Bradley v Bensted 1824 - Hartley-Kent: The Website for Hartley

Interrogatories to be administered to witnesses to be produced, sworn and examined in a certain cause now depending and at issue in his Majesty’s Court of Exchequer at Westminster between the Reverend Thomas Bradley clerk is the complainant, and William Bensted is the defendant, on the part and behalf of the said defendant.

1st Interrogatory – Do you or not know the parties, complainant and defendant in the title to these interrogatories named or either and which of them and how long have you known them respectively or such one of them as you do know.  And do you or not know Thomas Broadley Fooks in the pleadings (…..) and how long have you known (….) or not known John Stokes deceased in the pleadings of this (….) named in his lifetime and for how long before his death and when did he die.  Declare the truth of the several matters by declaring (…..)

2nd Interrogatory – Whether or not do you know or are you in any way and what degree acquainted with the parish of Hartley in the headings of this cause mentioned and with the farm or lands in the said parish of Hartley now in the tenure or occupation of the said defendant.  If yes, how long have you known the same respectively and by what means did you become acquainted therewith.  Declare etc.

3rd Interrogatory – Whether or no the tithe of wood and underwood during the period of time you have been acquainted with the parish of Hartley by the preceeding interrogatory inquired after, ever been set out and rendered in kind to the rector of the said parish by the occupiers of (….) previously to Michaelmas 1821.  If yea, how and in what manner was the value of the tithe of wood and underwood during such period been (…) to the rector of the same parish.  Declare etc etc.

4th Interrogatory – Whether of no did the said defendant, for any and what length of time pay the said complainant or (….).  And whether or no did the said complainant or any and what person or persons on his behalf receive any and what composition or satisfaction for or in lieu of all and any (…) from the farm and lands occupied by the said defendant, within the parish of Hartley by the 2nd interrogatory inquired after, or any and which of them.  If yea, was or not such composition or satisfaction paid to and so received by the said complainant under any and what agreement and when entered into between the said complainant and defendant and is such composition now subsisting or not?  And if not when was such composition determined? And by what means?  Declare etc etc.

5th Interrogatory – Have you or not ever since Michaelmas 1821 or for some or what length of time been and are you not now the bailiff or tithe gatherer of the said complainant; and have you or not ever since Michaelmas 1821, or during any and what period of time usually or in any and what respect acted in the collection and receipt of the said complainant’s tithes or any composition for the same; and where and in what house have you resided since Michaelmas 1821, and in what parish hath the said complainant resided over that time.  Declare etc.

6th Interrogatory – Whether or no was any paper writing under the hand of the said defendant, or purporting to be signed by him left at the Parsonage House of the parish of Hartley, by the second interrogatory enquired, on or about the 9th day of February 1822.  If yea, what is become of such paper writing, and did or did not such paper writing purport to bear date the said 9th day of February 1822, and to be a notice upon the said defendant to the said complainant that he, the said defendant, intended to set out the tithes of wood or underwood out by him in the said parish on Tuesday the 12th day of the said month of February at 10 o’clock, or what was the effect thereof.  Declare etc.

7th Interrogatory – Was or was not John Stokes in the first interrogatory enquired after, as you know or for any and what reason or reasons believe, in consequence of the notice by the preceeding interrogatory inquired after, directed and by whom, to attend on the behalf of the said complainant, at any and what time and place for the purpose of seeing the tithes of wood or underwood which had been cut by the said defendant on his lands in the said parish of Hartley set out and of taking the tithe of such wood or underwood away or for any and what purpose?  Declare etc.

8th Interrogatory – Did you or not on the 12th day of February 1822 attend on any and what lands in the occupation of the said defendant in the said parish of Hartley for the purpose of setting out for the said complainant, as rector of the said parish, the tithe of any and what wood or underwood which had been cut on any and what lands in the said parish in the occupation of the said defendant, and did or did not any and what persons or person besides yourself attend on each occasion, and particularly did or did not any person and who by name attend on such occasion, on the behalf of the said complainant?  And was or was not the tithe of such wood [……..] on such occasion set out for the said complainant?  If yea, by whom and in what manner was the same set out?  And was such tithe fairly set out or how otherwise.  And was or not any objection made and by whom, on the part of the said complainant as to the manner of setting out such tithe, or as to the quantity thereof or in any respect relating thereto.  And was or not the said tithe wood or underwood or any and what parts or part thereof

10th Interrogatory – Did you or not on the 28th day of March 1822 attend and on whose behalf at the wood called Foxbury Wood in the pleadings of this cause mentioned for the purposes of putting our or ????? out for the said complainant as Rector of the said parish of Hartley, the tithe of any and what wood or underwood which had been cut in the said wood called Foxbury Wood by the defendant and did or did not any other and what persons or person attend on such occasion and in whose behalf.  And was or not the tithe of such wood or underwood accordingly on such occasion set out for the said complainant.  If yea by whom and in what manner was the same set out and was such tithe fairly set out or how otherwise, and was or not any objection made on the part of the said complainant, and by whom as to the manner of setting out the said last mentioned tithe, or as to the quantity thereof or in any report relating thereto, and was or not such tithe wood or underwood or any, and what parts or part thereof marked in order to distinguish the same from the said defendant’s nine parts of the said wood or underwood and if so, by whom and by whose direction and in what manner was the same so marked or distinguished etc.

11th Interrogatory – Did you ever and what time work for he said John Stokes in his business as a wheelwright, and whether or no were you present at any time in the year 1822 when the said complainant did or agreed to sell any tithes of wood or underwood to John Stokes by the first interrogatory enquired after.  If yea, in whose occupation was the land on which such tithe wood or underwood then lay, and to whom did the wood or underwood of which the same was the tithe belonged.  On what particular day and for what sum of some did the said complainant so sell or agreed to sell such tithe wood or underwood to the said John Stokes and did the said John Stokes ever and when fetch the said tithe wood and underwood or any and what part thereof from the land upon the same laid. Declare etc.

