Modernized Spelling Transcription
^23 Oct 1671^
Hill against Percivall in the specified case of matrimony.
Witness depositions on the part of Hill given, admitted and takes as follows viz:
Deposition 1
John Munday of the city of Salisbury in the county of Wiltshire,
feltmaker, born in Orcheston St George
in the same county but has lived in the above mentioned city for about 20 years. He has known the litigant parties for the space of seven years. Sworn deposition of the witness as follows:
To Article 1 of the libel given and admitted in this business, he deposes and says that since the decease of the
plaintiff's wife about three years since or thereabouts, he knows not nor ever heard that the said plaintiff
contracted matrimony with any person whatsoever. And that he is at this time free from any
such contract so far as he knows or believes, except always what he knows he shall hereafter depose in and
concerning the cause now depending between the plaintiff Roger Hill of the city of New Salisbury,
cardmaker,
and Anne Percivall of the said city,
spinster,
daughter of William Percivall of the same city,
innholder.
To Article 2 he deposes and says that in the month of September in the year 1670 about a fortnight
before Michaelmas,
this deponent having business with one Thomas Barge a
carrier commonly called the Yeovil
Carrier,
who makes his
usual inn or stage at the
Sign of the Greyhound in Salisbury aforesaid, which house then was and
now is in the
tenure or occupation of William Percivall of the same. And particularly for that this deponent was
to receive
monies from the said Thomas Barge was present [...]at and in the house of the said William Percivall. And
also having like occasions
for the receipt of other monies from the said Thomas Barge in the month of October following (but
more certain time, he does not now remember) and near upon or about a fortnight
after Michaelmas
aforesaid, was then likewise present at and in the house of the said William Percivall, expecting the
said
carrier together, was one Richard Durnford of the aforesaid city,
feltmaker. And in the company of Anne
Percivall aforesaid (defendant) and a servant maid of the same house (whose name he knows not),
the said Anne Percivall did then and there at one of the times aforesaid (and more certain time he this deponent
now remembers not) in presence of the aforementioned persons spoke and declared words to this effect
as follows: that Roger Hill, the plaintiff in this cause depending, was as much her husband as the said John Munday, this
deponent, was husband to his wife,
the solemnity of marriage only excepted. But whether she expressed the words
(before God) in the said article mentioned he knows not. Nor does now remember. But whether
the said words were maliciously spoken (as in the said article is expressed) he knows not. And otherwise to the same article as above he deposes he cannot depose.
To Article 3 he refers himself to the law.
To Article 4 he deposes and says that the said Anne Percivall [...] was, at the time of the delivery of the words before
deposed, and now is living at the house of of [sic] her father, William Percivall within the city of New Salisbury
aforesaid.
To 5 Article he deposes and says that Mr Hill and Mr Percivall are both good friends [...] rather
[...] but wishes that either man take [...] And [...] as above
he refers to what he has previously deposed and to the law and otherwise he knows nothing.
To Article 6 he deposes and says that what he has referred to in his deposition is true. And to the Law And knows [...]
John Munday
Read and repeated. Before the venerable vicar Mr Lewe, Chancellor of the Diocese 23rd day of the month of October 1671.
In the presence of Mr William Prince,
Public Notary
Interrogatory on the part of and for Anne Percivall
John Munday of the city of New Salisbury in the county of Wiltshire before deposed. To the interrogatories given by the opposing party, he responds and says as follows:
To Interrogatory 1 [...] he has satisfied this in his depositions.
To Interrogatory 2 he responds no.
To Interrogatory 3 he responds and says that he favours neither party more than the other, but wishes victory for whoever has the right.
To Interrogarory 4 he responds that he favours neither party more than the other but wishes right may take place.
To Interrogatory 5 he responds and says
that he is worth £40 each person paid.
To Interrogatories 6, 7 and 8 he responds no.
To Interrogatory 9 he responds that he has heard a report of the said Mr Hill's courting the said
Mrs Percivall but how true
he cannot say.
To 11 and 12 he responds and says that what he has already deposed is true. And otherwise he cannot respond.
Read and repeated as above.
John Munday
Deposition 2
Hill against Percivall in the case of matrimony.
