Held at:	National Archives
Reference:	E132/2 JAS2/MICH29
Source:	Original document
Title:	Transcription: Legal hearings in the Court of Exchequer regarding allegations of fraud over the ownership of Michaelchurch Mill
Place name:	Michaelchurch Escley
Date:	1654 - 1686

Description:

Legal ownership of Michaelchurch Mill was disputed by the heirs of William Howell [son of James Harry Howell] before the commissioners of the Court of Exchequer at a hearing convened in the Booth Hall, Hereford in 1686. The principal complainants were the surviving sisters of William Howell, Margaret and Joan. Their allegation was that between 1654 and 1664 [dates uncertain, see endnote below] William Howell, who was said to be ‘weak-minded’, had been defrauded of his inheritance of Michaelchurch Mill by his uncle, John Price of Bacton. According to a transcript of the interrogation of witnesses [below] the allegation was that William Howell was sometimes given cakes and ale and at other times threatened by John Price in attempts to gain control of the property, which generated a substantial rental income even after paying interest on a mortgage. Eventually, despite the fact that he was probably incapable of understanding the financial arrangements, William Howell apparently agreed to assign the property to John Price in exchange for Price’s promise to maintain him for life and pay off the mortgages on the mill. However, when Price and his heirs took over the property they allegedly kept neither of those promises and abandoned William Howell to the charity of the community.

The outcome of the case is not documented, but the witness statements for the complainants appear to make a good case that advantage was taken of William Howell’s feeble-mindedness to swindle him and his heirs out of their ownership of Michaelchurch Mill. However, all may not be as it seems, and the papers do not describe the evidence presented by the defence. A later court case of 1698 also involving the Price family and their property holdings shows that Michaelchurch Mill was still then in their possession, so it can be inferred that William Howell's sisters did not succeed in proving their case in 1686.

The transcripts of the witness statements follow:

The case of obtaining an estate by white cakes and ale.

National Archives E 132/2 JAS2/MICH29

Interrogatories to be administered to witnesses to be produced sworn & examined on the part & behalfe of Edmund Price, Margaret his wife and Joan Myles widow complainants against James Price an infant by James Morgan Esq his guardian defendant.

 

Imprimis, do you know the parties plaintives and defendant, or which of them. And how long have you known them And did you know William Howell brother of the said Margaret & Joan & did you know John Price this defendant’s father (Thomas Price the defendant’s grandfather) and John Price this defendant’s great grandfather & John Powell of the Greenway deceased in their life time or either and which of them & how long did you know them or either of them before their several deceases & how long is it since the decease of them severally as you remember?

2. Item do you know the messuage tenements, water corn mill lands and hereditaments with their appurtenances situate lying and being in the parish of Michaelchurch Escley in the county of Hereford being the premises in question? And do you know or have you heard or do you believe that the said complainant’s brother William Howell deceased was in his life time seized in fee simple or fee tayle of and in possession of one moiety of the said premises in question being of the yearly value of eight or ten pounds per annum or thereabouts & to be likewise seized of the other moiety of the said premises in reversion expectant from and after the decease of Jane his mother and did the said William Howell by one indenture bearing date in or about the month of May Annoque domini 1654, or some other time and when mortgage the said premises in question to one John Powell of the Greenway for the consideration of forty pounds or some other sum of money & what sum did you see the execution of the said mortgage deed, were you a witness to the same & who were witnesses besides yourself in what manner was the same exdented what money do you know or believe was ysayd by the complainant’s brother? William Howell, or by his direction or on his or their account the said John Powell for principal or interest of the said mortgage declare what you know concerning the same and the circumstances thereof and the reasons inducing you thereto?

