Amended Bill of Complaint (pages 13 - 20 only).

PARTIES: 1. Mary Jane Youde. Plaintiff.

2a. John Knowles

b. Richard Foster and

c. James Foster.

d. Robert Henry Hurst and.

e. John Goddard.

Defendants.

SUBJECT OF TRANSACTION: In Chancery.

15. (end part). It prayed that an account be taken of what was due to John Knowles and Richard Foster and James Foster as executors of John Foster deced. for arrears of the annuity of £2,020 and that the Upton Priory Boddington and Lower Boddington estates be sold and the monies arising from the sale be applied together with the Bank 3% Annuities and the cash (subject to prior incumbrances) in payment of what is due to them as executors in respect of the arrears of the annuity and that enquiries be made to ascertain these incumbrances and that M.J. Youde be ordered to execute such disentailing or other deed for the purpose of giving effect to the indenture of 21 July 1838. That if necessary new trustees of this indenture be appointed. That in the event of the Court deciding that the Indenture of 21 July 1838 is void that an account be taken of the arrears of annuities granted by the indentures of 17 Sept. 1835, 3 Oct. 1835 and 30 Sept. 1837 or, if the Court should think, fit, of the monies advanced in consideration of the annuities plus interest on the same and that the judgement for £26,000 stand as a security for what might be found due and that this may be raised (subject to deductions in respect of payments of the annuity made by Edward Youde) be raised by a sale of the estate and Bank Annuities. That if necessary an account be made of the rents and profits of the real estates and of the dividends from the Bank Annuities since the d. of Charles Greenaway and that some person be appointed to receive the rents and dividends. That persons found to be incumbrances and who are not parties to the suit be bound thereby on being served with the decree to be made in the said suit It was ordered that a person be received to receive the rents but the order was to be without prejudice to the right of any prior incumbrancer to take possession. Since the date of the order the suit has been transferred and is now attached to the Court of the Vice Chancellor, Sir William Page Wood.

16. The Plaintiff impeached the valadity of the alleged securites and submits that under the circumstances she is entitled to have the alleged security of 21 July 1838 and if necessary the indentures of 17 Sept. 1835, 3 Oct. 1835 and 30 Sept. 1837 declared void and also entitled to have it declared that the judgement signed by John Foster on 22 Aug. 1838 is not binding on her and that in the event of the alleged security of 21 July 1838 being set aside the defendants John Knowles, Richard Foster and James Foster ought not to be allowed to avail themselves of the said judgment.

17. The Plaintiff sought to have the alleged security of 21 July 1838 set aside for similar reasons as in 11. in cat. no. Hey/XI/ii/3.

18. As 12. in cat. no. Hey/XI/ii/3. but goes on to say that when the Plaintiff came to England to visit James Gibbs no allusion was ever made by him to the said transactions or of the Plaintiff acting as surety for Edward Youde or otherwise and that Charles Greenaway was desirous that she should visit him but Edward Youde told James Gibbs not to allow her to hold any intercourse with her relatives and that she has since discovered that in 1832 Edward Youde granted 7 annuities the only security for which were his covenant and insurance policies on his life and that he was unable to raise any further sums by these means.

19. With reference to the indentures of 21 July 1838 17 Sept. 1835 3 Oct. 1835 and 30 Sept. 1835 the plaintiff has discovered that prior to 1835 the business of James Gibbs consisted mainly of lending monies of his clients on security of annuities at high rates of interest to other clients and that John Goddard who is the of the Rock Assurance Co. was in the habit of introducing to James Gibbs clients with money to lend and negotiating terms and the amount of the annuity and that John Goddard was in the habit of receiving 25% commission and that James Gibbs was in the habit of receiving 2½% commission in addition to his costs and that William Foster was introduced to James Gibbs by John Goddard and that for many yrs. prior to the transaction of Sept. 1835 John Goddard and William Foster had the habit of employing James Gibbs as their solicitor and agent in lending money. That William Foster employed James Gibbs as his solicitor and agent to procure the grant of the annuities of £960, £400 and £258 in the indentures of 17 Sept. 1835, 3 Oct. 1835 and 30 Sept. 1837 and that John Foster and George Holgate Foster employed James Gibbs in like manner to procure the grant of the annuity of £2,020 in the indenture of 21 July 1838 and previous to the grant of the annuities it was determined by James Gibbs and Edward Youde that the plaintiff should join in the several indentures as surety and for charging her estate and interest in remainder under the will of Giles Greenaway but no application was made to the Plaintiff in this behalf and she was ignorant of it. The plaintiff has since discovered from an answer of James Gibbs in a suit of Youde v. Wyndham instituted by Edward Youde in 1844 and from other docs. re. the bankruptcy of James Gibbs that she was induced to execute indentures between the 31 Jan. 1834 and 25 Aug. 1841 purporting to secure 67 annuities for which the purchase monies amounted to £127,661 and the annuities to £19,862.3.9d. and of these 44 are alleged to have been released on grant of further annuities, the remaining 23 annuities (amounting to £10378.8.9d.) are alleged to be still subsisting and are in arrear. During the whole of the period Edward Youde had no property.

