Bill of Complaint: Letitia Mascall v. Thomas Ryves and others, 1757

Date: [unknown] [unknown]
Location: [unknown]

This is a transcription of the pleadings of Letitia Mascall of Stanmore, Middlesex in a suit against the executors of her father's will (Thomas Ryves and others) made in the Court of Chancery on 20 January 1757/8. ^[1]

Summary: Letitia's father Anthony Brucer left a will leaving all his estate to the benefit of impoverished clergymen. Letitia argued successfully that she was his rightful Heir at Law and her Bill of Complaint contains details of events in her family to prove relationships.

This is an extremely long document extending over eight parchment folios stiched together at the top and bottom edges to create a single roll.

Transcription conventions used in this text:

• Spelling, punctuation and line breaks are as per the original document.
• The text was originally in one block of text. There are section and paragraph breaks at a change of subject, and bold text for names have been added for ease of reading.
• Where present, ff has been rendered as F, and the old letter Thorn has been rendered as th.
• Abbreviations and breviographs have been expanded in [square brackets].
• Additions and margin notes, where they occur, have been added where indicated in the text.
• Crossings through, where they occur, have been included Struck out.
• The image quality was excellent and in full colour, the handwriting was very legible in legal hand
• The pages are numbered at the foot of the page, and each page extends over two images and are referred to by image number

Contents 1 The Bill of Complaint 1.1 Opening Statement 1.2 List of Properties Owned by Anthony Brucer 1.3 Will of Anthony Brucer 1.4 Letitia Mascall's complaints against the Executors 1.5 History of the Brucer-Awsiter marriage 1.6 Answers from the Defendants 1.7 Schedule of Properties and Values 1.8 Answer of the Attorney General 1.9 Hearing of the Court and Evidence listed 1.10 Sentence of the Court 2 Sources

The Bill of Complaint

Opening Statement

[Page 1 upper - image 0313]
Whereas heretofore that is to say in or about Easter Term
which was in the year of our Lord one
thousand seven hundred and fifty five Letitia Mascall of Stanmore in the
County of Middlesex formerly the Wife of Hugh Christian deceased and
afterwards the wife and then the widow of Thomas Mascall deceased being the
Daughter and only Child and Heir at Law of Anthony Brucer Esquire dec[ease]ed
Exhibited her Bill of Complaint into the High and Honourable Court
of Chancery against Thomas Ryves Thomas Wollascott Richard Hawkins
Thomas Collins and the Honourable William Murray Esquire His
Majestys Attorney General

List of Properties Owned by Anthony Brucer

Thereby setting forth that the said Anthony Brucer was in his life time and at the time of his death seized
of or intitled in Fee Simple to diverse Manors Messuages Farms Lands
Tenements and Hereditaments in the Several Counties of Middlesex Berks[hire]
Buckingham Bedford Essex Lincoln Surry and Oxford and elsewhere part
Freehold and part Copyhold of a considerable yearly Value in the whole and
particularly three Freehold Farms at Northall in the County of Bucks
then or late in the Occupation of the Widow Grant another Freehold Farm
there then or late in the Occupation of Michael Coby another Freehold
Farm there then or late in the Occupation of Michael Messidure and another
Farm in the said County of Bucks called Brown's Farm a Freehold
called Lee Farm at Rodsend in the Parish of Evershott near Woburn in
the County of Bedford then or late in the Occupation of one Pratt a Freehold
Close of Parcell of Pasture Land lying in Houghton Regis in the said
County of Bedford then or late in the Occupation of Gregory Page
another Freehold Close or Parcel of Pasture Land lying at Houghton
Regis aforesaid then or late in the Occupation of Charles Love and a
House and some Ground there formerly belonging to John Corbett nine
acres or thereabouts of Copyhold Land lying in the said Parish of Houghton
Regis then or late in the Occupation of Francis Collier A Farm called
Brights Farm in the Parish Asdown near Saffron Waldon in the
County of Essex part Freehold and part Copyhold then or late in the
occupation of Stephen Smith Two Freehould Closes of Parcels of Land
adjoining or near to the said last mentioned Farm then or late in the
Occupation of Joseph Bowtle and a Freehold Close or Parcel of Land
with a Barn thereon lying in little Walden near Saffron Waldon
aforesaid of the yearly Value of Four pounds or thereabouts a Freehold
Farm in Duttington near Sleaford in the said County of Lincoln then
or late in the Occupation of Thomas Stevenott A Freehold Messuage or
Tenement with an Orchard and a Barn thereon belonging situate at Ham
in the County of Surry then or late in the Occupation of Richard Blizard
the Manor or Lordship or reputed Manor or Lordship of Dimmocks in the
parish of Hook Norton in the County of Oxford and a quitrent of ten
shillings a year payable out of certain Lands on the said parish then
or late in the Occupation of the Widow Lampitt and also another quit Rent of
Three shillings and four pence a Year payable out of certain other lands

[Page 1 lower - image 0314]
in the said parish then or late in the Occupation of David Salmon A
Freehold Farm with the House Barns and Appurtenances and two yard
Lands and an half yard Land with a large Quantity of Green Sword Land
thereto belonging lying in the said Parish of Hook Norton being some of
the best Land in Southfield then or late in the Occupation of Arkell Hunt and
five several Freehold Closes or Parcels of Pasture Land containing thirty
acres or upwards in the said Parish of Hook Norton then or late in the
Occupation of Thomas Beale

