Star Chamber (PRO STAC8/289/30 Eliz and Francis Veer v Rich Harlakenden)

29.11.4Jas1 (Saturday 29 November 1606)

document 19203920

twenty sixth says that on that day he Waldgrave did move the said force at the mill and he was informed that one Diglett was or had been assignee to Edes of the mill by receipt of rent but for how long Waldgrave does not know neither did he hear or come to know this until the day after he came to remove the force says about half an hour after he came to the mill the 19.5. to remove the force Edes came forth of the mill to him and showed to him a lease made as he remembers to Mary then and now Edes wife says further that he did not then find any persons in the mill other than Edes his wife and three small children and says he did not threaten Edes with imprisonment until he promised to leave possession of the mill or as in the bill is supposed says that after coming the said day to the mill for the removal of the force Edes did persuade him to suffer him to enter into the mill to see if any force were then committed that if he should refuse Waldgrave to come into the mill to see and view if any force were there committed or no he Waldgrave was to send Edes to prison (these are rather crammed notes hence the ambiguity perhaps)