Depositions
Patience Yates of Porton in the parish of Idmiston in the county of Wiltshire,
widow, born in Wareham in the county of Wiltshire,
but has lived in the said Porton for the space of 20 years. She knows the respective parties in this business as follows viz. she has known Mr
Roger Hill for the space of half a year and more and Anne Percivall for the space of three years. Sworn deposition etc. of the witness as follows:
To Article 1 given and admitted in this business, she responds and says that she knows nor ever heard that the said Mr Hill
was ever contracted to anyone, more than what she heard the defendant
Mrs Anne Percivall say, which
hereafter she shall depose.
To Article 2 etc. she responds and says that before sometime
a little before Valentine's day last in the year 1670 and
(more certain time she remembers not), this deponent happening to be in the shop of
Mrs Morgan,
hosier, situated in Minster
Street in the city of New Salisbury, there came into the said shop
Mrs Anne Percivall
upon pretence of buying some small
commodities, and took occasion to tell
Mrs Morgan (then in the shop) that her daughter (meaning
Mrs Cragge) should have a
care how she proceeded with Mr Hill for he had promised her marriage diverse times and was her husband, as much as any man was any woman’s,
marriage only excepted. And that afterwards,
Mrs Cragge invited the said
Mrs Percivall to go into the house, which she did, but what discourse after
happened she knows not. And otherwise she cannot depose.
To 3 etc. she responds and says that she refers herself to the law. And otherwise etc.
To 4 etc. she responds yes.
To 5 etc. she responds and says that she refers herself to what she has already deposed and the law. And otherise she knows nothing.
To Article 6 she responds and says that in general and particular, as she has already deposed, she believes it is true etc. And otherwise she knows nothing.
Read and repeated. Before the Councellor 23rd Oct. 1671. In the presence of me, William Prince.
Patience Yates ^her mark^
23 Oct 1671
Interrogatory of Patience Yates etc.
To 1 she has satisfied this in her deposition.
To Interrogatory 2 in this business etc. she responds and says no.
To 3 etc. she responds that she favours neither party but wishes right may take place.
To 4 etc. she responds and says that she gives her testimony freely in this cause
without any hope of reward and
that she has not been promised or received anything.
To Interrogatory 5 etc. she responds
that she is a poor
widow and worth nothing save what she gets by her labour.
To 6 she responds no.
To 7 she responds no.
To Interrogatory 8 she responds no.
To Interrogatory 9 she knows nothing but what she heard from
Mrs Percivall, and therefore refers herself to her depositions.
Similar response to Interrogatory 10.
Similar responses to Interrogatories 11 and 12.
Read etc. as above.
Patience Yate ^her mark^
Deposition 3
Hill against Percivall in the case of matrimony.
Depositions etc.
Maria Morgan of the city of New Salisbury in the county of Wiltshire,
widow, where she was born and has lived for her whole life. And
has known the litigant parties for the space of about five years. Sworn deposition etc. of the witness as follows:
To Article 1 given and admitted in this business, she deposes and says that she knows not, nor ever heard that the plaintiff was any way concerned in contract with any person, saving what she shall hereafter
depose concerning the parties in this cause.
To 2 she deposes and says that about the latter end of January or the beginning of February last past
in the year 1670 (and more certain time she now remembers not)
Mrs Anne Percivall, the defendant, came to the shop
of this deponent in Salisbury
pretending to buy some small commodities, but as this deponent verily believes
to prevent a marriage between Mr Hill and this deponent's daughter. For being in this
deponent's shop as aforesaid, she took occasion to tell this deponent that she would advise her daughter
Mrs
Cragge,
widow, (for whom she supposed Mr Hill to have some kindness) that she should have a care how she proceeded in the way
of marriage with him, for that the said Mr Hill was her husband as much as any man could be any woman's,
marriage only excepted. And that
Mr Hill knew well enough and the said
Widow Cragge coming into the shop in the meantime desired the said
Mrs Percivall
out of civility and to avoid clamour to walk into the next room, and
Mrs Percivall did go with the said
Mrs Morgan and
Mrs Cragge
into the kitchen of the said house, where
Mrs Percivall repeated the same words above written, which she had uttered in the shop.
