Difference between revisions of "MRP: C 9/243/66"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
===Notes=== | ===Notes=== | ||
| − | General | + | '''General''' |
I have imaged all the papers in this document. They are small, with small writing. Folio 2 is especially hard to read, but at least none of the pages are heavily creased, in contrast to the last sheet of C 9/40/57. | I have imaged all the papers in this document. They are small, with small writing. Folio 2 is especially hard to read, but at least none of the pages are heavily creased, in contrast to the last sheet of C 9/40/57. | ||
| − | The case concerns the estate of Edward Kelke esquire, of Grays Inn, who made Elizabeth Dallison his executor. His will is available as Edward Kelke | + | The case concerns the estate of Edward Kelke esquire, of Grays Inn, who made Elizabeth Dallison his executor. His will is available as PROB 11/293 Pell 350-399 Will of Edward Kelke of Grayes Inn 21 June 1659. He made his will on December 6th 1658 and it was proved June 20th 1659. The first document in C 9/243/66 is dated February Xth 1658/59, so it appears that the will was immediately contested. The will mentions “my cousin Skipper”, who I think is referred to in f. 3 and is Robert Skypper, son of Elizabeth Kelke, Edward’s aunt, who predeceased Edward. None of the three aunts (Bridgett Smyth, Frances Emerson, and Anne Thorold) are mentioned in the will. Anne Thorold and her husband, William Thorold, depose in f. 4 that they are not seeking to acquire administration. Generally the answers to Elizabeth’s Dallison’s bill of complaint are weak and it appears, since probate was granted in June 1659, that the Court of Chancery found in Elizabeth Dallison’s favour. |
| − | f.1 | + | '''f. 1''' |
Very short document of ten lines, dated XX day of ffebruary 1658 (i.e. 1658/59). States that Elizabeth Dalyson widow has exhibited a bill of complaint before the court of chancery against Alexander Emerson Esq & his wife, W:m Smyth & his wife, & W:m Thorold & his wife. The chancery judges have comanded that the defendants appear before the court of chancery at a date now past to answer the charges. The document appears to state that three or two of the judges have been authorised to examine the defendant(s). | Very short document of ten lines, dated XX day of ffebruary 1658 (i.e. 1658/59). States that Elizabeth Dalyson widow has exhibited a bill of complaint before the court of chancery against Alexander Emerson Esq & his wife, W:m Smyth & his wife, & W:m Thorold & his wife. The chancery judges have comanded that the defendants appear before the court of chancery at a date now past to answer the charges. The document appears to state that three or two of the judges have been authorised to examine the defendant(s). | ||
| − | f.2 | + | '''f. 2''' |
1 page document addressed to the Lord Chancellor for the great seal of England. Very hard to read. Signed Ja. XXXinstanley (?Winstanley) | 1 page document addressed to the Lord Chancellor for the great seal of England. Very hard to read. Signed Ja. XXXinstanley (?Winstanley) | ||
| − | f. 3 | + | '''f. 3''' |
The answer of William Smyth gent. and Bridgett his wife to Elizabeth Dallison’s bill of complaint. | The answer of William Smyth gent. and Bridgett his wife to Elizabeth Dallison’s bill of complaint. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
However they are ignorant of Edwardd Kelke’s estate and need time to examine it. | However they are ignorant of Edwardd Kelke’s estate and need time to examine it. | ||
| − | f. 4 | + | '''f. 4''' |
The answers of William Thorold Gent. & Anne his wife defendants to the bill of complaint of Elizabeth Dallison. | The answers of William Thorold Gent. & Anne his wife defendants to the bill of complaint of Elizabeth Dallison. | ||
| − | + | They are unaware that Edward Kelke, deceased made his will in writing, though they are aware of his death. They have not opposed the complainant proving the will, and that if this has been done in the defendants names it was without their warrant. They have not sought to acquire administratioon of Edward Kelke’s estate. They do not know and have not proclaimed that Edward Kelke was without perfect understanding. | |
| − | + | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 10:49, October 26, 2011
C 9/243/66
Notes
General
I have imaged all the papers in this document. They are small, with small writing. Folio 2 is especially hard to read, but at least none of the pages are heavily creased, in contrast to the last sheet of C 9/40/57.
The case concerns the estate of Edward Kelke esquire, of Grays Inn, who made Elizabeth Dallison his executor. His will is available as PROB 11/293 Pell 350-399 Will of Edward Kelke of Grayes Inn 21 June 1659. He made his will on December 6th 1658 and it was proved June 20th 1659. The first document in C 9/243/66 is dated February Xth 1658/59, so it appears that the will was immediately contested. The will mentions “my cousin Skipper”, who I think is referred to in f. 3 and is Robert Skypper, son of Elizabeth Kelke, Edward’s aunt, who predeceased Edward. None of the three aunts (Bridgett Smyth, Frances Emerson, and Anne Thorold) are mentioned in the will. Anne Thorold and her husband, William Thorold, depose in f. 4 that they are not seeking to acquire administration. Generally the answers to Elizabeth’s Dallison’s bill of complaint are weak and it appears, since probate was granted in June 1659, that the Court of Chancery found in Elizabeth Dallison’s favour.
f. 1
Very short document of ten lines, dated XX day of ffebruary 1658 (i.e. 1658/59). States that Elizabeth Dalyson widow has exhibited a bill of complaint before the court of chancery against Alexander Emerson Esq & his wife, W:m Smyth & his wife, & W:m Thorold & his wife. The chancery judges have comanded that the defendants appear before the court of chancery at a date now past to answer the charges. The document appears to state that three or two of the judges have been authorised to examine the defendant(s).
f. 2
1 page document addressed to the Lord Chancellor for the great seal of England. Very hard to read. Signed Ja. XXXinstanley (?Winstanley)
f. 3
The answer of William Smyth gent. and Bridgett his wife to Elizabeth Dallison’s bill of complaint.
The will is contested by three surviving sisters and the son of a sister of Edward Kelke’s uncle, Robert Kelke. Names defendants Bridgett Anne and ffrances and Robert Skypper, son of their deceased sister Elizabeth, who are all daughters and heirs of Robert Kelke esquire deceased, who was eldest brother of Edward Kelke, father of the said deceased Edward Kelke whose will is being administered. The contestants deny that Edward Kelke was in perfect memory, and state that if he were he would not have made the will he did, which left nothing to his co-heirs “with whome he was very kinde & well acquainted and not cause ever fell or was betweene or amongst them to occasion the contrary.”
However they are ignorant of Edwardd Kelke’s estate and need time to examine it.
f. 4
The answers of William Thorold Gent. & Anne his wife defendants to the bill of complaint of Elizabeth Dallison.
They are unaware that Edward Kelke, deceased made his will in writing, though they are aware of his death. They have not opposed the complainant proving the will, and that if this has been done in the defendants names it was without their warrant. They have not sought to acquire administratioon of Edward Kelke’s estate. They do not know and have not proclaimed that Edward Kelke was without perfect understanding.
