C11/2441/26 Pyke v Hinde.

Posted on April 16, 2022 by batemanm

National Archives.

Document type: Bill and two answers.

Plaintiffs: Mary Pyke (widow of John Pyke, esq deceased late of Woodenstone, Tipperara, Ireland, and one of the daughters of Richard Hinde, brewer deceased late of Hatton Garden and Mary Hinde his wife).

Defendants: Mary Hinde, widow, Robert Hinde, John Goulde, esq, Thomas Pyke, John Pyke and Hinde Pyke, infants (by Peter Hinde senior, their uncle).

Date of bill (or first document): 1734.

Bill of Complaint: (transcribed by Marcus Bateman and John Paul Bradford)

Humbly complaining showeth unto your Lordships your Oratrix Mary PYKE widow and relict of John PYKE late of Woodenstone in the County of Tipperara in the Kingdom of Ireland Esquire deceased and one of daughters of Richard HINDE late of Hatton Garden, Brewer //

Deceased and of Mary his wife how his widow and relict. That your Oratrix before and at the time of her marriage with the said John PYKE was under the Will of her said late father Richard HINDE and one of his residuary legatees [inserted: therein] named of his personal estate entitled to a present or Iniderate? ffortune of //

The value of three thousand pounds or thereabouts. And that under the said Will and the Settlement made on the marriage of your Oratrix’s said ffather and mother Richard HINDE and Mary his wife your Oratrix was or will be entitled to the sum of one thousand pounds //

Or thereabouts on the death of your Oratrixs said Mother Mary HINDE. And your Oratrix further showeth that provisions to the marriage between the said John PYKE deceased and your Oratrix which was solemnized in the minority of your Oratrix the said John PYKE in //

consideration of such intended marriage but without the priority and concurrence of the trustees and executors of this Will of the Richard HINDE her father herein after named did enter into and execute certain articles bearing date on or about the eleventh day of July One thousand Seven Hundred //

And twenty three made or mentioned to be made between the said John PYKE since deceased of the first part your Oratrix (then Mary HINDE spinster) of the second part Peter HINDE junior of [long blank space] of the third //

part whereby in consideration of the said intended marriage and of the marriage portion which the said John PYKE was to receive with your Oratrix the said John PYKE did covenant and agree to and with the said Peter HINDE that he the said //

John PYKE would in twelve months after the marriage well and sufficiently convey assure settle and limit Lands in the Kingdom of Ireland of the clear yearly value of four hundred pounds sterling as money was valued in that kingdom in such [fold]ort and //

manner that immediately from and after the decease of your Oratrix’s said husband the same might be held and enjoyed by your Oratrix for and during her natural life as her jointure and in bar of her dower or thirds at Common Law and so as a term //

of two hundred years of and in part of the same premises of the clear yearly value of three hundred pounds according to the valuation of money in Ireland might be limited from and after decease of the Survivor of them to certain to be nominated for that p [fold] ed In //

Trust by sale or mortgage of the said term and of the lands to be comprised thereinto raise the Sum of fFour Thousand pounds for this portion of such Daughters and Younger Sons of Your Oratrix and the said John Pyke as Should be living and unprofessed at the deceased of the said//

John PYKE to be equally divided amongst them and to be paid them at their respective ages of twenty one years or days of marriage which should first happen And in such manner as that the Same Laws Subject to such Terme and Trust from and after the Decease of the said//

John PYKE and your Oratrix and the Survivor of them should successively go to and be enjoyed by the ffirst Second Third ffourth and every other Son and Sons of the said then intended Marriage and the Severall and respective heirs Male of his and their Body and Bodys//

To be begotten in remainder one after another according to their priority of birth and Twenty of Ages and for Default of such Issue then to all and every the Daughter and Daughters of this Marriage as Tenants in Common and the heirs of the Body of all and every//

Such daughter and daughters lawfully issuing. And it was thereby further Agreed that the portion or ffortune of Your Oratrix should remain and Continue in the hands of her Trustee or Trustees untill the Conveyance or Settlement thereby Intended should be//

Executed. But nevertheless that for enabling the said John PYKE to execute and Compleat the said Conveyance Assurance and Settlement the portion or ffortune of Your Oratrix or a Competent part thereof Should be Applyed towards the Discharge the the //

Incumbrances affecting the premises. And that the over plus thereof if any should after the making of the said Indented Settlement and Conveyance be paid to the said John Pyke his Executors Administrators or Assigns And your Oratrix further showeth//

Unto your Lordships that the said John PYKE on the same day he executed the said Articles did likewise duly enter into and Execute a Bond or Obligation to the said Peter Hinde of the penalty of Eight Thousand Pounds Conditioned for his the said John Pykes due performance of the//

Covenants and agreements contained in the said articles as in and by the said Rented Articles and Bond when the same shall be respectively produced to this honourable Court will and may more fully and at large Appear and Your Oratrix further Showeth That Some//

Short time after the said articles the said Marriage between the said John Pyke and your Oratrix took effect but the said John Pyke before or after his said Marriage neither did nor could make out a Title to the Lands in Ireland of the Clear Yearly Value of//

Four hundred pounds according to his said agreement But on the contrary it appeared after the said Marriage that the said John Pykes Estate [inserted: in Ireland] was so over loaded and Incumbered with Mortgages Judgements and Incumbrances that the ffortune of Your Oratrix was not//

Near sufficient to pay of the Mortgages and Incumbrances prior to the said Articles wherefore the Executors and Trustees of Your Oratrix said Ffather who were neither party to nor Acquainted with the said Articles did not think it Adviseable to pay or Apply the\\

Fortune of your Oratrix or any part thereof in Discharge of such Incumbrances or any them And Your Oratrix likewise Charges that the said John Pyke after his said Marriage instead of Using his Endeavour to Remove and Clear his Estate from any of the [fold]//

Incumbrances wherewith the same was charged before such his marriage was so unhappy as to Incumber the same further or at least other Judgements and Incumbrances to this Account of Several Thousand pounds were Reserved or Sett up against the said John Pyke after such his Marriage//

Whereby his Estate and Circumstances became more entangled and himself rendred less able to perform the said Articles and Your Oratrix further Charges that the said John Pyke lived with Your Oratrix from the time of their said Marriage till about the Month of June One Thousand//

Seven hundred and twenty eight but before that time the said John Pyke was forced by reason of his many and lidary? debts for a long time to Conseal himself from this Creditors for fear of Imprisonment and although finding it Impossible to Extricate himself from the [fold] ltys //

He lay under and having then two Children vizt Thomas Pyke his Eldest Son and John Pyke hereafter named and your Oratrix being then Eusiout? with another son afterwards named Hinde Pyke hereafter named and Your Oratrixes said husband being Unable to maintain hirself//

Your Oratrix his wife and children any longer proposed to Retire from your Oratrix and his ffamily and to live Separately and privately for some yeares with an Intention if possible to Retreive his Circumstances and be in a Condition to make the Settlement he had Agreed to by the said Articles and to the End th [fold] your//

Oratrix and her children by him might in the meantime during his separation and his Retirement be Maintained and Supported As the said John Pyke Consented that the Interest and produce of Your Oratrix fFortune Should be Assigned So as Your Oratrix might have and Receive the same during//

such their separation for the Maintenances of herself and Children And accordingly the said John Pyke and your Oratrix duly made and Executed a certain Indentures Tripartite bearing date on or about this Twenty Ninth day of June One Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Eight//

made between the said John Pyke of the ffirst part, your Oratrix of the second part and Henry Jacomb of Symmonds Inn in Chancery Lane London Gentleman of the third part whereby Reciting that the said Richard Hinde your Oratrixes ffather had by his last Will [fold] and//

left to his Daughter your Oratrix a fFortune in money and Stocks to the Amount of about Three Thousand ffive Hundred pounds besides One Thousand pounds more on the death of Your Oratrixes said Mother And that the said John Pyke and Your Oratrix had Received [fold] the//

Interest Dividends and profitts of her said fFortune to Widdo? muuidr? these last And that they had then Two Children living the [inserted: afore] said Thomas Pyke and John Pyke And that Your Oratrix was then big with Child (as in fact she was) with the said Hinde Pyke and usar? [inserted: the kind of] leaed? she//

and further Reciting the Effect of the aforesaid Articles on the Marriage of the said John Pyke and Your Oratrix And that the said John Pykes Estate in Ireland was so Incumbred that he had not been nor was able with Your Oratrixes ffortune or otherwise to discharge he same [fold]//

such Settlement as was Agreed by the said Articles And that the said John Pyke could not Cohabit with his said wife but was under a necessity of Living from her and that it was Agreed that till the said John Pyke should be able to make such Settlement on Your Oratrix and C[fold]//

with her that she Should receive the Interest and produce of her fFortune for the Maintenance of herself and Children ffor these Considerations and purposes And in Consideration of ffive Shillings therein mentioned to be paid by the said Henry Jacomb The said John Pyke did th [fold]//

with the Consent of your Oratrix Assign and Transferr unto the said Henry Jacomb All the Interest Dividends and proceed which had or Should any time after Midsummer then last be made Arrear? or because due of or for the ffortune of your Oratrix during Your Oratrixes life in Case the Agreement//

the said Indenture should not Sooner determine and all the Estate Right Citte Interest Claime Demand of him the said John Pyke to hold preserve and take the same unto the said Henry Jacomb upon the Trust and purposes therein and hereinafter mentioned in which said Indentures are//

Contained proper power of Attorney and Clauses to Receive and Give Receipts and Discharges for such Interest and Dividends and Proper Covenants from the said John Pyke not to Revoke any of the powers or Authoritys thereby given during the Continuance of the said Indenture And for further Assurance [fold]//

thereby Declared and Agreed by and between the partys to the said Indenture That the said Assignment thereby made to the said Henry Jacomb was upon Trust and to the Intent That the said Henry Jacomb should pay all such Interest Dividends and Profitts after a Deduction of thereas onable? [cut off]//

and Charges he should Sustain by indauds? of the said Trust to the proper hands of your Oratrix for the necessary and personall Subsistance Support and Maintenance of Your Oratrix and her Children during the Life or your Oratrix notwithstanding her Coverture in Case the said Ind [cut off]//

should so long Continue and not be Determined and that the Receipt of Your Oratrix alone without her husband should be good and sufficient Discharge to the said Henry Jacomb and to all other persons from whom She Should Receive the same notwithstanding her Coverturen Lu? wh [cut off]//

Indenture is Contained a provisoe that when and so soon as the said John Pyke should have paid and Satisfied all his Debts and Settled ffreehold Lands and ffour Hundred pounds per Annum upon your Oratrix and his Children of a good Title According to the said Marriage Articles in [cut off]//

manner as the Executors and Trustees of the said Richard Hinds deceased or their Counsel should Advise and return to and Cohabit with Your Oratix the said Indenture and every thing therein Contained Should Cease Determine and be Void us in and by the said Recited Inden [cut off]//

relation being thereunto had will and may more fully and at large Appear and Your Oratrix further Sheweth unto Your Lordship That after the Execution of the said Indenture the said John Pyke Seperated and Retired from your Oratrix and his ffamily and Conseale [cut off]//

for some time at Severall places and then went over into fFlanders where he died in or about the Month of May One Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Nine without having ever made and by Reason of such his aforesaid Incumbrances not being in [cut off]//

to make the Settlement he had Agreed to in and by the said Recited Articles And your Oratrix likewise Sheweth unto your Lordship That some time before the death of the said John Pyke and Shortly after he had so Executed the said Deed of Assignment Yo [cut off]//

was Delivered of the said Hinde Pyke of whom She was with Child at the time the said Deed was Executed and that the said John Pyke left at his death by Your Oratrix the aforesaid Thomas Pyke his Eldest Son and Heir and the said John and Hine Pyke [fold]//

Children and Your Oratrix further showeth your Lordship That the said John Pyke [inserted: before] his death made some will whereby he Devised all his Estate in the Kingdom of Ireland no otherwise Settled by an Act of Parliament that lately passed there to your Oratrix and On [fold]//

do grver? for the Terme of Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Yeares for the payment of this Debts and Legaces or to some such Effect but made no Executor of his said Will nor hath any person taking upon him the Execution of the said will and administration of his [cut off]//

will as your Oratrix believes by reason of the Debts and Incumbrances upon and the Confusion wherein he left his Estate and Affaires and Your Oratrix further Sheweth That the said Executors and Trustees of[inserted: His Will of] the said Richard Hinde or some or one of them have [fold]//

paid or Accounted for the Interest of Your Oratrixex said fFortune to her for the Maintenance of herself and Children And that there were Severall Accounts made up Settled and Allowed of by the said John Pyke and your Oratrix or one of them touching this princi [fold] //

… it will appear that this Principall fFortune of your Oratrix by the Management and Improvement of [fold] //

… South Sea Annunity Three Hundred and five pounds Seventeen Shilings and Three Capitall New South Sea Annuitys On Hun [cut off]

… of which the present or Imediate Principall fortune of Your Oratrix [inserted: and is the produce of your Oratrixes Share of the Surplus and Residue of the said late father’s person [cut off]] now wu [cut off]

… the further Principall Sume of One Thousand pounds part of a pr [cut off]

… such of her brothers and sisters as are [cut off]

… in Ireland [cut off]

Unfortunately the end was not reproduced in the digital image I received from Marcus Bateman.

Answer 1 (transcribed by John Paul Bradford)

11th Oct.

Hamilton by E. Patteson

The Joint and Severall Answer of Mary Hinde Widow Robert Hinde and John Goulde Esquire Three of the Defendants to the Bill of Complaint of Mary Pyke Widow

[on upper left hand corner:]

..e by the said Mary Hinde the

… August 1734 at the Publick Office J. Bennet

… By the Sd. John Gould and Robert Hinde

Public Office this 29th of August 1734

before me J Lightboun

Complainant

These Defendants Saving and Reserving to themselves all advantages and benefit of Exception to the Incertainties and Insufficiences in the Complainants said Bill of Complaint contained for Answer thereunto or unto so much thereof as then Defendants are advised

is materiall for them to make Answer unto They jointly and Severally answer as follows And first this Defendant Mary Hinde for herself saith That before the Marriage with Richard Hinde in the Complainants Bill named this Defendants late Husband deceased

certain Articles of Agreement [inserted: bearing date or or about the Fifteenth day of January One thousand Six hundred and Ninety Six] were entred into between the said Richard Hinde of the one part and Peter Gelsthorpe this Defendants late father and this defendant by her then name Mary Gelsthorpe whereby in consideration of the Marriage

then intended between this Defendant and the said Richard Hinde and of Two thousand five hundred pounds paid by the said Peter Gelsthorpe to the said Richard as this Defendants portion. He the said Richard Hinde Covenanted and Agreed within Two y [fold] to lay out

the Sum of Four thousand pounds in the purchase of Mannors Messuages Lands or Hereditaments in Fee Simple and to Settle and assure the same To the use of himself for Life and then to the use of this Defendant for her Life for her jointure with Remainder to the [fold] of such

Child or Children of the said Richard Hinde by this Defendant as the said Richard Hinde by any Deed or writing or by his last Will in Writing Executed in the presence of Three or more Witnesses should direct limitt or Appoint in such parts and Shares and for such b [fold] as the said

Richard Hinde should by such Deed or Will Limitt or Appoint And for Want thereof to the Uisrsfall? and every the child and children of the said Richard Hinde by this Defendant and the Heirs of their respective Body and Bodys as Tenant in Common and not a [fold] Tenants…

and for want of such Issue to the use of the said Richard Hinde in Fee a rin end? by the said Articles when the same shall be produced to this Honorable Court relation being thereunto had will and may more fully and at large appear And this Defendant Mary Hinde saith [fold] some

short time after the Execution of the said Articles the said Marriage between this Defendant and the said Richard Hinde took Effect And that at the time the said Robert Hinde made his last Will and Testament hereafter mentioned the said Richard Hinde had five Children

by this Defendant then and now living as she believes That is to say Peter Hinde John Hinde Judith Hinde (now the wife of Lieutenant Colonel Robinson Sowle) Frances (now the Wife of Henry Jacomb) and the Complainant Mary Pyke And all these Defendants say they [fold] ly

believe the said Richard Hinde deceased having such five children by the said Mary Hine one of these Defendants duly made and Executed his last Will and Testament bearing date on or about the third day of March One thousand Seven hundred and Three in the presence of Three Witnesses [fold] after

reciting the Effect of the said Articles he did will and Appoint his Executors in performance of his Covenant and Agreement in the said Articles to lay out the said Four thousand pounds in such purchases as the said Articles direct and to Convey and Settle the same to the use [inserted: of this Defendant Mary Hinde for her Life and after her decease to Her [fold]] of all his Children

at the time of making his said Will on her body lawfully begotten And the Heirs of their Bodies issuing as Tenants in Common and not as Joint Tenants with Remainder to his own Right Heirs as Councel should advise And as might Answer the Design of the said Articles and by [fold]

gave the sum of One thousand pounds more to be laid out by his Executors together with the said Four thousand pounds in such purchase as aforesaid And that the same should be settled to the same Uses as the Estate so to be purchased with the said Four thousand pounds And in [fold]

till such purchase to be had he willed and appointed that the said Four thousand pounds and One thousand pounds should be put [inserted: out] at Interest and that the Interest should go and be applied in such manner as the Rents and proffits of the Lands to be purchased would go in case a pas…

and after bequeathing some specifick Legacies Gave all the Rest and Residue of his Estate Reall and Personall whatsoever and where soever unto all his Children equally share and share alike And to the survivors or Survivor of them his her or their heirs Executors or Administrators of his

Will made and ordained these Defendants Executors as in and by the said Will [inserted: or the probate… ready to be produced to this honorable court] relation being thereunto had will and may more fully and at large appear And this Defendant Mary Hinde with and there Defendants Robert Hinde and John Gould Believe that the said Richard Hinde had

other Childe by the said Defendant Mary named Elizabeth Hinde born after the making of the said Will and before the said Richard Hinde died but that the said Richard Hinde died without making any alteration in his said Will l…ing the said five Children who were [fold] at His t…

making such his will And He said Elizabeth born afterwards All of them now living [inserted: as those Defendants believe] whereby as these Defendants believe and are advised the said ffive Children living at the time of making such Will of whom the said Complainant is One will by Virtue of the said Articles and Will

Intitled after the death of this Defendant Mary to the said Five Thousand Pounds That is to say each of them to the Sume of One Thousand pounds a peice And that by Virtue of the Devise in the said Will of the Residue of his Personall Estate All the said Six Children became In [fold] to such

Residuuin? of his Personall Estate Equally Share and Share alike And all then Defendants say That after the death of the said Richard Hinde they joined in the probate of the said Will in the prerogative Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury but this Defendant Robert

Hinde cheifly possessed and managed the Estate of the said Richard Hinde and the Receits and payments relating thereto And this Defendant Robert Hinde and the Receits and payments relating thereto And this Defendant Robert Hinde Saith that Peter John Judith Frances and Elizabeth five of the Children of the said Richard Hinde deceased having

some time since attained their severall ages of Twenty one years he this Defendant did Settle and adjust his Accounts with each of them of their severall Shares of the Personall Estate of their said deceased father and paid or assigned to them their several Shares a proportion

thereof And thereupon the said Peter John Judith Frances and Elizabeth did Give and Execute Releans? to this Defendant and the said other Defendants Mary Hinde ad John Goulde of such their Shares of the Surplus of their said Fathers personall Estate as there

Defendants say the during the Minority of the said Complainant Mary Pyke there was a Treaty of Marriage proposed and Carried on between her and John Pyke Esquire afterwards her husband and now deceased but on Enquiry concerning his Estate it appeared that the same

was greatly incumbred and that he could not make a [inserted: clear] Title thereto or Settlement suitable to her Fortune in the Opinion of the Counsel and Agents employed there in for which Reasons these Defendants each speaking for themselves Refused to give their Consent to the Marriage

untill the said John Pyke could have cleared the Objections made to his Estate and Circumstances But then Defendants Say they Believe it to be true that the said John Pyke did some time in or about the Month of July one thousand Seven hundred and Twenty three marry the said

Complanant in her Minority without the Consent of these Defendants or either of them each speaking for themselves And then Defendants Robert Hinde and John Gould say they have heard that before such the Marriage of the said John Pyke with the said Complainant they did

between themselves and without the Concurrence of these Defendants Enter into and Execute certain Articles and Writings for making a jointure for the said Complainant in Case she survived the said John Pyke and a provision for their Issue But these Defendant John Gould

and Robert Hinde not being parties privy or Consenting to such Articles crave leave to Referr themselves there to when the same shall be produced to this honorable Court And this Defendant Mary Hinde for herself says That She was not privy or consenting to the said Marriage

