Author Topic: Chancery case  (Read 353 times)

Offline horselydown86

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,103
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Chancery case
« Reply #18 on: Thursday 23 September 21 16:01 BST (UK) »
... all right Equity & good conscience & rend(er) to y(ou)r orat(or) & ora(trix) great wrong & prejudice  In tender consideracion whereof ...

It's a minor point but I think rend(er) is actually tend, with the top of the t mostly faded or smudged.

See this from page 35 of The Solicitor's Practice in the High Court of Chancery (Item #5):



Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,771
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Chancery case
« Reply #19 on: Thursday 23 September 21 16:36 BST (UK) »
It's a minor point but I think rend(er) is actually tend, with the top of the t mostly faded or smudged.

Agreed. That's a much better reading, and it sounds familiar from the wording of other suits.

I wonder, then, whether it should be ... tend to y(ou)r ora(tor's) & ora(trix's) great wrong ... though I can see no suspicion of a 's in either word.

Online mckha489

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,648
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Chancery case
« Reply #20 on: Thursday 23 September 21 20:14 BST (UK) »
Thank you all. And thank you Horsleydown for posting The Solicitor's Practice in the High Court of Chancery. That helps explain another small section that I didnít even try and post as it was so faded.

It also means I can divide up what is looking like a horrible block of text so my poor modern brain can understand it!
Side tracked to a friendís very interesting Norfolk families. MORGAN, PRATT, HORNOR, SUCKLING, GLEANE etc. And in London DOWNES, du CROZ, MORGAN (same MORGANs as the Norwich lot)