And that the said Anthony Brucer was at
The time of his death intitled to several Shares in Fulham Bridge and
possessed of or intitles to diverse Manors Messuages Lands and Tenem[en]ts
which he held for some long lease or Terms of Years or some Terms
renewable by Virtue of certain beneficial Leases and particularly of the
Manor of Muckland near Leominster in the County of Hereford held by
Lease from the Dean and Causus of Windsor for a Term of twenty one
years a Leasehold House next Charles Court in the Strand in the County
of Middlesex then or late in the Occupation of one Mrs Thompson a Leasehold
house in Devonshire Street and Queen Square in the said County of
Middlesex with Stables in Ormond Yard and other Priviledges and
Appurtenances thereto belonging and Several Leasehold Houses in
Monmouth Street and at Windsor and at other places

Will of Anthony Brucer

And further Setting forth
that the said Anthony Brucer being so seized and intitiled as aforesaid
made his last Will and Testament in Writing bearing date the eighteenth
day of July one thousand seven hundred and fifty two and thereby gave
several pecuniary and Specific Legacys to several persons therein
named and particularly that he gave unto the said Thomas Ryves the
said House in Queen Square by the name and description of the
House in which he then lived in Devonshire Street and Queen Square
And all his Stables in Ormond Yard And all his pictures which then hung
up in the said House and also the Furniture of particular rooms therein
during his life if his Lease thereof should so long continue and after his

[Page 2 upper - image 0315]
death to his first Son during the remainder of a Term of ninety nine years
which he had in the said house and Stable upon Condition that the said
Thomas Ryves should keep the said House in good repair and for his own
use only and should dwell therein when he should be in London but if he
should think that he had or should have not Occasion for the said House
for his own house or should refuse Omitt or neglect to comply with the
said Conditions that then the said Anthony Brucer thereby directed that any
two of the other Ex[ecu]tors upon his refusal or neglect or death with Issue
Male should take possession of the said House and sell and dispose of the
same and the Stables Pictures and Furniture therein before conditionally
given to the said Thomas Ryves and apply the produce thereof to the same
use as the rest of his Estate was therein after directed to be Applyed and he
thereby directed that his Ex[ecu]tors therein after named should keep the possesion
of his said House for so long as they should have Occasion for it to look
over his Effects Books and Papers to their Satisfaction and then they should
have the room and closet two pair of Stairs backwards to keep his Books and
Papers in for three Years after his decease unless the said Mr Ryves should
take another convenient place to their Satisfaction to keep them in at his expence
but in their possession And he thereby gave and bequeathed the rest and residue
of all his personal Estate Goods Chattells and Effects unto his Executors and
their Heirs and Executors and ordered and directed that they or any three
of them should sell and dispose thereof and apply the produce thereof to the uses
therein and in the said Bill of Complaint after mentioned and he thereby gave
and devised unto his Executors and their Heirs and Executors All his Freehold
Leasehold and Copyhold Estates (Which he therein takes notice he had surrendered
to the use of his said Will) in the Kingdom of England and directed that
his Executors or any three of them their Heirs or Ex[ecu]tors should sell and
dispose of all the said Freehold Leasehold and Copyhold Estates to the best
Purchasors they could meet with as soon as with Prudence they conveniently
could and that the produce thereof with the whole produce of his Personal
Estate should be applyed and given by them to the Uses therein after
mentioned (that is to say) that they should give the whole produce of his
Real and Personal Estate unto such Clergymen of the Church of England as had
taken Orders and had not more than forty pounds per annum in Spirituals or
Temporals to Support themselves and Familys and to such only as his Ex[ecut]tors
should think had the greatest occasion for it to each of such Clergymen he
directed that they should give the Sum of Twenty pounds until his whole Estate
should be given away but if his Ex[ecu]tors should not meet with Clergymen to their
satisfaction within seven years after his decease to give his Estate unto then
they might give the remainder unto such persons as they had before given

[Page 2 lower - image 0316]
unto until his whole Estate should be given away not giving to anyone such
person more than twenty pounds at any one time or in any one year And he
thereby desired that his Ex[ecu]tors would extend the said Gift to as many
Clergymen as they could find and believed to have a Real Occasion which he
left intirely to the descretion of his said Ex[ecu]tors and he thereby Appointed the
said Thomas Ryves Thomas Wollascott Richard Hankins and Thomas Collins
Ex[ecu]tors of his said Will

Letitia Mascall's complaints against the Executors

And further Settingforth that the said Anthony
Brucer departed this life on or about the twenty second day of May one
thousand seven hundred and fifty five leaving the said Complainant his
Heir at Law being his only Child by Mary his Wife deceased formerly
Mary Awsiter and that soon after his death the said Thomas Ryves Thomas
Wollascott Richard Hankins and Thomas Collins proved the said Will in the
Prerogative Court of Canterbury and took upon them the Execution thereof and
he being at the time of his death possessed of or intitled to a very considerable
Personal Estate over and besides this Leasehold Estates amounting in the
whole (execlusive of such parts thereof as are Specifically bequeathed to
greatly more than sufficient to pay all his debts Funeral Expenses and
Legacies the said Ex[ecu]tors had possessed themselves of such Personal Estate and
had also under Colour of the said Will entred upon and taken possession of all
the greatest part of the Freehold Copyhold and Leasehold Estates and of the
Shares in Fulham Bridge which the said Anthony Brucer was seized or
Possessed intitled to and continued in the Reciept of the Rents and Profits
thereof and had got into the Custody or Power all the Title Deeds & Writings
relating to the said Shares and Estates but the said Complainant insisted
that the said Will of the said Anthony Brucer as to the disposition thereby made
of his Freehold Copyhold and Leasehold Estates and of his Shares in Fulham
Bridge (except the Conditional Disposition of his said dwelling house in Devonshire
Street and Queen Square and the Stables thereto belonging to the said Thomas
Ryves and his first Son is absolutely null and void and incapable of taking
Effect by the Statute made in the ninth year of the Reign of his present
Majesty intitled an Act to restrain the disposition of Lands whereby the same
become unalienable And than therefore all the said Freehold and Copyhold Estates
and the said Shares in Fulham Bridge did upon the death of the said Anthony
Brucer descend unto the said Complainant as his Heir at Law And that the
Complainant upon his death became intitled to all his Leasehold Estates as his
only next of Kin And therefore the Complainant had frequently since the
death of the said Anthony Brucer applyed to the said Thomas Ryves

