Held at:

The National Archive, Kew

Reference:

PROB/11/330

Source:

Digital Image of original documents

Title:

Probate Collection; Will for John William Prichard

Place name:

Michaelchurch Escley

Date:

1669

Description:

1. Will dated 13 July 1661
Beneficiaries:
To Jane Walters, cousin, £100, to Blanch Watkins, cousin, £100 and Mary Watkins, cousin, £100; the money now in the hands of Mr William Bull, gent.
To the said Jane, 'a feather bed with the appurtenances now at Michaelchurch Eskley.
To the said Blanch, one feather bed with the appurtenances 'whereon I do lie upon'.
To the said Mary one other feather bed with the appurtenances in the middle solar.
To Elinor, daughter of Phe. Griffiths, goddaughter, £20.
To Jane, daughter of Howell Nicholls, £20.
To Anne daughter of the said Howell, £10
The £50 of the last 3 legacies 'lyeth in the hands of George Mead in the Parish of Blackmeare'.
To John, son of William Hancock of Peterchurch, £5
To John, son of Sarah Hancock, £5; 'which £10 lyeth in the hands of Mr James Vaughan, gent.
To Richard David, cousin, £5 and to Margery, his sister, £3.
To 'my reputed sonne' James, £15, now in the hands of James Probert the elder.
To John Watkins, cousin, all my copyhold lands
To Elizabeth Thomas, servant, 26/8d
To funeral expenses, £10.
To Alice Jenkins, goddaughter,20/-
To the poor of the parish of Michaelchurch Eskley, 20/- to be paid to them on the Sunday before Christmas after the testator's death.
To the poor of Longtown 20/- to be paid in like manner.

Executor: cousin, John Watkins.

No indication on this copy whether the original was signed or marked

Witnesses: no names given

Date of Probate:
2 May 1669 .

 

 

Observations:

As this is taken from a copy of the will deposited at the Prerogative Court of Canterbury there are no supporting documents.
The copyist made an error in the middle of this will and several lines have been crossed out; they are followed by the sentence 'And afterwards I devise the said lands with all and singular thappurtenances unto John the son of the said John Watkins.' This gives two problems first there has been no previous reference to any lands and secondly although two Johns were previously mentioned neither was son of John Watkins.


Top - Back

Ref: ldhsarchive_mfs_mic_0206