History Podcasts

Maumee III T-AO-149 - History

Maumee III T-AO-149 - History

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.



(T-AO-149: dp. 32,950; 1. 614'6" ; b. 83'6"; dr. 32' s.
18 k.; cpl. 52; Maumee; T. T5-S-12A.)

The third Maumee (T-AO-149) was laid down 8 March 1955 by the Sun Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., Chester, Pa.; launched 15 November 1955; sponsored by Mrs. Lloyd Harrison; and placed in service, special, 17 December 1956.

Continuing the list of Maumee firsts, the third ship so named was the first of her super tanker class and the first vessel in naval history to be launched as a USNS (United States Naval Ship). Built along commercial tanker lines specifically for MSTS duty, Maumee, following her completion, was turned over to Marine Transport Lines to operate for MSTS under a long-term consecutive-voyage charter. By 1958 she had begun her first prolonged duty in the Pacific Into 1968 she has continued her assigned task of point-to-point delivery of bulk POL (petroleum, oil, lubrication) in support of American Armed Forces in the Pacific area.

Paul Nicholas Donato, AT1 - Military Timeline

for service as set forth in the following

For extraordinary heroism and outstanding performance of duty in action against enemy forces in the Republic of Vietnam from 15 November 1967 to 2 July 1968. Throughout this period, Observation Squadron SIXTY-SEVEN (VO-67), operating in the Republic of South Vietnam, successfully executed its primary mission of providing quick reaction, close air support, and combat logistics support for United States and Vietnamese military forces. In the face of extremely harsh climatic conditions at a remote operating base, while sustaining extensive operating damage and losses, the flight crews and ground support personnel of VO-67 carried out their highly important and extremely sensitive missions with outstanding skill and dedication. The Squadron flew countless missions implanting newly developed sensors to detect enemy movement. The support provided by VO-67 was instrumental in supplying real-time intelligence regarding the movement of North Vietnamese troops and supplies, which enabled U.S. Forces to prevent the total invasion of the U.S. Marine Combat Base at Khe Sanh during the Tet Offensive and contributed to saving countless lives. The squadron's operations were consistently characterized by prudent tactics while maintaining meticulous adherence to the rules of engagement, ensuring maximum deterrence of the enemy with minimum risk to friendly troops and civilians. VO-67' s successful initiation of this new mission provided a significant and vital contribution to the art of warfare. By their outstanding courage, resourcefulness, and aggressive fighting spirit in combat against a frequently well-equipped, well-trained, and often numerically superior enemy, the officers and enlisted personnel of Observation Squadron SIXTY-SEVEN reflected great credit upon themselves and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

The American command in Saigon initially believed that combat operations around the Khe Sanh Combat Base during the summer of 1967 were just part of a series of minor North Vietnamese offensives in the border regions. That appraisal was altered when it was discovered that NVA was moving major forces into the area during the fall and winter. A build-up of Marine forces took place and actions around Khe Sanh commenced when the Marine base was isolated. During a series of desperate actions that lasted 5 months and 18 days, Khe Sanh Combat Base (KSCB) and the hilltop outposts around it were under constant North Vietnamese ground, artillery, mortar, and rocket attacks.

During the battle, a massive aerial bombardment campaign (Operation Niagara) was launched by the U.S. Air Force to support the Marine base. Over 100,000 tons of bombs (equivalent in destructive force to five Hiroshima-size atomic bombs) were dropped until mid April by aircraft of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marines onto the surrounding areas of Khe Sanh. This was roughly 1,300 tons of bombs dropped daily&ndashfive tons for every one of the 20,000 NVA soldiers initially estimated to have been committed to the fighting at Khe Sanh. In addition, 158,000 large-caliber shells were delivered on the hills surrounding the base. This expenditure of aerial munitions dwarfs the amount of munitions delivered by artillery, which totals eight shells per NVA soldier believed to have been on the battlefield.

This campaign used the latest technological advances in order to locate NVA forces for targeting. The logistical effort to support KSCB, once it was isolated overland, demanded the implementation of other tactical innovations in order to keep the Marines supplied.

The North Vietnamese Tet Offensive of 1968 was an a VO-67
Khe Sanh
Contributed by Bob (Dusty) Reynolds

The North Vietnamese Tet Offensive of 1968 was an all-out effort to take the U.S. Marine Base at Khe Sanh, South Vietnam. Many military units were called upon to assist in lifting the siege of the Marine stronghold. Among them was the Navy's ultra secret squadron Observation Squadron Sixty-Seven (VO-67). On January 22, 1968 VO-67 commenced implanting extensive Acoubouy sensor fields around the combat base. Sensor implant missions were performed at low levels, less than 500 feet, and at very high risk to aircraft and combat crews. Despite the heavy fighting, none of the squadron's aircraft was seriously damaged and no members were hit on the missions close-in at the base. The OP-2Es supporting Khe Sanh carried cameras that filmed where the Acoubouys were dropped. Photo interpretations, along with radio direction finding, gave the exact location of the sensors and allowed the Marines to pinpoint enemy troop positions and movement. The radio chatter around the base area was intense. One unforgettable Marine interception: "Look out! Here comes one of those big green planes right on the deck again!" Even the Marines didn't recognize that they were Navy planes. One story that got back to VO-67 was that one Acoubouy picked up NVA movement over a hill from the base. The Marines opened up with Artillery fire on the position. The Marine monitoring the sensor, who spoke Vietnamese, could hear the NVA screams and someone shouting to get to the top of the hill and kill the spotter who was giving away their position.

The sensors have been credited for saving the day at Khe Sanh by the Marines. One of the surviving Chaplains from the siege, the Reverend Ray Stubbe wrote a letter to a member of a VO-67 crew member that: "Indeed, were it not for those of you that inserted these sensors, I probably would not be writing this letter or have been able to talk to you when you called. You and those in you unit quite literally saved our lives!" Reverend Stubbe co-authored a book on Khe Sanh entitled "Valley of Decision". The exact number of North Vietnamese that took part in the siege of Khe Sanh vary, but most agree there were upwards of 20,000 NVA troops supported by tanks and anti-aircraft weapons. It is estimated that Marine losses would have been at least double if the sensors were not used in defense of the base.

Uncommon valor became common place at Khe Sanh. The Marines and smaller contingents of Army, Navy and Air Force personal assigned to the base stayed the course of courage under fire. Esprit De Corps of the highest level kept the base from being taken by over whelming forces.

On April 1, 1968, the U.S. Army's First Air Cavalry Division launched Operation Pegasus to break the siege of the Marine combat base---the second largest battle of the war. All three brigades from the First Cav participated in this vast airmobile operation, along with a Marine armor thrust. B-52s alone dropped more than 75,000 tons of bombs on North Vietnamese soldiers from the 304th and 325th Divisions encroaching the combat base in trenches. As these two elite enemy divisions, with history at Dien Bien Phu and the Ia Drang Valley, depleted, President Johnson ordered an air and naval bombing halt to most of North Vietnam as a gesture of peace.

The defense of Khe Sanh commanded international attention and was considered the climactic phase of the Tet Offensive. On July 5, 1968, the combat base was abandoned, the U.S. Army citing the vulnerability of the base to dug-in enemy artillery positions in neutral Laos and the arrival of significant airmobile forces in I Corps (1st Air Cavalry and 101st Airborne Divisions). However, the closure permitted the 3rd Marine Division to construct mobile firebase operations along the DMZ.

MSTS also controlled as many as 16 troop transports in the Pacific during the buildup of forces in South Vietnam. A fleet of LSTs, the number of which increased from 17 to 42 by mid-1968, handled cargo shuttling along the coast. In-port lighterage and terminal duties were accomplished by the MSTS-contracted Alaska Barge and Transport Company, which operated 19 tugs and 33 barges. The total MSTS effort ensured that the 550,000-man U.S. contingent in South Vietnam was well supplied, armed, and prepared to stay in the battle against the determined enemy.

Naval Support Activity, Saigon, which the Navy activated on 17 May 1966, two days after HSAS ceased operations, was charged with providing logistic support to naval units in the II, III, and IV Corps Tactical Zones. The newly created NAVFORV directed the operations of NSA Saigon. The support activity supplied the Navy's Coastal Surveillance Force, River Patrol Force, Riverine Assault Force, and the various specialized headquarters, offices, and detachments operating in the three southern corps areas. NSA Saigon provided the commands with ammunition, weapons, and communications equipment transported cargo and personnel repaired and maintained ships and craft stocked spare parts and built bases and facilities. Finally, NSA saw to the quartering, messing, payroll, and recreational needs of the naval officers and enlisted personnel in Vietnam.


The first F.32 crashed on November 27, 1929 during a demonstration of a three-engined takeoff. One of the two port engines was stopped, but the other failed shortly after takeoff, causing a loss of control. The aircraft came down on a suburban house in Long Island and was totally destroyed in the crash and subsequent fire remarkably, nobody was killed, although the pilot and a passenger was injured. Α]

This crash was witnessed by famous American poet Ogden Nash, who wrote of it to his then fiancee Frances (later his wife). Nash's account is found in "Loving Letters from Ogden Nash: A Family Album" edited by Linell Nash Smith (Nash's daughter).

Dana is a global leader in drivetrain and e-Propulsion systems.

115 Years of Innovation

Over the course of our history, we&rsquove navigated through more than 115 years of vehicle evolution, persisted through industry turbulence, and taken the lead in transformative technological revolutions.

Clarence Spicer starts his company on April 1, based on his patented invention of the encased universal joint, in Plainfield, New Jersey.

Dana conducts experiments of driveline concepts for electrical vehicles, decades before the production of hybrid and electric cars.

Despite a global pandemic, we continued to keep our people safe and deliver innovative solutions to our customers.

It’s because of our people and our ceaseless focus on continuous improvement that Dana can proudly say that today, we are a leading global drivetrain and e‑Propulsion systems provider.

Leading Transformation

Driven by a clear enterprise strategy, and backed by a track record of consistent execution, we are committed to driving growth for our company, customers, employees, and shareholders.

Innovation and Technology

Moving the Vehicles of Tomorrow

Our passion for innovation and commitment to engineering expertise is evident in everything we do and ensures that our end products exceed all expectations.

Setting a Better World in Motion

As he sets out on his Dana career, we took some time out with Charles Wright, Graduate Mechanical Design Engineer, Dana Chudleigh Technology Center, United Kingdom, to talk about his passion for engineering and critical career-building moments.

The Driving Force of Tomorrow at the Dana Lindley Technology Center

Innovating from a global hub of automotive expertise, the Dana Lindley Technology Center, Warwickshire, United Kingdom, boasts an outstanding.

Sustainability and Social Responsibility

Making an Impact

We are committed to supporting our employees and the communities in which we operate to help ensure a sustainable future.

Early History Edit

Perrysburg lies near the center of the Twelve Mile Square Reservation, a tract of land ceded by the Odawa people to the United States of America by the Treaty of Greenville in 1795, following the end of the Northwest Indian Wars. They had occupied this territory since the turn of the 18th century, after having settled in the region of the French trading post at Fort Detroit. The Odawa had controlled much of the territory along the Maumee River in present-day northwestern Ohio. [6]

In 1810, early European-American settlers here were Major Amos Spafford (1753-1818), his wife Olive (1756-1823), and their four children. In 1796, Spafford, a native of Connecticut, was a surveyor for the Connecticut Land Company. He drew the first map laying out Cleveland and named the city. He left there in 1810 following appointment as custom's collector and postmaster for the new port at the foot of the rapids of the Maumee River, Port Miami of Lake Erie. Spafford was granted a 160-acre land patent on River Tract #64 in Waynesfield township, signed by President James Monroe. Two years later, 67 families lived in the area, but most fled at the outbreak of the War of 1812. [7] After the war and the 1817 Treaty of Fort Meigs, which extinguished the Odawa claim to this area, Spafford purchased the land.

War of 1812 Edit

When the war clouds of 1812 began to edge toward Northwest Ohio, General William Henry Harrison ordered the construction of the fort, beginning in February 1813. Harrison was General Anthony Wayne's former aide-de-camp. Later he was elected as the country's ninth president. The installation was named Fort Meigs in honor of Ohio's fourth governor, Return Jonathan Meigs. Fort Meigs was constructed on a bluff above the Maumee River, and built from a design by the army engineer Captain Eleazer D. Wood, for whom the county would be named. Two critical battles with the British were fought at the fort during the War of 1812.

Early settlers in the area fled to Huron during the War of 1812. They returned to settle in the floodplain below Fort Meigs, calling the settlement Orleans. They moved to higher ground after being flooded out. Perrysburg was located by a surveying team led by Alexander Bourne, appointed to that position by Edward Tiffin, Surveyor General of the United States. Contrary to numerous Internet postings, Charles Pierre L'Enfant did not survey and plat Perrysburg, Ohio on April 27, 1816 this survey was performed in late June and early July 1816, by surveyors Joseph Wampler and William Brookfield under the auspices of Alexander Bourne and Josiah Meigs, Surveyor General of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri. [8]

Growth of Perrysburg Edit

The town soon became a center for shipbuilding and commerce on Lake Erie. It was named after Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry, naval commander during the War of 1812 and hero of the Battle of Lake Erie. [9]

In 1833, Perrysburg contained a courthouse, jail, schoolhouse, two stores, two taverns, two physicians, two lawyers, about 60 houses, and 250 inhabitants. [10]

In 1854, an epidemic of cholera decimated the population. The town closed down for two months in that summer, trying to contain the epidemic at a time when people did not understand how it was transmitted. More than 100 people died. Other towns along the Maumee also suffered high losses from the epidemic, and Providence, Ohio was abandoned. It had suffered a disastrous fire less than a decade before.