Item did you know or have you heard that John Price great grandfather of the defendant James did often times and when come to the house of the said William Howell or the place of his abode before he had the mortgage of his land, to treat with him about the said mortgage what discourses did he use to procure the said mortgage to be assigned to him. Did he sometimes or at any time menace and threaten the said William that if he not sell or dispose of the premises in question that it should be the worse for him. And what other harsh expressions did he use to and towards him & did the said John Price at other times use friendly language and what other measures were used to obtain the said estate? Do you believe that the said William Howell did rightly apprehend or understand what he did when he assented to the assigning of the estate to his uncle the defendant Price’s great-grandfather or did he out of fear or by any other way of compliance consent to the said passing of the said estate to the said John Price the great grandfather? Was not the same upon condition of paying the remainder of the said debt and interest to the said John Powell of the Greenway and out of the over plus of the value of the profits of the said estate to afford & allow maintenance to the said William during his life or upon what other terms and conditions were the same premises assigned to the said defendant great grandfather? Was such estate agreed to be absolute or was the same to remain and come to the right heirs of the said William Howell? Did the defendant Price’s great grandfather allow such maintenance to the said William or was he maintained other ways? Was the said William Howell reputed to be capable to himself to make such contracts or was he of a weak capacity? Or of what estimation or reputation was he of in those parts of the country and amongst his relations and acquaintances concerning his ability in managing & disposing of his estate, or did he commit the same to the management of others as you know believe or have heard?

4. Were you present when & were the said John Powell together with the said William Howell did by their indenture bearing date in or about the first day of December 1664 for the sum of forty pounds? Or what other sum assign over & convey the said premises in question unto the said John Price the great-grandfather of the defendant in the next proceeding interrogatory mentioned and to his heirs and assigns forever subject to the conditions of redemption? And to what condition were you a witness to the said assignment and who were present at the executing thereof? What sum or sums of money do you know or believe was paid by the complainant’s brother William Howell or by his direction on his or their accounts? [to] the said John Powell for principal or interest of these mortgages whilst their date remained in him declare what you know therein and the reasons of your knowledge or belief.

5. Item Of what yearly value as you know heard or believe are the said mortgaged premises and when did the said defendant’s great-grandfather enter into the same of what rents issues or profits do you know have heard or believe that John Price great-grandfather to the defendant James or the said defendant’s grandfather or father or John Powell or either or which of them had made or raised by or out of the premises and what benefit or profits hath been made by either of them & which of them by sale of timber and wood from & of the premises & [?otherwise] declare your knowledge herein? Were you at any time a tenant to the same grandfather in question or any part thereof & what part thereof what yearly rent did you pay for the same and to whom and to whose use and upon what bargain contract or account did you pay the rent to him or them and were the said premises in good order repair a plight of husbandry at the time you rented the same or were [they] [?indered] to become ruinous since they came to the hands & possession of this defendant’s ancestors declare.

6. Did you know or have you heard that before the said John Price great grandfather [of said] now defendant James had made any contract either with the said John Powell of the Greenway or the said William Howell for the premises in question he had notice that the reversion and inheritance of the premises remained in the complainant and that they had the equity of redemption in the premises after the decease of their said brother in such manner and upon like terms as the said William Howell might have done in his lifetime and whether the right that the said William Howell had in his life time doth not appertain to the complainants as his sisters and coheirs or what can you say touching the right the said complainants have or claim to have of in and to the said premises and the reasons for your knowledge and belief declare the same and the circumstances thereof at large.

7. Item What do know or can say touching or concerning the writing paper or papers now produced unto you & the purport scope substance and effect of the said writing and writings either and which of them and how far were you concerned in the said papers either and which of them, declare what you know concerning the same the reason inducing you thereto? And did you ever know hear or believe that the now complainants or one Robert Howell their brother since the decease of the said William Howell made or laid any claim touching the title of the lands in question in any of his majesties courts of record or else where or did the [?safe] [?sod] depending ever come to a hearing or what was [?the further] effect of the same? Was the person or persons entrusted to manage the said cause for the complainants or their ancestors bribed by the now defendant’s father or did he pay any sum or sums of money to any person or persons whatsoever to stay the proceedings or did the person or persons so entrusted receive any such sum of money or [?did] you pay any such sum of money and what sum for or upon the behalf of the now defendant’s father John Price to the person so entrusted to manage the business for the then complainants for or towards or by way of any gift bribe or otherwise to defraud the then complainants of their right in the premises declare what you know and the reason inducing you thereto.

