Notes for: Thomas Badcock
Possible baptism in 1761 in Cottenham, parents John and Elizabeth Badcock.
Probable burial in 1841 in Histon, age 81 (in 1841 census there, independent, age 80).
From Public Ledger and Daily Advertiser 18 Dec 1817:
COURT OF KING’S BENCH, DECEMBER 17.
AKERS V. BADCOCK
Mr. Scarlett states that this was an action on a breach of contract. The plaintiff was a baker, residing in Gray’s Inn-lane; the defendant a miller, at Trumpington; and one who had by no means fallen short of his famous predecessor of the same place, for sharpness, and whose name had been handed down to posterity by the immortal pen of our celebrated poet Chaucer. The contract in question had been for 40 sacks of flour, which was to be furnished by the defendant at £5 5s. per sack. The contract was entered into in May last. The flour was to be delivered in the course of a month, and to be paid for on delivery. No part of the flour had, however, been properly tendered, although 20 sacks of it was sent to the One Bell Inn in Kingsland-road. On the arrival of the flour in Kingsland-road, a person was dispatched to the plaintiffs house, about five o’clock in the morning, to say the flour was ready for delivery on payment being made for it. The plaintiff said, he had not then the money in the house, but if the flour was delivered at nine o’clock, after the Bank was open, he would pay for it in Bank-notes. With this message the man went back to the One Bell, but the flour was never tendered afterwards; and he understood it was now to be contended by the defendant that this was such a tender by him and refusal by the plaintiff, as put an end to the contract. He should, however, prove that this was a planned scheme on the part of the defendant to get rid, if possible, of his contract; because, between the time of entering into the contract and the time of delivery, flour had risen in price from £5 5s. to £5 10s. or £5 15s. per sack.
Mr Scarlett then called witnesses to prove the message sent to the plaintiff, between five and six in the morning, and that the plaintiff was at that time in bed. The plaintiff desired the flour might be delivered any time after nine o’clock, at which time the Bank would open, and he would get Bank-notes to pay for it; and further, that the plaintiff at nine o’clock went out, as witness supposed, to the Bank. He returned after a short time, and witness saw him counting over a number of Bank-notes, which he kept in the house all day, but the flour was never sent to the plaintiff’s shop at any time, either on that day or any other.
Mr. Holt, for the defendant, called witnesses to prove the abandonment of the contract by the plaintiff. The carrier who brought the flour to town deposed that he was desired by the defendant not to deliver the flour unless he had ready money for it. If the money was not ready the flour was to be pitched at the One Bell. Witness sent a messenger to the plaintiff, and stated these circumstances to him, when the plaintiff said, he expected to have had one month’s credit, and was not prepared to pay for it, and therefore the sent must be pitched at the One Bell, according to the defendant’s direction. The flour was accordingly pitched at the One Bell, and sold some days afterwards, the plaintiff never having applied for it.
Lord Ellenborough said, this was a question entirely depending on the credit which the Jury should give to the witnesses on each side. If they believed the plaintiff’s witnesses, then there had been no tender, and the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. If, on the contrary, they believed the defendant’s witness, then there was a complete abandonment of the contract by the plaintiff, and their verdict would be for the defendant. The Jury, after a short consideration, found a verdict for the defendant.
Cambridge Chronicle 30 Apr 1830:
Thomas and Elizabeth Badcock, against whom a true bill was found at the last sessions for keeping a disorderly house at Trumpington, were brought up to receive judgement. - The CHAIRMAN said the indictment had been preferred at the instigation of the officers whose duty it is to watch over the morals of the younger members of the university, and not with any vindictive feelings. The defendants having since expressed contrition for their conduct, and also left the house complained of, their punishment was not urged, and they were therefore sentenced to pay a fine of one shilling to the King, and be discharged on entering into their own recognisances of £100 and two sureties of £25 each, for their good behaviour for two years.
