[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
. But if she be begot with childe during her service, thenit seems the Justices cannot discharge her, and the master still hadto provide maintenance.42 Waters thought he could persuade hisfellow Northampton justices that the law entitled him to nullifythe transaction, so in June he filed suit against Bishopp in thecounty court.The case came before a five-judge panel headed byPresiding Justice John Stringer, a redoubtable physician-turned-entrepreneur whose career provides yet another example of thesuccess to be had by those with the talent and tenacity to seize theopportunities early Virginia afforded.50 anne orthwood s bastard fourjohn stringer,presiding justiceohn Stringer and the other four justices who adju-Jdicated Waters v.Bishopp came from relatively humblebackgrounds.Like William Kendall, they were largely self-mademen who achieved economic preeminence by establishing exten-sive commercial networks, arranging advantageous marriages, andaccumulating land and servants.Their wealth, in turn, helped themattain political power and social rank.Obedience by the commu-nity did not come easily, however.The justices worried constantlyabout maintaining their newly minted status, feeling insecure inways unknown to well-born local leaders in England.Insecuritymade them acutely sensitive to perceived slights, but it also spurredthem to work harder to win popular approval.The magistratestook their responsibilities seriously, enforcing English and coloniallaw as well as they could, given the limits of their knowledge.Theyrecognized the importance of maintaining the appearance of fair-ness and usually dispensed justice impartially, though they missedfew chances to nudge the law in directions that coincided with theirown economic interests.Their jurisprudence may have looked rus-tic by contemporary English standards, but the Eastern Shore owedmuch of its social stability to the justices resolute, if testy, admin-istration of the local legal system.Stringer, the presiding justice, was born in England in 1611 andemigrated to the Eastern Shore in the 1630s.The roots of his pros-51 perity lay in the profits from his highly dubious medical practice.The Northampton records contain numerous references to his feesfor administering Phisick, 1 some of which appear extortionate.In1639, for instance, Roger and Anne Moy had to bind themselvesinto servitude to pay Stringer s 1,200-pound bill For a Cure thathee hath done upon Both [their] Bodyes. 2 (The patients survivedthe cure but came to a bad end anyway: in 1653, Anne was sen-tenced to death for murdering Roger.)3 In 1641, Stringer chargedDaniel Cugley s estate over eight pounds sterling, a sum worthmore than the cost of a transatlantic passage, for treating Cugleyand his wife.4 For his Attendance upon Richard Newport gentle-man deceased being then sicke and visitted with a Contagious dis-ease call d the Plague, in 1643, Stringer earned a fee of 500 poundsof tobacco plus the right to enjoye the dead man s weareing ap-parrell. 5 While remunerative, Stringer s medical practice was lessthan salubrious.On the same day that the court awarded Stringerthe plague victim s clothing, the magistrates had to postpone all lit-igation involving the physician because he was now sicke. 6 Un-like many of his patients, Stringer recovered, eventually reachingthe age of 78, a remarkable feat in the disease-ridden Chesapeake.7Stringer augmented his medical income with the proceeds froma variety of other economic activities, including land speculation,farming, ship provisioning, money lending, and international tradein wine and tobacco.8 He must have acquired a reputation forfairness and financial acumen, for he was frequently asked to valueproperty and help the judiciary resolve economic disputes.9 Hissuccess at making money positioned him for political preferment.After serving a year as sheriff, he received an appointment to thecounty court from Governor Berkeley in 1650.When Virginia sur-rendered to Parliament two years later, Stringer promptly swore al-legiance to the new regime and secured reappointment from Gov-ernor Bennett.He switched sides again at the Restoration, and hisold friend Berkeley let him keep his seat.He became the seniorNorthampton justice after the Assembly subdivided the EasternShore in 1663, and except for three more stints as sheriff, remained52 anne orthwood s bastard an active magistrate until 1686.10 He also represented the EasternShore in the House of Burgesses from 1659 to 1662 and held vari-ous offices in the militia, rising to the rank of colonel in 1663.11Serving alongside Stringer on the Northampton bench wasJustice William Spencer, who arrived on the Eastern Shore around1660 and was appointed to the county court in 1661.12 Spencer andWilliam Kendall evidently had a close business relationship.In1663, for instance, Spencer served as Kendall s surety in a lawsuit,and they were later partners in a land deal [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl przylepto3.keep.pl
