Aaron Holland answers Thomas Woodford's bill of complaint in the last of the lawsuits between the two men arising from the share of profits in the Red Bull. Holland explains that at the time of the conflict (1612) he was 'lawfully possessed' of the Red Bull property, upon which 'to his great charge and and expenses' he had erected a playhouse. He granted to Thomas Swinnerton, then a member of Queen Anne's company, an eighteenth share of the profits in the playhouse. He denies, however, as Woodford has claimed, that Swinnerton received 3d a day as a gatherer. If Swinnerton did received such an amount, it was not as part of his eighteenth share, but either as part of a special arrangment, or out of Woodford's own favour to Swinnerton. Swinnerton made an agreement with Philp Stone to sell his share in the Red Bull, but is not aware that Stone paid Swinnerton £50 for this. He believes, rather, that Swinnerton recieved around £25, paid in small sums. At the request of the two men, Holland transferred Swinnerton's share in the playhouse to Stone in an indenture dated 30 February 1609; the term of the contract was for 25 and three-quarter years. In return for his share in the playhouse, Stone was to pay Holland £2 10s a year; were Stone to default on this payment, the contract would be void. Holland insists that the contract made no mention of a gatherer's place worth 3d a day. Stone and Woodford nevertheless collected this sum on a regular basis, on the pretence that the contract gave them the right to do so. When Holland demanded restitution of these sums, Stone refused and sold his share to Woodford. In his bill of complaint, Woodford claims that he sent an agent, Anthony Payne to pay the yearly rent of £2 10s, but that Holland refused the sum; Holland denies this. Rather, Holland claims that he had no dealings whatsoever with Woodford over the playhouse, but that he continued to consider the share as Stone's. Having thus received no rent from Stone, Holland considered the contract void, and the share forfeit. He believes that he had good reason to forfeit the share, as the sum Stone had claimed as gatherer far exceeded the profits of an eighteenth share. Holland notes, furthermore, that he offered to restore the share on condition that Stone repay the sums he had wrongly claimed. At this point, however, Woodford brought his first suit against Holland, whereupon Holland reiterated his offer to restore the share upon return of the wrongfully gotten money. When the case finally went to arbitrament, Holland was awarded twenty marks as restitution for the sums Stone had wrongfully collected. Woodford, however, refused to pay the sum, and before Holland had a chance to take legal action against him, initiated another suit in the Court of Requests, which Holland countered with a writ of prohibition from the King's Bench. Woodford then tendered Holland an indenture drawn up according to Stone's former deed in the playhouse, which Holland put off sealing, hoping instead that the matter might be settled in arbitrament. The two parties subsequently bound themselves for £20 to defer to the judgment of the arbiter. The arbiter decided as follows: 1. Holland was to make a new grant to Woodford for an eighteenth share in the playhouse; 2. Holland should enjoy the gatherer's place; 3. Holland should not be responsible for repaying any of the money collected on the share since its forfeiture; 4. Woodford should pay Holland £2 in arrears rent; 5. all suits between the two parties should come to an end. Following the judgement, Holland assumed that all would be well; Woodford, however, refused shortly thereafter to pay his quarterly rent. At this point, Holland felt it necessary to put into action the writ of prohibition he had procured from the King's Bench; Woodford, predictably, fought against it. When Woodford's attempts here proved futile, he brought another suit against Holland in the Court of Requests, this time in Philip Stone's name. Holland then met with Stone, who willingly signed a document in which released his claim on the property in perpetuity. He denies having paid Stone for the document. Woodford then sued Holland in the Court of King's Bench, again in Stone's name, on a different matter. The expense of these several lawsuits has forced Holland to borrow substantially, and to sell his interest in the Red Bull property.
| Name | Event Role(s) | Document Role(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Goldsmith, Clement | arbitrator | |
| Dyot, Anthony | arbitrator | |
| Wormleighton, Ralph | arbitrator | |
| Holland, Aaron | defendant | playhouse builder, playhouse owner |
| Woodford, Thomas | plaintiff | playhouse sharer |
| Swinnerton, Thomas | player | playhouse sharer |
| Stone, Philip | playhouse sharer |