Modern Perrysburg Edit

On October 12, 1984 President Ronald Reagan made a whistle stop in Perrysburg in the Ferdinand Magellan drawing a crowd of over 20,000. [11]

According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 11.51 square miles (29.81 km 2 ), all land. [12]

Historical population
Census Pop.
18401,041 472.0%
18501,199 15.2%
18601,494 24.6%
18701,835 22.8%
18801,909 4.0%
18901,747 −8.5%
19001,766 1.1%
19101,913 8.3%
19202,429 27.0%
19303,182 31.0%
19403,457 8.6%
19504,006 15.9%
19605,519 37.8%
19707,693 39.4%
198010,196 32.5%
199012,551 23.1%
200016,945 35.0%
201020,623 21.7%
2019 (est.)21,626 [4] 4.9%
Sources: [5] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

2010 census Edit

As of the census [3] of 2010, there were 20,623 people, 8,246 households, and 5,504 families living in the city. The population density was 1,791.7 inhabitants per square mile (691.8/km 2 ). There were 8,845 housing units at an average density of 768.5 per square mile (296.7/km 2 ). The racial makeup of the city was 92.9% White, 1.4% African American, 0.1% Native American, 3.1% Asian, 0.8% from other races, and 1.6% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.2% of the population.

There were 8,246 households, of which 34.7% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 56.5% were married couples living together, 7.3% had a female householder with no husband present, 2.9% had a male householder with no wife present, and 33.3% were non-families. 28.3% of all households were made up of individuals, and 11% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.48 and the average family size was 3.10.

The median age in the city was 38.4 years. 26.5% of residents were under the age of 18 6.5% were between the ages of 18 and 24 27.1% were from 25 to 44 27.6% were from 45 to 64 and 12.3% were 65 years of age or older. The gender makeup of the city was 48.4% male and 51.6% female.

2000 census Edit

As of the census [5] of 2000, there were 16,945 people, 6,592 households, and 4,561 families living in the city. The population density was 1,899.2 people per square mile (733.5/km 2 ). There were 6,964 housing units at an average density of 780.5 per square mile (301.4/km 2 ). The racial makeup of the city was 95.34% White, 1.03% African American, 0.10% Native American, 1.77% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 0.90% from other races, and 0.84% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.05% of the population.

There were 6,390 households, out of which 38.0% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 61.1% were married couples living together, 6.3% had a female householder with no husband present, and 30.8% were non-families. 27.8% of all households were made up of individuals, and 14.2% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.55 and the average family size was 3.18.

In the city the population was spread out, with 29.0% under the age of 18, 5.6% from 18 to 24, 28.3% from 25 to 44, 24.0% from 45 to 64, and 13.0% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females, there were 92.7 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 86.5 males.

The median income for a household in the city was $62,237 and the median income for a family was $75,651. Males had a median income of $56,496 versus $31,401 for females. The per capita income for the city was $29,652. About 1.5% of families and 2.8% of the population were below the poverty line, including 1.7% of those under age 18 and 8.1% of those age 65 or over.

Perrysburg is home to five elementary schools, one intermediate school, one junior high school, Perrysburg High School, and one extracurricular academy. The current superintendent of the district is Thomas L. Hosler. It has received an Excellent rating on the State Report Card for eleven consecutive years[1] and met 26 of 26 of the Ohio Department of Education's indicators with a performance index of 105.6. [19] The district is on the College Board's AP® District Honor Roll for Significant Gains, has NLL District & Regional Championship teams and performers and has nationally recognized fine and performing arts programs. [20] Over 20 advanced placement and honors classes are offered at Perrysburg High School and the district's elementary schools have robust technology integration. [21] The primary public schools are Fort Meigs, Frank, Toth and Woodland Elementary Schools, with the private Catholic school, Saint Rose, making up the fifth. The public intermediate school is Hull Prairie Intermediate School. Perrysburg Junior High School is housed in the old Perrysburg High School building. In addition to property taxes, Perrysburg Schools are supported by 0.5% income tax revenue within the school district.

In the year 2016, 51% of Perrysburg residents over the age of 25 had a bachelor's degree or a higher level of education, compared to 31.7% of Wood County residents, 23% of residents in the Toledo MSA, 26.7% of Ohioans, and 30.3% in the U.S. [22] [23] [24] [25]

Library Edit

The Way Public Library serves Perrysburg area. In 2016, the library loaned 639,113 items and provided 726 programs to its 34,336 registered borrowers. Total holdings in 2016 were 93,416 print materials and 182 print subscriptions. [26]

Maumee III T-AO-149 - History

ABN Amro Bank N.V v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited[2019] eKLR

Case Metadata






(An appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Gikonyo, J) dated 30th September 2014

H.C.C.C No 3 of 2012)


[1] ABN Amro Bank Limited (the appellant herein) is the plaintiff in High Court Civil Case No 3 of 2012 (the suit). It has sued the Kenya Pipeline Company Limited (the respondent herein). In that suit, the appellant alleges that through Fortis Bank (Nederland) NV (Fortis), a licensed banking institution headquartered in the Netherlands, was involved in various transactions between it and various petroleum companies in Kenya. Pursuant to a merger between Fortis and the appellant on 1st July 2010, all the assets, rights and liabilities of Fortis were acquired by ABN Amro Bank by virtue of universal succession of title in accordance with Dutch law, including all claims that Fortis had with respect to transactions entered into.

[2] Vide its amended plaint filed on 8th May, 2012, the appellant alleged that between 27th October 2007 and 9th March 2008, it entered into an agreement with Triton Petroleum Company Limited (TPC), Triton Energy (K) Ltd [Triton Energy] and Triton DMCC (the Triton Companies). Pursuant to which Fortis Bank was to finance the purchase of various consignments of petroleum products by the Triton Companies, in the following manner: Fortis would pay for the supply to cover the purchase, shipment, storage and other charges such as inspection. The cargo would be discharged at the Kipevu Oil Storage Facility (KOSF), who was to hold this cargo in trust for Fortis, and would only release it to any other parties after receiving a release order from Fortis to do so. Further to these agreements, between 2007 and 2008, the appellant, through Fortis, financed various consignments of petroleum products purchased by the Triton Companies. Fortis financed the purchase of a consignment of 12, 623, 293 metric tonnes (MT) by Triton Energy. Triton Energy had purchased this consignment from Chevron Products Company of Houston, Texas, and it was delivered to the KOSF in July 2008. The consignment of oil (&lsquothe Discharged Products&rsquo) was discharged to KOSF. By a letter to Fortis dated 14th August, 2008, the respondent confirmed receipt of the full consignment.

[3] It was a specific term of the Terms of Supply that none of the Discharged Products would be released by the respondent to Triton Companies without payment and without specific written authorization having been given by Fortis to the respondent to release the product. Fortis obtained from the respondent the written letters of undertaking by which the respondent expressly undertook not to release any of the Discharged Products to Triton without specific written authorization from Fortis. By a letter dated 14th August 2008, the respondent confirmed to Fortis that it had received the consignment of 12,623.293 (MT) of automotive gasoil, and undertook not to release the gasoil until it had received instructions from Fortis. On 12th August, 2008 Fortis Bank received a notification from Triton Energy that it had reached an agreement with Total Kenya Limited (Total) for the sale of a part of cargo amounting to 8,000 MT, and this was confirmed by Total Petroleum Company Limited through a letter dated 17th September 2008, who issued a payment undertaking for payment to Fortis. Based on this, Fortis authorized the respondent to release 8,000 MT of the gasoil Total.

[4] However, on 14th October 2008, Fortis received communication from Total Kenya Limited indicating that the transaction between Total and Triton had been cancelled, and that the payment undertaking had also been revoked.

Fortis notified the respondent of this development and cancelled the authorization that had been previously issued on 17th September 2008. The respondent, by a letter dated 22nd October, 2008 to Fortis confirmed that it still held the full volume of the cargo. On 8th January 2009, the respondent wrote to Fortis indicating that as at 10th December, 2008 the stock in Triton stock under any collateral agreement with the respondent was nil. Due to this, the appellant alleged that the respondent had occasioned it loss through fraud, conversion, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, for which it sought various reliefs.

[5] In opposition to the suit, the respondent filed an amended statement of defence on 2nd December, 2013 denying the allegations in the amended plaint. The respondent admitted that it received instructions from Fortis to release the cargo to Total and that it acted upon those instructions and as such, the appellant could not have effectively cancelled its instructions to release the cargo. The respondent contended that any loss that was occasioned to the appellant was caused by itself through negligence and fraud that the appellant held various securities over the suit product, and that in addition, the appellant placed the Triton Companies under receivership and received various sums of money in respect of the cargo, and that these sums ought to be taken into account before any money is paid to the appellant in respect of loss, if any, suffered by it. While maintaining that it was not responsible for any loss occasioned to the appellant, the respondent sought to extinguish its liability, if any, by making a counter claim and set off in which it stated that it had requested that the appellant disclose to it the details of any payments received by the appellant in respect of the product, or any security that it held in relation to the transactions that led to the suit, but the respondent did not accede to the request.

[6] Further to the amended statement of defence, the respondent filed a notice of motion dated 2nd April 2014 in which it sought various documents, referred to by the appellant at paragraphs 42 &ndash 44 of its amended plaint. The application was expressed to be brought under Article 35(1)(b) of the Constitution, Sections 1A, 1B, 22(a) and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Order 11, Rule 3 (2), of the Civil Procedure Rules. For ease of reference, we reproduce these paragraphs of the amended plaint hereinbelow:


42.1 The Plaintiff repeats the particulars pleaded under paragraph 29 above.

42. Following the discovery of the Triton Oil Scandal, Fortis decided to take steps to protect its interests and to this end appointed a receiver over Triton Energy Kenya Limited, and also commenced proceedings to realise its security over an oil storage terminal in Mombasa being constructed by Triton Bulk Storage Limited.

43. The Plaintiff further avers that its actions against Triton Energy Kenya Limited and Triton Bulk Storage Limited were on the basis of the specific security documents issued to Fortis by those companies and all actions towards that recovery were undertaken in pursuance of such security.

44. The recovery proceedings were interrupted by the filing of High Court Civil Case Number 120 of 2009 (Milimani) by which suit the receivers of Triton Petroleum Company Limited, together with their appointors, Kenya Commercial Bank and PPTA Bank, sought to be involved in the sale process and claimed rights over the bulk storage terminal that was being constructed by Triton Bulk Storages Limited. Pursuant to various proceedings, the parties eventually came to an out of court settlement.

45. By virtue of the sale of the terminal, the Plaintiff recovered the net sum of USD3,304,631.00 pursuant to the said out of court settlement in the said suit. No other recoveries have been made by Fortis or the Plaintiff against any Triton company to date.

46. the Plaintiff avers that due to the doctrine of mutuality, the Defendant is not entitled to set off its liability herein against the recoveries made from any of the Triton companies because there is no mutuality between the amounts owing by the Defendant to the Plaintiff pursuant to the cause of action pleaded in the Statement of Claim. In addition, the amounts recovered in respect of the sale of the oil terminal were not between the same parties and in the same right or interest as the amounts due from the Defendant to the Plaintiff.?(sic)

[7] The notice of motion dated 2nd April, 2014 sought the following orders that:

'(1) The plaintiff do, within 14 days of such order, produce the documents/information listed below:

a. Further to paragraph 42 of the Amended Plaint:

(i) Copies of all security documentation regarding the security held by the Plaintiff over the oil storage terminal in Mombasa

(ii) All correspondence between the Plaintiff and the Receiver referred to at paragraph 42 of the Amended Plaint

(iii) All reports by the Receiver.

b. Further to paragraph 43 of the Amended Plaint:

(i)The 'specific' security documents referred tothereat

(ii) Demand letters, pleadings and any otherdocuments pertaining to ?all actions towards that recovery&lsquo described thereat.

c. Further to paragraph 44 of the Amended Plaint:

(i) Copies of all correspondence, consents, pleadings and other documents relating to the out-of-court settlement referred to thereat.

2. The Plaintiff do, within 14 days of such order, disclose the total amount of money recovered by the Plaintiff during the receivership of Triton Petroleum Company Limited (In Receivership) and/or its affiliate companies

3. The Plaintiff do, within 14 days of such order, produce on oath an account of the total amount of money received or recovered by the Plaintiff from the directors or former directors of Triton Petroleum Company Limited (In Receivership) or its affiliate companies in respect of the monies allegedly secured by the petroleum product the subject-matter of this suit

4. In the event of non-compliance by the Plaintiff with Orders 1,2 and 3 hereinabove, the Plaintiff&lsquos suit be struck out with costs

5. Such further and other orders as this Court may deem just and fit to grant

6. Costs of this application be awarded to the Defendant.'

[8] The Notice of motion dated 2nd April, 2014 was based on the grounds that:

a)The Plaintiff&lsquos suit against the Defendant relates to petroleumproducts allegedly held by the Defendant to secure a debt owed to the Plaintiff by Triton Petroleum Company Limited (In Receivership) and/or its affiliates

b) Inter alia the Defendant has claimed Set-Off against the plaintiff in respect of any payments and/or securities realized in respect of the debt owed to the plaintiff by Triton Petroleum Company Limited (In Receivership) and/or its affiliates

c) The documentation/information sought relates to payments received and/or securities realized by the Plaintiff in respect of the debt owed to it by Triton Petroleum Company Limited (In receivership) and/or its affiliates

d) The documentation/information sought is in the custody, control or possession of the Plaintiff who despite request, has failed to provide it to the Defendant

e) The documentation/information sought is alluded to by the Plaintiff in its Amended Plaint and is required in order that this Honourable Court may arrive at a just determination of this dispute.?

