Henshall v. Woolley

Henshall v. Woolley

Case brought by John Henshall of Salford a victualler against William Woolley and Esther Ogden of Salford brewers and copartners. Henshall claims that Woolley and Ogden have charged him for a delivery of beer that he did not receive. Woolley and Ogden claim that the delivery was received. The dispute is of interest because of the role played by Woolley's wife (deceased) and his daughter Elizabeth Woolley in receiving (or not receiving as is claimed) the delivery. Henshall claims that Woolley deliberately brought the beer round to his wife when he was away because he thought that she was more likely to be swayed into purchasing it (previous consignments having been of poor quality). Woolley disputes this in the answer.

Transcription

[two copies of the complaint - 2^nd version says that orators wife now dead so must have been corrected later]

Humbly complaining... John Henshall of Salford ... victualler... your orator had for some years past been occasionally supplied with beer for carrying on his trade by Esther Ogden and William Woolley of Salford ... brewers and copartners the defendants hereinafter named and your orator further showeth unto your honours that on or about the fifth day of January 1803 at which time your orator was at Liverpool the said William Woolley came to the house of your orator in his absence with a load of beer but your orator not having given any orders for having the same sent to him and informed [blank space] Henshall your orators wife (who is now dead) and Elizabeth Henshall your orators daughter which latter managed your orators business when your orator is from home that there was a load of beer coming from his brewery (which it situate very near your orators house. But your orators said wife and daughter knowing that your orators cellar was then full and that your orator had not given any orders for the said load of beer refused to take the same upon which the said William Woolley said it was not material as the beer would do for somebody else and that he would see your orator when he came home and your orator further sheweth unto your honours that in a few months afterwards the said load of beer arrived at your orators house when your orators wife and daughter informed Robert Jordan and James Atherton the men who came with the said load of beer that they had seen the said William Woolley and that the said beer must be taken back and that thereupon the said Robert Jordan and William Atherton together with a boy of the name of Beswick who came with them after having drank some beer at your orators house drove away the said load of beer to the said brewery and your orator further showeth ... in or about the 26^th day of March 1803 your orator and William Woolley came to a settlement in respect of the beer sold and delivered to your orator by the said Esther Ogden and William Woolley up to that time when your orator paid to the said William Woolley the sum of £33.12s being the whole sum then due from your orator to the said Esther Ogden and William Woolley for beer so sold and delivered by them to your orator up to that time and the said William Woolley signed and delivered a receipt to your orator for the said sum... purporting to be a receipt in full of all the demands of the said Esther Ogden and William Woolley against your orator up to that day and your orator further sheweth unto your honours that on or about the 28^th day of March 1803 the said Esther Ogden and William Woolley sold and delivered to your orator another load of beer and sometime in the month of September 1803 the said William Woolley came to your orator and demanded the sum of £16.16s for payment for the last mentioned load of beer and the further sum of £16.16s for the said load of beer that was sent to your orators house on the said 5^th day of January but returned as hereinbefore mentioned and which the said William Woolley pretended ought to have been charged to your orator at the time of the settlement on the 26^th March 1803 but it was then omitted by mistake and your orator further shew ... that the same having been returned aforesaid your orator refused to pay the last mentioned sum of £16.16 shillings offering at the same time to pay the sum of £16.16s for the said load of beer delivered on 28^th day of March 1803 but which the said William Woolley refused to accept and in Michaelmas term in the said year 1803 the said Esther Ogden and William Woolley commenced an action in his Majesty's Court of Kings Bench against your orator for the recovery of the whole of the sum of £33.12s which they pretend was due to them from your orator as aforesaid for beer sold and delivered on the 5^th day of January 1803 