8. Lastly What matter or thing do you know touching the matter and things & premises & the transaction between the parties named and [?cont] or now in the bill and answer that may be advantageous to the complainants or either of them & for discovery of the truth of the matter [? sont] [? erties] declare what you know or do believe concerning the same & the circumstances thereof & the reasons inducing you thereto.

Hen. Bayly

John Kidley

Depositions of witnesses taken at the dwelling house of Peter Seaborne innkeeper at the Booth Hall in the city of Hereford on Friday the twentieth day of August in the second year of the reign of our sovereign lord king James the second by the grace of god king of England etc. Annoque domini 1686 before Henry Bayly gent. and John Kidley gent commissioners by virtue of a commission out of his said majesties court of Exchequer at Westminster to them as also to Martin Scudamore esq & Thomas Springett gent directed for examination of witnesses for a cause depending at issue in the said court between Edmund Price, Margaret his wife and Joan Myles widow complainants and James Price an infant by James Morgan esq his guardian defendant on the part and behalf of the said complainants as followeth viz. –

John Watkyns of Michaelchurch Escley in the county of Hereford yeoman aged sixty & three years or thereabouts a witness sworn and examined on the complainants behalf.

1. To the first interrogatory this deponent saith that he doth know the parties complainants and defendant and did know William Howell late brother to the complainant Margaret and did also know John Price the defendant’s late father, Thomas Price the defendant’s grandfather and John Price the said defendant’s great grandfather and did know them several years in their several lifetimes and doth believe that it is about seventeen years since the said William Howell died.

2. To the second interrogatory this deponent saith that he doth know the messuage tenements water corn mill, lands & premises [?nothing tences] in question & in that interrogatory mentioned and doth believe that the said William Howell was in his lifetime seized of the one moiety of of the said premises being of the yearly value of six pounds per annum or thereabout and that he was entitled to the other moiety of the premises in reversion expectant from and after the decease of Jane his mother and this deponent hath heard that the same premises were about the time in that interrogatory mentioned mortgaged by the said William Howell to one John Powell of the Greenway for a sum of money but for how much money this deponent knoweth not.

3. To the third interrogatory the deponent saith that he hath heard that the said William Howell in that interrogatory named did convey his estate to John Price the defendant’s great grandfather on condition to discharge the remainder of the mortgage money that was taken up upon the said estate from John Powell of the Green way and also to allow provide and afford maintenance for the said William during his life and this deponent further saith that for some short time after the estate was so passed the said William Howell had his maintenance with the said John Price or his mother and afterwards he was relieved by the charity of his friends and relations and other neighbours in a destitute wandering and vagrant condition and neglected and continued until he was better provided for by one Mr Walter Morgan deceased late father of James the defendant’s guardian who had the same premises mortgage or otherwise as this deponent believes and further saith that the said William Howell was a person of a very weak capacity and wholly incapable of managing of any concerns of his estate or otherwise and was so generally reputed in those parts of the country.

5. To the fifth interrogatory this deponent saith that the premises in question are of the yearly value of eleven or twelve pounds per annum and further saith that the complainant Margaret is the only surviving sister and heir to the said William Howell.

7. To the seventh interrogatory he saith that he hath heard & doth believe that Robert Howell in that interrogatory named did deliver what writings [? ] & evidences he had that did concern the premises in question to one Edmund Thomas gent deceased by whose means & procurement Mr Humphrey Digges deceased an attorney at law was employed to sue for the said estate on behalf of the said Robert Howell, but the said Mr Edmund Thomas who had undertaken to assist the said Robert and also the said Robert dying soon after the said suit was commenced there was no further pres entation in that cause.