Articles before the said Marriage yet after the said Marriage she was a Subscribing Witness to the Execution of them by her this Defendants Son Peter Hinde the younger One of the parties thereto who executed the same some have after the said Marriage but how long after this

Defendant does not exactly remember And all these Defendants say they have good reason to believe it is true as the Complainant has charged by her Bill That the said John Pyke after his said Marriage could not make out a Title to Land in Ireland of the Value of Four

hundred pounds a year And that this Estate in Ireland was loaded and Incumbered with Mortgages Judgments and Incumbrances prior to the Articles by him Entred into greatly beyond the value of his said Wifes fortune And these Defendants John Gould and Robert

Hinde say they did as they were advised Refuse to pay or Apply any part of the Complainants Fortune to Discharge any of such Incumbrances And all these Defendants Say they believe it to be true that the said John Pyke after his said Marriage with the said

Complainant was so unfortunate as to Incumber and Entangle himself and his Estate with more Debts and Incumbrances than the same were loaded with before his Marriage or at least that other Judgements and Incumbrances for severall very considerable Sums

were Recovered or Set up against him after such his Marriage And all these Defendants say they believe it to be true that the said John Pyke lived with the said Complainant his wife from the time of his Marriage till about the Month of June One thousand Seven hundred

and Twenty Eight but these Defendants have heard and believe that the said John Pyke for a considerable part of that time concealed himself from his Creditors and about the said Month of June One thousand Seven hundred and Twenty Eighth Retired from his wife and

Family but what Articles or Agreements were entered into between him and the said Complainant his wife on that occasion these Defendants do not know nor can set forth not being partys or prioys thereto other than by hearsay And therefore these Defendants b…. leave

to Referr themselves to such Articles or Agreements when the same shall be produced to this honourable Court And all these Defendants say they have heard and beleive that the said John Pyke sometime after he had retired from his said Wife and Family went over into Flanders

or some other part beyond the Seas and died there sometime in or about the Month of May One [inserted: thousand Seven hundred and Twenty Nine] leaving the said Complaintant his Widow and three Children by her To Witt Thomas Pyke his Eldest Son and heir and John and Hinde Pyke his Two younger Children Three other of the

Defendants to the said Complainants Bill and these Defendants have heard that he made some Will but the Contents thereof these Defendants do not know are informed and believe that no one hath as yet taken upon him the Execution thereof or Administration of his Effects

by reason of the Debts and Incumbrances upon and the Confusion and Disorder wherein he left his Estate and Affairs And this Defendant Robert Hinde for himself saith that the Personall Estate of the said Testator Richard having past thro the hands of And the Account

thereof kept by this Defendant the said John Pyke and the said Complainant Mary his wife did before the death of the said John Pyke on or about the Twenty ninth day of June One thousand Seven hundred and Twenty Eight As this Defendant believes duly State and Allow … Account

of the then present principal Fortune or portion of the said Complainant a true Copy whereof is here to Annexed by way of Schedule and which this Defendant Robert Hinde prays may be taken as part of this his Answer And this Defendant Robert Hinde saith that on or about the said

Twenty nine day of June One thousand seven hundred and Twenty Eight the said John Pyke and the said Complainant Mary his then wife did as this Defendant believes duly State and allow of another Account touching the Interest and Dividend of the said Complainant Fortune

since her said Marriage And on Ballancing that Account it appeared that the said John Pyke and the Complainant his said Wife were then over paid the Interest and Dividends of her said Fortune since their Marriage the Sum of Fifty nine pounds four Shillings and Seven pence which

they agreed should be deducted and allowed out the next Interest and Dividends to become due as by the said severall Accounts so stated by the said John Pyke deceased and the said Complainant Mary his wife ready to be produced to this honorable Court in the Case of this Defendant

Robert Hinde to which for more certainty he Craves leave to referr himself will and may more fully and at large appear And this Defendant Robert Hinde says that since the Stating of the said Accounts he has paid to the said Complainant for her use all the subsequent interest and

Dividends of her said present principal Fortune which have incurred and grown due since the said Accounts stated to Lady day a// a// a// last Except the said Sum of Fifty nine pounds four Shilling and Seven pence due to him on the said last Stated Account which this Defendant

admitts he is paid by deducting the same out if such subsequent Interest and Dividends And this Defendant Robert Hinde says that since the said Austin? Prostated and allowed of by the said John Pyke deceased And the said Complainant Mary his wife of her then principal Fortune

he has placed out such parts of the principal Fortune mentioned in the said Annex Account (Exclusive of her Share of the said Five thousand pounds) as then Consisted of Cash and Brewers Stock in South Sea Annuities in the name of this Defendant and such South Sea Annuities

so purchased since the Allowance of the said Stated Account together with the other South Sea Annuities and South Sea Stock mentioned in the said Annexed Account being varied by the publick Alterations of those Stocks the present principal Fortune or portion of the said Complainant

Exclusive of his Fifth part of the said Five thousand pounds which will be coming to her on the Death of the said other Defendant Mary Hinde her Mother) does as these Defendants believe now consist of the severall particulars mentioned in the Complainant Bill to witt

eight hundred and fifty eight pounds Six Shillings and Eight Pence Capitall East India Stock in the Name of all these Defendants as Executors of the said Richard Hinde deceased and Fifteen hundred and Sixty old Capital South Sea Annuity Stock One hundred

…South Sea Stock and Three hundred and five pounds Seventeen Shillings and Two pence New South Sea Annuities in the Names of the Defendant Robert Hinde And as to the said Five thousand pounds which being [shadow]

…Defendant Robert Hinde says that the said Sum of Five thousand pounds was some time since placed out on a Mortgage of Lands with the Approbations of the said…

…Defendant believes) in the name of the Defendant on the Trusts of the said Articles made on the Marriage of the said Defendant [shadow]

… eight pounds Six Shillings and Eight pence East India Stock in their Names as Executor of the said Richard [shadow]

… Stock and One hundred and one pounds Nine Shillings and one penny ….

… the said Five thousand p…

Unfortunately the end was not reproduced in the digital image I received from Marcus Bateman.

Small Sheet inserted between Answers

George the Second by the Grace of God of Great Britain fFrance and Ireland King Defender of the ffaith and so forth To Joseph Davis Richard

Hinde the Younger and Henry Jacomb Gentlemen Whereas Mary Pyke Widdow

Complainant hath lately Exhibited her Bill of Complainant before us in our Court of Cha..

Pyke Defendants and Whereas we have by our Writt lately comaned the said Defendants to Appear before us in our

said Chancery at a certain day now past to Answer the said Bill but for as much as the said Bill but for as much as the said Thomas John and Hinde Pyke are

Infants under Age and cauu? of Answer the said Bill but defend this suit without having a Guardian Assigned in that behalf know yee therefore that we have given unto you

any three or two of you full power and Authority in pursuance of the Speciall Order of our said Court to Assign and Appoint a Guardian for the aforesaid Infants and to take

the Answers of the said Infants by such Guardians and the Answer of the said other Defendant to the said Bill and therefore we command you any three or two of you that

at such certain day and place as you shall think fitt you go to the said Defendants if they cannot conveniently come to you and Assign and Appoint a Guardian for the aforesaid

Infants and take the Answers of the said Infants by such Guardian and the Answer of the said other Defendant to the said Bill on their Corporall Oaths upon the holy

Evangelists to be Administred by you any three or two of you the said Answers being distinctly and plainly wrote upon parliament and when you shall have so taken

the said Answers you are to send the same closed up under up under the Seale of you any three or two of you the said Answers being distinctly and plainly wrote upon parchment and when you shall have so taken

Appointed such Guardians as aforesaid and this Writt unto us in our said Chancery Without Delay

– – – – – – – – wheresoever it shall then be Witness our self at Westminster this Twenty Ninth Day of June in the Eighth year of our Reign Jekya Hamilton.

Answer 2 (transcribed by John Paul Bradford)

Hamilton by E. Patteson

The Joint and Severall Answer of Thomas Pyke John Pyke and Hinde Pyke Infants by Peter Hinde the Elder their Uncle and Guardian three of the Defendants

Complainant

These Defendants now and all all times hereafter Saving and Reserving to themselves all and all manner of benefit and advantage of Exception to the Many Errors Incertaintys Insufficiencys in the Complainants

said Bill of Complaint contained For Answer thereunto or unto so much thereof as materially concerns these Defendants to make Answer unto the Defendants by their Guardian say that they believe

that the Complainent Mary Pyke these Defendants Mother was under the Will and as one of the Residuary Legatees of the personall Estate of her said Father Richard Hinde intitled to a present or immediate Fortune of

the value of Three thousand five hundred pounds or thereabout And that under the said Will and the Settlement made on the Marriage of these Defendants Grandfather and Grandmother Richard Hinde and Mary his

Wife the Complainent was or will be intitled to the Sum of one thousand pounds or there abouts on the death of the said Mary Hinde her Mother And these Defendants likewise believe that previous to the Marriage between

John Pyke deceased in the Complainants said Bill named Father of these Defendants and the Complainant Mary Pyke and in consideration thereof of the said John Pyke did enter into and Execute such Articles bearing date

on or about the Eleventh day of July One thousand seven hundred and twenty three as in the Complainants said Bill is particularly mentioned And these Defendants likewise believe that the said John Pyke did Execute such

Bond bearing even? date with the said Articles as in the Complainant said Bill is also mentioned And that soon after the Execution of the said Articles the said Marriage took Effect and these Defendants likewise believe that

the said John Pyke did not make out a Title to Lands in Ireland of the clear yearly value of Four hundred pounds according to his said Agreement And these Defendants believe it to be true that the said John Pykes Estate

in Ireland was so loaded and Incumbred with Mortgage Judgements and Incumbrances that the Fortune of the Complainant was not near sufficient to pay off the Mortgages and Incumbrances prior to the said Articles

And that therefore the Executors and Trustees of these Defendants said Grandfather did not think it advisalbe to Apply the fortune of the Complainant or any part thereof in Discharge of such Incumbrances or any

of them And these Defendants likewise believe that the said John Pyke did not use his endeavours to clear his Estate from any of the Incumbrances wherewith the same was charged before his said Marriage but did

Incumber the same further or at least that other Judgments and Incumbrances to the amount of Several thousand pounds were recovered or set up against him after such his Marriage and these Defendants likewise believe

that the said John Pyke lived with the said Complaintent from the time of their said Marriage till about the month of June one thousand Seven hundred and twenty eight but during great part of that time the said John

Pyke was forced by reason of his many and heavy debts to conceal himself from his Creditors for fear of Imprisonment being as these Defendants beleive unable to maintain himself or the Complainent his wife and children

any longer did Retire from his said Wife and Family and live separately and privately for some years with an Intention if possible to retrieve his Circumstances and be in a Condition to make the Settlement he had agreed to by

the said Articles And that the Complaint and her Children by him might in the mean time during such his separation and Retirement be maintained & supported the said John Pyke did consent as these Defendants

believe that the Interest and produce of the Complainants fortune should be assigned so as that she might Receive the same during such their Separation for the Maintenance of her self and Children and that

accordingly the said John Pyke and the Complainant duly made and Executed such Indenture Tripartite bearing date on or about the Twenty ninth day of June One thousand Seven hundred and Twenty Eight as in

the Complaints said Bill is mentioned But for more certainly these Defendants crave leave to refer to the said Indenture when the same shall be produced to this honourable Court And these Defendants likewise believe

that after the Execution of the said Indenture the said John Pyke separated and retired from the Complainant and his Family and Concealed himself for some time at several places and then went over to Flanders

where he died on or about the Month of May One thousand seven hundred and Twenty nine without having ever made the Settlement he had agreed to and by the said recited Articles And these Defendants

say they believe that the said John Pyke left at his Death by the Complainant this Defendant Thomas Pyke his Eldest Son and heir And these Defendants John and Hinde Pyke and these Defendants further say

they know not whether the said John Pyke these Defendants late Father before his death made such Will as in the said Bill is mentioned or any other Will And these Defendants likewise beleive that the said

Executors and Trustees of the will of the said Richard Hinde or some or one of them have or hath paid or Accounted for the Interest of the Complainants fortune tobhe for the Maintenace of herself and Children and,

that there were Severall Accounts made up Settled and allowed by the said John Pyke and the Complainant or one of them touching the principall Fortune of he Complainant By which Accounts these Defendants believe

***********************

it will appear that the Principle Fortune of the Complainant by the Management and improvement of the said Executors and Trustees Does now Consist of the particulars mentioned in the Complainants said Bill All

which these Defendants believe are Remaining in the name or names or hands of the Executors or Trustees Some or one of them And that the Complainant over and bendes? her present or immediate Fortune Will on the death

of her said Mother be intituled to the further principall Sum of One thousand pounds as mentioned in the Complainants said Bill And these Defendants further say they humbly hope and Insist that altho the said John Pyke

by reason of the said Debts and Incumbrance on his Estate was unable to and did not make such Settlement as he agreed to by the said Articles And though by his Death and under the circumstances wherein he died such

Settlement of Lands so agreed to be made is as they are advised Rendred impracticable and impossible yet as the said Articles were made in Consideration of Marriage both the immediate and revertionary principall

Fortune of the Complainant ought in Equity as these Defendants are advised to be considered as Lands agreed to be Settled by the said John Pyke and to be laid out in Land and settled accordingly or that the principal

and Interest thereof ought to go and be applied after the Complainants Decease for the Benefit of these Defendants so far as the same will Extend in such manner and proportions as the Lands of the said John

Pyke were to have been settled by the said Agreement And that the Complainant having Entred into and Executed the said Articles is intituled to no more than the Interest of her said fortune during her life and she

rather for that otherwise these Defendants will be destitute of any manner of provision and Support except an Estate in the County of Tipperara in Ireland of about one hundred pounds a year to which this Defendant Thomas Pyke

as he is advised is intitled as Tenant in Tail Male under the Will of John Pyke deceased these Defendants Great Grandfather And these Defendants Deny all unlawful Combination by the said Bill charged Without that

that any other Matter or thing in the Complainants said Bill of Complaint contained Materiall or Effectual in the law for these Defendants to make Answer unto and not herein and hereby well and sufficiently answered unto confessed or

avoided traversed or Denyed is true to the knowledge and Belief of these Defendants all which Matters and Things these Defendants are ready to aver and prove as the Honourable Court shall award and humbly

pray to be hence dismissed with their reasonable Costs and Charges in this Behalf Sustained. _______________

Jn. Browning

By Virtue of the Commission…. unto Amdet We have called before Us the said Defendants Thomas Pyke John Pyke an Hinde Pyke the Infants and have Assigned Peter Hinde Esqr the….

elder their Uncle — to be their Guardian to Answer and defend this Suite for the said Infants And on this Twenty Sixth an// day of August _ One Thousand Seven Hundred and

Thirty four the said Peter Hinde the Elder an// was duely sworne to this Answer as Guardian for the said Infants at the Dwelling house of the said Peter Hinde in Thesba? Os? in the

Parish of Cheshunt in the County of Hertford by the virtue of the said Comission and of an Order of this Court bearing the date of Twenty Sixth day of June last before Us.

Jos Davis

Hinpaaiom?

Posted in Hinde, National Archives Documents, Uncategorized | Comments Off

WEST, Captain Lionel Reginald Everard West (1888-1915)

Posted on December 8, 2019 by batemanm

Captain Lionel Reginald Everard West. Unit: 1st/8th (City of London) Battalion, London Regiment (Post Office Rifles). Death: 23 April 1915 Killed in Action by a shell-burst in a dug-out at Givenchy Western Front

Photograph held by IWM see https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205390587

Lionel Reginald Everard West PROBATE DATE: 22/06/1915 to Regional Jervoise WEST (Father).

Named on War Memorial at Sunningdale – See https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/7934?utm_source=ukniwm&utm_medium=rw&utm_campaign=wmalaunch

Posted in People | Comments Off

C8/122/36

Posted on July 28, 2018 by batemanm

C8/122/36

Jurat 14 November 1650 Robert Aylett

The joint and several answer of William WESTON Esquire and Thomas WOODFORD Gents two of the defendants to the Bill of Complainant of Charles Lord CRANBOURNE and lady Diana his Wife Complainants.

All advantages and benefit of exception to the uncertainties and insufficiencies of the Bill of Complainant to these defendants now and at all times saved and // reserved for answer thereunto they these defendants say and either of them saith That the Lord DIRLETON in the Bill named by deeds enrolled in this Honourable Court dated // on or about the 7^th day of may 1649 did convey to the defendant William WESTON and heirs the Manor of Wanborough and // Redlands in the Bill mentioned in consideration of two thousand five hundred pounds to him paid by the defendant William WESTON and by another Indenture of the same // date it is provided and conditioned that the first mentioned deed should be void upon payment of the said two thousand five hundred pounds with interest at several // days therein mentioned as by the said several deeds may appear. And these defendants say that the said two thousand five hundred pounds was really truly and bona // fida lent and paid to the said Lord DIRLETON by the said defendant William WESTON upon the said Mortgage and was the very proper money of diverse orphans interested in the // Hand of the said William WESTON and the defendant WESTON saith that the said Lord DIRLETON did since the said mortgage made pay the sum of one hundred pounds being the // first payment according to the said condition and no more but hath [?] in all the other payment whereby the premises are forfeited to this defendant and do still remain // so settled on him. And both these defendants deny that the mortgage was [colerable?] and not bona fide and paid to the said // proper money of the said Lord DIRLETON or paid in colour for any purpose whatsoever as by the Bill is suggested but the same was really and bona fide lent and paid to the said // Lord DIRLETON by the said defendant William WESTON at the request of the said defendant Thomas WOODFORD [?] to serve the said Lord DIRLETON then possessing and urgent occasions for money // As he alleged. And the defendant William WESTON saith that the said complainant never offered this defendant his said money as by the Bill is pretended otherwise then in discourse and // denies that this defendant refuses to accept the same or that he intended to take the forfeiture of the said mortgage further then in Law and equity he ought in case // his money lent with the interest and his charges be not satisfied. This defendant saith he hath heard the premise mortgaged to him and the redemption there of // Are conveyed to the Lady DIRLETON by the Lord DIRLETON her late husband whereby this defendant is advised she is entitled to the redemption thereof in equity. And both these defendants // Deny that to either of their knowledge the said Lord DIRLETON did give any [discretion] for repayment of the said monies or any part thereof other then of the hundred pounds aforesaid or // That any money of the said Lord DIRLETON is in the hands of any person whatsoever for that or any other purpose whatsoever. And both these defendants deny that they have combined with any person // or persons whatsoever for any purposes in the Bill mentioned or any other and further say that they were strangers to all other matters charged n the bill other then they have // before answered unto without that that any other matter or thing contained in the said Bill material or effectual in law for these defendants to answer unto and not in and hereby well and sufficiently answered unto confessed avoided transversed or denied [?]. All which matters and things these defendants are ready to answer and prove as this Honourable Court shall award. // And humbly pray be from hence dismissed with their reasonable costs and charges in this behalf and wrongfully suffered.

Posted in Maxwell, National Archives Documents | Comments Off

Will of William LICKFORD (1743-1714)

Posted on October 11, 2017 by batemanm

PROB 11/545/273 :

Will of William Lickfold or Luffold, Yeoman of Horsham, Sussex

Will Proved : 08 April 1715

Memorandum that I William LICKFOLD of Horsham in the county of Sussex Yeoman being aged and infirm in body but through the Lords mercy of sound and well disposed mind and memory do make and ordain this my Last Will and Testament in manner and form following that is o say first and principally I commend my soul into the sands of the Lord who gave it and my body to be decently buried amongst my friends called Quakers, and as touching such temporal estate whereof I am or shall be possessed at the time of my decease I give devise and dispose of the same as followeth.

Imprimus. I give devised and bequeath to my Kinsman James EADE of Horsham aforesaid Gent. All that my messuage or tenement situate and being at Horley in the county of Surrey now in the tenure or occupation of Katherine STEDWELL widow together with the barns stables outhouses and land thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining.

Also all that my messuage or tenement situate and being at Icfield in the county of Sussex now in the tenure or occupation of John LINVILL together with the barns stables outhouses and land thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining.

