| Description | Samuel Braddock, grocer, v. Peter Ellames, druggist, and Henry Hesketh, merchant, Treasurers of Chester, concerning trading by Braddock a non-freeman. a c.1760 Copy of bill of complaint from Bradock to George, Earl of Cholmondeley, Chamberlain of the County Palatine. States that he has carried on the business of a grocer in a shop near Gloverstone, but the Treasurers have lately brought an action against him in the Portmote for selling wares not being a freeman, contrary to a bye-law of Assembly. Asserts that the Council which made this bye-law was not properly chosen. As the Mayor, Sheriffs and jurors are all freemen and so are interested parties, he asks for removal of the writ of Certiorari. 8ff. b Draft of the above. 9ff. c 1758 Peter Ellames the younger, and Henry Hesketh, Treasurers, plts. v. Samuel Braddock, defendant, in a plea of debt in the Portmote. Draft of declaration for plaintiffs. 3ff. d 19 Feb. 1761. Braddock v. Hesketh and Ellames in Chester Exchequer. Opinion. 1f. e 10 March 1761. As above. Opinion of Robert Townsend Recorder. f 23rd April 1761. Letter from Sa. Radley to Mr. Brock, attorney in Chester, from Dover; concerning Radley's at Gloverstone. 2ff. g 13 May 1761. Note from Robert Townsend, Recorder, to Mr. Brock concerning the same. h. Copy of writ of Certiorari of 14 April 1763, to Mayor of Chester. 2ff. i n.d. S. Braddock, complainants v. P. Ellames and H. Hesketh, in the Exchequer. Interrogatories ex parte the defendants. 8ff. j Sept. 1762. S. Braddock, complt. v. P. Ellames and H. Hesketh, defendants, in the Exchequer at Chester. Copy of decree. 10ff. k 8th April 1763. P. Ellames and H. Hesketh. plaintiffs, v. S. Braddock, defendant, at Chester Assizes, upon a writ of error brought by the defendant against the judgement and verdict obtained for the plaintiffs in the Court of Portmote Brief for the plaintiffs. 16ff. l. 1763? Ellames and Hesketh v. Braddock. Annotated case concerning the writ of error. 7ff. m. The case in the Portmote rough, with opinion of J. Yates, Lincoln's Inn, 15th Jan., 1763. 22ff. n. Case as in j, with opinion of Attorney General, 1764. 7ff. o. Copy of the writ of error of 19th Oct., 2 George.III 1762 1f. p. Copy of Assembly order of 26 Sept., 9 George.II 1735: bye law concerning non-freemen not exercising trades in the City. q. Same case in Portmote. Copy of the challenge, demurrer, rejoinder and writ of error. 5ff. r. Form of postea in the Portmote Court and copy of writ of certiorari and writ of procedendo in Ellames and Heskth v. Braddock, 32 George.II 1758-9 4ff. s. 1768 or after Thomas Slaughter, Esq., and John Lawton, Treasurers, v. Samuel Braddock, Note of proofs in case. 1f. t. 1764? Notes and observations on Ellames & Hesketh v. Braddock, on writ of error, and of arguments used and reasons why the judgment for the plaintiff in error was reversed at the Assizes in April, 1764. 1f. u. 6 Sept., 1764. Legal opinion of Mr. Ja. Wallace, Lancaster, on the judgment in the case in error. 1f. v. 17 March, 1787, Certified copy of decree and order of 6 Sept., 1762 in the Chester Exchquer. Right of the City to exclude non-freemen from trading upheld. 14ff w n.d. Chester Sessions. Samuel Braddock, plaintiff v. Ellames and Hesketh, defendants. Draft bill of costs with respect to diminution in the record. x. 11th Feb. 1766. Hesketh, who had survived Ellames, v. Braddock. Final Judgement on writ of Error: with endorsement that it should be compared with bye-laws in 1699 and 1735 for settlement of a new bye-laws |