Description:

PROB.  C6/15/167. Scudamore V kathrine Price and others. Property in Clodock.

Two bills and one answer. This below being the answer.

Transcription by Arthur Price, reproduced with his kind permission.

This document/answer of three pages is on parchment. Several creases run through the middle which make transcribing in places impossible. In addition it has been rubbed  and the script is at times illegible on the right top and bottom corners.

The joint and several answers [of] Katherine Price, Nicodemus Symonds and Pheellipp Wat[kin] to the bill of Complainte of John Scudamore Esq Complt.

The said defendante savinge to themselves nowe and at all tymes hereafter the Benefitt and Advantage of Exceptcon to the bill [mentioned?] in furthurence of the bill of Complante [---] materialle concernes and unto, they answeare and saie. And first the defendant Catherine Price for her parte [says] and sayeth that she beleves [that]  Watkin William [yeoman and] William Watkin theire sonne or some or one of them was or were seized in their [day] as of fee of and in the lande and tenemente in the said bill ment[ioned] [----] And that they [were] thereof so seized on or aboute the time the said bill (expressed) demise the same to David ap John Gwillim for the terme of nynetre nyne yeares from thence next ensuinge Reserving the yeares [rente] twentie shillinge and after [the terme] of the said nynetienyne yeares for the terme of nynetie nyne yeares more imediatlie to commence after the expiratcon of the first terme of nyntie nyne yeares the same rente [----] by lease [----] lease of the said demise the said David ap John Gwillim entered into the premises and quietlye enjoyed the same by reservinge the rente issues and pfitts thereof. And this defendant further sayeth that all the premises [and] terme an[d] [yeares] then to come and unexpired aboute fortie yeares last past came by meane and lawful conveyance to Richard William David (who was the Grandchild of the said David ap John Gwillim as this defendant believeth)  which said Richard likewise quietlie and peaceablie received the rente issue and pfitt thereof until the nynteenth yeare of Kinge James late Kinge of England [1621-22]. On or about [when] the said Richard William David beinge of the premises soe possessed did for valuable considerations grante and asigne all his intereste and parte thereof together with the [said] lease to John Price of Ouldcastle in the Countie of Monmouth Gent, who thereupon entred thereto and did likewise quietlie and peacable receave the rentes issues and proffte thereof without the interuptcon [of any] pson or psons whatsoever until the tenth yeare of the late Kinges reigne [1634-35] and during all that tyme constantlie payed the said yearlie rente of twentie shillings to the right heires of the said William Watkin to whom the [----] all the premises of right (as expressed). And this defendante further sayeth that on or aboute the seventeenth yeare of the said late kinges reigne [1641-42], Thomas Price this  defendants late husband for a valuable consideration in money purchased reversion of all the premises with the rent thereto incident of[f] [ the said]  William John William who was the right  and next heire of William Watkin in the said original lease named. And the said Thomas Price having receved then a greate marriage portion with this defendant and beinge willinge to settle some lands [----] and for the advancement of such [----] they [----], hee the said Thomas Price (the said John Price having surrendered the said original lease and all his interest and terme of yeares to the premises then to come and unexpired to his sonne Thomas Price) by his indenture bearing date the seventh daie  of December in the sixteenth yeare of the said late Kinges reigne [1640] with libertie of seisin there upon duelie executed to James Prichard and Walter Morgan and to thiere heires all and singular the premises to the uses followinge that is to saie, to the use and behoofe of the said Thomas and Katherine and the longest lives of them, And after the decease of the longest lives of them to the use and behoofe of the heires of the body of the said Katherine by the said Thomas begotten or to be begotten. And for want of such issue to the righte heires of the said Thomas forever, as and in and by the said Indenture, relation being thereunto had, will more at [large?] appr. And this defendant further sayeth that by virtue of the said Conveyance and of the statute made  for the tranfferring of uses into possesscon of the [premises the] said Thomas Price entered into the premises with [this defendant?] and became thereof seized in his demise as of freehold and quietlie and peaciblie enjoyed the same for diverse yeares and until the tyme of his death which was on or aboute the twentieth daie of Februarie in the yeare one thousand sixe hundred fortie foure [1645]as this deft believes. After his decease this defendant entered into the premises and became thereof seized according to the limitations of the said Indenture and did by herselfe [and] ever since the decease of the said Thomas Price quietlie and peaciblie receave the rents issues and pffts of the same without the interruptcon either of the Plt or of annie other pson or psons whatsoever until the month of March in the fower and twentieth yeare of the late kinges reigne  [1648-49], on or aboute which tyme the Complt by combination and pship with Edward William whoe was this defendants tenante of the premises and of the said Thomas Price in his life tyme, privatlie to deliver the possession thereof to the Complt. And this defendant further sayeth that the Complt in pursuance of the said practice and the better to color the designe distanced the cattle of the said Edward by and with the consent of the said Edward as this defendant truly believeth, alsoe [w----] not to be able [--- two words---]  any opposition or defence to