and 28^th day of March 1803 and your orator further showeth unto your honours that your orator concieving it to be impossible that the said Esther Ogden and William Woolley could bring any witnesses to prove the delivery of the same load of beer sent to your orators house on the 5^th day of January 1803 and returned as aforesaid your orator did not think it worth while to plead the said settlement of the 26^th day of March 1803 and the receipt in full then given to your orator by the said William Woolley in bar to the said action but your orator pleaded thereto the general issue and your orator at the same time paid into court the sum of £16.16s the amount of the said load of beer delivered to your orator on the said 28^th day of March 1803 and which said sum of £16.16s your orator acknowledged to be due from him on account of such last mentioned load of beer and which sum of £16.16s the attorney for the said Esther Ogden and William Woolley took out of court and proceeded in the said action commenced by then against your orator as aforesaid in order to recover the further sum of £16.16s on account of the said load of beer which they pretended was delivered at your orators house on the said 5^th day of January 1803 and your orator further sheweth unto your honors that the said cause came on to be tried at Lancaster aforesaid on or about the [blank space] day of the present month of April when a verdict was given by the jury for the said Esther Ogden and William Woolley upon certain evidence then produced and the said Esther Ogden and William Woolley threaten and intend to proceed in their said action against your orator and to enter up judgement and to sue out execution against him therein and your orator has caused frequent applications to be made Esther Ogden and William Woolley and had requested them to desist from pursing this said action against your orator and your orator well hoped that they would have complied with such his reasonable request as in justice and equity they ought... absolutely refuse to to comply with such your orators reasonable request and to justify such refusal the said defendants pretend that your orator ordered the said load of beer on the 3^rd day of January 1803 and that the said defendant William Ogden [mistake of the scribe?] immediately intered such order in the order book and that the said load of beer so sent to the house of your orator and returned as aforesaid on the said 5^th day of January 1803 was in fact delivered to the house of your orator together with a delivery note according the to the usual practice in their business where as your orator charges the contrary of such pretence to be true and that your orator never ordered the said load of beer and that the same was never delivered at the house of your orator together with a delivery note according to the usual practice in their business whereas your orator charges the contrary pretence to be true and that your orator never ordered the said load of beer and that the same was never delivered at the house of your orator but was refused to be received by your orators said wife and daughter as aforesaid and the same together with the delivery note sent back to the said defendants and your orator charges in case there is any entry in the said order book that such entry was not made at the time the same bears date and your orator charges that when the said defendant William Woolley was soon after the 5^th day of January 1803 come again to the house of your orator [blank space] Hendall your orators wife observed to him that your orator had given no orders for the said load of beer which the said last mentioned defendant acknowledged but said he thought he could do better with her than with her husband which was the reason of his sending it alluding to your orators having not infrequently sent back some of the said defendants beer before because the same was too bad for your orators customers to drink and your orator changes that when the said account was settled as aforesaid the said defendant William Woolley well knew that the said load of beer pretended to have been delivered as aforesaid was never delivered and that the same was not ommitted by mistake as is pretended and your orator charges that the said defendant William Woolley directed his clerk who made out the said account to omit the said last mentioned load of beer or had previously made some cross or entry in his books signifying that the same ought not to be charged and that the same would so appear if the said books were so produced unless he has erased such cross or entry or altered his said books which if done your orator charges was done by the defendant William Woolley to defraud your orator ...