Sibil Pitt of Michaelchurch Escley in the county of Hereford widow aged seventy years or thereabouts a witness sworn and examined on the complainant’s behalf deposeth as followeth. –

1. To the first interrogatory this deponent saith that she doth & did know the parties complainants and defendants and did know all the other persons & parties in that interrogatory named except John Powell.

2. To the second interrogatory she saith that she doth know the messuage water corn mill lands and premises in question and in that interrogatory mentioned and that William Howell deceased was reputed owner of the said estate before he mortgaged the same and did know the said estate for the space of fifty years or thereabouts.

3. To the third interrogatory she saith that John Price the now defendant’s father about two years since did bring to this deponent who was then tenant to the premise in question a writing by which as he told this deponent the premises in question as is c[o? ed] to John Powell of the Green way and further saith that the said William Howell in th[is] interrogatory named was a very weak simple man and was not capable of buying & selling and was so reputed in these parts of the country.

5. In the fifth interrogatory this deponent saith that James Pitt this deponent’s late husband did about twenty & three years since rent the premises in question of one Mr Walter Morgan who was guardian to John Price the defendant’s father for the term of twenty and one years for the rent of twelve pounds per annum and held and enjoyed the same for all the said term and paid the rent for the same to the said Mr Morgan or to his assignes. And further saith that David Prichard & Philip Bevan were formerly tenants to the whole premises and during all the time to this deponents memory the rent of the said premises was paid by them to Thomas Price the defendant’s grandfather, Mr Walter Morgan & John Price the defendant’s father.

6. To the sixth interrogatory this deponent saith that the complainant Margaret is sister & heir to the said William Howell deceased and doth believe that the right of the premises that did belong to the said William Howell doth belong to the said complainant Margaret.

Philip Bevan of Peterchurch in the county of Hereford yeoman aged seventy and four years or thereabouts sworn and examined on the complainants behalf deposeth.

1. To the first interrogatory this deponent saith that he doth know the complainants and did know William Howell late brother to the complainant Margaret and did know John Price the defendant’s great-grandfather And Thomas Price his grandfather & John Price his father and did know John Powell of the Greenway all deceased & did know them forty years since & upwards.

2. To the second interrogatory this deponent saith that he doth know the messuage mill & lands in question & in that interrogatory mentioned and hath known the same all the time of his memory and hath heard and doth believe that the said William Howell was formerly owner of the said premises.

3. To the third interrogatory this deponent saith that the said William Howell was a poor weak simple wandering person and received relief and maintenance where he could have it for asking about thirty or forty years since for several years together and was a very ignorant fellow and not capable to manage or dispose of an estate in this deponents judgement.

5. To the fifth interrogatory this deponent saith that about thirty years since he rented the tenements and premises in question of one Charles Jennings who as this deponent was informed had it by way of mortgage and that this deponent held the same premises under the said Charles Jennings about eight years and believes that he paid about twelve pounds per annum for the same for all the time that he held the same But believes he had some abatement or allowance out of the same towards repairs of the said mill.

William [?Houas] of the parish of Abbey Doore in the county of Hereford yeoman aged seventy and five years or thereabouts a witness sworn and examined on the complainant’s behalf deposeth. –

 

1. To the first interrogatory this deponent saith that he doth know the complainants and did know William Howell late brother to the complainant Margaret & did know John Price the defendant’s great-grandfather & Thomas Price the defendant’s grandfather & John Price the defendant’s father for several years before & until their deceases.

2. To the second interrogatory this deponent saith that he doth know the messuage mill lands & premises in question & in that interrogatory mentioned and hath known the same all the time of his memory and that the said William Howell brother to the complainant Margaret was heir to the said premises in question.

