THE LANGSTAFFS OF TEESDALE AND
WEARDALE PART 22 P.364 - (clxv.)
APPENDIX XII. 1608-9, March 1 . Bill of complaint of Robert Hutton, D.D.,
against Christopher Langstaffe. Alleged sale of grey mare worth vjli. xiijs.
iiijd., and one stot or stottrell worth iijli vjs. viijd., which were in 1603
depasturing in Kyopsheld, co. Durham, derive by the defendants, they being the
Plaintiff's "owne proper goods and chattalls." ~~~~~~~~~~ 1634, Michaelmas Term. At Barnard Castle. Depositions in a cause,
Thomas Bowes v.William Rayne, senr, William Rayne, Junr., William Tinckler,
Thomas Rayne, William Langstaff, and Edward Rayne, concerning a the manors of
Mickleton and Lune, co. Durham, and the mill called Mickleton Mill, touching the
custom of "suit and service" to mill, providing millstones, etc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1635, Easter Term, 16 April . At Barnard Castle. The same. Robert
Rayne of Mickleton, co. York, aged about 66, says ( for the Lord) he knew lime
led by Edward Langstaffe, one of the tenants of Mickleton, but it was not a
unusual service of the tenants. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bill, dated 5 May 1642, by your or realtor William Langstaffe of
Somerbridge in the co.of York, yeoman, administrator of the goods and chattless
of Michaell Langstaffe, late of Somerbridge, yeoman, deceased, shewing that
whereas said Michaell in his life-time, viz., about four years since, was
possessed of certain grounds in a place called Dacre- P.365 - (clxvi.)
Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. banks, by demise of one William Richmond; and whereas one John
Cooper the elder, late of Sesey, co.York, yeoman, deceased, pretended prior
rights from the said Richmond. To settle the differences the said Michaell and
John referred to an arbitrator, who decided that Michaell should surrender his
lease to John, who in return should pay Michaell a yearly rent of £10 for seven
years. The decision being made 29 August 1638, John Cooper made over his rights
to his son, who paid the rent as long as his father lived, i.e., two years.
Michaell Langstaff by Indenture dated 14 May, 17 Charles 1. ( 1641 ), conveyed
his interest in above grounds to your orator, and shortly after, viz., about
July 22nd last, died intestate, and adm'on was granted to your orator. [Query, were William and Michael brothers see inquisition P M in
162712, and next suit.] WILLIAM LONGSTAFF v. THOMAS HANLEY. Dated "Citty of Yorke, 14th of
June, 1659." Taken before Tho. Harrison. (Signed) WILL'M LONGSTAFF. Rec. 16 November '59. (Chancery Affidavits, Hilary, Easter,
Trinity, and Michaelmas, No. 222.) [The same, Ripon, co. York.] 1660, October 30. Christopher Yeates and John Skirfe declare that
William Langstaffe six years ago or thereabouts did convey certain lands and
tenements in Hartwith and Dacre to the Defendant with a defeasance to pay £100
at a certain day. The Complainant has tended the Defendant the £100. and "use
thereupon due," notwithstanding which the Defendant keeps possession of the
premises and has reaped corn to the value of £16 and hay and grass to the value
of £10, and has cut down oak trees to the value of £24. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1662, February 14. John Heath, Esq., Attorney-General to John,
Lord Bishop of Durham, of the relation of Ralph Walker of Bishop Auckland and
others, v. Christopher Dobson of the same, yeoman [and many others including]
John Langstaffe of the same, skinner, copyholders within the manor of Bishop
Auckland. Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. 1662, May 7 . Richard Bowcer of Bishopps Awkeland, co. Durham,
gent., one of the attornyes of the Honble.Court, v. Thomas Simpson, Joan his
wife, George Harison, and John Longstaffe. A messuage, etc., in turn attacked,
of which Thomas and some of the same, gent and Joan his wife was the comedy-by
them to George Harrison for 21 years John Longstaff of Bishop Auckland to,
Mason, a creditor of the said Simpson for £60. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1662, May 20. Thomas Hixson the elder of Merinton, co. Durham,
yeoman, v. William Langstaffe re premises in Midleston, co. Durham, leased to
Elizabeth Caper, late of that place. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1687. John Langstaffe v. George Barkas Henry Hill, Elizabeth
Fenwick, William Collins and his wife, William Bigg, and John
Hindmarsh. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1711 July 18. Anna Langstaffe, widow, v. Margaret Halliday, now
wife of William Frances. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1715 October 25. Your orator, John Dent of Mickleton, co.York,
yeoman, and one Michael Langstaffe of Mickleton aforesaid, yeoman, were in the
year 1701 and ever since have been seised in their demesne as of fee of several
messuages, etc., in Mickleton. That the said Michael, having encroached upon
your orator's right, it was agreed that the differences between them be settled
by arbitration, and the said Michael on the March 18, 1701 agreed to refer all
differences to Edward Raine and John Johnson. That the award of the arbitrators
was made 21 March 1701 [directing removal and re-erection of walls, etc.]. That
the said Michael now refuses to pay any obedience to the said award. Prays that
the said Michael be compelled to appear and state the facts under oath, etc.
The answer of Michael Langstaffe. Denies that to his knowledge he did encroach upon the Complainant
right. That he felt himself hardly used in several parts of the said award, yet
as he for peace sake and to get quitt of the clamours of a contentious neighbour
referred to the said matters Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. in difference, he was resolved to stand to the said award and
performe the same, and accordingly he hath faithfully executed and fulfilled the
same in every particular, save only what relates to the division of land called
The Pry and executing a release to the Complainant. Cites a conveyance, dated 20
May 1709, to Jeremy Langstaffe his eldest son, etc. [ The same.] 1716. Depositions taken at the house of Jane Raine, widdow,
scytuate at Mickleton, co. York, 11 October 1716. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1720, December 19. Francis Langstaffe of Richmond, co.York,
fellmonger, an infant, by Daniel Smallpage of Richmond, his guardian, shews that
Francis Langstaffe, Plaintiff's great-uncle, was seised in his demesne as of a
fee of three messuages and several wool-chambers or shops there, having no
issue, but having an only brother whose name was Thomas Langstaffe, who by his
first wife had issue John his only son, Plaintiff's father. So ceased, the said
Frances conveyed his messuage in the Baily in Richmond, of the yearly value of
£12 to the said John Langstaffe and his heirs forever, or the said John became
otherwise legally entitled to the same, as by the deeds thereof now in Plaintiff
custody doth more fully appear. The said John died about 16 years ago,
Plaintiff, his only son and heir, being then about four years old. Plaintiff's
said Uncle Francis then entered into the said house, let the same to tenants,
and received the rents to Plaintiff's use, and continued so to do until his
death about June last. He died intestate without issue, leaving Plaintiff his
nephew and heir-at-law, who thereupon became entitled to the other two
messuages. The said deceased died possessed of a very considerable personal
estate, amounting altogether to £700 and more. Immediately after his death
Francis Langstaffe, son of the said Thomas Longstaffe, Plaintiffs grand-father
by his second wife, entered upon the said two burgages not conveyed to
Plaintiff's father, and has since enjoyed the same and obtained possession of
all the deeds, etc., concerning the same; he has since possessed himself of the
personal estate of deceased, and obtained Letters of Administration. The said
Thomas Langstaffe, Plaintiff grand-father in the right of his first wife, was
seised of several messuages, lands, etc., in Eastburn or elsewhere in co. Sussex
of the yearly value of £15. Plaintiff's said grandmother died about 40 years
ago, and his said grandfather about twelve years ago, leaving the said premises
to descend to Plaintiff, whose father was then dead. Thomas Langstaffe,
Plaintiff's uncle, has held the same and taken the rents thereof: now so it is,
that the said Francis Langstaffe, the administrator, confederating with the said
Thomas Langstaff, Edward Hodghson of Richmond, fellmonger, father-in-law of the
said Francis Langstaffe, and Cuthbert Cowling of Richmond, cutler, refuses to
deliver up to Plaintiff any deeds concerning the said premises, saying that they
have never had them, although it was agreed among all the parties that they
should be kept in deceased house, which Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. was locked, and key thereof given to the said Cowling until all
the parties could meet and inspect the said deeds. But the said Cowling gave up
the keys, and in consequence some of the said deeds have been destroyed, and
Defendant Francis Langstaffe claims one of the said messuages, saying it was
conveyed to him by deceased many years before his death, whereas deceased, who
lived and died therein, constantly affirmed that he was the sole owner thereof,
and Defendant never claimed it then. The confederates also pretend that deceased
settled another of the said messuages on Defendant on his marriage, either for
his life or for the long term of the years. The said Thomas Langstaffe likewise
refuses to give up the deeds relating to the premises in Sussex, or to give any
accounts of the rents and profits he has received on the same. The said
confederates intend dividing deceased personal estate amongst themselves,
although they know that the intestate very often, and only a short time before
his death, declared that Plaintiff his heir should have all his real and
personal estate. 1721, June 10. The answer of Francis Langstaffe,
Defendant.. Believes it to be true that Francis Langstaffe, Plaintiff's late
great-uncle and Defendant's uncle, was seised of the said premises mentioned in
the said Bill, but he was seised of the said wool-chambers and shop by lease
from the Corporation of Richmond, and not in fee. Has never heard that deceased
conveyed one of the said messuages to Plaintiff's father, but thinks it likely
that he allowed him to live in this same, although Defendant being only about
14, and having only lately come to live in Richmond when Plaintiff's father
died, did not concern himself much about it. Deceased was at to the sole charge
of bringing up and educating Plaintiff, and allowed Plaintiff's mother to enjoy
a part of the said messuage, which she still holds. Parts of the said house were
occupied by Thomas Barker and Mrs. Cottingham. The said Francis Langstaffe died
intestate, but his personal estate did not amount to £700: he left Plaintiff his
grandnephew and heir-at-law, who however did not become entitled to the other
two and messuages. Defendant immediately entered into one of them, wherein the
said deceased lived, as it had been in the actual possession of Defendant for
some years, and has ever since held the same, and has got into his hands all the
deeds relating to the same, and has possessed himself of the goods and personal
estate of deceased, because deceased by the name of Francis Langstaffe the
elder, by indentures of lease and release dated 4 and 5 April 1713, conveyed to
Defendant by the name of Francis Langstaffe the younger his messuage in the
street in Richmond called Millgate, adjoining a messuage of Henry Close the
elder on the north, and the messuage of Ralph Hodshon on the south. By another
indenture, dated 26 October 1716, the deceased, in part consideration of the
Defendant's marriage portion, in consideration of 10s. to him in hand paid,
demised to defendant his free burgage lying on the east side of the street
called Bailey, adjoining upon the house of Henry Close the elder, butcher, on
the south, and on a house belonging to the Marquess of Wharton on the north,
then in the possession of Mary Chappel, widow; also the wool-chambers over the
same, the garden at the back thereof, together with the pasture-gates or
cattle-gates thereto belonging,, or right of pasture in Richmond Town pasture,
called Whitcliff pasture, and all deeds concerning the same. Defendant was in
his infancy when he came from his father in Sussex to live at Richmond. Thomas
Langstaffe, grandfather of Plaintiff and brother of deceased, who was also
father of Defendant by Anne ... his second wife, who (Anne) still holds certain
lands at Eastbourne in Sussex. Instead of concealing any deeds, Defendant
has Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. always been ready to produce them to Plaintiff. After deceased's
funeral Defendant was about to lock up the outer door of the house, but
Christopher Farmer, Plaintiff's father-in-law,* objecting, it was agreed that
Cowling should lock the door and take the key, which he did, but never gave it
up to Defendant afterwards for any evil purpose. Administration having been
granted to Defendant, he asked for the key of the said house in order to take
deceased's effects into his possession. Denies that any deeds have been torn up
by him. Defendant certainly claims the two messuages, and says that deceased
promised to do great things for him, as he had served him for twelve years
without receiving any wages or reward. Deceased never spoke of himself as the
sole owner of the two said messuages. Defendant denies that the said conveyances
were only made to enable him to give his vote at any election of Parliament men
for the borough of Richmond, or any other election, etc. 24 January 1722. The answer of Thomas Langstaffe, gent,
Defendant. Believes that Francis Langstaffe, Defendant's late uncle, died
intestate about June 1720 without issue, and that Francis Langstaffe, Plaintiff,
is heir-at-law to the said deceased. . [ The same.] 1723, October 5. Robert Robinson of Richmond, co.York, solicitor
for the Complainant, deposes that he requested Mr. Mathew Smales, solicitor for
Francis Langstaffe, Defendant, to put indentures of lease and reliefs set forth
in Defendant's answer, * Note to the use of " father-in-law" for " step-father."].