To have and to hold the said messuages land and premises unto my said kinsman James EADE his heirs and assigns for ever provided nevertheless and on this condition that my said kinsman do and shall pay satisfy and discharge all my lawful debts funeral charges and legacies herein after mentioned and expressed.

Item I give and bequeath to my four kinsmen that is to say Thomas EADE, Robert EADE, William EADE and Henry EADE the sum of ten pounds of lawful money of Great Britain a piece

and to my three kinswomen vizt Sarah BENNETT, Jane HENDEN, and the widow GOCOCK? Late of Icfield the sum of five pounds a piece of like lawful money.

Item I give and bequeath to my five kinswomen vizt Joan SNELLING, Elizabeth WHITE, Ann HURST, Jane WHEELER and Hannah BILLINGHURST the sum of five pounds a piece.

Item I give and bequeath to my kinsmen John BILLINGHURST, and William BILLINGHURST fifty shillings each.

Item I give and bequeath to my kinswomen Joan PURLATSY widow and to her maiden daughter the sum of five pounds apiece.

Item I give and bequeath to Ann HAMPTON the sum of twenty pounds.

Item I give and bequeath to my kinsman James YATES and his daughter Elizabeth YATES twenty shillings a piece and to my kinswoman Mary YATES twenty shillings.

Item I give and bequeath to my kinswomen Martha FALLOWS and her seven children twenty shillings a piece.

Item I give to my friend Aaron ALLRIGHT twenty shillings.

Item I give to my Kinsman William HARDING forty shillings.

Item I give to my kinsmen Benjamin TRIGG five pounds per annum during his life.

Item I give to my kinsman Richard SMITH the sum of six pounds and to his five children twenty shillings a piece. Item I give to my friends John LINVILL and Thomas HUMPHREYS the sum of pounds in trust for the use of the poor belonging to the monthly meeting of the

[Next Page]

People called Quakers at Horsham in Sussex aforesaid to be disposed of as the said meeting shall think fit.

Item I give to my said friends John LINVILL and Thomas HUMPHREYS the sum of four pounds to be by them distributed amongst my poor friends belonging to Cafield and Woobleston [Worplesstone?] meetings in Surrey.

Item I give to the poor of the parish of Seale and Tongham in the county of Surrey where I was born the sum of twenty shillings and further my mind and will is that and every the legacies hereinbefore mentioned shall be paid with eighteen months next after my decease.

Item I give and devise and bequeath to my kinswoman Jane UPFOLD of Bishops Stortford in the county of Hertford spinster the sum of three hundred pounds and twelve pounds sterling money owing to me upon a mortgage and from several persons (now resident) in the province of Pennsylvania in America upon their respective Bonds together with all the interest that shall at the time of my decease be due there upon or shall hereafter arise and grow and grow due upon the same together with all the writings and evidences thereunto relating now are in the hands of Isaac NORRIS merchant at Philadelphia in the said province of Pennsylvania. Upon this condition nevertheless and in special trust and confidence that my said kinswoman the said Jane UPFOLD do and shall pay or cause to be paid to my kinsman Abraham UPFOLD ten pounds; and to my kinswoman Joan HASWELL widow her sister the sum of fifty pounds. Item I give and bequeath to my kinsman James EADE before named all the surplus of my estate and goods and chattels whatsoever. Moreover I make and ordain my said kinsman James EADE and my kinswoman Jane UPFOLD before named joint executors of this my Last Will and Testament.

And I appoint my trusty and loving friends Nathaniel OWEN, Richard HAYLER, William WRAGG, and William WALTER overseers of the same to each of whom I give the sum of twenty shillings a piece desiring them to assist my said executors in the due performance of this my last Will and Testament according to my true intent and meaning.

And in case my said overseers are at any charge therein then I will the same to be paid and defrayed out of my estate.

Lastly, I do hereby revoke annul and make void all and every other Will or Wills Testaments Legacies and bequests ratifying and confirming this and no other to be and stand as and for my last Will and Testament contained in three sheets of Paper (to each of which I have subscribed my name) I the said William LICKFOLD have set my hand and seal this 28^th day of the month called February in the tenth year of the reign of Queen Ann over Great Britain AD 1711. William LICKFOLD. Signed sealed and published pronounced and declared by the said William LICKFOLD the testator as and for his last Will and testament in the presence of us who have subscribed the same as witnesses in the presence of the said testator

Richard THISLEWAITE, George CHALKLEY Junior Edward WEST.

Notes from “Some Records of the Early Friends In Surrey and Sussex – Thomas W MARSH”

Page 5 – Nathaniel OWEN from Limpsfield.

Page130 – Nathaniel OWEN – minister, London merchant. Died 1724.

National Archives

C 9/467/130 Short title: Sleddall v Lickfold. Plaintiffs: Katherine Sleddall. Document type: bill only. Date: 1708

C 11/2643/13 Short title: Hurst v Stedall. Document type: Bill and answer. Plaintiffs: Richard Hurst, carpenter of Elstead, Surrey and Anne Hurst his wife, James Wheeler, husbandman of Thursley, Surrey and Jane Wheeler his wife and Anne Hampton, spinster of Cattishall, Godalming, Surrey. Defendants: Henry Stedall, yeoman of Crowhurst, Surrey, James Ede, Jane Upfold and Catherine Stedwell. Date of bill (or first document): 1716

C 7/319/36 Short title: Stedall v Lickfold. Plaintiffs: Katherine Stedall and Henry Stedall. Defendants: William Lickfold. Place or subject: property in Horley, Surrey. Document type: answer only Date: 1709

Willi of Nathaniel OWN of Reigate – sons Jeremiah, Thomas (1699 Coulsdon) and Cornelius OWEN (1702 born Reigate). Daughters Philotetia (born Coulsdon 1697) and Frances OWEN (born Coulsdon 1697) .

Other Notes

William LICKFOLD was baptised at Seale Surrey on 3 Jan 1643, son of William and Joane (BILLINGHURST LICKFELD. His parents were married at Seale on 10 Oct 1641.

William Married Jean POULSDON a widow, in a quaker ceremony 16 Jul 1678.

Cornelius OWEN City Admission papers 1718 to Jeremiah OWEN

William WRAGG was a witness to Nathaniel OWEN’s Will proved in 1724.

Elizabeth OWEN dau Nathaniel 1694 Coulsdon

John OWEN dau Nathaniel 1693 Coulson

Nathaniel OWEN son Nathaniel 1692 Coulson

Ann OWEN dau Nathaniel 1677 Coulson

Burial Quakers at Croydon William WRAGG aged 79 in 1737 (born circa 1648)

Posted in National Archives Documents, Quaker, Wills and Probate | Comments Off

Will of John CHILD (-1701)

Posted on October 9, 2017 by batemanm

PROB 11/461/520 Will of John Childe, Gentleman of Guildford, Surrey 17 October 1701

Extract from PCC Will of John CHILDE

Lying and being in the parishes of Woking and Worplesdon or either of them in the said County Of Surrey. To have and to hold all and singular the said manor messuages lands tenements and hereditaments with their and every their appurtenances unto my said son Leonard CHILD his heirs and assigns…

.. my grandchild Martha CHILD daughter of my said son John CHILD the sum of five hundred pounds … to the said Olive my wife for and during the term of her natural life …

..And whereas I have been at great charge in maintaining and educating my said grandchildren Miss Mary DUNCOMB and Miss Olive DUNCOMB before their fortunes fell to them and also in protesting and defending thereby several suits in Chancery from being cheated and [?]

…

And whereas I have bought or agreed to buy of James CLIFTON of Shere in the said County of Surrey Gent. After the decease of Hannah KEMPSALL widow diverse freehold and copyhold messuage land tenements and hereditaments lying and being in Egham in the said County of Surrey and also the same are mortgaged by Daniel ATTWICK to me. Now I do will and devise the said freehold and copyhold messuages lands tenements and hereditaments with their and every of their appurtenances unto my said son Leonard CHILDE and his heirs forever my freehold and copyhold messuages lands tenements and hereditaments lying in Egham aforesaid in the said county of Surrey. And I will and declare that in case I shall depart this life before the conveyances and assurances thereof can be perfected that the same shall be made to the use of my said son Leonard CHILDE his heirs and assigns forever.

Posted in Clifton, Hinde, National Archives Documents, Wills and Probate | Comments Off

Will of Thomas AMYE (-1613)

Posted on August 30, 2017 by batemanm

Will of Thomas AMYE (-1613)

London Will 1507-1858 Available Ancestry.co.uk

The words that Thomas AMYE of Dorking in the county of Surrey as he lay sick in his bed there the day and year above written calling for John BRISTOE and Margaret BRISTOE of the same and county aforesaid to him desiring them to be witnesses unto his Will that is said he. I will give unto my daughter Elizabeth WEBB the wife of Thomas WEBB of Horsham all such money as I have lying in the keeping of my brother Richard AMYE of Wanborrowe in Surrey the [which?] is about seventeen pounds. And I will that my daughter Elizabeth WEBB shall be my executrix. And I would desire my brother Richard AMYE to be my overseer to this my last Will. And so I commend my soul unto God [who] gave it.

Posted in Other Sources, Wills and Probate | Comments Off

C7/620/5

Posted on August 10, 2017 by batemanm

National Archives C7/620/5

Bill of Complaint of Henry Clifton of Snowhill

26 May 1704

Humbly complaining showeth unto your Lordship dayly Orator Henry CLIFTON of Snowhill in the parish of St Sepulchres Grocer son and heir of Henry CLIFTON late of Worplesdon in the county of // Surrey and of Mary his wife late deceased and administration of the goods and chattels of Mary LEE your Orator grandmother late Sutton in the parish of Woking in the County aforesaid widow deceased that Henry of marriage was // had eldest […] the said Henry CLIFTON your orator’s said father and the said Mary your Orator’s said mother in the year one thousand six hundred and sixty nine [1669] whereupon it was concluded and agreed // that in consideration of the marriage to be had been them and of the marriage portion of the said Mary he the said Henry CLIFTON together with Jane CLIFTON his mother did join in a covenant of // all that messuage or tenement gardens orchards barns stables stalls outhouses edifaces buildings courtyards and all and singular the appurtenances to them belonging commonly called or known by the name // of Wipley Farm or by what other name was called situate in the parish of Worplesdon aforesaid and now in the occupation of Jane CLIFTON and Henry CLIFTON and all those eighteen closes and parcels of land // meadow pasture and wood ground containing by estimation one hundred and six acres more or less to the said messuage or tenement belonging or there with used occupied or enjoyed and particularly named (that is to say)

one close // called Barne Field containing by estimation seven acres,

one close called Roof Coppice Butts by estimation seven acres

one close called Morland Field by estimation seven acres,

one close called Clasted Coppice // by estimation three acres,

one close called Swingcroft by estimation seven acres,

one close called Pye Field by estimation five acres,

one close called Pye Field Butts by estimation five acres, //

one close called Hollards Field by estimation nine acres,

one close called Little Burchy by estimation three acres,

one close called Langroft by estimation six acres,

two closes called Broom Fields by // estimation twelve acres,

one close called Great Burchy field by estimation seven acres

one close called Whitecroft by estimation three acres,

one close called Thomas Field by estimation nine acres and

one close // Called the Roof coppice containing by estimation eleven acres

one close called Homefield by estimation three acres

one close called the Mead Plot by estimation two acres

or by whatever other name or names // The same so called or known lying in the parish of Worplesdon aforesaid in the said county of Surrey bearing date on or about the month of August one thousand six hundred and sixty nine [1669] and duly // Executed under hands and seal whereby he the said Henry CLIFTON and his said mother did covenant and agree upon the consideration aforesaid to and with the said Mary LEE and one Thomas MASCALL of the // Parish of Send in the County afore to stand seized of the said premises. To the use of the said Henry CLIFTON [?] and the heirs of his body on the body of the said Mary his [?] intended wife in and by the said // Indenture it was covenanted on the part and behalf of the said Henry and Jane his mother for themselves and each of them and each of their heirs executors and administrators to [?] the said Mary LEE and Thomas MASCALL and either // of them, their and either of their heirs executors and administrators that the said premises were free and clear at that time from all former and other quit to grants bargains sales // Whatsoever had made committed or done by the said Henry CLIFTON. And the said Jane CLIFTON, Henry did by their bond or obligation bearing date with the said indenture became bound // to the said Mary LEE and Thomas MASCALL in the penalty of two thousand pounds for the true and effectual performance of the condition in the said bond indemnifying and to save harmless the said Mary LEE // and Thomas MASCALL against any breach of the covenants in the said indenture contained as in and by bond duly executed under the hands and seals of the said Jane CLIFTON and Henry CLIFTON ready to // be produced and appeareth in pursuance thereof the said marriage did take effect and the said Henry CLIFTON had issue between them your Orator their eldest son and heir and your Orator well hoped // to have enjoyed the said premises after the death of his said father and mother quietly and peaceably free from all tithes charges and encumbrances whatsoever and further your orator showeth that the // said Thomas MASCALL died long since and that the said Mary LEE him survived and died about twelve months ago whereby the [?] of the said covenants and bond survived to her and your Orator hath // caused letters of Administration to be taken out and granted him of all her personal estate debits and credits as and by the same under the seal of the Bishop of Winchester’s Court ready to be produced appeareth // but now so it may please your Lordship that the said Jane CLIFTON being dead and leaving a very plentiful and valuable personal estate consisting of all sorts of corn grain and utensils of // husbandry and of great quantities of household goods and stuff of all sorts and diverse debts and securities for money owning to her and of ready money in the house, pieces of gold and silver plate jewels rings // and other personal estate goods and chattels of value sufficient to pay all his debts with an over plus and dying intestate one James CLIFTON brother of the said Henry CLIFTON deceased hath taken out letters of // administration of the goods and chattels rights and credits of the said Jane CLIFTON his mother and by virtue thereof has possessed himself or others by or with his priority and for his use or benefit of all the said // personal estate goods or chattels whatsoever and have concerted the same to his and their own use and refuses to disprove the same or to apply the same or any part thereof to the satisfaction of the just debts // or demands of your Orator and especially to the damage done to your Orator upon the said marriage settlement for that he the said Henry CLIFTON the father notwithstanding all the assurances // given to your Orators relations and the covenant and bond aforesaid that his estate was clear from all encumbrances yet nevertheless it so now appears and the truth is that the said Henry CLIFTON had // before the said marriage settlement mortgaged the said Premises for four hundred pounds which he suffered to continue till after his death and the said debt and interest did amount to the sum of five hundred // sixty two pounds sixteen shillings and as a penny which remain as a burden and encumbrance on the said jointure estate entailed upon your Orator as aforesaid and he was forced to pay the same or // otherwise he must have lost his estate all which the said James CLIFTON doth very well know and he ought to reimburse your Orator the said Mary LEE Administrator and indemnify him for what had [his?] // // paid to redeem the said estate out of the assets left by the said Henry CLIFTON and Jane CLIFTON or either of them but the same are concealed by the said James CLIFTON and Beatrix CLIFTON his sister by // combination and confederacy between them and others to your Orator unknown and they make no discovery thereof although they know the same to be true and of what particulars and true values thereof did amount // unto and what became of the same and how the same had been sold or otherwise disposed of all which matters and dealings of the confederates are contrary to equity and good conscience. In tender // consideration where and for as much as your Orator is [?less?] at law his witnesses who could prove the to be true being either dead or in parts remote or unknown // do that your Orator is only relievable in a Court of Equity. To this intent therefore that the said confederates who know the know the premises to be true may true and perfect answer make thereunto and may set // forth what personal estate in particular what goods [?] money at interest securitised for money or ready money or either of them died possessed of or were any way interested in at their or either of their death and // the true values thereof and what became of the same and to whom sold and delivered and for what and when and what remains if any in [?] and of what their said personal estates in particular did consist and may show // cause why they shouldn’t come to an account with your Orator for the same and make him satisfaction for his damages so [sustained?] as aforesaid to the end they may answer all other and singular the // premises as if again particularly interrogates and that your Orator may have such relief in the premises as shall be agreeable to Equity and justice may it please your Lordship the premises considered // to grant unto your Orator her majesty’s most gracious writ or writs of subpoena under the seal of this Honourable Court to be directed to the said James CLIFTON and Beatrix CLIFTON thereby commanding // them and either of them at a certain day and under a certain pain thereunto be limited personally to be and appear before your Lordship in this Honourable Court then and there to answer all and singular the // premises and further to stand and to abide such order direction and decree therein as to your lordship shall seem meet and your Orator shall ever pray. //

[End Page]

Complaint of Henry CLIFTON

July 1704

[?] your Orator Henry CLIFTON that at [?] of [?] [?] between your Orators father and mother whereupon it concluded that your Orators father and mother did join in it indenture of that messuage or tenement [?] by the name of Ripley Farm with all the lands thereunto belonging thereby your Orator’s father and mother did agree with Mary LEE and [?] Thomas MASCALL also in the conveyance is mentioned [?] [?] thereof the […] effect and the said Henry CLIFTON [?] [?] between them your Orator their eldest son and heir and your [?] hopes to have enjoyed the said premises after the death of his said father and mother she self that the said Thomas MASCALL died long since and the said [?] [Lee?] and is dead Thereby the interest of the said covenants [?] to he orator and hath taken letters of administration but so it is the defendant combining with several persons in the Bill is mentioned do the end the defendants [?] answer the premises to [?] particularly in the Bill is [?] May it please your Lordship the premises considered to grant unto Orator his majesties most gracious or writs of subpoena under the seal of this honourable court to be directed James CLIFTON and Beatrix CLIFTON thereby commanding them and every of them.

William BILLINGSWORTH

[end]

The joint and serval answers of James CLIFTON and Beatrix CLIFTON defendants to the bill of Complaint of Henry CLIFTON Complainant.

Posted in Clifton, National Archives Documents | Comments Off

C9/426/66

Posted on August 10, 2017 by batemanm

National Archives File C9/426/66

Bill of Complaint

10^th November 1683

Humbly complaining showeth unto your Lordship your Orator Henry CLIFTON of Wipley in the parish of Worplesdon and County of Surrey and // that your Orator having occasion for some monies did on or about the month of June in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred sixty and six [1666] now of one Hugh ROBINSON since that time departed this life the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds and for the securing of the repayment // thereby with interest after the rate of six pounds [per?] annum on or about the seventh day of June which was in the year of Our Lord God one thousand // six hundred and sixty and seven [1667] your Orator did by indenture of bargain and sale for one thousand years mortgage unto the said Hugh ROBINSON // One close of meadow ground called or know by the name West Meade containing by estimation five acres or thereabouts lying in the tithing of Normandy // In the parish of Ash and County of Surrey aforesaid and close of meadow ground called Cobbetts Meade containing five acres or thereabouts in Ash aforesaid // and one parcel of meadow ground in Worplesdon aforesaid containing five acres or thereabouts and in some short time after that the said Hugh ROBINSON departed // this life intestate without issue and administration of all and singular the goods and chattels rights and credits of the said intestate was duly committed by the Lord // Bishop of Winchester in the month of June in the said year one thousand six hundred and sixty seven [1667] unto William ROBINSON and George ROBINSON his // Brothers but one Elianor BIGNOLD of Worplesdon aforesaid widow and relict of John BIGNOLD deceased then Eleanor BURT pretending and suggesting to your Orator // that she was well entitled to the said security and monies thereon due did by her crafty insinuation prevail with your Orator to give her the said Elianor // a new security for the said monies and at the same time the better to induce your Orator to enter into such new security she the said Elianor did promise and // Engage to your Orator very speedily to produce her title which she had to the said old security from the said Hugh ROBINSON and also to deliver up to // Your Orator the said old security in regard that your Orator alleged and she the said Elianor did agree that it was reasonable that she should have two // securities for the said monies and your Orator hath since that time paid unto Angelo BURT a brother of the said Elianor the sum of one hundred pounds // part of the said monies due on the said securities and hath also discounted with her the said Elianor eighty pounds being a debt originally due unto your Orator // from the said John BIGNOLD the late husband of the said Eleanor both which sums do amount unto the sum of one hundred and eighty pounds and did // clear if not altogether yet to a very small matter all money which was due upon the securities or either of them. But now so it is may it please // Your Lordship that the said Elianor BIGNOLD combining and confederating with the said Angelo BURT and William ROBINSON the surviving administrators of the said // Hugh ROBINSON (the said George ROBINSON being as in truth he is departed this life) to charge your Orators with a [?] payment of the said one hundred and fifty // pounds and interest doth not only refuse to produce her title to the old security and monies thereon due and to deliver up the said old security and to allow // the aforesaid monies paid to the said Angelo BURT and monies discomputed as aforesaid or any of them but doth endeavour to recover the said one hundred // and fifty pounds and interest on the said old security and also as much likewise on the said new security and the said William ROBINSON the surviving // [administrator?] doth thereafter your Orator that he will force your Orator to pay the said one hundred and fifty pounds and interest to him the said William ROBINSON // And the said Elianor for the better offering and bringing about those her [?] designs hath caused a declaration in [?] to be delivered for // the premises and hath brought the same to trial and hath obtained a verdict against your Orator at the last summer assizes [?] for the said // County of Surrey and doth give in speeches that she will strip your Orator as the possession of the same albeit that she knows in her [?] // conscience that the said monies are all discharged or at least very little thereof is due and arrears all which doings of the said confederates are // contrary to equity and good conscience in tender consideration whereof and for as much as your Orator is not able to [?] the said payment // The said hundred pounds and discount of the said eighty pounds nor other the premises but by the oaths of the said confederates for what that // Your Orators witnesses who should and could prove the same are either dead or gone into places remote unknown unto your Orator for [?] your orator // Cannot produce the same to the end therefore that the said confederates may as true and particular answer make unto all [?] the premises as if her // Repeated and interrogated and that the said Elianor BIGNOLD may be compelled to allow of the said one hundred pounds and eighty pounds paid // Discounted as aforesaid and may set forth her title to the said old security and if she hath not any but that the said monies shall appear to be // The said William ROBINSON that the said one hundred pounds and eighty pounds may be repaid to your Orator and that the said new security may be // delivered up to be cancelled and that the said old one also on payment of which shall appear to be due thereon to the [?] concerned in justice to receive // the same may be discharged and that your Orator may on payment thereof be quitted against the said confederates several claims and may be // relived in all and [?] the premises as to justice and equity shall [?] and that the said proceedings at Common Law may be [payed?] by the // Injunction of this Honorable Court may it please your Lordships to grant unto your Orator His Majesty’s gracious writ of Subpoena [?] of the High Court of Chancery // To be directed unto them the said Elianor BIGNOLD Angelo BURT and William ROBINSON commanding them and either of them thereby at certain time // and under a certain pain therein to be limited personally to be and appear before your Lordships in His Majesty’s said High Court of Chancery // Then and there to answer the premises and to abide such order therein as to Your Lordship shall seem meet. And your Orator shall [always?] pray.