20. similar to 14. in cat. no. Hey/XI/ii/3. but re. an indenture of 17 Sept. 1835 and she states that the consideration money of £6,100 was not retained by Edward Youde but no mention of costs and no mention of a bill about costs

21. Similar to 15. in cat. no. Hey/XI/ii/3 but re. indentures of 3 Oct. 1835 and 30 Sept. 1837 but the considerations of £2,400 and £1,650 were not retained by Edward Youde but no mention of costs and no mention of a bill about costs

22. James Gibbs the younger (who had brought the two previous indentures plus the money to Ostend) d. 20 April 1838.

The indenture of 21 July 1838 brought to Ostend and the sum of £1,158.19.7d. (which with the surrender of the annuities of £960, £400 and £258 was the alleged consideration of the annuity of £2,020) was brought over but was either immediately returned by Edward Youde or kept until the 31 July 1838 and then returned.

23. Plaintiff charges that the sums of £6,100, £2,400, £1,650 and £1,158.19.7d. were not paid to Edward Youde and the proceedings were taken with a view to giving colour to the statement contained in the memorials

24. Copy of the statement contained in the memorial of the annuity deed of 21 July 1838.

25. Defendants John Knowles and Richard Foster allege that James Gibbs accounted with Edward Youde for the 4 above sums by carrying the same to the credit of Edward Youde in the account current between James Gibbs and Edward Youde but the plaintiff shows that after charging Edward Youde with large sums for costs and for commissions James Gibbs was indebted to Edward Youde which totaled £10,034.18.10d. at the time when James Gibbs was Bankrupt and no part of this has been paid and even if the sum of £13,000 the aggregate amount of the sums in the indenture of 21 July 1838 had really been paid to Edward Youde such sum would be an inadequate consideration for an annuity of £2,020.

26. James Gibbs and John Goddard were in the habit of negotiating and procuring annuities and on 25 July 1838 John Goddard guaranteed James Foster that in consideration of him receiving from John Goddard the benefit derived from ¼ of the investment of £13,000 on an annuity to Edward Youde and M.J. Youde on the 21 July 1838 he agreed to become security for John Goddard for £3,250 in case of any loss attendant upon such investment and also gave similar guarantees with reference to the annuities of £960, £400 and £258.

27. James Gibbs received the monies paid on account of the annuities of £960, £400, £258 and £2020 and deducted 2½% for commission and paid the balance to John Goddard who deducted 25% for commission and paid the residue to the persons beneficially entitled thereto and John Goddard has in his possession divers accounts, memoranda and docs. showing this.

28. The Plaintiff charges that throughout the transaction with ref. to the annuities of £960, £400 and £258 James Gibbs was acting as solicitor and agent of John Goddard and William Foster and that throughout the whole of the transaction with ref. to the annuity of £2020 he was acting as solicitor and agent for John Goddard, John Foster and George Holgate Foster. that the total amount of James Gibbs' commission on annuities granted through him in trust for William Foster from Feb. 1833 to August 1843 was £650 of which £210 was in respect of the annuities of £960, £400 £258 and £2020 and John Goddard, in addit. to his 25% commission, received from James Gibbs £340 as a douceur for the advance of the sum of £1650 (the alleged consideration of the annuity of £258) and £340 was charged by James Gibbs against Edward Youde in the account current between them.