12th Interrogatory – Did or did not John Stokes in the first interrogatory named ever offer to sell to you any wood or underwood which was lying on any lands in the said parish of Hartley, occupied by the said defendant.  If yea, what wood did he so offer to sell to you and when did he make such offer, and where or on what land was the said wood then lying and to whom did he represent such wood to belong or what did he say to you respecting the same.  Declare etc.

13th Interrogatory – Did or did not John Stokes in the first interrogatory named ever apply to you to make up into faggots or bungles or otherwise and how any and what wood or underwood which was lying on any and what lands in the said parish of Hartley in the occupation of the said defendant.  If yea, when did he so apply to you and to whom did such wood or underwood belong.  Declare etc.

14th Interrogatory – Hath there been or hath there not been any wood or underwood cut on the lands occupied by the said defendant in the said parish of Hartley between Michaelmas 1821 and the 2nd day of September 1822, the time of filing the complainant’s bill, besides the wood enquired after by the 9th and 10th interrogatories.  If yea, what quantities or quantity of wood or underwood have or hath been so cut and when?   And in what manner was such wood and every part thereof used, and whether or no were or was any parts or part or quantities or quantity thereof used in repairing of hedges on the farms and lands in the said parish in the occupation of the said defendant and in fencing the corn fields thereof?  If yea, what parts or part, quantities or quantity were or was so used, and did you or not assist in cutting such wood and in repairing such hedges and in making such fences or in any and which of these matters?  Declare etc.

15th Interrogatory – Did you or not on or about the 15th day of July 1822 and in what character? and by whose direction, deliver to the said complainant a letter or paper writing under the hand of the said Thomas Bradley Fooks.  If you look upon the paper writing now produced and shown to you at this, the time of your examination marked or numbered 10?  Is or is not such produced writing a true copy of the said letter or paper writing, and did you or not examine or compare such writing with the said letter or paper writing delivered by you to the said complainant?  Declare etc.

16th Interrogatory – Whether or no did you on any and what occasion and when tender or offer to pay on behalf of the said Defendant to the said complainant, any and what particular sum on any and what particular account, and did the said complainant receive the same or in any manner, and how refuse or decline so to do?  Declare etc.

17th Interrogatory – Do you or not know or are you or not by any and what means acquainted with what was the usual charge or what was a fair price per score per week for the agistment of sheep on turnips in the said parish of Hartley, and the parishes adjoining thereto during the period of time between the 12th of November 1821 and 5th of April 1822?  If yea, was or was not 4 shillings per score per week [crease in ms on photo]……..  adequate price, and was the same more or how much more or less than was usually paid in the said parish of Hartley and the adjoining parishes for agisting sheetp on turnips [crease in MS on photo] ……. was or was not the crop of turnips in the said parish of Hartley and the adjoining parishes abundant in the said year 1821?  Declare etc.

18th Interrogatory – Did or did not the said defendant [crease in ms on photo]……..  

19th Interrogatory - [crease in ms on photo]……..  the said complainant on the 22nd day of July 1822 attend on the premises of the said defendant and where, and were you or not present on such occasion?  If yea, was or was not on such occasion any and what wool weighed in the presence of the said complainant and the said defendant and you, and where was such wool weighed and what was the weight thereof and was or was not the full tithe of such wool, and how much by weight on such occasion duly and fairly set out by or on the behalf of the said defendant for the use of the said complainant as Rector of the said parish?  And did or did not the complainant on such occasion appear to be satisfied with the wool as set out for him, or did he or not object thereto?  Declare etc.

20th Interrogatory – Whether or no did the said complainant ever and when in your presence request the said defendant to put the like wool by the preceding interrogatory enquired after, into any room on the said defendant’s premises for safe custody?  If you did or did not, the said defendant accordingly put the tithe wool into any and what room on his, the said defendant’s premises, and was or not the said tithe wool in consequence of such request put and kept separate and apart from the said defendant’s nine parts of the wool, by the preceding interrogatory enquired after?  Declare etc.

21st Interrogatory – Whether or not did you or any and what person or persons with whom you are in partnership during the year 1822, or at any and what time, purchase of or from the said complainant any and what quantity of wool?  If yea, was or not such wool tithe wool which had been and when set out for and rendered by the said defendant to the said complainant as rector of the said parish of Hartley, and how do you know the same? Declare etc etc.

22nd Interrogatory – Was or not the wool purchased by you or your partners or partner as enquired after by the preceding interrogatory ever delivered to you?  If yea, when and by whom and in what manner was such wool conveyed to you or to you and your partners or partner, and was or not any and what other wool and to whom belonging sent to you or to you and your partners or partner by the same conveyance and by whom?  Declare etc etc.

23rd Interrogatory – Did or did not the said defendant in the period between Michaelmas 1821 and the 2nd day of September 1822 keep on his farms and lands within the said parish of Hartley any and what manner of milch cows?  If yea, was or was not the tithe of the milk of such milch cows duly and fairly set out on the part of the said defendant for the said complainant and where and at what times and in what manner, and did or did not the said complainant or any and what person or persons on his behalf accept such tithe milk and take the same away from off the said defendant’s premises.  Declare etc etc.

24th Interrogatory – Did or did not the said defendant in the period between Michaelmas 1821 and the 2nd day of September 1822  keep on the farms or lands in his occupation in the said parish of Hartley, or on such ???? any and what number of sows which have produced him any and what number of pigs.  If yea, did or did not the said defendant duly and fairly set out the tithe of such pigs for the said complainant, and at what times and in what manner, and did or did not the said complainant or any and what person or persons on his behalf accept and take away any such tithe pigs?  Declare etc etc.

25th Interrogatory – Did or did not the said defendant in the period between Michaelmas 1821 and the 2nd day of September 1822 at different times draw or pull on the lands in his occupation or in the said parish of Hartley, or on any and what parts or part thereof, any quantity or quantities of turnips to be eaten by the said defendant and his family?  If yea, what quantity or quantities or what number or numbers  as nearly as you can remember did he so draw or pull and how much or how many at any one time, and was or was not the tithe of such turnips duly and fully set out and when and by whom, and in what manner by or on the part of the said defendant for the said complainant, and did or not the said complainant or any and what person or persons on his behalf accept and take from off the said defendant’s said land such tithe turnips?  Declare etc etc.

