STAC Shipman

From Rpalmer
Revision as of 12:42, 18 April 2019 by Hgood (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

B Bill of Complaint Dr Demurrer A Answer Rn Replication Rr Rejoinder C Commission I Interrogatories D Deposition

Shipman, Lucy & John

  • STAC 5/S54/13 - B A Rn Rr - 7 Eliz - Lucy Shipman, John Shipman v George Kympton, Nicholas Carter et al
  • STAC 5/S41/30 - D - 8 Eliz - John Shipman v Thomas Carter

Shipman, Robert

  • STAC 5/S64/30 - B A - 37 Eliz - Robert Shipman v Richard Ogle, Nicholas Bulby et al
  • STAC 5/S13/20 - I D - 37 Eliz - Robert Shipman v Richard Ogle

Shipman, Richard

Shipman, William

  • STAC 5/S21/8 - B A Rn - 39 Eliz - William Shypman v William Pennyngton, Christopher Burrowes et al
  • STAC 5/S75/33 - Rr - 39 Eliz - William Shipman v William Pennyngton, James Livesaye et al
  • STAC 5/S13/38 - I D - 39 Eliz - William Shipman v William Pennington, Thomas Skelthorne et al
  • STAC 5/S63/8 - B A - 40 Eliz - William Shipman, Thomas Higgyns v William Pennington, Robert Pennington
  • STAC 5/S44/28 - Rn - 40 Eliz - William Shipman, Thomas Higgons v William Pennyngton, Robert Pennyngton
  • STAC 5/H14/35 - I D - 40 Eliz - Thomas Higgons, William Shipman v William Pennyngton, Robert Pennyngton
  • STAC 5/S60/9 - I D - 40 Eliz - William Shypman v William Pennington
  • STAC 5/S12/21 - I D - 40 Eliz - William Shipman v William Pewnington, Christopher Burrowes et al
  • STAC 5/S48/9 - Rr - 41 Eliz - William Shipman, Thomas Higgons v William Penington, Robert Penington

Bevan Case Index

  • Shipman v Carter - STAC 5/S54/13, STAC 5/S41/30
  • Shipman v Ogle - STAC 5/S64/30, STAC 5/S13/20
  • Shipman v Pennington - STAC 5/S21/8, STAC 5/S63/8, STAC 5/S12/21, STAC 5/S13/38, STAC 5/S44/28, STAC 5/S48/9, STAC 5/S60/9, STAC 5/S75/33

Notes, Additions and Corrections

  • Case Book BL Harley MS 2143 fo. 41v. Forgery of a will by adding alteration and expounding by false notes. Shippan, plaintiff; Bishop of St David’s, defendant: for forging the will of Sir James Whitney who had entailed his lands by his true will made and published in the presence of the defendant and the dean of Hereford and others upon his brother Eustace Whitney for life, the remainder upon George and William Whitney his uncles, whom with the plaintiff he made execution but the defendant by confederacy and for gain betwixt him and the said Eustace, altered the same will and wrote it with his own hand and made himself executor only and added a writing or codicil thereto which the will never read or saw, and pretended that the testator had secretly given him instructions whereby to add or expound the same or alter it as he pleased whereof he made no proof therefore the court misliking the same set 1000 marks fine and imprisonment during the Queen’s pleasure and referred the will to be tried in the high prerogative court. Easter 34 Elizabeth (kk)
  • Case Book BL Harley MS 2143 fo. 47r. A duces tecum to bring in all wills notes and writings purporting to present the will of the testator. Shipman, plaintiff; the Bishop of St. David et al. For forgery of a will and the court ordered the defendants to appear and be examined together in person and also awarded a duces tecum to the defendants to bring into the court before answer all wills, copies of wills, draughts, writings, notes which they either have or ever had in the testator’s life time anyways purporting the will of the testator so as the plaintiff thereby may from his interrogatories to examine the defendants. Michaelmas 31 Elizabeth (kk)