Chancery Decrees and Orders (PRO C78/118 no 3 report: Jn Aylmer v Roger Harlakenden)

44Eliz1 (Tuesday 17 November 1601)

document 18500005

whereas Jn Aylmer of Nayland in the county of Suffolk yeoman complainant hath lately exhibited his bill of complaint in this honourable court of chancery against Roger Harlakenden of Earls Colne Essex esq defendant the said complainant in and by his bill of complaint alleging that whereas the right honourable Edw de Veer earl of Oxford was seised in his demesne as of fee or in fee tail of and in the manor of Earls Colne lying and being in the county of Essex aforesaid and that he so being thereof seised by his indenture bearing date 24.2.26Eliz1 in consideration of the good true and faithful service of Jn Towghtwood servant unto the said earl by the space of thirty years before done did demise grant and to farm let unto the said Jn Towghtwood certain closes and parcels of ground being parcel of the demesne of the said manor of Earls Colne that is to say one pasture or bushy croft called or known by the name of Bunners containing by estimation 16a be it more or less one bushy croft or wood called Hawncers Hedge containing by estimation 10a be it more or less and one parcel of ground called Bettingsland containing by estimation 10a be it more or less and three several ponds or waste grounds containing by estimation 1a2r be they more or less as the same been situate and lying in the parish of Earls Colne aforesaid to have and to hold the said parcels of ground unto the said Jn Towghtwood his heirs and assigns from the feast of michaelmas then last past before the date of the said indenture unto the full end and term of twenty one years then next ensuing fully to be complete and ending yielding and paying there for yearly during the said term unto the said earl his heirs and assigns inheritable to the premises the sum of 20s at two terms or feasts of the year viz the annunciation and michaelmas by even and equal portions as by the said indenture of demise the said complainant alleged more plainly it did appear and the said complainant in and by his said bill of complaint further alleging that whereas afterwards the said Jn Towghtwood by his deed of grant or assignment bearing date 4.2.28Eliz1 for and in consideration of the sum of 20li to him in hand paid by the said complainant did bargain sell assign and set over unto him the said complainant all that his said indenture and term of years then to come and not expired of and in the same in an ample and large manner and form in and by all things as the said Jn Towghtwood had held and enjoyed the same or any parcel thereof and that by virtue thereof the said complainant did enter into the said premises intending to have taken the issues and profits thereof as in right and equity it was as he alleged lawful for him to do and that notwithstanding the said defendant practising unconscionably as he also alleged and seeking contrary to all right and equity by all undue courses to defeat him the said complainant of the said demised premises and to frustrate and make void the grant and assignment of the said parcels of land made to him the said complainant as aforesaid he the said defendant presuming of his greatness in the said county of Essex having gotten into his hands not only the said original lease but divers evidences concerning the premises has with strong hand entered into the said two closes called Bunners and Bettingsland and from thence had expelled and expulsed him the said complainant contrary to all right and equity for reformation of all which the aforesaid premises the said complainant prayed process of subpoena out of this honourable court of chancery against the said defendant to answer the premises which premises being sued upon the said defendant he thereupon appeared and made his answer according to which said answer the said complainant replied and the said defendant thereunto rejoined and thereupon the said parties descended and came to a full and perfect issue as by the said bill answer replication and rejoinder remaining of record in this honourable court more at large it doth and may appear after which issue so joined in the said cause as aforesaid this court was informed by master Thos Herries being the defendant's counsel that the said parties having joined in commission for the examination of their witnesses touching the same the said complainant had the carriage of the same commission and having given warning to the defendant to attend the execution of the same commission by a day where the defendant attended accordingly the said complainant nevertheless came not nor the said commission so as this commission was lost by his default whereupon another commission was sued out of the last hilary term and warning being likewise given to the defendant for the execution thereof in .3.last the complainant also failed the execution thereof therefore and because it was then after alleged by the said master Herries that two non suit had been had at the common law against the complainant's title it was ordered by this court that if the said complainant should not on that day senight show unto this court good cause to the contrary then if the information aforesaid were true the matter should be dismissed out of this court with such cost to be paid by the complainant to the defendant as this court should award as by the said order bearing date 7.5.44Eliz1 remaining in the registry of this honourable court more plainly appeareth but for as much as no cause hath been showed by the said complainant to this court to the contrary of the said order of 7.5. at the day thereby prefixed and appointed as aforesaid or at any time since until 15.5. as by a certificate under the hand of the registry of this most honourable court may at large appear it is therefore this present term of easter that is to say 17.5.44Eliz1 by the right honourable sir Thos Egerton knight lord keeper of the great seal of England and court of chancery aforesaid ordered and decreed that the matter be clearly and absolutely dismissed out of this court according to the said former order and that the said plaintiff shall pay unto the defendant such costs for his vexation as master Grimston one of the master's of this court shall say and assess