29. The rental of the Plas Madoc Estate expressed to be conveyed by Edward Youde by indenture of 21 July 1838 and the 3 grants of annuities therein recited was represented by James Gibbs to exceed £7,000 p.a. but Edward Youde had, in fact, no title or interest in the estate at the date of the said indentures or either of them and in Aug. 1838, immediately after the d. of Sarah Youde the tenant for life of the said estate, a suit was instituted by Edward Youde which resulted in a decision adverse to his claim. The estates devised to Edward Youde for life by will of Thomas Watkin Youde were of little value even if Edward Youde had power to charge the same under the trusts of the will.

30. James Gibbs and Edward Youde knew that at the date of the indenture of 21 July 1838 and the 3 indentures therein recited questions had arisen as to the title of Edward Youde to the Plas Madoc estate but the plaintiff was not informed of this.

31. John Goddard, William Foster, John Foster and George Holgate Foster had notice of the date of the indenture of 21 July 1838 and of the three indentures therein recited of the amount due from James Gibbs to Edward Youde at the periods aforesaid and of the retainer by James Gibbs of the sums expressed in the Indentures to be paid to Edward Youde if such sums were paid by John Goddard and John Foster and of the fact that questions had arisen re. the Plas Madoc estate but none of these facts were communicated to the plaintiff.

32. The plaintiff on attaining 21 yrs. became entitled under will of Jane Greenaway deced. to copyhold dwellinghouse and land held of the manor of Cheltenham and on 23 Oct. 1833 she was admitted tenant. On 31 Jan. 1834 the Plaintiff was induced to join her father as his surety to grant annuity of £77 to William Henry Savage in consideration of £1000 and to secure the same on this property and in March the plaintiff was sent to Eng. by her father and taken by James Gibbs to Cheltenham where, she has since discovered, on the 8 March 1834 she surrendered the dwellinghouse and land to James Gibbs and that on 8 March 1834 he was admitted tenant and on 14 Aug. 1834 he surrendered the premises to Henry Walsh in consideration of £1300 and Henry Walsh was admitted tenant.

33. Plaintiff did not give any instructions for the sale of the property or for the charge of the annuity thereon and did not receive the proceeds of the sale but was told by Edward Youde and James Gibbs that she could not hold the property and that it was of no value to her. She has been unable to discover what happened to the £1300 but that in the accounts between James Gibbs and Edward Youde divers sums amounting to £391.19.5d. are charged against Edward Youde for costs with ref. to the property and in beginning of 1834 credit is given by James Gibbs for £900 expressed to have been received by James Gibbs from the plaintiff and Edward Youde is charged with £1032.0.11d. for the redemption of the annuity of £77. The Defendants allege that the Plaintiff was on intimate terms with James Gibbs and that he acted as her solicitor with ref. to some property sold soon after she came of age and that she might have obtained advice from him re. the affairs of Edward Youde The Plaintiff was ignorant of the sale of the copyhold property until July 1861 when she obtained copies of the surrender and admission from the steward of the manor.

34. Defendants allege that the plaintiff had opportunities of obtaining legal advice but the plaintiff shows that she never came to England except to visit James Gibbs at the request of Edward Youde and on these occasions she was told by Edward Youde and James Gibbs not to have any intercourse with her relative although her uncle Charles Greenaway had asked James Gibbs to allow her to visit him.

35. Plaintiff states that it was well known to James Gibbs and through him to John Goddard and William Foster and also through him to John Goddard, John Foster and George Holgate Foster that at the time of the indentures of 17 Sept. 1835, 3 Oct. 1835, 30 Sept. 1837 and 21 July 1838 that the plaintiff was residing along with her father and that she was entirely under his influence, that she did not get any benefit from the transactions, that she could not obtain independent advice and that the nature of the transaction was concealed from her and the execution by her of the indentures was improperly obtained and they ought to be declared void.

36. The Plaintiff also charges that even if the indentures of 21 July 1838, 17 Sept. 1835, 3 Oct. 1835 and 30 Sept. 1837 could have any validity against her in other respects yet the retaining by James Gibbs, without the knowledge of the Plaintiff, of sums of £6100, £2,400, £1,650 and £1,158.19.7d. expressed to be paid to Edward Youde was a fraud upon the plaintiff as surety for Edward Youde and would render these indentures void against her. The plaintiff states that at the bankruptcy proceedings against James Gibbs John Goddard and John Foster were represented as was Edward Youde and says that these proceedings show the course of dealing between James Gibbs and Edward Youde and contributing and evidencing the cash made.

