[Fo. 11r] [IMAGE] [ZOOMIFY IMAGE]
Interrogatories to be ministered for the examinacõn of witnesses on the behalf |
of Robert Barker Esquire plaintife against Bonham Norton esquier defendant.
Imprimis did not you and the rest of the Commissioners in the said cause drawe vp
a decree | therein by assent of the parties on both sides, and, was not the defendant to restore the office of the Kings | Printer and all his interest therein to the plaintife vpon satisfaccõn of 8000li.
2. Item was not the first 2000li thereof to be raised by the sale of Vpton farme, and the other | 6000li by the office and the proffitte thereof.
3. Item was not the defendant vpon payement of the first 2000li to put out his name of kings | Printer in the office, and by whome was the office to be executed, And was the defendant to | entermedle therewth or not, were the halfe yearely Accompts of the proffitts of the office duly | yeilded vp, And was the office executed as yow ordered or not, by whose default was that.
4. Item in case the plaintife could not by the day of payement of the first 2000li sell the land for | payement thereof, there being but a fewe dayes betweene the date of the decree, and the day | of this payement what interest did you resolue he should pay for the same, and in case the | plaintife did to the vttermost of his power endeauour to performe the payements in the decree for the | office, did you intend neuerthelesse that he should pay any such penaltie as 20 in the hundred | or to what end was the said penaltie sett downe, and for what reasons imposed in the letter of your decree.
5. Item did you not knowe at the makeing of the said decree what estate in lands the | plaintife had, and howe they stoode incumbred to Mr Norton that if <and> in case Vpton being parte | of the Iointure of Christoper Barkers wife, should be sould towards the redemption of the office, did you meane or intend that she shewd in lewe? thereof have the Ioynture of the plaintifes wife discharged of all Incumbrances, and if yea, by what meanes did you intend the plaintife showd discharge the same, yf not what did you intend shee should have in liew thereof.
6. Item did yt appeare to you, at or before the making of the decree that the plaintife had | had out of the office in money and bookes about 900.li did you not meane that he should be | acquitted thereof by the decree, yea or noe, yf yea, why did you soe?
7. Item did you intend to acquitt the defendant by yor decree from a debt of 285li for lattin bookes | sold by him to the companie of Stationers, was yt a debt belonging to the defendant his moietie in the office, was the plaintife Barker by the decree to haue all the debts wholl moiety of the | said office, and all the debts any waies thereunto apperteyning or belonging, And was that | 285li parte thereof.
8. Item was yt not the true meaninge of your <the> decree <or any the articles subsequent> to enable the plaintife to sell Vpton for | to paye the first payement for the office, And did not the defendant vexe the sale thereof at the | making of this decree, And did not you therevpon enioyne him the defendants by the decree | not only to ioyne in the sale thereof, but to procure his daughter Barker to ioyne with | him therein also. And whose default was it the same lands weare not sould § | accordingly: And howe do you know the same?
9. Item did not mris Sara Barker the defendants daughter come to you and tell you that Vpton shoud <not> be | sould, And that she would neuer giue her assent thereto, if yea, when? And did not the defendants acknowledge that it was by his direccõn and when did he soe?
10. Item was not the defendant to be charged wth the moiety of such bookes as Mr Bill receaued quarterly | out of the office, and to allowe yt vpon his halfe yearely accompt to the plaintife in parte of payement for the | office, yea or noe, if yea, howe farre and to what tyme did you intende the defendant to be charged therewth.
11. Item did you and the rest of the Comissioners about Midsomer 1625 heare & consider all the § | differences betweene them the parties concerning the office. And what interest did yow then intend, or | agree to lay vpon the plaintife, either for the first 2000li because the same was not paide, or for any | other moneys accrewed, and did you intend anymore then fiue in the hundred for them or either of | them yea or noe? yf noe then for what reasons did yow soe?
12. Item what did you intend or determine in Iustice and equitie to doe as concerning the debts showed | to you by schedule at yor examinacõn <dated 19 Ianij 1625> did you conceaue them to be trusted partely? & contrary to the course | of the office, and for the rest that the <debt> had not taken such course for the getting on thereof as was fitt | And did not you therefore thinke it reasonable & iust that he should take it in parte payment: And | what did you resolue thereupon?
13. Item what did you also then intend or determyne the plaintife should doe concerning the rent as purchase | of Blackfriers House, wch the defendant would haue forced him to haue purchased.
14. Item wherewas there was a draught of a decree drawne by Mr Gerrard & Mr Jones or one of them in Anno: 1625 was yt not agreed that after the fyne should be acknowledged by all parties interessed of the | lands agreed to be sould, and <the> Indentures to leade vses sealed, that then there should be incerted in <to> the said decree | before then sealing thereof how much more in certayne the plaintife or his assignes should pay the defendant in full for | the office. And what annuall some Mr Robert Barker was to pay out of the office for payement of the debts, & | ingagements of Christopher Barker his sonne. And was yt not then agreed by the comissioners that there | should be noe more question of the Accompt, but that Mr Robert Barker and his wife & ffrnds | should ioyne in the fine as they were willed to doe and take not further care, for all things owed | concluded and in the commissionrs brests though not then fitt to be made knowne, And what was yt <that was> soe | then resolued by the commissionrs to be incerted & reserued in theire owne brests to the vttermost of yor knowledge.
15. Item doe you knowe or haue hard of any that desired to buy Vpton farme, if any, then who | were such parties, & when desired they to buy the same, what price was offered for the same & why was yt not sold.
16. Item were there not suerall articles agreed vpon between the said Mr Robert Barker & Mr Bonham | Norton and subscribed by them & the commissionrs for the ending of all differences saue any such as were in the brests | of the commissionrs and by themselfe incerted into the said Articles before they were decreed, one draught of the | said Articles bearing date the 30th of May Anno domini 1624 the other 7o die martii following. And was not | the Iointure of Mres Sara Barker & the maintenance of her & her husband thereby (amongst | other things) prouided for. Be not the Articles nowe showed you the same Articles.
17. Item is the note or lettre to the defendant nowe showed you and dated the 21th of June | 1625 subscribed wth yor proper hand.
Daniel Hills
Nath Weston. |