26th Interrogatory – Are you acquainted with the character or manner of handwriting of the said complainant?  And have you or not ever seen him write? If you look upon the paper writings now produced and shown to you at this time of your examination marked respectively with the number or figures (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9).  Are or not the name Thomas Bradley appearing to be signed or subscribed to the said paper writings or any or either and which of them or any, and what parts or part of the said paper writings or any or either and which of them, and the superscriptions or superscription of the said paper writings or of any or either and which of them of the paper hand writing of the said complainant?  Declare etc.

John Wyatt

Robert French, Thomas William Reader, William Allen, Robert Hayes, Jeremiah Peat and David Merryman were severally sworn at my house Bedford Square the 10th day of June 1824.  John Graham?

Robert French of the parish of Northfleet in the county of Kent, farmer, aged 48 years and upwards (now staying at the house of ___ Harris, commonly called the Nag’s Head Inn in the borough of Southwark in the county of Surrey.  Witness is sworn and examined on the 3rd day of June in the year of our Lord 1824 on the part of the defendant, deposeth as follows:

To the 1st interrogatory this deponent said that he knows the parties complainant and defendant in the title of the interrogatories named, and has known them respectively for 30 years and upwards.  And that he also knows Thomas Broadley Fooks in the pleadings of this case named and has known him for 30 years and upwards, and that he also knew John Stokes deceased in the pleadings of this cause named, in his lifetime and that he knew him for about 12 months previous to his death and that the said John Stokes died about 2 years ago, as this deponent has heard and believed.

To the 2nd interrogatory this deponent saith that he knows and is well acquainted with the parish of Hartley in the county of Kent in the pleadings of this cause mentioned and with the farms and lands in the said parish of Hartley now in the tenure of occupation of the said defendant, and that he has known the same about as long as he can remember.  And this deponent said that he became acquainted with the said parish and with the said defendant’s farms and lands therein from the circumstance of his having been born in the parish of Southfleet in the said county of Kent, and having been brought up in the business of a farmer and having for 15 years and upwards last past occupied a considerable farm in the parish of Northfleet, which adjoins the said parish of Hartley, or is merely separated from it by one field.

To the 3rd interrogatory this deponent saith that during the period of time that this deponent hath been acquainted with the said parish of Hartley the tithe of wood and underwood hath never been set or rendered in kind to the rector of the said parish by the occupiers of land within the same, previously to Michaelmas 1821, but that the value of the said tithe of wood and underwood hath been usually settled and paid for by agreement or valuation between the rector and occupier at every fall, according to the quantity and quality of wood cut and felled.

To the 4th interrogatory, this deponent saith that the said defendant paid to the said complainant and the said complainant received from the said defendant the sum of £176 and 11 shillings at a composition and satisfaction for, or in lieu of all tithes arising from the farms and lands occupied by the said defendant within the said parish of Hartley, for the year ending at Michaelmas 1818, except the tithe of underwood and for the tithe of underwood for the same year, the sum of £3 and 1 shilling.  And that the said defendant paid to the said complainant, and the said complainant received from the said defendant the sum of £176 and 7 shillings as a composition or satisfaction for or in lieu of all tithes arising from the farms and lands occupied by the said defendant withing the said parish of Hartley for the year ending Michaelmas 1819, except the tithe of underwood, and for and lieu of the said tithe of underwood for the same year, the sum of £4.  And that the said defendant paid to the said complainant, and the said complainant received from the said defendant the sum of £153 18 shillings and 6 pence, as a composition and satisfaction for, or in lieu of all tithes arising from the farms and lands occupied by the said defendant within the said parish of Hartley for the year ending at Michaelmas 1820, except the tithe of clover, sainfoin and other hay, which the said complainant took in kind, and also except the tithe of underwood.  And for the tithe of underwood for the same year, the sum of 1 pound 13 shillings and 6 pence.  And that the said defendant paid to the said complainant, and the said complainant received from the said defendant the sum of £213 18s 6d, as a composition and satisfaction for and in lieu of all the tithes arising from the farms and lands occupied by the said defendant within the said parish of Hartley for the year ending Michaelmas 1821, except the tithe of underwood.  And for or in lieu of the tithe of underwood for the same year, the sum of £9.  And that he this deponent was present with the said complainant and defendant when they settled for the said several payments.  And this deponent saith that he has heard and understood and verily believes that the said composition for the said years ending  respectively at Michaelmas 1818 and Michaelmas 1819, except for the tithe of wood, was paid to and received by the said complainant under some agreement between him and the said defendant for the payment of 8 shillings an acre on all the lands in the occupation of the said defendant in the said parish of Hartley, in lieu of all tithes arising therein, except underwood, and that such agreement expired at Michaelmas 1819, but that the said compositon for the said years ending respectively at Michaelmas 1820 and Michaelmas 1821 was paid upon an agreement between the said complainant and defendant for those particular years only, and expired with those years, and that the said composition for the said tithe of underwood in such and all of the said years was paid to and received by the said complainant upon an agreement or valuation made between him and the said defendant for each year.

