| 1367.029 |
1367 |
Common Pleas |
Dower |
Dower
Double plee
Deux plees |
| Pasch. |
41 |
Edw. 3 |
9 |
11a-11b |
Chelre, Edmund de Sjt (for P)
Cavendish, John de Sjt Candish (for D)
Fyncheden, William de JCP Finchden
Cavendish, John de Sjt Candish
Thorp, Robert de CJCP
Meres, Roger de (alias Kirkton) Sjt Kirton (for D)
Belknap, Robert Sjt (for P)
Cavendish, John de Sjt Candish
Thorp, Robert de CJCP
Cavendish, John de Sjt Candish
Meres, Roger de (alias Kirkton) Sjt Kirton
Thorp, Robert de CJCP |
widow |
|
|
|
|
William, alleged donor to defendant's ancestor |
|
|
Fitzherbert Dower 47
Fitzherbert Double plee 76
Brooke Dower 8
Brooke Deux plees 8
Statham Dower 4 |
|
|
| En un briefe de Dower, le tenant dit, que le demaundant luy detient certeins muniments touchant son |
30 |
| In a writ of Dower, the tenant (defendant) said that the demandant (plaintiff) withheld from him certain muniments touching his heritage, and he declared which, and he said that he had always been ready to assign the plaintiff her dower, if she wanted to deliver his charters to him. The plaintiff said, as to two charters, that her husband had given the same land comprised in the charters to two priests, who had re-enfeoffed the same husband and the wife and their heirs, so it belonged to her. And as to all the rest, where the defendant said that they belonged to him as to brother and heir of her husband, she said that she was pregnant by her husband of one who would be heir, if God gave him to be born, and by reason of nurture she was bound to keep the muniments; judgment and she prayed her dower. The defendant said that the last plea went to the whole; therefore he prayed to be discharged of the rest. Fyncheden JCP said that the plaintiff had pleaded one plea, that they belonged to her for the reason that she herself was tenant, and of the rest that they belonged to the infant in her womb, if God etc., so that perhaps even if one were found against her, it was not right (reason) that she would thereby be shut out (conclud') from that which belonged to her herself, and such plea had been adjudged good in a writ of Wardship, where one alleged nontenure of the body, and as to the land said that he did not hold of him. The defendant said that it was not right (reason) that he be charged with one and with the other, and even if the plaintiff were pregnant, that one was not heir yet, but the defendant was heir apparent, to whom the deeds belonged to defend the land if he were impleaded. Thorp CJCP said that if she was pregnant, the deeds did not belong to the defendant, but to the infant, because they belonged to him because he was heir, and would be vouched as heir. And then the defendant said that he did not demand that charter, but a fine by which one William had given the same land to the defendant's ancestor (plaintiff's late husband), who had died solely seised, without this that the priests ever had anything of his gift; ready. The plaintiff asked if the defendant meant to say (Voiles dire) that her husband had died solely seised, without this that they held jointly. The defendant said that whether they held jointly or not, this was not to the purpose, because the fine belonged to him, to have his warranty. Thorp CJCP asked the defendant if he wanted to plead to issue, and also allege matter in law. The defendant said that it was necessary to show by protestation that his estate was not such as he supposed, because otherwise the defendant would be disinherited by nondenial, because he had an Assize for this pending against her. And as to the rest, the defendant said that the plaintiff was not pregnant by her husband on the day of his death; ready etc. Thorp CJCP said that the defendant would not have such issue to bastardize the infant. Therefore the issue was taken, whether she was pregnant on the day of her husband's death, or not. |
|