[9] The notice of motion was supported by the affidavit of Ms. Gloria Khafafa, (Ms. Khafafa) the respondent&rsquos Senior Legal Officer who averred, inter alia: that the appellant sought the sum of US$17,105,970.15 as damages from the respondent together with interest and costs that the respondent filed a defence and set-off in respect of all payments received by the appellant and all securities realized on account of the petroleum products which are the subject of the dispute in the suit that in its amended plaint the appellant alluded to a large number of documents including, realized securities, payments, recoveries and other legal proceedings which are material to the just determination of the dispute the subject matter of the suit and that the respondent is entitled to disclosure and production of these documents to enable it defend the suit and prosecute its set-off. Ms. Khafafa further averred that on or around 5th December, 2013, the respondent sought and was granted leave to file a Supplementary Bundle of Documents within 21 days that on or around 18th December, 2013 the respondent wrote to the appellant requesting for the documents listed in the application for inclusion in the respondent&rsquos Supplementary Bundle that despite a reminder on or around 30th January, 2014, the respondent did not receive a response to its letters which necessitated the filing of the Notice of Motion and that it is in the interest of justice that the appellant be ordered to provide the documentation and information sought.

[10] In a replying affidavit dated 28th May, 2014 sworn by Rui Florencio, the appellant&rsquos Managing Director, Global Head of Energy Commodities, inter alia averred that the process of discovery in court proceedings should deal with relevant and necessary material that the respondent has made the application to delay the hearing of the suit that some of the information and documents requested for is confidential material to the appellant such as accounts confirming monies realized from other unrelated transactions and that the information and documents sought are not relevant for the disposal of the dispute between the appellant and the respondent.

[11] By a ruling dated 30th September, 2014 the learned Judge found that the respondent had identified the holder of the information and had also identified the information and documentation sought. The learned judge further found that the information and documents sought had been pleaded by the appellant and the respondent and that the information and documentation constitute part of the matters before the court for determination. On the appellant&rsquos claim that the information and documents sought were confidential, the learned judge found that the documentation and transactions stand at the heart of the case and is relevant material and cannot therefore be withheld under the cover of privilege or because they belong to a third party. The learned judge stated as follows:-

'The Applicant, and I have held so, has laid a basis upon which the Plaintiff should be compelled to release such material, the confidentiality notwithstanding. I do not also think that the Applicant can be said to be seeking information and or documents in order to build a case against the Triton Petroleum companies.

I will also state here that the argument on delay in applying is neither here nor there and any such delay has been sufficiently attributed and explained.

The upshot is that I allow the Notice of Motion dated 2nd April, 2014. No order as to costs.'

[12] Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant filed the present appeal raising six main grounds of appeal contending that the learned Judge erred:

(i) in holding that the documents and information sought by the respondent were relevant and necessary for the fair and just disposal of the suit

(ii) in holding that the documents and information sought were in the possession of the appellant and as a corollary erred in ordering discovery in respect of documents in the possession of 3rd parties

(iii) in holding that the respondent had satisfied the criteria necessary to warrant an order for discovery in its favour

(iv) by ordering the disclosure of privileged documents/information such as banker-customer information.

(v) in failing to appreciate and/or misconstruing the law on discovery and failing to appreciate the peculiar circumstances of the case and consequently arrived at wrong conclusions and

(vi) in infringing upon the appellant&rsquos right to a fair hearing by ordering the striking out of the main suit for alleged non-compliance with the respondent&rsquos request for discovery.

[13] The appellant sought orders: allowing the appeal, setting aside the ruling of the High Court dated 30th September, 2014 in HCCC No. 3 of 2012 reinstating HCCC No. 3 of 2012 awarding costs of the appeal and of the proceedings in the High Court to the appellant and such further orders as are fair and just.

The appellant&rsquos submissions

[14] The parties filed written submissions which they orally highlighted. At the hearing of the appeal, learned Counsel, Mrs. Grace Omwenga represented the appellant while learned counsel, Ms. Wanjiru Ngige represented the respondent. The appellant urged that the trial court erred in finding the documents and information requested for by the respondent relevant and necessary for the fair and just disposal of the suit, as well as in holding that the respondent had satisfied the criteria necessary to warrant an order for discovery in its favour. According to the appellant, its cause of action was based on the tortious liability of the respondent for the irregular and unlawful release of the cargo which the respondent had undertaken to hold in trust for the appellant. The appellant based its claim on conversion, breach of trust and fiduciary duty as well as negligence.

[15] It was the appellant&rsquos further submission that in its set off, the respondent made allegations of unjust enrichment, non-disclosure and failure to mitigate loss on the part of the appellant, and failed to address the question of whether or not it was responsible for the tortious acts which resulted in a loss to the appellant that the respondent constituted a new suit which is unrelated to the suit pending in court, and that the documents that were sought in the notice of motion dated 2nd April, 2014 were completely unnecessary in aiding in the determination of the dispute before the court that the security that had been taken by the appellant over the suit product was in relation to the assets of a company who is a third party and not connected or a party to the appellant&rsquos suit. The appellant urged this court not to allow the respondent to use discovery to frame a new case.

[16] It was the appellant&rsquos further submission that the respondent failed to establish the nexus between the security taken by the appellant over the assets of the third party company and its liability that resulted in the loss of the suit product that while this was raised as an issue before the trial court, the trial court did not make a finding on the issue. The appellant urged us to determine this appeal as determined in Concord Insurance Co Ltd v NIC Bank Ltd (2013) eKLRwhere a similar application in the High Court was dismissed for a want of nexus between the claim for breach of a contractual obligations and the statements of accounts demanded.

[17] It was the appellant&rsquos further submission that only parties to a proceeding can be ordered to produce documents that the respondent was not a party to the security taken by the appellant and therefore, it could not have a right of set off against the appellant. Referring to Bullen & Leaks Precedents of Pleadings 11th Edition at page 944, the appellant contended that in order to give a right of set off, the debts must be between the same parties and in the same right that the security that was relevant to the suit before the High Court was the undertaking that had been issued by the respondent to the appellant to hold the cargo in trust for, and to the order of the appellant that this document had been provided by the appellant in its pleadings, and thus, any other recoveries pursuant to any other securities which did not involve the respondent would not be relevant to this suit and had no bearing on whether or not the respondent was liable for the torts it committed.

[18] Related to this ground, the appellant further argued that the learned trial judge erred in holding that the documents and information requested by the respondent were in its possession, and thus erred in ordering discovery in respect of documents that were in possession of third parties without there being a proper basis laid for this that where discovery is not confined to the parties in a claim, it has to involve parties between whom there is some right to be adjusted or questions to be decided that the trial judge failed to appreciate the fact that there was no relationship giving rise to any rights to be adjusted or questions to be determined between the respondent and third party entities involved in the securities issued to the appellant over the cargo that this led to the court&rsquos erroneous conclusion ordering discovery in respect of documents that involve third parties who are unrelated to the suit, and more so in ordering discovery in respect of documents in possession of third parties without a proper basis. Thus, the appellants urged that the trial judge misapprehended the law on discovery and thus arrived at a wrong conclusion.

[19] On the right to fair hearing, the appellant submitted that the trial judge erred by ordering the striking out of the main suit upon the appellant&rsquos non-compliance with the respondent&rsquos request for discovery that the position in law with respect to an order for discovery was set out by the predecessor to this Court in Eastern Radio Service v Tiny Tots [1967] E.A. 392 which is that a litigant has to comply with an order for discovery but should not be precluded from pursuing his claim unless failure to comply was due to a willful disregard of the court order. Relying on this case, the appellant urged that the court should not impose the penalty of dismissing a suit except in extreme cases and as a last resort, and should only do so where it is satisfied that the party is avoiding a fair discovery or is guilty of willful default.

[20] The appellant further contended that in the circumstances of the appeal before us, the trial court should not have made the order in view of the fact that the discovery sought was not fair, as the respondent had not established a nexus between its case and the documents it sought that the application for discovery was geared towards enabling the respondent avoid the real issues of liability for determination in the suit and to frame its own unrelated case, and further that compelling the appellant to produce documents in support of its claim amounted to an abuse of the true purpose of discovery which is to enable a party know and meet the case against it that the appellant was not guilty of willful default and therefore the circumstances did not warrant a dismissal order which is a harsh order which directly bears on a party&rsquos right to be heard that instead, the court should have followed Order 11 Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 relating to the courts&rsquo powers on dismissal and made orders appropriate to the suit, and allow the appellant&rsquos suit to proceed to trial when it would have been open to the appellant to make the appropriate inferences on the suit regarding the claims in the suit, and which would ultimately have led to just determination of the suit.

[21] The appellant&rsquos final ground was that the trial judge erred in ordering the disclosure of documents that were privileged, and primarily documents that were banker-customer information that the trial court was informed that the appellant is an international bank with headquarters outside the country and that the disclosure of any bank customers&rsquo information without their consent would be unlawful and constitute grounds for sanction. For this proposition, the appellant relied on the case of Blunt v Park Lane Hotel Ltd [1942] 2KB 253which held that a party is not bound to answer any question which would expose it to a penalty or forfeiture which the court regards as reasonably likely to be preferred.

[22] For these reasons, the appellant urged us to find that the appeal is merited, allow it, set aside the ruling of the High Court and reinstate the appellant&rsquos suit with costs of the appeal as well as the proceedings in the High Court to the appellant.

The Respondent&rsquos Submissions

[23] The respondent&rsquos written submissions sought to answer each ground raised by the appellant. First, the respondent submitted that the High Court has wide discretionary powers in the determination of whether information is necessary or relevant and that when determining whether the documents sought were relevant and necessary, the trial judge considered the nature of the documents sought vis a vis the pleadings filed by the parties and noted that the documents sought by the respondent were referred to by the appellant itself in the amended plaint and that the appellant, having itself pleaded the documents and information was ordered to disclose those documents.

[24] It was the respondent&rsquos further submission that the learned judge correctly found that the information sought was in the possession of the appellant that the appellant in its reply at the trial only stated that the information sought was irrelevant and that the learned judge disagreed with this assertion and that the trial court correctly inferred that the documents were in the possession of the appellant since it was the appellant itself who referred to them.

The respondent denied the appellant&rsquos contention that the learned judge misconstrued the law of discovery that the learned judge ordered discovery against the appellant and not against any other parties who were not before him. Relying on Zuckerman A., Zuckerman on Civil Procedure Principles of Practice, 2 nd Edition, the respondent contended that in some circumstances, orders of discovery may be aimed at non-parties to litigation. As such, the respondent submitted that the trial court correctly found that the issues in dispute between the parties could be illuminated by the documents that were sought.

[25] The respondent denied that the appellant&rsquos right to a fair trial was infringed when the learned judge ordered that the suit be struck out. In the respondent&rsquos view, this order was made as a consequence to the appellant&rsquos willful breach of the order for discovery. In this regard, the respondent argued that following the breach of the court order, the trial court was entitled to prescribe sanctions as outlined under Order 11(3) of the Civil Procedure Code which gives the trial court the right to strike out suits in appropriate cases. Moreover, the just, expeditious and efficient resolution of the suit required such an order of dismissal, which have become common place and which save time and money, and ensure compliance with the overriding objective of civil litigation. The respondent urged that even during hearing of the application before the trial court, the appellant did not contest this prayer, and that having had an opportunity to contest this prayer and failed to do so, the appellant cannot now raise it as a ground of appeal.

[26] The respondent denied the assertion that the disclosure would be against public policy for disclosing privileged information, and argued that production of relevant documents cannot be refused on the basis of confidentiality. The respondent referred us to Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (No 2) 1973 2All ER 1169at 1171where it was held that:

'&hellip(iii) there was no basis for a claim to privilege in respect of the class (2)(c) documents on the ground that they were documents, or copies of documents, which belonged to third parties and had been entrusted to the commissioners in confidence. Privilege against disclosure could not be claimed on the ground that documents, whether confidential or not, belonged to a third party and the confidential nature of a document was not itself a ground of privilege.'

[27] It was the respondent&rsquos further submission that relevant material, even if it is confidential, must be produced even if it belongs to third parties that production pursuant to a court order cannot be said to be unlawful, and that any sanctions that would allegedly be faced were not stated that since there was no claim of privilege made during the hearing of the application, and further as the trial court found that confidentiality alone is not a basis for refusal of disclosure of relevant documents, this ground of appeal fails.

[28] For these reasons, the respondent argued that the overriding objectives require the court to make orders to secure a fair hearing for each party to litigation. The respondent urged us to find that the orders made by the trial court were necessary, and a party who does not comply should not claim respite from this Court. The respondent urged us to dismiss the appeal with costs to the respondent.


[29] We have considered the appeal and submissions by the respective counsel. The appeal arises from a decision of the High Court made on an interlocutory application in exercise of judicial discretion. The circumstances in which this Court can interfere with the exercise of discretion were succinctly laid down by the predecessor of this Court in Mbogo and Another v Shah[1968] EA 93 as follows:

'I think it is well settled that this Court will not interfere with the exercise of its discretion by an inferior court unless it is satisfied that its decision is clearly wrong, because it has misdirected itself or because it has acted on matters on which it should not have acted or because it failed to take into consideration matters it should have taken into consideration and in doing so arrived at a wrongconclusion.'

