90 CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AT BLACKFRIARS 
It is sure that the Assignment was Oct. 21, 
made to Hawkins alone. Painton gives this date,» and Evans 
declares the conveyance, drawn solely to indemnify Hawkins, 
his surety on the 400/. bond to Burbage, was made “long tyme 
before any communication had between this deft and Alexander 
Hawkins on the one ae and the compl‘, Rastall, and Kendall 
on the other partie.’”’? 
This puts the Articles later than the Assignment. 
self dates them April 20, 1602.° 
of “certayn articles” was April 20, 1602.4 But Painton mentions 
only one item contained, the acknowledgment of the absolute as- 
signment to Hawkins, for that alone concerns him. Evans, how- 
ever, says these Articles contained not only this item,® but were 
“the said Articles of Agreement® ... 
bill.’’* 
Articles up to the termination of the company in 1608.8 
Evans him- 
In the same document, he claims the operation of these 
His 
statements here are simply an expanded (partly verbatim) copy 
from his Replication in a suit® two months earlier, in which both 
he?® and Kirkham" agree the Articles in question (the date of 
continued as formerly, during the 
remaining year of Elizabeth after 
the gist of much else agreed to. 
Kirkham’s Bill in this suit was 
mencioned in the said 
the 1602 contract with Evans, to 
furnish the necessary supplies of 
apparel, &c.,—even to superabun- 
dance (infra, ‘99°, 106*),—but at the 
Queen’s expense. He seems to be 
claiming now (1612) personally 
what he had expended officially. 
Of course by the terms of the 
lease (G.-F., 212 and 241) Evans 
was bound to keep the building in 
repair. Hence, when he took in 
Kirkham et al., who were to share 
expenses and profits half-and-half 
with him, he exacted their share in 
this also. (Jbid. Also infra, 927.) 
Although Burbage and Hemings 
show (u. s., G.-F., 234-39) this pro- 
vision in their contract was not the 
basis of the 400/. expenditure, it 
seems to be the only basis Kirk- 
ham could show the Court in the 
Articles for his fictitious claim. 
The Articles are not known to ex- 
ist. But doubtless the coincident 
Obligation or 200/. bond (G.-F,, 
211-12; 240-41; [and infra, 927]) 
give this provision fully, as well as 
“absolutely dismissed” by the Court 
(G.-F., 251).—Which is a final 
commentary on the merits of his 
claim. 
‘Kirkham vs. Pajatou, Painton’s 
Answer, G.-F., 230. 
2Tdem, Evans’s Answer, G.-F., 
244, 
STdem, 245. 
‘Idem, Painton’s Answer, G.-F., 
231. 
5Tdem, Evans’s Answer, G.-F., 
243a. 
“Idem, 245c. 
"IT, e., Bill of Complaint in Kirk- 
ham ws. Painton, to which he is an- 
swering. 
SKirkham vs. Painton, Evans’s 
Answer, G.-F., 245-46. 
®°Evans vs. Kirkham (May 5, 
1612), Replication, G.-F., 221-22. 
0 Idem, Evans’s Bill of Com- 
plaint, G.-F., 211; 
G.-F., 221. 
“Idem, Kirkham’s Answer, G.- 
F., 217. 
and Replication, 
204 
1601, and was — 
Painton also declares the date a 