[Page 3 upper image 0317]
Thomas Wollascott Richard Hankins and Thomas Collins and requested
them to deliver up to her the possession of the said Freehold Copyhold and
Leasehold Estates or such parts thereof as she was justly intitled to and
the Title Deeds and Writings relating thereto and to make her Satisfaction
for the Rents and Profits thereof from the time of the death of the said
Anthony Brucer and to Assign to her the said Leasehold Estates and
Shares in Fulham Bridge But that the said Thomas Ryves Thomas
Wollascott Richard Hankins and Thomas Collins sometimes insisted that
the said Will of the said Anthony Brucer was good and Valid and
capable of taking effect with respect to all his said Estates and his said Shares
in Fulham Bridge And that therefore the Complainant had not any just
Right of Title thereto And altho they sometimes Admitted the contrary with
respect to his Freehold and Copyhold Estates and the said Shares in Fulham
Bridge yet they insisted that the said Will was good as to all his Leasehold
Estates Wheras the Complainant was Advised and insisted that the said Will
was absolutely Void in Law and incapable of taking Effect with respect to
such Leasehold Estates as well as with respect to his Freehold and Copyhold
Estates and the said Shares in Fulham Bridge and the rather by reason the
said Leasehold Estates are by his said Will expressed devised and disposed of
for the Charitable Purposes aforesaid

And that the Thomas Ryves
Thomas Wollascott Richard Hankins and Thomas Collins were so sensible
that the said Will was Void and incapable of taking Effect as to any of such
Freehold Copyhold and Leasehold Estates and the said Shares in Fulham
[interlined] Bridge that they had declared they were willing to deliver up all such estates and the said Shares in Fulham [end interline]
Bridge (except the said House in Queen Square and the Stables thereto
belonging) and all the Deed and Writing relating thereto to the Complainant
and to Account with and make Satisfaction to her for the Rents and Profits
thereof

but in Order to Avoid Performance thereof they had lately pretended that
the Complainant was not the lawful Child of the said Anthony Brucer and
consequently not Heir at Law or next of Kin to him And that the said Anthony
Brucer was not at any time married to the said Mary the Complainants
Mother And therefore that the Complainant had not any Right or Title to the
said Freehold Copyhold and Leasehold Estates or the said Shares in Fulham Bridge
or any part thereof in case the said Will was Void And that in Support of such
pretence they Alleged that they had found amongst the papers and Writings
of the said Anthony Brucer a paper Writing under the hand and Seal of
the complainants said Mother by the name of Mary Awsiter bearing date
on or about the first day of January one thousand six hundred and ninety
four whereby the Complainants Mother Acknowledged and declared that
she never had been Married to him And that she had produced a false
certificate of the Marriage between her and him and had Seduced him to
apply as her husband for payment of a Legacy of two hundred pounds left
unto her by one Mr Thorowgood her Uncle in Order to Strengthen the said
Marriage and Obliged herself in the Penalty of five hundred pounds never
after to Subscribe or as by his Name or pretend that she was married to

[Page 3 Lower - image 0318]
him or to some such or the like effect And also a Case appearing to have been
about the time of the date of the said Memorandum laid before Councel for his
Opinion what Course he the said Anthony Brucer had best take with the
said Mary for going by his Name (which had been as there Alledged much
to his Prejudice) and pretending to be married to him in Answer whereto he
was Advised that it would be proper to Cite the said Mary into the Spiritual
Court and if he had there a Sentence against the said Marriage he would
then be perfectly free from her or to such or the like effect

And further Charging
That the said Defendants had then lately pretended that the said Anthony Brucer
never cohabited with the Complainants said Mother nor was at any Expence
for the Complainant or her Mothers Maintenance or the Complainants
Education nor ever owned or declared that he had been ever married to the
Complainants said Mother or had any Child by her or gave any Portion to
or was privy to the Marriage of the Complainant Whereas the Complainant
Charged that she was really the true and lawful Daughter of the said Anthony
Brucer by the said Mary formerly Mary Awsiter who was his true and
lawful Wife

History of the Brucer-Awsiter marriage

And that the said Anthony Brucer was really and lawfully
Married to the said Mary Awsiter according to the Rites and Ceremonies
of the Church of England at the Parish Church of St Mary Le Bone in the
County of Middlesex on or about the thirty first day of August one thousand
six hundred and eighty eight and and an Entry of such Marriage was made in
the Register Book of the said Parish at or about that time and which then
remained fair and unquestionable and the Complainant had in her Custody which
she had shewn to the said Executors the Wedding ring of her said Father and
Mother dated August thirty first one thousand six hundred and Eighty eight
which is the same date as the said Entry in the said Register book and which
ring was constantly or often were by the Complainants said Mother in her life
time

And the Complainant charged that the said Marriage was afterwards
Consummated and tho as the Complainant Admitted the said Anthony Brucer
and Mary his wife did not live publickly together for some time the said
Marriage being kept a Secret from her Uncle William Thorogood Esquire (with
whom she and her Brother Thomas Awsiter then lived in St John's Square

