Robert Treat Paine Papers, Volume 4
I1 must beg you would excuse my frequent application to you relative to the Libeling of Mr. John Simpson’s Estate,2 which is now under the improvement of Mr. Joseph Barrell. A few days ago Mr. Soley and myself waited on you respecting this matter, and you were pleas’d to say, that you would have it Libeld this Court. Since that day I have seen Mr. Price who inform’d me that the above Estate is not Libeled, which suppose was omitted through the great hurry of Business. Necesity urges the importunity and of addressing you in this way—and permit me again to request the favor of haveing it Libeled this Court. The Demand I have to exhibit against the Estate is the greater part of what I have in the World—and am greatly necesitated for the want of it.
Nathaniel Glover (1756–1790) started a mercantile career in Boston but at the age of twenty-one inherited a fortune from his father and retired from business. Thereafter he “devoted himself to literary pursuits” (Anna Glover, Glover Memorials and Genealogies [Boston, 1867], 299–300). As a first cousin to John Simpson 208 and his closest relative still in America, Glover is here seeking clarification on the status of Simpson’s estate (Jones, Loyalists of Massachusetts, 261–262).
John Simpson (d. 1777) and his brother Jonathan (1753–1834) were involved in the family mercantile business. At the evacuation of Boston virtually all of the family left and scattered, some to Halifax, others to London. John went to New York, where he died. After the war Jonathan returned to Boston and reclaimed some of the family properties but eventually lost them all (Sibley’s Harvard Graduates, 18:154–158).
I have compleated as near & full as possible the description in the Complaints of the Absentees, but in the notification as you directed have been as short as possible.
Unfortunately I never considered till last evening that they should be publishd 30 Days before the sitting of the court, but if they can be in mondays Papers it will be 30 Days inclusive. I shd. be exceeding sorry if it should fail of being finishd at June Term.
Please to advise Mr. Bourn respecting matters &c.
Inclosed I have the honour to send you the papers and plea in the cause of Hammat et al vs. Warren et al. I do not see how the question whether the members of the navy Board are liable personally for what they did officially without setting forth all the facts in a plea in bar could ever have been brought before the Court. For on a demurrer the Court could not know that the members of the navy Board were public officers because tho perhaps the Court might consider the appointment by Congress of certain persons bearing the same name with the defendants to be a board 209 of Assistants &c as a public law yet it could not appear that they and the defendants are the same persons. Neither could the Court from any thing that appears in the record know that they acted in their official capacity—that the vessel was chartered for public use and or employed for the purpose for which she was chartered.
I believe Sir when after you have read the declaration you will suppose that we shall be safe in this mode of conducting the cause. Sir there is not a single feature of law in any part of the declaration it arising I conceive from the great haste in which it was drawn. If they should take issue on any part of our plea and obtain a verdict against us judgment must be arrested on motion. Should they demur to our plea they committing the first fault must have judgment against them.
The letter from the marine committee is signed by Richard Henry Lee. It will I conceive be necessary to prove to the Jury that there was such a committee then in existence and that Mr. Lee was one of them. Will the printed journals of Congress be sufficient for this purpose or must we send to the Secretary of Congress for an attested copy of their appointment. The Navy Board undoubtedly have their own appointment attested by the Secretary.
I hope to see you at Boston in the course of this week and receive your advice respecting the mode of conducting the cause and your ideas of the principles on which it is to be defended.
The orders to Captain Barne are dated prior to the date of the charter party of affreightment. I suppose the vessel was chartered some time before the execution of the instrument.
Q: why is not
1 how came both parts of the Charter party in our possn.
2. Congress set at Baltimore
then the sd. James and John lawfully & fully empowred in their Capacities aforsaid, and in Compliance with & agreable to the directions of the said marine Cmtte and as Servants to the Congress of the United States of America and by their Special direction & for their only use and that they the said James & John witht. any neglect of theirs have not been possessed of any monies belonging to the said Congress, since any Charterparty
demand made by them the said Abraham & William on 210 the said James & John in Consequence of the said Charterparty wherewith they could pay the same and the said James is ready to verify wherefore he prays Judgt. if the said Abraham & Willm. their actions aforsaid ought to have & maintain:
any became due in Consequence of the Charterparty aforsaid order made by the said James & John in behalf of Congress as aforsaid wherewith they could pay the same
transacted and performed made & executed the Charterparty aforsaid & transacted and performed all the matters & things Relative thereto above discribed and that they were lawfully & fully impowred so to do and that this said Abraham Hammet & Wm.