Bill of Complaint of Joseph Ayloffe

10 June 1702

To the right honourable Sir Nathan Wright, kt, lord keeper of the great seal of England

Humbly complaining sheweth unto your lordship, you orator Joseph Aylohe of Grays Inn in the county of Middx, esq, John Newdigate late of Grays Inn aforesaid and now of Inner Temple, London esq, and Stoughton Bird of the parish of St Andrews, Holborn in the county of Middx aforesaid, gent. That Sir Charles Sedley, late of Southfleet in the county of Kent, baronet, died seised amongst other his manors and lordships of a good estate of inheritance in fee simple of the manor or lordship of Hartly in the said county of Kent and of several demesne rents, chief rents, profits of court and other perquisites and profits to the amount of £100 pa. or thereabouts issuing out and payable by the several respective tenants of the said manor. In which said manor or lordship amongst other the tenants thereof, one George Gifford of Pennis in the parish of Fawkham... esq, having heretofore and about 41 or 42 years past purchased the inheritance of a certain messuage and lands within the said manor of Hartly, commonly called by the name of Stockhill and held of the said Sir Charles Sedley as of his said manor, by the yearly quit rent of 5s 10d and heriot of custom and relief. And being also seised of an estate of inheritance of and in 10 acres, parcel of amuth? great wood, theretofore purchased of one Bennett Walter and holden of the said Sir Charles Sedley as of his said manor of Hartly by the yearly quitrent of 3s 4d and by heriot custom and relief. And the said Sir Charles Sedley living a considerable distance from the said manor, and committing the care thereof and the receipt of the rents and profits to one George Etkins esq, his steward, and the custom and usage of the said manor being for the tenants thereof to pay their quitrents and other rents once a year, and that at the court holden for the said manor at Michaelmas, which the said steward for several years last past, neglecting to keep, the said Gifford has not paid any of the quitrents due for the said messuage and lands called Stockhill for the space of 40 years past, or any of the said quitrents for the said 10 acres of woodlands for the space of 40 years last....

Sir Charles had previously mortgaged the manor of Hartley for £1,000; in order to pay his debts he conveyed manor of Hartley, amongst others, to Ayloffe and Bird by deed of lease and release dated 13 and 14 September 1699, upon various trusts. Sir Charles died about August 1701, Stoughton Bird as executor proved will in Feb 1701. Orators then became entitled to manor and profits. They are therefore entitled to the quitrents....

But although your orators have several times and in the most amicable and obliging manner requested the said George Gifford to come to account for the said arrears and to pay the same, and he would pay them the accruing quitrents issuing out of the said premises by him held.... yet so it is... that the said George Gifford, having taken into his confederacy several persons to your orator unknown, whom yet when discovered your orators pray may be made parties to this bill, with intention to defeat and defraud your said orators as well of the said incurred as the said accruing quitrents issuing out of the said premises and in consequence as much as in him lies to subvert, invalidate and overthrow the several trusts....

If the defendants produce anything it will only be receipts for quitrents. By such pretence they hope to defeat plaintiffs.

.... And the better to effect the same the said Gifford and his confederates by his order have privily or means has or have so intermixed the said premises or great part whereof with, or laid some parts thereof to other lands and so altered or changed the names and ancient fences and boundaries therefor, have privately sold, exchanged or disposed of several parts thereof dispersedly, that your orators cannot tell where properly to distrain for the said quitrents. And notwithstanding all your orators' applications to him, he absolutely refuses to distow? the same.

In consideration that plaintiffs have no deeds and their witnesses who can ascertain the land called Stock Hill and distinguish it from the 10 acres of woodland from the other part of the Great Wood are over 80 and they are in danger of los-ing their witnesses, they ask court to get George Gifford to make answer.

Reply of George Gifford

Sworn 25 June 1702

The answer of George Gifford to the bill of complaint.......

Defendant says case is technically invalid. Never knew what estate Sir Charles had in Hartley or that quitrent of 5s 10d was ever paid.

.... And this defendant do doth deny that he holdeth or ever did hold 10 acres or any acres of woodland purchased from Bennet Walter..... But true it is that he this defendant about 33 or 34 years ago did purchase the inheritance of the said messuage and lands called Stock Hill of one Miller of Horton Kirby deceased, but whether or no he the said Miller or any other person did ever pay any such quitrent of 5s 10d...

General denial of each claim in the bill of complaint, including the right of the plaintiffs to collect quitrents. He emphatically denies offering to come to a compromise.

.... But true it is he receiving a letter from John Christmas gent., steward or agent to the said Sir Charles Sedley, dated 10 January 1700, wherein he did intimate to him this defendant that he did receive the 13th October 1668 the sum of £1 3s 4d for Sir Charles Sedley of John Edwards for 4 years' quitrent due at Michaelmas then last past for a messuage and lands in Hartly called Great Stock Hill, he this defendant being altogether a stranger what title the said John Edwards had to the said lands and of whom the same were held, he the said defendant did write the acquittance in the said bill mentioned to shun trouble about a point he was altogether ignorant. Which note or acquittance did only concern the pretended or claimed quitrent for Stock Hill and not the quitrents of any other lands.

He says he did write to find out how many years quitrent was claimed of him. He denies ever saying that quitrents were due from any woodland in Hartley or that Sir Charles had discharged all quitrents on his land. He also denies allegations about moving boundaries, saying he never knew any quitrents to be paid from those lands. Begs to be discharged with costs, inflated he said by frivolous claims to make bill of complaint longer.