Short Title: Attorney General v Harward. [Cause code: SCEL-11488]. Documents: two...

Short Title: Attorney General v Harward.

[Cause code: SCEL-11488].

Documents: two informations, two answers, commission, interrogatories, depositions.

Plaintiffs: Attorney General (John Popham).

Defendants: Thomas Harward gent , Elianor Harward widow, and James Wynter gent.

County: Norfolk.

Subject: forgery of the will of Clement Harward late of Aldborough, deceased. [The will of a Clement Harward of Alborough was proved 23 November 1586, PROB 11/69/696. After Eleanor his wife, descent goes via Robert Harward, and then for lack of male heirs via Thomas Harward son of John Harward of Poole, Dorset gent, and after him for lack of male heirs via Clement's cousins Gilbert Parker, Thomas Pigeon and Robert Thetford, all gentlemen of Norfolk. The will is dated 15 November 1586, with Clement being in perfect health and sound memory, and is unwitnessed.

Regnal year: 30 to 36 Eliz I.

Case report, taken from Les reportes del cases in Camera Stellata, pp 28-30.28 and 30 Jan 1595/6, 38 Eliz.The Attorney General, Serjeant Yelverton and Fuller opened a cause for hearing between the Queen’s Attorney, plaintiff, and Thomas Harward of Alborough in Norfolk, gentleman, for forgery in this manner. One Clement Harward, being seised of certain manors in Norfolk, devised them by writing to his wife, for life, remainder to Robert Harward his nephew and the heirs male of his body, remainder to his niece and the heirs male of her body, and other remainders over, with divers legacies; and he gave nothing to Thomas Harward, who was not akin to him. Thomas Harward, seeing this testament, forged one in writing, limiting the land to the wife of Clement Harward for life, and an annuity of £20 to himself for life, with remainder of the lands to himself and remainders over, etc. And so it was forgery in him. The defendant had an adjournment until the next day for his answer, and then forfeited his recognisance, with two sureties, by not appearing. The Attorney moved, and it was resolved by the whole Court, that if a man, in his illness, shall declare his will verbally touching his goods, and it is written out after his death, it is valid as to goods but not as to land [a nuncupative will]. (Also if he write his intentions on the wall with a coal). The addition of two letters, C H, to a testament after the death of the testator is forgery. The Attorney was of the opinion that if anyone after the death of a man intestate should write a will dealing with his land, and should publish it, affirming it to be the intent of the intestate, that this would be forgery. But Philips denied this, and it was doubted by others. End of this day. The former cause on the information of the Queens Attorney against Thomas Harwood was answered by Phillips and Serjeant Healle. And they endeavoured to disprove the evidence of Winter by divers circumstances, one as to accusing himself to a woman, which was incredible to the Lords that any man should accuse himself to a woman, and which was impossible to be believed. And finally they laboured to upset the bill as it lies, because the forgery is not applied to any estate certain, and the name of the lands is not certainly mentioned and [relying] on Diar [Dyer], 12 Eliz, which was denied to be law. Moreover the forgery was read as forgery at Common Law, which was before any Statute; and it was found that the lands were certainly named in the bill; and so they proceeded to sentence, which was agreed upon by all the Lords with one consent. Anderson first: It is a forgery in Harward, and therefore he is to be fined £500, and to be imprisoned during the Queens pleasure, and to lose his two ears on the pillory. And they insist principally on this that as the said forged will follows in every respect the true will to the end, it proves that he had seen and read the true will before he published the forged one. Therefore it is well for every one to have good advice and very good witnesses if he wish to write or interpose any article in a will after the death of the testator; for it ought to be annexed as a codicil and not written in the will itself; and Ordinaries ought to have special care to receive special proof in the probate of wills. The Earl of Essex agreed with the sentence of the Court, and the rather, because a wise man, many hundred years before he sat in this place, complained of the injuriousness of the times (quedam homines magis anulis quam animis) that men, through their ill governance of themselves, give more credence and faith to mens’ writings than to their words, and so it is to this day. Therefore the intentions of an evil man should be here examined, and he should be judged accordingly, and all magistrates ought to examine the intentions of men in their offences, and the ignorance of fact and the feebleness of the party, and so to punish evil intentions.