[30] Therefore, to succeed in this appeal, the appellant must demonstrate that the learned judge took into account matters that he should not have or that he failed to take into account matters that he should have or that his decision is clearly wrong. Based on the grounds of appeal raised in the memorandum of appeal as amplified in the submissions there is essentially one issue for our consideration:

Whether the High Court correctly allowed therespondent&lsquos application for orders of discovery anddisclosure. Closely linked with that issue is the question whether the judge erred in holding that the documents and information requested for was relevant and necessary for the just disposal of the main suit.

[31] In addressing the matter, we are alive to the fact that the main suit in the trial court stands dismissed by virtue of the ruling delivered on 30th September, 2014 and that there are no stay orders in place pending the determination of this appeal. Therefore, we will first address the issue of stay orders. Order 42 rule 6 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules states as follows:

'No appeal or a second appeal shall operate as astay of execution or proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except in so far as the Court appealed from may order, but the Court appealed from may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree or order and whether the application for such stay shall have been granted or refused by the Court appealed from, the Court to which such appeal is preferred, shall be at liberty, on an application being made, to consider such application and to make such orders thereon as may to it seem just, any person aggrieved by an order of stay made by the Court from whose decision the appeal is preferred may apply tothe appellate Court to have the orders set aside.'

[32] From the foregoing, we find that no application was made for stay of execution of the ruling by the High Court. The appellant by virtue of promptly filing an appeal without complying with the court order, laid itself bare to the sanctions accompanying non-compliance of the order as there were no stay orders in place. Therefore, the timeline for compliance having lapsed the sanctions kicked in and the main suit stands dismissed. This appeal seeks to reverse the entire decision of the Court including the dismissal resulting from non-compliance of the suit with the order for discovery.

[33] The application before the trial court was premised on inter alia Article 35(1)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya. This article provides for the right to access information that is held by another person and required for the protection of any right or fundamental freedom as follows:

&ldquoEvery citizen has the right of access to information held by another person and required for the exercise or protection of any right or fundamental freedom.&rdquo

The application was also premised on Sections 1A, 1B, 22(a) and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act and Rule 3 (2) Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provide for the just, expeditious and efficient resolution of civil disputes (the overriding objective) and the duty of all parties in the dispute to assist the Court to further the overriding objective and to participate in the processes of the Court.

[34] A court may order the discovery of documents upon an application being made where those documents are related to the suit before it. As stated in Halsbury's Laws of England (Volume 85 (2012)) (online edition) at para 655.

'Any party to a cause or matter may apply to the judge for an order directing any party, other than the proper officer of the Crown, to make discovery on oath of any documents which are or have been in his possession or power relating to any matter in question in the cause or matter. Thereupon the judge may make such order as he thinks fit, but discovery may not be ordered unless he is of opinion that it is necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or for saving costs.'

[35] The purpose of discovery is mainly to ensure that all documents or information necessary for the just determination of the suit are made available to all the parties as well as to the court. In Halsbury&rsquos Laws of England, 4th Edition Volume 13 at paragraph 1 the function of discovery of documents is set out as follows:

'The function of the discovery of documents is to provide the parties with the relevant documentary material before the trial so as to assist them in appraising the strength or weakness of their relevant cases, and thus to provide the basis for the fair disposal of the proceedings before or at the trial. Each party is thereby enabled to see before the trial or to adduce in evidence at the trial relevant documentary material to support or rebut the case made by or against him, to eliminate surprise at or before the trial relating to the documentary evidence and to reduce thecost of litigation.'

[36] The manner of discovery, or disclosure, is usually by way of a party providing that information to another, and should a party disclose the existence of such a document to the other party, then the other party, has, as a general rule, the right to inspect it. This proposition is set out in Halsbury's Laws of England Civil Procedure (Volume 11 (2015), paras 1&ndash503 Volume 12 (2015),)as follows:

(viii) Disclosure of Documents 1020. Disclosure in general,

The process formerly known as 'discovery of documents' is now known, for the purposes of proceedings to which the Civil Procedure Rules apply, as 'disclosure'. A party discloses a document by stating that it exists or has existed and a party to whom a document has been disclosed normally has a right to inspect that document.

A party's duty to disclose documents is limited to documents which are or have been in his control and the duty continues until the proceedings are concluded.

[37] Orders for production of documents fall under the purview of section 22(a) of the Civil Procedure Act which provides that

22. Power to order discovery and the like Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the court may, at any time, either of its own motion or on the application of any party&mdash

(a) make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to the delivery and answering of interrogatories, the admission of documents and facts, and the discovery, inspection, production, impounding and return of documents or other material objects producible as evidence

[38] Having analyzed the submissions made before the trial court during hearing of the application, as well as the extensive submissions of the respondent before us, it is apparent that this appeal revolves around the issue of discovery of documents that the respondent sought from the appellant which were referred to by the appellant itself in the amended plaint.

[39] From ample persuasive authority that we have cited above, it is clear to us that once a party has referred to a document within its own pleadings with a view to strengthening its case, then the opposing party has a right to inspect those documents. That to us, is a tenet of the right to a fair hearing. We were referred to the persuasive authority of the High Court in Concord Insurance Co Ltd v NIC Bank Ltd (2013) eKLRfor the proposition that discovery ought to be limited to documents that are relevant to the determination of matters in contention. The authorities cited therein are to the effect that:

'Relevance must be tested by the pleadings and particulars and when particulars have been served which limit a particular issue then discovery on that issue is limited to the matter raised in theparticulars.' See Halsbury&rsquos Laws of England Volume 13 at paragraph 1 and Concord Insurance Co Ltd v NIC Bank Ltd.(supra).

[40] On the question whether the documents that the respondent seeks production of are referred to in the amended plaint, the appellant referred to those documents in the amended plaint, stating that it opted to take steps to protect its interests, and appointed a receiver as well as commenced proceedings to realize its security over an oil storage terminal in Mombasa being constructed by Triton Bulk Storage Limited.

[41] The appellant claimed in its amended plaint that it had commenced proceedings to realize its security over an oil storage terminal that was under construction as well as appointing a receiver to take over the operations of Triton Energy Kenya Limited. In addition, the appellant stated that it commenced court proceedings to recover money owed to it and that these proceedings culminated in an out of court settlement and by virtue of the sale of the terminal, the appellant recovered the net sum of USD 3, 304, 631/00 pursuant to the out of court settlement. Juxtaposing these statements to the claim that the appellant had against the respondent, it is clear that these documents would have a direct bearing on the determination of the suit.

[42] The respondent claimed in its set off that the appellant was attempting to unjustly enrich itself. We take the view that the production of these documents as well as an account of the sums of money that were received would enable the trial court reach a just determination of the matter. In the set-off, the respondent claimed that the appellant held several debentures over the assets of the Triton Companies, and further that it placed these companies under receivership in order to realize its security. Further to this, the appellant received various sums of money with respect to the cargo, and therefore the respondent prayed that these sums of money ought to be set-off in order to ensure that the appellant does not unjustly enrich itself at the expense of the respondent. The appellant submitted at length that due to the doctrine of mutuality, the respondent&rsquos liability would not be extinguished by any sum of money that had been paid to the appellant.

[43] To determine the issues raised in the plaint, particularly under the head of negligence, the response by the respondent who has sought a set off would be by examining these documents to determine which of the parties&rsquo assertions will hold sway. We are therefore satisfied that the respondent demonstrated a nexus between the documents sought and the suit before the court, and agree with the sentiments of the trial court that these documents are necessary for the determination of the suit. The appellant&rsquos grounds of appeal under this head therefore must fail.

[44] We turn now to consider whether or not those documents sought were covered by privilege, and if they were in the possession of third parties, and not the appellant. To do this, it is apt to take a closer look at the documents referred to by the appellant, and those sought to be produced by the respondent. We have reproduced the paragraphs of the plaint hereinabove and from the appellant&rsquos assertions, it is clear that the security documents sought were issued to Fortis, and on the basis of these documents the appellant took steps, by way of filing proceedings for recovery in the High Court and eventually pursing an out of court settlement, to realize its security and, ostensibly, mitigate the loss it suffered.

[45] We are not persuaded that confidentiality, by itself is a reason for denial of discovery orders for documents that would aid the court in determining a matter before it. See the English case of Alfred Crompton Amusement Machines Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (supra) that confidentiality is not a basis for the refusal for an order of discovery. Neither are we persuaded that the orders granted by the trial court will result in adverse consequences for the appellant. This is borne out of various reasons. First, these documents were referred to by the appellant in its amended plaint where it particularized its loss and damage under the tort of negligence. The appellant described these documents and explained the basis under which it relied on them. Secondly, while the appellant complained that discovery would be unlawful and constitute grounds for sanction, these sanctions were not elaborated on, save for the statement that the disclosure of customer information would be adverse to the appellant. We note however, that the appellant was a party to the transactions on securing the cargo that was discharged to Triton.

[46] Vide the Notice of motion dated 2nd April, 2014 the respondent sought for an order to strike out the suit in the event that the appellant did not comply with the order for discovery. From the record, counsel for the respondent wrote to the counsel for the appellant on 18th December, 2013 and on 30th January 2014 requesting for the documents which it claimed were material to the just determination of the dispute between the appellant and respondent. The learned judge in the impugned judgment stated as follows:

'Discovery and other disclosure processes areexpected to elicit voluntary response once they are issued by and between the parties. But where a party has failed to make discovery voluntarily, the Court renders its coercive process to compel discovery of information and documents which are relevant and necessary to the resolution of the dispute before theCourt.'

[47] In the circumstances of this case, the final order of dismissal was granted due to non-compliance with orders for production of documents and accounts. As a general rule, the court has power to issue orders for dismissal issued in the event of non-compliance of earlier court orders. We are persuaded that a court has discretion to determine the consequences of its orders. As held in Pereira v Beanlands [1996] 3 All ER 528, a court has discretion to decide the consequence of non-compliance of an &lsquounless order.&rsquo In determining what to take into account when deciding those consequences, we find guidance in the persuasive authority of Re Jokai Tea Holdings Ltd [1993] 1 ALL ER 630 at 637 where it was held that:

&hellipin cases in which the court has to decide what are the consequences of a failure to comply with an'unless' order, the relevant question is whether suchfailure is intentional and contumelious. The court should not be astute to find excuses for such failure since disobedience to orders of the court is the foundation on which its authority is founded. But, if a party can clearly demonstrate that there was no intention to ignore or flout the order and that the failure to obey was due to extraneous circumstances, such failure to obey is not to be treated as contumelious and therefore does not entitle the litigant to rights which he would otherwise have enjoyed.'

[48] In Caribbean General Insurance Ltd v Frizzel Insurance Brokers Ltd[1994] 2 Lloyd&lsquos Reports 32 CA it was held that final orders of dismissal would only be granted where a court is of the opinion that a party has been given sufficient time to comply but has failed to do so. The Court held that:

'Final, preemptory or 'unless' orders are only made bya court when the party in default has already failed to comply with a requirement of the rules or an order, and the court is satisfied that the time already allowed has been sufficient in the circumstances of the case and the failure of the party to comply with the order is inexcusable.'

[49] From the foregoing analysis, we are satisfied that the learned trial judge exercised his discretion judicially in ordering discovery. There are no valid grounds for interfering with the exercise of such judicial discretion.

[50] The application dated 2nd April, 2014 sought discovery within 14 days of granting the orders. Prayer 4 of the application sought a consequential order that in the event of non-compliance, the suit be struck out with costs. Those orders were granted. The appellant had the option of complying with the order within 14 days or, if the 14 days stipulated by the order were not reasonable time, to apply for extension of time stipulated by the order of the court pursuant to order 50 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 which provides:

'where a limited time has been fixed for doing any act or taking any proceedings under these rules, or by summary notice or by order of the court, the court shall have power to enlarge such time upon such terms (if any) as the justice of the case may require and such enlargement may be ordered although the application for the same is not made until after the expiration of the time appointed or allowed

Provided that the costs of any such application to extend such time and any order made thereon shall be borne by the parties making such application unless the courtorders otherwise.'

[51] As that rule shows, court has discretion to enlarge time even when the application for enlargement is made after the time has expired. It is at the time when the court is exercising its discretion to extend time that court would consider whether a failure to comply is intentional and contumelious. In addition, the appellant had a right to apply for stay of the execution of the order of discovery and the consequential order pending appeal. Since the appellant had all those rights, which were apparently not exercised, the complaint that the appellant was denied fair trial and the penalty for non-compliance should not have been imposed, is not justified.

[52] In the premise, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 19th day of July, 2019.


