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. 
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 
 

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. 
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. 
 

* 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. 
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.
 

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. 
( Chancery Proceedings, 1714-58, Reynardson, Bundle 2381.) 
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FAZAKERLY v. LANGSTAFFE.
 

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. 
( Durham Palatinate: Bills and Answers, Bundle 127, No. 21. ) 
 

[The same.]
 

Answer, dated 22 December 1725, by William Langstaff.
( Durham Palatinate: Bills and Answers, Bundle 127, No. 25.) 
 

~~~~~~~~~~~

FAZAKERLEY v. ALLAN, LANGSTAFFE AND OTHERS.
 

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.
(Durham Palatinate: Bills and Answers, Bundle 127, No.38.) 
 

[ 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. 
(Durham Palatinate: Bills and Answers, Bundle 1277, No.56.] 
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LANGSTAFF v. GRAINGER.
 

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.
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.
 

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. 
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.
 

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.
[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.
 

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.
Plaintiff prays, etc. 
[No answer.] ( Chancery Bills and Answers, 1714-58, Mitford, 2297.)
 

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. 
[ No answer.] ( Chancery Proceedings, 1714-58, Bundle 182.)
[ See PEDIGREE No. 21.]

align="center"> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GRANT v. LANGSTAFF.
 

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.
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.)

Appendix XII - Proceedings in Chancery.

LANGSTAFFE v. FARSIDE AND OTHERS.

Exchequer Bills and Answers, Yorks, George II., No.443. 
 

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].
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 . 

(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 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. 
 

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,

P.380 - (clxxxi.)

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. 
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. 
 

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. 
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.)

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. 
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. )
 

-----------------------------
 

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.
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.)

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-

P.384 - (clxxxv.)

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].
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. 

( Exchequer Bills and Answers, Yorks, George II. , No. 438.)

[The same. ]
 

1754. Commission dated at Westminster 12 February, 27 George II. Interrogatories on behalf of Alice Langstaffe, Plaintiff. 
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
 

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. 
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,
 

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 . 
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. ]
 

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. 
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 
 

P.387 - (clxxxviii.)