Posted in Bignold, Clifton, National Archives Documents | Comments Off

Will of John Bignold (-1658)

Posted on June 19, 2017 by batemanm

National Archives PROB11/283

In the name of God amen. The two and twentieth day of March in the year of Lord one thousand six hundred fifty and seven [1657] I John BIGNOLD citizen and [?] in London being sick and weak in body but in sound and perfect mind and memory praised be Almighty God [?] the same to make and declare this my Â Last Will and Testament in manner and form following first and form following first and principally I commend my soul and spirt into the hand of Almighty God my creator [?] and assuredly Believing that through the death and merits of his [?] Jesus Christ my atone saviour and redeemer. I shall have everlasting life my body I commit to the earth until the time of its joyful resurrection to be decently buried as near unto my late deceased father in the parish Shere in the County of Surrey as maybe according to the direction of my Executor hereafter named. And as touching the distribution of such worldly goods and estate it hath pleased Almighty God out of his [?] mercy and loving kindness to tend and bestow upon me. I give devise and bequeath the same as followeth (vizt) First I will that all such debts as I shall really owe at the time of my decease shall be truly paid and satisfied with all convenient speed.

Item I give and bequeath unto the poor people of the said parish of Shere in the County of Surrey where I was born, the sum of ten pounds to be paid into the hands of the churchwardens and overseers of the said parish for the time being within two months next after my decease to be by them distributed to such poor of the said parish and by such propositions as they the said church wardens and overseers shall from time to time think fit.

Item I give and bequeath unto my Brother William BIGNOLD the sum of one hundred pounds of lawful money of England and to his daughter Grace BIGNOLD my God daughter the sum of twenty pounds of like lawful money and to my said Brother William’s three children (vitz) Joane BIGNOLD James BIGNOLD and Elizabeth BIGNOLD the sum of ten pounds a piece of like lawful money of England to be paid unto them at their accomplishment of the respective ages of one and twenty years or days of marriage which shall first happen and in case any of them shall die under the age and before marriage as a aforesaid. Then my will and mind is that the part portion and legacy of him her or them so dying under age shall belong and appertain unto to survivor or survivors of them part and part alike.

Item I give and bequeath unto my sister Grace NORTH the sum of ten pounds of lawful English money to be paid into her own hands and her receipt for the same shall be my executor’s full discharge and to her daughter Grace NORTH the sum of twenty pounds of like lawful English money to be paid into her own hands at the accomplishment of the age of one and twenty years or day of marriage which shall first happen.

Item I have and bequeath unto my said sister NORTH’s five sons (Vizt) John NORTH, Thomas NORTH, James NORTH, William NORTH and Joseph NORTH. The sum of ten pounds a piece. And I desire and appoint my executor hereafter named to improve the same to the best advantage for the said children and that the interest and improvement thereof shall be expended towards their maintenance and education until they come to fit years to be put apprentice and then my will is that the sad ten pounds so given to each of them as aforesaid shall be expended and laid out for their advancement in pulling forth to apprentice. Â

Item I give and bequeath unto my sister Joane ROSE the sum of forty pounds to be paid into her own hands and her receipt for the same shall be my executor’s

Discharge and to my said sister Joane daughter Grace SLAWKER? The sum of twenty pounds to be into her own hands at the accomplishment of the age of sixteen years. Also I give unto the said Grace SLAWKER my East India Cabinet which I desire may be delivered to her immediately after my decease.

Item I give and bequeath unto my sister Margaret BIGNOLD the sum of one hundred pounds of lawful money of England to be paid unto her own hands and her receipt for the same shall be my executors full discharge although she happen to marry in the meantime. Also I give to my said sister Margaret all such beds bedsteads sheets blankets coverlets and all other household stuff whatsoever as I shall have a the time of my decease.

Item I give unto my sister Redforce the sum of five pounds to be paid into her own hands and her receipt for the same shall be my executors discharge.

Item. I have unto my brother Edward BIGNOLD the sum of ten shillings.

Item I give and bequeath unto my namesake John BIGNOLD son of my brother James BIGNOLD the sum of two hundred pounds of lawful money of England and unto James BIGNOLD eldest some of my said brother James BIGNOLD the sum of one hundred pounds of the like lawful money of England.

Item I gibe and bequeath unto Joane BIGNOLD daughter of my said brother James BIGNOLD the sum of twenty pounds of like money.

Item and bequeath unto my loving friends John MOORE of Mabbing in the County of Surrey Gentleman and John CLIFTON of Worplesdon in the said County of Surrey Gentleman the sum of ten shillings a piece to buy them rings All the rest and residue of my goods chattels debts monies and other estate whatsoever or yet by this my Will disposed of I give and bequeath unto my said brother James BIGNOLD he first paying my debts, legacies and funeral expenses out of my whole estate. And I make and ordain him my said brother James BIGNOLD sole executor of this my last will and testament and desire and appoint my said two friends John MOORE and John CLIFTON to be overseers of this my said last Will and Testament who I doubt not will be very careful to see the same duly executed and performed. In witness whereof to this my last Will and Testament contained in the two preceding sheets and in this present sheet of written paper I the said John BIGNOLD have hereto set my hand and seal the day and year first above written. John BIGNOLD signed sealed published and declared by the said testator on the day of the date to be his last Will and Testament I the presence of us Theodore SOLE, S ROWE, [?] Elizabeth FREELAND her mark.

Â This Will was proved at London the thirteenth day of the month of November. In the year of our Lord God One thousand six hundred fifty and eight [1658] before the judges for probate of Wills and granting administration lawfully authorised by the oath and in the name of James BIGNOLD the brother and sole and only executor named in the above Will of the deceased To whom administration of all and singular the goods chattels and debts of the said deceased was granted and committed he being first legally sworn truly and saith fully to administer the same.

[end]

Posted in Bignold, National Archives Documents, Wills and Probate | Comments Off

C33/197

Posted on January 12, 2017 by batemanm

National Archives C33/197

Michaelmas 1651, Hilary 1651, Easter to Trinity 1652

Mich 23^rd Oct to 28^th Nove 1651

Hilary 23^rd Fan to 24^th Feb 6151/2

1651-1652

241

Tuesday 16^th Dec

[1651]

Charles Lord CRANBOURNE and the lady Diana his wife plaintiffs William LABY and others defendants

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.

354

Hilary 1651-2

23^rd Jan

Charles Lord CRANBOURNE and Lady Diana his wife plaintiffs Willian LANE, Edward Jones and Richard WALLIS defendants

[?] 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.

354

27^th January 1651-2

Charles Lord CRANBOURNE his wife plaintiffs William LANE and others defendants

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.

599

Hilary 1651-2

24^th Jan?

Countess DIRLETON

Lord CRANBOURNE [and others?]

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

608

Easter 1652

Monday 2^nd? May

Charles Lord CRANBOURNE and the Lady Diana his wife [?] Elizabeth Countess of DIRLETON, William WESTON Esquire, John PRESTWOOD and other defendants.

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.

681

Easter 1652

May

Countess of DIRLETON

Lord CRANBOURNE and others

May 1652

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

742

Easter 1652

21^st May

Charles Lord CRANBOURNE and Diana his wife plaintiffs and Elizabeth MAXWELL Widow and other defendants

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.

794

Easter 1652

10^th May

Lord CRANBOURNE and Others Plts THYNNE Kt and baronet

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.

Posted in Hamilton, Maxwell, National Archives Documents | Comments Off

C33/199

Posted on January 12, 2017 by batemanm

National Archives File C33/199

Michaelmas 1652, Hilary 1652, Easter to Trinity 1653

Mich 23^rd Oct to 28^th Nove

Hilary 23^rd jan to 24^th feb

Page 155

Charles Lord CRANBOURNE and others [Sir?] Henry [?] Kt and [?] [defendants?]

[?] 4 [?]

Upon the hearing and debating of the matter in question between the said parties this past day in presence of the Counsel learned both [?] the scope of the [?] bill being to [?] against several judgements and obtained by the [defendant?] upon a counterbond of 900 whence … bound unto the defendant for securing him the payment of 200 and the other of the penalty of 200 for payment of 100 wherein the defendant became bound as a surety for the Lord CRANBOURNE which money the Lord CRANBOURNE hath [?] paid thereof. New [?] [?] the said defendants [?] to acknowledge satisfaction upon the judgement by im [?] against the plaintiffs as aforesaid but [?] being insisted upon by the said defendants counsel [?] the said defendant was much [?] by his surety [?] in te bond aforesaid in regard the Lord CRANBOURNE failed to pay the monies but thereupon according to it respective times and so he [?] [?] allowance for his said damage he is willing to grant the plaintiff any reasonable [?] or to acknowledge satisfaction upon the said judgement in this Court thereupon and upon long debate of the matter and leaving what was now [?] on either side doth [?] [?] and so order and decree that the said defendant shall forthwith deliver up unto the plaintiffs the said counterbond of 900 to be cancelled and acknowledged as satisfaction on record of all said judgement which the said defendants at any time obtained against the plaintiffs or either of them upon the said bond. As for the defendants pretended [? [?] the same by consent of the counsel on [?] side is referred to the […] is pledged to take them upon him the trouble of [?] the same and for that purpose both parties and by consent to produce their witness viva port and other proof taken in the case before his Honor.

Page 407

Tuesday 20^th January [Michaelmas 1652-3]

Charles Lord CRANBOURNE and his lady plaintiffs and Elizabeth Countess of DIRLETON and other Defendants and other[?]

Upon opening of the matter his [?] day unto the Right Honourable Lords Commissioner for part b Attorney of the Duchess being of the plaintiffs Counsel. It was alleged that upon the hearing of the said causes the Court declared that the Lady DIRLETON should have the lands in question lying in [?ford] that were conveyed in trust unto the defendant PRESTWOOD and others for term of her life but which should be redemption of the manor of Wanborough mortgaged to the defendant WESTON with the Manor of Kidlands on [?] of mortgage money should be apportioned here was then no opinion decided and as to be reversion of the lands in question [? Is [?] declared or settled yet [?] as the order is [?] upon the Lady DIRLETON is to [?] [?] the trust as to the Guildford lands and the redemption of Wanborough. It was therefore prayed that a time might be appointed for hearing of both sides to have the full resolution of the Court therein their Lordships do thereupon order that this cause be set down in [?] [?] for hearing of counsel on both sides therein as to these particular on the second Monday of the next term for such purpose the other side is to have notice. 28 an

Page 427

28 January [Michaelmas 1652-3]

Elizabeth Countess of DIRLETON and other Plaintiffs Charles Lord CRANBOURNE and others Defendants and on the contrary

Edward EXALL hath this day made is personal appearance upon an attachment for saving of his [?] given to the Sheriff of surrey in that behalf.

Page 560

Elizabeth relict of William Duke of HAMILTON in Scotland Charles Lord CRANBOURNE

Wed 16^th February [1652-3]

Upon opening of the matter this past day unto the Right Honourable Lord Commissioner the Great seal of England by Mr WIDDRINGTON and Mr [?] being of the [?] counsel in the space of Mr Attorney General being of the defendants counsel and upon reading of an order of eighth of [?] made with certain [?] between Elizabeth MAXWELL widow [?] the said Lord CRANBOURNE and other defendants and on the contrary whereby the counsel of the said Duchess move this to show cause why the trustees of James Earl of DIRLETON Scotland should not convey a moiety of the lands in question to the said Lord CRANBOURNE and his lady in reversion after the decease of Lady DIRLETON [?] much as in in those causes proof is made of a deed whereby the said Earl of DIRLETON hath declared and appointed all the said lands to the said Duchess of Hamilton and she was made a party to that [?] to defend her right and hath now dated her bill to be relieved and the said trustees having aher deed and that [?] are willing to [?] according to the trust

….

974 Thomas CROMPTON Plaintiff William STYDOLPHE and others

Monday 24^th May

Upon the plaintiff humbly ….

The reasons therein contained that is ordered

1106 Elizabeth Relict of William Duke of HAMBLETON in Scotland plaintiff Charles Lord CRANBOURNE and other defendants

1 June [1653]

It is ordered by consent of the said plaintiffs and of the defendants the Lord Cranbourne that the cause be set down at [?] of the next term to be heard in Michaelmas term next and that a Com issue into Scotland for examination of witnesses which [? [?] the depositions published a fortnight before Michaelmas as [?] or sooner if it may be dispatched but when publication of all depositions in his cause is to pass.

[end]

Posted in Damahoy, Hamilton, Maxwell, National Archives Documents | Leave a comment

C9/5/33

Posted on December 13, 2016 by batemanm

1650/10/24

C9/5/33

CRANBOURNE v. DIRLETON, Countess of, and Harvey

– Bill of Complaint

– Answer of Elias Harvey

– Answer of Heneage FINCH 27/1/1650

– Further answer of Robert ABBOTT 29/05/1651

Contents

Bill of Complaint Charles Lord Cranbourne and Diana is wife. 1

Answer of Heneage FINCH. 4

Further Answer of Robert ABBOTT. 4

Bill of Complaint Charles Lord Cranbourne and Diana is wife

24^th October 1650

SMYTHE

To the Right Honourable the Lord Commissioners for the custody of the great seal of England

Humbly complaining show unto your Lordship your daily Orators Charles Lord CRANBOURNE and the Lady Diana his wife that whereas James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON in // Scotland father of your Oratrix the Lady Diana was in his life time seized amongst other things of and in his demeasure as of fee and in the Capital House called the Friars and the house barns and // Buildings, courtyards, gardens, orchards, walks, ways, easements profits commodities and hereditaments with their appurtenances thereto belonging situate lying or being at or near Guildford // in the county of Surrey and also of and inn those closes and parcels of lands meadows and pastures with their appurtenances called or known by the name or names of the Lees lying and being in // the parish of Stoke near Guildford aforesaid. And also of and in all that the park called or known by the name Guildford Park. And also of and in all those messuages farms lands and enclosed // grounds lately disparked and before that parcel of the park called Guildford Park or so of late heretofore reputed to be called or known the said park and lands containing by estimation one thousand and // five hundred Acres situate lying and being in or the parishes of St Nicholas in Guildford , Compton and Worplesdon or some or one of them. And also of and in the Manor of Wanborrow [Wanborough] and the // Rectory and of Wanborrow [Wanborough] farm in the County of Surrey together with all and every of their appurtenances and of diverse other lands and tenements in the County of Surrey and of the Manor // of Kidland in the County of Northumberland. And the said James MAXWELL being thereof seized as is aforesaid about the [nineth?] of April last past died in Scotland by and after whose // decease the said Manor messuage park lands ad premises of right did descend and come unto to your orator the lady Diana and [?] lady Eliza wife to William HAMBLETON als Duke of HAMBLETON [HAMILTON] in Scotland his sister aforesaid as // [?] and co heirs of him the said James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON they being his only daughter and heirs by virtue whereof your said Orator in right of the said Lady Diana his wife after // the decease of the said James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON into the said Manor Messuages Lands and premises entered and by virtue thereof is seized in right of his said wife as [co?] wit the said // other sister of one moiety of the same But now so it pay please your Lordship that the said Duke and Lady Duchess HAMBLETON [HAMILTON] being at this time [incapable?] of the enjoyment of her moiety of premises as co-heir [?] // Your said Oratrix by reason of the delinquency of the said now Duke HAMBLETON her said husband to the Parliament of England and to defeat and hinder your Orator of his moiety in right of his // wife as a foresaid hath together with and by the assistance privity contrivance and combination of the said Duke HAMBLETON [HAMILTON], Elizabeth MAXWELL Countess of DIRLETON (mother of the said Lady Duchess and your Oratrix Sir John // PRATT knight Eliab HARVEY of London Merchant, William WESTON Esquire Heneage FINCH esquire, John PRESTWOOD merchant Henry PRATT, Robert ABBOTT, Thomas WOODFIELD, Thomas [JENNINGS?] // And HARWOOD set on foot some estate pretended to be made of the premises by the said James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON in his life time thereby the right of your Orator and Oratrix is barred and // to that purpose do give out in speeches that the said Earl of DIRLETON by his several deeds of bargain and sale executed in his life time did convey the said Capital [?] house lands // and premises for some pretended consideration in money unto the said Heneage FINCH of the Inner Temple London esquire John PRESTWOOD of London merchant and Henry PRATT of London // Haberdasher and unto William WESTON of London Merchant with the same condition or proviso in the said several deeds or in some other of the same date that if the said Earl of DIRLETON // His heirs executors or assigns or any of them should at some day afterwards pay unto the mortgagees or some or one of them in the said several deeds named certain sums of money in the said // provisos or conditions expressed them the said deed of bargain and sale of the premises to be void in the said some of money was not accordingly paid as by the said confederates is // pretended whereby the said premises are become forfeited had hereupon the said Duke and Duchess of HAMBLETON [HAMILTON] who refuse to join with your orator and Oratrix for redeeming the said // Mortgages (if any such be) [?] of the premises by the agreement or conveyance to the said Heneage FINCH John PRESTWOOD Henry PRATT // and William WESTON mortgaged in the said deeds and with [..] Countess of DIRLETON Eliab HARVEY Thomas WOODFIELD, Thomas JENNINGS and [Jane?] HARWOOD do endeavour to obtain from them the said Heneage FINCH, // John PRESTWOOD, Henry PRATT and William WESTON an absolute estate of the said premises upon pretence of paying the money mentioned in the said condition or proviso by way of redemption // of the same when in truth there was no such mortgage really made of the said Messuage, manors, lands and premises by the said Earl of DIRLETON in his life time but if any such were the same was // [?] and not bona fide and the said consideration pretended was the money of the Earl of DIRLETON himself, or if not it was but paid in [collom?] at that time only for this purpose // and by him or by his appointment shortly after repaid or directed to be by the said Eliab HARVEY out of the money of the said Earl of DIRLETON left him in the hands of the said Eliab HARVERY // Or Robert ABBOTT or of some other by his privity and knowledge and herein your Orator is the more confirmed for that he demanded to redeem the said premises if there were in truth any such [?] // Mortgages and hath several times offered to pay the money which is pretended to be due upon the same so as the said mortgages would [?] the estate in the premises unto him your said Orator // Or to such as he should nominate and appoint which they the said Heneage FINCH, John PRESTWOOD, Henry PRATT and William WESTON being the mortgagees named in the said deeds so absolutely // Refuse and do stand upon the forfeiture thereof and do endeavour there upon at the common law to evict the premises from your Orator or to convey the same or have already so done unto // some other person or persons at the insistence of the said Countess of DIRLETON and Duke and Duchess of HAMLETON [HAMILTON] and to their or several of their use or uses benefit or behoof they the said