To the 8th interrogatory, this deponent saith that he did on the 12th day of February 1822 attend on the lands in occupation of the said defendant in the said parish of Hartley, called Loft’s Wood, Grossy Croft Shaw and Grossy Croft on behalf of the said defendant for the purpose of setting out for the said complainant as rector of the said parish, the tithe of the wood and underwood which had been cut in the said wood called Loft’s Wood, in the said shaw called Grossey Croft Shaw, and in the said hedgerows round the field called Grossy Croft respectively in the occupation of the said defendant.  And that John Stokes since deceased, who is mentioned in this deponent’s answer to the first interrogatory, attended on the same occasion on behalf of the said complainant.  And that Richard Day and Mark Odder, two of the said defendant’s men also attended to assist in setting out the said tithe.  And this deponent saith that the tithe of such wood and underwood was accordingly on the said occasion set out for the said complainant as hereinafter mentioned.  And this deponent further saith that he, this deponent, together with the said John Stokes, Richard Day and Mark Odder set out every tenth young beech or cherry tree and every tenth lump or heap of the said underwoods so cut as aforesaid for the said complainant as the tithes of the said wood and underwood so cut.  And that the said tithe was fairly set out and separated from the other nine tenths of the said wood and underwood, and that no objection whatever was made on the part of the said complainant either as to the manner of setting out the said tithes or as to the quantity thereof, or in nay other respect whatsoever.  And this deponent further saith that the said tithe wood was marked to distinguish the same from the said defendant’s nine tenths, by a stake or stick being struck into every tithe lump.  And that the same was so marked by the said Richard Day and Mark Odder by the direction of the said John Stokes.

To the 10th interrogatory, this deponent saith that he did on the 28th day of March 1822 attend on behalf of the said defendant at a wood called Foxbury Wood in the pleading of this cause mentioned, for the purpose of setting out or setting, set out for the said complainant as rector of the said parish of Hartley, the tithe of the underwood which had been cut in the said wood called Foxbury Wood by the said defendant.  And that Robert Hayes, the complainant’s tithe gatherer and bailiff attended on that occasion on behalf, as this deponent understood and believes, of the said complainant and that the said Richard Day and Mark Odder who attended to assist in setting out the said tithe and that the tithe of the said underwood was accordingly on such occasion set out for the said complainant, and this deponent further saith that every tenth lump or heap of the said underwood so cut as last aforesaid, was set out for the said complainant as the tithe thereof by this deponent, and the said Robert Hayes, Richard Day and Mark Odder or some of them, in the presence of the said Robert Hayes.  And that the said tithe was fairly set out and separated from the other nine tenths of the said underwood, and that no objection whatever was made [photo difficult to read for 2 lines due to fainter original text] thereof or in any respect relating thereto.  And this deponent further saith that the said tithe wood was marked to distinguish the same from the said defendant’s nine tenths by a stake or stick being stuck into every tithe lump by the said Richard Day and Mark Odder.  And that the said Robert Hayes then made a memorandum or minute in his pocket book of the quantity of tithe so set out to the bet of this deponent’s recollection and belief.

To the 17th interrogatory, this deponent saith that he knows and is (by reason of his occupying such farms in the parish of Northfleet as hereinbefore mentioned and his general knowledge of the farming business) well acquainted with what was the usual charge and a fair price per score per week for the agistment of sheep on turnips in the said parish of Hartley and the parishes adjoining, and was thereto during the period between the 12th day of November 1821 and the 5th day of April 1822.  And this deponent saith that 4 shillings per score per week for agisting of sheep in the said parish of Hartley on turnips was a full and adequate price and was at least 6 pence per score more than was usually paid in the said parish of Hartley, and the adjoining or neighbouring parishes for agisting sheep on turnips during the said parish.  And this deponent further saith that the crops of turnips in the said parish of Hartley the adjoining parishes was very abundant in the said year 1821 in so much that many crops were let for little more than the feeding only.

To the 19th interrogatory this deponent saith that on the 22nd day of July 1822 the said complainant attended on a room on the premises of the said defendant at Hartley aforesaid where the said defendant’s wool was deposited and kept and that this deponent was present on that occasion and attended on behalf of the said defendant for the purpose of seeing the said defendant’s wool weighed and tithed.  And this deponent saith that the said defendant’s wool was then weighed in the said room in the presence of the said complainant of the said defendant, and of this deponent and others and that the whole weight   thereof consisted of 6 cwt, 2 quarters and 23 pounds and that 75lb as and for the full tithe of the said wool was duly and fairly set out for the use and in the presence of the said complainant, as rector of the said parish and that the said complainant appeared to be perfectly satisfied therewith and made no objection thereto.

Mark Odder of the parish of Hartley in the county of Kent, headman to the defendant in this cause, aged 39 years and upwards, now staying at the house of ___ Harris, commonly called Nag’s Head Inn, situate in the borough of Souhwark in the county of Surrey, a witness produced and sworn and examined on the 11th day of June in the year of Our Lord 1824 on the part and behalf of the said defendant, deposeth as follows:

To the 3rd interrogatory, this deponent saith that during the period of time this deponent hath been acquainted with the said parish of Hartley, the tithe of wood and underwood hath never been set out of underset in kind to the rector of the said parish by the occupiers of land within the same, the same previously to Michaelmas 1821 but that the value of the said tithe of wood and underwood has been usually settled and paid for by agreement or valuation between the rector and occupier at every fall according to the quantity and quality of the wood cut and felled.

To the 8th interrogatory, this deponent saith that he did in the month of February 1822, but the particular day of the month this deponent cannot now recollect, attend on the lands in the occupation of the said defendant in the parish of Hartley aforesaid called Loft’s Wood, Grossy Croft Shaw and Grossy Croft on behalf of the said defendant for the purpose of assisting in setting out the said complainant, as rector of the said parish, the tithes of the underwood which had been cut in the said wood called Loft’s Wood, Gossy Croft Shaw and in the hedgerow round the field called Grossy Croft respectively in the occupation of the said defendant.  And that the said John Stokes attended on that occasion on behalf of the said complainant and that Robert French of the parish of Southfleet in the county of Kent, farmer, and Richard Day, one of the said defendant’s men also attended to assist in setting out the said tithe.  And this deponent further saith that the tithe of the said underwood was accordingly set out on such occasion for the said complainant by this deponent, together with the said John Stokes, Robert French and Richard Day [missing word in photo where paperweight was] also set out every tenth young beech, ash and cherry tree and every tenth lump or heap of the [said] underwoods cut as aforesaid for the said complainant as the tithe of the said wood [2 missing words in photo where paperweight was] and that the said tithe was fairly set out and separated from the other nine tenths of the said wood and underwood.  And that no objection whatever was made on the part of the said complainant, either as to the manner of setting out the said tithes, or the quantity thereof or in any other respect whatsoever.  And this deponent further saith that the said tithe wood was marked to distinguish the same from the said defendant’s nine tenths by a stake or stick being stuck into every tithe lump.  And that the same wsa so marked by this deponent and the said Richard Day, by the direction of the said John Stokes.