[Page 4 upper - image 0319]
Clerkenwell Brother of Sir John Throgood for fear of disobliging her said Uncle
William Thorogood for that the said Anthony Brucer was then much inferior to his said
Wife both in Circumstances and Family He being then only Gentleman to Phillip
Herbert Esquire or one of the Herbert Family whereas the said Mary Awsiter the
Complainants said Mother had then a considerable Fortune which was left her by
her Father and other Relations and was in further Expectations from the said William
Thorogood who afterwards by his Will left her a Legacy of two hundred pounds and
the said William Thorogood left the said Thomas Awsiter her Brother Executor of his said
Will yet not withstanding the said Marriage was known some short time after the Solemnization
thereof to her Brother the said Thomas Awsiter and the said Anthony Brucer used often
to go to the said William Thorogoods and frequently lye there unknown to him he
being bedridden but the same was known to the said Thomas Awsiter and others
of the Family and the Complainants said Mother being afterwards with Child the
said Anthony Brucer took her a Lodging in or about Bloomsbury in the parish
of Saint Giles in the Fields in the County of Middlesex where She lay in of the
Complainant on or about the fourteenth day of February one thousand six hundred and
Eighty nine and the Complainant on or about the Eighteenth day of February one
thousand six hundred and Eighty nine was Baptized in the said parish of St Giles
in the Fields and an Entry was then made of the Complainants Baptism in the
Register Book of the said parish by the Name of Letitia Daughter of Anthony
and Mary Brucer which Entry Appeared fair and free from any Cause of Suspicion
and the said Anthony Brucer owned and acknowledged the Complainant as his
Daughter and maintained and provided for her and his said Wife for some time after
the Complainants Birth

And the Complainant by her said Bill further charged that the
said Anthony Brucer continued in the service of the said Mr Herbert till the said
Herbert was made Comptroller or Paymaster or had some Considerable post
in the Prize Office which was then kept in Covent Garden but was afterwards removed
into York Buildings And thereupon the said Mr Herbert made the said Anthony
Brucer his Deputy or some Clerk in the said Office in which he continued till the
death of the said Mr Herbert and after his death was continued in the same
Station under Mr Ryves Grandfather of the aforesaid Thomas Ryves who Succeeded
the said Mr Herbert in his place in the said Office

And further charged that the said
Anthony Brucer the Complainants ^[2] being greatly Addicted to keep company with
Variety of Women he at length grew tired of the Company and Conversation of the
Complainants said Mother and disputes having arisen between them on that
and other Accounts and particularly about the Complainants Mother's fortune
which the said Thomas Awsiter would have persuaded the Complainants Father to
settle upon her and then the Complainant their only Child which he refused to do the
Complainants Father and Mother a few years after the Complainants Birth lived

[Page 4 lower - Image 0320]
Separate from each other and the Compl[ainan]ts Mother out of her great Love and
affection for the Compl[ainan]t took the Complainant under her care and the Complainant
lived and resided with her at the said Thomas Awsiter's house in St John's Square
till the Complainants Marriage with the said Hugh Christian her first Husband
who being Captain of a Ship in the Guinea Trade the Complainant and her said Husband
when in England used to Live with her said Mother and until his death in
one thousand seven hundred and twenty nine and that the Complainant afterwards
continued to Live with her said Mother and Uncle until his death in one thousand
seven hundred and thirty and the Complainant and her said Mother lived afterwards together
till the Complainants Marriage with Thomas Mascall her last Husband in one thousand
seven hundred and forty seven and from that time the Complainants Mother lived with
the Complainant and her said Husband till her death which was on or about the
sixteenth day of December one thousand seven hundred and fifty and was Buried
by the name of Brucer in the Chaple yard of Norwood in the parish of Hayes in
the County of Middlesex in a Vault there over which was placed in her life time and by
her order a Monument with the following Inscription Vizt Underneath is a Cave intended
for the quiet rest of Mrs Mary Brucer Mr Thomas Mascall and Laetitia his Wife
pray wrong if not one thousand seven hundred and forty nine And further Charged
that the said Anthony Brucer from the time of his Separation from the Complainants
Mother refused to make any Allowance for the maintenance of his said Wife or the
Complainant and never afterwards lived or conversed with his said Wife but continued
to express great dislike to her to the time of her death and the said Anthony
Brucer tho he once offered to the said Thomas Awsiter to take the Complainant from her
Mother and to Maintain and provide for her which the Complainants said Uncle
refused to permit him to do took a displeasure against the Complainant on her Mothers
Account being persuaded thereto by the Women with whom he kept Company and by whom
he had several children some or one of which Women lived with him in his House in
Devonshire Street and other places for many years and till the time of his death and which
women induced to encourage him therein by reason they Expected he would make a better
Provision for them and their Children if he continued his Dislike to the Complainant
and her Mother but Nevertheless the Complainant was several times during her Infancy
called to the said Anthony Brucer and shewn to him as his Daughter and the
Complainant after she grew able and after her Marriage in both her husbands
times and since several times waited on him and he at all such times acknowledged the
Complainant to be his true and lawful Daughter or to the like Effect and he several times in