P.370 - (clxxi.)
Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. bearing date 4 and 5 April 1713, into the hands of the
commissioners, and that the said indentures might be shewn to Mr. William Davile
all and Mr. Joseph Etherington to depose their knowledge when the two said
witnesses should be produced on behalf of the Complainants. Although the said
Smales had the said indentures in his power he refuses to produce them without
an order of the Court. 1723. [ The same.] Interrogatories to be administered to witnesses on behalf of
Francis Langstaffe, Cuthbert Cowling, and Edward Hodshon, three of the
Defendants to the Bill of Complaint of Francis Langstaffe, an infant under the
age of 21 years, by Daniel Smallpage is next friend, Plaintiff. Depositions Ex Parte Defendant. Thomas Wyecliffe of Richmond in co. York, gent., one of the
commissioners in this cause, aged about 33, knows Francis Langstaffe, Plaintiff
and Defendant, and also knew Francis Langstaffe, deceased. P.371 - (clxxii.) Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery.
Robert Thompson of Richmond, fellmonger, aged about 52, knows the
messuages, burgages, wool-chambers, and wool-shops belonging to the intestate
Francis Langstaffe, deceased, in Richmond, to wit: one messuage in Milgate, one
in the Baily, now in the possession of Defendant, one other messuage there, in
the possession of Plaintiff, one wool-shop in the Baily, being part of the
Market-place, held by lease under the Corporation of Richmond, and one
wool-chamber over the same. Deceased was always supposed to hold the said
wool-shop and chamber over it by lease from the said Corporation, and witness
knows that about 30 years ago deceased took a new lease from them. Deceased
brought up Defendant Francis Langstaffe from his age of 13, and Defendant served
him as apprentice for seven years, and afterwards as an assistant or journeyman
until his marriage, that is, about four or five years. Does not believe that he
had any salary, only his maintenance and " some small matter" now and then given
him by his said Uncle for his pocket expenses, which would amount to very
little, the said Francis being "noe way extravagant." Deceased was reputed to be
a man of substance and to have a good personal estate, and witness had often
heard him say that he intended to be kind to Defendant. After the death of John
Langstaffe, Plaintiff ( his son) lived with deceased till his death, and was
educated and maintained by his said great-uncle. P.372 - (clxxiii.)
Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. Depositions of witnesses taken at the house of Mr. Christopher
Farmer, innholder in Richmond in co.York, on Monday, 23 Sep 1723. On behalf of Plaintiff. Christopher Plews of Richmond, gent., aged 50 years and more,
knows Plaintiff and Defendant's, and also knew deceased, who was Plaintiff's
great-uncle. Witness was present and saw the "paper writings" now produced,
dated 1 and 2 October, 7 William III . [ 1695 ], made between Francis Langstaffe
of Richmond in co.York, fellmonger, of the first part, and John Langstaffe of
Richmond, yeoman, of the other part, purporting to be deeds of lease and release
of a burgage or messuage house in Richmond. P.373 - (clxxiv.)
Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. cannot say whether it was carried away or not. Witness had heard
deceased say that he would give all his wool-chambers and shops in Richmond,
except the chamber over Defendant's house, to Plaintiff. After deceased's
funeral, when the dispute arose as to who should keep the keys of the house,
they were given to the Defendant Cowling. * This is not the date of the burial, but the date of the
certificate. P.374 - (clxxv.)
Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. Anne Barker of Richmond, widow, aged about 65, deposes as above.
Jane Cottingham of Richmond, widow, aged about 67, as above. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bill of Complaint, dated 2 May 1722, of John Longstaff of the
parish of Potton in co. Beds, cooper, nephew and heir-at-law of Anne Longstaff,
afterwards Anne the wife of Richard Mawldon, now deceased, that is to say,
Complainant is eldest son and heir of Henry Longstaff, deceased, who was eldest
brother of the said Anne. Mention of Henry Longstaff, grandfather of the
Complainant, who with Mary his wife was party P.375 - (clxxvi.)
Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. to an indenture settling a cottage at Potton on the said Anne,
dated 6 June 1675. Mention also of Priscilla and Mary Langstaff, daughters of
George Langstaff, deceased, a son of the said Henry the grandfather. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bill, dated 24 November 1725, by Nicholas Fazakerly,
Attorney-General to the Bishop, at relation of said Bishop, Sir John Eden, and
Cuthbert Donnison, v. William Langstaff of West Auckland, brewer, re mill rights
in manors of Evenwood and West Auckland. [The same.] Answer, dated 22 December 1725, by William Langstaff. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Bill, dated 14 March 1725-6, by Nicholas Fazakerley, Attorney
General of the Bishop, at the relation of said Bishop, Henry Forth of
Darlington, Richard Burton of Durham, and others, v. George Allen, Edward Harle,
Michael Hodgson, Edward Lowson, John Parkin, Elizabeth Wright, Catherine
Catherick, Thomas Langstaffe, John Langstaffe, Cordelia Place, ...... John
Dixon,..... William Longstaffe, and others re rights in mill and mill race in
Bondgate in Darlington. [ The same. ] Replication, dated 11 July 1726, of Nicholas Fazackerly,
Attorney-General to the Bishop, at the relation of said Bishop, Sir John Eden,
Cuthbert Donnison, Informants, to answer of William Langstaff. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1730, June 2 . Lawrence Langstaff of Mickleton, co. York, yeoman,
complains that Mary Micthell, of native Startforth in the said county, spinster,
deceased, about Michaelmas, 1723, commenced an action against John Dent, late of
Mickleton, yeoman, since also deceased, upon a bond for £100 for the performance
of an award pretended to have been made by Gilbert Spearman, Esq., touching
certain controversies between the said Micthell and Dent, whereby it was
pretended that the said Spearman had awarded a considerable sum of money to the
said Mary Micthell, and thereupon Plaintiff, at the request of the said Dent,
entered with him into a bail bond to the Earl of Holderness, which was assigned
to the said Mary, who caused it to be put in suit and arrested the said Dent and
Plaintiff. Thereupon the said Dent obtained an order for an injunction, which
was served on the said Mary. Appendix
XII - Proceedings in Chancery. Afterwards John Grainger of Startforth, yeoman, and Anne his wife,
being very intimate with the said Mary, told her that instead of agreeing with
the said Dent as she had done, she might have recovered £70 due upon the said
bond given by Dent and Plaintiff, whereupon she denied executing the said lease.
Action was then taken, but before the matter was settled, to wit, on 17 or 18
December 1728, the said Dent died, and about April or May 1729 the said Mary
died, having made the said Anne Grainger her executrix. 1744-5, March 13. Bill of Complaint. York oratrix, Agnes Langstaff
of Mickleton, co. York, widow and relict of Robert Langstaff, late of Mickleton,
yeoman, deceased, complains: That the said Robert, being possessed of certain
messuages, etc., in Mickleton, did execute his last will, dated 19 March 1732,
and did bequeath to his nephew Thomas Perkin, then living with him, the said
premises, he the said Thomas paying your oratrix £8 a year for life, and appoint
the said Thomas Perkin sole executor, and a few days after, to wit, 22 March
1732, died. That the said Perkin proved the will and entered into possession of
the said premises, being of the yearly value of £25. But now so it is the said
Thomas Perkin, combining and confederating himself with Margaret his wife,
Leonard Nicholson of Mickleton, a blacksmith, William Deighton of Rogerley, co.
Durham, yeoman, Robert Perkin and Agnes Perkin, children of the said Thomas
Perkin, and William Dent of Turnerholm, co. York, yeoman, refuses to assent to
the said legacy or to pay your oratrix the arrears of the same, etc. 1746, August 1. George Langstaff of Stony Middleton in the parish
of Hathersage, co. Derby, gent., complains: that Samuel White of Baslow in the
parish of Bakewell, co. Derby, grocer, about the year 1742, wanting money to
discharge several mortgages, etc.., applied to Plaintiff, who lent him £300,
giving security hereafter mentioned. The Indenture between them was dated 8
December 1742, and thereby the said White demised to Plaintiff a messuage and
closes, etc., to hold for 500 years with the proviso, that if the said White
should pay the said sum of £300, that then the said indenture and term should be
void. As Defendant neglected to pay the interest, Plaintiff has asked for the
principal, but now Defendant denies giving the said security and says Plaintiff
never lent him £300. P.377 - (clxxviii.) align="center"> Appendix XII - Proceedings
in Chancery. 1748, November 7. Your orator, Ralph Hodgson of High Close House,
co. Durham, butcher, executor of William Gibson of Bishop Auckland, yeoman,
deceased, complains: That Lawrence Langstaff of Mickleton, co. York, yeoman,
applied to the said Gibson to borrow £100, who agreed to advance the same, and
by indenture, 29 April 1745, made between the said Langstaffe and Gibson,
therein reciting that Talbot Bowes, Esq., and Agnes his wife, Thomas Bowes,
Esq., and John Bowes, Esq., brethren of the said Talbot Bowes, did sometime
theretofore grant to William Dent [ and others] the messuages, etc., therein
after mentioned, for 1000 years; and that the said Langstaffe, by diverse mesne
assignments, etc., was become well entitled to the same. That in consideration
of £160 the said Langstaff did assign the said Gibson all that messuage, etc.,
situate at Bow Bank in the parish of Rombaldkirk, co. York, and all those closes
of ground, etc., called Bushy land on the fflatt, Hollingdale Haugh, Rixbury and
Riding Head, Riding Wall land, Low land, Kill rood, Knowle, Kirkgap land, Croft,
Croft-foot, and Linghill, all situate at Bow Bank aforesaid and in the
possession of John Bainbridge, as a tenant thereof to the said Langstaffe, under
the yearly rent of £8, and also all that other farm hold at Mickleton, then in
possession of John Langerwood as tenant to the said it Langstaff, under the
yearly rent of £3 10s., and also messuage, etc., in Mickleton, of the yearly
value of £16, then in the possession of the said Langstaffe, etc., with the
proviso for the repayment of the said £160 with interest 29 October then next
ensuing. And for the better securing repayment thereof, the said Lawrence
Langstaff, with John Langstaff and Abel Langstaff his sons ( as his sureties),
did enter into a bond of the same date, etc. That the said Gibson soon after
died, having appointed your or orator his executor. That the £160 with interest
is on paid, and the said Langstaff refuses either to pay all deliver up
possession of the said premises, etc. 1751, June 25. Your orator Sir Archibald Grant of Moneymusk, co.
