Richard Craddock's Career with the East India Company - Man Family

46
April 10 [1667] is appointed to be entered in Richard
Craddock’s covenants for the determination of his business.
[CMEI, p. 235]
Almost a year passes and from the 3 May 1667 minutes we
gather that:
Richard Craddock’s business to be determined by the
referees formerly appointed. (CMEIC, p. 324)
Four days later (7 May 1667) other business between the
Company and Craddock is mentioned:
The Company’s seal to be affixed to the indenture of
covenants between them and Richard Craddock. [CMEIC, p.
326]
This would suggest that whatever problems Craddock faced
they were not severe enough to prevent the Company from
continuing to do business with him.
On 7 August 1667 A ‘Court of the Committees’ reported its
finding on the dispute between the Company and Craddock as
follows:
The award in the case between the Company and Richard
Craddock is read, by which the Company are to retain as
their own £150 formerly deposited with them by Craddock,
and the latter to pay the Company £200 by September 1 next.
[CMEIC, p. 361]
It would appear however that Craddock decided not to pay
the company the £200 and so the Company decided on
September 18, 1667 to sue:
It is also resolved to sue George Day, Humphrey Broome,
Peter Ashurst, William Gifford and Richard Craddock.
[CMEIC, p. 374].
Two days later ‘A Court of Committees’ reports that:
The Committee for Lawsuits to consider how best to proceed
against Richard Craddock and William Gifford for recovery
of what is due from them to the Company. [CMEIC, p. 375].