C78/9, no.49

From Waalt

Extract from Chancery Final Decree C78/9 no.49, dated 5 June 2 & 3 Phillip & Mary (image of original)

Thomas Perrott the elder of Luton, Beds, yeoman, father of Robert Perrott late of Luton decd and Thomas Perrott son, heir & executor of the said Robert Perrott v Mychaell Thrall.


Recites the Bill of Complaint of Thomas Perrott the elder of Luton, Beds, yeoman, father of Robert Perrott late of Luton decd and Thomas Perrott son, heir & executor of the said Robert Perrott:

Robert the late Abbot of the Monastery of Saint Albon, Herts was seised in right of the Monastery of the tithes of corn and grain from Luton and from Challey, Beds, known as the Luton tithes, and also of the tithes of corn and grain from the lands of Newmylend, Westhyde and Esthyde in the parish of Luton, and of a tenement and barn in Newmylende.

On 31 Jan 26 HenVIII the Abbott leased the above to the John Tymes of Luton for 31 years from the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist 1549 for £43 per annum, with a clause for re entry for non payment. On 4 Feb 26 HenVIII John Tymes demised the lease of the tithes of Newmylende, Westhyde & Esthyde, and the tenement in Newmylende for £20 per annum to Thomas Dermer of Luton, who later in 1549 assigned all his interest to Mychaell Thrall, Gentleman.

On 30 October 29(sic) HenVIII, John Tymes sold his interest in the original lease to Robert Perrott, who entered the same on the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist 1549, and enjoyed the same for the remainder of his life which was about 6 years or more, and died in January last past, 2 & 3 Phillip & Mary.

In his will, Robert Perrott gave the remainder of the term of the said lease to the plaintiff Thomas Perrott (the father) if he should live so long, and if he should die, then to Thomas Parrott (the son).

The complainants then claim that Mychaell Thrall has not been paying his rent: " And moreov[er] declared by his saide bill of complaynt that the said Mychaell Thrall being a very craftie and subtill p[er]sone and one that sought the disquyetnes and undoing aswell the saide Robert Perrott in his lyfe tyme as also nowe seketh the undoing of the saide Playntyffe and howe to withdrawe the payment of his iuste and rightfull duties parceyving and having intelligence that the said Robert Perrott hadd bought and obteyned the saide lease of the said tythes called Luton tythes of the saide John Tymes did not only denye payment of the saide rente of twentie poundes reserved for the saide tythes whiche he hadd in possession either to the Offycers of the late Kinge Edwarde the sixte in his tyme or to the saide Robert Perrott in his lyfe tyme but lykewise refused to paye the saide rente of twentie poundes to the Offycers to the Kinge and Quenes Maiesties that nowe are whiche was by the space of sixe yeres and more amounting to the some of Cxxx li and yet utterly refused to paye the same Notwithstanding dyv[er]s and sundry requestes thereof to the saide Mychaell Thrall made in the lyfe of the saide Robert Perrott as also by the Playntiffes synce the death of the saide Robert Perrott"

It was also stated that in order to avoid the enforcement of the clause of re entry in the original lease for non payment, Robert Perrott was forced to pay the portion of rent which the defendant should have paid (and which was now due to the crown since the dissolution of the Monastery)


Recites the answer of Mychaell Thrall:

Agrees to the details as stated in the bill of the original lease to John Tymes (although states it was 30 years rather than 31), the grant of part of the lease to Thomas Dermer, and the subsequent grant to this defendant, noting that the barn in question was called Dollowe Barn.

Claims that for the first 3 or 4 of the first half years after the commencement of his term he paid the £20 rent to Robert Perrott, expecting him to obtain an acquittance from the King's receiver for the same, but Robert Perrott only obtained an acquittance for himself as the farmer of the whole lease. Whereupon this deft stated to Robert Perrott that he would make his own £20 rent payment direct to the receiver, and so get his own discharge, but Robert Perrott disagreed with this, as he was the holder of the whole original lease, and this deft was his tenant.

This deft then approached the receiver to arrange to pay his rent directly, and at the same time requested £10 allowance for reparations. The receiver at this stage supported the view that Robert Perrott was responsible for the whole of the original lease, and that this deft was his tenant, and Robert Perrott insisted on paying the whole rent to the receiver, and this deft lost his opportunity to claim £10 reparations.

The deft claims that there is no cause in the law why he should be charged to pay the money which had been wilfully paid to the receiver by Robert Perrott, to the prejudice of the deft.

It was decreed that henceforth the deft should pay his annual rent of £20 direct to the Crown, and that the complt should not therefore be liable for any neglect on the defts part.

(See also a subsequent decree dated 13 May 1558)