(undated) the replication of Wm Edees complainant to the joint and several answers of Thos Morgan and Benedict Groute the complainant replies and says that the complaint exhibited by him in this court is in all material points true etc and says that the joint and several answers of the defendants are very untrue etc yet carrying a show of truth albeit there is not any truth at all therein that is to say in such points thereof as the defendants have upon their corporal oaths denied the allegations of this complainant therein very truly set forth and specified particularly in that they aver and say in their answer that all the goods and chattels which Wm Edees the complainant's late father had and was possessed of at the time of his death and which came into their hands as executors of the said Wm did not amount to the value of 100li and likewise aver and say that Wm Edees the testator his late father did not to their knowledge become bound to this complainant in the sum of 200li by obligation condition to pay this complainant 100li or any other sum or sums of money whatsoever and also that they aver that they know not of the promise in the bill truly alleged to be made by the said Wm Edees at or before the marriage of this complainant with Mary Pullen his now wife daughter of Hen Pullen as in the bill and answer named and in that also that the defendant Growte expressly denies that he was either willed or required by Wm Edees the testator to signify Hen Pullen that for every groat which he the said Pullen would make his daughter worth in marriage unto this complainant the said testator would make the complainant worth sixpence and in that the said Growte also avers that he was not named executor by the testator to the intent that he might be enabled to perform the said promise likewise in that the defendants deny that the said testator did charge them to see his marriage portion together with the 100li before mentioned duly paid and performed unto this complainant for the complainant says he well hopes that he shall be able by depositions of witnesses with whom he has had some conference since the exhibiting of this bill of complaint in this court against the defendants to prove all the points of the bill especially denied by the defendants to be true together also with all other material points of the bill laid to their charge and as concerning the obligation of 200li in the bill and answer mentioned which the complainant did suppose had been by casual means come to the hands of the defendants he says that the same bond being otherwise chanced into the hands of a friend of his is now come safely to the hand of this complainant again which is ready at all times to be showed forth in this court if required and therefore this deponent does very much marvel at the audaciousness of the defendants in denying expressly that the said Wm Edees the testator made any such bond and for full and perfect replication unto the answer of the defendants this complainant says that in all and every matter and thing as in the bill he has said without that that all the goods and chattels of which Wm Edees died possessed were not of that value which is set down in the complainant's bill of complaint or that he goods and chattels which Wm Edees had and was possessed at the time of his death and which came to the hands of the defendants as executors of Wm Edees did amount to the value of 100li or that the defendants have hitherto paid and delivered all the legacies that have been due to be paid as in their answers is by them falsely alleged and that also that it is true that Wm Edees the testator did not to the knowledge of the defendants become bound unto this complainant by the obligation aforesaid in the sum of 200li or any sum or sums of money condition to pay upon this complainant the sum of 100li or any other sum or sums of money for the complainant hopes that he will be able to prove directly that the defendants did shortly after the making sealing and delivering of the obligation of 200li see the said bond and very well knew that Wm Edees did voluntarily and upon good consideration enter thereinto unto this complainant and the complainant does aver and makes not any doubt that he shall be able to prove the testator his promise in the bill of complaint mentioned to be made at and before this complainant's intermarriage with Mary his now wife daughter of Hen Pullen in the bill and answer named without that that it is true that Wm Edees the testator did not will and require the defendant Benedict Growte to signify unto Hen Pullen that for every groat which Hen would make his daughter worth in marriage with this complainant he the said Wm the testator would make the complainant worth sixpence or that the testator had not any speech with the defendant Growte or of such a promise and portion for that the defendants do not know what portion this complainant had in marriage with his wife or that Benedict Growte was not made executor to the intent to be enabled to perform the promise without that also that this complainant has by any undutiful behaviour or bad carriage towards Wm Edees the testator his father procured his father's dislike and displeasure as in the answer is most untruly suggested and alleged although the promise was not expressed in the last will and testament of Wm Edees the testator without that any other matter or thing etc all which he is ready to prove and prayeth as in his bill he has prayed