Absolutely refusing to join in the redeeming the premises (if the same were really in mortgage) with your Oratrix her other sister and coheirs by means whereof if those proceedings should // take effect your Orator and the lady Diana his wife would be utterly defeated of their just right and interest in and to the moiety of the said premises as co-heirs unto her said father // all which doings are contrary to equity and good conscience and tend to the great loss [?] hindrance and [? Of your Orator and Oratrix in the estates. In tender consideration // whereof and for that your Orator and Oratrix have no proper remedy by the cause of the Common Law of this land for that purpose there may be some deed of conveyance [?] // Of the said premises against which in respect of the said forfeiture nothing [?] be pleaded in bar by Orator and Oratrix but are left wholly for relief unto this Honourable Court according // to the rules of equity. And to the end therefore that the said Duke and Duchess of Hambleton [HAMILTON] may be compelled to joint with your Orator and Oratrix in redeeming the said mortgages and to make [?] // Of the premises as a [?] and that they and the said Elizabeth Countess of DIRLETON, Heneage FINCH, John PRESTWOOD Henry PRATT, William WESTON, Eliab HARVERY, Robert ABBOTT, Thomas JENNINGS, and Jane HARWOOD, Thomas WOODFORD // May upon their several corporal oaths answer the truth of all and singular the said premises particularly whether or not any such mortgage or other estate was really and bona fida //Made by the said Earl of the premises or of any part thereof and of what part thereof and to whom it was so conveyed and for what consideration and on what condition and [?] // the money pretended to be the consideration was not the money of the said Earl of DIRLETON or was not afterwards by him paid or directed to be paid in discharge of the said mortgage // or whether there is not in the hands of them the said Countess of DIRLETON Duke or duchess of Hambleton [HAMILTON] Eliab HARVEY, Robert ABBOTT or some of them or some other to their knowledge // To pay and discharge the same or some part thereof and how much thereof and that the said Heneage FINCH, John PRESTWOOD, Henry PRATT and William WESTON may set forth what estate they // claim in the premises and what estate or estates they have made of the premises or any part thereof and to whom and what sum or sums of money they or any of them // did really pay the said Earl for or by reason of any such pretended mortgage or conveyance as aforesaid and how much money doth now justly remain due unto them or any of them // Them concerning the same and whether or not your orator hath not offered to pay the principal money together with the interest justly due upon the mortgage and that // Your Orator and Oratrix may be relieved concerning all matters before alleged and set for the. May it please your Lordship the premises considered to grant unto // Your Orator and Oratrix be [?] unto Elizabeth Countess of DIRLETON the said Duke and Duchess of HAMBLETON [HAMILTON], Sir John SCOTT knt, Eliab HARVEY [Merchant?], William WESTON, Heneage FINCH // Esquire John PRESTWOOD merchant, Henry PRATT, Robert ABBOTT, Thomas WOODFORD, Thomas [JENNINGS?] Jane HARWOOD // Commanding them and every of them at a certain day and under a certain pain therein to be limited personally to appear before your Lordship in the High Court of Chancery then // [..] as to your Lordsip shall seem meet.And Your Orators shall duly pray. //

BURROUGH.

Barth. [?]

Answer of Heneage FINCH

27 January 1650

John PAGE

The several answer of Heneage FINCH of the Inner Temple London Esquire unto the Bill of Complaint of the Right Hon. Charles Lord Cranbourne and the Lady Diana his Wife Complainants.

This defendant saving to himself now at hereafter all times all advantages of exception to the many uncertainties // and insufficiencies of the said Complainant’s Bill of Complaint for answer unto so much thereof is material for // for him the said defendant to make answer unto saith that he believes it to be true that the said James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON did make the // conveyance of the lands in the Bill mentioned unto the said Heneage FINCH, John PRESTWOOD Henry PRATT // as in the Bill is alleged. And that the said conveyance was intended to be as a security for money lent unto the // James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON but whether the said Complainants have ever offered to pay the principal money // with the interest since grown due he this defendant doth not certainly know neither did he this defendant pay the // said monies upon the said conveyance or any part thereof. And this defendant doth utterly deny that the said // James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON did leave any monies in this defendant’s hands towards the discharge or satisfaction // of the said security or any part thereof or that he hath any part of the estate of the said James MAXWELL Earl of // DIRLETON in his hands or custody. And this defendant also saith that he hath not nor claims to have any estate title // right or interest in any of the lands in the said Bill mentioned nor ever made any estate of the same or any part thereof // to any person or persons whatsoever. And this defendant doth also deny that he did ever enter into any // confederacy or combination with the Lord Duke HAMBLETON [HAMILTON] or any person or persons whatsoever to defraud or // defeat the said complainants of their estate and interest in the said lands as by the said Bill of Complaint is most // unjustly and untruely alleged without that any other matters or thing in the said Bill of Complaint set forth material // for him this defendant to make answer unto and not herein sufficiently answered unto confessed and // avoided traversed or denied is true. All which matters and things the said defendant is ready to [?] and prove // as this Honourable Court shall award and humbly prayeth to be hence dismissed with his reasonable costs and charges in // this behalf wrongfully sustained. //

Thomas [ENSISON?]

[end]

Further Answer of Robert ABBOTT

The Further Answer of Robert ABBOTT Scrivener unto the Bill of Complaint of the Right Hon Charles Lord CRANEBOURNE and Lady Diana his Wife Complainants.

29^th May 1651 John PAGE

This defendant being still unto himself now at all times all advantages of exception to the many uncertainties and insufficiencies of the said Complainant’s Bill of Complaint [?] other answer [?] // as so much as he conceives doth yet concern or remains any way material for him this defendant to make any further answer unto saith That he hath heard that James MAXWELL Earl of // DIRLETON did make a conveyance of part of the lands in the Bill mentioned unto William WESTON is by the said Bill is supposed but upon what consideration the conveyance was made or whether // the Consideration mentioned in the said deed of Conveyance (if any be therein at all mentioned) [were?] truly and really paid or only in colour and show and afterwards repaid the William WESTON // unto the said Earl of DIRLETON or upon what other terms conditions agreements between the said Earl of DIRLETON and William WESTON the said conveyance was made and executed he this // Defendant doth not know nor was he this defendant ever made privy to the passing of the said conveyance or to any other of the proceedings or passage between the said Earl and William // WESTON concerning the same and saith that to the making of the said conveyance between the said Earl of DIRLETON and William WESTON and to all matters and things inquired after by the said Bill of // Complaint concerning the same he this defendant is a mere stranger and of his own knowledge know nothing thereof and this defendant also saith that at the time when the bargain and sale was // made of part of the lands in the Bill mentioned unto Heneage FINCH, Henry PRATT, and John PRESTWOOD he this defendant did verily believe that the said conveyance was made really and bona fide // and that the monies paid upon the said bargain and sale as the consideration thereof were the proper monies of them the said Heneage FINCH and John PRESTWOOD or [?] // some of them nor did he this defendant they believe or imagine that there was any other intention in the making of the said bargain and sale and [?] other indenture of the same date then to [service?] // Unto the said Heneage FINCH, Henry PRATT, and John PRESTWOOD the repayment of the sum of five and twenty hundred pounds with the interest thereof which as this defendant was then [thoughly?] // [Refunded?] was a true and [?] debt owing by him the said James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON unto to them the said Heneage FINCH, Henry PRATT, and John PRESTWOOD And although this defendant // Hath [?] since the putting in of his former answer unto the said Complainant’s Bill of Complaint partly by information from others and partly by the answer which the said John PRESTWOOD// hath likewise made unto the said Complaint’s Bill of Complaint that the said monies were the proper monies of the said Earl or DIRLETON and that the said conveyance was only [intended ?] // [?] a trust for the benefit of the said Earl his heirs and assigns [unless?] he the said Earl should afterwards really borrow the sum of five and twenty hundred pounds of the aforesaid //John PRESTWOOD yet if any such agreement as these were made the same were transacted privately between the said Earl of DIRLETON and John PRESTWOOD and as this defendant believes // Were purposely concealed from the knowledge of him this defendant so that he this defendant is not able upon his own certain knowledge to make any further answer or [?] // Touching any part of the premises the he hath already made and this defendant likewise saith that the said Earl of DIRLETON did not leave in his hands nor to the knowledge of this defendant // In the hands of any other person or persons any money towards the discharge of the said several mortgages made to the said William WESTON and to the said Heneage FINCH and Henry // PRATT and John PRESTWOOD or either of them or the monies by them or either of them owing or mentioned to be owing or any part thereof without that that any other matter or thing in the said Bill of Complaint // Matters and things he the said defendant to make further answer unto and not herein and hereby sufficiently answered unto confessed and avoided traversed or denied is true. All which // matters and things he the said defendant is ready to Abeur. And as this Honourable Court shall award and humbly prayeth to be hence dismissed with his reasonable costs and charges in that // Wrongfully sustained. //

Edw PECK.

Hillary 1650 to SMYTH

[end]

Posted in Finch, Maxwell, National Archives Documents, Pratt, Prestwood | Comments Off

Knell, James (1887-1945)

Posted on November 13, 2016 by batemanm

Col James KNELL is buried in churchyard at Wanborough, Surrey with the inscription

“IN MEMORY OF MY/ BELOVED HUSBAND/ COLONEL JAMES KNELL/ ROYAL NETHERLAND HUSSARS/ BORN APRIL 26TH 1887/ DIED JULY 14TH 1945/ WHO GAVE HIS LIFE FOR ENGLAND AND HOLLAND”

At the time of his death Colonel J Knel of the Royal Netherlands Hussars was serving with the HQ, G.O.C. Netherlands Forces in the UK.

The address given in the Wanborough Church Burial Register is WHITELANDS HOUSE, KINGS ROAD CHELSEA. The address given for Probate in 1945 was Coniston, Caledon Road, Beaconsfield.

He also mentioned on Netherlands Field of Honour War Memorial in Mill Hill Cemetery see https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/151251586

“To Marry Again – An Interesting wedding soon to take place is that of Lady [Theodora Chevallier Gervers] MARKHAM, widow of the Artic explorer, Admiral Sir Albert [Hastings] MARKHAM (who died in October 1918) and Lieutenant James KNELL instructor of the Cavalry School Amersfort. Lady MARKHAM is Theodora, daughter of Mr F.T. GERVERS of Amat Rossshire and at her marriage to Admiral MARKHAM the wedding cake was surrounded by a model of an iceberg and of the Laert the ship in which the bridegroom had sailed with Sir George NARES’ expedition in 1875. The daughter of the marriage named Joy, married Captain W.S. M’CANN a Canadian officer in 1919.” Dundee Courier 13 June 1921.

His Obituary was published in The Times (London, England), Wednesday, July 25, 1945, Issue 50203, p.7.

A photograph of Theodora his wife is held by the National Portrait Gallery https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw62515/Theodora-Chevallier-Knel-ne-Gervers

Mr Francis Theodore GERVERS (FTG) was therefore father in law to James KNELL. FTG lived 1925 to 1935 of Little Amat, Oliver Hill, Puttenham, Surrey. There is a partially completed entry for his burial in the Wanborough churchyard.

His step daughter Joy Mary Mina MCCANN (Nee MARKHAM) is also buried at Wanborough, she died (July 1935).

“Little Amat” is thought be the original name for “Holloway Veer” which has more recently become the BUPA Puttenham Hill Nursing Home, whose website says the building was designed by Oliver Hill. When FTG died in 1935 Little Amat was sold to Walter Richard Samuel MILLER and renamed Holloway Veer.

There is a further family connection as Florence Henrika GERVERS daughter of FTG married Herbert Cecil PORTER (HCP) 6 Apr 1899 – St Jude, South Kensington. HCP lived at Wacom Edge in Wanborough circa 1915 onwards and he died in 1948 – there is a memorial to him in the Wanborough Church.

Notes

Link to WikiTree Page (see page)

Posted in People | Comments Off

C10/19/35

Posted on November 2, 2016 by batemanm

National Archives file C10/19/35

1650 Dirleton v. Finch, Prestwood, Pratt, Weston, Hanzil: Surrey

Answer William WESTON

Answer of William WESTON Esquire one of the Defendants to the Bill of Compliant of the right Honourable [Elizabeth?] Countess of Dirleton Complainant

5^Th February 1650 [1650-1]

John PAGE

The said defendant saving to himself now and at all times hereafter all advantages and benefits of exception to the uncertainties and insufficiencies of the said complainants Bill of complaint for // answer there unto. Saith James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON to service two thousand five hundred pounds of lawful money of England by this defendant [?] // Lent and paid [?] make this defendant such mortgage as in the Bill is mentioned and this defendant saith and hath received only one hundred pounds part of the interest // thereof and for non-payment of the said money at the times by [?] in the [?] the said mortgage is become forfeited and the said principal monies and all the [?] [?] // Is still due unto him this defendant. And this defendant saith he believes it to be true that the said James Earl of DIRLETON made such settlement […] // which [?] set forth but this defendant hath not [?] the deed thereof. And believing that the coheirs of the said Earl in the Bill […] // Such interest in the premises as by the Bill is set forth. And this defendant saith that the said persons have exhibited several Bills in this Honourable Court touching the redemption // of the premises against this defendant who desire no more than his money lent with the interest and the ready is he hath been and [?] put unto by // was one of the said suits. And upon payment she [?] shall be ready to convey the premises as this Honorable Court shall direct. And hopes and expects // that in the meantime he shall not be interrupted from receiving the possession and receiving the rents issues and profits of the premises towards // his satisfaction And this defendant denies the having of any deeds at all concerning these premises other than in his deeds of mortgage // Or that he pretends any other title to the premises then is aforesaid and denied that as yet he hath made entry into or received // And profits rents out of the premises or any part thereof or hath [?] cause to be cut any timber or wood [? [?] showing // [?] … shall be [?] to receive the rents and profits thereof towards his satisfaction according to law the estate being forfeited in him // And denies that he hath made any conveyance whatsoever of the premises to any person or persons whatsoever or contrived any [?] [?] of the same // And denies all combination whatsoever in the Bill of Complainant charged without that that any other matter or thing in the said Bill of Complaint [?] // Material or effectual in the Law for this defendant to answer unto and not in and hereby well and sufficiently answered unto confessed avoided // transversed or denied is true All which matters and things this defendant is ready to averre and prove as this Honourable Court shall award and humbly // Prayed to be from hence dismissed with his reasonable costs and charges in this behalf most wrongly sustained. // Robert Keglway

[end]

Bill of Complaint of Elizabeth MAXWELL Countess of DIRLETON

February 1650 [1650-1?]

To the Right Honourable the Commissioner for Custody of the Great Seale of England

Humbly complaining showeth unto Lordship your Oratrix Elizabeth MAXWELL widow Countess of Dirleton in Scotland and relict of the late Right Honourable James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON deceased. That the said Earl of DIRLETON // In his life time (being lawfully seized in demeasure as fee of and in the Manor of Wanborough and diverse lands tenements and hereditaments thereunto belonging and of a Capital messuage called the FRYERS at // Guildford and diverse lands tenements and hereditaments called Guildford Park and of diverse other land all lying in the County of Surrey and being of the yearly value of one thousand five hundred pounds or thereabouts // And also of the Manor of Redland with the appurtenances thereof in the county of Northumberland in all which your Oratrix had and hath title of Dower by the common law by his indenture dated on or about the // Four and twentieth day of May which was in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred forty nine [1649] made between the said Earl on the one part, Heneage FINCH Esquire, John PRESTWOOD Merchant and Henry // PRATT of London Haberdasher on the other part in consideration of two thousand five hundred pounds therein mentioned to be by them paid unto the said Earl did bargain and sell the said Capital messuage called the // Fryers and the said park and diverse other land lying in the parishes of Guildford Stoke St Nicholas Compton and Worplesdon unto the said Heneage FINCH, John PRESTWOOD and Henry PRATT and their heirs upon condition // Contained in other indenture of the same date to be void upon payment of two thousand six hundred pounds at the end of six months then next after ad now past (as in and by the said indenture the first of the same // being enrolled in this Honourable Court of the same were produced more largely would appear which two thousand five hundred pounds nor any part thereof was ever lent or really paid to the said James Earl of DIRLETON // The said conveyances were [?] made and were in trust for the said earl and such person and persons to whom he should dispose the premises and the said person trusted were to make and execute conveyance of the premises // accordingly. And your Oratrix further saith that on or about the month of May the said James Earl of DIRLETON did borrow of William WESTON of London Esquire the sum of two thousand five hundred pounds // lawful money of England and in consideration thereof by deed enrolled in this Honourable Court dated the seventh day of the same month of May did bargain and sell the said manor and rectory of Wanborough // And the said Manor of Redlands with the appurtenances unto the said William WESTON and his heirs upon a condition to be void upon payment of the said two thousand five hundred pounds with interest at several times // expressed in another indenture of defeasance of the same date as in and the indenture (if produced) more largely which money was not paid unto the said William WESTON accordingly and thereby the // Premises are become forfeited to him as he pretendeth. And your Oratrix further showeth unto your Honor that the said James Earl of DIRLETON after the making of the said several conveyances did continue in the // possession of the premises and took the rent issues and profits thereof to his own use and the said James Earl of DIRLETON having such rights and title to the premises as aforesaid and being [?] out of the // Same to make a further provision of support and maintenance for your Oratrix if she survived him the said James Earl of DIRLETON being in Scotland did by his deed in writing dated on or about the four // and twentieth day of April last past by him signed and sealed in the presence of diverse creditable witnesses Give and grant to your Oratrix all the said manor lands and premises in the county of Surrey // To have and to hold to your Oratrix and her assigns during the term of her natural life without any manner of let or interruption whatsoever as by the said deed more largely may appear by virtue whereof and other // good evidence manifesting the proof and declaration of the said husband of the trust aforesaid Your Oratrix is entitled in equity as well to the trust of the said premises conveyed to the said Heneage FINCH, John PRESTWOOD // Henry PRATT and ought to have the same by them settled upon her for term of her natural life as also to the equity of redemption and trust of the premises so mortgaged to the said William WESTON (except the // Manor of Redlands wherein your Oratrix hath [?] her title of Dower) And your Oratrix further showeth that the said James Earl of DIRLETON shortly after the making of the last mentioned deed died leaving // the Lady Diana now wife of the Right Honourable Charles Lord CRANBOURNE and the lady Elizabeth now wife of William Duke of HAMILTON in Scotland his two daughters and co-heirs who are entitled to the reversion of the // premises so appointed your Oratrix after her decease and are also entitled to the equity of redemption of the said Manor of Kidlands and ought to join with your Oratrix for redemption of the premises so // [?] mortgaged to the said WESTON and to pay their proportion of the said Mortgage monies according to the values of their estates in case they will enjoy and benefits thereof that the premises may be enjoyed by [all?] // Your Oratrix according to the intention and declaration of the said James Earl of DIRLETON But now so it is may it please your Honours that the said Heneage FINCH, John PRESTWOOD and Henry PRATT and William // WESTON do refuse without the Order of this Honorable Court to convey the premises to your Oratrix according to equity. And the said William Duke of HAMILTON, the Lady Elizabeth his wife , Charles Lord CRANBOURNE // And the Lady Diana his wife some or one of them having gotten into their some or one of their hands and custody or into the hands and custody of some other person or persons to their knowledge as the deed evidence // And writings which concern the premises before mentioned do detain and keep the same and taking advantage thereof do combine and confederate themselves together with Richard BLAGRAVE, Richard CHUTE, Henry // THACKHAM, Robert EXOLL, John SELLAR, Richard HARWOOD, William SMITH, James PARSONS, James BROMFIELD, Christopher HARWOOD, Edward EXOLL, Ellis PALMER, John MINGALL, Thomas COBBETT, Hugh HEN and Humphrey ROGERS // And diverse other persons being tenants of the premises and with one Richard [?] how to defeat and defraud your Oratrix of her right and title to the said Manor and premises and to [?] the land unto themselves or // some of them and to that purpose the said confederates or some of them do set [?] and pretend [?] titles to the premises under other persons and deny that the said James Earl of DIRLETON had any estate herein or power to // settle the same upon your Oratrix as aforesaid. And the said Lord CRANBOURNE and his wife have to that purpose exhibited a Bill in this Honourable Court against the [?] persons trusted as aforesaid thereby to obtain some conveyance // of the premises whereas the said confederates nor any of them have any right or title to the premises or any part thereof during your Oratrix life other than before herein is set forth and yet by colour thereof they [?] or // Your Oratrix and do not only receive and take the rents issues and profits thereof but do also fell and cut down all the wood and timber there upon growing to the utter [?] [?] of the premises knowing that your Oratrix hath // no power by law to hinder the same. And the said confederates do give forth in speeches that the said Mr FINCH PRESTWOOD and PRATT have conveyed the premises to them conveyed as aforesaid to the said Lord CRANBOURNE and the said Lady Diana and // their heirs and also that the said William WESTON hath received his Mortgage Money out of the rents and profits of the premises or otherwise that the said Lord CRANBOURNE hath paid the same to him and that he hath also conveyed the premises // so mortgaged to him unto the said Lord CRANBOURNE which your Orator suspects may be done for if altogether she hath requested the said Mr FINCH, PRESTWOOD and PRATT to convey the premises to your Oratrix according to the said // Conveyance and deed of the said James Earl of DIRLETON yet they deny or delay to do the same And also the said William WESTON refuses to convey the said mortgage premises to your Oratrix though she had [?] to pay all monies // as upon or [?] account shall agree to be due unto him And also the said Lord CRANBOURNE and his Lady do deny to join with your Oratrix in the redemption of the premises as they ought to do according to the values of their estates in case they // will receive benefit thereby. And the said confederates or some of them have contrived [?] estates of the premises to [?] the Oratrix her right and refuse to come to any account with your Oratrix for the [?] profits and monies [?] // By wood sales or otherwise out of the premises which they ought to do and the same to be discounted in satisfaction of the said Mortgage money. And the said tenements refuse to pay their rent to your Oratrix to whom the same belong, in which doings // of the persons as to the great wrong and [injure?] of your Oratrix and are contrary to all right equity and good conscience. In tender consideration, whereof and for so much as your Oratrix having a right and title in // equity is remediless of relief in the [?] by the rules of the rules of Common Law of this nation and the matters before complained of are [?] examinable and relievable in a Court of Equity to the end therefore the said confederates may // upon their corporal oaths a particular and full and perfect answer make to all and singular the premises. And that your Oratrix may have an account of the said [?] profits and a conveyance to her [?] // by the said Heneage FINCH, John PRESTWOOD and Henry PRATT during her life of the premises to them conveyed. And also that the said Lord CRANBOURNE and Lady Diana may be compelled to join with // your Oratrix of Redemption of the premises mortgaged to the said WESTON that the same may be settled on your Oratrix for her life or in default thereof that your Oratrix may redeem the same and hold the premises till she shall be // As imbursed the said mortgaged monies which they should have paid after the determination of her particular estate. And that your Oratrix may be otherwise righted and relieved in all and singular the premises according to right equity // and good conscience May it please your Honour to grant unto your Oratrix Writs of Subpoena under the seal of this Noble Court to the said Heneage FINCH, John PRESTWOOD Henry PRATT, William WESTON, William Duke HAMILTON, the Lady Elizabeth // His [wife?] Charles Lord CRANBOURNE the Lady Diana his wife Richard BLAGRAVE, Richard CHUTE, Henry THACKHAM, Robert EXOLL, John SLLAR, Richard AYWOOD, William SMITH, James PARSONS, James BROOMFIELD, Christopher HAYWOOD, Edward EXOLL, Ellis PALMER John MINGHAM, Thomas // COBBETT, Hugh HENN and Humphrey ROGERS to be directed thereby commanding them and every of them at a certain day and under a certain pain therein to be limited personally to be and appear before your Honour in the High Court of Chancery then // and have to answer the premises and to stand to and abide such order and decree therein as unto your Lordship shall deem meet and most agreeable to [?] equity and good conscience. And your Oratrix shall pray. //

