[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Chancery Depositions (PRO C2ElizO.3/32 Edw de Vere v Roger and Rich Harlakenden)

(no date) (1594)

document 15600005

Kedderminster the replication of Edw earl of Oxford complainant to the joint and several answers of Roger Harlakenden esq and Rich Harlakenden gentleman defendants the said earl replieth and saith that his said bill of complaint exhibited in this honourable court it very certain and sufficient in the law to be answered unto and doth answer and maintain all and every matter and thing in his said bill mentioned to be good and true in such manner and form as the same are in his said bill of complaint truly set forth and declared and saith further that the said several answers of the said defendants and either of them are very untrue uncertain and insufficient in the law to be replied unto the incertainty and insufficiency whereof to the said earl at all times hereafter saved he further replieth and saith that the said defendant Roger Harlakenden before the time of the bargain and sale of the said manor priory and other the lands and tenements in the said bill of complaint mentioned to be bargained by the said earl to the said defendant because he would take away all suspicion of fraud and deceit on his part to be entrusted by the said earl in passing the said bargain and thereby the rather persuaded the said earl to conclude the said bargain with him did then promise the said earl that if he would pass unto him the said defendant the said manor priory and other the premises which the said earl intended to sell at the said rate of twenty years purchase that he the said defendant would at any time at the pleasure of the said earl reassure the said manor priory and other the premises back again to the said earl for the same sum of money that he the same defendant should pay to the said earl for the said manor priory and other the premises so intended by the said earl to be sold upon which protestation the said earl did the r ather give credit to the said defendant and was thereby the rather drawn to pass unto the said defendant the said manor Priory and other the lands and premises in form aforesaid intended to be sold by the said earl without any further examination of the value thereof and thereupon passed the assurance of the said manor and priory and other the lands and tenements in the said indenture mentioned in manner and form as is before said in the said bill of complaint very truly set forth and declared without that that the said offices in the said bill and answer mentioned were offered unto the said defendant Roger Harlakenden by some from the said earl without any suit or request made by the said defendant and without that that the said defendant had conference with divers persons occupiers of the premises or of any part thereof or with any others touching the true meaning of the said earl for the said sale of the said lands or did make the true purpose of the said earl touching the said sale to be known unto the same occupiers or that the same defendant endeavoured himself to advance the price of the premises to the best of his skill for the benefit and profit of the said earl or that the same defendant upon any objection made by the said tenants and occupiers of the premises answered them that the reversion and remainder of the premises should be presently purchased and obtained from the queen's majesty or that the same defendant gave any other satisfaction to the said tenants and occupiers upon the said objections or gave any advisement to the said earl of any such objections or doubts as in the sai d first answer is very untruly alleged the same defendant contriwise and contrary to the especial trust and confidence reposed in him by the said earl did not only not further the sale of the premises intended to be sold by the same earl nor inform such persons as were willing to buy the premises at the true value and clear title thereof but also by all deceitful and fraudulent means practised to hinder the sale of the premises to others to the intent thereby to draw the bargain thereof to himself at an under value and also to the intent thereby covertly and by colour of some general words to be inserted in the indenture of bargain and sale of the premises to contrive and to convey unto himself an estate in other lands which never were intended or meant by the said earl to be bargained to the said defendant Roger Harlakenden without that that the said Stubbing in the said answer named did about one year before he purchased the said parsonage of Wickham in the county of Cambridge of the said earl pay unto the said earl for one lease thereof at the yearly rent of 6li 100li or that the said earl was paid to himself and others and others for the premises sold by the said earl to the said defendant (torn) Harlakenden for the sum of 900li or thereabouts as in the said answer is very untruly alleged and without that there is issuing out of the premises (torn) to be sold by the said earl or wherewith the same premises are charged the yearly sum of 29li by any such rate or proportion as in the said former answer is untruly alleged and whereas it is alleged in the said answer that the said lands mentioned in the said answer were chargeable with the sum of 200li or thereabouts according to the proportion in the said answer mentioned the said earl saith that the said lands are not chargeable with that proportion and though they were yet is the same no answer to the said earl for that the same or the greatest part thereof hath been levied upon the tenants and farmers of divers of the same premises and not paid by the said defendant and without that that the said premises were in lease for such long terms of years as in the said answer is very untruly alleged and without that that the said defendant Roger Harlakenden did offer to buy of the said earl all the lands tenements and hereditaments mentioned in the said indenture of bargain and sale or that he upon such pretence as in the said second answer is alleged or upon any other purpose but only to defraud and deceive your said earl did use the means of the said Felton in the said second answer mentioned or gave unto him the said Felton any such small sum of money only as in the said second answer is very untruly surmised and without that that the sum paid by the said defendant Roger Harlakenden to the said earl for the purchase of the premises amounted to the value of forty years purchase or that it may so appear by the counterpart of leases formerly made by the said earl or that all the parcels mentioned in the conveyance to the said Rich Harlakenden the other defendant were intended were intended or meant to be sold by the said defendant Roger Harlakenden or that the said defendant Roger Harlakenden can be ignorant that the said general words in the said conveyance do contain more lands and tenements than were truly meant to be bargained and sold by the said earl to the same defendant as in the same second answer is very untruly alleged and without that any other matter or thing in the several answers or either of them mentioned material or effectual to be replied unto and in this replication not sufficiently replied unto confessed and avoided traversed or denied is true all which matters and things the said earl is ready to aver and prove as this honourable court shall award and prayeth as before in his said bill he hath prayed Harris