Ilitch was born in Detroit in 1929 [4] [5] to Macedonian immigrants Sotir and Sultana Ilitch. His father was a tool-and-die maker. [6] [7]

A graduate of Cooley High School in Detroit, Michigan, Ilitch served in the U.S. Marine Corps for four years. [8]

After his return home to Detroit, the Detroit Tigers offered him $3,000 if he would sign to play baseball, and Ilitch had a four-year minor league career from 1952 to 1955. Ilitch played mostly second base for the Tigers', New York Yankees', and Washington Senators' organizations in the Pennsylvania–Ontario–New York League, Cotton States League, and Florida International League. [9] He was forced out of his playing career due to a knee injury. [10]

After leaving baseball, Ilitch started a pizza business in 1959. With the help of his wife, Marian, the Ilitches opened Little Caesars Pizza Treat in Garden City, Michigan. [11] As of 2017 [update] , the family's entities remain privately held. In 1999, the Ilitches established Ilitch Holdings, Inc. to provide their various enterprises with professional and technical services, and held the titles of chairman and vice chairwoman, respectively. The combined total revenues for these enterprises in 2007 reportedly exceeded $1.8 billion. Ilitch had fallen off Forbes magazine's annual list of the "400 Richest Americans", but in 2006 he returned to the list at #242. As of December 2016, he was #86 on the Forbes 400 and had an estimated net worth of $6.1 billion. [12]

In 2000, Ilitch and his wife appointed two of their children as co-presidents of Ilitch Holdings, Inc.: Christopher Ilitch and daughter Denise Ilitch, an attorney. Christopher Ilitch was named to the new post of CEO and president. Denise Ilitch later left the company "to pursue other opportunities". [13]

Detroit Wheels Edit

In an era of experimentation in sports leagues, the Detroit Wheels were a football team that played in the World Football League for the 1974 season. Ilitch was part of a 33-person ownership group (including Motown singer Marvin Gaye) that funded the ill-fated WFL team which would not even last the inaugural season in the start-up league. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

Detroit Caesars Edit

The Detroit Caesars were a professional softball team that began play in the American Professional Slow Pitch Softball League (APSPL) in 1977. [24] [25] The team disbanded after the 1979 season. [26] Prior to formalized professional play, a major sponsor of amateur softball in the Detroit area was Little Caesars, who sponsored the 1970 American Softball Association national championship team. [27] With the formation of a professional league, Ilitch formed a team in his first solo step into professional sports ownership. [28]

The Caesars played at Memorial Field in East Detroit and featured former Detroit Tiger stars Jim Northrup, Mickey Stanley, Jim Price and Norm Cash, along with established softball players such as Mike Nye, Ronnie Ford, Mike Gouin, Bert Smith, and Tex Collins. [29] The team was led by manager Gary Vitto, earning the team two championships before disbanding after the 1979 season. [28] Vitto would go on to serve as General Manager of the Detroit Drive of the Arena Football League and then served in the front office of the Detroit Tigers, both owned by Ilitch. [30]

Detroit Red Wings Edit

In 1982, Ilitch bought the Detroit Red Wings from Bruce Norris (whose family had owned the team for 50 years) for US$8 million, and turned the team into a perennial contender for the Stanley Cup. After years of drafting top picks and grooming their young players, and with proper management and leadership, the Red Wings became an elite NHL team. They made the Stanley Cup finals three times between the 1994–1995 and 1997–1998 seasons, winning the Cup in 1997 (fifteen years after Ilitch purchased the Red Wings) and again in 1998. The Red Wings added two more championships in 2002 and 2008. Prior to the 2004–05 NHL lockout, Forbes magazine ranked the Red Wings as the fifth-most valuable franchise in the NHL, despite a $16 million operating loss.

For the 2007–2008 hockey season, the team won the President's Trophy for the best record in the NHL for the sixth time—the most of any NHL team since the President's Trophy was introduced in 1985–1986. The Red Wings made the playoffs for 25 consecutive seasons through 2015–2016. The 25 consecutive playoff berths were the longest active streak of post-season appearances in all of the North American professional sports, before ending in the 2016–2017 season. It is tied for third all-time in NHL history after 29 consecutive appearances by the Boston Bruins from 1967–1968 to 1995–1996, 28 consecutive trips by the Chicago Blackhawks from 1969–1970 through 1996–1997, and is tied with the 25 consecutive appearances by the St. Louis Blues from 1979–1980 to 2003–2004.

Detroit Tigers Edit

Ilitch purchased the Detroit Tigers in 1992 from fellow pizza magnate Tom Monaghan, the founder of Domino's Pizza. [31] Under his ownership, the Tigers logged losing records in twelve out of thirteen seasons before their turnaround in 2006. [32]

After acquiring the team, Ilitch expressed interest in moving the struggling team to a new ballpark. In 2000, his expectations were realized when the team moved from Tiger Stadium into the newly built Comerica Park. He financed approximately 60% of the $350 million facility the taxpayers of the greater Detroit-Wayne County and federal grants covered the balance. Various Ilitch Holdings, Inc. enterprises manage and operate Comerica Park and its concessions. [33] [34]

When the Tigers won the AL Wild Card under manager Jim Leyland and general manager Dave Dombrowski in 2006, they made the playoffs for the first time since 1987. They also reached the World Series for the first time since 1984, but the Tigers eventually lost in five games to the St. Louis Cardinals in the Series. [36] After Dombrowski was brought in, Ilitch steadily agreed to bring in marquee free agents and finance a larger payroll, with the Tigers beginning the 2008 season as one of the highest-salaried teams in baseball. [37]

On September 16, 2011, the Tigers won the Central division title—their first division crown since Ilitch's purchase. [38] On January 24, 2012, Ilitch signed Prince Fielder to a nine-year, $214 million contract, the fourth-largest contract in baseball history. [39] The 2012 Tigers went all the way to the World Series, but were swept by the San Francisco Giants. [40] Prior to the 2013 season, Ilitch agreed to sign starting pitcher Justin Verlander to a seven-year, $180 million contract extension, at the time the highest single offer ever tendered to a major league pitcher. [41] [42] [43] The Tigers won four consecutive AL Central Division titles between 2011 and 2014, but Ilitch's quest for a World Series title was not achieved before his death in 2017. [44]

Detroit Drive Edit

Ilitch was one of the early team owners in the Arena Football League, starting up the Detroit Drive in 1988. The Drive was one of the most successful teams in the early days of the AFL, both on and off the field. They generally had strong attendance (although much of that was due to discounted or giveaway tickets), and the Drive was in the ArenaBowl in every year of their six-year existence, going 4-2 in the title games. [45]

After Ilitch bought the Tigers in 1992 though, he decided he didn't want to own another franchise that would take away fans from the Tigers, so he sold the team and they moved to Worcester, Massachusetts. [46]

Hockey Hall of Fame Edit

Ilitch was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 2003 as well as the United States Hockey Hall of Fame in 2004. [47]

One of Ilitch's first philanthropic efforts was the Little Caesars Love Kitchen, established in 1985. The traveling restaurant was formed to feed the hungry and assist with food provisions during natural disasters. [48] The program has been recognized by former Presidents Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, and has served more than 2 million individuals in the United States and Canada.

In 2006, inspired by a veteran returning to civilian life after losing both of his legs in the war, Ilitch founded the Little Caesars Veterans Program to provide honorably discharged veterans with a business opportunity when they transition from service or seek a career change. [49] Ilitch received the Secretary's Award from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for this program in 2007 it is the highest honor given to a civilian by the department. [50]

The Little Caesars Amateur Hockey Program, established by Ilitch in 1968, helped thousands of children. [51] Additionally, Ilitch Charities for Children was founded in 2000 as a non-profit foundation dedicated to improving the lives of children in the areas of health, education, and recreation.

In 2008, the charity was renamed Ilitch Charities and its focus was broadened. The new charity invests in the community's future by supporting innovative, collaborative and measurable programs that promote economic development and spur job growth, as a means to address social issues such as poverty, unemployment, homelessness, and hunger.

As a result of his philanthropy, the School of Business for Wayne State University in Detroit is named the "Mike Ilitch School of Business". [52]

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, reports required by the Federal Election Commission from 2002 to 2005 indicate Ilitch Holdings, Inc. members and business partners have contributed more than $500,000 to political campaigns and PACs. [53]

After civil rights icon Rosa Parks was attacked in her Detroit apartment in 1994, Ilitch quietly paid years of Parks's rent to enable her to live in a safer part of Detroit. [54] [55]

Ilitch was married to Marian Ilitch (nee Bayoff, born 1933), who would go on to become one of the world's wealthiest women. [56] Like Ilitch, his wife was born in Michigan to immigrants from Macedonia. [57] Together, they had seven children: Denise Ilitch Lites (born 1955), an attorney, Ron Ilitch (1957 – 2018), who died of a fentanyl overdose at the age of 61, Michael Ilitch, Jr., a film producer whose credits include Lost in Space (1998) and The Angriest Man in Brooklyn (2014), Christopher Ilitch (born 1965), the current CEO of Ilitch Holdings, Lisa Ilitch Murray, who served as the executive vice president of the Detroit Red Wings, Atanas Ilitch, an actor and singer whose most notable credit was that of the Driller Killer in Slumber Party Massacre II (1987), and Carole Ilitch Trepeck, also an attorney.

The family was presented the key to the City of Detroit by Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick in February 2008, [58] and were the fifth recipients of this award. [59]

Ilitch died on February 10, 2017, at the age of 87 in Detroit, Michigan. [60] The Red Wings wore a patch on their right shoulders in his memory, which featured his nickname "Mr. I" in a rectangle, for the remainder of the season in addition, the nickname was featured on the ice at Joe Louis Arena, being painted on the center section of the rink, facing the Red Wings' bench. The Detroit Tigers also wore a black patch with his nickname "Mr. I' in a circle on the right sleeve of their home and away jerseys. [61] In the aftermath of this death, his son, Christopher, took control of Ilitch Holdings and its properties.

The town of Stroud grew up on the road from Paganhill to Bisley where it climbs the end of the spur above the junction of the Frome and Slad valleys. The church was built north of the road where, known as High Street, it runs steeply up to the place called the Cross at the Cross the road forked, one branch continuing towards Bisley by way of Hill Street (formerly known in its western end as Tower Hill and its eastern as Silver Street) and Parliament Street, and the other branch leading by way of Nelson Street, Castle Street, and Lower Street to Bowbridge Lane and the old road to Thrupp and Chalford. From its nucleus on High Street the town expanded along the roads above the Cross in the 17th and early 18th centuries and Acre Street, Chapel Street, named from the Congregational chapel built at the beginning of the 18th century, (fn. 1) and Middle Street were established within the fork. At its lower, western end High Street was met by King Street (named from the visit of George III in 1788) (fn. 2) which carried the traffic from the old London turnpike into the town from the south. Within those streets the town was confined until the 19th century, its western extent being roughly marked by the junction of High Street and King Street, and its eastern extent by Hollow Lane and its continuation (later called Trinity Road from the church built there in 1839) (fn. 3) running down from the end of Parliament Street. The life of the town was centred on High Street. The market-place was situated between the street and the church and trading and other activities also took place at the Cross. The chief inn of the town, the George which had opened by 1654, stood on the south side of High Street and in the 18th century 12 other inns stood in or around the street. (fn. 4)

The small market-place north of High Street, known in the 17th century as the Pitching but later usually called the Shambles, (fn. 5) was situated on land called Pridie's Acre which was assigned as the endowment of the church in 1304 and became vested in the body called the Stroud feoffees. (fn. 6) On its east side stands the market-house, built by John Throckmorton, lord of Over Lypiatt manor, c. 1590. (fn. 7) It is a rectangular stone building with a central gable, and above the ground floor, which was the site of shops and stalls, it had originally a large first-floor room and small second- and third-floor rooms. The principal elevation, facing upon the market-place, originally had an arcade of four bays giving access to the ground floor, and the first-floor room was lit by an oriel window. Instability on that front later led to the reduction in size of the two central arches of the arcade and the addition of a buttress, ornamented with classical columns, beneath the oriel window. (fn. 8) The alterations were perhaps part of the repair work which was carried out on the building between 1640 and 1646. (fn. 9) In the late 18th century rooms in the market-house were used by the Red Boys charity school and by a Sunday school (fn. 10) and in the 1780s part was used as a spinning-house by a clothier. In the early 19th century, from which time the building has been called the town hall, the first-floor room was used for meetings of the vestry and the Stroud improvement commissioners and for sittings of the county court and magistrates from 1856 the Stroud board of health met there. (fn. 11) In 1851 a Gothic extension, designed by Francis Niblett, was built adjoining the north side of the market-house for the county court. (fn. 12) In 1865 extensive restoration of the market-house included the removal of the two upper floors, and the insertion of a new roof for the single high upper room thus created (fn. 13) it was apparently then that Gothic staircases were built on either side of the front. At a subsequent restoration, before 1890, heavy buttresses were built on either side of the oriel window to support the front. (fn. 14)

In 1726 a blind-house, or temporary lock-up, adjoined the back of the market-house. (fn. 15) At the beginning of the 19th century, however, the blindhouse stood with the stocks at the Cross at the top of High Street. In 1811 it was removed once more to the Shambles, but in 1830 a new blind-house was built in Nelson Street. (fn. 16) A building called the church house, recorded from 1601, evidently also stood in the Shambles. (fn. 17) In the south-east corner of the Shambles above the entry from High Street were two houses belonging to the Stroud feoffees and another three of their houses, including the Butcher's Arms inn, formed part of the west side. (fn. 18) The inn was rebuilt in the early 1830s when a castiron colonnade was put up along the west side, (fn. 19) and a corn exchange, later the church institute, was built in the north-west corner in 1867. (fn. 20)

Few houses of any antiquity survive in High Street and most have modern shop fronts inserted on the ground floor. On the south side a 17th-century house retains a steep gable, and there are two other gabled stone houses in the block above the entrance to Church Street, one having an early-19th-century bow-windowed shop front. Bank House at the bottom of High Street on the north side is an early18th-century building faced in roughcast, with dormers, sash-windows, and a classical porch the house, with a 19th-century building adjoining it on the east, was once the headquarters of the Gloucestershire Banking Co. but from 1930 it housed the offices of the Stroud U.D.C. (fn. 21) On the north of the Cross a substantial, mid-18th-century stone house, in two occupations, was demolished in 1971. (fn. 22) Some of the other houses in High Street were rebuilt or remodelled with ashlar fronts in the earlier 19th century: typical are the house above the entry into the Shambles, which was rebuilt by the Stroud feoffees in 1846, (fn. 23) and the house below the entrance to Kendrick Street, which was rebuilt by the same body in 1841. (fn. 24) Just off High Street on the east side of Church Street there formerly stood a low gabled stone house, which was assigned as part of the endowment of a charity school by Thomas Webb in 1642 (fn. 25) it was demolished c. 1945. (fn. 26)

