DATING EVENTS—NEW MANAGEMENT 89 
all the date above stated. Except for this reason and certain 
items of essential reference, the rest of this chapter might better 
be omitted. 
Kirkham puts the date of the Assignment? and Articles to- 
gether “in or about” 43 Elizabeth,? declaring that the assignment 
of one-half of the lease was made by Evans to Hawkins in trust 
for the new partners, Kirkham, Rastell, and Kendall, in consid- 
eration that they “would disburse about the premises the summe 
of ffouer hundred pounds,’’*—all as a part of the Agreement.* 
But Kirkham’s dating throws both Assignment and Articles to- 
gether,—which proves erroneous. The statement, “in or about” 
43 Elizabeth, is general enough to fit the known dates of late 
1601, or early 1602 (44 Eliz.). His dating is further vitiated by 
proof® that he fabricates both the transfer of the lease® and the 
oo /, expenditure’ stated in connection with it. 
4 p 
*Supra, 85. 
*Kirkham vs. Painton, Bill of 
Complaint, G.-F., 224. 
ee bid. 
“The bond including the terms 
of these Articles proves his conten- 
tion false. See infra, 92°. 
°Kirkham vs. Painton, The Joint 
and Several Answers of Heminges 
and Burbage, G.-F., 234-39. Sup- 
ported by Painton’s Answer, G.-F., 
230-32; Evans’s Answer, G.-F., 243; 
_and Decision of the Court, G-F., 
250. 
*If the lease had been assigned 
in trust as claimed, it would have 
required Burbage’s knowledge and 
consent in order to be legal. But 
Burbage knew of no such transfer. 
(See reference, wu. s., note °). The 
decision of the court (wu. s. note °) 
settles it that there was no such 
assignment, by declaring, “yet neu- 
ertheles the said conveyance was 
mever perfected and sealled.” The 
assignment of lease and all prop- 
erty and goods by Evans was, as 
we have seen (supra, 85), solely to 
Hawkins. 
*Since the building itself was but 
recently refitted, of course no such 
expenditure “about the premisses” 
was required. [Recently I have 
found documents giving the full ex- 
tent of repairs in detail with their 
cost as 11/, 2d, paid 8 Dec. 1603, 
by Henry Evans alone. See docu- 
ments in vol. III of complete work.] 
Burbage and Hemings show (uu. s., 
89°; G.-F., 236) that no such sum 
as Kirkham claims was thus ex- 
pended. They say that if any sum 
was spent, it was, as they think, 
for “playinge apparell & other im- 
plements & properties touchinge & 
concerninge the furnishinge & set- 
tinge forth of Players & Plays,” and 
seem by their “if” to cast doubt 
upon outlay even for these. But 
as shown in later chapters: (vol. I. 
of complete work), no.sum was 
spent for apparel, &c., by the com- 
pany .until the reign of James I. 
Kirkham is never reliable. His 
present claim (July 1, 1612) is 400 /. 
(G.-F., 224), but in a suit two 
months earlier (May 5, 1612) it is, 
for the same expenditure, “three 
hundred pounds at the leaste” (G- 
ye 217a). His statements concern- 
ing “disbursements,” taken with the 
rest of the history. make one feel 
there is something in what he says, 
though not as he would have the 
Court believe. In his official ca- 
pacity as Yeoman of the Revels, he 
203 
