At Ludlowe. Exemplification, at the petition of Francis Colborne, of interrogatories...

Summary of interrogatories

1. As to knowledge of the parties and of a messuage called the Bent, with 100 acres land

2. Was David Yonge seized and did he convey to feoffees or trustees to use of himself and heirs?

3. Did David devise the whole to John Yonge and heirs

4. Was John seized until the statute for transferring uses? and after as of fee?

5. Did Thomas Yonge pretend title by descent from David and brought an office of novel deseisin against John? who defended his case in open assize in the County of Salop and afterwards enjoyed the property quietly?

6. Was Tudor Davis tenant to David Yonge of all the premises except a cottage and close adjoining called the Wall Close (now William Llewellyn)

7. Has the messuage, for all the time whereof the memory of man is not, been an ancient messuage with all the lands now in variance belonging to it?

8. Were the ancestors of the defendant Baker seized of another messuage or cottage in Bent and a close called the Wall Close (William Llewellyn) and demised the same to Tuder ap David alias Gough and to Gwenhoyver; and was the same Tuder tenant to David Yonge for many years before his decease of a certain parcel of the premises?

9. Did John Yonge after the decease of David enter into the whole premises and did he about 50 years last convey the whole to certain persons and their heirs to use of himself and of Mauld Lloyd whom he married, and the heirs of their bodies, saving lands of the ancestors of the defendant Baker in possession for divers years and did Tuder assign his whole estate in the cottage and lands to Richard Powell esq? Was that all the inheritance that any of the ancestors of the defendant Baker had in Bent? Did Richard Powell or Hugh Powell esq his executors give the estate of Tuder to John Yonge? Is the land of small value?

10. Did John Yonge and Mathewe Yonge his son convey the premises to Rees Lewes and Owen Lucas, to them and their heirs, on condition of redemption by repayment of £45 at the end of any 3 years within the space of 12 years, in consideration of £45?

11. Were Lewes and Lucas then seized?

12. About 16 years past, was it agreed between

(i) Richard Coulborne the plaintiff's father deceased

(ii) John Yonge, Mathewe Yonge, Rees Lewes and Owen Lucas, that Lewes and Lucas should assign to Coulborne?

13. Was Coulborne (bound) by this agreement and in consideration of his assurance to pay Lewes, Lucas and the Yonges £80 (£45 to Lewes and Lucas, and the rest to John and Mathewe)?

14. Did Coulborne enter the premises? and pay £35 to the Yonges and £22.10.0 to Lucas and tender the other £22.10.0 to Lewes?

15. Did Lewes refuse to convey to Coulborne, and did he and others wrongfully enter, for which interruption Coulborne obtained a process in the Court of the Marches?

16. Has Coulborne since 6 November 31 Elizabeth (1589) after Order taken by the Council, entered into the premises and tendered the £22.10.0 to Lewes?

17. As Lewes did not convey or hand over the deeds, did Coulborne prefer another bill of complaint before the Council for breach of Order Was Lewes after hearing committed to the Porter's Lodge till he should enter into bond in £40 for performance of the former order, 26 March 32 Elizabeth (1590)?

18. Did Coulborne about 4 years past die before assurance of the premises, the property descending to the plaintiff as his son and heir? Did he enter the premises and Lewes afterwards enter into the bond for performance of the Order?

19. Did Lewes afterwards refuse to seal the conveyance and the plaintiff prefer an Enformacion to the Council against him for forfeiture of the bond?

20. Did the plaintiff have possession and enjoy the profits till 26 June last, 1595?

21. Did the defendants John Bright and Rowland Baker confederate with Lewes to defeat the plaintiff of the premises and being weaponed forcibly entered on 26 June 1595 and by procurrment of Baker and Bright broke the hedges of fences and turned the cattle in?

22. Did they with cattle consume the plaintiff's grass, damage £10, cut down timber and expell the plaintiff

23. Have they since kept possession and threaten the plaintiff to kill or mischief him if he presume to intermeddle? Has Bright commenced a suit at Common Law against the plaintiff for possession?

24. Any other matters?

At the parish church of Moore. 7 October 38 Elizabeth (1596)

Witnesses sworn and examined before Vincent Edwardes and Richard Shermonde gentlemen, by virtue of a commission from the Council in the Marches

William Gruffith of Lynley yeoman aged 66, knows the plaintiff and most of the defendants, knows the Bent but not the acreage. He thinks John Yonge was seized of the premises because his father John Gruffith took some part of the premises of Yonge to plow to halves and he, William, was then servant to his father - this was about 40 years since. Otherwise he cannot depose more than in his answer to former interrogatories.

