The Answer of William Gather, George Gather and
Roger Fyghfield to the Bill of Complaint of Thomas Gather alias Sharde.
The said William Gather, George Gather and Roger Fyghfield by protestation, not knowledge nor confession, any effectual
matter or thing contained in the Bill of Complaint to be true and that advantage of the insufficiency of the Bill of Complaint
to them and all of them, always saved they for answer say, that Thomas Gather the father named in the Bill of Complaint
was lawfully seased in his demene as of fee of and in the premises in the Bill of Complaint mentioned and these issues and
profits thereof coming by all his life time did perceive levy and take to his own proper use, as lawful was from him to do.
And he so being thereof seased, died thereof of such Estate seased. By and after whose death the said premises discended
and came to William Gather as son and heir of the said Thomas Gather, the father, by force whereof of William Gather was
and yet lawfully seased in his demayne as of fee and continued in peaceable quiet, possession of the same by the space of
one quarter of a year next after the death of his father and he so being in his lawful and quiet possession, the Complainant
of his malicious intent and forward disposition on the feast of St. Michael last, past the wife of William Gather sitting at
the door of the mansion house of William in peaceable manner, violently and in forcible manner took the key of the Hall
Door from her and opened the door and forcibly entered into the premises into the premises in the Bill of Complaint
mentioned and kept out, and would not suffer William Gather and his wife nor any of them to come into their said house to
have their lodging and the custody of their goods as they by the Law of this Realm ought to have. But unnaturally kept
them out until George Gather and Roger Fyghfield, two other of the said defendants, came unto the said complainant and
request him, as well for concerns sake as also for rumours and pity, that they bare unto the wife of William and to their
children, that he would deliver unto the said William the keys of the door that he might have and possess again, as well, the
said premises as also his goods and household stuff.
And George Gather and Roger Fythfield further desired the complainant [Thomas] that as well as himself and also William
Gather should put the order and determination of both their Rights and Titles of and in the Premises to four honest men
whereof two should be chosen by [Thomas] and the other two by William and that the said men to end and determine their
Rights. And if they did judge that Thomas had better Right to the Premises then William, George and Roger at the time
offered by themselves, to be bound to Thomas by word of mouth in ten pounds that William should avoid possession again
and there unto Thomas agreed.
And after William chose and nominated two men for his part according to the mocyon [agreement] made by the said Gather
and Roger Fythfield and willed that Thomas to choose and elect another two which to do he refused, whereupon William
continued his possession in the premises lawful was him to do without that.
That Thomas Gather the father, gave the same Premises by Word of Mouth unto Thomas [the younger] or that William
Gather after his father's death conveyed the same Premises to Thomas and to his heirs for ever according as their said father's
meaning in manner and form as in the said Bill of Complaint, is most untruly alleged.
Or that Thomas by force of any syche convenience was thereof lawfully seased in his demene as of fee accordingly, or so
continued his possession and season in Manner and Form as in the said Bill of Complaint is untruely surmised and alleged.
Or that George Gather and Roger Fythfield entreated Thomas that William, his brother, might enter into the possession of the
Premises for any other cause or consideration, then in this answere is before alleged.
Or they or any of them promised the Complainant [Thomas] that William should yield up the possession of the premises
to him within fourteen days next after, he should be there unto required in Manner and Form as in the said Bill of Complaint,
also untruly surmised.
Or that if the said William did not yield up the Possession thereof according as they had promised, that then they would give to
the Complainant ten pounds in Manner and Form as in the said Bill of Complaint is also surmised and alleged.
Or that they or any of them made any other promise unto the Complainant, then in this answere is before alleged.
And without that, that any other matter or thing in the Bill of Complaint contained material to be answered unto and in this
answer not sufficiently answered unto, denied, traversed, confessed and avoided is true.
All which matter the said Defendants redye to aver as this Honorable Court shall award and pray to be dismissed of the same
with their reasonable costs, charges and expenses by them wrongfully sustained in this behalf. |
This Page is the Joint Project of Judy Adams [Australia] & Colin Scard [UK]
PART 1 - The Document and its Transcription [below]. 
PART 2 - Extensions for this Family i.e. Parish Records etc.
TRANSCRIPTION
Thomas Gather alias Sharde
Inheritance Dispute - 1560
Complaint by Thomas Gather alias Sharde against William Gather, George Gather and Roger Fythfield Defendants: Dorset.
Court of Chancery: Six Clerks Office: Pleadings, Series II Elizabeth I to Interregnum C 3/70/59 Gather, alias Sharde v. Gather: Dorset.
The National Archives, Kew Date range: 1558 - 1579. Source: The Catalogue of The National Archives. Kew.
Professionally Transcribed by Simon Neal UK
Dating the Document - Simon adds;
The signatures on the Replication are Hippesley/Hippisley and Walrond. On the Bill it is Hippisley.
The Rejoinder has ?Rythe and ?Gossiche, but on the dorse there are faint words in Latin:
'Fourth part of the second year of Queen Elizabeth.' This would probably date of this document as 1560.
PLEASE CHOOSE