To the 10th interrogatory, this deponent saith that he did in or about the month of March 1822, but the exact day this deponent does not now recollect, attend on the behalf of the said defendant at a wood called Foxbury Wood in the pleadings in this cause mentioned, for the purpose of setting out for the said complainant as rector of the said parish of Hartley the tithe of the underwood which had been cut in the said wood called Foxbury Wood by the said defendant.  And that Robert Hayes, the said complainant’s tithe gatherer and bailiff attended on that occasion on behalf, as this deponent understood and believes, of the said complainant and that the said Richard Day and Robert French also attended to assist in setting out the said tithe.  And that every tithe lump or heap of the said underwood so cut as last aforesaid, was set out for the said complainant as and for the tithe thereof by this deponent and the said Robert Hayes, Robert French and Richard Day, or some of them, in the presence of the said Robert Hayes.  And that the said tithe was fairly set out and separated from the other nine tenths of the said underwood and that no objection whatever was then made on the part or on the behalf of the said complainant, either as to the manner of setting out the said tithe, or in the quantity thereof, or in any respect relating thereto.  And that the said tithe wood was marked to distinguish the same from the said defendant’s nine tenths by a stake or stick being stuck into every tithe lump by this deponent and the said Richard Day.  And that the said Robert Hayes then took an account in some papers or book of the number of lumps and quantity of tithe so set out.

To the 14th interrogatory, this deponent saith that there hath not been any wood cut on the lands occupied by the said defendant in the said parish of Hartley, between Michaelmas 1821 and the 2nd day of September 1822, besides the wood required by the 8th [no photo of text on back of page (other pages only written on one side)] the repairs of the ploughs and by the said defendant on his said farms and lands in the said parish of Hartley, and for fuel or firing in the defendant’s house of husbandry or his said farm in the said parish, but the particular quantity of the wood so cut and used for the purposes last mentioned, this deponent cannot set for the, but this deponent saith that the quantity of wood take to be wood for firing in the said house of the said defendant, consisted of about 300 faggots and half a cart of wood, being what was left after the said hedges and fences were made, save and except that in the said hedgerow of the said field called Crab’s Bottom there were 110 bundles of bushes left after repairing the said hedges, every tenth bundle of which, making 11 bundles in the whole, this deponent on behalf of his said master, the said defendant, who was then from home for some days duly set out as and for the tithe thereof for the said complainant and appraised the said Robert Hayes thereof.

To the 19th interrogatory, this deponent saith that in or about the month of June or July 1822, but the exact day this deponent cannot state, the said complainant attended on a room on the premises of the said defendant at Hartley aforesaid, where the said defendant’s wool was deposited and kept and that this deponent was present on that occasion on behalf of the said defendant, for the purpose of assisting in weighing and tithing the said defendant’s wool.  And this deponent saith that the said defendant’s wool was then weighed in the said room in the presence of the said complainant and fo the said defendant, and of this deponent and others, and that a tenth part of the said wool as and for the full tithe thereof was duly and fairly set out for the use and in the presence of the said complainant as rector of the said parish, and that said complainant appeared to be perfectly satisfied therewith and made no objection thereto.

To the 20th interrogatory, this deponent saith that some little time after the wool inquired after by the 19th interrogatory was weighed, the said complainant requested the said defendant to put the said tithe wool into another room on the said defendant’s premises, separate from the said defendant’s nine parts of the said wool, for safe custody, and saith that the said defendant did in pursuance of such request cause the said tithe wool to be put into another room on the said defendant’s premises, and kept separate and apart from the said defendant’s nine parts of the said wool.

Richard Day of the parish of Hartley in the county of Kent, labourer, aged 58 years and upwards, now staying at the house of ___ Harris, commonly called the Nag’s Head Inn, situate in the borough of Southwark in the county of Surrey.  A witness produced, sworn and examined on the 11th day of June in the year of Our Lord 1824 on the part of the defendant, deposeth as follows:

To the 1st interrogatory, this deponent saith that he knows the parties, complainant and defendant in the title of the interrogatories named, and has known them respectively for 30 years and upwards, and that he also knows Thomas Broadley Fooks, in the pleadings of this cause named, and has known him for 4 years or thereabouts, and that he also knows John Stokes deceased in the pleadings of this cause also named, and that he knew him for 2 or 3 years previously to his death, which happened nearly 2 years ago, to the best of this deponent’s knowledge and belief.

To the 2nd interrogatory, this deponent saith that he knows and is well acquainted with the parish of Hartley in the pleadings of this cause mentioned, and with the farms and lands in the said parish of Hartley, now in the tenure or occupation of the said defendant and has known the same for all this deponent’s life.  He this deponent having been born in the said parish of Hartley, and resided there or in the neighbouring parishes ever since, and worked for the said defendant on his said farm upwards of 27 years.

To the 3rd interrogatory, this deponent saith that during the time this deponent has been acquainted with the said parish of Hartley, the tithe of wood and underwood hath never been set out or rendered in kind to the rector of the said parish by the occupiers of land within the same, previous to Michaelmas 1821, but that the value of the said tithe of wood and underwood has been usually settled and paid for by agreement and valuation between the rector and occupier at every fall, according to the quantity and quality of wood cut and felled, to the best of this deponent’s knowledge and belief.