Above the Cross the old town was an area of steep and narrow streets of stone houses. In 1971 over 30 17th- or early-18th-century houses survived in that area, most of them in Lower Street, Middle Street, and in Whitehall at the east end of Middle Street they are of 2 storeys with a central attic gable and usually have a central doorway with 2 stonemullioned windows on each floor. (fn. 27) The area also contains some plain stone cottages of the 18th and early 19th centuries, and there was some later-19thcentury brick development, notably in Middle Street, which replaced Parliament Street and Silver Street as the main thoroughfare when the Bisley road was diverted to it in 1823. (fn. 28) The south side of Middle Street was largely rebuilt with brick terraces in the early 1870s. (fn. 29) Among the older houses destroyed during demolition for redevelopment in the upper part of the old town in the 1960s and early 1970s were a pair of gabled stone houses in Nelson Street, one dated 1676, which was pulled down in 1964, (fn. 30) and a row of 16th- or 17th-century houses in Hill Street, demolished in 1968 and 1969. (fn. 31)

There are very few large houses in the old town as was noted in the 1770s, the clothiers, generally the wealthiest inhabitants, usually lived at or near their mills. (fn. 32) A group of larger houses was built, however, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries just outside the town at Beeches Green in Painswick parish. (fn. 33) One of the few large houses within the town was Rodney House in Church Street northeast of the church it became the vicarage in 1912. (fn. 34) The south-west range formed the original house and by the early 18th century had been extended to the east and west to form a rambling gabled house. A stone with the date 1635 and a cloth-mark was reset in a small porch added in the 19th century. (fn. 35) Another large house was the Castle on the south side of Castle Street. There was a house there by 1687 when it was owned by a clothier, Richard Arundell, who died c. 1732. A later owner was the clothier Charles Freebury (d. c. 1795), and in 1809 the Castle was bought by P. H. Fisher, (fn. 36) the historian of Stroud, who occupied it until his death in 1873. (fn. 37) The basement storey retains 17th-century features but the house was extensively remodelled in the 18th century, apparently c. 1789, (fn. 38) and the office wing on the west was enlarged in the 19th century. The house was known as the Castle by 1732, (fn. 39) and the name is evidently older than the embattled folly which is built into the garden wall. Corbett House, west of the Castle, was built between 1820 and 1835. (fn. 40)

Expansion of Stroud in the early 19th century occurred mainly south-west of the old town and was stimulated by the building of the new Bath- Cheltenham road in 1800 and the new London road in 1814. (fn. 41) The former emphasised the importance of King Street and its south-western extension, Rowcroft, and the latter was made to connect with Rowcroft by a street which was later named Russell Street as a compliment to Lord John Russell. (fn. 42) Shortly afterwards another street, known by 1826 as Great George Street (but later called George Street), was made branching out of the new London road at the eastern end of Russell Street to take a more northerly course to King Street. (fn. 43) The development of Russell Street had begun by 1820, (fn. 44) and by 1835 considerable building had taken place in it and Great George Street and in the London road east of their junction. Also by 1835 building had begun on two new streets made to connect High Street with the new London road: Union Street, later renamed Bedford Street, ran from the middle of High Street to Great George Street, and a street, which originally took the name Swan Lane from an ancient lane with which it connected but was later known as Union Street, ran from opposite the Shambles to the new London road. Swan Lane also had a branch running to the London road called John Street, (fn. 45) on which a Baptist chapel built in 1824 was one of the first buildings. (fn. 46) Russell Street, Great George Street, the original Union Street, Swan Lane, and the London road as far as the houses called Frome Buildings at its junction with Swan Lane were all included with the older streets in plans to light the town in 1833. (fn. 47)

The new roads also caused fresh building in the southern end of King Street and in Rowcroft, on which, however, some new houses had been put up in the 1790s, including Rowcroft House on the north-west side, later rebuilt as the premises of Lloyds Bank. During the first decade of the 19th century a terrace of stone houses was put up along the remainder of that side of Rowcroft in its final form the terrace apparently comprised a symmetrical group, the central and two end buildings accentuated by pediments, but in 1845 the two southern houses were demolished to make way for a railway viaduct. (fn. 48) By 1835 a development of 37 houses called Bath Place had been built between Russell Street and the Thames and Severn canal. (fn. 49)

A focus for the new part of the town was provided in 1833 when the Stroud Subscription Rooms were built at the bottom of Bedford Street facing Great George Street over a small square. The rooms, which were built to the designs of George Basevi, (fn. 50) are a rectangular stone building of two storeys, the south front having a central pediment and semicircular headed windows to the ballroom on the first floor a porch with a balcony above was added in 1868. (fn. 51) A large classical Congregational chapel built on the opposite side of Bedford Street was opened in 1837. (fn. 52)

The opening of the railway with a station south of Russell Street in 1845 further stimulated the development of the south-west part of the town, although it also involved the demolition of some houses, including part of Bath Place. (fn. 53) About 1870 the Imperial hotel, a large three-storey stone building, was built on the north side of the station yard. (fn. 54) Building continued in the existing streets during the middle years of the 19th century, and one new street, Kendrick Street running from High Street to George Street by the east side of the Subscription Rooms, was made in 1871-2 its east side was built up in the upper part with large brick buildings with terracotta dressings, and in the lower part with large three-storey stone buildings, the lowest, called the Cloth Hall, designed for the firm of Libby & Pearce by W. B. Baker of Painswick. (fn. 55)

Expansion north of the town occurred mainly in the later 19th century. There was, however, one earlier development, the Brick Row, a long terrace of houses running north-westwards from the end of Church Street which was built in the early 19th century by Joseph Grazebrook (fn. 56) the terrace was later demolished to make way for the clothing factory of Holloway Bros. (fn. 57) In 1867 the west side of Badbrook Lane, the extension of High Street down to Badbrook, was built up with new houses by S. S. Dickinson and renamed Gloucester Street the project involved the demolition of the Chequers inn and a group of old cottages on the corner of King Street. (fn. 58) Shortly before 1872 a plan, which had been mooted as early as 1835, to make a new road from the west end of High Street to meet Slad Road (fn. 59) was realized by a Dr. Paine and the Revd. Edward Mansfield. (fn. 60) By 1882 the new road, which was called Lansdown, was built up at its southern end and the development of its middle section with brick terraced houses was in progress. (fn. 61) Lansdown also became the site of a number of public buildings: near its south end a Gothic group is formed by the public library, built as a private school in 1873, Lansdown Hall, built as a temperance hall in 1879 but later used as a Christian Science church, (fn. 62) and the School of Science and Art, built in the 1890s. (fn. 63) During the later 19th century the town expanded to the north-west, beyond the parish boundary, with the growth of a new suburb called Uplands it is treated above under Painswick. (fn. 64)

During the 19th century the town expanded most significantly on its east side, beyond Hollow Lane and Trinity Road. In the earlier part of the century Summer Street, running from the end of Parliament Street, Bisley Old Road, and the area in between were gradually built up, mainly with terraces of stone cottages, and at the same period the Leazes, north of Parliament Street, was developed. (fn. 65) The main expansion east of the town occurred after 1873 when the upper part of the Field estate, lying between Bisley Old Road on the north and Bowbridge Lane on the south, was put up for sale in building lots. (fn. 66) The building up of Bisley Road eastwards from Middle Street with large villas in pairs or threes, some modestly decorative with Tudor-style windows, Dutch gables, or bargeboards, had begun by 1882 (fn. 67) and continued during the remainder of the century concurrently the south side of Bisley Old Road and Belmont Road, running between Bisley Road and Bisley Old Road, were built up with smaller semi-detached brick villas. During the late 1870s and the 1880s a large estate of working-class houses was built by George Holloway on Horns Road, running eastwards from Trinity church (fn. 68) it comprises a double row of brick terraces north of the road and smaller terraces south of it. Further south William Cowle, the owner of the lower part of the Field estate from 1873, (fn. 69) laid out the Park estate on a new road south of Bowbridge Lane by 1882 he had built Park House in Italianate style as his own residence and two pairs of Tudor-style stone villas, (fn. 70) and a few other villas of the same type were built soon afterwards. Two terraces of brick houses built between Park Road and the London road before 1882 (fn. 71) were apparently also part of Cowle's development.

The town continued to expand eastwards during the 20th century. In 1921 the Stroud U.D.C. built eight pairs of houses in Bisley Old Road, (fn. 72) and by 1936 two large council estates had been built, one of 72 houses on Summer Street (fn. 73) and the other of over 80 houses in Highfield Road leading off Bowbridge Lane. (fn. 74) The Bisley Old Road council estate was later greatly extended as far as the Bisley road. Considerable private building occurred in the same part of the town in the 1950s and 1960s, notably on the Bisley road and on Bowbridge Lane, and in the London road, where a few detached villas had been built by 1936, (fn. 75) there was also piecemeal development.

During the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s much demolition for redevelopment was carried out in the upper part of the old town, particularly in Parliament Street and in Hill Street, on the north side of which a new police station and magistrate's court were under construction in 1971. In the lower part of Summer Street a large development of bungalows and flats involved the demolition of some of the old cottages. Another development, including a new shopping centre and multi-storey car park, was in progress in 1971 in the lower part of the town between King Street and Merrywalks, a road which runs along the old parish boundary from Badbrook to the Cainscross road. Merrywalks was a road of little importance before the 1960s when a new thoroughfare was built between its southern end and Wallbridge and it became part of a traffic scheme to ease pressure on the route by King Street and Rowcroft.

Outside the town the high ground in the north and east parts of the larger division of the parish was sparsely settled with isolated farmsteads and manorhouses. The ancient manor-houses of Lypiatt Park, Ferris Court, Middle Lypiatt, and Nether Lypiatt stand spaced out along the western edge of the Toadsmoor valley. (fn. 76) A number of farmsteads in the north of the parish, mainly held from Over Lypiatt manor, were recorded from the 16th and 17th centuries. Fennell's Farm, a small 17th-century farm-house with 19th-century extensions, northwest of Lypiatt Park, was held in 1573 by the family of Nichols otherwise called Fennell. (fn. 77) Kilminster Farm, a small farm-house dating in part from the 17th century, was recorded in 1558 it took its name from Thomas Kilmister, the tenant in 1725, having been called successively Baldwins and Churches from previous tenants. (fn. 78) Hill House on the opposite side of the Stroud-Bisley road is basically a 17th-century building which was remodelled in the 19th century, before 1876, when it was given an embattled parapet and Tudor-style windows. (fn. 79) A small cottage north of Kilminster Farm, formerly called Nodlings, was recorded from 1558, (fn. 80) and a house called Little Ferris in 1581 was apparently that known in the early 19th century as Berrymans north-west of Ferris Court. (fn. 81) Two houses called Slatters and Hawkins recorded in 1609 but pulled down by 1725 were apparently near Fennell's Farm. (fn. 82) There were also scattered dwellings in the north part of the Toadsmoor valley, including a house called Deptcombe messuage in 1562, which was later replaced by three cottages, and some cottages in Bismore which were demolished before 1667. (fn. 83)

There were a few ancient farmsteads on Slad Lane in the north-west part of the body of the parish. Stroud House in Steanbridge Slade which the lord of Over Lypiatt granted to Thomas Clissold in 1607 and another Thomas owned in 1721 (fn. 84) may have been at Stroud Slad Farm, a small early-18thcentury farm-house. Higher up Slad Lane a small hamlet called the Vatch includes Abbey Farm and Riflemans, both 17th-century stone houses to which Tudor-style windows were added in the 19th century the latter was the Rifleman's Arms public house in 1882. (fn. 85) Knapp House, standing above the Vatch, is a late-16th-century stone house with arched heads to the lights of its mullioned windows. Originally it was a small symmetrical building, but near-contemporary extensions were made on the north and on the south-east. At the bottom of Slad Lane, Slade House is a three-storey double-pile house of c. 1710 which may have replaced the adjoining 17th-century building, used as outbuildings in 1971.

The southern part of the eastern division of the parish was more thickly populated, with a succession of cloth-mills at intervals of 300-400 yards along the Frome, and, higher up, loosely grouped settlements of cottages and some large clothiers' houses lying on or around the old road from Stroud town to Chalford. Nearest to the town, and later encompassed by its suburbs, there was a straggling settlement on Bowbridge Lane by the late 17th century. The two large houses there, the Field and Field House, are described below. On the south-west side of the lane a pair of stone-built cottages, formerly a single house, dates from at least the 16th century cusped lights from a medieval window have been reset in a north-west wall, and an adjoining building, demolished in 1960, contained a cruck truss. (fn. 86) Further up the lane on the same side a long stone range includes at its south-east end a small 17thcentury house called Daneway, which has central gables on both main elevations. About 1690 there were four cottages on the opposite side of Bowbridge Lane around Crease Gate, where the lane was joined by the track from Nether Lypiatt, (fn. 87) but only one small stone cottage, and that of a later date, survived there in 1971. In the 18th and early 19th centuries several houses were built at the bottom of the lane at the complex of mills and dye-works at Bowbridge, but most were demolished in 1961 and 1962. (fn. 88) Near by where the old road turned up the hill again to Thrupp another small group includes the Gunhouse, a substantial early-17th-century house which was occupied by a clothier, John Webb, in 1659. (fn. 89)

East of Bowbridge Lane, where the Lime brook and a tributary run down wooded coombs from the high ground of the central spur, there were scattered cottages by the late 17th century. Together with the cottages on Bowbridge Lane, they belonged to the Clutterbucks' Thrupp estate (fn. 90) and in the earlier 18th century were usually leased to families of weavers. (fn. 91) A group called Weyhouse Cottages, standing by the track from Nether Lypiatt to Crease Gate, (fn. 92) fell into disuse in the 20th century in the absence of an access road and was in ruins in 1971. The occupation of another group of cottages to the south-east was preserved by the making of a tarmac surface to the track leading up from Thrupp c. 1950. (fn. 93) They include a 17th-century cottage, which was the Foresters' Arms public house in 1842 and until c. 1965, (fn. 94) and a row of three cottages which was converted to become the farm-house of Claypits farm. The little group of cottages at the Heavens near by was in existence by 1775 (fn. 95) but was rebuilt in the late 19th century. Further north a row of three 17th-century cottages, known as Rifle Butts from the use made in the late 19th century of the Horns valley below, (fn. 96) was converted to a single dwelling in the mid 20th century.

