1770. £ _s._ _d._ Feby. 6. To cash paid 2 small Bills 5 17 4 „ 9. To ditto pd. Haskins 12 8 0 „ 20. To Interest J. Cox note to N. Sprimont, 6 mo. £300 7 10 0 1774. June 15. To 40 Museum Lottery Tickets 42 0 0 ---------- 1771. £67 15 4 Oct. 8. _Cr._ By net produce goods per Capt. Peirce 52 4 0 ---------- £15 11 4 The lawsuit to which I have alluded was commenced the same year that the works finally passed into the hands of Mr. Duesbury, and was brought by that gentleman against Burnsall (I presume the auctioneer named above), to recover a quantity of goods said to have been unlawfully sold to him by Francis Thomas, and which in reality belonged to Duesbury, as a part of his purchase. The goods, which appear to have been made by Spremont, and of his own materials, were alleged by Thomas to have been sold to him by Spremont; but although the books of the concern were kept by Thomas himself, no entry of such sale and purchase was to be found. There were also cross actions. The action was first heard in Michaelmas Term, 1770, and lasted until Hilary Term, 1772. Evidence was given that the articles demanded of Burnsall were made of Mr. Spremont’s materials, and at his manufactory; that Mr. Spremont never sold them to Thomas, and that they were found in rooms lately belonging to the factory, and were therefore included in Mr. Duesbury’s purchase by the formal words. Mr. Spremont, whose health had been gradually failing, died while the action was going on, in June, 1771, and in the end the defendant Burnsall’s counsel, representing to the court “Mrs. Thomas’s situation in a madhouse, and four small children, and the attorney swearing that there was nothing else for to support them, the court would not let us keep the action at law any longer in court, so we must pay the costs.” The action thus came to an end, and Burnsall immediately announced a sale of china, “in which are some capital pieces of Chelsea porcelain”--a part, doubtless, of the disputed goods.