Legal Papers of John Adams, volume 1

Adams’ Minutes of the Argument<a xmlns="" href="#LJA01d057n1" class="note" id="LJA01d057n1a">1</a>: Essex Superior Court, Salem, November 1772 JA Adams’ Minutes of the Argument: Essex Superior Court, Salem, November 1772 Adams, John
Adams' Minutes of the Argument1
Essex Superior Court, Salem, November 1772
Lee. vs. Bancroft.

Lowell. 25 days a Chance.

Judge Hutchinson. The Underwriters charged Lee with concealing some Circumstances—the Arrival of a Vessell—but I cant recollect all the Particulars. The Arbitrators agreed. An Account of a Vessell and I think it was Howard, and Col. Lee told 'em it was possible she might be gone to some other Island. The main dispute whether she was gone to Martinico or some other Island. Heard something about Pedrick but cant say whether his Deposition was before us.

Mr. Rowe. 2 Cabot and Crowningshield.3 No Evidence from Pedrick. They thought Lee had not said what was necessary, that he had concealed something which he should have communicated. The 196Underwriters thought she was bound first to Martinico, and they complaind that she went to some other Island.

Mr. Bourn. The Objection was that Lee had concealed Howards Arrival. Howard I know very well. The other Matter was spoke off, his being bound to one Island and going to another. I am not positive it was considerd.


In JA's hand. Adams Papers, Microfilms, Reel No. 185.


John Rowe notes in his diary under date of 2 Nov. 1772, that “I attended Mr. John Adams this morning about Colo. Lee's affair.” Rowe, Letters and Diary 235.


John Crowningshield, one of the underwriters. See No. 11.

Wetmore’s Minutes of the Argument<a xmlns="" href="#LJA01d058n1" class="note" id="LJA01d058n1a">1</a>: Essex Superior Court, Salem, November 1772 Wetmore, William Wetmore’s Minutes of the Argument: Essex Superior Court, Salem, November 1772 Wetmore, William
Wetmore's Minutes of the Argument1
Essex Superior Court, Salem, November 1772
November 1772

Lee—Bancroft. Review. Some Terms agon the parties agreed (Nov. 1771) to make 2 questions—1. Whether the reference to Rowe &ca. can be given in Evidence, and if not2

Objected to Judge Hutchinson that he had sat in the Cause as referee. Answerd that the same will lie in reviews and new hearings but Judge Hutchinson then utterly refused to Judge in the Cause. Then Two of the other 3 Judges (there being but 4. in Court) determined the award to be no barr.

The Court determind that the Plaintiff Bancroft shoud not be admitted to offer evidence of any fraud not mentioned in the declaration and therefore the former referees must be the proper persons to settle the facts of fraud laid before them and any previous to their award. Quincy alledges that3 was not laid before referees.

2. That the affair of the joint Orders being altered was not laid before them.

Lowell: 1. Query is this award a barr to the action and it must appear that the party must be heard in Person or by attorney and Bancroft was not there either way. Answered that plaintiff consented becaus he paid the Money in consequence of the award.

Cushing. 4


As to the new evidence. I think this supposed that it's not sufficient to set aside the award.

Ropes. As to the intelligence of arrival its not clear to me that it was laid before the referees. I think the Matters submitted I think 'em the same as now complained of.

And as to Plaintiffs Consent to the award I agree with Brother Cushing.

Justice Oliver. It appears that there was sufficient time to have produced all the Evidence needful before the referees and for this and other Reasons mentioned the action is not maintainable and according to Parties agreement made before the review Ban must be defaulted.


Wetmore Notes.


As to the second question, see note 11 above.


Thus in MS. Quincy (who had replaced Sewall as Bancroft's counsel) may have referred to Pedrick's deposition mentioned by the referees in Doc. IV. The Minute Book does not specify whether this is Samuel or Josiah Quincy. Min. Bk. 93, SCJ Salem, Nov. 1772, C–4.


A blank space of several lines follows in the MS. It is therefore difficult to tell whether the opinion that follows is Justice Cushing's, but presumably it is.