[?] MAYNARD

[?]

[end of document]

Posted in Finch, Guildford Park, Hamilton, Maxwell, National Archives Documents, Pratt, Prestwood, Weston | Comments Off

C9/60/2

Posted on October 31, 2016 by batemanm

National Archives File C9/60/2

Bill of Complaint of Nathaniel AXTELL

Marcham

To the Right Honourable Heneage Lord FINCH Baron

Lord Keeper of the Great seal of England

Humbly complaining showeth unto your lordship your Orator Nathaniel AXTELL and Elizabeth AXTELL the only children of Nathaniel AXTELL late citizen and Vintner of London deceased by Sarah ASHE the relict of Jacob ASHE late of London Merchant [?] //[?] BAKER Relict of John BAKER Citizen and haberdasher of London deceased their trustees and guardians. That Thomas DALMAHOY of Guildford in the county of Surrey Esquire by his indenture Tripartite bearing date the seven and // [?] day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and sixty and seven [1667] [made between the said Thomas DALMAHOY of the first part, Nathaniel AXTELL citizen and [?] of London of the second part and Margaret YELVERTON Widow of the third part, for the consideration of the sum of one thousand pounds to him paid. That is to say five hundred part thereof by Nathaniel AXTELL and five // [hundred pounds?] the residue thereof by Margaret YELVERTON did thereby grant bargain and sell unto the said Nathaniel ATELL and Margaret YELVERTON All those lands grounds tenements and hereditaments called or known by the name of the Downes // […] by estimation one hundred sixty and eight [168] acres lying in the parish of St Nicholas in Guildford Compton and Worplesdon some or one of them on the said County of Surrey then in the tenure of John MARTER and Thomas FORD or their under // [tenants?] with said lands were heretofore parcel or reputed parcel of the said Park called Guildford Park. And one meadow called the Lords Meadow containing by estimating fourteen acres or thereabouts heretofore in the tenure of Elizabeth // Countess of DIRLETON or her assigns. And now in the tenure of the said Thomas DALMAHOY or his assigns and all and singular pastures commons floodings ways waters watercourses easements profits commodities hereditaments to and // appurtenances what so ever to the said lands and premises belonging or with the same or any part thereof used occupied or enjoyed reputed taken or known as part parcel or member thereof. And the reversion and reversions remainder // [?] [?] rents and profits of all and singular the thereby bargained or mentioned to be bargained premises and every part and parcel thereof. And all the estate right title interest trust use equity claim and demand // whatsoever of him the said Thomas DALMAHOY of in out of and unto the same bargained premises and every part and parcel thereof. And all deeds evidences and writings touching and concerning the same mentioned in a // schedule indented Tripartite thereunto annexed. To have and to hold one moiety of the premises with the appurtenances unto the said Nathaniel AXTELLL his executors administrators and assigns from the first day of February // Then [?] for and during the term of one thousand years from thence next ensuing to be complete and ends without impeachment of waste under a provision or condition never the less. That if the said Thomas // DALMAHOY his heirs executors administrators or assigns should pay unto the said Nathaniel AXTELL his executors administrators or assigns the sum of five hundred and fifteen pounds of lawful money // of England upon the nine and twentieth day of August next ensuing the date thereof at in the Middle Temple Hall London. That then and from thence every matter and thing therein contained should cease and // be utterly void. As in and by the said Indenture of mortgage Tripartite amongst other covenants articles and agreements relative being thereunto had will more at large appear. And your said Orator further shows that // The said Nathaniel AXTELL afterwards That is to say on or about the one and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred seventy-one [1671] made his last Will and Testament in writing and thereby amongst other things // therein contained did will and devise That his said children’s portions thereby bequeathed unto to them amounting unto a very considerable sum should after his decease be paid into the chamber of London by his executors therein name thereto // be served for them and thereof made his wife Silvester AXTELL his sole executrix. And your said Orator also further shows that the said Silvester AXTELL presently after. That is to say the fifteenth day of January one thousand six // hundred seventy and one [1671] which was the same day or next day after the death of the said Nathaniel AXTELL and before she could prove the last Will and Testament of her said husband deceased she he said Silvester AXTELL did by // Word of mouth in the presence of two or more credible witnesses being at that time and so for some time then before being very weak in body but of sound and perfect memory did make and declare her last Will and Testament [nuncupative?] // and did thereby make Nathaniel AXTELL her son one of the Complainants sole executor of that her last Will and testament nuncupative and thereby also did nominate and appoint the Complainants Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER her two sisters // her trustees. And did thereby also entrust her two sisters with her said two children Nathaniel and Elizabeth AXTELL and did utter and declare the same for her last Will and Testament nuncupative and shortly after did [?] in and // by the said Wills duly proved by them the said Complainant Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER and registered in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. And the several Administrations there upon granted under the Seal of the said Court to them the said // Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER during the minority of the said Nathaniel AXTELL the infant relation being there unto had will more at large appear. And your said Orator also further [show?] that the said Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER by [?] // Two of the several administrations so granted unto them under the seal of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury as aforesaid. They the said Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER have taken upon themselves the trust aforesaid and acted // Accordingly by receiving and paying of several sums of money by virtue of the said several Letters of Administration so granted to them as aforesaid where upon the Chamber of City of London taking notice // of the same pursuant to the performance of the last Will and testament in writing of the said Nathaniel AXTELL doth earnestly call upon and [?] them the said Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER to pay in the portions of the said Complainants // Nathaniel and Elizabeth AXTELL the two only children of the said Nathaniel AXTELL late citizen and Vintner of London deceased into the said Chamber of London to be secured there for the use of the said infants as they had done several other sums of // monies and for default thereof threaten to sue your said Orators Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER at law and thereby compel the said Orators to do the same pursuant to the trust in them reposed as aforesaid upon your Orators Sarah ASHE and Jane // BAKER did make their applications unto the said Thomas DALMAHOY That he would pay in the five hundred pounds and all arrears of interest there upon due if any such be unto your Orators Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER whereby the same // May be paid unto the Chamber of the City of London as aforesaid which the said Thomas DALMAHOY the [?] upon such application made by your said Orators as aforesaid is very ready and willing to do. And in order thereunto hath // As your Orators verily believe provided the said five hundred pounds to pay the same in accordingly. If by the decree of this Honourable Court he may be kept harmless and indemnified against your Orator Nathaniel and Elizabeth AXTELL when // they shall attain unto their several and respective ages of one and twenty years and have sufficient discharge in the law from your said Orators Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER for his so doing Now for as much as your Orators Sarah ASHE and Jane // BAKER are advised by their counsel learned in law that upon the payment of the said five hundred pounds into the Chamber of the City of London as aforesaid your Orator Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER having the several [?] // mistrations aforesaid in Trust during the minority only of the said Orator Nathaniel AXTELL That try cannot give to the said Thomas DALMAHOY a sufficient discharge in the law for the same. And that it will not be safe nor secure for // The said Thomas DALMAHOY although he is very desirous as your orator Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER do believe to pay the said five hundred pounds ad the arrears of interest thereupon due if any such be into the Chamber of London according // to their requests aforesaid unless your said orators Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER shall be enabled by decree of this Honourable Court to give unto the said Thomas DALMAHOY a sufficient discharge under their hands and seals. And shall also have power // By deed or deeds indented or not indented under their hands and seals to grant bargain sell assign and set over all the estate [… paper fold …. ] // life and since his death is [?] or come […] any persons their heirs and assigns as he the said Thomas DALMAHOY such nominate and appoint // And by such conveyances and under such covenants as the Counsel learned in law of the Said Thomas DALMAYHOY on that behalf shall be reasonably advised and likewise by the same decree be saved harmless and indemnified against the said Orators // Nathaniel and Elizabeth AXTELL when thy shall attain unto their several and respective ages of one and twenty years for their doings of the same. To the intent therefore that the said Thomas DALMAHOY may upon his corporal oath set forth the truth of // all and singular the premises. And whether he did not make such a mortgage of the premises as aforesaid. And whether he is willing to pay the said five hundred pounds unto the said Chamber of London for the use of the said Orators Nathaniel // and Elizabeth AXTELL to soon as your said orators Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER shall be enabled by the decree of this honorable court to give unto him the said Thomas DALMAHOY a sufficient discharge and shall be enabled to assign or otherwise convey over the estate and // [mentioned?] in the said mortgage as aforesaid. And that your orators may have relief herein as well agreeably right equity and good conscience. May it please your Lordship the premises considered to grant unto your said Orators your Majesty’s most gracious writ of // Subpoena to be directed to hi the said Thomas DALMAHOY commanding him at a certain day and under a certain pain there to be limited personally to be and appear in his Majesty’s High Court of Chancery to answer unto all and […] the premises upon // His corporal oath and further [?] to and abide such further order and determination therein as your Honor shall seem meet. And Orator as in duty bound shall pray.

[end]

Notes

PCC Will Nathaniel AXTEL 1641 Wife Margaret AXTELL and children Nathaniel, Mary and Elizabeth.
PCC Will Edward WOODFORD 1652. White Fryers London. Mother Elizabeth WOODFORD.Sisters Sarah,Dorothy, Jane, Elizabeth, and Silvester. Nephew William FELL. Brother Wentworth Woodford. Brothers Robert , Thomas.
PCC Will Nathaniel AXTELL 1671 Vintner of London. Dwelling in Twickenham. Son Nathaniel AXTELL and Elizabeth AXTELL. Uncle Thomas WOODFORD. Wife Silvester AXTELL. Cousin Richard AXTELL son of Uncle Richard AXTELL of Aldenham.
PCC Will Thomas WOODFORD 1671 of Middle Temple. Sister Sarah ASH Widow. Sister BAKER and her daughter Ann Dove. Nephew Nathaniel AXTELL. Niece Elizabeth AXTELL. Nephew William FELL. Brother DOVE.
PCC Will Sarah ASHE 1682 of Blackfriars. Nephew [?] Neice Elizabeth AXTELL. Niece Anne DOVE. Grandson Jacob ASHE. Daughter CARTER. Sisters Jane BAKER and Dorothy WOODFORD. William FELL?. William MORE of Charlton Somerset. Brother DOVE.
PCC Will Dorothy WOODFORD 1694 of Blackfriars. Nephew Nathaniel AXTELL. Brother WOODFORD. Niece Elizabeth COLLIER Anne ALLEN and AA daughters Elizabeth ALLEN and Mary ALLEN and son Nathaniel ALLEN and Henry ALLEN. Cousin George COPPIN. Cousin John BAKER (Haberdasher). Cousin Sarah MOTTERSHEAD. Sister Jane BAKER.
London Will George COPPING 1705 Citizen and Stationer London. Son in Law John MOTTERSHED and Sarah his wife. Granddau Elizabeth MOTTERSHED. Grandson George MOTTERHEAD. Grandson Thomas MOTTERSHED. Brother In law John BAKER and Elizabeth wife. Brother in Law Stephen COPPIN and his wife Esther and his son Robert COPPIN. Brother in law George FENTHAM and Esther his wife. Brother in Law Enoch DAZZACK and Anne his Anne. Cousins Robert COPPING, Mary COPPING, Joseph COLLER and wife. Cousin Richard MOTTERSHED. Cousin Isaac HONYWOOD. Niece Anne DAZZARD.
PCC Will Stephen COPPING Citizen and Leather Seller of London. Wife Esther. Son of Robert COPPING. Daughter Mary COPPING. Cousin Robert SHRIBB
PCC Will Jane BAKER 1694 son George COPPING. Granddaughter Sarah MOTTERSHED. Son John BAKER. Godson George BAKER son of John BAKER. Nephew Nathaniel AXTELL. Niece Elizabeth COLLIER. Niece Ann ALLEN. Ann ALLEN’s children – Nathaniel ALLEN, Elizabeth ALLEN, Mary ALLEN. Henry ALLEN her eldest son. Kinswoman Sarah WOODFORD. John BRIGHTRIDGE living nephew AXTELL.
PCC Will Nathaniel AXTELL 1725 Inner Temple. Kinswoman Susanna SHERMAN house in Thames street. Aunt Sarah ASH and Dorothy WOODFORD. Cousin William ALLEN. Cousin Joseph BAKER of Brandford
PCC Will Silvester AXTELL 1671 of Twickenham Relict of Nathaniel AXTELL. Sisters Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER.
LMA Axtell, Nathaniel, citizen and vintner / Reference Code: CLA/002/02/01/0738 FROM COLLECTION: – COURT OF ORPHANS, CITY OF LONDON
TNA Town Depositions C24 AXTELL, Nathaniel 1622 Bundle No 495 Letter B

The Answer of Thomas DALMAHOY defendant to the Bill of Complaint of Nathaniel and Elizabeth AXTELL infants and children of Nathaniel AXTELL Citizen and Vintner of London and Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER Widow their trustees and guardians Complainants

[This defendant?] saving to himself now and at all times hereafter all advantage and benefit of exception to the uncertainties insufficiencies and imperfections in the said Bill of Complainant for so much thereof as is // [concerns?] This defendant to answer unto saith That it is true that he this defendant by indenture of Mortgage Tripartite made between the parties and bearings date in the Complainant’s Bill is mentioned // [?] consideration of the sum of one thousand pounds severally paid unto to this defendant. That is to say the sum of five hundred pounds part thereof by the said Nathaniel AXTEL. And other five // [hundred?] pounds the residue thereof by Margaret YELVERTON as in the said Complainant’s Bill is [truly?] set forth. He this defendant did thereby grant bargain and sell unto the said Nathaniel AXTELL and // Margaret YELVETON all and singular the lands grounds tenements and hereditaments by such names and by such quantities and number of acres as the same are mentioned in the same Bill To // Have and hold one moiety of the thereby bargained or mentioned to be bargained premises with the appurtenances unto the said Nathaniel AXTELL his executors Administration and assigns from // the first day of that instant February during the term of one thousand years from thence next ensuing without impeachment of waste nevertheless upon this proviso or condition // therein contained. That if this defendant his heirs executors administrators or assigns should pay unto the said Nathaniel AXTELL his executors administration assigns the sum of five hundred // Tripartite and every matter and thing therein contained should determine and be utterly void. As in and by the said indenture of mortgage tripartite amongst several other // covenants articles conditions and agreements to be performed as well on the part and behalf of the said Nathaniel AXTELL his executors administrators and assigns as on the part and behalf of this // Defendants relation being thereunto had will more at large appear and whereunto this defendant for the more certainty refers himself. And this defendant further saith that he this defendant did // not pay the said five hundred and fifteen pounds unto the said Nathaniel AXTELL in his life time at the time and place in the said Indenture of Mortgage Tripartite appointed the // payment thereof whereby one moiety of the said premises became forfeited. But this defendant is advised by his Counsel learned in the law that upon the payment of the said five hundred pounds // And all such interest as shall be in arrears (which he is willing to do) notwithstanding the said forfeiture that this defendant is relievable in this Honourable Court against the said forfeiture. And this // Defendant further saith that he doth believe it to be true that the said Nathaniel AXTELL in the Bill named did about the time in the Bill mentioned make his Last Will and Testament in writing // and did thereby amongst other things Will and devise that his said Children’s portions thereby bequeathed should after his decease be paid into the Chamber of London to be secured there for the // use of his Children Nathaniel and Elizabeth AXTELL or to the like effect and thereof made his wife Silvester AXTELL his sole executrix And shortly as this defendants is informed died. And this defendant // doth also believe it to be true that the said Silvester AXTELL about the time in the Bill mentioned and before she had time to prove the last Will and Testament of the said Nathaniel AXTELL her late // husband The said Silvester AXTELL did by word of mouth make and declare her last Will and Testament nuncupative and thereby did make and declare the said Complainant Nathaniel AXTELL her // son being an infant her executor. And did thereby also constitute and appoint the said Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER her sisters her trustees. And thereby also did entrust her said // children with them the said Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER and shortly after died. And that the said Complainants Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER have several administrations granted unto them // under the seal of the prerogative Court of Canterbury during the minority of the complaints Nathaniel AXTELL and have since acted jointly or severally in the said Administration accordingly // by receiving and paying of several sums of money in order to the executing of the last Will and Testament in writing of the said Nathaniel AXTELL. As of the last Will and Testament nuncupative // of the said Silvester AXTELL as he is informed and believes. And this defendant further saith that it is true that the said complainant Sarah ASHE did some time since desire this defendant to pay // in the five hundred pounds which she said she was to pay unto the Chamber of the City of London and was due upon the said mortgage whereby the same might be there secured for the use of the said Nathaniel and // Elizabeth AXTELL according to the last Will and Testament of the said Nathaniel AXTELL their father deceased affirming unto this Complainant that she was pressed thereunto by the Chamberlain of the City of // London and thereupon this defendant was and is willing to comply with the desires both of the Chamber of the City of London and likewise of the said complainant Sarah ASHE. And hath provided the said // so soon as the Complainants Sarah ASHE and Jane BAKER or both or either of them shall be enabled by the decree of this Honorable Court to give unto this Defendant a sufficient discharge under their hands and seals // for the same. And shall have likewise power by the said decree to assign or otherwise convey over unto such person and persons as he this defendant shall appoint in such [?] in the said Bill [?] [?] // And likewise shall by the [?] be secured and indemnified against the complainants Nathaniel and Elizabeth AXTELL when they shall attain unto their several and respective ages of one and twenty // years for his so doing which he this defendant hopes this honourable court will decree accordingly whereby this defendant’s estate may not be liable to this encumbrance during the minority of the Complaints // Nathaniel AXTELL and Elizabeth AXTELL being infants not above five years of age or thereabouts as this defendant is informed and verily believes without that any other matter or thing in the // Said Complainants Bill of complainant material of effectual in the law for this defendant to answer and not here and hereby answered unto confessed or avoided traversed or denied is true all which // this defendant is ready to maintain avow and prove as this Honourable Court shall award and humbly prays to be hence dismissed with his reasonable costs on this behalf wrongfully sustained.

