STAC Walton

From Rpalmer
Revision as of 07:04, 13 June 2019 by Hgood (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

B Bill of Complaint Dr Demurrer A Answer Rn Replication Rr Rejoinder C Commission I Interrogatories D Deposition

Walton cum Trimley

  • STAC 5/W23/7 - B A C I D - 41 Eliz - Suffolk - Tenants of Walton cum Trimley v Allen Cove, John Smith

Walton, Allan

  • STAC 5/W36/31 - B - 21 Eliz - Allan Walton v Robert Wythom et al

Walton, George

  • STAC 5/W24/23 - I D - 24 Eliz - George Walton v Edmund Hope, Richard Dye et al

Walton, George

  • STAC 5/W21/5 - I D - 42 Eliz - Godfrey Walton v Richard Feyld

Walton, Judith

  • STAC 5/W73/7 - Rn - 30 Eliz - Judith Walton v Thomas Culwick, William Kerwyn et al
  • STAC 5/W29/24 - B A - 35 Eliz - Judith Walton v Thomas Calwick, Robert Fisher et al
  • STAC 5/W61/29 - I D - 35 Eliz - Judith Walton v Robert Fisher et al

Walton, Prudence and John

  • STAC 5/W51/40 - B A Rn - 30 Eliz - Prudence Walton, John Walton v John Fosbrooke, Cristopher Smyth et al
  • STAC 5/W20/5 - I D - 29 Eliz - John Walton v Christopher Smith, John Fostebrooke

Walton, Richard

  • STAC 5/W42/8 - B A - 8 Eliz - Richard Walton v Christopher Simcocks, Thomas Hiett et al
  • STAC 5/W33/29 - I D - 8 Eliz - Richard Walton v Cristopher Simcokes, Thomas Hyett et al

Walton, Richard

  • STAC 5/W67/40 - B A - 38 Eliz - Richard Walton v John Collier
  • STAC 5/W64/10 - Rn - 38 Eliz - Richard Walton v John Collier et al
  • STAC 5/W9/19 - I D - 38 Eliz - Richard Walton v John Collyer

Walton, Thomas

  • STAC 5/W51/8 - B - 26 Eliz - Thomas Walton v Launcelot Bisterfeild, Arthur Arden

Walton, Thomas

  • STAC 5/W30/9 - B A Dr - 25 Eliz - Thomas Walton, Henry Pole v Oliver Pledall et al
  • STAC 5/W8/31 - I D - 27 Eliz - Thomas Walton, Henry Poole v Oliver Pleddal, Robert Palmer

Notes, Additions and Corrections

  • Case Book BL Harley MS 2143 ff. 35v. 36r. Walton et al, plaintiffs; Warner et al, defendants: for forgery, perjury, and subornation, the court at the hearing of the said cause was informed of some imperfections in the bill, whereupon the court ordered the plaintiff to exhibit a new bill and that the defendants should answer the same by the first day of the next term after. A defendant at the hearing of a cause taking exception to the imperfections of the bill and the court there upon ordered him to exhibit a new and to proceed upon the same proofs and to pay the plaintiff’s costs. And that done the court would proceed to a hearing of this cause upon the same proofs already produced and published and in default of the defendant’s answer according to this order the court should proceed without them if they make default and it was also ordered that the defendants should pay the plaintiff’s costs in regard they had not taken exception to the imperfections of the plaintiff’s bill until this time that the cause was appointed to be heard to the plaintiff’s great charge. Michaelmas 22 Elizabeth (kk)