Aberdeen, baronet, complains: That your orator in 1742 and for many years before
was and now is the owner of several lead-mines at Eyam, co. Derby. That about
May 1742 George Langstaff of Stony Middleton in the parish of Hathersage, co.
Derby, gentleman, applied to your orator to have the buying of your orator's
ore, saying that he had taken up the business of ore buying. That your orator
did consent, etc. But now so it is that the said George refuses to account for
the said ore, etc. Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. 1752, Yorkshire. Michaelmas Term, 26 George II. John Langstaffe of
Bolby Hall in the parish of Easington, co.York, yeoman, and Alice his wife,
debtors and accountants to His Majesty, complain that John Langstaffe, late of
Whitby in county York, gent., was possessed of a very considerable real and
personal estate, and had three daughters, to wit, Alice, Sarah and Martha. About
thirty two years ago Plaintiff married the said Alice, being the eldest
daughter, and had by her several children, who were born alive, but have since
died. After which the said Sarah, the second daughter married William Farside,
and the said Martha, the youngest daughter, married Benjamin Linskill. The said
John Langstaffe was seised of three farms at great Moresholme of the yearly
value of £66 and more, and other farms at Growmont of the yearly value of £50
and more, and of diverse other lands and tenements at Staintondale of the yearly
value of £80 and more, and so seised, made his will 3 October 1740 [here sets
out part of said will, see p. cxxiv]. (Endorsed) Delivered at Westminster 1 June 1753. P.379 - (clxxx.)
Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. The answers of Benjamin Linskill of Ewcoat in the parish of
Whitby, co. York, gent., one of the people commonly called Quakers, and John
Linskill, an infant under the age of 20 years, to wit, 19 years and upwards,
also a Quaker, and only son and heir apparent of the said Benjamin and Martha
his wife, deceased. The answer of William Farside, one of the Defendants. Defendant, about the year 1724, married Sarah, daughter of the
testator John Langstaffe, and had by her Adam, John, Sarah, William, Thomas, and
another son named John, born after the death of the former of that name. The
said Adam died about the year 1732, aged about 7; the said Thomas about the same
year, a few years after his birth; the first John about 1733, aged about 6; the
second John about December in the same year, soon after his birth; the said
Sarah about 1735, about 7; and the said William about 1748, aged about 18.
Defendant's said Sarah died 26 September 1751, leaving no issue, the Plaintiff
Alice and the said John Linskill being her only coheirs-at-law. Defendant
received the rents and profits of the premises in Growmont for some years before
the death of the said testator, and paid him an annual consideration for the
same, and continue to do so until a short time before testator's death. Under
the said will Defendant in right of his wife continued the said possession.
Schedule annexed sets forth all the tight-deeds, etc., belonging to testator's
real estates, of which Defendant ever possessed himself of, or which were ever
in his hands. About three weeks after the death of Defendant's wife " the
Plaintiff John came to Scarborough, Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. sent for Defendant to his inn, and then told him that the Growmont
Estate would go from Defendant, as he had taken advice in the matter. Defendant,
replying that his wife was scarcely cold in her grave, left the said John in
some resentment." About April and May 1742 Defendant caused to be felled at
Growmont, by workmen paid by Mr. John Keld, five oak timber-trees containing
about two and a half tons, between 20 and 30 "awms" and ash trees, many of them
stumps old and rotten, to the advantage of the said estate. These he sold to
John Hodgson, a boat builder, for £3 5s., and the bark thereof to the said John
Keld for £1 18s. 9d. In April 1749 Defendant's sold another parcel of timber to
Benjamin Coates, ship-builder, for £125. Defendant has laid out considerable
sums of money for improvements on the said two farms, such as planting an
orchard, etc., which sums amount to the price paid for the said timber. Copy articles of marriage 10 August 1680, between John Stapilton
of the first part, John Saunders of the 2nd part, and Sir William Pennyman,
Bart., and Miles Pennyman, Esq., of the third part. Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. An old account-book of John Langstaffe the elder, beginning 4
March 1703-4 and ending 14 November 1719, containing inter alia an account of
Growmont. (Exchequer Bills and Answers, York, George II., No.
443.)
[ Nearly all the indentures mentioned in this schedule relate to
the Saunderses. See next Bill and PEDIGREES Nos. 26 and 27.] [ The same. ] 1754. Commission dated 3 July, 28 George II. Interrogatories on
behalf of Plaintiff John Langstaffe and Alice his wife. ----------------------------- LANGSTAFFE v. LANGSTAFFE. 1753, Yorkshire. Hillary Term, 26 George II. Alice Langstaff, the
wife of John Langstaffe of Boulby, co.York, yeoman, by Benjamin Linskill of
Ewcoat in the parish of Whitby, co.York, gent. , Plaintiff's next friend,
complains that she was the eldest daughter of John Langstaffe, late of Whitby,
gent., deceased, who was one of the people called Quakers, and in the year 1720,
and for several years before and after, lived at the Peak Allom Works in the
parish of Scawby, co. York, where he was steward or overseer and had a salary of
£50 or £60 a year. Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. wages of £6, and who left his service at Christmas 1719 to enter
upon a farm at Boulby of the yearly rent of about £40, which Plaintiff's said
husband's father rented, and of which he died possessed about that time, the
said John not being at all a good match for Plaintiff, taking advantage of
Plaintiff's tender age and inexperience, she being then only about 16 years of
age while he was about 30, persuaded her to go away and get married. To this she
consented, and the said John, about midnight between Holy Thursday 1720 and the
day following, clandestinely got into Plaintiff's house and, without the consent
of her parents who were then in bed, carried her away to Easington about fifteen
miles distant, and there married her, to the inexpressible grief of her parents.
Her father turned his back on them both and refused to give Plaintiff any
fortune, and then her husband began to treat her very cruelly and, though she
was in delicate health, forced her to milk the cows, fodder the cattle, wash his
coarse linen, and do all the drudgery work usually done by servants. When
Plaintiff's first child was born her husband would not allow her to have any
proper person to look after her, and through want of care and nourishment she
was so much reduced that her life was in danger, and she must have died if she
had not been able to acquaint her mother of her condition, who came to see her,
bringing with her Mr. Henry Sympson, an apothecary from Whitby, who saved
Plaintiff's life. Plaintiff lived with her husband four years and three or four
months, and had by him two children, John and Sarah, but he used both her and
the children in such a barbarous manner, not only keeping them without proper
food and clothes, but also beating Plaintiff, pinching her with his fingers in a
cruel manner, calling her a whore and her children bastards, that about
September 1724 she sent privately to her mother, who came with a servant to
Bolby and took Plaintiff and her said children to the House of a relation at
Whitby, where they stayed until Plaintiff's father was prevailed upon to have
them home again, where, being pardoned, they stayed until he ( the father's)
death. When Plaintiff returned home her son John was 3 three years old and her
daughter Sarah was about 2, but she died about three years after. Plaintiff's
father put the said John to school and educated and maintained him in a handsome
manner, and then put him as apprentice with Mr. Charles Cotterill, a surgeon and
apothacary at Scarborough, with whom he continued till he was about 20. He then
went on board a m,an'o war as surgeon's mate, but died in His Majesty's Service
about a year afterwards. P.383 - (clxxxiv.)
Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. Plaintiff hoped that she would have enjoyed her share thereof
without any interruption or claim by her husband, who had made no settlement
upon her, had driven her and her children away by his cruelty, and had never
since been at a farthings expense in keeping any of them, or wish to have them
back, and it being plainly the intention of the said testator that he should
never benefit in any way through his said will. But now so it is, that the said
Defendant John Langstaffe in confederation with others to Plaintiff unknown in
Michaelmas Term last, without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, exhibited a bill
in his and Plaintiff's names against the said William Farside, etc. Plaintiff
absolutely disavows the said suit, and says her husband is entitled to no such
relief considering his cruel conduct, but that he out of lucre to get some money
from the said William, hoping that Plaintiff would not publish her own folly in
marrying man so much beneath her, persists in carrying on the same. The answer of John Langstaffe, Defendant. Defendant believes that Plaintiff is the eldest daughter of the
said John Langstaffe, who lived at Peak Allom Works, where he was steward and
was possessed of divers lands, etc., and a considerable personal estate. The
stock and personal estate left to Defendant by his father George Langstaff
amounted to about £150, but he left him no real-estate. James Langstaffe,
Defendant's brother, as the eldest son and heir became seised at his father's
death of the freehold house and the land thereto belonging at East Cotham, and
also purchased two acres of freehold land at Redcar in Cleveland, co. York, of
the yearly value of about £3, and which on the death of the said James, who died
intestate and without issue about 17 years ago, descended to Defendant as his
brother's heir, and which Defendant, about two years ago, sold to Cholmely
Turner, Esq., for about £63. Defendant says that Plaintiff and her sisters were
educated in a proper and very frugal way, and not in a more genteel manner than
the wives or daughters of several farmers of substance in the neighbourhood.
When said Benjamin Linskill paid his addresses to Plaintiff she told Defendant
that she would never marry anybody put Defendant. Defendant never thought that
the testator intended leaving a large fortune to his daughter in his lifetime,
neither does he think that the Plaintiff desired a husband of far superior rank
and fortune to himself. On 25 May 1720 Plaintiff voluntarily, and by his own
appointment, met Defendant at a short distance from her father's house and went
with him to be married, which said Marriage was solemnize the next day.
Defendant denies that he went in the night and took Plaintiff away. He cannot
now remember what arguments or inducements in particular he made use of to gain
Plaintiff's consent to marry him, "otherwise than what are common and usual for
young persons on the like occasions," but he explained to her truly what his
means were, and that he intended to maintain her as a farmer's wife, which she
said was also expected or desired. John Marvingale, gent., John Bell, a
substantial Farmer, and Robert Langstaff, Defendant's half brother, now
deceased, went with Defendant to meet Plaintiff about 10 o'clock in the evening
and accompanied them to Easington, where they were married the next morning (
Holy Thursday) in the parish church. Defendant thought that Plaintiff was then
between 16 and 17 years old, but she appeared to be more, as she was then a "
tall, lusty young woman." they arrived at Easington about 2 o'clock in the
morning; they were married about an hour or two after, Defendant being then
between 28 and 29 years old. Defendant never treated his wife cruelly all
obliged to do any of drudgery work, but was kind to her and maintained her as
well as his circum- Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. stances would allow. When Plaintiff's first child was born
defendant hired Christian Lamb, one of the most noted women and of the best
repute in the neighborhood for nursing, for three weeks, also and a maidservant
to look after and take care of Plaintiff. Defendant never heard that Plaintiff's
mother sent for Mr. Simpson and that he saved her life. During the first year of
his marriage Defendant had for men-servants his brother James Langstaffe with
young boys to assist him, and for maid-servants his sister Margaret Langstaffe
and Ann Farndale, and afterwards George Ward, Mary Wilson, Mary Cole, etc.[a
long list]. Defendant bought clothes for Plaintiff and her children and
supported them in "as handsome and commendable and manner as could be expected,
and more than in prudence he ought to have done," although he never received any
portion or fortune with Plaintiff. On Friday or Saturday before Plaintiff left
Defendant, being in August 1724, Plaintiff's mother came to Defendant's house
and stayed there until 11 o'clock on the following Monday morning, when one of
the testator's servants came with two or three horses and took Plaintiff and her
children and their clothes away, while Defendant and his servants were working
in the fields. Plaintiff left not because of Defendant's cruelty, but at the
instigation of her mother. Defendant pursued and overtook them on the road, and
begged Plaintiff to return, or at any rate to allow him to have his own
children, but she would not listen to him. About three years after this
Defendant was in Plaintiff's company at Whitby and begged her to be reconciled
to him, but she refused. Defendant then told a friend that he intended going to
call on her at Wrelton ( where she then lived and now lives), but Plaintiff said
that if he went there she would shut the door in his face. When Defendant's son
was about 9 or 10 years old, and at school at Hacknesse, a message was sent to
Defendant by the testator to the effect that Defendant must look after his own
son as testator would do no more for him, so Defendant kept him another year and
paid for his board and learning. Then it was agreed that if Defendant would pay
£20 ( which he did) the testator would take the boy under his management again.