James [?] .

[end]

Notes

Margaret Yelverton PCC WILL 1678 London
Joseph YELVERTON PCC Will 1665 (Wife Margaret)

Posted in Dalmahoy, Guildford Park, National Archives Documents | Tagged Axtell | Comments Off

C9/7/42

Posted on October 31, 2016 by batemanm

National Archives C9/7/42

Contents

Answer of Robert ABBOTT. 1

Answer of Henry PRATT. 2

Answer of Robert ABBOTT

The several answers of Robert ABBOTT of London Scrivener unto the Bill of Compliant of the Right Honorable Charles Lord CRANBOURNE and the Lady Dina his wife Complainants

January 1650 ?

John PAGE

The said defendant saving to himself now and at all times hereafter all advantage of exception to the many uncertainties and // insufficiencies of the said complainants Bill of complaint for answer unto there of as he [?] is material for him this // defendant to make answer unto Saith that it is true tha the said James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON did bargain and sell all or // part of the said lands in the Bill mentioned unto the said Heneage FINCH john PRESTWOOD and Henry PRATT. And that sum of five and // twenty hundred pounds in monies mentioned in the said deed of bargain and sale as the consideration thereof were by the said// John PRESTWOOD at and by the appointment of the said James Earl of DIRLETON truly paid and delivered unto this defendant’s hands // to and for the only use and behoof of him the said James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON. But this Defendant further saith that within a short // time after the receipt of the said five and twenty hundred pounds the said James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON did order and // appoint him this defendant to pay the five and twenty pounds and every part thereof unto the east India Company in // London which he this defendant paid or caused to be paid accordingly. And this defendant also saith that before the delivery of the said // five and twenty pounds unto him this defendant by the said John PRESTWOOD he this defendant never had any part of // the estate or monies of the said James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON in his custody or possession nor did he the said Earl [?] // going into Scotland or at any time since the payment of the five and twenty pounds unto the East India Company now remaining in this defendants’ hands or custody. And whether they the said complainants have even offered to pay the said five // and twenty pounds he this defendant doth not [certainly?] know neither doth he this defendant know what estates have been // made of the said lands by the said mortgager or any of them nor whether ay estates thereof have been at all made by themselves // or any of them. And this defendant further saith that he did never enter into any combination with the Lord Duke Hambleton [HAMILTON] or the said // Elizabeth Countess of DIRLETON or any other person or persons whatsoever to defraud or defeat the said complainants of their said // right title or interest of in or to the lands in the Bill mentioned. As by the said Bill of Complainant is most unjustly and untruly // alleged. But he this defendant doth utterly deny all such contrivances and practices and all other unlawful combinations and // confederacies whatsoever without that that any other matter or thing in the Bill alleged material for him this defendant// to make answer unto and not herein and hereby sufficiently answered unto confessed and avoided transversed or denied is // true All which matters and this defendant is ready to answer and make good as this honourable Court shall award and prayeth to // be hence dismissed with his reasonable costs and charges in this behalf most wrongfully sustained. //[end]

Answer of Henry PRATT

The answer of Henry PRATT Citizen and Haberdasher of London unto the Bill of Complaint of the Right Honourable Charles Lord CRANBOURNE and the Lady Diana his wife Complainant

Feb 1650 [1650-1] Robert AYLETT

The said defendant saving to himself now and at all times hereafter all advantage of exception to the many uncertainties and // insufficiencies of the said complainants Bill of complaint for answer unto there of as he conceives is material for him this // defendant to make answer unto Saith that he neither knows nor hath ever yet heard that the said James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON hath made any conveyance of the lands in the Bill mentioned or any part thereof unto him this defendant // and others as by the said Bill of Complaint is supposed but if any such conveyance were made the same was altogether without // his this defendants privity consent or knowledge and the said defendant also saith that he knows nothing of the contents thereof // neither hath he ever heard or been made acquainted upon what consideration the same was made nor what estate is granted // or conveyed by the same nor hath he this defendant ever seen the said mentioned conveyance or any copy thereof or ever sealed any counterpart of the same but is utterly ignorant of all and any the causes and reasons why the said James Earl of DIIRLETON // did make and execute the said conveyance if any such were at all made or executed. And the said defendant further // saith that he never intermeddled with any of the rents or profits of the said lads nor ever accepted or took upon him // any [?] in the said lands or any part thereof to or for the said James MAXWELL Earl of DIRLETON or to or for any // other person or persons whatsoever but the said defendant doth hereby refuse relinquish utterly renounce and for ever disclaim // all and ever the use and uses estate and estates interest and interests whatsoever which now are or at anytime // heretofore been limited and conveyed unto him this defendant jointly or severally of or in any of the said lands and tenements // in the said Bill mentioned or any part thereof neither will he this defendant consent to accept of the same. And the said // defendant doth also deny that he did never enter into any confederacy combination with the Lord Duke Hambleton [HAMILTON] // or any other person or persons whatsoever to defraud or defeat the said complainants of their said // estate or interest in the said // lands. As by the said Bill of Complainant is most unjustly and untruly // alleged without that that any other matter or // thing in the Bill set forth material for him this defendant to make answer unto and not herein and hereby and // sufficiently answered unto confessed and avoided transversed or denied is true. All which matters and things // this defendant is ready to answer and prove as this honourable Court shall award and humble prayeth to be hence // dismissed with his reasonable costs and charges in this behalf most wrongfully sustained. //[end]

[end of document]

Posted in Hamilton, Maxwell, National Archives Documents, Pratt, Prestwood | Comments Off

C33/195

Posted on October 18, 2016 by batemanm

National Archives file C33/195 online at AALT
Indexed by IND 1/1574
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/C1/C33no195/IMG_6261.htm [263] [not found in index]
[?] 28 No[vember] [1650?]

[?] [?] CRANBOURNE et Dna Diana [?] [?] [?] [executrix?] James MAXWELL [?] DALTON [DIRLETON?] and [?] THACKHAM et James PARSONS defendants.
Upon opening of the matter this [?] day unto this Court by Mr Attorney of the Duchess being of the plaintiffs’ Counsel in the [?] of Mr HEAL being of the defendants’ counsel.
It was alleged by the plaintiffs’ Counsel that the scope of the plaintiffs Bill is to be relieved for rents due upon leases made to the defendants by the [?] Earl DIRLETON party whereof were due before his death which said rents due before his death the said plaintiff claims as administratrix and those rents due since his death the said plaintiff the Lady Diana claims the same as heir to the Earl and the said defendant THACKHAM by answer confesses a lease made to him at the rent of 50 [?] per annum and that
[Next page]
There are two half years rent in his hands which were due, part before and part after the death of the said Earl and the defendant PARSONS confesses that the said Earl made a lease unto him at 11 [?] per annum and that he hath two half years rent in his hands due, part before and part after the said Earl’s death.
And therefore it was prayed that the said several rents in the defendants’ hands might be brought into Court whereby [?] and upon hearing of the defendants’ counsel who alleged that there have been several disbursements out of the said rent. It is thereupon thought fit and so ordered that the said defendants shall bring the said rents into Court deducting out [?] of what hath been paid in taxes which ought to be allowed and the said rents is to remain in Court and not to be [?] out without special order.
[end]

1650 http://aalt.law.uh.edu/C1/C33no195/IMG_6427.htm [326]
[?] Cranbourne v THACKHAM

[page 326] [AALT IMG_6427]
Jo 23 [Jan? 1650-1]
[?] [?] CRANBOURNE et [?] Diana [?] [?] adm exc James MAXWELL Countess DIRLETON and Thomas THACKHAM et James PARSONS defendants
Whereas by an order of the 28th No[ember] last [past?] was ordered that the [?] should bring their rents in the said order mentioned unto Court deducting out thereof what hath been paid in taxes which ought to be allowed and the rent to remand in [?] and not to be delivered [without?] special order. Upon [opening?] of the matter this past day unto this [?] [?] by Mr HEATH being of the defendants Counsel it was alleged that the defendant by their answers set forth that the Earl of DIRLETON made a Will and made the Countess his relict the executrix thereof [?] the [?] years rent in the life of the said Earl belongs and that the Lady Diana is but one of the daughters and [coheirs?] of the said Earl he having another daughter so that the rent grown due since the death of the said Earl belongs but in part to her [and? ?] and the defendant then answer set forth that the lands they hold in lease is parcel of Guildford Park, which park a fee farm rent to the state which being [arrears?] The defendant THACKHAM hath been forced to pay out of his years rent for his said rent arrears of the State and four messuages fees [?] [?] and this defendant James PARSONS out of his years rent for the said rent arrears and messuages fees [3?] [16?] and therefore it was prayed that they might deduct the same as well as the taxes. This thereupon ordered that the defendants shall have time to [?]
[next page]
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/C1/C33no195/IMG_6427a.htm

unto Court their said rents deducting out thereof what they have paid taxes and what they set forth by answer to be paid for rent to the state and messuages fees until the end of this term and in the meantime all [?] of contempt against the defendants [for us] bringing in the same are stayed.
[end]

1650 March 3? http://aalt.law.uh.edu/C1/C33no195/IMG_6607a.htm
[505] [?] Cranbourne v Eliab HARVEY Robert ABBOTT and other defendants

[?] [? CRANBOURNE [?] [?] [?] Eliab HARVEY Robert ABBOTT et [?] Defendants
3 March
For as much as these Honourable
Lords [?] for [?] were this
[? Day informed by Mr [?son] being of the plaintiffs counsel that exception being taken to the answer of the defendant HARVEY and ABBOTT these defendants have not amended their said answer by the time limited. It is therefore ordered that Mr [?] [?] Do consider of he plaintiffs bill and the defendants said answers and Of the plaintiffs exceptions taken to the insufficiency thereof and If he shall find and certify the defendants said answer to be Insufficient then a [subpoena?] is awarded against the said defendants to make A full and perfect answer to the plaintiff’s bill according to the Said report.
[end]

1651/06/01 Tuesday

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/C1/C33no195/IMG_6964.htm [852]

[?] Lord CRANBOURNE and [?] Lady Diana his wife plaintiffs Elizabeth Countess of DIRETON William WESTON Esq John PRESTWOOD and others defendants.

Upon opening of the matter this [?] day unto this Court by Mr Attorney General and Mr JOHNSON being of Complainants Counsel in the [?] of Mr CHUTE being of the defendants Counsel and upon long debate of the matter and upon hearing what could be alleged on the [?] side. It is ordered that the defendants the Countess of DIRLETON and William WESTON shall have liberty to proceed to trial and judgement at law touching any the matters here in question but exception there upon is stayed till the hearing of the cause or other order to the contrary WG.

[end]

Posted in AALT, Guildford Park, Maxwell, National Archives Documents | Comments Off

C7/85/2

Posted on August 24, 2016 by batemanm

C 7/85/2

Description:

Short title: Lady Cranborne v Dalmahoy.

Plaintiffs: Diana [Cecil] Viscountess Cranborne.

Defendants: Thomas Dalmahoy.

Place or subject: money.

Document type: answer only.

SFP

Date:

[1620-1713]

The plea of Thomas DALMAHOY Esquire one of the defendants to the Bill of Review of the Right Honourable Diana Viscountess CRANBOURNE Complainant

The said defendant by protestation not acknowledgement or confessing any of the matters in the Bill // of Complainant set forth be true for plea thereunto saith that by the rule of this Honourable // Court no Bill ought to be brought to review any [?] except a party who brings in // the same Bill first become bound by recognisance with sureties to pay costs and damages in case such decree sought to be revised and reserved be [?]. // And this defendant answers that the decree by the complainants said Bill sought // to be remembered and reserved is duly signed and enrolled in this Honourable Court as by the record thereof may appear. And that the Complainant hath not given // any security by recognisance as by the said rule she ought to have done as by the certificate of the deputy clerk of enrolment of recognisances in this honourable // Court appears. Wherefore this defendant doth humbly [?] the judgment of this // Honourable Court whether he shall be compelled to make further answer to the said Bill and humbly prays the same may be dismissed with costs.

Anthony KEEK.

[End of document]

Posted in Dalmahoy, National Archives Documents | Comments Off

C10/201/16

Posted on August 24, 2016 by batemanm

National Archives file C10/201/16

[Full Transcript]

Humbly complaining showeth unto your Lordships your Orator Elizabeth COLWALL of the parish of St Giles in the Folds in the County of Middlesex Widow […] [Thomas?] // DALMAHOY of the Friary near Guildford in the County of Surrey Esquire pretending to be seized in fee or some other estate of inheritance of and in the […] // or capital messuage called or known by the name of the Friary near Guildford and the barns stables outhouses buildings gardens and orchards thereunto belonging // or had used and enjoyed therewith. And in all that park or parcel now or heretofore called or known by the name of Guildford Park. And all these several closes or parcels of // land, meadow and pasture called the Lees containing by estimation one thousand seven hundred acres situate lying and being in the several parishes of // St Nicholas Guildford, Stoke Next Guildford and Worplesdon some or one of them in the said county of Surrey. And of and in all that the manor of Wanborough // with the rights members and appurtenances thereof. And all that capital messuage or tenement farm lands meadows pastures and hereditaments there unto belonging// now or late in the tenure or occupation of George BEALE or of his assigns or assigns tenant or tenants and of every other lands tenements pastures coppices // wood grounds and hereditaments containing by estimation one thousand seven hundred acres now in the tenure of the said Thomas DALMAHOY or of his assign // or assigns tenant or tenants The said lands tenements and hereditaments are more particularly mentioned in a schedule hereunto annexed. All which lands tenements // and hereditaments were formerly the EARL OF DIRLTON‘s and after the DUCHESS OF HAMILTON‘s late wife of the said Thomas DALMAHOY. And the said Thomas DALMAHOY //pretending to be so seized as aforesaid and that the said manor lands tenements and hereditaments were free from all encumbrances had made suffered // or committed by the said Earl of DIRLTON the said DUCHESS OF HAMILTON or the said Thomas DALMAHOY except several mortgages made of several parts of the // same which were made for servicing several sums of money in the whole amounting to twelve thousand and one hundred pounds and interest and no more // Your Orator was prevailed with and did offer to give above twenty thousand pounds for the same provided it was free from encumbrances but the // mortgages before mentioned … And accordingly some money has been paid the said Thomas DALMAHOY by your Orator and your Orator intends to pay the // remainder. But now so it is may it please your Lordships that your Orator is sometimes credibly informed that the estate and interest in Law of and // in the premises or at least in some or most part thereof is not in the said Thomas DALMAHOY but in some person in trust for him by some decree // conveyance made by the said EARL OF DIRLTON or by the said DUCHESS OF HAMILTON or by the said Thomas DALMAHOY himself. And sometimes your // Orator is credibly informed that if the said Thomas DALMAHOY hath any interest in the Lands it is only an estate for life with several remainders over // to some persons unknown to your Orator and their heirs And your Orator at other times is credibly informed that the premises on some part // thereof are encumbered with a jointure to the present wife of the said Thomas DALMAHOY with judgements statues and recognisances and other // encumbrances besides these which amount to twelve thousand and one hundred pounds and [?] as aforesaid so that the said Thomas DALMAHOY cannot make any // good and legal estate to your Orator for the said purchase money. And your Orator is credibly informed that the qualities of the lands tenements // and hereditaments in the Bill mentioned are not the same as in the particular hereunto annex they are alleged to be. And yet the said Thomas // DALMAHOY to encourage your Orator to purchase the said premises doth affirm that the premises are free from being encumbered as a foresaid. All // which proceedings of the said Thomas DALMAHOY are contrary unto Equity and good conscience intender consideration thereof and for as much // as your Orator cannot discover the truth of all and singular the premises but in a Court of Equity by the oath of the said Thomas DALMAHOY // your Orator doth not doubt but he will confess the truth of the premises to the end therefore that the said Thomas DALMAHOY may upon his // corporal oath set forth the truth of the premises. And particular whether the Manors Messuages farms lands tenements and hereditaments and as // in the schedule hereunto annexed be a true particular of all the Manors Messuages farms lands tenements and hereditaments // that he is seized in fee of or hath any witness in the said county of Surrey which the late EARL OF DIRLTON deceased was at the time of his // death seized in fee in otherwise had an interest in and after him the COUNTESS OF DIRLTON had an interest in and DUCHESS OF HAMILTON had an // interest in. And whether the quantities and qualities of the lands therein mentioned be the same that are therein mentioned. And whether the // number of acres to the same. and what mortgages judgements statues or recognisances of the premises or any part thereof have been made or // acknowledged by the said James late EARL OF DIRLTON Elizabeth COUNTESS OF DIRLTON Elizabeth DUCHESS OF HAMILTON the said Thomas DALMAHOY or any or either of them and to whom or for what sum or sums and what is paid of the same and what remains unpaid. And // what other acts and encumbrances have been made or done by the said James EARL OF DIRLTON Elizabeth COUNTESS OF DIRLTON Elizabeth DUCHESS OF HAMILTON Thomas DALMAHOY or any or either of them where by the said Manors lands tenements and hereditaments or any part thereof are or // may be unencumbered title charge estate or otherwise. And whether he doth not know or believe that the said Manors lands tenements // and hereditaments are encumbered. And that the said Thomas DALMAHOY may set forth the truth of all and singular other the premises // may it please your Lordships to grant unto your Orator his Majesty most Gracious writ of Subpoena to be directed to the said Thomas DALMAHOY […] // him at a certain day and under a certain pain therein to be limited to be and personally to appear before your Lordships in […] // to .. all and singular the premises. And further to stand to and abide such orders and .. therein […] // Orator shall over pray at.

[Lower right hand corner of page folded over hence some gaps in transcript at the end of the page]

[End of page]

The schedule in the Bill hereunto annexed mentioned

.. House called the Friary House but houses gardens orchards conduit house and conduit house with water brought in leaden pipes into several offices now in the possession of the said Thomas DALMAHOY containing by estimation ten acres or thereabouts being of the yearly value of one hundred pounds and a little mead next the house containing by estimation about three acres being of the value of six pounds per annum.

The meadow called Long Mead containing by estimation about seven acres set unto William STEVENS at fourteen pounds per annum.

Part of the meadow ground called the Lees now in the procession of the said Thomas DALMAHOY containing by estimation about thirty seven acres being of the value of fifty two pounds ten shillings per annum.

The meadow called Dapdonne Mead containing by estimation about two acres and a half set unto Edward FORD at will at five pounds per annum.

The two wharfs one called Daponne Wharf and the other adjoining with a good house and garden and a new store house containing by estimation about twelve acres set unto Thomas TYNDALE esquire at twenty eight pounds per annum.

The Groates due by act of Parliament to the said Thomas DALMAHOY for every load of goods navigating upon the river Wey amount in the whole to one hundred pounds per annum little more or less.

The close of pasture call Walnut Tree Close containing by estimation about one acre one rood and twenty four perches set unto Mr FORD at will at three pounds five shillings per annum.

The Wharf called the Gun Wharf containing by estimation about one acre one rood and eight perches set unto Thomas GIBBS by poll ending at Michaelmas next at one pound fifteen shillings per annum but two pounds fifteen shillings will be given for it.

