Barbados 3649 (Constant)

Parliamentary Papers p. 327.

T71/898: claim by Thos Pierreport, Forster Clarke and Hy Crichlow, as trustees for John Prettejohn. Counterclaim from Rev. J. Brathwaite, of Christ Church, as the administrator of Samuel Henry Pare. Counterclaim from Margaret Ellcock, of Bath (Somerset), under a judgement and execution dated 23/09/1777, for £4926 13s 8d. Of the compensation, £1873 16s 9d was awarded to Thos Pierreport, Forster Clarke and Hy Crichlow on 24/04/1837, with the remainder of the total of £5433 10s 11d going to Court.

See also Barbados claim no. 3649B.

Kathleen Mary Butler, The Economics of Emancipation: Jamaica and Barbados 1823-1843 (Chapel Hill and London, University of North Carolina Press, 1995) p. 65: shows John Prettyjohn mortgaging the Constant estate four times - once for £1865 in 1839 [sic], to buy his son a commission in the army; then again in the following year, to buy accoutrements, although the estate was already subject to £15,000 of mortgages and marriage settlements. Ibid. p. 161 n. 4: Butler suggests that the Mapp versus Ellcock case was triggered by a marriage settlement becoming due in 1830; the case was not settled by 1838.

T71/1834 p. 185: enslaved persons were registered by Thos Pierreport, as the property of the trust estate of John Prettejohn (deceased) in 1834.

Times 03/03/1851 p. 7: includes a summary of the Mapp versus Ellcock case. This summary refers to the will, dated 1785, of Samuel Henry Pare, a barrister, of Lower Berneys, Barbadoes, who died in England in 1789. Samuel Henry Pare owned considerable property in England and Barbadoes, and was owed large sums of money due to him from John Prettejohn and others. The will made specific bequests and appointed Edward Ellcock as executor. Margaret Ellcock was the daughter of Edward Ellcock (together with Anna Maria Ellcock, who married Alexander Scott). Eliza Mapp was deemed to be the legal representative of Samuel Henry Pare through Elizabeth Rous, who was the only living next of kin of Samuel Henry Pare on his death. The dispute concerned whether the executor could take all of the residual for his own benefit after all of the legacies had been met. The original judgement was for a 50/50 split between Mapp and Ellcock.

The Times, 6 August 1852, p. 7: shows the Mapp versus Ellcock case as still in Chancery.