When his said son died Defendant received about 10 guineas for his pay in the
King's service [as surgeon's mate of the H.M.S. "Rochester," see will, 1743, p.
cviii]. ( Exchequer Bills and Answers, Yorks, George II. , No.
438.) 1754. Commission dated at Westminster 12 February, 27 George II.
Interrogatories on behalf of Alice Langstaffe, Plaintiff. P.385 - (clxxxvi.)
Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. Alom Works in the said parish of Scawby, where he was manager at a
salary of £100 a year before the said works was contracted for, and afterwards
of £50. His master told him to go to Defendant's house in Boulby in the parish
of Easington to take Plaintiff to her aunt Mrs. Foster's in Whitby, so he went
with Plaintiff's mother, who asked Defendant whether he was willing that
Plaintiff should leave him. He said yes, that she must not take the children, to
which Plaintiff replied that she would have them even if she went begging with
them, which occasioned high words between them, Plaintiff accusing Defendant of
great cruelty. The next morning deponent, Plaintiff, her mother, and William
Ripley, witnesses brother, left Defendant's house, but were followed by him and
his servant Thomas Jolly. Defendant demanded both the children, but was refused;
then he asked Plaintiff to kiss him, which she did after a while. P.386 - (clxxxvii.)
Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. brandy, Geneva, tea, sugar, and the necessaries, which were sent
to Plaintiff by her mother. Ingram Esthill of Stainton Dale, yeoman, being a
Quaker, by his solemn affirmation deposes as above. John Johnson of Thorpe Hall
in the parish of Fylingdales, co. York, husbandman, aged about 73, deposes as
above . Interrogatories on behalf of Defendant. Depositions of witnesses taken on the same day at the said place
on behalf of Defendant. Thomas Jolly of Staithes, co. York, fisherman, aged 55,
lived as servant with Defendant about three years after his marriage. For the
first six months after witness went there they lived in a very peaceable and
affectionate manner towards each other, but afterwards they did not live so
happily on account of Plaintiff's abusive language. The first difference between
them arose when Defendant, witness, and Jacob Coke ( since dead) returned from
Turf Moor, about 4 miles from Defendant's house, about one or two in the
afternoon. When Defendant asked whether dinner was ready, Plaintiff answered,
"No you Black Dog it is not." soon after Plaintiff brought in a dinner, which
consisted of fish and potatoes and butter made into sauce, and threw the dish
violently against Defendant, who immediately left the room without saying
anything. About two months after, when witness was undressing, he heard a noise
in Defendant's room, and when he pushed open the door he saw Plaintiff standing
by the bed with an axe in her hands, which she was holding up ready to strike
Defendant, who was asleep. When witness caught hold of her arms the axe fell
against the wall and witness threw it out of the window. Defendant got up, went
out without saying a word, and did not again return that night. Defendant kept
Plaintiff in a manner suitable to her station, and always treated her with great
civility. Witness believes that Plaintiff left Defendant at the instigation of
her mother, who fetched her away. When Defendant and witness followed them
Plaintiff positively refused to return, and would not see Defendant afterwards.
P.387 - (clxxxviii.)
Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. Plaintiff while she was ill, Defendant had a chimney put up the
parlour and the floor boarded. ( Exchequer Depositions, Yorks, 27 George II. , Easter, No. 8.
) ------------------ 1754, July 2. Bill of Complaint of John Chrishop of Keverston, co.
the room, gent, Thomas Pemberton of Bishop Wearmouth Panns, George Langstaff of
Monk Wearmouth , blockmaker, and Samuel Stevenson, v. Sir Hedworth Williamson,
William Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. Whinfield, Richard Martin and Barbara his wife, Thomas Roxby, and
Mary his wife, and John Dawney, re debts left by the late Ralph Coke. [The same.]
1754, November 27. Answers of Sir Edward Williamson to Complaint
of John Chrishop and others ( Langstaffe not mentioned in heading) . ~~~~~~~~~~ LONGSTAFF AND OTHERS v. FOORD AND ROLFE . 1762, January 29. Thomas Longstaff, William Grantham, and John
Harris, v. Ann Foord widow and executrix, and Gurdlestone Rolfe. Thomas Leeming
of Cursitor Street, clerk to Mr. John Longstaffe, solicitor for the Plaintiffs
in this cause, deposes that Ann Foord lives in Queens Street, St. Margaret's
parish, Westminster, and Gurdlestone Rolfe in Southwark Borough, co.
Surrey. [The same.] 1766, February 18. Peter Sandiford, clerk, a gentleman, of
Chancery Lane, gentleman, deposes that on 26 December last [1765] he served the
Defendant with a subpoena to hear judgment in this cause the 28th of January
last. ~~~~~~~~~~~ 1771, May 11. Peter Sandiford, clerk to John Langstaffe of
Chancery Lane, gentleman, the above named Plaintiff, deposes, etc. 1774, February 11. Peter Sandiford of Chancery Lane deposes, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1776, July 23. John Langstaffe, gentleman, and others, v. William
Nawell, Esq., and Elizabeth his wife, Catherine Close, spinster, and others.
William Corne of Gray's Inn, deposes, etc. ~~~~~~~~~~ 1778, March 18. John Langstaffe, John Bedford, and William Allen,
on behalf of themselves and other the creditors of James Close, deceased, v.
Dorothy Close, administratrix of James Close and others. Peter Sandiford
deposes, etc. Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery LANGSTAFFE v. BETTS AND
OTHERS. 1778, January 19. John Langstaffe v. Henry Betts, John Wilmot and
Mary his wife, Richard Lonsdale, and John Perkins. Benjamin Tannett, clerk to
Richard, Collett the younger, of Lamb's Conduit Street, solicitor for the
Defendant John Perkins, deposes that on 22 January he left at the seat of Mr.
Metcalf a copy of an order in this cause, dated 17 January, whereby it was
ordered that the report made in this cause by Mr. Pepys,* one of the Masters of
this Court, dated 23 December 1777, whereby John Perkins is reported the best
bidder for the premises therein particularly mentioned at £820, etc. [The same 1778, February 11. Peter Sandiford of Chancery Lane deposes that
on 4 February instant he served Messrs. Metcalfe, Woodcock, and Nichols with an
order dated 24 January last upon a report by Mr. Pepys dated 23 December last,
wherein the Plaintiff John Langstaffe was reported as the best bidder of the
premises in question comprised in lot No.1 at £850, as in the foregoing order
[this does not appear to agree with the preceeding affidavit, but compare the
will of John Langstaffe (p.cx), which confirms this one]. [The same.] 1778, March 30. Affidavit of Richard Collett, jun., solicitor for
John Perkins. An account has been taken of what is due to the Defendant John
Perkins for principal and interest under the assignment of the mortgage in the
pleadings in this cause said to have been assigned by Matthew Kenrick, Esq.,
such principle, with interest at 5 per cent. to 25 December last settled and
allowed, to amount to £284 17s. 11d.; account is also taken of what is due to
the said John Perkins for expenses paid by him in renewing the one-fifth part of
the lease hold premises formally in question between John Perkins and John
Reynoldson, deceased, mentioned in the pleadings in this cause. Moneys, with
interest for the same to 25 December settled and allowed, to amount to £508 17s.
10d. Particulars of the rents and profits of the undivided fifth part of the
leasehold estate formally in question between Perkins and Reynoldson. Allowance
made to Perkins for what Reynoldson or his representatives ought to have paid
for rent for the house in Hamond's Court, near the Haymarket. Perkins' costs
taxed at £50 and more. Money due to Perkins. Property out of repair. Rents of
purchase to be received from 25 December last. [The same.] 1778, March 31. Affidavit of Benjamin Tannett, clerk to Mr.
Collett. * William Weller Pepys, a Master in Chancery, father of the Earl
of Cottenham, and a collateral of Samuel Pepys the diarist. P.390 - (cxci.)
Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. 1778, April 24. John Langstaffe of Chancery Lane, gent, Plaintiff,
deposes that he has attended all the proceedings before Master Pepys, and in
consequence is well acquainted with what is due to Perkins and the other
parties. Charge for principal under the assignment of mortgage in the pleadings
in this cause £176 4s. 6d., with interest from 19 August 1765. Particulars of
allowance due to Perkins for his expenses in renewing the fifth part of the
leasehold premises between the said Perkins and Reynoldson. Rents and profits of
the undivided fifth part; allowance made by the said Master. Deponent's opinion
upon the sum allowed by way of rent for the house in Hammond's Court, which
ought to have been paid by Reynoldson or his representatives. Doubt concerning
testator's ( Reynoldson) personal estate. Considers property purchased by
Perkins to be in good repair. States that he never agreed, nor did any of the
other parties, that Perkins should receive the rents of his purchase from 25
December last, but provided the Master did not make his report until after a
Lady Day last, the rents must be received by the Defendant Betts for the benefit
of testator's creditors, and that neither Perkins nor this Defendant, who also
purchased the other moiety of the said estate in Lot 11 [? 2], could be
prejudiced thereby, as the interest due on their respective mortgages would be
calculated and allowed them up to date of the said report. [The same.] 1778, April 27. Affidavit of Richard Collett, jun., solicitor for
John Perkins. That John Langstaff, Plaintiff, agreed with the deponent that John
Perkins should receive the rents and profits of the one-fifth part of the
leasehold premises purchased by the said Perkins from Christmas last. [The same.]
1780, July 18. Affidavit of Richard Collett, jun., of Bream's
Buildings, Chancery Lane, solicitor for John Perkins. [The same.] 1780, July 19. Affidavit of William Cleator, clerk to Mr. Collett.
That he served Messrs. Nicholls and Metcalfe on 18 July instant with a notice of
the Defendant Perkins' intention to move this Court on Thursday the 20th
instant, that on payment by the said Defendant of £117 0s. 2d. into the bank
within one month he may be let into possession of the premises comprised in Lot
2, he being the best purchaser of the same at £820, and to receive the rents,
etc., from Christmas 1777. P.391 - (cxcii.) Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. 1782, April 8. Affidavit of Roland Wimburn, clerk to Mr. Collett
of Chancery Lane, solicitor for the Plaintiff. Deposes, etc. [The same.] 1782, April 15. Affidavit of William Cleator, clerk to Mr.
