National Archives C31/38 (1664)
Transcript of one item of many which related to BATEMAN in Gloucestershire.
Chancery Case related to National Archives file C 9/36/49 Sandford v Bateman. Plaintiffs: Robert Sandford. Defendants: Richard Bateman and Mary Bateman his wife. Subject: property in Stonehouse, Gloucestershire. Document type: bill, plea and demurrer Date: 1663
C31/38
777 Inter Robert SANDFORD and Richard BATEMAN and Mary his wife Andrew [?]
William HALL makes oath that he this deponent being employed by the defendants [?] Mary BATEMAN to attend the examination of a Commission for examination of witnesses in this cause which was appointed to be executed at Leonard Stanley in the county of Gloucester upon the seventh day of this instant April he this deponent did accordingly attend at the time and place aforesaid. And this deponent was then and there present in company with the plaintiff’s Commissioner and one Joseph DANGERFIELD who (as this deponent was informed both the inn keeper where the said commission was to be executed and also by others) had there bespoken entertainment for the plaintiff’s Commissioner and others and further deponeth that the said Plaintiff’s Commission and one the defendants Commissioners were met at the same house and before the said bond was opened he this deponent did serve Joseph DANGERFIELD with a [subpoena?] under seal of this court by delivering a label thereof unto the said Joseph DANGERFIELD and knowing him the [served] it self under seal of this Court by which the said Joseph DANGERFIELD was commanded to appear before Anthony ARNOLD Gentleman and other others Commissioners to certify for the defendants in this cause and at the same him he this deponent did deliver and give unto the said Joseph DANGERFIELD one shilling in money and require him to be examined for the said defendants and after such service he the said DANGERFIELD did continue in the said house and dine with the Commissioners and other witnesses and persons then and there present and afterwards. And before he was examined did depart the said house and this deponent did make diligent enquiry both of the said DANGERFIELD’s brother and of the Innkeeper and others for him the said Joseph and yet he did not appear nor attend to be examined at the Commissioners during such time as the said Commissioner in execution nor whilst the said defendants commissioner stayed there after the said commission was executed returned and sealed up. And this deponent assuredly believes that the said Joseph DANGERFIELD is a material witness for the said defendants for that this deponent is informed that the said DANGERFIELD and his father and other have for many years been tenants to the Mill and lands in question. And further deposeth that neither he this deponent nor the said defendants or either of them to this deponent’s knowledge have seen read or been informed anything of the substance of contents of any of the depositions taken on this cause and that he this deponent upon this present 19th day of April delivered a note in writing to Mr JONES the plaintiff’s clerk in court the effect whereof was that the defendants by their counsel did intend to move at the next general seal or as soon after as counsel [?] heard to have this cause struck out of the [?] and that the same may not be heard the next term. 19th day of April 1664.
William HALL
AALT website also lists a C78 entry (see index http://www.uh.edu/waalt/index.php/C78_1665)
Original C78 document is at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/C78/C78no663/IMG_0240.htm
Case is described in AALT index as follows
“Edward SANDFORD (complainant’s grandfather) settled by will lands in Gloucs., on his wife for life, then to his eldest son. She surrendered the tenements to her son, complainant’s father, who then mortgaged the lands to the defendant. Before the repayment of £355 the father died, at which point the complainant was only 8 years old and abroad, so that he was prevented from redeeming the lands. Edward SANDFORD (complainant’s grandfather) settled by will lands in Gloucs., on his wife for life, then to his eldest son. She surrendered the tenements to her son, complainant’s father, who then mortgaged the lands to the defendant. Before the repayment of £355 the father died, at which point the complainant was only 8 years old and abroad, so that he was prevented from redeeming the lands.”
[end]