Whereupon
Mrs Morgan, this deponent and
Mrs Cragge (1st advising the said
Mrs Percivall to consider what she did, for
if what she spoke were not true she might do Mr Hill a great deal of wrong) told the said
Mrs Percivall if what
she did report were true they were only fit the one for the other and for none else, and this deponent and
Mrs Cragge
did faithfully promise the [...] said
Mrs Percivall
that there should be no further treaty between
them concerning marriage till Mr Hill had cleared himself of what was thus reported by her, and this deponent and the
said
Widow Cragge (knowing that the said Mr Hill was to come to the house in half an hour or thereabouts) were urgent with
Mrs Percivall to stay till he came but, or they would presently stay send for him and would do their utmost endeavor to make peace
between them. But they could by no means persuade her to stay, and afterwards when Mr Hill came in, this
deponent and
Mrs Cragge acquainted him of what had passed from
Mrs Percivall's own mouth concerning him; whereupon he
protested as in the presence of God that he never made her the least promise concerning marriage between
him and her, neither did he ever conclude anything with her friends or herself concerning the same.
To Article 3 she refers herself to the law.
To Article 4 she deposes yes.
To Article 5 she refers herself to what she has already deposed and the law.
To Article 6 that generally and particularly, she believes it to be true.
Read and repeated before the venerable Edw Lowe Chancellor on 23 of the month of October 1671.
Mary Morgan
Interrogatories
To 1 she has satisfied this in her deposition.
To Interrogatory 2 she responds no.
To Interrogatory 3 she responds etc. that she favours neither party above other but wishes that right may
take place.
To Interrogatory 4 she responds and says that she gives her testimony freely and only for justice sake
without
any reward in present or to come.
To 5 [...] she responds and says that she is worth £100 every one paid.
To Interrogatories 6 and 7 she responds and says no.
To Interrogatory 8 she responds similarly.
To Interrogatory 9 she responds and says that she has heard a flying report of it but how true she knows not.
To Interrogatory 10 she has heard Mr Hill say the contrary as in her depositions to which she refers herself.
To Interrogatories 11 and 12 she refers to what she has already deposed and otherwise cannot respond.
Read and repeated as above.
Mary Morgan
Deposition 4
Hill against Percivall
Witness depositions on the part of Percivall given etc. and taken as follows viz:
Thomasine Hutchins of the city of New Salisbury in the county of Wiltshire,
spinster, where she has lived for her whole life.
And she has known the litigant parties in this business for the same time. Sworn deposition etc. of the witness as follows:
To Articles 1 and 2 in the allegations in this cause she deposes and says that about three years ago
this deponent believes that the parties concerned in this cause were both free from all manner of matrimonial
contract with any persons whatsoever. And that about so long since it was that Mr Hill began
to express an affection for
Mrs Anne Percivall, the party defendant in this cause, and that he was a diligent
and earnest suitor to her for the space of one whole year and more, insomuch this deponent believes
he scarcely missed
one day in courting of her by all that time except he was forth of town, or otherwise hindered by sickness. And so continued his
courtship in like manner till after the death of old
Mrs Percivall, mother to the said Anne,
which was about two years since, but that a little before her death, this deponent having heard some reports
in the town that Mr Hill should speak slightingly of the said
Mrs Anne Percivall, did acquaint
her old Mrs therewith
(this deponent being then servant to her) who beset Mr Hill therewith at his next coming to her
daughter, inquiring of him what he intended by such dealings with her daughter
(for they were
then looked upon as man and wife, the solemnity of marriage only excepted) which Mr Hill was much troubled at and seemed in
a great rage, and would then have sent for the parties who had raised such report. But the said
Mrs Percivall
gave credit to Mr Hill, who protested how much he loved
Mrs Anne Percivall and that the reports were false and that he
utterly disowned them, asking
this deponent's said Mrs what she took him to be and that he hoped she
should not believe him so very a villain, but that he would make good his promises or words to that effect. And that he
would prove them all liars very shortly and that he would never marry any other woman living but her
daughter,
Mrs Anne Percivall. And otherwise she knows nothing.
To Article 2 of the allegation she deposes and says that there was and is a public fame and notorious fame
of all the contents of this article which she does believe as she has good reason for the same, that it is true
in part thereof. But cannot particularly depose as to the
portion otherwise than upon report and heresay. And otherwise she knows nothing other
than what she has deposed etc.