Collett, solicitor for the Plaintiff. Deposes, etc. ------------------ 1780. Anne Langstaffe, wife of John Langstaffe, gent, by William
King her next friend, v. the said John Langstaffe and Thomas Leeming. ( Chancery
Affidavits: 24 February, Hilary 1780, No. 247 ; 27 May, Trinity 1780, No. 36 ;
31 May, Trinity 1780, No. 56 ; 7 June, Trinity 1780, No. 94 ; 8 June, Trinity
1780, No. 106. ) ------------------- 1786, May 22. George Langstaffe the younger, and thirty-three
others, named, v. Andrew Robinson Bowes, Esq., and Mary Eleanor Bowes his wife,
Countess Dowager of Strathmore, and George Stephens , Esq. Robert Kekewich,
clerk to Messrs. Wildman and Smith of Lincolns Inn, solicitor's for the
Plaintiffs, deposes, etc. [The same.] 1786, October 31, at Barnard Castle. George Langstaff of
Butterknowle, co. Durham, gent, deposes that after paying into Court several
sums of money stated by this Court on 24 May last to be due from him, and after
the writ of injunction to restrain the said Bowes from proceeding at law against
this deponent, he the said deponent was arrested for the sum of £76 5s., being
two quarters rent to the said Bowes for the colliery and coal mines rented by
him, as in the pleadings in this cause mentioned on 12 May and 12 August last.
He declares that the first quarter was remitted to London. He gives reasons for
not sending the second quarter's rent, since remitted. Mentions rent due from
him at Michaelmas last for his farm. [The same.] 1786, November 4. Affidavit of Zachary Hubbersty and Ambrose
Castle, gentleman, both of Barnard Castle, co. Durham. That a writ of injunction
was served upon the Defendant Bowes and his agents strictly enjoining Defendants
under a penalty of £500 against proceeding at law against the against the
Plaintiffs in this cause until further order of this Court. P.392 - (cxciii.)
Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. 1786, November 8. Affidavits of John Crozier Hart, clerk to
Messrs. Wildman and Smith, solicitor's for Plaintiff's, that he served a notice
on 7 November instant upon Messrs. Barnard and Messrs. Van Heythusen, purporting
that the Plaintiff's intended to move the Court on Thursday the 9th instant, or
so soon after, etc., that the several Plaintiff's, who are tenants of the
estates in question in this cause, might within a week pay into the Bank the
several sums thereinafter mentioned, being the whole of the moneys which became
due from the tenants in respect of their rents at Michaelmas last, viz., the
Plaintiff George Langstaffe, £151 2s. 6d. [The same.] 1786. John Makepeace, clerk to Messrs. Wildman and Smith, deposes,
etc. (Chancery Affidavits, Michaelmas 1786, No. 176.) [The same.] 1787, June 7. Richard Samuel White, clerk to Messrs. Wiseman and
Smith of Lincolns Inn, deposes that on 6 June instant he served Messrs. Van
Heythusen and Barnard with a notice of Plaintiff's intentions to move the Court
on Friday next, or so soon, etc., that the several Plaintiff's, tenants of the
states in question, might, within a fortnight from that time, pay into the bank
the several sums due from then in respect of their severance to accolade D-Day
last, this, the Plaintiff George Langstaffe , £203 19s. 111/2d. [The same.] 1789, June 27. Affidavit of John Vanderzee, clerk to Messrs.
Wildman and Smith. On the 17th instant he served the Defendant Bowes with a
subpoena to hear judgment in this cause on 30 June.. The subpoena was left with
the turnkey of King's Bench Prison, the said Bowes being then in his custody.
~~~~~~~~~~~ 1787, February 3. The Rev. William Langstaffe, Clerk , v. the Earl
of Lonsdale. Edmund Spettigue deposes, etc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1789. The Rev. William Langstaff v. the Earl of Lonsdale and John
Baynes Garforth. Sworn 20 November 1789. P.393 - (cxciv.)
Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery. 1791. Mary Langstaff, widow, relict and administratrix of William
Langstaff, Clerk, her late husband, v. the Earl of Lonsdale and John Baynes
Garforth, Esq. Sworn 28 January 1791 [The like.] Sworn 3 June 1791. ( Chancery Affidavits, Easter, 1791, No. 144.
) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1765. King's Bench, Hilary, 5 George III. George Longstaff v.
Abraham Clowder. Action for trespass on certain closes of land at Lewisham . (
Original brief for counsel) ====================== TO: TO: TO: TO: © 2000 Carole A. M.
Johnson A Carole's Cottage
Background.
BY
GEORGE BLUNDELL LONGSTAFF
Transcribed
by
CAROLE A.M.
JOHNSON
COPYRIGHT 2001
All Rights Reserved
~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~
Proceedings in Chancery,
etc.
Hutton v. Langstaffe.
( Durham Registrar's Records:
Bills, Answers, etc., Bundle 5, 111, P.R.O., London.)
BOWES v. RAYNE, LANGSTAFF, AND OTHERS.
( Exchequer
Depositions by Commission, Mich., 10 Car. 1, Durham and York counties, No. 25,
P.R.O., London.)
Among witnesses for the Defendants Michael
Langstaffe of Mickleton, co. York, yeoman, aged about 60 years, gave evidence as
to the customs of the manor. ( Exchequer Depositions by Commission, Easter, 16
April, 11 Charles I., Durham and York counties No. 21 .)
The Bills and
Answers ( Durham, Charles I., No. 65) describe the Defendants including William
Longstaffe, as all of Mickleton.
See notes to adm'on of William, 1695-6, p.
1xxv.]
To the Rt. Hon. EDWARD, LORD LITLETON,
Baron of Mounslowe,
Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England.
John
Cooper the son refuses to pay the said rent, and orator begs a writ of Subpoena
directed to him.
(Chancery Bill, Charles 1.; L. L. 43, No. 34 .)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Declaration by the Plaintiff that
the interest due upon £100, for which he mortgaged his land to Defendant and
from which he seeks to be relieved, has been truly paid since the making of the
mortgage for five years or thereabouts, and that there is only the consideration
for the said sum due to the Defendant for one year dating from the Lady-day
last.
[The Affidavits dated 3 May 1660, Ripon,
co. York, as also those of 19, 20, and 21 July 1660, are purely formal.]
(Chancery Affidavits,
Michaelmas, 1660, No. 172.)
[See wills of Michael, 1625-26 (p. cxiii),
Anthony, 1670 (p. cxiv), and adm'on of William, 1689 (pp. cxix, cxv).
HEATH v. DOBSON, LANGSTAFF, AND
OTHERS.
Custom of grinding at a water corn-mill called the West Mill of
North Auckland, compulsory upon a copyholders and other inhabitants of the
neighbourhood.
(Durham Registrar's Records: Bills, Answers, etc., Bundle
75/170, P.R.O., London.)
[ See will of Thomas, p.1xv.]
P.366 -
(clxvii.)
BOWCER v.
SIMPSON, LANGSTAFFE, AND OTHERS.
(Durham Registrar's Records:
Bills, Answer's, etc., Bundle 74/174, Hille P.R.O., London.)
[The Quaker
Contractor, see p.p.52 et seq.]
HIXON v. LANGSTAFFE.
( Durham Registrar's Records: Bills,
Answers, etc., Bundle 74/155, P.R.O., London. )
[Is this mention of William
in connection with Middlestone a further proof of the connection of PEDIGREES
Nos. 1 and 2?]
LANGSTAFFE v. HINDMARSH AND OTHERS.
Proof of service sworn at Newcastle-upon-Tyne 21 April, 1 James
11. [sic] ( A.D. 1685 .)
( Chancery Affidavits, Trinity, 1687, No. 34. ) [
No other information. ]
LANGSTAFFE v. HALLIDAY.
(Chancery Affidavits, Trinity, 1711, No. 1352.) [
Purely formal. No information.]
DENT v.LANGSTAFFE.
P.367 - (clxviii.)
Sworn at the
mansion-house of John Peel at Barnard Castle 24 December 1715.
( Chancery
Proceedings 1714-58, bundle 2350.)
(Chancery Proceedings,
P.R.O., London, bundle 2749. )
[At great length, concerning the moving of
walls, etc. For Jeremy See PEDIGREE No.19.)
LANGSTAFFE v. LANGSTAFFE AND
COWLING.
P.368 - (clxix.)
.
P.369 - (clxx.)
( Taken at the
mansion-house of Richard Puppin, innholder in Richmond, 10 June 1721.)
Francis Langstaffe, Defendant, brother
of this Defendant, took you letters of administration of all the goods, etc., of
deceased, and has by virtue thereof possessed himself of the personal estate of
deceased, the value whereof Defendant knows not, having never taken any part
thereof, and living a very long distance from Richmond. By indentures of lease
and release, dated 7 and June 8, 1688, made between Will Dunn of the East Bourn
in co. Sussex, haberdasher, of the one part, and Thomas Langstaffe, in the Bill
named, Defendant's late father, by the name of Thomas Langstaffe of East bourn,
surgeon, and Ann his wife, of the other part, the said William, in consideration
of £13 1s., released to the said Thomas and his heirs all that piece of pasture,
containing about one acre, lying in East Bourn in a croft adjoining the then
dwelling-house of the said Thomas, and the reversion thereof, to hold to the use
of the said Thomas for his life; after his decease to the use of the said Ann
for her life; after her decease to the use of the heirs of the said Thomas and
Ann; and for default to the heirs of the said Thomas forever.
The said Thomas
been seized of a copyholds messuage, one barn, one garden, and one croft of land
adjoining the said messuage, containing 3 acres, 3 roods, lying in East Bourn
and held at the manor of East Bourn Gildredge, on 13 December 1687 surrendered
the same to the use of himself and Ann his wife for their natural lives,
afterwards to their heirs; and for default to the use of the right heirs of the
said Thomas forever; and the said Thomas and Ann, at a court baron held for the
said manor 25 October 1688, were accordingly admitted to the said premises, and
the said Ann has been in possession thereof of a since the death of the said
Thomas.
( Chancery Bill as and Answers, 1714-58 Zincke, 1760.)
Sworn at Richmond, co.York, 5 October 1723 . (
Chancery Affidavits Michaelmas, 1723, No. 310.)
In July 1720
Defendant Francis Langstaffe asked witness, being one of the proctors of the
Ecclesiastical Court of the Archdeaconry of Richmond, to appear for him and shew
cause why administration of the goods of the said Francis Langstaffe, deceased,
should not be granted to Christopher Farmer, who, as curator of Plaintiff, had
taken a citation out of the said Court against all deceased's next-of-kin. On
the return of the said citation witness appeared and insisted that Defendant was
next-of-kin to deceased, and that the right of administration belonged to him
and not to the said Farmer, whereupon administration was granted to Defendant.
Francis Longstaff, deceased, having in his life-time a mortgage for one
Hodshon and his wife of diverse lands in Aisgarth, witness was asked to draw up
a conveyance of deceased's interest therein to another person who had lent the
said Hodshon money. Accordingly witness about April or May 1720 applied, to
deceased at Richmond, where he then lived, to inspect the title of the premises,
and they with Defendant went into a room in the House at Richmond when deceased
kept several papers, and the title deeds were handed to them.
