The court case continues from March 4, 1685/6 (1686)... "but"...
"...but, the sd John Jeffries (JE-1) for want of Effects refusing to pass the sd Bills & Protest being had thereon, the Plantff. prayed this Court order with costs for the sd Sixteen pounds Sterling due upon aforesd. Bills of Exchange against the sd. Wm. Colston (COLS-1) as Assignee upon wch a serious debate being heard, the Court were of opinion & do accordingly give judgment that the sd Wm Coston (COLS-1) as assignee was not liable to the payment of the sd Bills of Exchange but that the same were recoverable & to be paid unto the sd. Wm Wraxlall (WR-1) by the sd Cadwallader Jones (JO-1) as Drawer; The Assignment being had & taken by this Court to be only a meanes to transfer the right of (blot)perties of the Deft. in the sd Bills unto the sd Wm. Wraxall (WR-1) & that the same was no further binding."
It would seem that old Cadwallader Jones (JO-1) had stepped over the line with John Jeffries (JE-1). They had a long history of contact [see CJ (#14) "Mannor of Ley", Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2012 ] Here, after "a serious debate being heard", Cadwallader was judged to be responsible for payment of the sixteen pounds Sterling to William Wraxall (WR-1).
A lot of genealogist state that our Cadwallader Jones (JO-1) went "bankrupt". Legally at this point in British history bankruptcy did not exist as an option. You were known as a "debtor" and if cause was placed in court, you were put in "debtor's prison". Perhaps this was the "straw" that broke the Camels back.
p.s. There were many additional factors involved in the life of our Cadwallader at this point in time. For the genealogist it is important to place in historical context the additional events of 1686. "But"...in the documents of time...this seems to be one of these factors leading to the next stage in the life of our Cadwallader Jones (JO-1).