[Page 5 upper - image 0321]
his life time acknowledged or declared to his Ex[ecu]tors or some or one of them or to some of
their Friends and Relations and divers other persons that he had been lawfully Married to the
said Mary Awsiter and that the Complainant was his true and lawful Daughter or to the like
effect And the Complainant charge that it would Appear from Deeds Papers Writings and Letters
in some or one of the said Executors Custody or Power that the said Anthony Brucer was
lawfully married to the Complainants Mother And that the Complainant was their only
lawful Daughter and Child And further Charged that the Complainants said Mother never
really did sign any such Memorandum as aforesaid or if she did that the same was
absolutely false And that she was Persuaded or Prevailed upon by threats or Undue
means of the said Anthony Brucer to sign the same or by his taking an undue
Advantage of her and of the Influence which he had over her as her Husband and he
procured the same to Answer some Particular Purpose And the Complainant humbly
insister that the said Memorandum could Not be any ways binding on the Complainant
as she was not a party thereto but was then an Infant of very tender years And the
Complaintant also charged that the said Anthony Brucer never Instituted any Suit in any
Spiritual Court according to the Opinion of Counsel on the said Case for setting aside the
Marriage between him And the Complainants Mother being thereby Satisfied in his
Conscience that the said Marriage was good and Valid in Law And the there was not
and probability of his Succeeding in such Suit And that the said Mary after the date of
the said Memorandum always went by the Surname of Brucer and Subscribed her
name Brucer to Several Deeds which she was after that time a Witness to and to other
Papers and Writings and she was buried at Norwood aforesaid by the name of Brucer in
such Vault and with such Monument and Inscription aforesaid And that the Complainant
always was called by the Name of Brucer till her Marriage with her first
Husband and no other person has ever claimed to be Heir at Law or next of Kin
to the said Anthony Brucer And that a Cause having been formerly depending on this
Honourable Court against the said Anthony Brucer a Bill of Revivor had been
filed by Henry Loubier and Daniel Sollicoffre against the Complainant as Heir at
Law of the said Anthony Brucer and against the said Thomas Ryves Thomas
Wollascott Richard Haukins and Thomas Collins the Executors of the said Anthony
Brucer to revive the said Cause And then the Complainant being served with a Subpoena
to appear to and Answer the said Bill had Appeared accordingly And that the said
Cause had been Revived by Order again the Complainant and the said Executors
of the said Anthony Brucer And that by two Orders made in the said Cause date on
or about the twenty first day of November and twentieth of January then last the
Plaintiffs in the said Cause were directed to procure the Complainant to be Admitted
to the Cophold Estate therein mentioned to be had of the Manor of Kingston
Canbury And that the Complainant had been since Admitted thereto by Nicholas Hardinge
Esquire the Lord of the said Manor as Daughter and Heir at Law of the said
Anthony Brucer and that before the Complainant was so admitted the Executors
of the said Anthony Brucer were Acquainted with the Revivor of the said Cause
and of the said Orders and Admission and made no Objection thereto And further
Charged that the said Thomas Ryves Thomas Wollascott Richard Haukins

[Page 5 lower - image 0322]
and Thomas Collins pretended with regard to the said Leasehold Estates that the
same or the greatest part thereof would be necessary to be sold by them in Order
to raise money to discharge the debts owing by the said Anthony Brucer at the time
of his death which as they pretended were considerable Whereas the Complainant
charges that the other Personal Estate of the said Anthony Brucer which since his
death came to their hands or use was much more than Sufficient to pay all his debts
and Funeral Expences and all necessary Charges Attending the Executorship of his Will
And therefor the Compl[ainan]t humbly insisted that the said Leasehold Estates or any of
them ought not to be sold for such purpose But that such debts Funeral Expenses
and Charges ought to be paid out of such other Personal Estate And that the
said Executors at other times pretended that the said Anthony Brucer had Entred
into some Contract for Sale of the said Leasehold Estates and particularly of the
said Manor of Munckland with the Appurt[enance]s to some person who had paid some part
of the purchase money to the said Anthony Brucer And that they had since his
death or should be Oblidged to compleat such Sale And that therefore the Complainant
was ^ ^not intitled to any part of the Purchase money for such Estate which remained unpaid at
the time of the death of the said Anthony Brucer but that the same ought to be
applyed for the Purposes mentioned in the said Will but yet they refused to discover to
the Complainant the particulars of such Contract or whether the same was in Writing
and what had been done in Performance thereof in the life time of the said Anthony
Brucer And further Charging that the said Thomas Ryves Thomas Wollascott
Richard Haukins and Thomas Collins pretended that the Legal Estate in the said
Estates or some part thereof was not in the said Anthony Brucer at the time of his
death but in some Persons In Trust for him Or that there was some Term of Years
Mortg[ag]ed or other Incumbrance upon the said Estates or some part thereof at the time of
his death And that they would set up such Terms Mortgage or Incumbrance in bar
to the Complainant in case she should bring an Ejectment for Recovery of the
Possession of the said Estates and which the Complainant was unable to do for want
of the Title Deeds & Writings relating to the said Estates and for want of a proper
Knowledge of the Particulars and Situation thereof And Further Charging that the
said Thomas Ryves Thomas Wollascott Richard Haukins and Thomas Collins
declared that they neither had nor would recieve the Rents and Profits of the

[Page 6 Upper - image 0323]
said Estates and yet refused to Permit the Complainant to recieve the same So
that the Rents thereof might be lost if some Person was not Appointed to recieve
the same And that the said Thomas Ryves Sometimes Alledged that he would ^ ^{and at other times that he would} not
Accept of the Bequest of the said Leasehold House in Queen Square and the
Stables thereton belonging upon the Condition aforesaid but refused to declare himself
with any Certainly relating thereto And further Charged that the Honourable William
Murray Esquire then His Majesty's Attorney General insisted that the Devise made
by the said Will for the Charitable Purposes therein mentioned was good as to all the
Estates thereby devised And that the same ought to be Performed & carried into Execution