Thomas Barker
of Richmond, cordwainer, aged about 46, knows the messuage named in the
pleadings, situate in a place called the Baily in Richmond, wherein John
Longstaffe, late father of Plaintiff, used to live. After the death of the said
John his widow occupied the east and south-east part thereof for thirteen years.
Witness has been tenant of another part of the said burgage at the yearly rent
of £3, which he paid to the said Francis Langstaffe, deceased, during his life,
and since-that is for the last three years-to the Plaintiff. Witness believed
deceased to be the rightful owner of the said messuage. Plaintiff was taught the
trade of for fellmonger, and was apprenticed to deceased.
Christopher Clarke
of Richmond, gent., aged about 55, believes that Francis Langstaffe, deceased,
was a considerable dealer in the trade of a fellmonger, but could neither read
nor write. Believes that Defendant was nephew to deceased and was of great
assistance to him in his business, and often noticed that they lived on
affectionate terms.
Samuel Sutton of Richmond,
gent., aged about 58, deposes as above.
Anne Carter of Colburne in co.York,
widow, deposes as above.
John Close of Ouston in co.York, gent., aged 30 and
more, saw the indentures of lease and release between Francis Langstaffe the
elder and Francis Langstaffe the younger, made 4 and 5 April 1713, being a
conveyance of the free burgage in Millgate in Richmond.
Mary Simpson of
Richmond, wife of Cuthbert Simpson, fellmonger, aged about 53, was servant to
deceased about 18 years.
William Coulthurst of Richmond, gent., aged 21
years and more, has for some years been clerk to Mr James Close, Town Clerk of
Richmond, and does not find Defendant Francis Langstaffe entered as a freeholder
of the manor of Richmond until October 1713, when he was admitted, and that from
that date up to 1723 he always appeared to do his suit and service, except once
or twice when he was excused from so doing. He is there entered among the
freeholders as for a burgage lying between that of Henry Close on the north and
that sometimes called Thomas Wilkinson's and sometimes George Pinckney's on the
south, which said burgage formerly belonged to his uncle Francis Langstaffe.
Elizabeth wife of Christopher Farmer of Richmond, innkeeper, says that the
yearly value of the house wherein John Langstaffe lived was about £12, and that
he lived there of his own right and not by permission of deceased.
Anthony
Close of Richmond, gent. and alderman, aged about 65, deposes as
above.
Robert Robinson of Richmond, gent., aged about 44, deposes as above.
Edward Hodshon of Richmond, fellmonger, aged about 59, says that immediately
after the burial of deceased the company returned to his (deceased) house, where
a supper was provided. When they were all leaving, Christopher Farmer, on behalf
of Plaintiff Francis, being his father-in-law, said he would lock the door and
keep the key, to which Defendant answered, " I will lock the door and take the
key is it belongs to me, and you have nothing to do with it." Witness then
suggested the Cuthbert Cowling, Defendant, should take charge of the key, which
he did until after administration of the deceased's goods was granted to
Defendant Francis Langstaffe.
( Chancery Proceedings, 1714-58, Zincke, 1946.)
Mr. Robert Nichols was also
present at the execution of the said deeds.
Christopher Clarke of Richmond,
gent., aged about 55, knew John Langstaffe, Plaintiff's late father, who died
possessed of one of the free burgages in the Bayley in Richmond, mentioned in
the bill. Witness has been employed as solicitor or manager at all the elections
for burgages in the borough of Richmond since the Revolution, and in the polls
taken on those occations. In September 1713 witness was employed for Thomas
Yorke, Esq., one of the candidates, at which time Francis Langstaffe,
Plaintiff's great-uncle, was seised of the said two burgages in Mill Gate and
the east part of the Bayley, and witness asked him for his votes for the said
Thomas Yorke and for Henry Mordant, Esq., and prevailed upon him to assign or
transfer the said messuage in Mill Gate to Defendant Francis Langstaffe, and to
transfer the other messuage in the east part of the Bayley to William Chapple.
Witness verily believes that the said transfers were paid for by the agents of
the late Marquess of Wharton, or the said Henry Mordant, and that the said
Francis Langstaffe and William Chapple accordingly voted as the said Francis,
the uncle, directed for the said York and Mordant, " which way of transferring
Burroughs has during all this Deponent's Remembrance been practiced at Richmond
at the Elections there." In such case witness usually attended the court's leet
at Richmond and paid the essoyns for them as agent for the candidates. It is
been the constant usage at Richmond to have blank conveyances drawn of such
burgages when the owners had two, three, or more of them, which said conveyances
were only intended to serve for that election, and where not intended to be
valid or to pass any estate. The parties so conveying took care to insert the
names of those on whom they could rely not to take advantage of them. The said
burgage so conveyed to the said William Chappell is now in the possession of
Defendant Francis Langstaffe, who claims the same by conveyances made to him on
his marriage by his said uncle, which was several years subsequent to the said
transfer.
Catherine Haw of Catterick-bridge, spinster, aged 40 and more,
heard deceased, two or three days before his death, declare that he would leave
the burgage wherein he lived and all the goods that to his nephew Francis the
Plaintiff, who then lived with him. Deceased died possessed of a considerable
personal estate, consisting of a household goods and great sums of ready-money,
which witness saw and knew of: While deceased was laid out and before he was
buried, the Defendants Francis Langstaffe and Cowling took possession thereof,
and brought out several bags of money in gold which they counted over, and which
seemed to witness to amount to a very large sum, but she
Robert Thompson, formally examined
on behalf of Plaintiff, now says that deceased was seised of two messuages in
the Bayley and one in Millgate, and one wool-chamber and wool-shop in the
market-place in Richmond. The goods of deceased were appraised by witness,
Defendant's Cowling and Hodgson, and by Thomas Simpson, but while they searched
the chests, etc., they found no will or writings. They made a true inventary of
the said personal estate.
Samuel Sutton of Richmond, gent., says that
deceased lived in the house in Mill Gate long before 1713 up to his death, and
was reputed owner thereof. The key thereof was given to Defendant by the
defendant Cuthbert Cowling, and by means thereof he very possibly of obtained
possession of the deeds, etc, concerning the same. The article now produced,
dated 8 February 1717, made between Francis Langstaffe the elder, fellmonger, of
the one part, and Francis Langstaffe of Richmond, son of Thomas Langstaffe of
Eastbourne, fellmonger, of the other part, was executed in witness's presence,
and he and Edward Hodgson and Thomas Smales subscribed their names as witnesses.
Anne Carter of Colburn in co.York, widow, age 60 years, says that about nine
months before deceased's death there was a treaty of marriage between deceased
and witness, when he proposed to settle upon her for her jointure a messuage in
Mill Gate wherein he then lived, but when witness heard that he had parted with
the deeds she objected to it. Deceased then told her that it was only on account
of the election that the said deeds were out of his hands, and he praised God
that nobody had anything to do with anything of his. Deceased then said to
witness, when they were talking about Defendant Francis Longstaffe, " I have
already given him a house and £100 to set him up, and I will not give him one
groat more, but I will give something to his children."
William Carter of
Barden in co.York, yeoman, aged about 40, says that about four months before
deceased's death, which happened about 1720, witness had two meetings with him
about a marriage which he then proposed with Anne Carter, witness's aunt.
Deceased then declared that the house wherein he lived with his own, and that he
had never disposed of it or signed any conveyances thereof, except that he had
given power to somebody to vote for the same for Parliament men, as he had six
votes and could only use two himself. Deceased then offered to settle the same
or some part thereof upon the said Anne if the marriage took place.
William
Cocken of Breckenbrough in co. York, yeoman, aged 33 years and more, deposes as
above.
John Close, gent., deposes as before.
Christopher Farmer of
Richmond, innkeeper, aged about 42, says that after the death of John
Langstaffe, Plaintiff's father, his widow, now wife of witness, lived in part of
one of the said messuages. Witness went to fetch Mr James Close, an eminent
attorney, to draw up deceased's will, but he was from home, and deceased died
before his arrival.
The entry from the Register of the Parish Church of
Richmond, dated 23 September 1723,* is it true certificate of the burial of the
deceased Francis Langstaffe, and was signed by Mr. Thomas Brook, Rector of the
said church.
Elizabeth, wife
of Christopher Farmer, of Richmond, aged about 36, deposes as above.
Thomas
Hodgson of Richmond, clocksmith, aged about 36, says that about three months
before deceased's death he (Thomas) borrowed of him 30s., and when deceased
called for it he sent for a quart of ale, and while they were drinking,
deceased, " falling into tears," told witness that Plaintiff was very ill, but
that if he recovered deceased intended to leave him the messuage in Mill Gate
and all his effects, and that he had given the Defendant Francis as good as
£300, and therefore thought him "out with his part." He also said the Cuthbert
Cowling brought the said Defendant from London, as nobody sent for him.
Anthony Close, gent., deposes as above.
Thomas Lawe of Richmond,
fellmonger, aged about 30, as above.
Christopher Davile of Richmond, gent.,
aged about 37, as above.
William Chappell of Richmond, butcher, aged 30 or
thereabouts, says that a conveyance of a messuage was made to him by deceased to
enable him to vote at the election, and that he, by the directions of deceased,
voted for Henry Mordant, Esq., and Thomas Yorke, Esq. Witness paid nothing for
the said conveyances as it was not to stand good or valid.
Robert Robinson
of Richmond, gent., says that deceased told him that the Defendant Francis was
so covetous that he feared he would get everything from Plaintiff, whereupon
witness advised him to make his will, and deceased said he would get Mr. Arthur
Farmer to draw it up.
Thomas Simpson of Richmond, fellmonger, aged about 60,
as above.
Ursula Sutton, wife of Samuel Sutton of Richmond, aged about 55,
deposes as above.
Henry Close of Richmond, butcher, aged about 42, deposes
as above.
( Chancery Bills and Answers, 1714-58, Zincke, 1947.
The
interrogatories come at the end instead of the beginning. )
[This interesting
suit made the compilation of PEDIGREE No. 24 possible. Since that PEDIGREE was
printed the will of John Langstaffe of Chancery Lane, dated 1778, has come to
light ( see p. cx). Also the Pleadings in Chancery Suit Langstaffe v.
Langstaffe, 1780 ( see pp. cxxviii, cxxix). From these it is clear her that the
solicitor was son of the Plaintiff Francis by his wife Ruth Smalpage.
The
late Mr. W. H. D. Longstaffe purchased a map of several farms, being " the
estate of Miss Anne Sandys Langstaffe, daughter and heiress of Thomas Langstaffe
of Eastbourne, Sussex, deceased." On this is a coloured coat-of-arms, viz.:
Azure, a bend or between three cocks argent. Crest: A scallop or.]
LONGSTAFF v. APTHORP.
(
Chancery Proceedings, 1714-58, Reynardson, Bundle 2381.)
FAZAKERLY v. LANGSTAFFE.
( Durham Palatinate: Bills and
Answers, Bundle 127, No. 21. )
( Durham
Palatinate: Bills and Answers, Bundle 127, No. 25.)
FAZAKERLEY v. ALLAN, LANGSTAFFE AND
OTHERS.
