|
Return to
Lewannick
Parish Page
|
|
The answer of Jno Marshall one of the Defendants to the
Bill of Complaint of John Hocken Complainant. |
|
This Defendant now and at all times hereafter saving and
reserving to himself the like benefit and advantage of
exception to the Amended Bill as he hath saved and
reserved in his former answer to the said complaints the
other bill Nevertheless for answer unto so much of the
said Amended Bill as is any wise necessary for him to
make any answer unto Answereth and Saith he admits it to
be true that the surrender in the said bill and in the
defendants former answer mentioned does bear date on or
about the 30th day of October 1770 being the same day on
which the will of William Hocken in the said bill named
bear date as this Defendant believes but this Defendant
saith that the said surrender was not executed or signed
by the said William Hocken on that day or any other day
the same having been executed and signed by Jonathon
Lucker of the Borough of Camelford in the County of
Cornwall Innkeeper by virtue of a Power of Attorney for
that purpose made and executed to him by the said
William Hocken And this Defendant saith he is unable to
setforth from his belief and otherwise when or where and
in what room in particular and in the presence and sight
of what person or persons the said William Hocken signed
and published his said will this Defendant not being
present on that occasion And this Defendant further
saith he did not prepare or procure any person to
prepare the said surrender or give directions for
preparing the same to any person But this Defendant
admits it to be true that he did prepare the said ? of
Attorney of the Attorney at the request and at the
directions of the said William Hocken and which ? of
Attorney was executed and signed by him the said William
Hocken in his the said William Hocken’s Bed Chamber in
his then Dwelling House in Trewasiter in the Parish of
Lewannick in the County of Cornwall in the presence and
sight of this Defendant and in the presence and sight of
some other persons but who in particular this Defendant
cannot at this distance in time set forth from his
recollection or belief And this Defendant saith for the
reasons mentioned in this Defendant said former answer
he denies to the best of his knowledge in information
and belief that the said William Hocken intended that
this Defendant should be a Trustee for his the said
William Hocken’s daughter who is dead, and her issue and
on her death without issue for the said complaint as in
the said Bill or other wise as in the Defendant’s former
answer stated And this Defendant denies that he ever
admitted to William Farnham in the said Bill named that
he was only a Trustee of the premises or to that or any
such effect but on the contrary the said William Hocken
intended the said premises for this Defendant’s own use
and this Defendants humbly insists to the said William
Hocken did express himself to that effect by the
declaration in this Defendant’s former answer stated
which was made by the said William Hocken on the day
after the said surrender was made and by the said
William Hocken refusing to accept a defeazance as
offered by this Defendant as in his said former answer
also stated And this Defendant saith that according to
the best of his recollection and belief at this distance
of time the said William Hocken expressed himself to the
effect mentioned in this Defendant said former answer
concerning with the said Complaint and on his Brother on
the day after the said surrender was made at his
aforesaid Dwelling House in the presence and hearing of
his daughter Elizabeth and this Defendant but whether or
not in the presence of any other person or persons this
Defendant cannot at this distance of time set forth as
to his recollection or belief. And this Defendant
further saith he admits that the said William Hocken did
by his said will give lands of considerable value (but
of what value in particular) this Defendant is unable to
set forth from his belief or otherwise to the said
complaint of this brother and did thereby appoint the
said complaint his residuary legatee in his said will
and that said complaint and his said brother and the
said William Hocken’s daughter Elizabeth were his only
children and the said Defendant humbly insist that the
said William Hocken did mean and intend to express
himself concerning the said Complaint and his brother to
the purport and effect in this Defendants former answer
mentioned and this defendant believes that in the reason
for this Defendants former answer and herein mentioned
the said William Hocken would not have made and
appointed the said Complaint his residuary legatee of
the said will had not been previously made and executed
by him and he afterwards rendered incapable by mental
derangement from altering the same or making another
will And this Defendant further saith he admits that he
is a Surgeon and Apothecary and he did as such attend
the said William Hocken in his illness and the said
William Hocken was in his bed very ill at the time he
made and executed the said ? of Attorney for making the
said surrender and that the same was granted to him for
execution by this defendant the day the same beare date
and previous to the execution thereof of this Defendant
read the same over to the said William Hocken who fully
understood the purpose and contents thereof and this
Defendant denies to the best of his knowledge
information and belief that the said William Hocken
executed or signed or ever meant or intended that the
surrender to be made in pursuance or by virtue thereof
should be made as a matter of course calculated to give
effect to his will but on the contrary this Defendant is
fully convinced that the said William Hocken executed
and signed the said ? of Attorney and meant and intended
that the said surrender should be made to the sole use
and benefit of this Defendant and his heirs and this
Defendant is advised and humbly insists that he this
Defendant is not under the circumstances in the said
Bill stated a Trustee only for the said complaint but is
legally and beneficially entitled to the premises
surrendered as aforesaid to him as his heirs according
to the custom of the Manor of which they are holder And
being so entitled this Defendant admits that he doth
threaten and intend to bring an Action of Ejectment
against the said Complainant or to pursue such or
measures he may be advised to turn him out of the
possession of the said premises unless the said
Complainant shall deliver up to this Defendant the
possession thereof and in case this Defendant is not
restrained by the Injunction of this Honourable Court
from proceeding to obtain such possession which he is
advised and hereby insists he ought not to be And this
Defendant further saith he denies all and all manner of
unlawfull (comtion. ?) and (Confracy?) where with he is
charged Without that. that etc Geo. Borlase
Return to
Lewannick
Parish Page
|
|
Transcribed by Stuart Saunders from a document in the Malcolm Mc Carthy Collection. |