple Bar, to take out an action against Lowndes for £30.  He sued out a special testatum capias [i.e. a supplementary writ to a sheriff of another county].  Some little time afterwards Dixon left off his trade and Kent took over his debts.  Stafford prevailed on Kent to take Lowndes’ bond for £34 10s to be paid on 18 Dec, dated 18 June 1723 in the penalty of £69.

Before stating the account, Stafford was ordered to put the bond given to Kent in suit, and execution was obtained by Kent.  This was for money owed to Kent in which Stafford was not concerned.

Since stating the account Stafford has had several letters and messengers from Lowndes “to desire that the Goods soe taken in Execution might not be sold or apprised for that the money should be paid this Day & that day”.  Lowndes desired Stafford to meet him at Wendover.  On 22 Dec last Stafford went to Wendover, and on 24 Dec Lowndes came to him without the money, only to beg further time, which Stafford refused to grant.

Stafford was “oblidged to stay a Weeke for the returne of the Coach it being Christmas Time”.  Lowndes gave him a note for £21 and paid a guinea for the charge of the house at Wendover.   He told Lowndes he would return the note if he sent him 10 guineas the next day. Lowndes did not do so and Stafford has the note “ready to be delivered up upon payment of what shall be thought reasonable for his Expences time & trouble on that Occasion”.

He did not take a note for £20 to put a stop to the executions, one of which was in his own name and the other in Kent’s. Upon payment of the £232, interest and costs from 24 June 1724 and the 10 guineas, the judgment to Torr shall be acknowledged and all notes from Lowndes cancelled.

f.2 Further answer of John Stafford gent.

He does not remember how much the debt to Richard Brocklesby was, or the costs of the suit of recovery, but he paid Brocklesby’s whole demands.

He did not pay any debt to Edward Dixon, or pretend he borrowed any money of Samuel Tuffnell.  Tuffnell was not a nominee or trustee for him in any note, but Tuffnell being an Indorsee of the note, Stafford brought an action against Lowndes in Tuffnell’s name.

He did not promise to pay the money he received of Lowndes at the White Hart in Aylesbury or any of the small sums in discharge of any of Lowndes’ notes or debts.  He only received the money as mentioned in his former answer.  He did not pretend the sums were swallowed up in costs or incident charges.

He did not advise Lowndes to raise a sum of money to pay off Tuffnell or a debt of £30 or any other debt to Richard Kent. He did not promise to procure money for Lowndes from some of his clients.  He did not threaten that Tuffnell would sue or Kent would take out execution. He did not prevail on Lowndes to give him notes for large sums payable to himself or others, or pretend on the credit thereof to raise money for Lowndes, or raise money for his own use.

£71 was due on a judgment recovered by Stafford against Lowndes, being the balance of a stated account and interest and law business and journeys, horse hire and expenses amounting to £391 18s 9d.  He deducted £160 received, leaving £231 18s 9d due.

Stafford has inspected the account notes and vouchers left in the hands of Mr Markham. Stafford did not inventory Lowndes’ goods or threaten to sell them, but the sheriff of Bucks or his officers inventoried them, and Stafford left it to him to do as he thought fit.

The £160 was paid as follows: Stafford at Lowndes’ request borrowed of Edward Lindsay £200, and Lowndes directed him to deduct £160 from it for himself.  He paid the rest to Lowndes, about 12 months before the stating of the account.  He has received no other moneys from Lowndes, except as mentioned in his former answer, and except the money for which he gave Lowndes receipts.

Stafford insists on the stated account and release.  His fees, disbursements and journeys on Lowndes’ business amounted to much more than £160. Lowndes from time to time gave him bills as the business was done. When Stafford wrote that he would call on Lowndes at Winslow to be paid the moneys due, Lowndes promised to meet him on the road.  Lowndes now and then gave him a guinea for expenses and horse hire.

He cannot say when he was employed by Richard Kent as his attorney to prosecute Lowndes on the bond, but it was 3 or 4 months before settling the account. He was only employed by Brocklesby, Kent and Dixon (since deceased) to sue Lowndes.  Dixon assigned his debts to Kent. He has only paid Brocklesby’s debt and the principal sum of £200 borrowed of Edward Lindsay.

f.5.  Answer of Richard Kent, 3 March 1724/5

Edward Dixon late of the parish of St Clements Danes fishmonger living at Temple Bar, leaving off his trade upwards of three years since assigned his stock in trade and debts to the value of £900 to Kent who continues the trade of fishmonger at Temple Bar.

He assigned a debt of £28 owed by Lowndes for fish and other things.  After frequent promises for speedy payment, Kent ordered Stafford to bring an action.

Lowndes offered to execute a bond to Kent for £34 10s for the debt and charges.  He executed it on 10 June 1723 in the penalty of £69. £34 10s was to be paid on 18 Oct following. Lowndes did not pay and Kent ordered Stafford to put the bond in suit.  Stafford obtained judgment and by Kent’s order took out execution.  These are solely for Kent and not in trust for Stafford.

Upon Lowndes’ payment of £34 10s and interest and charges, Kent is willing to acknowledge satisfaction and the goods taken in execution by the sheriff of Bucks may be redelivered.

f.7.  Further answer of John Stafford gent. sworn ?12 March 1724/5

It is true that he brought an account ready made up to the meeting in the bill mentioned to be left with Lowndes’ clerk in court.  He drew it up in writing by Lowndes’ special order.

The journeys in the bill mentioned were not made by the special order of Lowndes, but all made in Lowndes’ service and the greater part at his particular directions. Stafford does not remember which journeys he had particular orders for.

f.6.  Several answer of John Stafford gent.  Sworn 7 May 1725

Repeats previous answers.