To the 8th interrogatory, this deponent saith that he did in about the month of February 1822 (but the exact day he cannot now recollect) attend on the lands in the occupation of the said defendant in the parish of Hartley aforesaid called Loft’s Wood, Grossy Croft Shaw and Grossy Croft, as the servant and on behalf of the said defendant, for the purpose of assisting in setting out for the said complainant as rector of the said parish, the tithe of the underwoods which had been cut in the said wood called Loft’s Wood, in the said shaw called Grossy Croft Shaw, and in the hedgerows round the said field called Grossy Croft, respectively in the occupation of the said defendant.  And that John Stokes who is mentioned in this deponent’s answer to the first interrogatory, attended upon that occasion on behalf of the said complainant, and that Robert French of Southfleet in the said county of Kent, farmer, and Mark Odder, another of the said defendant’s servants, also attended to assist in setting out the said tithe.  And this deponent further saith that the tithe of such wood and underwood was accordingly set out for the said complainant as hereinafter mentioned, and saith that he this deponent, together with the said John Stokes, Robert French and Mark Odder set out every tenth young beech, ash and cherry tree and every tenth lump or heap of the said underwood so cut as aforesaid, so cut as aforesaid for the said complainant as the tithes of the said wood and underwood so cut.  And that the said tithe was fairly set out and separated from the other nine tenths of the said wood and underwood and that no objection whatever wasw made on the part or on the behalf of the said complainant either as to the manner of setting out the said tithe, or the quantity thereof or on any other respect whatsoever.  And this deponent further saith that the said tithe wood was marked to distinguish the same from the said defendant’s nine tenths by a stake or stick being stuck into every tithe lump and that the same was so marked by this deponent and the said Mark Odder by the direction of the said John Stokes.

To the 10th interrogatory, this deponent saith that he did in or about the month of March or April 1822, but he exact day this deponent does not now recollect, attend as the servant and on behalf of the said defendant at a wood called Foxbury Wooid in the pleadings in this cause mentioned, for the purpose of setting out for the said complainant as rector of the said parish of Hartley, the tithe of the underwood which had been cut in the said wood called Foxbury Wood by the said defendant, and that Robert Hayes the said complainant’s tithe gatherer and bailiff attended on this occasion on behalf, as this deponent understood and believes, of the said complainant.  And that the said Robert French and Mark Odder also attended to assist in setting out the said tithe.  And that the tithe of such underwood was accordingly on such occasion set out for the said complainant and every tenth lump or heap of the said underwood so cut as last aforesaid was set out for the said complainant as and for the tithe thereof by this deponent and the said Robert Hayes, Robert French and Mark Odder, or some of them, in the presence of the said Robert Hayes, and that the tithe was fairly set out and separated from the other nine tenths of the said underwood, and that no objection whatever was made on the part or on the behalf of the said complainant, either as to the manner of setting out the said tithe or the quantity thereof, or in any respect relating thereto.  And that the said tithe wood was marked to distinguish the same from the said defendant’s nine tenths by a stake or stick being stuck into every tithe lump, and that the same was so marked by this deponent and the said Mark Odder, and that the said Robert Hayes then took an account in his pocket book or on paper of the number of lumps.

To the 14th interrogatory, this deponent saith that there hat not been any wood or underwood cut on the lands occupied by the said defendant in the said parish of Hartley, between Michaelmas 1821 and the 2nd day of September 1822, besides the wood inquired after by the 8th and 10th interrogatories and mentioned by this deponent in his answer to these interrogatories respectively, save and except certain quantity of wood growing in the hedgerows of those fields called Upper Horselands, Bridelands and Crabbe’s Bottom, belonging to the said farms and lands of the said defendant in the said parish of Hartley, which were cut and used for and in the necessary repairing of the hedges on the said farms and lands in the said parish of Hartley in the occupation of the said defendant, and in fencing the corn fields thereof and for the repairing of the ploughs used by the said defendant  on his said farms and lands in the said parish of Hartley, and for fuel or firing in the said defendant’s house of husbandry on his said farm in the said parish, but particular quantities of the wood so cut and used for the purposes last aforesaid, this deponent cannot set forth, but this deponent saith that the quantity of the said wood taken to the be used for firing in the said house of the said defendant consisted of about 300 faggots and half a cord of wood being what was left after the said hedges and fences were made, save and except that in the same hedgerow of the said field called Crrab’s Bottom there were 110 bundles of bushes left after repairing the said hedges, but what became of the same this deponent cannot state.  And this deponent further saith that he assisted in cutting such last mentioned wood, and in repairing the said hedges and making the said fences and that the whole of such last mentioned wood was actually and fairly used for the purposes aforesaid.

Robert Hayes of the parish of Hartley in the county of Kent, shoemaker, aged 34 years or thereabout, witness produced, now staying at the house of ___ Harris commonly called the Nag’s Head Inn, situate in the borough of Southwark in the county of Surrey, a witness produced, sworn and examined on the tenth day of June in the year of our Lord 1824 on the part of the defendant, deposeth as follows:

To the first interrogatory, this deponent saith that he knows the parties, complainant and defendant in the title of the interrogatories named, and has known them respectively as long as he can recollect.  And that he has seen Thomas Broadley Fooks in the pleadings of this cause named, but has no particular knowledge of him.  And this deponent saith that he knew John Stokes deceased, in the pleadings of this cause named, for 2 years and upwards before he died and that the said John Stokes diek about 2 years ago.

To the 2nd interrogatory, this deponent saith that he knows and is well acquainted with the parish of Hartley in the county of Kent, in the pleadings of this cause mentioned, and with the farms and lands in the said parish, now in the tenure or occupation of the said defendant, and that he hath known them for 15 years and upward, this deponent having resided in the said parish upwards of 30 years.

To the 5th interrogatory, this deponent saith that before and ever since Michaelmas 1821 this deponent hath been and now is the bailiff or tithe gatherer of the said complainant, and hath during that time acted in the collection and receipt of the tithes of the said complainant in the said parish of Hartley and secured all notices for setting out tithes for the said complainant.  And that during such time this deponent hath resided in the parsonage house belonging to the said complainant at Hartley aforesaid.  And that the said complainant hath during such time resided at Greenhithe in the parish of Swanscombe in the said county of Kent about 6 miles distant from Hartley aforesaid.