Therefore that the said Defendants might Answer the Prem[ise]s and that the said
Devise made by the said Will for the Charitable Purposed therein mentioned might be
declared to be Void as to the said Freehold Copyhold and Leasehold Estates and the Shares
in Fulham Bridge ^ ^{[interlined] belonging to the s[ai]d Anthony Brucer at the time of his death and that the Poss[ess]ion of all such Estates And of the said Shares in Fulham Bridge [End interlining]} and of the Title Deeds and Writing relating thereto except the said
House in Queen Square and the Stables thereto belonging and such Leasehold Estates
as the said Anthony Brucer had at the time of his death made a proper Contract in
Writing for the SAle of to any Particular Person might be delivered to the
Complainant And that the said Thomas Ryves Thomas Wollascott Richard Haukins and
Thomas Collins might Convey or Assign the said Shares in Fulham Bridge to the
Complainant for the remainder of the Terms which the said Anthony Brucer had
therein and might Account with the Complainant for the Rents & Profits of such
Freehold Copyhold and Leasehold Estates except as aforesaid And of such Shares
Fulham Bridge as became due since the death of the said Anthony Brucer and
had been recieved by them And in the mean time that some proper person might be
Appointed to recieve the Rents and Profits thereof And that the Compl[ainan]t might be at
liberty to Examine her Aged and infirm Witnesses and perpertuate their Testimony
relating to the matter in question and for Relief she paray the Aid & Assistance of
this Honourable Court And that Process of Subpoena might be thereout Awarded
against the said Defendants to Compell them to Appear to and Answer the said Bill
which being granted and the said Def[enden]ts therewith all duely Served they Appeared
accordingly and put in their several Answers thereto

Answers from the Defendants

And the said Thomas
Ryves Thomas Wollascott Richard Haukins and Thomas Collins by their Joint
Answer Said they Admitted that the said Anthony Brucer being of sound
mind Memory & Understanding made his will of such date Purport & effect as in
the Complainants Bill mentioned And that the said Anthony Brucer died on or
about the twenty second day of May one thousand seven hundred and fifty four
aged about ninety years or upwards And that after his death they proved his said Will
in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury and took upon themselves the Execution thereof
And further sayd it Appeared to them by the Deeds and Writings which were in the
Custody of the said Anthony Brucer at the time of his death and then in the Def[endan]ts
Custody and from Information that the said Anthony Brucer died seized or Possessed of
the several Freehold Copyhold and Leasehold Estates and the Shares in Fulham
Bridge particularyly mentioned and setforth in the first Schedule Annexed to their
said Answer which Scheduled is in the Words and Figures following Vizt:

Schedule of Properties and Values

[Page 6 lower - image 0324]

• Three Farms at Northall in the County of Bucks Supposed to be Freehold then or late in the Possession of William Wells - supposed yearly Rent £50-0-0
• Another Farm in Northall supposed to be Freehold now or late in the poss[ess]ion of Nich[ola]s Messidire at - £8-10-0
• The Tythe of Brunes farm near Wendover in the County of Bucks now or late in the Management of Mr George Hoare supposed to be worth yearly £10-5-0
• A Farm called the Lea Farm at Evershott near Woburn in the County of Bedford Supposed to be Freehold now or late in the Possession of William Pratt at £35-0-0
• A parcel of Land lying in Houghton Regis in the said County of Bedford Supposed to be Freehold now or late in the Possession of Chas. Love at £4-0-0
• A Farm called Brights Farm in the Parish or Manor of Ashdown or Ashdon near Saffron Walden in Essex Supposed to be all Copyhold except a small part thereof Valued at two pounds and 10s by the year which is Supposed to be Freehold now or late in the Possession of Stephen Smith at £18-10-0
• A Parcel of Land adjoining to the said Stephen Smiths Farm Supposed to be Freehold now or late in the Possession of Joseph Bowtell at £4-0-0
• A Barn and Parcel of Land lying in Little Walden near Saffron Walden Supposed to be Freehold now or late in the Possession of Joseph Pilgrim at £3-19-0
• A Farm at Durrington near Sleaford in Lincolnshire suppposed tobe Freehold now or late in the Possession of Thomas Strunitt at £16-0-0
• A Quit of ten shillings by the year payable to a Manor called Dymocks Manor in the Parish of Hook Norton in the County of Oxon out of certain Lands in the said Parish now or late in the Possession of Mr Lampitt £0-10-0
• One other Quit Rent of three shillings and four pence by the year payable to the said Manor out of certain Lands in the said Parish now or late in the Possession of David Salmon £0-3-4
• A Farm lying in the said Parish of Hook Norton Supposed to be Freehold now or late in the Possession of Elias Johnstone at £30-0-0
• A Parcel of Land in the said Parish of Hook Norton Supposed to be Freehold now or late in the Possession of Anthony Lampitt at £22-0-0
• A Leasehold House next Charles Court in the Strand under the Yearly ground Rent of thirty one pounds five shillings Let to Mr Thompson as Def[eden]ts have heard and believed at the improved Rent of £50-0-0

[Page 7 upper - image 0325]

• One whole original Share or Thirtieth part in Fulham Bridge standing in the name of the said Anthony Brucer of which Mrs. Genew claims a Moiety the whole of which Share is Supposed to produce one year with another £36-0-0
• One Fourth part of Another Share in Fulham Bridge supposed to produce one year with another £9-0-0
• A Pew in Saint Johns Chapple near Bedford Row supposed to be held

for a Term of Years of which about 24 years are to come Subject to an Annual Ground Rent of Four pounds five shillings

• Two places in the said Pew are let to Mrs Emerson at seven shillings and six pnce a quarter each Another place therein let to Another person at 9s a Quarter and a fourth Place therein is now unlett as Def[endan]ts have been informed and believe