3. To the third interrogatory this deponent saith that above forty years since he being then a servant to the said John Price the great-grandfather of the defendant who was also this deponent’s uncle the said John Price did call or cause this deponent together with James Cood of Backton & Richard Williams of St Margaret’s and one Philip James a day labourer to the house all to come to the dwelling house of the said John Price called New Court in the parish of Backton and after this the said three others were come into the hall of the said house there were then present the said John Price and the said William Howell and there did then lie on the table before them two writings and a bag of money and the said John the great-grandfather then told this deponent and the other three persons that were called in with him to be witnesses to what was there then to be done who after some discourse had passed between the said John Price the defendant’s great-grandfather & the said William Howell the said John Price the great-grandfather did count & tell out the said money on the table in presence of this deponent and the other three witnesses and after he had so done he did himself dislike with one piece of the said money and called to his wife to change the same which she accordingly did and thereupon the said John Price the defendant’s great-grandfather said that they meaning this deponent and the rest that were present to be witnesses can now prove that it is all good money or used words to that effect where upon the said John Price the great-grandfather did put up the said money into the said purse or bag and put it into the hands of the said William Howell and said to him that there was money for his land and bade this deponent and the other persons then present take notice that he had bought the said William Howell’s lands meaning the lands in question and at delivery of the said money the said John Price asked him the said William Howell what he would do with it who replied that it should pay John Powell and then the said John Price the great-grandfather said no you mistake for you promise that I should have this money for to maintain you and the purse & money remaining in the hands of the said William Howell he the said John Price the great-grandfather did take immediately the purse and all the money therein unaltered back again from the said William Howell and did go away with the same in the presence of this deponent and the other witnesses and this deponent further saith that the said William Howell at the time of producing of the said money and transactions aforesaid was a person of a weak capacity and very simple and did not well understand what he did as this deponent doth verily believe and within some short time after the said transactions the said John Price the defendant’s great-grandfather died as this depont hath heard and after his death the said William Howell did wander about & seek relief where he could get it.

Henry Bayly

John Kidley

Howell Morgan of the parish of Michaelchurch Escley in the county of Hereford husbandman aged fifty and eight years or thereabouts produced sworn and examined on the part of the complainant deposeth. –

1. To the first interrogatory this deponent saith that he knows the plaintiff Edmund Price and Margaret his wife and that he knew William Howell and all the other persons in the said interrogatory mentioned in their lifetimes and that the said William Howell died about nine or ten years since.

2. To the second interrogatory this deponent saith that he knows the lands & tenements question and that the said William Howell was heir and owner thereof.

3. To the third interrogatory this deponent saith that he did know the said William Howell from the time of this defendant’s infancy until the death of the said William Howell and that all that time the said William Howell was a very ignorant simple man and in this deponent’s judgement was not capable to manage sell or dispose of his estate because as this deponent verily believes that the said William Howell did not know the difference of a shilling from a sixpence or a sixpence for a shilling and was looked upon as such by all that knew him.

6. To the sixth interrogatory this deponent saith that Margaret the complainant is the sister and heir of the said William Howell and what right and title the said William Howell had to the premises in question at the time of his death did devolve upon the said Margaret his sister and heir.

Hugh Charles of Craswall in the county of Hereford yeoman aged seventy & two years or thereabouts produced sworn and examined on the part of the said complainants, deposeth. –

1. To the first interrogatory this deponent saith that he knows the complainants Edmund Price and Margaret his wife and did know all the other persons in that interrogatory named in their lifetimes except the said John Powell in the said interrogatory named.

2. To the second interrogatory this deponent saith that he doth know the lands and premises in question and that he hath known the same for at least fifty years and saith that the said William Howell was the lawful heir to the said lands in question and that Jane the mother of the said William Howell was in possession of a moiety of the said lands as he believes in her own right during her lifetime and held and enjoyed the same until her death and after his said mother’s decease the said lands were to descend unto the said William Howell

3. To the third interrogatory this deponent saith that the said William Howell about fifty years since being by this deponent out of his this deponent’s charity maintained did often complain to him that the said John Price the said defendant’s great-grandfather had cozened him of his estate he the said John Price being by agreement made between him and the said William Howell upon his passing of the same to keep and maintain him the said William Howell during his son life That the said William Howell was soon after the said passing away of his estate to the said John Price the great-grandfather throwed into the wide world to shift for himself and might have perished for want had he not been relieved by the charity of this deponent and other good people he being a poor simple ignorant fellow and incapable either to manage any business or to sell or dispose of his estate because he did not understand or know the difference betwixt a shilling and a sixpence or what any piece of money was he this deponent having made an experiment thereof.

