[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Court of Requests (PRO REQ2/105/12 Edw Sibthorpe of Braintree v: Xoph Sibthorpe Math Everard and wife Roger Harlakenden etc 1591-2)

16.6.33Eliz1 (Wednesday 16 June 1591)

document 19600349

say that Roger Harlakenden for as much as concerns himself says that true it was that he on 6.7.26Eliz1 having to his great cost and charges planted one parcel of ground containing 5a and the same had furnished with hop poles and other necessaries by his deed indented did demise grant and farm let to Edw Sibthorpe his executors etc the piece or parcel of hop ground together with half of such waste ground as was then enclosed within the hop ground for 14years from michaelmas next by yearly rent of 25li to be paid at the usual feasts of michaelmas and the annunciation by equal portions together with 90lb weight of good clean sweet well inned well dried and merchantable hops yearly also to be paid and delivered to Roger Harlakenden at the feast of michaelmas with a proviso or condition contained in the deed indented that if the rent of 25li or any part or parcel should happen to be behind or unpaid or undelivered by the space of 20days after the feast days of payment then it should and might be lawful to and for Roger Harlakenden and heirs etc into the demised and every part to reenter and the same to have again as in his or their former estate in which deed so indented Edw Sibthorpe did covenant and grant to him and executors etc to Roger Harlakenden as well to leave lying and being in and upon the demised premises at the expiration of his term ten thousand of good hop poles for the use of Roger and to leave the demised premises well and sufficiently replenished and stored with hop roots and the enclosures of the same and every part thereof well and sufficiently hedged and enclosed as by the deed indented ready to be showed to the court and after this the said Edw Sibthorpe entered and enjoyed the premises and paid the rent as the defendant now remembers for one whole year or thereabouts after which Wm Stammer entered and enjoyed but by what right and title or by what conveyance and assurance he does not know during which time Stammer came to the defendant telling him that the estate and interest of Edw Sibthorpe by good and lawful conveyance was in him Stammer and that he had bought and purchased the same of Xoph Sibthorpe brother of the complainant who had it conveyed and assured to him from the complainant at which time also the said Stammer moved this defendant that he might take the lease into his own name after the estate of Edw the complainant in respect of very great costs and charges which was to be employed and bestowed upon the hop ground as well in manuring and furnishing and planting the hop ground with poles and other necessaries which it then wanted as also the avoiding of some inconvenience which might ensue to him Stammer by some former covenous and fraudulent practices or conveyance made thereof by the complainant which Stammer then told the defendant was suspected as well by Stammer as Xoph Sibthorpe his brother and that they the rather suspected the same that after the complainant had sold his interest to Xoph Sibthorpe his brother he the complainant did break up one chest where he knew the lease to be laid with a purpose as they both thought to have taken away the lease which before that time was indeed by good hap removed from thence whereupon this defendant answered that he did not mean to alter the state thereof except it might credibly appear unto him that the interest of the complainant was conveyed by himself as aforesaid which Stammer then told this defendant that it should but the defendant heard no more thereof in long time after after which this defendant hoping to have received his rent as in times past he had done before the last day of payment and seeing that no man came to him with the payment thereof he the defendant calling to mind what speeches had been uttered unto him by Stammer of the complainant his late tenant sent his servant at the last instant when the rent was to be paid to the demised premises there to demand his rent which no man was there to pay or tender after which time this defendant having no means to come by his rent without suit of law and hearing also that the complainant his late tenant was then beyond the seas and supposed to be dead did reenter into the demised premises as was lawful for him to do after which reentry the demised premises lay so long in his hands that he rested doubtful whether to find a sufficient tenant to occupy and manure the same and pay him his rent therefore himself being both inexperienced and unfurnished at that time for that purpose but so it was that Stammer as he remembers about six or 7weeks after his reentry came to him and asked him if he would be contented to admit him tenant again of the hop ground for the like rent that the complainant paid therefore and under the like covenant in consideration whereof he would be contented to satisfy the arrearages then due and then after to become his tenant thereof unto whom this defendant answered that as he remembered long before that time he Stammer had told him the defendant that the complainant had sold his interest to Xoph Sibthorpe his brother and that Xoph had conveyed the same to Stammer unto whom Stammer said that it was credibly reported that Edw Sibthorpe was dead but whether he be so or no said Stammer it is not material to this matter for upon my credit it is true that I have told you touching the assurance of Xoph Sibthorpe and from Xoph to me whereupon after good consideration taken for his own safety this defendant having had the hop ground in his hands of long space and not knowing of any sufficient tenant that would be contented to take the same at his hands for the like yearly rent and the time of year then coming when the same was to be manured or else the profits thereof for the next year would be small and the great stock that lay thereon of hop poles would so waste and decay considering (torn) complainant should return again and claim his interest in the hop ground if that were true that had before had been reported and that it were very unlikely to become a sufficient tenant to this defendant (torn to end)