Talk:Joshua Waddington

Outline

Outline - The bold is what was changed - Early Life: Waddington was born in 1755 to Rev. Joshua Waddington of Harworth and Walkeringham (1710–1780) and Ann Ferrand (1716–1806) of Messingham, who married in 1740. Waddington's mother was the daughter of Rev. Thomas Ferrand, Vicar of Bingley, Yorks. His father graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge in 1732 and 1752[5] and was the Vicar of Walkeringham and Harworth. Also, the Vicar of Mattersey in 1752.[6] Waddington was one of eight brothers whom were Thomas (1742–1790),[7] John (1744–1770), Benjamin (1749–1828),[7] William (1751–1818), George (1753–1824),[8] Samuel Ferrand (1759–1829), and Henry Waddington (1761–1938).[6][7] His brother William was the grandfather of William Henry Waddington (1826–1894), who served as Prime Minister of France in 1879 and was the French Ambassador to the United Kingdom from 1883 to 1893.[9] His sister, Sarah Waddington (1746–1848), who married Charles Monk (1753-1785),[10] was the mother of James Henry Monk (1784–1856), the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.[11] - Rutgers v. Waddington: In 1783, the New York legislature enacted the Trespass Act which stripped Tories of their property and privileges. It also gave patriots the legal right to sue anyone who had occupied, damaged or destroyed homes they had left behind British lines during the war.[4] On June 29, 1784, the case of Rutgers v. Waddington was presented before chief justice James Duane. The plaintiff, Elizabeth Rutgers, represented by Egbert Benson, had owned a large brewery and alehouse that she was forced to abandon when the British occupied New York City.[20] Under the new Trespass Act, Rutgers demanded rent in the sum of £8,000 from Waddington, who had been running the brewery since it was abandoned.[4] Waddington defense was litigated by Alexander Hamilton, Brockholst Livingston, and Morgan Lewis,[21] who presented that the Trespass Act violated the 1783 peace treaty which was ratified earlier by Congress.[22] Duane ruled that Rutgers was only entitled to rent from the time before the British occupation and the two parties agreed to the amount of £800.[4][23]After this case, Duane rules that "no state in this union can alter or abridge, in a single point, the federal articles or the treaty." Longtallsid (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)