Difference between revisions of "STAC 5/C70/29r"

From Rpalmer
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "Les reportes del cases in Camera Stellata, 1593 to 1609 from the original ms. of John Hawarde edited by William Paley Baildon Published 1894 Pages 21-22 In Camera Stelllata, ...")
 

Latest revision as of 14:17, 10 October 2018

Les reportes del cases in Camera Stellata, 1593 to 1609 from the original ms. of John Hawarde edited by William Paley Baildon Published 1894 Pages 21-22

In Camera Stelllata, 16 Maij, Eiizab. 35.

Walter Crouche, plaintiff. Sir Walter Hungerford and others, defendants.

The case was for forging a deed, and (p.22) the point was the erasure of a word contained in the deed, to wit, [in the sentence] habendum sibi et assignatis suis, he erased assignatis and wrote heredibus. But at the end of the hearing, (for the case was two days in hearing.) Sir Walter Hungerford was acquitted for want of proof; for Crouche could not prove that the forgery was done by Hungerford himself; and so Sir Walter Hungerford was dismissed to the common law. The Lord Keeper cited that [the words] to hold to him and his assigns to his own proper use and to the use of his heirs and assigns were adjudged in Bostons case to be an estate for life, and a fee simple in use.