| Appeals to the Privy Council |
| Report No. JAM_1680_00 |
|
Jamaica |
| Case Name Long |
Capt. Francis Mingham v Thomas Martin |
Acts of the Privy Council, Colonial Series |
| APC Citation | v.2 [6] p.6–7 (30 June 1680 – 9 March 1681) |
||
| CSP Citation | V no. 1459; VI no. 65; VII no. 77 |
| PC Register Citation | Charles II v.16 (1 June 1680 – 31 May 1683) p.28, 45, 243, 257, 267–268: PC 2/69/28, 45, 243, 257, 267–268 |
Colonial Courts |
|
Admiralty Court |
Participants |
|
Martin, Thomas, gentleman, customer at Port Royall, respondent |
|
Mingham, Dorothy (wife of Capt. Francis) |
|
Mingham, Capt. Francis, master of the Francis, appellant (husband of Dorothy) |
|
Morgan, Sir Henry, knight, deputy governor and judge of the Admiralty in Jamaica |
Vessels |
|
Francis (pink) of London |
Description |
Condemnation and imprisonment. Smith (p.115) describes this appeal as also involving a defamation action following the condemnation. |
Disposition |
Petition for Capt. Mingham’s release granted so that he may prosecute his appeal in England. Smith (p.103) indicates that all sentences complained of were reversed. |
Notes |
Related to another Privy Council appeal: |
References in Smith, Appeals to the Privy Council from the American Plantations |
Table of Cases (Mingham v Martin) |
|
|
DOCUMENTATION |
Printed Cases |
| Appellant’s case |
Case of appellant (The Case of Captain Francis Mingham) |
| Counsel | Not signed |
| Note | This printed case is the oldest that we have found. It antedates that in BAR_1714_04 by more than a generation. |
| Library | The National Archives at Kew: (Colonial Office, Commonwealth and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices) CO 1/45 no. 59 f.238r–238v (Colonial Office, Commonwealth and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices) |
| Respondent’s case |
Case of respondant (The Case of Sir Henry Morgan Lieutenant Governor and Thomas Martyn Receiver General of Jamaica) |
| Counsel | Not signed |
| Note | This manuscript case is undated and was filed with CO 1 documents that date from 1682. It responds to Capt. Mingham’s printed case, point by point, and seems to be being referred to, and may have accompanied, Morgan’s letter of 12 Nov. 1680 to the Lords of Trade (CSP no. 1585). The document is headed: “The Case of Francis Mingham Master of the Pink Francis of London rightly stated in Answer to his Printed Case which is almost throughout Misrepresented.” The dorse corresponds to our description with the addition: “In Answer to Capt. Mingham’s printed case.” |
| Library | The National Archives at Kew: (Colonial Office, Commonwealth and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices) CO 1/56 no. 146 f.262r–263v |
Privy Council Documents in PC 1 at The National Archives at Kew |
Not found |
Other Documents |
| Other Documents | Declaration in Sir Henry Morgan versus Francis Mingham for libel in the petition presented to the PC | ||
| Library | The National Archives at Kew: (Colonial Office, Commonwealth and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices) CO 1/44 no. 30 f.72r–72v (This and the following two documents follow Morgan’s letter of 24 Feb 1680 to the Lords of Trade [CSP no 1304] as if they were attached to it They are not, however, the exemplification of the condemnation proceedings that is promised in that letter, but rather documents that relate to the action for scandal that Morgan and Martin brought against Mingham in the Grand Court of Jamaica late in 1679 They are referred to in Mingham’s printed case and may at one time have been attached to it The first two documents are in the style of a plea roll entry in the central royal courts at Westminster, but in English All three are difficult to read We have not transcribed them, but transcribing them would be worth the effort As it is, the contents of the allegedly scandalous petition may be found in fair copy in the PC register [PC 2/68/225], and the contents of the demurrer are summarized in Mingham’s printed case) |
| Other Documents | Demurrer of Mingham in Morgan v Mingham | ||
| Library | The National Archives at Kew: (Colonial Office, Commonwealth and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices) CO 1/44 no. 30 f.73r–73v |
| Other Documents | Reasons in support of Mingham’s motion in arrest of judgment in Morgan v Mingham | ||
| Library | The National Archives at Kew: (Colonial Office, Commonwealth and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices) CO 1/44 no. 30 f.74r–74v |
| Other Documents | Deposition of Samuel Harding, baker and citizen of London, practicing as a surgeon, in support of Dorothy Mingham’s petition, 18 June 1680 | ||
| Library | The National Archives at Kew: (Colonial Office, Commonwealth and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices) CO 1/45 no. 17 f.144r–145v (Summarized in CSP no 1397 Deponent testifies to having served the petition on Morgan and Martin and describes the subsequent proceedings in Jamaica against Mingham) |
| Other Documents | Deposition of Peter Bennett, master of the Francis, in support of Dorothy Mingham’s petition, 18 June 1680 | ||
| Library | The National Archives at Kew: (Colonial Office, Commonwealth and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices) CO 1/45 no. 17 f.146r–147v (Summarized in CSP no 1398 Deponent testifies to the proceedings in Jamaica against Mingham and to returning the Francis to London without its captain) |
| Other Documents | Answer of Thomas Martin to Mingham’s earlier petition (JAM_1679_00), received 7 July 1680 | ||
| Library | The National Archives at Kew: (Colonial Office, Commonwealth and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices) CO 1/45 no. 39 f.184r–184v (Summarized in CSP no 1429) |
| Other Documents | Dorothy Mingham’s petition on behalf of her husband that he be released from prison in Jamaica and allowed to return to London to pursue his appeal | ||