Thrupp, more usually called the Thrupp, was recorded as a settlement name from 1367 (fn. 97) and seems to have originally applied to the group of houses at a bend in the old road, where Thrupp House, the centre of the Clutterbucks' estate, (fn. 98) an adjoining cottage which was later the farm-house of the estate, and a few other cottages stood by the late 17th century. (fn. 99) A few more cottages were added in the 18th or early 19th century. A larger settlement, however, was further along the road at the hamlet which was also named as Thrupp in 1820 (fn. 100) but was later distinguished as Far Thrupp. A few 17th- or early-18th-century houses survive there including the former farm-house of Yew Tree farm. A larger number of cottages was added in the later 18th century, and the building of the new London road in 1814 caused the hamlet to expand westwards down the hill so that it became the largest and most compact settlement in the eastern division of the parish outside Stroud town. Further down the old road Upper Bourne and Lower Bourne also had small settlements of cottages by the early 19th century, (fn. 101) and presumably much earlier, for Bourne was described as a vill in 1304. (fn. 102) At Quarhouse on the lane up to Nether Lypiatt the establishment of another small hamlet had begun by 1687. (fn. 103)

Along the bottom of the valley, the growth of small settlements around the mills and crossingpoints of the river was stimulated by the building of the canal in 1789 and the new London road in 1814, and a number of inns opened to serve users of road and canal. At Wallbridge by 1820 there was the Ship and by 1856 also the Bell. Bowbridge had the New Inn by 1856, and the Ship at Brimscombe Port had opened by 1820. At Bourne in 1820 there was the Quay inn and in 1856 the Railway, the Railway Canal, and the King's Arms. (fn. 104) In the later 19th century the London road began to be developed, particularly at Far Thrupp and Brimscombe where brick terraces were put up. The earlier 20th century saw further building all over the valley: a new settlement was created at Blackness at the bottom of the Toadsmoor valley, and in the 1920s and 1930s there was ribbon development, with detached and semi-detached houses, along the old road south of Thrupp and at Bourne. In the mid 20th century new factory buildings put up for some of the industries which settled on the old mill-sites along the river emphasised the long-standing industrial nature of the valley.

There were several large houses, mostly owned by clothiers, scattered along the valley. On Bowbridge Lane were two substantial houses, the one nearest the town called the Field and another further down the lane called Field House. The Field belonged to the Arundell's Mill estate and descended to the Revd. John Hawkins (d. 1871), whose trustees sold the house in 1873 to William Cowle (fn. 105) (d. 1899). (fn. 106) It is basically a 17th-century house, to which a new ashlar west front in classical style was added in the 18th century ground-floor bay-windows were inserted on the front in the 19th. Field House incorporates on the north-east a 17th-century range with a central oak staircase around a well, some original windows, and two surviving gables with oval lights. Early in the 19th century a range was added on the south-west to provide a new entrance hall and living-rooms and the end walls of the older block were rebuilt to match the new work. The new part may have replaced an older wing, for in 1825 when it belonged to Samuel Clutterbuck of St. Mary's Mill the house was said to have been recently taken down and rebuilt. (fn. 107) In 1971 it was the headquarters of the Gloucestershire wing of the Air Training Corps. At the bottom of Bowbridge Lane, on a site which after 1814 was bounded on the east by the London road, stands another remodelled 17th-century house, which with an adjoining dyeworks belonged to Nathaniel Partridge in 1842. (fn. 108) The back is of rubble with some stone-mullioned windows, but c. 1800 the house was given an ashlar south-west front in classical style.

Bowbridge House on the east corner of Bowbridge Lane and the London road is a large three-storey stone house with a classical porch and a venetian window above. It was probably the house Thomas Newcombe, the owner of a near-by mill, was building in 1804, (fn. 109) for it belonged to a subsequent owner of the mill, Richard Sandys, in 1842. (fn. 110) The house called the Thrupp on the south side of Thrupp Lane was evidently that which belonged to the Griffin's Mill estate in 1740 and until 1794 when it was sold to John Partridge of Bowbridge. In 1807 John's son Thomas sold the house to William Stanton of Stafford's Mill who occupied it until his death in 1841. (fn. 111) Stanton evidently rebuilt the Thrupp, which is a three-storey stone house. (fn. 112) New House at Far Thrupp, later renamed Brimscombe Court, belonged in 1769 to the Wathens, (fn. 113) owners of Thrupp Mill the family occupied it until c. 1830 (fn. 114) and in 1845 their trustees sold it to Nathaniel Marling. (fn. 115) It was evidently rebuilt c. 1800 and is a three-storey stone house with shaped parapets at the sides and a classical porch. In 1971 it was occupied as several flats.

In Paganhill tithing, the detached western portion of the parish, the earliest settlement was evidently at the village which gave the tithing its name, of which Pakenhill was an alternative form used into the 20th century. (fn. 116) The village had a chapel of ease by 1287, (fn. 117) and the manor-house of one of the ancient divisions of Paganhill manor was at Field Place at the west end of the village. (fn. 118) Several 17th- and early 18th-century cottages survive in the village, including a row near Field Place of which the northernmost is dated 1714 and the southernmost has housed the Old Crown inn since at least 1879. (fn. 119) The other cottages are mainly of the later 18th century and include a three-storey row of five at the road junction in the centre of the village. Upfield, one of the larger residences, which in 1971 housed a boys' preparatory school, is a Tudor-style stone building of the early 19th century. The Rose inn on the east side of Paganhill Lane south of the village had opened by 1822, (fn. 120) and in the mid 19th century there was also the Stag and Hounds opposite. (fn. 121) Farmhill House, on the east side of the road running up to Whiteshill, was the manorhouse of one part of Paganhill manor, and there was formerly another large house, called Farmhill Park, on the opposite side of the road. (fn. 122)

By the early 19th century the most populous area of Paganhill tithing was at the twin villages of Ruscombe and Whiteshill in its high northern part. The two villages run together at the head of the deep coomb formed by the Ruscombe brook, Whiteshill lying along the eastern edge and Ruscombe forming a smaller and more straggling settlement along the western edge. (fn. 123) A settlement had been established at Ruscombe by the mid 14th century, (fn. 124) and the largest house in the village, Ruscombe Farm, was recorded from 1532 (fn. 125) Whiteshill has not been found as a settlement name before 1732. (fn. 126) Both villages have a few 17th- or early-18th-century cottages, including the one at Whiteshill which has been the Star inn since at least 1782, (fn. 127) and Rake End at Ruscombe which is dated 1713. The majority of the houses, however, are plain stone cottages built during the later 18th and early 19th centuries with no distinctive features. A few brick or stone cottages were added in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including a group of small modestly decorative stone villas built at the south end of Whiteshill c. 1900. (fn. 128) At the beginning of the 19th century the two villages had the reputation of being the most poverty-stricken and morally-degraded part of Stroud parish, a condition which the building of an Independent chapel at Ruscombe and a church at Whiteshill was later thought to have much alleviated. (fn. 129)

There are a few smaller groups of houses in the north part of the tithing. The Plain on the PaganhillWhiteshill road, where the pound for the tithing was sited in 1825, (fn. 130) has a few 18th-century stone cottages. At Callowell east of the road Callowell Farm is a gabled and mullioned 17th-century farmhouse. It was evidently the Callowell House that Giles Gardner of Stratford acquired in 1684, (fn. 131) although at the same period there was another Callowell House standing near by, which Thomas Wood, a clothier, bought in 1683. (fn. 132) A 17th-century cottage which stood just north of Callowell Farm and housed the Plough inn from at least 1882 (fn. 133) was pulled down c. 1966, (fn. 134) and there are also a few later stone cottages. The hamlet was called Upper Callowell in 1782 in distinction to a house called Lower Callowell which stood some way to the southeast (fn. 135) until it was demolished shortly before 1891. (fn. 136) Stokenhill Farm further north is a late-17th-century farm-house of two storeys and gabled attics. The narrow central entrance bay is flanked by cross-wings with symmetrical fenestration. (fn. 137) A central porch which was subsequently added to the principal front on the south has a sundial dated 1717. The house belonged to William Gardner of a prominent local family in 1741. (fn. 138) Kite's Nest Farm north-east of Whiteshill village is a small 18th-century stone farm-house.

There was very little development in the extreme south of the tithing before the building of the new Stroud-Cainscross road in 1825. (fn. 139) One of the few houses there earlier was Gannicox, later called Lower Gannicox to distinguish it from a house built north of it called Upper Gannicox. Lower Gannicox belonged in the early 18th century to Thomas Bond, and passed in succession to his brother Henry Bond (d. 1757), curate of Stroud, and his nephew, William Knight, a London banker (d. 1786). (fn. 140) In 1971 it was a nursing home. The house is a three-storey building which appears to be largely of the later 18th century. The long brick south front was symmetrically arranged (although the doorway was later moved to one side) and has a central pediment and canted bay-windows at each end. North-west of the house the brick stable block, now partly demolished, evidently also had a symmetrical elevation. Upper Gannicox was built in the early 19th century, and is a three-storey house with an ironwork verandah on the ground floor. The buildings called Prospect Place, which stand on the north side of the Cainscross road but pre-date it by a few years, (fn. 141) comprise a terrace of four plain stone houses, with a more elaborate house on the west end and two brick houses added on the east end in the later 19th century. The houses at Stratford Park and Stratford Abbey in the east part of the tithing are mentioned below. (fn. 142) Stratford Cottage, opposite the entrance to the drive of Stratford Park, is a Gothicstyle stone house built shortly before 1804. (fn. 143)

Maumee III T-AO-149 - History

Would you like to contact this user? If so, please create an account, to become a Premium Personal member of Armslist.

As a Premium Personal member you will have access to:

  • Search alerts
  • Power search
  • Armslist exclusive deals
  • View counter for listings

Search Alert

Power Search

Account Upgrade Needed

Welcome to the NEW Armslist.com. Due to circumstances beyond our control, we have had to move forward and take the site in a slightly different direction. Fortunately, despite this, we are working hard to make the site MUCH better for law abiding Americans, and MUCH worse for those that are not law abiding Americans. Scammers have tried to prey upon Armslist users in the past, and while we may not eradicate their presence 100%, we will eradicate the vast majority. People have complained of impolite offers and communications from users with bad manners. That will be nearly eradicated with the new version of the site. And lastly, the financial, emotional, human, and other costs of the never-ending legal assaults on Armslist have made it impossible for us to keep the site free in the way it was in the past. Thank you for your support, and welcome to the new Armslist.com.

Please upgrade your free account with premium personal account to unlock the features.

John Jackson

Capt John Jackson, Sr BIRTH򑜙 County Londonderry, Northern Ireland DEATH򑠄 (aged 84�) Clarksburg, Harrison County, West Virginia, USA BURIAL Jackson Cemetery Clarksburg, Harrison County, West Virginia

A Patriot of the American Revolution for VIRGINIA. DAR Ancestor # A061105

Genealogy of John Jackson from Jackson Brigade Family association: http://www.jacksonbrigade.com/genealogy-of-john-jackson/

John Jackson (b. 1715 Coleraine, Londonderry, Ireland d. 25 Sep 1801 Clarksburg, WVA) married Elizabeth Cummins (b. 8 Jan 1729 ? London, England d. 1825 Clarksburg, WVA).[N1]

[In light of a more recent study on Elizabeth Cummins Jackson it is believed that she was only 96 or 97 years old at her death as opposed to the 101-105 years as recorded by previous reseachers and her tombstone placed by the Daughters of the American Revolution.

