C33/197

[1651]

This matter upon the plea put in by the defendants to the plaintiffs bill being this past day heard and debated before the right honourable the Lord Commissioner for the Great Seal of England in the presence of the counsel learned on besides. The plaintiff being to discover what leases the defendants claim to have in certain lands late of the Earl of DIRLETON and at what rents the plaintiffs entitling themselves to these lands as heir to the said Earl to which the defendants have put in a plea as to those lands in their possession setting forth the said Earl in his life time did by deed enrolled did convey the said lands in their possession to one PRESTWOOD and others and their heirs who have conveyed the same to the Countess of DIRLETON and hereby the pretended descent to the plaintiff the lady Diana is taken away and as to any other lands they declaim. Their Lordships there upon hold the said plea to be good and do order that the same shall stand.

23^rd Jan

[?] as this Court was this past day informed by Mr [JOHNSON?] being of [?] counsel that the plaintiffs Bill being to discover what leases the defendants had from James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON  of Scotland of diverse lands in Guildford and what rent they pay that […] the Lady Diana being heir of the said Earl DIRLETON to [?] Bill the defendants put in a plea and upon the hearing thereof was [?] good and the plaintiffs have replied thereto yet notwithstanding the defendants have taken out for […] which the plea being [?] is contrary to the rules of this Court and therefore [?] the said [?] and all [? Taken out for the same might be discharged which is ordered accordingly.

Upon consideration this day [past?] by the [?] [?] behalf of the plaintiffs humbly petitions for the reasons therein contained. It is ordered that the name William SMITH and others might be inserted .

[next page]

Into the Bill of Complaint together […] so charged them as defendants as by the petition is desired.

24^th Jan?

Lord CRANBOURNE [and others?]

10^th day after Hilary and the morrow after the [?] [?] [?] [?] are two days given to the defendants to produce [?]

Monday 2^nd? May

Upon opening of the matter this past day [?] the [?] the Lord Commissioner for the Great Seal of England by Mr Attorney General and Mr [?] being of the plaintiffs’ counsel in the presence of Mr [sel?]  WIDDINGTON being of the defendants Counsel. It was [prayed] that by [?] in the cause granted on the plaintiffs’ behalf against the defendants may be defended by the defendants’ lessees and all [?] under them to stay these proceeding at law as well as the defendants which is ordered accordingly unless cause be showed to the contrary the first day of [the?] next term.

May

Lord CRANBOURNE and others

May 1652

Three weeks after Easter is a [?] day given to the defendants to produce [witnesses?]

21^st May

21^st of May

Upon opening of the matter this past day unto this Court by Mr WIDDINGTON being of the defendants counsel in the presence of Mr Attorney General of the plaintiffs’ counsel and producing of an order of the [3rd?] of May instant whereby the defendants proceeding at law against the plaintiff were stayed. It was alleged that the plaintiffs long declared the cause and thereby [hinder?] the defendants from receiving the rents of the leasehold lands in question who have a verdict and judgement at law.  And therefore it was prayed the as the [estimation?] granted in these causes may be dissolved but for a [cause?] as the plaintiffs counsel   [?] [?] that the cause could be heard the next [term?]. It is order that plts do pass in the said causes 4 days before the beginning of next term and the said be set down to be heard the same term accordingly and in the mean time [?] proceedings at law are stayed.

10^th May

3 weeks and a mouth after two days given to the plt to produce witnesses.

10^th May

Lord CRANBOURNE and others v Henry Frederick THIME and [?]

The morrow after [?] is a peremptory day [?] to the plaintiff to produce witnesses.