(Durham Palatinate: Bills and Answers, Bundle 127,
No.38.)
(Durham
Palatinate: Bills and Answers, Bundle 1277, No.56.]
LANGSTAFF v. GRAINGER.
About April 15th, 1725, the said Mary seized the
goods of the said Dent, who to avoid the sale thereof desired Plaintiff to join
with him in a bond, which he did. In order to settle all the disputes between
them the said Mary called on the said Dent and executed a general release of all
actions, suits, sums of money, etc. which release is dated 4 December
1727.
The said John and
Anne Grainger had since brought an action against Plaintiff to recover the said
money, whereupon Plaintiff prays for remedy.
( Chancery Bills and Answers,
1714-58, Winter, 696.)
[There is a long answer, which however, contains no
information re Plaintiff.]
align="center">
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LANGSTAFF v. PERKINS.
[No
Answer.] (Chancery Proceedings, 1714-58, Sewell, Bundle 163.)
1739 Nov. 8
Thomas Parkin = Margret Langstaff of Mickleton.
[ Romaldkirk
Register.]
[ See PEDIGREE No. 21, where Robert Perkin and Agnes Perkin,
children of Thomas, are omitted. ]
align="center">
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LANGSTAFF v. WHITE.
Plaintiff prays, etc.
[No answer.] ( Chancery Bills
and Answers, 1714-58, Mitford, 2297.)
[ No answer.] ( Chancery Proceedings,
1714-58, Bundle 182.)
[ See PEDIGREE No. 21.]
align="center">
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GRANT v. LANGSTAFF.
1756, May 12. The answer of George Langstaffe, gentleman
sworn at the house of Mr. John Forrest, known by the signing of the " White
Horse," situate at Bakewell, co. Derby, 1 March 1756.
[Signed] George
Langstaff.
Schedule of Account: George Langstaff to Sir Archibald Grant,
1742- 48 . [No genealogical details.]
(Chancery Proceedings, 1714-58, bundle
214.)
[ See PEDIGREE No. 1.]
P.378 - (clxxix.)
LANGSTAFFE v.
FARSIDE AND OTHERS.
Exchequer Bills and Answers, Yorks, George II.,
No.443.
But now the said Benjamin Linskill,
Isaac Richardson, William Farside, and John Linskill, combining with others, to
Plaintiff unknown, refuse to pay Plaintiff John any part of the money raised by
the sale of the timber cut down by the said William Farside, and pretend that
the premises in Growmont never belonged to the said John Langstaffe but to the
said William Farside, and were devised to the said William Farside and Sarah his
wife and their heirs. The said Sarah died about the beginning of September 1751
without issue, and without making any appointment of the said lands in Growmont,
and leaving the Plaintiff Alice and the said John Linskill her coheirs. The said
Martha, youngest daughter of the said testator, left the said John Linskill her
only child and heir. Plaintiff's, upon the death of the said Sarah, became
entitled to one moiety of all the said premises in Growmont; but the said
confederates have forbidden the tenants to pay any rents to Plaintiff's, and
pretend there are some old mortgages or other incumbrances affecting the said
premises.
The separate answer of Isaac Richardson of Ruswarp in the parish
of Whitby in county York, tanner, one of the people called Quakers and one of
the Defendants, to the bill of complaint of John Langstaffe, yeoman, and Alice
his wife.
Defendant did come to live at Whitby or within 20 miles of it
until 1731, which was several years after Plaintiff married, so cannot say what
children they had. Defendant heard part of the will of John Langstaffe the
testator read, and knows that he was appointed trustee, but he never took upon
himself the said trust, as he thought that a great deal of trouble might arise,
besides which he had a large family and business of his own to look after.
Sometimes the Plaintiff John came along to ask him to act, and sometimes with
Thomas Andrew, who was a friend or relation of his (Plaintiff's). About April
and May 1749 a parcel of oak timber was felled at Growmont by Benjamin Coates,
who brought it of William Farside for about £125. Defendant George Pearson of
Whitby and Thomas Knaggs of Easington, tanners, purchased the bark thereof for
£40 .
The said Benjamin says that he has the probate of
the will of the said John Langstaffe the testator in his custody. The Plaintiff
Alice, Sarah Farside and the Defendant John Linskill were his coheirs. After
proving the will, Defendant entered upon the real estates in Great Moresome and
Stainton Dale, but not upon the estate in Growmont, of which William Farside
continued possessed during the lifetime of Sarah his wife. Defendant does not
know the value of the trees cut down by the said William Farside. The said Sarah
died about 26th September 1751, without issue, leaving the Plaintiff Alice and
the defendant John Linskill her coheirs-at-law. Defendant's wife Martha,
youngest daughter of the said testator, died leaving the said Defendant John
Linskill her only child and heir-at-law. After the death of the said Sarah,
Plaintiff Alice became entitled to a moiety of the premises in Growmont, but she
had been separated from her husband since September 1724 on account of his
cruelty. She was made a "party Plaintiff" in the said bill against her will and
without her consent. Defendant submits whether the Plaintiff John is under the
circumstances entitled in right of his wife to any share of the said premises in
Growmont, or whether Defendant's can be obliged in equity to let him into
possession thereof.
Plaintiff John acquainted Defendant with his right to
the said moiety, but did not ask ( except by his said bill) to be put into
possession thereof, or to see the title-deeds, etc. Defendant has no title-deeds
relating to Growmont, and he never said that the premises there did not belong
to the testator. He holds one moiety thereof for the separate use of the
Plaintiff Alice, and for that reason he forbade the tenants to pay any rent to
Plaintiff John, the estate at Moresome being " rather too narrow a maintenance
for a person of her degree" when the £10 a year and land-tax are deducted,
especially as the said John makes her no allowance. Defendant's never gave out
that there was some old mortgages made of the said premises at Growmont.
P.380 - (clxxxi.)
On
18 November 1751 Defendant received of Thomas Pearson, tenant of the said
premises in Growmont, £22 13s. 6d. for rent due from him and his father-in-law
Thomas Watson, the other tenant there; this is all the money Defendant received.
Taken and sworn by the said William Farside at Whitby 3 May 1753.
align="center"> Schedule to which the proceeding answer refers.
Divers premises in
Growmont to be settled by the said John Saunders.
Indentures of lease and
release, dated 4 and 5 June 1712, between John Saunders of Whitby and others of
the first part, and John Longstaffe of Cross Butts in the constabulary of
Ruswarp in the parish of Whitby, gent., of the other part, touching lands in
Growmont.
Counterpart of an indenture of lease, dated 28 June 1716, between
John Longstaffe of Whitby, late of Cross Butts in the parish of Whitby in the
county of York, gent., of the one part and James Hargreaves of Brandsburton in
Holderness in county York, clerk, of the other part, re lands in Growmont.
In next indenture mention is made of John Langstaffe the elder, late of
Cross Butts, then of Whitby, gent.
Part of a cancelled codicil to be annexed
to the last will of John Langstaffe " the eldest," dated 4 September 1718.
Two letters, dated 9 and 16 May 1726, the first signed Edward Geddard,
super-scribed to John Langstaffe of Peak Allom Work, near Whitby, giving him an
account of Francis Saunder's death, and the other, signed John Langstaffe, "
underwrote" to the above letter.
I receipt, signed Richard Foreman, for £6
16s. 6d. received by John Farside and Lynne Conncer in full of all demands for
his journey to the City of York to give evidence in the cause between Leonard
Goodfellow, Plaintiff, and John Langstaffe and others, Defendants, on the demise
of John Saunders and others to try to the validity of Defendant's title to
Growmont Estate .
A deed poll or release, dated 15 July, from John Saunders
of Whitby, who in consideration of £110 to him paid by John Langstaffe of Peak
in the parish of Scalby, gent., releases to the said John Langstaffe all his
estate, right, title, etc., in several premises in Growmont.
P.381 -
(clxxxii.)
Depositions taken 17
September 1754 at the house of Mary Havelock, widow, known by the sign of the
"Mermaid," situate in Guisbrough in county York.
John Pease of Whitby in
county York, mercer and grocer, aged 58, says he knows all the parties to this
suit, and also knew the said John Langstaffe, deceased, father of the Plaintiff
Alice, and that he died about 12 years ago, leaving three daughters, Alice,
Sarah, and Martha. Deponent was present and saw the said John Langstaffe,
deceased, signed, sealed, and published from his last will the paper writings
now produced, dated 3 October 1740. The testator was then of sound mind and
understanding. John Scott and Charles Lightfoot, jun., also witnessed the said
will. The said John Scott died in 1742 and the said Charles Lightfoot in 1750.
Thomas Smales of Hutton Locrass in the parish of Guisbrough, co. York,
glazier, aged about 56, says that Sarah Farside, second daughter of the said
John Langstaffe deceased, survived him and afterwards died without issue.
Defendant John Linskill is the only surviving child of the said Benjamin
Linskill and Martha his wife said door to the said deceased, and that the said
John and the Plaintiff Alice are now the heirs or coheirs-at-law of the said
John Langstaffe, deceased.
align="center"> ( Exchequer Depositions, Yorks,
Michaelmas, 28 George II. , No. 8. )
The said John Langstaffe was seised of the several farms
hereinafter mentioned, then of the yearly value of £190, and was also possessed
of considerable personal estate, and having only three daughters, to wit,
Plaintiff the eldest, Sarah Langstaffe, afterwards the wife of William Farside,
late of Whitby and now of Scarborough, gent., and Martha, afterwards the wife of
the said Benjamin Linskill; and his said daughters being educated in a genteel
and frugal manner, and being like to be very good fortune, several good offers
of marriage were made for them, particularly in 1720, when the said Benjamin
Linskill, being then a Quaker and a seafaring man with a good fortune in money
and land, and being also master of one of the best ships in Whitby and able to
make good settlement, paid his addresses to Plaintiff and was approved of by her
father, and a treaty of marriage was actually entered into. However, he had to
go to sea while the said the treaty was depending and then the said John
Langstaffe, Plaintiff's said husband, who had been for three years a servant in
husbandry to Plaintiff's father at the yearly
P.382 - (clxxxiii.)
P.384 - (clxxxv.)
Defendant admits that he exhibited a bill in the name of himself and
Plaintiff against the said William Farside and others, and that he intends to
proceed therein. He is quite willing to live with Plaintiff again, but he
believes that for some years she has been living in a manner not at all to her
credit. A short time before Plaintiff left Defendant she made a cruel and
barbarous attempt on his life, but he forgave him, as he thought she was " put
on so doing by some wicked ill-advisers and artful pretended friends," and not
by her own inclination.
[The same. ]
Depositions of
witnesses taken 29 April 1754 at the house of George Baker, inn-holder, known by
the sign of the "White Horse," situate in Whitby in county York.
George
Ripley of Borrowby in the parish of Lyth in the county of York, husbandman, aged
53 years and more, has known Plaintiff for twenty-five years and knew her father
for 12 years before his death, which happened about 12 years ago. Deponent lived
for one year as servant to John Langstaffe, deceased, who then resided at
Peaks
Esther
Grundall, wife of Joseph Grundall of Stainton Dale in the parish of Scawby,
victualler, aged 62 years and more, Says the said John Langstaffe, deceased, had
three children living in 1719, whom he educated in a very genteel manner, and to
each of whom he was able to give a marriage portion of £1500 if they married
with his consent. About 1719 or 1720 it was reported that there was a treaty of
marriage on foot between Mr. Benjamin Linskill and Plaintiff, and that the said
deceased approved of it, the said Benjamin being then seised of a real estate of
the value of nearly £300 a year, and being also master and chief owner of a
large ship which then " used the Foreign Trade." Has heard Plaintiff's mother
say that she found all the clothes for Plaintiff's children, as Defendant had
refused to buy any.