37. The defendants John Knowles and Richard Foster allege that the Plaintiff was precluded from disputing the validity of the indenture of 21 July 1838 and the judgement by reason of a rule obtained for the purpose of setting aside the securities for the said annuity. 30 Jan. 1844 Edward Youde obtained a rule to require John Foster to show why proceedings on the judgement should not be stayed and what the indenture in which the annuity of £2,020 was granted should not be cancelled and the judgement recalled on the grounds that the name of the person by whom the annuity was beneficially received was not set forth in the enrolled memorial of the annuity, that part of the consideration money was returned and that part of the consideration was retained on the pretence of assuring future payments of the annuity. John Foster showed cause v. the rule and and the rule was discharged with costs, the rule was not obtained by the plaintiff and although she joined in with Edward Youde at his request in an affidavit made in the support of the rule she is not procluded in disputing in equity the validity of the indenture and judgement.

38. Plaintiff without funds during life of Charles Greenaway to enable her to take proceedings to set aside the indenture and her interest in the property was contingent on Charles Greenaway dying in her lifetime without inssue.

39. 21 Jan. 1860 John Knowles, Richard Foster and James Foster obtained a rule in an action in which the said judgement for £26,000 was entered up by which it was ordered that M.J. Youde should show cause why they (as executors of John Foster) should not be at liberty to enter on the judgement roll the action wherein John Foster was Plaintiff and Edward Youde and M.J. Youde defendants and why a suggestion should not be entered that John Foster was dead and his executors were John Knowles, Richard Foster and James Foster, a suggestion that Edward Youde was dead and why the said executors should not be at liberty to enter a suggestion on the roll that John Foster obtained a judgement for £26,000 debt. and £3.10s. damages and costs v. Edward Youde and M.J. Youde on 22 Aug. 1838 or why the executors should not be at liberty to issue a writ of revivor to revive the judgement entered up in the cause on 22 Aug. 1838. Rule made absolute on 31 Jan. 1861 leave being given to enter the last mentioned suggestion to issue a writ of revivor and the plaintiff ordered to pay costs.

40. No further proceedings have yet been taken on the rule but the executors but the plaintiff submits that she is entitled to in junction. executors intend to prosecute the same as soon as practicable.

41. Defendants John Knowles, Richard Foster and James Foster allege that if the indenture of 21 July 1838 be held void as against the Plaintiff then the indentures of 17 Sept. 1835, 3 Oct. 1835 and 30 Sept. 1837 should be treated as uncancelled and the defendants paid the arrears and payments due in priority to all incumbrances created by the Plaintiff subsequent to 21 July 1838 and that the judgement for £26,000 should stand as a security for the arrears and payments. Plaintiff insists that the indentures and annuities have been released but even if the indentures can be treated as uncancelled the Plaintiff is advised that, under the circumstances, the same are void as against her. The Defendants also allege that John Goddard is a necessary party to this suit in respect of the cancelled indentures.

PRAYER The plaintiff prays -

1. That the indenture of 21 July 1838 and the warrant of attorney of even date and if necessary the indentures of 17 Sept. 1835, 3 Oct. 1835 and 30 Sept. 1837 be declared fradulent in so far as they purport to operate as securities for payment by the plaintiff of annuities.

2. That it be declared that under the circumstances the judgement entered up by John Foster v. Edward Youde and M.J. Youde and revived by the defendants on 22 Aug. 1838 be not binding on the plaintiff.

3. That the defendants John Knowles Richard Foster and James Foster be restrained from prosecuting the rule obtained by them and from taking other proceedings for enforcing the judgement v. the plaintiff.

4. That directions be given for effectuating the above purposes.

5. That the plaintiff have relief as the nature of the case may require.

PLACE(S): UPTON (Parish of Burford and Upton and Signet), BODDINGTON and LOWER BODDINGTON (Northants)

REMARKS: This amended Bill of Complaint is not complete, it consists of printed pages and manuscript additions in ink. and cat. no. Hey/XI/ii/6. appears to be its base. It is about August 1861 because it has the ink endorsement "10 proofs by 10 tommorrow 6/8/61 WW."