Robert Treat Paine Papers, Volume 2
In Consequence of yours of the 17th. of Decr. last1 I immediately wrote to Mr. William Stewart2 in New London respecting his Case agt. Crane in your Hand; and a few Days since I recd. a Letter from him with several Evidences taken and Sealed up; which I hope will answer both as to Matter and Form. Stewart writes me that Crane must be a Villain to pretend any Payment ever was made Upon that account, as he never had a Shingle of him in his Life nor has he ever seen him since, tho' he promisd him he would return in about a month from the Time of taking the Goods, and that then would pay him in Shingles and Money; but did not come till the then next Spring when Mr. Jas. Mumford3 bought his Cargo as certified by the enclosed Evidence of Mumford Son, who took the act. of the whole of it; And Mumford Son has also further Certified that sd. Crane has never been there since as his Father made a Bargain with sd. Crane which he has never been to fulfill. Stewart was out of Town at This Time when Crane was last there or he should have secured his Debt; but says his Brother Nathan Crane has told him Several Times Since that John would be along and Settle to his Satisfaction, which he never has done. Stewart further says that he bought some Clapboard of John and his Brother who were both there togeather two Days before John had the Goods now sued for; and for those Clapboards Stewart at the Receipt of them paid them in Goods out of his Shop; And at the Same Time, trusted Nathan, who had since paid him honestly. Inclosed you also have Mr. Stewart tells me his Act. attested, and he has under oath declared he delivered every Article himself. The Justice has also attested that the account has been by him Compaired with Stewarts Books and that it agrees therewith. Now this Trade and Business was carried on at Connecticut where this Sort of Evidence is by Law Conclusive unless some Evidence from the Deft. Should make the Contrary appear and when ever Trade & Business is Carried on in one Government agreable to the Laws and Customs there it Should seem strange that a Merchant should loose his Demands because he was obliged to seek for his Debtor in a Government where the Law & Custom of Merchants vary. This in my Opinion would put an End to all Business. Even in England when they Judge of a Transaction here they Judge it by Laws & Customs here which when the Contract was made was expected by423the Parties would take Place if any Dispute should arise; and not by Laws and Customs they never knew or heard of and could not be guarded against at making the Contract. Hoping you may Succeed I remain your friend & Servt.
PS. Mr. Stewart Says that a Suitable Acknowledgment shall not be wanting on his Part. I have heretofor sent you several affairs; If you can recollect them & what was done on them I should be glad.
Not located.
No subsequent mention of Stewart's case appears in RTP's diary, cashbooks, or case notes.
James Mumford (1715–1773), a New London merchant.