Joseph Grundall of Stainton Dale, aged 65 or more, says
that the said John Langstaffe was in 1720 seised of a freehold estate in co.York
of the yearly value of £180, and had also a very considerable personal estate.
The said three daughters of the said John Langstaffe were all sent to a
boarding-school at Scarborough at the proper age for that purpose. Believes that
the marriage between Plaintiff and the said Benjamin Linskill was prevented from
taking place by the said Benjamin ( who was the captain of one of the largest
ships belonging to the port of Whitby) taking a voyage to London. Deponent, when
in London and Holland, was often ordered by Plaintiff's mother to by divers
sorts of wearing-apparel for children and divers quantities of sugar, soap, and
other groceries to be sent to Boulby, as Defendant would not allow Plaintiff
such necessaries.
Elizabeth Watson, wife of John Watson of Rigg in the
parish of Whitby, husband-man. Believes that the marriage between the said
Plaintiff and Benjamin Linskill was prevented by Defendant, who interposed and
paid his addresses to Plaintiff while the said Benjamin was at sea. When
Plaintiff left her father's house she was 16 years old. She did not go to meet
Defendant, but he came the night before Holy Thursday, between 11 and 12 o'clock
at night, in a private manner, when Plaintiff's parents were in bed. He came in
at the "foredoor" and took away all Plaintiff's best clothes, which witness
helped him to put into a sack. Witness was sent by Plaintiff's parents to
Defendant's house about a month after the birth of Plaintiff second child to
attend to her as she was in very sickly condition. Defendant very seldom came
into the room and never inquired after Plaintiff, who complained to witness that
her husband had treated her very cruelly, pulling her out of bed, etc.
Sarah, wife Ralph Dunning of Whitby, mariner, aged 49 and more, has often
heard the said John Langstaffe say that he would give Plaintiff £2000 if she
married the said Benjamin Linskill. Witness has often helped to pack up clothes,
bread, ale,
John Lister of Whitby, apothecary and surgeon, aged about 50 years
and more, has often heard the said John Langstaffe (father of Alice) say that he
did not intend that Defendant should have any benefit from his estate, calling
him a rogue, villain, and such like names. Deceased asked witness to stand
trustee in his will, and told him that he intended to employ Cornelius Cayley,
Esq., of Hull, a counsel, to draw up his will in order the more effectually to
exclude Defendant.
[? 1741, 9 mo. 4. John Lister of Holbeck = Martha
Langstaffe, dau. of Joseph Langstaffe of Holbeck, at Meadow Lane, Leeds.
(
York Quaker Register. ) See also PEDIGREE No. 25. ]
Elizabeth Cock of Whitby, spinster, aged 37 years and more, says that
Plaintiff's reputation for the last thirteen years has been very bad, and that
it is reported that Bernard Maw now lives with her more like a husband than a
servant.
Mary, wife of Robert Prudom, of Robin Hood's Bay, mariner, aged 46
years and more, says she was a servant with Defendant, and that he and Plaintiff
lived happily together; that when Plaintiff's first child was born Defendant got
a nurse for her and that every care was taken of her. In order to make her house
more commodious for
Robert Pennack of Bowlby, yeoman, aged 63
years and more, says that Plaintiff and Defendant were married on Holy Thursday
1720, and went at once to Boulby, when Defendant had a good house well
furnished. He was of good credit and liked in the neighborhood.
George Ward
of Farndale, yeoman, aged 55, was servant to Defendant, who kept a plentiful
house both of meat and drink. Witness's house is about 8 miles from Wrelton,
where Plaintiff lives.
Thomas Millner of Scarborough, butcher, aged 63 years
and more, says that Defendant having told him that he wished to live with
Plaintiff again and was going to see her, witness offered, as she lived on his
way home, to call and tell her, but she replied that if he came she would shut
the door in his face.
Mary, wife of William Dickinson of Whitby, mariner
(formerly Mary Parkinson), aged 49 years and more, says that Plaintiff and
Defendant lived happily together when she was in their service.
Francis
Anderson of Sandsend in the parish of Lyth, yeoman, aged 62 years and more, says
it was reported at Boulby that Plaintiff's loved George Volume, then a labourer,
better than Defendant, which was the cause of their separation.
Elizabeth,
wife of Benjamin Dove of Whitby, roper, aged 54, deposes as above.
John
Coaley of Bowlby, yeoman, aged 50 years and more, says the Defendant behaved
more tenderly to Plaintiff than she to him. Witness and some of the neighbours,
at Defendant's request, tried to bring about a reconciliation between him and
Plaintiff, and thought they had succeeded, but the next day they heard that
Plaintiff had left him.
Thomas Hall of Easington, yeoman, aged 56, deposes
as above.
John Harland of Egton, yeoman, aged 56 and more, deposes as above.
Anthony Jefferson of Staiths in county York, master mariner, aged about 48,
deposes as above.
Samuel Gill of Steaths, gent, aged 63 and more, deposes as
above.
William Sanderson of Staithes, mercer and grocer, aged about 40, says
that Defendant, with tears in his eyes, told witness that he wanted nothing else
in the world to make him happy except to have Plaintiff back again, and begged
witness to go with Mr. Jefferson and tell her so, but as Mr. Jefferson had to go
to sea their visit never came off. In all his dealings with Defendant witness
found him downright honest man. Ann, wife of Thomas Hall, yeoman, aged 55 and
more, deposes as above .
Mary, wife of John Coaley of Bowlby in county York,
yeoman aged 55 years deposes as above.
[ See preceding Bill and PEDIGREE Nos. 26 and 27. ]
CHRISOP, LANGSTAFF, AND OTHERS, v. SIR
HEDWORTH WILLIAMSON
AND OTHERS.
P.388 - (clxxxix.)
(
Durham Registrar's Records: Bills and Answers, Bundle 141, No. 62. )
(Durham
Registrar's Records: Bills and Answers, Bundle 142, No.10. )
[Query his will,
1779, p.xxiv18.]
( Chancery Affidavits, Hilary, 1762, No. 47. )
(Chancery Affidavits, Hilary, 1766, No. 301)
JOHN LANGSTAFFE AND OTHERS v. ABRAHAM IN
HILTON AND OTHERS.
(
Chancery Affidavits, Easter, 1771, No. 151.)
[Purely formal.]
[The same. ]
( Chancery Affidavits, Hilary, 1774, No. 143. )
[Purely formal.]
LONGSTAFF AND OTHERS v. NAWELL AND OTHERS.
( Chancery Affidavits, Trinity,
1776, No. 447. )
[Purely formal.]
LANGSTAFF AND OTHERS v. CLOSE.
(Chancery Affidavits, Hilary, 1778, No. 369.)
[Purely
formal.]
P.389 - (cxc.)
(
Chancery Affidavits, Hilary, 1778, No. 63. )
[Rest purely formal.]
.]
( Chancery
Affidavits, Hilary, 1778, No. 117. )
( Chancery Affidavits,
Hilary, 1778, No. 460.)
Notice served on Mr. Nicholl ( who acts for Plaintiff and the
Defendant Richard Lonsdale in this cause) on 30 March purporting that John
Perkins intended to move the Court on Wednesday next that on the said Defendant
paying, within one month, £150 into the bank, he may be let into possession of a
fifth part of the leasehold premises (Lot 2) in question in this cause, of which
he is reported the best purchaser at £820, and receive the rents, etc., from
Christmas Day last, and that the cost of this application may be paid to Perkins
out of the fifth part of the said leasehold promises in mortgage to the said
Perkins.
(Chancery Affidavits, Hilary, 1778, No. 461.)
[The
same.]
( Chancery
Affidavits, Hilary, 1778, No. 548. )
(
Chancery Affidavits, Hilary, 1778, No. 561.)
He gives full
particulars, with dates, of the principal, interest, and costs due to the said
Perkins as by the report of Mr. Pepys, one of the Masters of this Court. The
said Perkins being reported the best purchaser of Lot 2. The premises comprised
in Lot 2 consist of the one-fifth part of the leasehold estate, of which about
thirty-nine years were unexpired at Christmas 1777.
Deposes further that the
said Perkins would long since have obtained a separate report, but he has for
over two years been continually " amused" by the Plaintiff with declarations
that the general report would very shortly be ready. The expense of the separate
report will fall to the Defendant Perkins, a saving to the estate of the
testator Reynoldson .
( Chancery Affidavits, Trinity, 1780, No.
404.)
( Chancery Affidavits, Trinity, 1780, No. 451.
)
[The
same.]
( Chancery
Affidavits, Hilary, 1782, No. 435.)
[Purely formal.]
( Chancery Affidavits,
Hilary, 1782, No. 545.) [Purely formal.]
[See will of John Langstaffe, p.cx,
where in the house in Hammond's Court is mentioned. In the notes thereto strike
out the first and third marriages. John is undoubtedly the son of Francis. See
further notes to same will, pp.cxxviii and cxxix, and PEDIGREE No. 24. ]
LANGSTAFFE v. LANGSTAFFE AND LEEMING.
[An abstract of this suit is printed on p. cxxix. ]
LANGSTAFFE AND OTHERS v. BOWES AND
OTHERS.
( Chancery Affidavits, Easter, 1786, No.
165.)
[Purely formal.]
[Plaintiff was George III. of Butterknowle; see
PEDIGREE No. 3, and will, p. xxiv21. ]
(Chancery Affidavits, Michaelmas, 1786,
No. 13.)
( Chancery
Affidavits, Michaelmas, 1786, No. 22. )
[The
same.]
(Chancery Affidavits, Michaelmas,
1786, No. 24.)
[Purely formal.
]
( Chancery
Affidavits, Easter, 1787, No. 388. )
( Chancery Affidavits, Trinity, 1789, No.140. )
[ No. 960 is the
affidavit that of James Elkington in this matter; it contains nothing of
interest.]
LANGSTAFFE v. LONSDALE.
( Chancery Affidavits, Hilary,
1787, No. 91.)
[Purely formal.]
LANGSTAFFE v. LONSDALE AND GARFORTH.
( Chancery Affidavits, Michaelmas,
1789, No. 124.)
[Purely formal. ]
[The
same.]
( Chancery Affidavits, Hilary, 1791,
Nos. 40 and 71.)
[Purely formal.]
[all the affidavits are formal and contain no information as to the family
or the subject of the suit.
N.B.--- The Rev. William Langstaff, Vicar of
Marske, died November 17th 89, leaving a widow Mary ( nee Weddell). See PEDIGREE
No. 40. ]
"MY GENEALOGY AND
FAMILY HISTORY PAGES"
"THE LANGSTAFFS OF
TEESDALE AND WEARDALE" MAIN PAGE.
"THE PEDIGREES OF THE
LANGSTAFFS OF TEESDALE AND WEARDALE"
"CAROLE'S COTTAGE"
MAIN PAGE