Elizabeth Cadd(wallade)r. wife of Morris Cadd(wallade)r of Castell Writh co Mont. aged 60, knows the plaintiff and defendants and the property but not the acreage. The house has always been reputed an ancient messuage and John Yonge occupied it after the death of David - she has heard that he mortgaged it. Richard Colburne did tender the £22.10.0 to Lewes who refused to reconvey, and after Colborne's death the property came, she thinks, to his son.

At Ludlowe, 16 December 39 Elizabeth (1596)

William Lloyde of Sneade co Mont. gentleman, aged 66, knows the plaintiff and all the defendants except Rowland and William Baker; knows the messuage and land which contains very near 100 acres - he has known it 46 years. David Yonge died about 60 years ago as he has heard; from the will read to this deponent it appears that he bequeathed the whole to John, who entered into the whole except one messuage and the Wall Close. The Bent has always been reputed an ancient messuage. About 50 years ago, John Yonge settled the property to use of himself, Maulde Lloyde his wife and the heirs of their bodies. Lloyde thinks the property was mortgaged by John and Mathewe and came to Richard Colborne.

At the house of Hugh David ap Hugh. 11 February 39 Elizabeth (1597)

Deposition of Hugh David ap Hugh of the parish of Lydom co Mont. gentleman aged 88, before Frauncis Vaughan gentleman by virtue of a commission issued on behalf of Colborne.

He knows the plaintiff and most of the defendants and the property containing about 80 acres - has known it about 60 years. He knows that David Yonge was lawfully seized and that he made a will about 55 years ago giving the whole to John his son - whether this devis was before the Statute of Uses or after the deponent does not know. Tudder Gough was tenant to David Yonge but of what part he does not remember. He knows the messuage to have been an ancient messuage and let as one entire messuage and lands. About 50 years ago, John Yonge conveyed it to trustees to use of himself and of Mawlde Lloyde whom he married and the heirs of their bodies, after which he entered into the premises. John "expulsed" the said Tudder David als. Gough. John and Mathewe Yonge mortgaged but for what sum the deponent does not know. Richard Colburne the plaintiff's father occupied the premises and died in possession.

At Ludlowe, 17 February 39 Elizabeth (1597)

The plaintiff by Thomas Crompe his attorney and the defendant Rowland Baker in person for himself and for William Llewellyn and William Baker two other defendants and for John Bright a defendant for whom the defendant Rowland Baker by licence of the Court is admitted to appear, and Richarde Yonge another defendant in person for himself and for the other defendants, appeared before the Lord President and the Council.

It appears that the defendant Brighte has a suit at Common Law for title to the premises or part or trespass supposed to have been done on it, which suit was brought before the assurance executed to the plaintiff from Rees Lewes on Order of this court. Bright alleges that a former action was had by him at the Common Law for part of the premises against Rees Yonge, and as the plaintiff confesses that he never pretended title to the parcel so alleged to be recovered, the court thinks fit to refer trial of the title of so much of the premises to the Common Law in a new suit to be brought. Order that the parties shall proceed to trial of this suit without "synyster or unnecessary delay", the plaintiff and his assigns to occupy the premises (except such part as was recovered against Rees Yonge) without interruption by the defendants until they recover it by due course of the Common Law and have a verdict against the plaintiff; on such verdict the plaintiff shall pay the defendants Bright and Rowland Baker from henceforth the meane issues and profits. As there is sufficient evidence to convict the defendants of the misdemeanours and as the defendant Rowland Baker appearing in person and standing bound to answer fine and cost for William Llewellen and William Baker and yield to be committed and to pay fine and cost for the defendant Brighte, Order that Rowland Baker, William Llewellen and William Baker for the said offence be committed to the Porter's Lodge for themselves and the defendant Bright, there to remain till the defendant Rowland Baker for himself and for the other defendants shall pay to the Clerk of the Fynes attending this Court to Her Majesty's use for their offence the severs sums of money at their names mentioned and till he pay the plaintiff 40s costs in this suit and till the further pleasure of this court be known for their enlargement. As there is no sufficient matter of misdemeanour proved against the other defendants Richard Yonge, Nycholas Yonge and John Yonge, Ordered that these three shall be discharged out of the court without cost. As the plaintiff formerly discontinued this matter and was fined for not prosecuting, and the fine suspended after the case was revived, and as he has since prosecuted with effect, Ordered that the plaintiff shall be absolutely discharged of the fine. So that the trial at Common Law may proceed, Ordered that the defendants be at liberty to make one quiet entry into the premises and there seal a lease of the premises or of some part and the leasee to put cattle into the premises the last day of March next, the plaintiff on the same day between the hours of one and three to eject them. Either party may have these book or so much of them as they may specify, exemplified under the seal of the court.