Being an EXEMPLIFICATION of a cause heard in the Remembrancer Office of the Court of Exchequer in Michaelmas term 40 and 41 Eliz. between
Francis Tunstall esq (plaintiff) and John Conyers esq. (defendant)
When plaintiff exhibited his Bill of Complaint alleging that Sir Robert Scargill deceased was seized of the manor and lordship of Thorpe Stapleton and sundry lands rents &c. in Thorpe Stapleton, Whitechurch or Whitekirke, Leeds, Rothwell, Swillington, Barwick, Elmett, Garfurthe, Thorner, Stapleton, Dacrington, Smeton and Stubbes Walden, co. York, valued at £200 a year And amongst other things they descended to Mary Tunstall (plaintiff's grandmother) and Dame Margaret Gascoigne as daughters and co-heirs of the said Sir Robert. And in making a partition the above lands were allotted to Dame Margaret. And seeing the wasteful disposition of her son, George Gascoigne, in her widowhood she conveyed the said premises (30th April 16 Eliz.) to defendant - reserving liberty to revoke. But she privately concluded with defendant (without knowledge of plaintiff's father) that defendant within a convenient time after her death should assure the premises to plaintiff's father, her nephew, he paying £1020 within a year after her death which should have been applied to discharge her debts and legacies
If the £1020 were not paid defendant was to keep the lands and pay £1000 towards the payment of her debts, funeral expenses &c. and as set out in her will. Notwithstanding the Bargain and Sale Dame Margaret took the profits during her life. After her death defendant (as executor) took possession of all her estate - about £5000. He did not convey the premises to the plaintiff's father and concealed the documents and kept secret the uses, so that the £1020 could not be paid.
On 20 Oct. 36 Eliz. plaintiff had made a request to have the premises conveyed to him.
In his Answer defendant shewed that the revenues of the lands conveyed to him were not above 100 nobles a year and that they were many years then in lease. He further alleged that Dame Margaret was in debted to him and others and that she wished to discharge her debts and bestow sundry legacies and had chosen him (defendant) to perform her will &c. She did it all without his particular knowledge and gave him the deeds in a locked box. Defendant further alleged that Dame Margaret had been to Yorkshire to treat with plaintiff's father and grandmother but they would not agree. She had returned and enrolled the Bargain and Sale conveying the premises to the defendant, but did not enroll the deed with the clause about conveying the premises to the plaintiff.
When Dame Margaret died he had acted as her executor and spent much more than the value of the premises in clearing the title.
To which the plaintiff replied and the defendant rejoined and witnesses were examined. The Court decided there was no cause for the plaintiff to be relieved either in equity or conscience and ORDERED the cause to be dismissed and defendant discharged.
Great Seal attached on parchment tag.