. But if she be begot with childe during her service, thenit seems the Justices cannot discharge her, and the master still hadto provide maintenance.42 Waters thought he could persuade hisfellow Northampton justices that the law entitled him to nullifythe transaction, so in June he filed suit against Bishopp in thecounty court.The case came before a five-judge panel headed byPresiding Justice John Stringer, a redoubtable physician-turned-entrepreneur whose career provides yet another example of thesuccess to be had by those with the talent and tenacity to seize theopportunities early Virginia afforded.50 anne orthwood s bastard fourjohn stringer,presiding justiceohn Stringer and the other four justices who adju-Jdicated Waters v.Bishopp came from relatively humblebackgrounds.Like William Kendall, they were largely self-mademen who achieved economic preeminence by establishing exten-sive commercial networks, arranging advantageous marriages, andaccumulating land and servants.Their wealth, in turn, helped themattain political power and social rank.Obedience by the commu-nity did not come easily, however.The justices worried constantlyabout maintaining their newly minted status, feeling insecure inways unknown to well-born local leaders in England.Insecuritymade them acutely sensitive to perceived slights, but it also spurredthem to work harder to win popular approval.The magistratestook their responsibilities seriously, enforcing English and coloniallaw as well as they could, given the limits of their knowledge.Theyrecognized the importance of maintaining the appearance of fair-ness and usually dispensed justice impartially, though they missedfew chances to nudge the law in directions that coincided with theirown economic interests.Their jurisprudence may have looked rus-tic by contemporary English standards, but the Eastern Shore owedmuch of its social stability to the justices resolute, if testy, admin-istration of the local legal system.Stringer, the presiding justice, was born in England in 1611 andemigrated to the Eastern Shore in the 1630s.The roots of his pros-51 perity lay in the profits from his highly dubious medical practice.The Northampton records contain numerous references to his feesfor administering Phisick, 1 some of which appear extortionate.In1639, for instance, Roger and Anne Moy had to bind themselvesinto servitude to pay Stringer s 1,200-pound bill For a Cure thathee hath done upon Both [their] Bodyes. 2 (The patients survivedthe cure but came to a bad end anyway: in 1653, Anne was sen-tenced to death for murdering Roger.)3 In 1641, Stringer chargedDaniel Cugley s estate over eight pounds sterling, a sum worthmore than the cost of a transatlantic passage, for treating Cugleyand his wife.4 For his Attendance upon Richard Newport gentle-man deceased being then sicke and visitted with a Contagious dis-ease call d the Plague, in 1643, Stringer earned a fee of 500 poundsof tobacco plus the right to enjoye the dead man s weareing ap-parrell. 5 While remunerative, Stringer s medical practice was lessthan salubrious.On the same day that the court awarded Stringerthe plague victim s clothing, the magistrates had to postpone all lit-igation involving the physician because he was now sicke. 6 Un-like many of his patients, Stringer recovered, eventually reachingthe age of 78, a remarkable feat in the disease-ridden Chesapeake.7Stringer augmented his medical income with the proceeds froma variety of other economic activities, including land speculation,farming, ship provisioning, money lending, and international tradein wine and tobacco.8 He must have acquired a reputation forfairness and financial acumen, for he was frequently asked to valueproperty and help the judiciary resolve economic disputes.9 Hissuccess at making money positioned him for political preferment.After serving a year as sheriff, he received an appointment to thecounty court from Governor Berkeley in 1650.When Virginia sur-rendered to Parliament two years later, Stringer promptly swore al-legiance to the new regime and secured reappointment from Gov-ernor Bennett.He switched sides again at the Restoration, and hisold friend Berkeley let him keep his seat.He became the seniorNorthampton justice after the Assembly subdivided the EasternShore in 1663, and except for three more stints as sheriff, remained52 anne orthwood s bastard an active magistrate until 1686.10 He also represented the EasternShore in the House of Burgesses from 1659 to 1662 and held vari-ous offices in the militia, rising to the rank of colonel in 1663.11Serving alongside Stringer on the Northampton bench wasJustice William Spencer, who arrived on the Eastern Shore around1660 and was appointed to the county court in 1661.12 Spencer andWilliam Kendall evidently had a close business relationship.In1663, for instance, Spencer served as Kendall s surety in a lawsuit,and they were later partners in a land deal [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]