As per her own statement, given to her grandson John George Jackson, Elizabeth arrived in America when she was 19 or 20. Arriving in the new country in 1748/49 would make her born on 8 January 1728/29. She died in Clarksburg, (West) Virginia in 1825. – Linda B. Meyers]

“John Jackson was descended from English settlers in Ireland. He was born in Coleraine, Londonderry, Ireland, and at the age of ten moved with his family to London. He emigrated to Maryland in 1748, married, and removed to Virginia in 1758 (present day Hardy County, West Virginia). He was a member of the County Court, served as an Indian spy in 1787 for Governor Henry Lee, and was a lieutenant of the militia in 1787. During the Revolutionary War, he took part in the Battle of King’s Mountain. John was said to have been a spare, diminutive man, quiet, determined, courageous, and of sound judgment.” [N2]

𠇎lizabeth Cummins was a strong-willed Englishwoman from London. She was raised by a maiden aunt, who upon her death left Elizabeth one thousand pounds sterling. She set off to America with her inheritance, met and married John Jackson in Cecil County, Maryland. (The legend that she fled England after throwing a tankard of ale at a King’s soldier in her aunt’s tavern is a little more exciting, but has been fairly well proven to be fanciful.) She is described as being rather masculine in stature, quite intelligent, and as having a great deal of courage and strong character. She fought off Indian attacks and patented 3,000 acres of land in her own name and paid for them herself.” [N3]

Elizabeth Cummins is considered a Patriot of the American Revolution by the Daughters of the American Revolution (D. A. R.) as she, while her husband and sons were away, fought at Jackson’s Fort. [N4] Jackson’s Fort has a nice ring to it, however, as pointed out by McWhorter, “Jackson’s Fort [and others] were probably only strategic and strongly built dwellings or block houses, where the immediate inhabitants fled on occasion of sudden alarms, and where scouts had regular places of meeting.” [N5]

“There was a block house about three miles west of Bush’s Fort, on Fink’s Run …. It was built by some of the Jacksons on land now [1915] owned by Mr. Martin Reger. Prof. Maxwell refers to this building as “Jackson’s Fort.” History of Randolph County, West Va, p. 414. It could hardly be termed a fort, in the sense of that word. It was only a block house, or a strongly built two-story log dwelling without a palisade and never figured as a defensive stronghold.” [N6]

John Jackson married on 4 Jul 1755, Elizabeth Cummins. Their children are the following:[N1]

1. George Jackson (b. 9 Jan 1757 Cecil Co., MD d. 17 May 1831 Zanesville, Ohio) m. (1) 13 Nov 1776, Elizabeth Brake (b. 22 Feb 1757 d. 22 Mar 1812) m. (2) 6 Nov 1814, Nancy (Richardson) Adams (b. 18 Apr 1780 d. 11 Oct 1841)

2. Col. Edward Jackson (b. 1 Mar 1759 d. 25 Dec 1828) m. (1) 1783, Mary Haddan (b. 15 May 1764, d. 1796) grandparents of Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson (2) 1799, Elizabeth (Weatherholt) Brake (b. 1772 d. 1835)

3. John Jackson, Jr. (b. 1760 d. May 1821) m. (1) 10 Apr 1786, Rebecca Haddan (2) 1797, Elizabeth Cozad (b. 1779 d. 1845)

4. Elizabeth Jackson (b. 1762/1767 d. 1862) m. Abraham Brake.

5. Sophia Jackson (b. 11 Sep 1763 d. 10 Mar 1836) m. Josiah “Joseph” Davis (b. 9 May 1767 d. 8 Oct 1832)

6. Mary Sarah Jackson (b. 1768 d. c1791) m. 23 Oct 1788, Phillip Reger (b. 1767 d. 16 Jul 1846).

7. Samuel Jackson (b. 10 Dec 1772 d. 10 Jan/Jun 1842) m. 7 Nov 1793, Barbara Reger (b. 10 Dec 1775 d. 28 Oct 1838) Barbara was a sister to Phillip Reger who married Mary Sarah Jackson

8. Henry Jackson (b. 10 Jul 1774 d. 24 Feb 1852) m. (1) 20 May 1800, Mary Elizabeth Hyer (b. 4 1784, Lewis Co. WVA d. 16 Jul 1835) m. (2) 24 Apr 1836, Elizabeth Shreve (b. 10 Dec 1813 d. 11 Apr 1887) “Short History of the Jacksons in Oregon” by John C. Jackson. “‘Granny’s Creek,’ in Braxton County, received its name when Henry Jackson commenced a [land] survey thereon and one of his hunters named Loudin, killed a buffalo cow, which was so old and tough that the men declared her to be the grandmother of all buffaloes.” [N7]

Plat of land purchased by Elizabeth Cummins Jackson near Buckhannon River including the Pringle Tree property. Some authors lists the ancestors of John Jackson back many generations to the Kings of England, however, since this has not been documented, we have not included it here.

“When Did Elizabeth Cummins Jackson Die?” from Vol. 22, No. 2 (Feb 2014) Jackson Brigade Quarterly

N1. Colonel Edward Jackson 1759-1828 Revolutionary Soldier, by Nancy Ann Jackson and Linda Brake Meyers, Genealogy Publishing Service, Franklin, NC, 1995, page 14.

N2. The Genealogies of the Jackson, Junkin & Morrison Families complied by Michael I. Shoop, 1981, published by the Garland Gray Memorial Research Center, Stonewall Jackson House, Historic Lexington Foundation, Lexington, VA., page 155.

N4. Daughters of the American Revolution (D. A. R.) Lineage Book Vol. 48, 47615, page 287.

N5. Chronicles of Border Warfare or a History of the Settlement by the Whites of North-Western Virginia: and of the Indian Wars and Massacres, Alexander Scott Withers, 1831, later edition 1895 by Steward and Kidd Publishers, Cincinnati, quoted in McWhorter, page 479.

N6. Border Settlers of Northwestern Virginia 1768 to 1785, by Lucullus Virgil McWhorter, 1915, reprinted by Jim Comstock, Richwood, West Virginia, 1974, as part of The West Virginia Heritage Encyclopedia, page 445.

Variant information from Findagrave.com: Birth: 򑜙 County Londonderry, Northern Ireland Death: 򑠄 Clarksburg Harrison County West Virginia, USA

John Jackson was a Protestant (Ulster-Scottish) from Coleraine, County Londonderry, Ireland. While living in London, England, he was convicted of the capital crime of larceny for stealing 򣅰 the judge at the Old Bailey sentenced him to a seven-year indenture in America. Elizabeth Cummins, a strong, blonde woman over 6 feet (1.8 m) tall, born in London, England was also convicted of larceny in an unrelated case for stealing 19 pieces of silver, jewelry, and fine lace, and received a similar sentence. They both were transported on the prison ship Litchfield, which departed London in May 1749 with 150 convicts. John and Elizabeth met on board and were in love by the time the ship arrived at Annapolis, Maryland. Although they were sent to different locations in Maryland for their indentures, the couple married in July 1755

Ist of Jackson line to America, immigrating to Cecil Co., Maryland in 1748. Married ELizabeth Cummins and removed to W.V. to "Jackson's Fort" (now Buchanan). John was private in Battle of Kings Mountain.(DAR pg 309) He also served as soldier at Fort Jackson during the Indian attacks.(DAR pg 282) Listed as private in Augusta Co. VA Troops.

Capt. John Jackson "III" [Parents] was born in 1719 in Carrickfergus, Antrim, Coleraine, Londonderry, Ireland . He died on 25 Sep 1804 in Clarksburg, Harrison, West Virginia . He married Elizabeth Cummins on 4 Jul 1755 in Cecil, Maryland .

Elizabeth Cummins [Parents] was born on 8 Jan 1723 in London, England . She died in 1825 in Clarksburg, Harrison, West Virginia . She married Capt. John Jackson "III" on 4 Jul 1755 in Cecil, Maryland .


Moved to London at age 10 years old with father and two brothers. Sent from England to America to serve 7 years restitution on the ship Litchfield. Elizabeth met and fell in love with John Jackson on the ship from London to America.

John was born in Coleraine, County Londonderry, in Northern Ireland. He emigrated to the Province of Maryland in 1748 and moved to the Colony and Dominion of Virginia in 1758. He participated in the American Revolutionary War, fighting in the Battle of Kings Mountain (October 7, 1780). He was a lieutenant of the Virginia Militia after 1787.

History of John and Elizabeth Jackson

In 1728 great hords of the Scots whose ancestors, a century before had fled persecuted to Ireland, now took ship for the colonies. They began pouring into Pennsylvania and Virginia. Some went to England. At least in 1729, right after Richard Jackson raised the tenant's rents, one of the Jackson families embarked from Port Tush, Ireland, for London. This family had a son John, aged 10. The parents Christian names unknown. They supposedly died in England. In 1748 John Jackson was 29. He took passage for America in same ship as Elizabeth Cummins. The Jackson tradition held, John fell in love with the handsome lady at first sight and wanted to marry her at sea. She withheld her impetuous lover for seven years. In Cecil County, Maryland, they were married in 1755. Elizabeth, an indentured servant, did not gain much foothold in Society of Maryland. They went shortly after their marrieage to the South Branch of the Potomac in Pendleton County, VA. Thirteen years later the Jackson family, increased by the sons, George and Edward, pushed further into the west and settled on the present site, Buchannan Cty. W. VA., patented land on a small creek, Turkey Run. For years their home was called Jackson's Fort. John Jackson was an Indiana fighter, so were his sons. To John and Elizabeth were born eight children, the 2nd son was Edward, born in maryland in 1759, a tall six footer and muscular. At 24 he married Mary Hadder. Her family innigrated from New Jersey before the Revolution. Their 3rd son was Jonathan, born at Jackson's Fort. Jonathan went to school at Clarksburg and Parkersburg. He was still a school boy in 1801, when his father Colonal Edward Jackson left Turkey Run to take up land for himself. He went to Lewis County's fertile peninsula made by the winding Monongahela River. There were six grants of land including nearly on thousand acres. At the nose of the peninsula he built a hewn log house with an ell, back from the river. Seven years later he built a dam and mill, Jackson's Mill, the name of the new house. In 1810, Jonathan Jackson had finished reading to the Harrison Cty bar, in the office of his cousin J. G. Jackson of Clarksburg. He was appointed Commissioner of Internal Revenue. In 1816 he married Julia Beckwith Neals of Parkersburg, a lady of admitted beauty, could read and write as many ladies could not. Sensitive, shy, not robust, they built a house on the main street on Clarksburg. There were four children, Elizabeth 1819, Warren 1821, Laura Ann, 1826, Thomas Jackson Jan. 21, 1824 and Jonathan Jackson died. His widow married Col. Blake Woodson. Tom and Laura Ann went to live with Uncle Cumming Jackson who had fallen heir to Jackson's Mill. Sept. 4, 1831 their mother died. Uncle Robinson, a faithful slave came for Tom and Laura Ann. He was always doing something for Tom, they say. John, Sr. and Elizabeth Jackson's Gt. Grandson became a well known Gen. in history, Lt. Gen. Thomas Johanthan "Stonewall" Jackson.

Birth:򑜖 - Coleraine, Londenderry, Ulster, Ireland Death: Sep 25 1801 - Clarksburg, Harrison, West Virginia, United States Parents: John Jackson, Katherine Jackson (born McKinley) Wife:žlizabeth Jackson (born Cummins) Children: George Jackson, Edward Jackson, John Jackson, Sophia Jackson, Samuel Jackson, Henry Jackson, Elizabeth Jackson, Mary Sarah

John Captain Jackson, Elizabeth Jackson (born Cummins) Jackson (Probably) not the John Jackson who married Elizabeth Cummins. “John Jackson was descended from English settlers in Ireland. He was born in Coleraine, Londonderry, Ireland, and at the age of ten moved with his family to London. He emigrated to Maryland in 1748, married,and removed to Virginia in 1758 (present day Hardy County, West Virginia). He was a member of the County Court, served as an Indian spy in 1787 for Governor Henry Lee, and was a lieutenant of the militia in 1787. During the Revolutionary War, he took part in the Battle of King's Mountain. John was said to have been a spare, diminutive man, quiet, determined, courageous, and of sound judgment."(The Geneologies of the Jackson, Junkin and Morrison Families compiled by Michael I. Shoop, 1981, published by the Garland Gray Memoria Research Center, Sontewall Jackson House, Historic Lexington Foundation, Lexington, Virginia, page 155)”


Beginnings for John Jackson (1715 or 1719 - 1801) and Elizabeth Cummins (also known as Elizabeth Comings and Elizabeth Needles) (1723 - 1828). John Jackson was a Protestant in Coleraine, County Londonderry, Ireland. While living in London, he was convicted of the capital crime of larceny for stealing 'a3170 the judge at the Old Bailey sentenced him to a seven-year indenture in America. Elizabeth, a strong, blonde woman over 6 feet (1.8 m) tall, born in London, was also convicted of larceny in an unrelated case for stealing 19 pieces of silver, jewelry, and fine lace, and received a similar sentence. They both were transported on the prison ship Litchfield, which departed London in May 1749 with 150 convicts. John and Elizabeth met on board and were in love by the time the ship arrived at Annapolis, Maryland. Although they were sent to different locations in Maryland for their indentures, the couple married in July 1755.[5]

The family migrated west across the Blue Ridge Mountains to settle near Moorefield, Virginia, (now West Virginia) in 1758. In 1770, they moved further west to the Tygart Valley. They began to acquire large parcels of virgin farmland near the present-day town of Buckhannon, including 3,000 acres (12 km'b2) in Elizabeth's name. John and his two teenage sons were early recruits for the American Revolutionary War, fighting in the Battle of Kings Mountain on October 7, 1780 John finished the war as captain and served as a lieutenant of the Virginia Militia after 1787. While the men were in the Army, Elizabeth converted their home to a haven, "Jackson's Fort," for refugees from Indian attacks.[6]

John and Elizabeth had eight children. Their second son was Edward Jackson (March 1, 1759 - December 25, 1828), and Edward's third son was Jonathan Jackson, This is important because Jonathan Jackson was the father for the famous General Stonewall Jackson, named Thomas Jonathan Jackson and was the great-grandson of John and Elizabeth

Watch the video: The Kapil Sharma Show Season 2 - Kapil With Retro Queens - Ep 149 -Full Episode - 11th October, 2020 (July 2022).


  1. Balen

    I'm sure this - confusion.

  2. Mizil

    the quality is not very good and there is no time to watch !!!

  3. Vernell

    In my opinion, they are wrong. Write to me in PM.

  4. Kazrakus

    It bores me.

Write a message