soe potente a man as the Complt was But imediatelie delivered the possession of the premises to the Complt, although he the said Edward by this defendant and by others on her behalfe both [desired] and required her the defendant to re[gain] the cattle wch the Complt had soe taken, wherby the Complts title if he had [to] have bin legallie tried. And this defendant further sayeth that the partnership and combination betweene the Complt and the tenante Edward William to oust and disposses this defendant  [crease in parchment] cleerlie appearinge Shee this defendant after the  [verdict of the court?] is [----] of the possession of the  [crease in parchment] the Complt to the said Edward [William] [crease in parchment] until the tyme that she this defendant was violentlie haled and dragged out thence by a [party?] of psons sent thither by the Complt for that purpose, as this defendant believeth. And this defd further sayeth that the Complt in a verrie short tyme after he had soe gained the possession of the premises caused all the arable land pcell of the premises to be plowed and sowed, whereupon this defendant at the next [general] sessions of the yeare  held for the said countie of Hereford [presented] a Bill of indictmt against the said [Complt who had] soe entered upon the premises, whoe there upon were found guiltie of the force and a writ of restitution granted to reinvest this dft in the possession of the premises, wch by the then said Sheriff of the said countie was done accordinglie whereby this defendant peaceabilie continued the possession thereby until such tyme that the said Indictmt was removed to the upperbench upon some error (as is concealed) founde in the same said Indictmt by order of that Courte was quashed and a writ of Ressestution there upon awarded to putt the Complt in the possession of the premises, wch was done accordinglie whereby this deft was dispossessed of the possession of the premises which shee and her said late husband and the said John Price his father had respectivelie enjoyed aboute the space of ffortie yearse as is before expressed, By all and which [----- -----] proceedinge the C[----] unconscionable dealinge of the Complt against this defendant being a disconsolate widowe may appeal to this honble Courte the Complt nor his ancestor[s] nor any other clayminge from by or under him then having all claymes any [much?] of interest to the premises, for ought this defendant ever heard, until such tyme as the Complt tampered with the said Edward William for to gain the possession there of in manner before said. And this defendant further sayeth that as concerning the cattle of the said Edward William in the bill menconed to be taken away in the night tyme as damage [-------] shee utterlie belifetheth [------] tyme in the bill mentioned the said Edward William havinge been longe tenante to the defts husband during his life and since continuinge tenant to this deft until that by the combination aforesaid the [said?] complt did runne very farr in arrears of rent for the premises to this deft for the oblayminge of which said arrears this deft contesteth that in the [crease in parchment] to the tykme in the bill mentioned [---- ----] [----] to distcaime upon the  cattle of the said Edward William [crease in parchment] did accordinglie distcaime  and in the daytime bribe and [---- ----] female beast of farr lesser value than by the bill expressed wch said cattle being soe taken were brought to this defts house and by this defts sppointmt [----] sold, or aboute the value of twentie pounds [---- ---- ----] received and deteyneth the same prt for her rent as shee hopes she may well [----] by leave . And this deft further sayeth that she being disposed of the premises as is before sett forth [-------] seale a lease of Ejectmt to one of the other defts Nicodemus Symonds to try her title to the premises wch the Complt  as well by these causes and vexations as by [---- ---- ---- ----] presumed to wearie this deft and either to wrest her out of all her right or else to force her to some [----] and inconsiderable composicon to relinquish and release her title to the premises [---- ----]     and Inimunation from this honble Court thinking still to deliver the possession from this deft. And the deft Nicodemus Symonds for his ple answereth andsayeth that he disclaimeth to have any m[-------]   the premises [---- ----] by virtue of the lease of Ejectmt made to him by thither deft Catherine Price for to try title of the premises and to noe other purpose. And the dft Phillipp Watkins denyeth the combination as by the bill is set out [----] he never had or hath any acquaintance with the other defts. And also this deft denie that they or either of them ever had any deede [----] or writing that conserve the [----]  interest to the premises or any pt to there of and they likewise  denie all and all manner of combination either there  wth the other or wth any other pson or psons whatsoever to defraud or defeate the Complt [---- ----] to the premises or to anjy pt there of, with out that, that the premises or any prt there of or the reversion there [crease in parchment] by the said William watkin in the said bill named were de[---] David ap david as a pson in trust for the said Thomas Scudamore Esq or otherwise [----] by these [----] bill is [----] And witness that any other matter or [----] in the sayd bill of complaint, or by [as?] or [----] for these Defendts to make answere unto and herein [----] herby [crease in parchment]  unto cones[---?] [Then follow two line in another hand, all illegible]  

 these defts were sworne upon the twellth daye of October 1653 before James Harries Thos. Jones.

The mark of  X  Carine Price.

Nicode Symonds

The mark of Phellipps X Watkin.

Observations:

This branch of the Price family acquired extensive property and interests in many of the parishes of Ewyas Lacy, and further references can be found here.