The mead called Lords Mead containing by estimation about seven acres now in the possession of the said Thomas DALMAHOY being if the value of fourteen pounds per annum.

The Lodge with a good house four barns and gardens and a meadow called the Great Mead containing in the whole by estimation twenty four acres set unto Richard BROOKES at Will at forty pounds per annum.

The Deer Park formerly contained by estimation three hundred and three acres out of which Pitsons land being twenty acres was taken and ten or whereabouts added to the park at present in the possession of the said Thomas DALMAHOY is two hundred eight nine acres being of the value of two hundred and forty pounds per annum.

The land called Pitsons Land containing by estimation twenty four acres being arable ground set unto Daniel GILHAM at Will at sixteen pounds sixteen shillings per annum.

The Land called the Plain Park containing by estimation one hundred and sixty acres being arable ground set unto Edward FORD at Will at one hundred and two pounds ten shillings per annum.

The farm called the Wilderness Farm a good house barns gardens and land containing by estimation two hundred and forty acres being arable meadow and pasture grounds set unto George MABAUCK at one hundred and fifty pounds per annum.

The farms called the Main Farm a good house barns gardens and land containing by estimation two hundred and sixty seven being arable meadow and pasture ground set unto Robert COX at one hundred twenty three pounds per annum.

A parcel of Land called Russells Land and part of Harwoods Lands containing by estimation ninety three acres being arable and pasture ground set unto Henry SMITH at Will at forty five pounds per annum which lands at twelve shillings per year comes to fifty pounds sixteen shillings per annum.

The other part of Harwoods Land containing by estimation twenty acres being arable and pasture ground set unto Daniel GILHAM at twelve pounds per annum.

The farm called Daniel Gilham’s containing by estimation fifty two acres being arable and pasture ground set unto Daniel GILHAM at thirty pounds twelve shillings per annum.

The Lands called Bromfolds Land containing by estimation twenty two acres being arable and pasture ground set unto Nathaniel PURSE at Will at thirteen pounds ten shillings per annum.

The farm called John Cobbett’s farm containing by estimation forty seven acres being arable and pasture ground set unto the said John COBBETT at twenty five pounds per annum.

Certain lands called Coles Lodge Land containing by estimation thirty acres set by lease dated the tenth October one thousand six hundred seventy six for Eleven years at eighteen pounds per annum.

Part of the farm called Walton Reads Farm containing by estimation one and thirty acres being seven closes or parcels of ground set unto Richard WEBB at eighteen pounds per annum.

The farm called Banisters Farm containing by estimation seventy six acres being a barns and nine closes of ground and three other closes containing nineteen acres all set unto Richard DEANE by lease dated the tenth October one thousand six hundred seventy seven for five years at fifty two pounds per annum.

For a house and garden at the end of the Parks Lane set unto Francis WHITE at Will at two pounds per annum.

The other part of Walter Reads Farms containing by estimation twenty two acres being three closes of land set unto Anthony BEYLOTT at thirteen pounds four shillings per annum.

Henley Grove now included in coxes Bargain but never before and has only the herbage now.

//end of page //

A coppice called Coles Lodge Coppice containing by estimation three acres being of the value five pounds per annum and two fish pounds containing by estimation six acres being of the value of four pounds per annum.

The conduit acre let to John KING at ten shillings per annum.

To be deducted for tithes seventy nine pounds and payable to the Rectors of St Nicholas in Guildford Worplesdon and to be deducted for quit Rents to the King twelve pounds ten shillings per annum.

And whereas since his Majesty’s Restoration a demand being made by the Rector of St Nicolas in Guildford for tithes or something in lieu thereof Mr DALMAHOY was prevailed upon to pay or allow him sixty pounds paid over since except for one year only wherein Mr DALMAHOY paid seventy pounds Mr DALMAYHOY not withstanding by the grant of the Crowns the said Friary and Lands at Guildford are granted tithe free and not withstanding any right the Rector can or may pretend to hath not been found by any trial at Law or otherwise appearing to be a charge and notwithstanding before his Majesty’s Restoration nothing was over paid yet he [condef..] that the said sixty pounds per annum should be deducted. The patron of St Mary’s Church in Guildford where the COUNTESS OF DIRLTON in the winter season (in respect of the low situation of her Parish Church) did frequently go to Church having in the life of the Countess received as a gratuity a present sometimes half a piece of Gold in a Hand Kercher did also apply himself to Mr DALMAHOY and instead of owning the same as kindness did pretend to have a right to something. But DALMAHOY believing that what the countess did was out of kindness only all the Friary lying in another parish did not agree to give or allow him anything as a right but in respect he also went many times to that church he did out of kindness sometimes prevent the said patron also not being obliged to anything.

Wanborough

A farm called Wanborough Farm containing by estimation none hundred twenty three acres of arable meadow and pasture ground set unto George BEALE by seal bearing the date the 10th Day of December one thousand six hundred seventy and five 1675 to hold for tenures at the rent of two hundred and fifty pounds besides the carriage of ten loads of wood from any part of Wanborough to the manor house of Guildford being worth five shillings per load and is [?] two pounds ten shillings. A parcel of land called Holloway Vere planted with sauct foyne containing by estimation forty three acres or thereabouts now in the possession of the said Thomas DALMAHOY being of the value of thirty five pounds and A parcel of land called Patricks Land containing by estimation forty six acres or thereabouts of pasture ground part where is now in the possession of George BEALE and the residue Thomas DALMAHOY or his assigns being all of one value of twenty five pounds per annum. A farm called Inwood Farm containing by estimation one hundred thirty two acres of arable and pasture ground now in the procession of George WOODROFFE esquire at the Will of the said Thomas DALMAHOY being of the value of sixty pounds per annum. And Wanborough Common if enclosed would be of the value of about thirty pounds per annum and Puttenham Common containing by estimation sixty seven acres. Several coppices now in the possession of the said Thomas DALMAHOY commonly called or known by their names hereafter mentioned (that is to say) Knoll Coppice next and Downes containing by estimation seventeen acres or thereabouts, Botham Coppice containing by estimation thirty two acres or thereabouts, Long Lawns Coppice containing by estimation nineteen acres or thereabouts, Knowles Coppice next Patricks Land containing by estimation twenty seven acres or thereabouts, Botham Lawns containing by estimation twenty two acres or thereabouts, House Coppice containing by estimation fifty four acres or thereabouts, Holme Grove containing by estimation eighteen acres or thereabouts, Meadows Coppice containing by estimation five acres, Rough Green Croft containing by estimation eleven acres, and Horse Inholme Coppice containing by estimation fourteen acres. All which said several coppices do contain in the whole by estimation two hundred and twenty four acres being of the value of one hundred pounds per annum besides the growth of the said coppices. A meadow lying at Waverley Compton set unto Mr George COLDHAM at will containing by estimation about five acres at five pounds per annum. And threes acres at three pounds five shillings per annum. Tithes of land holden of [Thomas?] MANN being of the value of ten pounds per annum. Quit rent rents yearly being of the value of seven pounds two shillings and three pence perquisitts and profits of courts of the value of ten pounds per annum. One copyhold of thirty pounds one life in being eighteen copyholds more most of them for them out of Wanborough the said Thomas Dalmahoy pays to the archdeacon of Surrey five shillings per annum. One indenture of bargain and sale enrolled dated the fifth day February one thousand six hundred and fifty eight. Whereby Thomas DALMAHOY Elizabeth Duchess of Hamilton Edward GROSVENOR Ninian WILLIAMSON and Anthony KOCKS did bargain and sell part of the premises unto said Martin sister and Challoner CHUTE and their heirs for your servicing two thousand pounds six hundred pounds and by subsequent conveyances as now vested in Charles FITZSWILLIAM Esquire William FARMER John JOHNSON Esquire and said Christopher WREN due a recognizance of seven thousand pounds defeasance on payment of the said moneys and interest. Also two other indentures the one of lease and the other of release dated the eight and nine and twentieth days of July one thousand six hundred fifty and nine [1659]. Whereby Thomas DALMAHOY Elizabeth Duchess of Hamilton James LOUTHIAN and Martin FORSTER did bargain sell and release unto John DICKSON and Anthony KOCHE and their heirs the manor of Wanborough for servicing three thousand nine hundred thirty eight pounds and interest. The which premises by reason of further moneys taken stand now charged to the principal sum of five thousand pounds and by subsequent conveyances are now vested in Henry and Nicholas POLLENFEN and George TREBY and John POLLEXFEN. And a lease for one thousand years of the same manor for servicing of the same moneys and eight thousand pounds for …. Also one other indenture bearing date the first day of December one thousand six hundred and fifty nine … Thomas DALMAHOY James SOUTHIAN and Marin FORSTER did demise the srite park and Lees of Guildford to _ THORNBURY for one thousand years for servicing one thousand two hundred and thirty six pounds and interest. The which premises by reason of further moneys taken up stand now charged to the principal sum of two thousand five hundred pounds and by subsequent conveyances … Also one other indenture dated the seventh and fourteenth day of February one thousand six hundred and sixty and .. whereby the said Thomas DALMAHOY did grant and … Nathaniel AXTELL of London and Margaret .. of London widow for one thousand years for servicing one thousand pounds [….]

//new page//

1681

The Answer of Thomas DALMAHOY Esquire Defendant to the Bill of Compliant of Elizabeth COLWALL Complaint

This defendant saving and reserving to himself now and at all times hereafter All advantage and benefit of exception to the uncertainties and other insufficiencies of the said Complaint Bill of Complaint contained for answers thereunto or to such part thereof as materially concerned this defendant to make Answers unto saith. That the Complaint (being as this defendant was informed and believes given to understand that this defendant was minded to sell and dispose of the Manor and Lands in the Bill and schedule mentioned she the said Compliant) or some on her behalf did thereupon treat write this defendant or some person on his behalf for the purchasing the same. And in order thereunto he this defendant saith that he this defendant did not only give or raise to be given to or to the use of the Complaint a particular of the said Manor and lands and of the quantities thereof which this defendant agrees with the copy annexed to the Complaint’s Bill. But this defendant believes he did and might affirms the truth was and is that he could make a good title to a purchasers of the said Manor Lands and premises in the particular mentioned free from all manner of Encumbrances except the mortgages in the Bill mentioned and the servicing relating thereunto. And except the Leases or Grant made by this dependant to Sir William MOORE Baronet and George WOODROFFE for the terms nine years dated about the second of February one thousand six hundred seventy and nine [1679] in trust upon condition that it should be lawful for this defendant by Will or deed to lease sell and dispose of the premises as he pleases for. And this defendant saith that he does not know of any deed, act, matter or thing whatsoever had made suffered or executed by James late Earl of DIRELETON Elizabeth Countess of DIRLETON Elizabeth late Duchess of HAMILTON or this defendant or any or either of them that are is or can be any encumbrance or charge on any of the said manor or lands in the particular mentioned which are to be purchased by the plaintiff whereby in any sort to prejudice or impeach such her purchase except those before excepted. And this Defendant saith that notwithstanding any act matter or thing done or wittingly or willingly suffered by this Defendant he this defendant hath as he is advised by his counsel and verily believes a good title power and lawful authority to grant bargain and sell in fee simple All and singular the manors lands tenements and hereditaments in the said schedule affixed unto the said Bill except before excepted. And notwithstanding any such act as aforesaid has good power and lawful authority to grant in fee simple all and singular the fromship royalties commodities and emoluments used and enjoyed with the same manor lands tenements and hereditaments except before excepted without that that any other matter or thing in the Complaints Bill of Complaint contained material for thy defendant to answer unto and not herein and hereby well and sufficiently answered unto confessed and avoided transverse or denied is true. Al which matters and things prayeth to be dismissed with his reasonable case and charges in this behalf wrongfully [?].

//end of page//

Posted in Dalmahoy, Hamilton, Maxwell, National Archives Documents | Comments Off

C7/458/82

Posted on August 24, 2016 by batemanm

National Archives file C7/458/82

Description: Short title: Lady Dirleton v Dalmahoy.

Plaintiffs: Elizabeth [Maxwell] Countess of Dirleton and others.

Defendants: Thomas Dalmahoy and others.

Place or subject: property in Wanborough, Surrey and Kidland, Northumberland.

Document type: answer only. SFP Date: 1657

[Transcript Complete]

The said defendants say and each of them saith that they do believe it to be true that the late Earl of DIRLETON [?] [of] this defendant the Duchess HAMILTON was seized in his demease as of fee of and in the Manor Rectory and [?] of // Wanborough […] in the County of Surrey in the Bill mentioned being of the yearly value of three thousand Pounds or thereabouts and likewise in the Manor of Ridland and lands in Cumberland and therein also mentioned and that // about the yearly value. And that he did mortgage the same to William WESTON Esquire for the security of the payment of two thousand five hundred pounds with interest as in the Bill mentioned and that // the Earl did by the same deed of Mortgage or in some other of the same date covenant and promise to pay the said two thousand five hundred pounds with interest at the days and times in the said […] //For the payment thereof. And these defendants doubt not to make it appear that the said Earl paid some part of the interest for the said two thousand and five hundred pounds about they take it to be true that […] // Payment for that the said mortgage became forfeited. And the said William WESTON became entitled to into the premises [?] did enter thereunto for the satisfaction of his money to him secured thereby as his lands // And do believe it also to be true that the said Earl did by some writing dated on or about the time in the Bill mentioned quit and dispose the said manor of Wanborough and premises in the County of Surrey // Mortgaged as aforesaid amongst other things to the Complainant the Countess of DIRLETON for the term her life. But these defendants do not know nor believe that the said Earl did intend that the // Defendant the Duchess of HAMILTON his daughter should redeem the premises out of mortgage as by the Bill is pretended for that it was well known to the said Earl her father that she this defendant was // Use way in a capacity nor had means to redeem the same. But these defendants do believe that the said the said late Earl did intend that with his personal estate the said money which he had borrowed upon the said // Mortgage as foresaid should be paid by the said Complainant his executors according to his covenant and promises aforesaid. And handing a power in himself to dispose also of the trust and equity of and to the // [?] of the said mortgaged premises her said late Earl the better to make promission for this Defendant his eldest daughter whom he took [?] to be but [?] provided for did by a writing by [?] // [?] and [?] bearing date on or about the seven and twentieth day of April in the year of Our Lord God One thousand six hundred and fifty [1650] give and dispose unto this defendant and his heirs after // [?] [?] the said Complainant his wife the said Manor of Rectory of Wanborough and the lands in Surrey mortgaged as aforesaid and within four days after he the said Earl ([?] made his Last Will and // Testament and the said Complainant his wife sole executrix thereof) died possessed of a great personal estate sufficient as these defendants doubt not to make it appear to this Honourable Court to have paid all // Just debts with in [?]. And that the Countess of DIRLETON proved the said Will and possess herself of the said personal estate and ought as these defendants humbly [?] to have satisfied and [?] // What was [?] of the said Mortgage money at the time of death while not being done these defendants doubt not but to make it appear that the said WESTON did enter into that part of the mortgaged //Premises in the County of Surrey and did by himself and such as her authorised in that behalf receive the rents issues and profits thereof in or towards satisfaction of his said mortgage money [?] // Appeared by the Complainants Bill that by the decree therein mentioned which she obtained in this honourable Court and to which cause this defendant the Duchess HAMILTON was no party [?] the said // Complainant was to hold the said mortgaged premises in the County of Surrey for the [?] of her life according to the said late Earl’s declaration but not until after the said mortgage money was paid to the // said William WESTON. And this said Defendant in a cause by her exhibited into this honourable Court whereunto the said Complainant and the said William WESTON and others are defendants hath the [decree?] // of this Honourable Court that the said William WESTON his heirs and assigns after the said mortgage money to him satisfied should convey to this defendant and her [?] or such as she could // Appoint the reversion after the death of the said Complainant of the said mortgaged premises in Surrey and what other particulars are in the said several decrees these defendants not having be // [?] at present by team do refer themselves to the records of this honourable Court how be it they do humbly [?] that [?] one of them to which they or other of them act not // Partly doth not concern them nor their estate. And these defendants further say that in regard the said Manor of Ridlands lands in Cumberland were mortgaged to the said William WESTON together with // the said lands in Surrey for our [?] [~?] as aforesaid but the said William WESTON had not entered upon them received any profits thereout towards the said debt. And that the equity of // Power of redemption of those lands encumbered was descended unto her Right Honourable the Lady Susannah CRANBOURNE this defendant’s sister together with this defendant as [?] // And convey to the said Earl. And both this defendant and her sister and for Lord CRANBOURNE her husband having and in [?] and occasion to make Sale of the said lands in Cumberland // did together with the Complainant […] did claim a [?] But title of Dower therein about the eighth day of March in the bill mentioned to come to an agreement with the said // William WESTON for her apportioning of the said original mortgage money and the interest thereof. And the allotting of an equal proportion and moiety thereof upon the said manor of // Ridland and lands in Cumberland being estimated of equal yearly value with the said mortgaged lands in Surrey the better to distribute the payment at the present between these defendants and // Said sister and accordingly by the that agreement the […] two hundred and fifty pounds being one full moiety of the said principal sum [?] with interest for the same from the // True of the first lending thereof was allotted to be charged between defendant and said sister in equal moieties upon the said lands in Cumberland to be paid to the said William WESTON out of the // sale thereof which was [?] after accordingly paid. And what was remaining to him unpaid fid rest still charge [?] the said mortgage premises in Surrey. And he the said William WESTON and his assigns or some // authorised under [?] as these defendants doubt not to [?] continue to receive rents issues and profits of the said lands in Surrey according to his interest therein. And these defendants do believe // that hereby he is or might have been well nigh satisfied the remainder for the said mortgages money and interest and therefore ought as these defendants humbly hope to convey the reversion of the said // premises (after the death of the complainant unto this defendant the Duchess HAMILTON and his hers according to the said decree of this Honourable Court. And also that the said Complainant having as these // defendants doubt not to [?] received sufficient of her said late Earl’s estate to pay his debts ought to reimburse to these defendants what was paid and allowed to the said William WESTON [?] // of that moiety of the said mortgage money and interest which was charged upon her said lands in Cumberland and paid by this defendant as aforesaid for which end these defendants did heretofore [?] // the [?] Bill in this Honourable Court against the said Complainant. And also against the said other Complaint THOMAS and HODGE to present the [?] and [?] of her this defendant by [?] [?] // and pretended payment of one thousand two hundred and fifty pounds to the said William WESTON with interest whereas by the profits received as aforesaid he was or ought have been hath it not been // his own fault) very nigh satisfied the same and the [?] Conveyance presented to be made of the inheritance of the promised by the said William WESTON unto the said THOMAS and HODGE which if two such // there [had these?] defendants hope the same will appear to have been done in abuse of this Court and the decree thereof of made for this defendant the Duchess of HAMILTON as aforesaid and ought not to produce // any of them for the redemption of the premises [?] the Complainants be permitted to make sale there upon any the pretences in the Bill set forth or these defendants be [?] to [?] Interest or claimed // thereunto but to have and enjoy the same after the death of the Complainant the Countess of DIRLETON her [?] according to the intention and declaration and obligation of the said late Earl her father and to // have the same reconveyed to her as aforesaid without that that any other matter or thing in the said Bill of Complainant [?] material or effectual for these defendants or either of them to make // An [?] unto and not herein and hereby well and sufficiently answered unto confessed and avoided [?] or denied is true. All which matter and things these defendants and [either?] of them // [?] and shall be ready to appear and prove at this Honourable Court shall award. And humbly pray to be [?] dismissed with their costs and [?] in this behalf wrongfully sustained.

Posted in Dalmahoy, Hamilton, Maxwell, National Archives Documents, Weston | Comments Off

Notes from “Some Records of the Early Friends In Surrey and Sussex – Thomas W MARSH”

National Archives

Other Notes

Will of Thomas AMYE (-1613)

Bill of Complaint of Henry Clifton of Snowhill

Complaint of Henry CLIFTON

The joint and serval answers of James CLIFTON and Beatrix CLIFTON defendants to the bill of Complaint of Henry CLIFTON Complainant.

Bill of Complaint

National Archives PROB11/283

National Archives File C33/199

Bill of Complaint Charles Lord Cranbourne and Diana is wife

Answer of Heneage FINCH

Further Answer of Robert ABBOTT

Answer William WESTON

Bill of Complaint of Nathaniel AXTELL

Answer of Henry PRATT

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta