Thanks for all your replies and suggestions and for the interesting links about understanding legal terms and bills etc.
I think in this case the word was abbreviation of defendant and it is from the defendants answer.
The main issue according to plaintiff Thomas Godbehere was that John Mundy (defendant) of Markeaton, Derby had come to Darleigh (Darley Abbey) and informed Godbehere that 2 water corn mills and 3 adjoining closes belonging to Mundy were "seized in fee-simple". Also seized was a wall separating the closes owned by Mundy and an orchard owned by Goodbehere on the edge of the park where Godbehere's manor house stood.
Godbehere mentioned the 3 closes, 2 mills and a stone wall when Making his plaintiff case. A year later when Mundy answered he mentioned the stone wall against the orchard and that it was with wainscott?
Should this be waincroft, (a barn or storage shed) as I never heard of a wainscott attached to an outside wall?
I attached another snip of the defendant 's reply and my transcription of it. Any further feedback or comments would be appreciated.
I think arthurk you are correct that this whole story is fishy as Godbehere after partly paying for the ownership of 3 closes and 2 mills, Mundy could not find the deed he'd bought from William Bullock of Norton and that later a "pretended deed" said to have been purchased from Bullock 3 years before was offered to Godbehere but he refused it and was asking for his part payment to be returned to him. If a real deed could not be found, Godbehere would not pay the residue of the balance of the purchase price agreed.
Andy_T
