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

17.1.34Eliz1 (Monday 17 January 1592)

document 19601081

(this is the middle of the answer of starting at the sixth question) sixth does not know if the complainant bought any poles for the maintenance of the garden or not for he was not resident near that place to see what came out or went into the garden and that he heard the complainant a little before his departure out of England tell Xoph Sibthorpe that he had left 10li with Jn Parker of Colne for the dressing of the garden to carry hops that summer but whether it were so or no he cannot tell he believes that if the complainant did disburse 10li for the dressing of the hop ground after the assignment made thereof to Xoph Sibthorpe that the only reason that moved him thereto was that he would have again his hop ground the sooner seventh says he very well knew Wm Stammer deceased predecessor to Math Everard eighth knows very well that after the assignment of the hop ground to Xoph Sibthorpe after the departure of the complainant out of England Xoph made Wm Stammer bailiff of the hop ground to the end that Stammer should truly pay the yearly rent of the hop ground to Roger Harlakenden and defray all other charges about the hop ground and for the exercising of the office of bailiff and for the paying of rent and for the defraying of all other charges amount the hop ground of his own money Xoph promised yearly to allow or pay him Wm Stammer 20marks ninth says he knows nothing but he heard Xoph Sibthorpe say that Wm Stammer bought Xoph indebted unto him upon his first years accounts 20nobles tenth says that he can say nothing for that he never heard anything of it nor yet did see the crop of hops the garden bore that year eleventh says he never heard and can say nothing twelfth he says that Wm Stammer had a very good liking of the hop ground and had a purpose being bailiff thereof to forfeit the same to Roger Harlakenden to the end as he said to cut off former rights if any there were granted by Harlakenden to the complainant or granted by the complainant to others before the assignment thereof made over to Xoph Sibthorpe which he doubted to be but whether Stammer willingly forfeited the hop ground or not that he cannot tell he believes that Wm Stammer did forfeit it of purpose to cut off the right of the complainant and from Xoph Sibthorpe that he might take again the lease in his own name thirteenth does not know whether the forfeiture of the hop ground was done with the consent of Xoph Sibthorpe or no says he always gave counsel to Xoph not to consent thereto who seemed then purposed as he thought to follow his counsel therein neither does he know whether the landlord Roger Harlakenden was acquainted with the forfeiture of the hop ground before is was made or no but says that at the very time that Stammer did practise to forfeit it he heard by those that know most of the doing thereof that Roger Harlakenden was privy thereto fourteenth says that Wm Stammer after the forfeiture of the hop ground as he heard took the lease of the hop ground to himself and to his use only from Roger Harlakenden and further says that he believes that the cause was profit to be made of the occupying thereof fifteenth says that Wm Stammer neither did or would to his knowledge assign (torn) said hop ground to Xoph Sibthorpe (torn)