To Article 3 she deposes and says that Mr Hill did treat with her Master and
Mrs about the marriage of their daughter, he having obtained her consent long before y that there was a commmon speech
in the house and elsewhere that all was concluded and that they were speedily to be married. And that old
Mrs Percivall
before her death bought her daughter Percivall things and
gave her a bed which she had newly made up and finished
on purpose for her wedding and this deponent verily believes that the Mr Hill darest would not
have fallen off from if Old
Mrs Percivall
had lived, and that they would speedily have been married. And that Mr Hill never fell off till he heard old Mr Percivall
was going to marry again, and particularly when the report was hot that he was to marry with
Mrs
Smedmore of this city. And otherwise she cannot depose.
To Article 4 she deposes that this deponent happened to bring the letter from the post
in which was contained the news of old
Mrs Percivall's death at London at such time as Mr Hill, the plaintiff,
was then present with
Mrs Anne Percivall, who opened the leter who opened the letter [sic]
which was directed to her uncle. And therein was contained the death of her mother which caused a very
great passion in
Mrs Anne Percivall
that she could not read any further, but Mr Hill took the letter and read it
out over and seemed much troubled. And comforted
Mrs Anne Percivall, who calling upon her mother, Mr Hill bade her
not to trouble herself saying: 'do you think I will not be better than a mother to you?' And otherwise she says nothing to the article.
To Articles 5 6 7 8 and 9 she cannot depose etc.
Read and repeated before Mr Richard Kent
20 day of the month of January 1671.
The mark of Thomasin Hutchyn
Deposition 5
Hill against Percivall
Depositions of witnesses in this case on the part of Percivall given as follows
[...] viz:
John Gilbert of the City of New Salisbury in the county of Wiltshire,
cloth worker, where he has lived for the space of around 60 years,
age 64. He has known the litigant parties for the space of five years. Sworn witness who deposes as follows:
To Article 1 of the allegation given and admitted in this cause he deposes and says no.
To Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 he says that he cannot otherwise depose then upon hearsay and report.
To Article 7 of this allegation he deposes and says that about
Midsummer last
Mr Roger Hill, the plaintiff in this suit, by the recommendations of some applied
neighbours, applied himself to this deponent, desiring and entreating him to mak be a means
of making peace between him the said Hill and Mr William Percivall and his daughter of this
de city. And that if he would undertake or endeavour the same and procure
peace between them so that this suit and all other controversies might cease and could obtain an acquittance
or clear discharge from the said Anne Percivall, he the said Roger Hill did promise and engage to gratify him very
well for his pains and would be willing to pay all of the costs and charges of the suit depending. Whereupon this deponent
acquainted Mr Hill that he had some interest in Mr Percivall etc. and would use his endeavour to make peace between
them according to his desire. And accordingly did make several journeys to Mr Percivall's house at least six or seven times before
he could work anything upon the said Mr Percivall or his daughter. At last, this deponent prevailed
with Mr Percivall, so far that he was willing to refer the whole matter in difference between him, his daughter
and the said Mr Hill to this deponent and his brother-in-law, Mr William Staples of this city, who
accordingly did confer and conclude the matter and made an absolute end of it (as they believed). And did
award that Mr Hill should pay all manner of charges expended in the suit, to which Mr Percivall and his
daughter were consenting. And immediately this deponent acquainted Mr Hill therewith, who often
before had followed him very close to make an end of it, and came very often to him to know what success he had, and
expressed a great deal of satisfaction at the conclusion and determination which he had now made. And asked this
deponent whether he got a discharge from Mr Percivall. He told [him] he must first pay the costs of suit and he then
or undertake procure a bill of them from the court and engage to pay them and then
he should have a discharge, but m whereof Mr Hill was very well contented, and desired this deponent
to procure him a bill of the costs and charges accordingly. But this deponent told him that that was his own business
and not his, saying he had done his part and expected his reward. Whereupon Mr Hill told him he would part with no money
till he had an acquittance from Mr [and]
Mrs Percivall's hand, and was something uncivil in words to this deponent
who flung away from him in some anger and has never spoke to him since, although he was some money out of purse
in going about this business. And otherwise he cannot depose.