To the 6th interrogatory, this deponent saith that some time in or about the month of February 1822 and a few days before the tithe of underwood belonging to the said defendant in Grossey Croft Shaw  and Lofts Wood in the said parish of Hartley was set out, Mark Odder the head man to the said defendant gave to this deponent, as bailiff for the said complainant and at the parsonage house of the said parish of Hartley, a notice in writing purporting to be signed by the said defendant, and to be a notice to the said complainant that the said defendant should set out the tithe of wood cut by him in the said parish on a day and hour therein named, being a few days after the date of such notice, but on what particular day or at what particular hour, this deponent cannot now recollect.  And this deponent saith that soon afterwards, and before the day specified in the said notice for setting out the said tithe, he this deponent delivered such notice to the said complainant.

To the 7th interrogatory, this deponent saith that this deponent believes and has reason for believing so is, that the said John Stokes inquired after by the 1st interrogatory, told this deponent that he, the said John Stokes was incited by the said complainant to attend on his, the said complainant’s, behalf at the time and place mentioned in the notice lastly deposed to by this deponent for the purpose of seeing the tithe of wood and underwood of the said defendant mentioned in the said notice set out.

To the 9th interrogatory, this deponent saith that some time in the month of March 1822 and a few days before the tithe of the underwood belonging to the said defendant, then cut in Foxbury Wood in the said parish of Hartley was set out, but the exact date this deponent cannot recollect, the said Mark Odder gave to this deponent as bailiff for the said complainant at the Parsonage House of the said parish of Hartley, a noticed in writing, purporting to be signed by the said defendant, and to be a notice that he the said defendant would set out the tithe of wood or underwood then felling in Foxbury Wood aforesaid, on a day and at an hour therein named, being two or three days after the date of such notice, but on what particular day or at what particular house, this deponent cannot recollect.  And that soon afterwards and before the day specified in the said notice for setting out the said tithe, he this deponent delivered over such notice to the said complainant.

To the 18th interrogatory, this deponent saith that some time in or about the month of June or July 1822, but the exact day this deponent cannot recollect, the said Mark Odder gave to this deponent on behalf of the said complainant at the said Parsonage House, a notice in writing purporting to be signed by the said defendant, and to be a notice from him, the said defendant, to the said complainant, that he the said defendant should set out the tithe of wool on a day and hour therein named, but the exact day and hour this deponent doth not now recollect.  And saith that he, this deponent, before the day named in the said notice for setting out the said tithe delivered the said notice to the said complainant.

To the 23rd interrogatory, this deponent saith that in the period between Michaelmas 1821 and the 2nd day of September 1822, the said defendant kept on his said farms and lands within the said parish of Hartley, sometimes three and sometime four milch cows.  And this deponent saith that the said defendant did during the said period duly, as this deponent believes, set out for the said complainant in pails in the cow lodge belonging to the said defendant’s farms where the said cows were milked, every 10th day’s milk of the said cows, as and for the tithe thereof.  And that this deponent or some one by his direction, always attended the milking of the said cows on every 10th day from time to time, as the said tithe of milk was set out, and accepted the same on behalf of the said complainant, and took the same away from off the said defendant’s premises and afterward sold and disposed of the same and paid ever or otherwise accounted for the money produced by such sales to the said complainant.

David Merryman of the parish of Hadlow in the county of Kent, wheelwright, aged 22 years and upwards, now staying at the house of ___ Harris, commonly called The Nag’s Head Inn situate in the borough of Southwark in the county of Surrey, a witness produced, sworn and examined on the 10th day of June in the year of Our Lord 1824, in the part and behalf of the defendant, deposeth as follows:

To the 1st interrogatory, this deponent saith that he knows the parties, complainant and defendant in the title of the interrogatories named, and that he had known the said complainant between 2 and 3 years, and the said defendant for 8 years and upwards.  And that he has seen but has no particular knowledge of Thomas Broadley Fooks in the pleadings in this cause mentioned.  And this deponent saith that he knew John Stokes deceased, in the pleadings in this cause also mentioned, and that he knew him as long he could remember, the said John Stokes being this deponent’s half brother, and that the said John Stokes died on the 3rd day of June 1822.

To the 2nd interrogatory, this deponent saith that he is well acquainted with the parish of Hartley in the county of Kent, in the pleadings of this cause mentioned, and has known the same for 7 years and upwards, having been in the habit frequently of going there to assist the said John Stokes in his business, and that he knows the house and farms in the tenure or occupation of the said defendant in the said parish, but does not know of what particular land the said defendant’s farms consist.

Jeremiah Peat of the parish of Stanstead in the county of Kent, publican and dealer in wood, aged 53 years and upwards, a witness produced, now staying at the house of ___ Harris commonly called The Nag’s Head Inn, situate in the borough of Southwark in the county of Surrey, a witness produced, sworn and examined, on the 10th day of June in the year of Our Lord 1824, on the part and behalf of the defendant, deposeth as follows:

To the 1st interrogatory, this deponent saith that he does not know the complainant, in the title of the interrogatories named, but that he knows the defendant and has known him for 10 years and upwards, and this deponent saith that he that seen, but is not acquainted with, Thomas Broadley Fooks, in the pleadings in the cause named.  And saith that he knew John Stokes deceased, in the pleadings in this cause named, and that he knew him for 5 years and upwards previously to his death which happened about 2 years ago.

To the 2nd interrogatory, this deponent saith that he knows the parish of Hartley in the pleadings in this cause mentioned.  And has known it for 20 years last past, having resided within 4 miles of the said parish for 26 years last past, but this deponent is not acquainted with the particular lands, of which the farms in the said parish in the tenure or occupation of the said defendant, consist.