[defendants asked to give an answer]

The answer of William Woolley

... they admit it to be true that the said complainant was occasionally between September 1800 and March 1803 supplied with beer for carrying on his trade by these defendants and this defendant William Woolley further saith he denies and this defendant Esther Ogden denies to the best of his knowledge information or belief that this defendant William Woolley did on about the 5^th day of January 1803 go to the house of the said complainant with a load of beer or that the said complainant's wife or daughter or either of them did refuse to take in a load of beer sent by these defendants to the complainants house on that day or that the defendant William Woolley or that the said William Woolley did order his men to drive the said load of beer back to his brewhouse or tell that complainants wife that some body else would take it or speak to that or any such purport or effect as by the said bill alledged and on the contrary the defendant William Woolley and the said defendant Esther Ogden believes that about the 3^rd day of the said month of January the said complainant gave to this defendant William Woolley an order for a load of beer containing 8 barrels which this defendant William Woolley regularly entered into these defendants order book on or about the 5^th day of January the said load of beer was delivered into the said complainants house by Robert Jordan and James Atherton two of these defendants servants as these defendants have been informed and believed and that the beer was put into the said complainants cellar by the said Robert Jordan and James Atherton the said cellar having been previously opened by the said complainants daughter for that purpose as these defendants have also been informed by the said Robert Jordan and James Atherton and as these defendants believe and this defendant William Woolley further saith he denies and this defendant Esther Ogden denies to the best of her knowledge information and belief that he this defendant William Woolley ? the said complainant did on or about the twenty sixth March 1803 or at any other time come to a settlement in respect of the beer sold ... believe that the said William Woolley being in the habit of going frequently into the said complainants house did on or about the 26^th day of March go to the said complainants house (which is of a distance of about forty yards from these defendants brew house) but without any intention to setttle any account with the said complainant and without having any account or book with him and whilst this defendant William Woolley was in the said complainants house he the said complainant said he would pay him for some beer and did thereupon fetch two notes purporting to the delivery of two separate loads of beer which had been sold by these defendants to the said complainant. The amount of each of such loads being £16.16s and the said complainant paid this defendant William Woolley the sum of £33.12s for the two loads of beer mentioned in such delivery notes and this defendant William Woolley signed a discharge for the sum of the first of each said notes and this defendant William Woolley returned or allowed the said complainant the sum of 7s for discount and these defendants say that on the said 26^th day of March the said complainants owed them for these loads of beer ? containing eight barrels and the amount of £16.16s one of them delivered on or about the twenty fifth day of November 1802 one other on or about the 5^th day of January 1803 and the other of them on or about the 9^th day of February following And these defendants admit that they did on or about the 28^th day of March 1803 sell and deliver to the said complainant another load of beer but this defendant William Woolley did not to the best of his recollection and belief and this defendant Esther Ogden does not know of believe that he did in or about the month September 1803 or at any other time go to the said complainant and make such demands as in the said bill in that belief mentioned but this defendant William Woolley saith and this defendant Esther Ogden believes that sometime about the months of June and July 1803 the said complainants wife requested this defendant William Woolley to bring in his account that they might see what was owing and this defendant William Woolley saith that not recollecting which of the aforesaid three loads of beer the said complainant paid him for as hereinbefore mentioned he this defendant delivered to the said complainant an account of the said two loads delivered on the 9^th day of Februuary and the 28^th day of March aforesaid and the same time concluding that the said defendant had paid him for the two loads prior to that delivered on the 9^th day of February as aforesaid and the defendant William Woolley saith that afterwards the complainant informed him that the said account was wrong and that he only owed for one load (vizt) that delivered on the 28^th day of March and he produced to the defendant William Woolley his receipt for the said load delivered on the ninth day of February whereupon the said defendant William Woolley knowing that the said complainant owed these defendants for two loads and not recollecting which two loads the said complainant had paid for he desired the said complainant to produce his other receipt which the said complainant refused to do and insisted that he only owed these defendants for the last load and he offered to pay for the same but this defendant William Woolley being well convinced that the said complainant owed these defendants for two loads he the said defendant William Woolley refused to accept of the amount of one only and these defendants admit that they did in Hilary Term now last past (and not in Michaelmas term last as in the said bill by mistake stated) commence an action in his Majesty's Court of King's Bench at Westminster against the said complainant for recovery of the said sum of £33.12s which was due to these defendants from the said complainant for two loads of beer sold and delivered to the said complainant and the said complainant did plead the general issue to the said action and pay the sum of £16.16s into court and that the defendants did take the same out of court and proceeded in their said action for the purpose in the said bill in that behalf mentioned and the said action did come on to be tried at or about the action in the said bill in that behalf mentioned and that a verdict was found for these defendants therein after in on clear and decisive evidence of the delivery of the said two loads of beer the subject of the said action and judgement was thereupon entered up for the sum of eighty nine pounds damages and costs as these defendants have been informed and believes and these defendants admit that they do threaten and intend to sue out execution against the said complainant for the same unless this honourable court shall restrain them and which these defendants submit they ought not to be restrained from under the circumstances herein mentioned and these defendants further severally say that they deny the said complainant hath caused such or any application or request as in the said bill mentioned to be made to these defendants and this defendant William Woolley further saith that he denies to the best of his recollection and belief and the defeHendant Esther Ogden does not believe that the said complianants wife did when this defendant William Woolley went to the said complainants house soon after the said 5^th day of January 1803 observe to the defendant William Woolley that the said complainant had given no orders for the said load of beer or made any such observation to him or that the defendant William Woolley did make any such acknoweldgement as in the said bill in that behalf mentioned or that he did say he thought he could do better with her than with the said complainant which was the reason of his sending it or use words to that purport or effect or that this defendant William Woolley said anything in allusion to the said complainant having any time or times sent back these defendants beer because the same was too bad for the said complainants customers to drink...