Richard Powell of the city of Hereford husbandman aged seventy years or thereabouts a witness produced sworn and examined on the complainant’s behalf deposeth. –

1. To the first interrogatory this deponent saith that he doth know the complainants Edward and Margaret and did know William Howell the complainant Margaret’s brother and all the rest named in that interrogatory who are all deceased.

2. To the second interrogatory this deponent saith that he doth know the premises in question and hath known the same all his memory and that the same were the inheritance of the said William Howell and that the same was then and now is worth twelve pounds per annum.

3. To the third interrogatory this deponent saith that about forty or fifty years since this deponent often times meeting the said William Howell who was this deponent’s kinsman was told by the said William Howell that his uncle John Price the defendant’s great-grandfather had used him very unkindly for he had cozened him of his estate by giving him white cakes and ale to convey his estate unto the said John Price the defendant’s great-grandfather upon the account that he would maintain & provide for him during his life and that in some short time after the same was so done the said John Price the defendant’s great grandfather did suffer the said William Howell to go about to seek relief who might have perished had had he not been relieved by the charity of other good people he the said William Howell being a poor weak ignorant and simple fellow and not capable to get his maintenance or to manage any business or to sell or dispose of his estate because he this deponent hath made trial with several pieces of money and he the said William Howell did not know any different in the same nor could he distinguish any piece from another.

5. To the fifth interrogatory this deponent saith that about fifty years since when the said William Howell was drawn or [?inthsedled] by the said John Price the defendant’s great-grandfather to [?come] convey his estate unto him for his maintenance the same then was & now is worth twelve pounds per annum and that the said John Price the defendant’s great-grandfather did during all the time of his life take & receive the rents issues & profits of the said premises except so much thereof as the mother of the said William Howell did hold for her life and after her decease the profits of the whole premises have been ever since taken and received by the said John Price the defendant’s great grandfather, Thomas Price the defendant’s grandfather, John Price the father & the now defendant or some or one of them or by some other person or persons in their some or one of their right title or interest or claiming from by or under their or some or one of them as this deponent verily believes.

6. To the sixth interrogatory this deponent saith that the complainant Margaret as sister & heir to the said William Howell and that what title or interest the said William Howell had in or unto the said premises in question at the time of his death ought to come and descend to the complainant Margaret as sister and heir to the said William Howell.

Henry Bayly

John Kidley.

 

Endnote:

Correspondence with Mr Arthur Price, a descendant of the Price family above referenced, casts some doubt on various dates in the above transcription. There are also inconsistencies within the transcribed documents between some of the dates given for events and the recollections of witnesses of the number of years elapsed since those events took place.

Mr Price suggests based on his research and transcripts of other documents about the Price family that the transfer of Michaelchurch Mill to John Price [the defendant's great grandfather in the case above] took place in 1636. This ties in with the witness statements in the proceedings of 1686 referring to memories of events about forty or fifty years previously. Arthur Price also believes that John Price died the following year, 1637, his son Thomas Price died in February 1644 and Thomas' son John Price died in 1685. The latter may tie in with the date of the legal proceedings of 1686 which could have been triggered by the prospect of the Mill property being inherited by John Price's son James Price at that time.

On the other hand, documents dated 1642 and 1652 in Hereford Record Office relate to mortgages and assignments of the Corn Mill at Michaelchurch and state that the mill is then in the ownership of James Harry Howell, reputedly the father of the William Howell referred to in the 1686 court case. The date of 1664 given in the transcript for the disputed transaction involving his son William would therefore be consistent with the [presumed] death of James Harry Howell after 1652, the last documented date of his legal ownership of the mill, and before 1654 by which time the transcripts claim that William had inherited and mortgaged the property before assigning it to John Price in 1664.

Further research may clarify these apparent contradictions.