William Durling of the parish of Ash in the county of Kent, wood cutter, aged 51 years and upwards now staying at the house of _____ Harris, commonly called the Nag’s Head Inn situated in the Borough of Southward in the county of Surrey.  On the 11th day of June in the year of our Lord 1824, a witness produced, sworn and examined on the part and behalf of the defendant as follows:

To the 2nd interrogatory  this deponent saith that he knows and is well acquainted with the parish of Hartley in the county of Kent, in the pleadings of this cause mentioned, and has known the same for 40 years and upwards, having been brought up in the adjoining parish of Ash and resided there or in the neighbourhood for the greater part of the time; and that he knows and is well acquainted with the farms and lands in the said parish of Hartley in the tenure or occupation of the said defendant, and that he this deponent  worked for the said defendant at several times on his said lands and farms.

Richard Rich of the parish of Ash in the county of Kent, wood cutter, aged 38 years and upwards, now staying at the house of _____ Harris, commonly called the Nag’s Head Inn situate in the Borough of Southwark in the county of Surrey.   On the 11th day of June in the year of our Lord 1824, a witness produced, sworn and examined on the part and behalf of the defendant as follows:

To the 1st interrogatory that he knows the parties, complainant and defendant in the title of the interrogatories names, and had known the complainant for 10 years and upwards, and the defendant for 14 years and upwards, and that he has seen but is not acquainted with Thomas Broadley Fooks in the pleadings of this cause mentioned, and this deponent saith that he knew John Stokes deceased in the pleadings of this cause also mentioned for 6 years and upwards in his lifetime, and that the said John Stokes died about 2 years ago.

To the 2nd interrogatory, this deponents saith that he knows and is well acquainted with the parish of Hartley in the county of Kent, in the pleadings of this case mentioned, and has know the same as long as this deponent can remember, having been born in the parish of Kingsdown 4 miles distant from Hartley and resided in the neighbourhood of Hartley all his lifetime, and that he knows and is well acquainted with the farms and lands in the said parish of Hartley in the tenure or occupation of the said defendant and has known the same for 16 years or thereabouts.

William Allen the younger of the parish of Southfleet in the county of Kent, sheep jobber, aged 38 years and upwards now staying at the house of _____ Harris, commonly called the Nag’s Head Inn situate in the Borough of Southwark in the county of Surrey.   On the 11th day of June in the year of our Lord 1824, a witness produced, sworn and examined on the part and behalf of the defendant deposeth as follows:

To the 1st interrogatory this deponent saith that he knows the parties, complainant and defendant in the title of the interrogatories named, and has known them respectively for 25 years and upwards, and that he also knows Thomas Broadley Fooks in the pleadings of this cause named, and has known for 20 years and upwards, but that he did not know John Stokes in the pleadings of this cause named.

To the 2nd interrogatory this deponent saith that he knows and is well acquainted with the parish of Hartley in the pleadings of this cause mentioned, and that he has a general knowledge of the farms and lands in the said parish now in the tenure or occupation of the said defendant and that he had known them for 20 years and upwards, he this deponent having been brought up in the said parish of Southfleet which adjoins or is very near to the said parish of Hartley and resided all this life in Southfleet aforesaid.

Thomas William Reader of Dartford in the county of Kent, wool stapler, aged 29 years and upwards now staying at the house of _____ Harris, commonly called the Nag’s Head Inn situate in the Borough of Southwark in the county of Surrey.   On the 10th day of June in the year of our Lord 1824, a witness produced, sworn and examined on the part and behalf of the defendant deponeth as follows:

To the 1st interrogatory this deponent saith that he knows the parties, complainant and defendant in the title of the interrogatories named, and has known them respectively for 3 years and upwards, and that he also knows Thomas Broadley Fooks, in the pleadings of this cause also named and has known him for 5 years and upwards, but that he did not know John Stokes in the pleadings of the cause named.

To the 21st interrogatory this deponent saith that in or about the month of July or August 1822, he this deponent went to the house of the said defendant in the parish of Hartley in the county of Kent, by appointment for the purpose of buying on behalf of himself and William Coopur his partner, and weighing a quantity of wool which the said defendant had to sell, and that after this deponent had agreed with the said defendant for the purchase of and had weighed the said wool, the said complainant came and asked this deponent to buy of him, the said complainant, another quantity of wool which lay in another place, separate from the wool of the said defendant and which the said complainant told this deponent consisted of 75 pounds weight, and also told or gave this deponent to understand was the tithe of the wool which he this deponent had bought of the said defendant; and this deponent saith that he agreed with the said complainant to buy his said tithe wool accordingly at 1 shilling per pound.  And this deponent further saith that he then weighed the said wool and found it to contain 75 pounds weight, as stated by the said complainant which amounted at the price agreed upon as aforesaid to the sum of 3 pounds and 13 [shillings] after making certain trade deductions.

John Verrier of Dartford in the county of Kent, clerk to Thomas Broadley Fooks of Dartford aforesaid, solicitor to the defendant in this cause, aged 34 years and upwards now staying at the house of _____ Harris, commonly called the Nag’s Head Inn situate in the Borough of Southwark in the county of Surrey.   On the 11th day of June in the year of our Lord 1824, a witness produced, sworn and examined on the part and behalf of the defendant deponeth as follows:

To the 1st interrogatory this deponent saith that he knows the parties, complainant and defendant in the title of the interrogatories named, and has known them respectively for 10 years and upwards, and that he also knows Thomas Broadley Fooks in the proceedings in this cause mentioned and has known him for 19 years and upwards, and that he knows John Stokes, deceased, in the pleadings of this cause also mentioned for 3 years in his lifetime but this deponent does not know when the said John Stokes died.

To the 15th interrogatory this deponent said that he did on the 15th day of July 1822 as clerk and by the direction of the said Thomas Broadley Fooks deliver to the said complainant at his residence at Greenhithe in the county of Kent, a letter or paper writing under the hand of the said Thomas Broadley Fooks.  And this deponent saith that he hath looked upon the paper writing now produced and shown to him at this the time of his examination marked or numbered (10), and saith that such produced paper writing is a true copy of the said letter or paper writing, as delivered by this deponent to the said complainant, and that this deponent did examine and compare the said paper writing  now produced with the said letter or paper writing so delivered by this deponent to the said complainant prior to the delivery thereof.