| Library | The National Archives at Kew: (Colonial Office, Commonwealth and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices) CO 1/45 no. 60 f.240r–240v (The CSP dates this petition in square brackets to July of 1680, but it was read before the PC on 30 June of that year, and so must have been in existence by at least that date The documents said in the petition to be attached do not seem to be attached to the copy in CO 1, but they probably included the two depositions listed above) |
| Other Documents | Deposition of Sir Charles Modyford, bart., 8 Nov. 1680 | ||
| Library | The National Archives at Kew: (Colonial Office, Commonwealth and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices) CO 1/46 no. 37 f.84r–84v (Summarized in CSP no 1581 The deposition was taken before Sir Francis Watson, who is described as a judge of the Supreme Court of Jamaica Modyford testifies that a majority of the owners of the Francis, of whom he was one, did not support taking the appeal from the condemnation and that Morgan offered to settle the scandal case even after the judgment was rendered) |
| Other Documents | Petition of Francis Mingham, 9 March 1681 | ||
| Library | The National Archives at Kew: (Colonial Office, Commonwealth and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices) CO 1/46 no. 107 f.231Br (Summarized in CSP no 40 This is the petition that ultimately results in the PC judgment in the case) |
| Other Documents | Petition of Edward Yeomans, provost marshal of Jamaica, 6 April 1681 | ||
| Library | The National Archives at Kew: (Colonial Office, Commonwealth and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices) CO 1/46 no. 116 f.249r (Summarized in CSP no 67 This is a petition for fees and expenses that Yeomans did not collect when he released Mingham at the order of the PC The final judgment of the PC orders that Morgan and Martin pay these fees) |
|
|
ADDITIONAL RESEARCH |
The APC account of this litigation is quite incomplete. Much more is contained in the CSP, which we have expanded to include the surrounding correspondence, most of which is quite adequately summarized in the CSP. Some of the legal documents, however, are not so summarized. These include Mingham’s printed case and Morgan and Martin’s response, reproduced above under Printed Cases, and the following Other Documents: the record, such as it is, of the proceedings in the Grand Court of Jamaica; the petition of Dorothy Mingham to the PC; the depositions of Samuel Harding and Peter Bennett; the answer of Thomas Martin; the deposition of Sir Charles Modyford; and the second petition of Mingham. (Many of the documents in the TNA class CO 1 are bound together in large books, hence the folio numbers.) Some of the key documents are undated, and some of them refer to documents that may or may not be available at TNA, but if they are, they are not available online. What we have and what is available online in the Calendar of Colonial State Papers (British History Online, publicly available) and the Colonial State Papers collection (Proquest, by subscription) suggests the following outline of the events. Sometime before 23 Feb. 1680, when Governor Carlisle first mentions it in a letter to the Lords of Trade, Mingham arrived in Port Royal in Jamaica, carrying, among other things, a petition to the PC appealing from the condemnation of his pink Francis of London and an order of the PC dated 10 Oct. 1779 that Morgan and Martin transmit to the PC an account of the proceedings that had led to the condemnation. (See JAM_1679_00.) Morgan and Martin proceeded against Mingham in the Grand Court of Jamaica (with side proceedings in the Chancery Court) for scandal, on the basis of the contents of the petition. These proceedings led to a jury verdict in their favor (£2000 for Morgan and £500 for Martin) and, ultimately, to the imprisonment of Mingham. As a result of the petition of Mingham’s wife Dorothy in the PC in July of 1680, supported by Mingham’s printed case, the PC ordered Mingham released, so that he might come to London to pursue his petition. In November, with considerable reluctance, the authorities in Jamaica did so. Morgan’s manuscript ‘printed case’ is probably to be dated with his letter to the Lords of Trade of 12 Nov. In March of 1681, Mingham petitioned the PC to hear both his appeal with respect to the condemnation and with respect to the proceedings taken against him personally in Jamaica. On 15 April, the Council held that the condemnation was unwarranted and that the £300 for which the ship was sold be restored to Mingham (he had redeemed it for the sale price) but without costs because the seizure “was very Colourable.” Turning to the action for scandal, they said: “And as to the Damages recovered against the Petitioner upon the action of Scandall brought against him, we humbly propose that the said Sir Henry Morgan & Thomas Martin do respectively acknowledge Satisfaction upon the said Judgment, to the end that Petitioner may have no further trouble thereby, and that the Security given by the Petitioner for obtaining his Liberty be vacated, as also that your Majesty do expresse your resentment towards Sir Henry Morgan and Thomas Martin, in such manner as your Majesty in your Royall wisdom may deem most meet for the discouragement of persons in like power from exercising such hardships upon your subjects and Contemning the Dignity of your Council Board. And inasmuch as it is alleaged that the Petitioner has suffered deeply by the said imprisonment Wee do further humbly offer that your Majesty should declare your pleasure that the Petitioner be left to take such remedy for the same by Course of law as he shall think fit.” (PC 2/69/267) That language is quite remarkable. Morgan’s, Martin’s, and Governor Carlisle’s attempts to justify their actions, with which the record is replete and which, at times, seem almost plausible, must be viewed in the light of the conclusions that the PC, which would not seem to have had any particular reason to favor Mingham, reached. |
CD |