To Article 8 he cannot depose other than what he has already deposed.
To Article 9 he refers himself to what he has already deposed and believes it is true.
Read and acknowledged before Mr William West, surrogate on
20 January 1671 present me William Prince,
not.
John Gilbert
Deposition 6
Hill against Percivall
Depositions of witnesses in this case given and taken as follows viz:
Martha Langley of the city of New Salisbury in the county of Wiltshire,
widow, where she was born and has lived ever since.
[...] She has know the plaintiff in this case [...] around three years and the defendant in this case
for the space of around 20 years. Witness deposition as follows:
To Article 1 of the allegations in this case given and admitted she deposes and says that
in some or one of the years [specified in the article] the litigant parties were free from all matrimonial
contracts either to other and as also to any other person or persons whatsoever
as this deponent verily believes. And further says and deposes that about three years ago or more (as this
deponent now remembers) the said Roger Hill did address himself to, and frequent the company of the
said Anne Percivall in the way of marriage. And for that end, they did frequently meet almost every day once for the space of one whole
year and a half at least at this deponent's house, she being a near neighbour to the said Pericvall. And this deponent
did esteem them to be man and wife by all the time they met, there otherwise this deponent should not have
sent so often to
Mrs Percivall to have met the said Mr Hill at her house. And otherwise she cannot depose.
To Article 5: this deponent says that she cannot particularly depose to the
this article because she was not present at the conference or treaty or treaty mentioned in the
between Mr Hill Percivall and Mr Hill. But she was then in the house at Mr Percivall's and
but what discourse they had she did [...] inquire of Mr Hill
at that time, but Mr Percivall told her that they were fully agreed. Which this deponent took for granted and that
the Mr Hill and
Mrs Anne Percivall were up and down at her house fo as
before for at least a quarter of a year. [...] the said
Mrs Anne Percivall were
to be married and the said Mr Hill still answered as soon as he could get into that it was her fault,
meaning
Mrs Anne Percivall for she would not be married till he had gotten a bigger house. And this deponent
says that in
Mrs Percivall's lifetime, she inquired of Mr Hill if all was agreed upon concerning his marriage with
Mrs Anne Percivall and the
portion he was to have with her. And Mr. Hill answered yes it was
and that he supposed this deponent was not ignorant of it, and that she knew well enough what it was for that it was in every one's mouth: for
several persons he had met with could tell him what he was to have, and particularly one Mr Durnford, whom Mr
Mathews had told of it upon the way from London. Whereupon this deponent protested that she did not know
what it was, and then Mr Hill said that if this deponent would say nothing of it, he would tell her what it was for
he was ashamed to mention it was so small. And this deponent promised him she would not if he desired it, whereupon he told this
deponent he was to have £50 with her and this deponent asked him presently if he had accepted of it, and he told
her 'I have accepted of it, the more fool I' and from that time more especially, she esteemed them to be man and wife and so did the whole neighbourhood
round about,
the solemnity of marriage only excepted. And otherwise she cannot depose to this article.
To Article 6 this deponent says that
Mrs Keinton, sister of the said
Mrs
Anne Percivall, did inform long time inform this deponent that Mr Roger Hill did express himself to her as is contained
and mentioned in in this article. And otherwise she cannot answer other than what she has already deposed and refers herself to what she has already deposed and believes to be true.
She is not examined on the rest of the articles in this allegation, by the agreement of the party producent.
Read and repeated before Mr William West, surrogate 1st April 1672 in the presence of me Williamo Prince
Not. Publio Rego Depo.
Martha Langly
Deposition 7
Hill against Percivall
Depositions of witnesses in this case on the part of Percivall given as follows:
William Percivall of the city of New Salisbury in the county of Wiltshire,
innholder, where he has lived for his whole life, around 50 years old.
He has known the plaintiff for the space of ten years and the defendant is his natual daughter.
