ERIC KRAUSE
In business since 1996
- ©
Krause House Info-Research Solutions -
_____________________________________________________________________________________
ERIC KRAUSE REPORTS
MY HISTORICAL REPORTS
PUBLISHED ON THE INTERNET
Krause House Pages,
Website Design, and Reports © by
Eric Krause, Krause
House Info-Research Solutions (© 1996)
webmaster:
krausehouse@krausehouse.ca
© Krause House
Info-Research Solutions
SAMUEL SPARROW ~
18TH-CENTURY CAPE BRETON ISLAND
Return to the Samuel Sparrow Home Page
TRANSCRIBED DOCUMENTS
C-1457
http://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.lac_reel_c1457/978?r=0&s=1
http://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.lac_reel_c1457/979?r=0&s=1
http://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.lac_reel_c1457/980?r=0&s=1
http://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.lac_mikan_104684
[p. 2327]
Memorandum for the consideration of Mr. Steele upon his report respecting Governor DesBarres
1st The Sum of £ 33.5.10 Stated in the Account of Mr. Sparrow is disallowed
This sum [ni] point of amount is of no Consequence but materila [ni] point of [reprec:]:tation - and it ought to be allowed for the following rasons [sic] -
In that account the charge for the articles is allowed - viz £ 165 for 100 Barrels of Flour And £ 232.10.0 for 60 - Barrels of Pork - for Truckage £ 1.6.8. This is allowed and the voucher is The invoice signed by Sparrow
The disallowed articles amounting to £ 33.5.10 is vouched by the same invoice and as the Charges are all fair ordinary Mercan:tile charges upon the Articles delivered they ought to be allowed - they are -
1st - a Commission of 5 Pr Ct - £ 19.18.10
2nd - An Insurance at 2 1/2 Pr Ct - 11.4.0
3rd - 1/2 Pr Ct Comm on the [insured?] 2.3.0.18.10
£ 33.5.10
To procure the Articles [to] send them in safety it was necessary to incur these charges. And unless it is the charge of 1/2 Pr Ct Comr of insurance on the £ 33.5.10 - when it should Only have been on the [trimie?] Cost of the Goods & Commissions, a mere [trifle], there is not an objectionable item But this small fraction of £ 2.3.0 is an error of Sparrow not of DesBarres Who must have payd it as he proposes the Voucher ...
[p. 2329]
Extract from the Auditors Report on DesBarres Account
but it appearing by a letter from the said Samuel Sparrow dated 7 Jan. 1793 that he actually received no more on this Account [there] £ 398.16.8 the difference is here [delayd?]
signed DesBarres
DesBarres Papers, Series 5, M23, F 1-5, Volumes 7-12, Representation of DesBarres Case, 1788-1804, pp. 2327-2329.