And the said Defendants by their said Answer further sayd they did not
know or had been informed that the said Anthony Brucer died seized ^ [interlined] or poss[ess]ed of or intitled as an Absolutte Estate unto any other Freehold Copyhold or Leasehold Estates or any other Share [end interlining] in any other
Bridge than what were Comprised in the said first Schedule except the Leasehold Estate
conditionally devised to the said Defendant Thomas Ryves And further Sayd that the
Lease of the Prem[is]es in the said Schedule mentioned to be in the Possession of Mrs
Thompson Expired at Mich[al]mas then last at which time the Prem[is]es fell into the
hands of the ground Landlord And Sayd they have not taken Possession of the said Freehold
Copyhold or Leasehold Estates or the Shares in Fulham Bridge or any of them And Sayd
they did not know or Believe that the said Anthony Brucer ever entered into any
Contract for Sale of the said Estates whereof he died Seized or Possessed or any of them
or that he Mortgaged or Incumbered the same by Admitted there were some Terms of
Years on some of the Said Freehold Estates which had been Assigned In Trust to Attend the
Inheritance but Submitted not to set up such Terms in bar to any Ejectments that the
Compl[ainan]t might bring for the Recover of the Possession But Sayd that in Case this
Honourable Court should be of Opinion that the said Estates or any of them could not
pass to the Def[endan]ts upon the Trusts in the said Will they Submitted that such Person who
should appear intitled thereto might take & keep the Possession thereof And the said Def[endan]ts
likewise Submitted to deliver over to such Person the Deeds Papers & Writings relating to
such Estates in the Def[endan]ts Custody or Power And in the mean time to produce the same as
the Court should direct And the said Def[endan]ts also Admitted that the said Anthony Brucer
died poss[ess]ed of or intitled to a considerable Personal Estate ^ ^which as they Apprehended and
believed would be greatly more than Sufficient to pay and discharge all his debts
Funeral Expenses and Pecuniary Legacies and the necessary Charges of the
Ex[ecu]torship of his said Will part of which Personal Estate had then been Possessed
by the said Defendants And further Sayd they did not know whether the said
Anthony Brucer was ever married to the said Mary Awsiter or any other Person
And that they were intire Strangers to the matters Alledged in the Complainants
Bill relating to such Pretended Marriage And therefore could not give any Account
thereof And Sayd they always beleived the said Anthony Brucer lived and died a

[Page 7 lower - image 0326]
Batchelor having never heard the Contrary from himself or any other person till
since his death and that only from the Complainant and her Agents or by her Bill And
Sayd that since the death of the said Anthony Brucer they had Searched among the
Deeds Papers & Writings which were in his Custody at the time of his death but
had not been able to find any Deed Paper Writing or Letter whereby it Appeared
that the said Anthony Brucer was married to the Compl[ainan]ts Mother or that the
Complainant was their only Lawful Daughter or Child But Sayd they had found
three Paper Writings Copys of which were set forth in the second, third & fourth
Schedules to their Answer And that they had not found any other Deed, Papers
Writings or Letters in which the Complainants Mother or the Complainant is
mentioned or which Appeared to be in any reespect relative to the Complainant or
her Mother except a Paper which Appeared to be a Draft of some part of the paper
setforth in the said third Schedule And therefore they could not Admit the
Complainant to be the only lawful Daughter and Heir at Law of the said
Anthony Brucer without some further Evidence of her Pedigree by left her to
make the best proof thereof she was able And in Case she should make proof of
her Mother's Marriage to the said Anthony Brucer and the said Will should be
void as to the Lands and Premisses claimed by the Complainant they should readily
Submit to such Claim only desiring to Act in the said Trust with Security to
themselves And the said Thomas Wollascott Richard Haukins and Thomas Collins
Sayd they had not seen or Inspected the Register of the said Marriage or Baptism
But the Def[andan]t Thomas Ryves sayd he had seen the Register of the said Marriage
which appeared to be fairly wrote And all the said Def[andan]ts admitted that no other Person
had set up any Claim to the said Real Estates as Heir at Law of the said Anthony
Brucer other than the Complainant Nor did they know that there was any Person
Existing who had any pretence of Title to the said Prem[isse]s as Heir at Law except
the Complainant And Submitted to the Judgement of the Court whether the said
Will as to the Disposition thereby made of the said Freehold Leasehold and
Copyhold Estates and Shares in Fulham Bridge except the Conditional disposition
of the Dwelling House in Devonshire Street and Queen Square and the Stables
thereto belonging to the Def[andan]t Thomas Ryves and his first Son was Void and
incapable of taking Effect or whether the said Disposition was good and Valid in
Law And Wheter the Def[andan]ts not be Permitted to sell all the said Estates

[Page 8 upper - image 0327]
except that which was given to the said Thomas Ryves and apply the money arising by such sale
accourding to the directions of the said Will And Sayd they were desirous a Reciever should be
Appointed to the Rents & Profils of the said Estates until the Right thereto should be determined
and without Prejudice thereto and had for that Purpose procured a Reciever to be Appointed by
the Court accordingly And the Defendant Thomas Ryves sayd he very shortly after he knew of
the said Anthony Brucers death and the Contents of his said Will made his Election to Accept of
the said House and such of the Furniture & Pictures therein as were devised to him by the
said Will And also of the Stables thereto upon the Condition in the said Will and actually took
Possession thereof And had repaired and resided in the said House And intended to do whenever
he came to London and Sayd he had two Sons living the Eldest of which was named John and
was then of the Age of two years & Upwards