Sworn witness, who deposes as follows:
To Article 1 of the allegations given and admitted in this case, he deposes and says that about three years ago (and more certain time this deponent cannot
well remember) the litigant parties being free from all former matrimonial contracts as this deponent
verily believes, the party litigant (Mr Roger Hill) did often frequent the house of this deponent upon the score of
affection which he then violently professed to have for this deponent's daughter,
Mrs Anne Percivall,
the party defendant in this cause. And did present his passion he so professed to
have for her with such earnestness and importunity that this deponent is very confident the said Mr
Hill did
scarcely intermit one day for two years together (unless a journey or sickness prevented him)
that he did not attend and address himself to his said daughter, either at the
house of this deponent or occasionally at some other neighbouring house. And otherwise he cannot say more to the contents of this article.
To Article 2 he deposes and says that he very knows the contents of this article to be
true in every part and particular thereof (unless that he was not present himself in Mr Hill's house
(though his wife was and diverse others)) when the said Mr Hill did promote
marriage to the said
Mrs Anne Percivall, which was about
Christmas 1670, at such
time as the said Mr Hill had made an invitation to the said
Mrs Anne Percivall and to this deponent and his wife and diverse
other friends then present (except [those] before excepted). And the said Mr Hill did then at that time earnestly
press this deponent's wife that he might marry her daughter (for that all things were concluded between
themselves long before) before she the mother should take her journey to London, which was to be speedily after
Twelfth Market (so called in Salisbury) was over. But this deponent's wife (who long before at
the instance of the said Mr Hill had given her consent to the marrying together), persuaded
him for several reasons that he would stay till she should return from London. And also this deponent's
daughter did at that time tell the said Mr Hill that she was desirous not to marry till he had
removed into a bigger house, which Mr Hill intended to have done into a house belonging to this
deponent and had done to and if the tenant could have
been prevailed with to have gone forth. And therefore Mr Hill took another house of his own accord
because the defendant was very desirous not to marry till he had first removed into a bigger house,
which he did accordingly. And as to what is before set down to have been spoken by Mr Hill at his house
as aforesaid, this deponent protests was delivered to him by his wife at her coming home
to his house after her entertainment at Mr Hill's as aforesaid and was also seconded by his
said daughter and will be deposed by diverse other witnesses when
need shall require. And otherwise he cannot depose.
To Article 3 he deposes and says that before his wife happened to go to
London, the said Mr Hill came to this deponent and humbly craved
his consent to marry his daughter, the defendant in cause, which this deponent
told Mr Hill he gave him. And without being put upon it, or without being asked any question to the purpose
by Mr Hill, this deponent told m him that as to any treaty of a
portion, he would not have any thing hand in it, but did refer him to
his wife, and told him that whatever his wife should promise him he would make it good to him. And Mr Hill
answered and said he desired no better nor no more of him and did presently after
apply himself to this deponent's wife who made a conclusion with him, which was that he should have the
portion in money, and £10 in goods with her said daughte. Whereof
she afterwards acquainted this deponent, who was consenting thereunto, and the said
Mr Hill did presently acquaint the said
Mrs Anne Percivall that all things were now
fully agreed and concluded on between her father and mother and himself and that now
there
wanted only that solemnization of their nuptials. Which words were spoken a little before this
deponent's wife went for London, as she this deponent's wife and his said
daughter did then declare to this deponent, whose wife happened to take her journey for
London as aforesaid on or near the
25th day of January 1670.
And died there the
14th of February following, before which time she had bought several things
to a considerable value in order only to her daughter's wedding at her return and with full
purpose to bestow them upon her said daughter. And otherwise he cannot depose to this article.
To Article 4 he deposes and says that after the death of this deponent's
wife, mother of the said Anne Percivall, the defendant, which
which happened near or upon
Shrove Tuesday 1670, the said
Mr Roger Hill applied himself again to this deponent, craving his consent in the 2nd place and
telling him that (in the presence of his daughter, the defendant) that his wife
had given her free consent in her lifetime to their marriage and that upon treaty with her (according to this
deponent's order) she had concluded with him that he should have £60 in money and
£10 in household goods, besides which she, of her motherly love, should give more to her said daughter
and thereof supposed his wife had given him an account before her goeing to London
as aforesaid. All which this deponent did then acknowledge, and replied
and said unto the said Roger Hill 'God bless you and my daughter together. I
will make good to you the
portion which my late wife promised you
and will make it somewhat better besides what I may do hereafter for her', which
portion and promise the said William Percivall (this deponent)
the said Roger Hill kindly embraced and gave him thanks and then concluded with him this deponent
who asked of him if he were satisfied according to his desire. And he answered that he was fully satisfied and that his daughter
and he were man and wife before God and as they had been long before
and that there was nothing wanting
but the solemnity of their marriage, which that should not now be long
before. And otherwise he cannot depose to the contents of this article.
