[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Chancery Depositions (PRO C3/273/36 Rich and Thos Harlakenden v Simon Ive and Jn Aylmer)

27.5.1603 (Friday 27 May 1603)

document 15900005

(year not given and so assumed) joint and several answers to Simon Ive and Jn Aylmer defendants to the bill of reviver of Rich Harlakenden and Thos Harlakenden complainants say that the bill is very uncertain and insufficient in the law and that they ought not to make any answer to it first that Roger Harlakenden now deceased commenced the suit in easter term 1590 and against them and against Bennet Watson Jn Scott Thos Bridge other defendants as by record of this court further Roger Harlakenden lived after the said suit so commenced about twelve years and in all that time had never proceeded to nor brought the cause to any hearing nor require publication of any depositions in the cause to their knowledge if there were any examined therein and whether there were any examined in this cause or no is unknown to them also Nich Bleake on of the defendants who the matter did principally concern is now dead who lived after the suit commenced about eleven years and never examined any witnesses to their knowledge and Scott and Watson are likewise dead who lived after the suit was commenced about twelve or thirteen years and never examined any witnesses in the cause to their knowledge further say that they and either of them for their parts do utterly disclaim to have any right title or interest in or to the piece of ground called Great Chyffin or that they at any time in the bill exhibited by Roger Harlakenden against them and others mentioned in the bill or at any time since have any right title or interest in the same (torn) say that as they take it the interest in the piece of ground called Great Chyffin rests in the (torn) honourable Hen de Vere now earl of Oxford the king's ward therefore they do demure upon the bill of reviver and do demand judgement of the court whether they shall be compelled (torn) any further answer thereto nevertheless if they shall be ordered by the court to answer the bill then and not otherwise they saving to themselves the (torn) advantage and exception to the insufficiency and uncertainty of the bill of reviver they and (torn) then do answer and say as they before in their answer to the bill of complaint exhibited by (torn) Roger# Harlakenden into this court have already answered and said pray to be dismissed with costs in this behalf wrongfully sustained