Difference between revisions of "STAC Crouch"
(5/C6/20) |
|||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Account of Walter Crouch v Sir Walter Hungerford et al (forgery, 35 Eliz) in Les reportes del cases in Camera Stellata, 1593 to 1609 from the original ms. of John Hawarde edited by William Paley Baildon Published 1894, p. 21 - 22 | Account of Walter Crouch v Sir Walter Hungerford et al (forgery, 35 Eliz) in Les reportes del cases in Camera Stellata, 1593 to 1609 from the original ms. of John Hawarde edited by William Paley Baildon Published 1894, p. 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 [Page 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. | In Camera Stelllata, 16 Maij, Eiizab. 35. Walter Crouche, plaintiff. Sir Walter Hungerford and others, defendants. The case was for forging a deed, and [Page 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. | ||
| + | *STAC 5/C6/20 - Manor of Wellowe, Somerset.(dk) | ||
Revision as of 17:32, 22 March 2017
Crouch, Walter
- STAC 5/C66/5 - B A - 33 Eliz - Walter Crouch, Edward Gorge et al v William Eaton, Anthony Bissey et al
- STAC 5/C70/29 - B Dr C I D - 33 Eliz - Walter Crowck v Walter Hungerford, Richard Tyderleighe
- STAC 5/C56/34 - Rn - 34 Eliz - Walter Crouch et al v Sir Walter Hungerford et al
- STAC 5/C27/6 - I D - 34 Eliz - Walter Crowche v Anthony Bosey, William Eaton
- STAC 5/C27/29 - I D - Mich 34/35 Eliz - Walter Crowche v Sir Walter Hungerford
- STAC 5/C48/29 - D - 35 Eliz - [blank] Crowthe v Walter Hungerford et al
- STAC 5/C49/21 - I D - 34 Eliz - Walter Crouch et al v Sir Walter Hungerford
Crouch, William
- STAC 5/C6/20 - B A Rn - 11 Eliz - William Crouche v William Butler, Arthur Pickering, Walter Wykes, Edmund Colthurst et al
- STAC 5/C56/22 - B A - 13 Eliz - William Crouch v William Boteler, Henry Chubb et al
- STAC 5/C12/11 - I D - 14 Eliz - William Crowche v William Butler, John Fowey
- STAC 5/C76/21 - B A C - 14 Eliz - William Crowch v John Batt, William Butler et al
- STAC 5/C71/1 - B A - 28 Eliz - William Crowch v Charles Merrick
Notes, Additions and Corrections: Account of Walter Crouch v Sir Walter Hungerford et al (forgery, 35 Eliz) in Les reportes del cases in Camera Stellata, 1593 to 1609 from the original ms. of John Hawarde edited by William Paley Baildon Published 1894, p. 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 [Page 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.
- STAC 5/C6/20 - Manor of Wellowe, Somerset.(dk)
