1486-1493

[David Boulding]

Circa 1486-1493

C 1/110/49 Juliane, late the wife of Thomas Tanner. v. John Doket and John a Down, feoffees to uses: A messuage and land in the parishes of Godmersham and Crundale: Kent.

This document is in English but with various abbreviations and quite a difficult script so I can only pick out a few words. Is there anyone who could give a precis about the argument they were having?

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no110/IMG_0089.htm

[horselydown86]

Thomas Tanner was seised of a messuage and [six? - damaged] acres of land in Godmersham and Crundale in his demesne as of fee and so seised thereof of great trust enfeoffed John Doket and John a Down in fee to the intent that they should perform his last will which willed and ordained that the two Johns immediately after Thomas's decease should enfeoff Julian in all the tenements to have to her and her assigns for the term of her life.

The remainder in the tenements after her decease was to Robert Tanner the son of Thomas and then to the heirs of the body of Robert coming.

Thomas's will is ready to be shown in order to confirm this.

Since the death of her husband Julian has often times required the two Johns to make astate of the tenements to her according to the will but they have utterly refused and continue to refuse, contrary to reason and good conscience.

It ends in the normal manner for a Chancery Bill, with Julian praying for the grant of writs of subpeona to the two Johns commanding them to appear before the King in his Chancery etc.

[David Boulding]

Why thank you indeed. That's much more than I'd hoped for.

I wonder, is there any chance that it could be sixty acres rather than six? Very annoying that a vital part of the document comes with some damage at that point. That's because there is a property in Godmersham and Crundale that came with 60 acres and I suspect it may well be this one which was why I was particularly interested in this document.

Thank you again for the time and trouble you have taken on my behalf

[Watson]

David asked:

"I wonder, is there any chance that it could be sixty acres rather than six?"

There is damage there. It looks to me as if it could be thirty, assuming I am looking at the right bit. The number seems to consist of three letters, the first of which is uncertain, but the last two both look like x.  So ?xx

[horselydown86]

I wonder, is there any chance that it could be sixty acres rather than six?

Please forget what I said about six acres.  This is the first early Chancery document I've done in years, and I wasn't thinking straight about the numbers.

Watson's suggestion of thirty (xxx) acres is possible, although there will always be doubt without clarity on what seems to be a first character.

However we have enough to say that it definitely can't be lx.

[David Boulding]

Thanks all....

So we have "[?]xx" so not 60... All helpful.  I would have struggled to recognise those as "x"s.. I had puzzled over them for a while.

A friend has come back to me to say he thinks this is Winchcombe in Crundale (Kent). I'll post more when I have more information from him. Just to finish the story off.

Many thanks to all those who have helped so much

[David Boulding]

Just to add a bit to the story

These are the parties involved. One wonders if this case came to pass as Thomas Tanner's will was not probated?

Will   Tanner   Thomas   Brabourne   1489      PRC/17/5/136c      No probate   1489

Act   Tanner   Robert   Goudhurst      1552   PRC/3/13/33         1552 [possibly]
Will   A' Downe   John   Godmersham   1504   1505   PRC/32/8/46         1505

I am advised by Rex Lancefield that the property in question was probably Little Winchcombe in Crundale & Godersham (Kent) or maybe Sole Street Farm (he believes the former to be the most likely).