[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Chancery Depositions (PRO C2/01/58 Hen earl of Oxford v Rich and Thos Harlakenden)

30.5.1608 (Monday 30 May 1608)

document 15900519

Hen earl of Oxford lord great chamberlain of England complainant to the joint and several answers of Rich Harlakenden and Thos Harlakenden defendants by the lady Eliz countess dowager of Oxford and sir Francis Vere knight as guardians says that he before in his bill of complaint has said and is ready to prove etc and that the answers of the defendants are very insufficient in the law to be replied unto etc briefs of the matter heard before his lordship in the high court of chancery on saturday 10.2.41Eliz1 between the late earl Edw complainant and Roger and Rich Harlakenden defendants in the bill and answer mentioned will be delivered to your lordship in such manner and form as in the bill of complaint is alleged and his lordship will be pleased to have the opinions of some of the lord chief justices how far forth the court might give relief to the late earl touching his demand as by the order may appear and after the making of the order there were briefs delivered to your lord but before the same could be digested by the counsel on both parts some good time was spent and also some further time passed in suing and executing the decree in the bill mentioned touching the farm Plaistowe and the tithe in the bill and answer also mentioned which Roger Harlakenden and Rich Harlakenden had by the general word inferred into the indictment of purchase of the site and manor of Colne Priory covenously and fraudulently gotten from the late earl and many other great and urgent occasions of the late earl and the speedy decease of Roger Harlakenden and of the late earl were the cause of that your lord was not so earnestly followed in the executing of the cause and to take the opinion of the chief justices and to make your lord's decree touching the premises as otherwise might have been nevertheless the same cause remained still depending in the court of chancery until the decease of the late earl Edw and the same being now discontinued by the decease of the late earl the now earl hopes that the same may now be by the course of the said court and the favour of his lord revised without that that the said suit was long since discontinued by the late earl or that he neglected the prosecution thereof after the hearing thereof in such manner and form as in the answer of the defendants is untruly surmised and without that the premises were conveyed to the defendant Rich Harlakenden upon his marriage or upon any such consideration as in the answer is untruly suggested but were conveyed to him by the direction of Roger Harlakenden his father of purpose to better cloak and cover his fraudulent and covenous dealings which the late earl for Roger Harlakenden was first determined to have taken the purchase of the premises in the name of Jn Church gentleman and nevertheless afterwards took the purchase of the defendant Rich Harlakenden his son and his heirs upon trust and consideration to the use and benefit of Roger Harlakenden his father and the now earl further says it is not material whether the defendant Rich Harlakenden was privy to the premises in the bill and answers mentioned made by Roger Harlakenden his father to the earl for the reassurance of the premises to the late earl or no and the now complainant thinks and he trusts the high court of chancery will be of the opinion without that Roger Harlakenden left no sufficient assets to the defendants neither in lands nor gardens to pay the just and due debts of their father deceased or that they have given contentment to all or most part of the credits of their father which part of their own estate as in their answer is untruly alleged and without that the complainant for his exhibiting his bill of complaint into this court exhibited his bill of complaint in the kings court of wards and liveries and thereby has complained against the defendants for the ledger and register books in the bill mentioned or that any bill by him the complainant exhibited in the court of wards was for the same cause amongst other things that his said bill in this court is as in the said answer untruly surmised and without that any other thing in the bill contained etc