To Article 5 he deposes and says that at the last time of [...]
his conference with the said Mr Roger Hill about this matter as it is specified and set
forth in the next present article, he desired the said Mr Roger Hill to let him know
what he would or could offer his said daughter to live on, in or
for her livelihood after him, in case he should die before her. And he replied and answered that he had some
land at or about Frome in Somersetshire which he held by copyhold,
and that he would renew his copy and put her life therein very shortly. But that he could not do it at present
for that there was some contest in law between Sir James Thine and another gentleman
about the manor land wherein the said land lay, or words to this effect. And
did then also affirm the former contract, agreement and promise of marriage
between himself and this deponent's daughter and seriously promised to be
married unto her in a short time after. And this deponent further also
says and remembers that sometime after the death of his said wife, the said Mr
Roger Hill did cause in this deponent's presence, comfort his said daughter
(who was of that time very sad and weeping for the death of her mother) in these words following: 'I pray thee
to be contented and not trouble thyself, for a husband (meaning himself) is nearer to thee than a mother' and
added 'am not I a nearer friend to thee than a mother?' And otherwise he cannot depose.
To Article 6 he deposes and says that he well knows the contents
of this article to be very true but leaves the P[...] to other
witnesses, who may more properly depose the same.
To 7 he deposes and says as to the previous article.
To Article 8 he gives a similar response.
To Article 9 he refers himself to what he has already deposed and believes.
Read and repeated on
15 February 1671 before Mr William West, surrogate etc. and later before Mr Richard Kent, surrogate. on
17
[...] of the month in his presence.
William Percevall
William Prince, Reg Dept
Deposition 8
Hill against Percivall
Depositions of witness in this case on the part of P given as follows viz:
Williamus Staples of the city of New Salisbury in the county of Wiltshire, innholder
innholder, were he was born and has lived for his whole life, around 53 years old. He has known the plaintiff for the space of seven bene years
and the defendant in this case for the space of 20 years. This witness is sworn and deposes as follows:
To Article 1 Article of the allegations given and admitted he deposes and says that one
John Gilbert living in the Friary in the City of New Salisbury, being an old acquaintance and friend of this deponent, came to him
this deponent about October last, earnestly intreating him upon the score of old acquaintance and friendship that he would
(and for that he was related to Mr Percivall and his daughter (the party defendant in this cause)), that he would be a means to make an end of the difference
between Mr Roger Hill and
Mrs Anne Percivall, which this deponent at several times
positively refused to have any hand in it. But at length, was prevailed upon through the importunity of the said Gilbert to use his endeavour, the said
Gilbert (who has also been sworn a witness in this business) telling him that he was employed herein by Mr Hill,
who (the promoter in this cause). And who he said was willing to pay all the costs and charges of the suit, and
would also be willing to give some gratuity or remembrance (as we should agree upon between ourselves) to
Mrs
Anne Percivall, the party defendant, always provided that she would sign him a release. Hereupon this deponent
applied himself to the said party defendant and her father, who were very unwilling at 1st to admit of any such treaty, but by the persuasion
of this deponent did yield at length to have leave it wholly to this deponent to do as he should see cause, who upon a meeting
and conference with the said Mr Gilbert, it was concluded on that the said Mr Hill should pay all the costs and charges of the suit, and that
a certain gratuity should be given to the party defendant. And then she should give a release to the said Mr Hill, who fell out with the said Mr
Gilbert, as he has since told this deponent, because he had not first brought a release signed by the said defendant and for that he demanded
20s of him in case he could make a composure of the business. And otherwise he cannot depose.
To Article 8 he cannot depose more than he has already deposed.
He is not examined on the rest of the articles in this allegation, by the agreement of the party producent.
Read and repeated before Mr Richard Kent, surrogate on
19 February 1671 in the presence of me, William Prince.
William Staples