Cambridge Chronicle 16 Jul 1830: Windmill and cottage land for sale or let
To be LET or SOLD, With immediate Possession,
A TOWER CORN WINDMILL, advantageously situate at TRUMPINGTON, near Cambridge, in good repair, with a Dressing Mill, and two pair of French stones.
Also, a COTTAGE adjoining, containing six rooms; likewise Stabling, Cart-lodge, and other conveniences.
Apply to Mr. THOMAS BADCOCK, Histon; or Mr. ROBINSON, solicitor, Cambridge.
Cambridge Chronicle 21 Nov 1834:
A court for the relief of Insolvent Debtors was held in the Shire-Hall, in this town, on Monday, last, before William John Law, Esq, one of the Commissioners.
William Bebee, baker, of this town was opposed by Mr. HUNT, on behalf of Mr. Wm. (sic) Badcock, miller, &c. of Trumpington. The principal ground of opposition was that some time ago the insolvent gave Badcock a bill for £30 payable at Messrs. Mortlocks, (where he had no cash) but when due, on the 24th of June last, it was dishonoured, although he represented to Mr. Badcock that he should be able to pay the amount at the proper time, as he was laying up money every day, and thereby induced Mr. B. to let him have more flour to the amount of £9. 4s. The insolvent now states that the reason of his neglect was because he had to pay Mr. Tabram upwards of £18 about the same time, for expences incurred respecting a watch that was lost from his house. There was no mention of this circumstance in the schedule. Upon further examination it appeared that Mr. Haggis, of Slaughter-house Lane, was indebted to the estate a small amount, which the insolvent had also neglected to notice, and when urged by the COMMISSIONER to account for omission he acknowledged that he expected to have received it for himself. There were likewise several other inaccuracies in his schedule. - The COMMISSIONER said, there was a very strong suspicion of unfairness in the insolvent’s conduct towards Badcock, but the transaction respecting Haggis’s debt was an evident deception, because he had left out the mention of the bill, which should come to the creditor, because he expected to be afterwards paid himself. Such conduct he could not overlook, and therefore adjudged that he should be imprisoned two months from the date of filing his petition, which was the 15th of October.
Huntingdon Bedford and Peterborough Gazette 1 Aug 1835:
GEORGE BROOKS was opposed by his detaining creditor, Thomas Badcock, of Trumpington, miller, who stated as follows: insolvent was a tenant of mine; he held two of my cottages, and moved out of them last Michaelmas. He kept the keys and kept me out of possession; he delivered me one key on the 11th, and the other on the 14th June. I offered at Christmas to give him a quarter’s rent if he would resign the keys; he said he should not resign them, he would keep the cottages for his country seat, and he would be d - - d if I should ever have a shilling. Insolvent denied this statement, and said he offered Badcock the keys several times, but that Badcock would not take them without a quarter’s rent for overholding, which insolvent would not pay. Badcock on being called again, reiterated his first statement, and said insolvent’s wife’s mother occupied a third cot-tage, she could not pay him, and he took the key of her, though she is still in his debt. Insolvent was remanded for two months.
Cambridge Chronicle 1 Jul 1837:
Thomas Brown stood indicted with stealing a quantity of flour, the property of Mr. Badcock, miller of Trumpington. - The prosecutor stated that the prisoner was in his employment a fortnight, and that, in consequence of what he had heard he searched the mill and missed some flour. - The prisoner was seen on the day of the robbery by a policeman, with the flour on his back. - Ann Carpenter stated that the prisoner came to her house on the day in question, and asked her if she would take him as a lodger, as he was going to set up in business as a flour seller; and told her that he had bought half a sack of flour of Mr. Badcock. He went away from her house, and afterwards returned with the flour, in company with two policemen by whom he was apprehended. - The prisoner was taken to the Station-house, and told the Inspector that he had no doubt he should be transported for stealing the flour, and that if he was he would bring back a monkey to scratch his head. - The prisoner, in his defence, said he bought the flour of a man at Trumpington, who was coming by in a baker’s cart. - Guilty - to be transported for seven years.