Answer of the Attorney General

And the said Def[andan]t the Honourable William ^ ^Murray
Esquire His Majestys Attorney General by his said Answer Sayd he was a Stranger to
all the matters and things in the said Bill of Complaint contained and left the same to such
Proof as the Complainant could make thereof And Submitted the same to the Judgment ^ ^{and direction} of this
Honourable Court And Prayed that the Court would take care to the Charity on the Bill ment[ione]d
and give proper directions for the Settling & Establishing thereof

Hearing of the Court and Evidence listed

And all the said Def[andan]ts
denyed Combination and Concluded their said Answers with the general Traverse ^[3] To
which answers of the said Def[andan]ts the said Complainant replyed and Issue being joined Several
Witnesses were Examined and their Dep[osi]cions duly taken & Published as in & by the said Bill
Answers Replication and Depositions of Witnesses remain as of Record in this Hon[oura]ble
Court relation being thereunto have may appear And the said Cause being thus
ready for hearing Saturday the twenty ninth day of January in the thirtieth
year of the Reign of His Majesty King George the Second And in the year of our Lord
one thousand seven hundred and fifty seven was Appointed by this Court for the hearing
thereof And the same coming on accordingly to be heard before The Right Honourable
the Lords Commissioners for the Custody of the Great Seal of Great Britain in the
presence of Councell learned on both sides the Substance of the Complainants Bill and
the said Def[andan]ts Answers Appeared to be in Effect as before writed Whereupon
and upon debate of the matter and hearing of

• the Will of the said Testator Anthony Brucer dated the eighteenth day of July one thousand seven hundred and fifty two
• A Copy of the Register of the Marraige of the said Testator Anthony Brucer with the said Mary Awsiter the Pl[antif]fs Father and Mother at St Mary Le Bon dated the thirty first of August one thousand six hundred & Eighty eight
• An Inscription on the Inside of the Gold wedding ring on the said Marriage dated the thirty first of August one thousand six hundred and eighty eight
• A Copy of the Register of the Plaintiffs Christening by the name of Laetitia Daughter of Anthony and Mary Brucer at St Giles in the Fields the Eighteenth of Feb[rua]ry

one thousand six hundred and Eighty nine

• A Copy of an Inscription upon Sir John Thorogood ^Knt & William Thoroods Tomb Stone in the Parish of St James Clerkenwell
• A Copy of an Inscription upon Mrs Mary Brucer's Tombstone in the Chappel Yard of Norwood in the County of Middlesex
• A Copy of the Register of Mrs Mary Brucers Burial at Norwood aforesaid the sixteenth December one thousand seven hundred and fifty
• The Original Will of of Thomas Awsiter dated the third day of March one thousand and seven hundred and twenty nine

[Page 8 Lower - Image 0328]

• A Copy of the Register of the Baptism of Mary the Daughter of Thomas Awsiter dated the first of September one thousand six hundred and sixty one
• A Copy of the Register of the Marriage of the Plaintiff with Hugh Christian the fourteenth of June one thousand seven hundred and nine
• A Copy of the Register of the Plantiffs Marriage with Mrs Thomas Mascall her second Husband dated the fourth of June one thousand seven hundred and forty seven
• A Copy of the Pl[aintif]fs Admission to the said Test[at]or's Copyhold Estate held of the Manor of Kingston Canbury as his Daughter & Heir at Law the twenty fourth of March one thousand seven hundred and fifty five
• A Discharge from the said Thomas Awsiter to his sister Mrs Mary Brucer of all Claims & demands upon her dated the sixth of May one thousand Seven hundred and twenty nine
• five Original Assessments of the Land Tax on the Inhabitants of the Precintts of Norwood in the Parish of Hayes for the years one thousand seven hundred and twenty four, one thousand seven hundred and twenty five, one thousand seven hundred and twenty nine, one thousand seven hundred and thirty eight and one thousand seven hundred and thirty nine
• A Deed of Partition dated the eleventh of Mary one thousand Seven hundred and five
• A Lease from Mrs Mary Brucer and the Plaintiff then Laetitia Christian to Robert Mundy dated the twenty seventh of September one thousand seven hundred and thirty nine
• A Pocket Book of Mr Thomas Awsiter's markd No. 8
• Four Almanacks of the said Thomas Awsiters for the Years one thousand Seven hundred & fitteen, one thousand seven hundred and seventeen, one thousand seven hundred and twenty one and one thousand Seven hundred and twenty three
• An Order made in this Cause then nineteenth day of July one thousand seven hundred and fifty five
• The Masters Report dated the eighteenth day of August one thousand Seven hundred & fifty five
• An Order dated the fourth of December one thousand seven hundred & fifty six
• A Bill of Revivor in a Cause wherein Henry Loubier & another were Plaintiffs and the said Laetitia Mascall & others were Def[endan]ts file the twenty sixth of July one thousand seven hundred and fifty four
• An Order dated the twenty first of November one thousand seven hundred and fifty four in the same Cause
• an order dated the twentieth of January one thousand seven hundred and fifty five in the same

[Page 9 Upper - image 0329] cause

• An order to Revive dated the sixth of February one thousand seven hundred and fifty five in the same cause,
• A Bill of Revivor filed the Fourteenth of January one thousand seven hundred and fifty six in the same Cause,
• An Order to Revive dated the third of January one thousand seven hundred and fifty six in the same Cause

and the Proofs taken in this Cause
read and what was Alledged by the Councell on both sides

Sentence of the Court

Their
Lordships Did Declare That the Devise in the Will of the said
Anthony Brucer deceased of his Freehold Copyhold and Leasehold Estates and
of his Shares in Fulham Bridge to his said Trustees and Executors for the
Charitable purposes therein mentions was Void by the Statute of the ninth year
of the Reign of His present Majesty And did Order and Decree that the
possession of the said Freehold Copyhold and Leasehold Estates & Shares in Fulham
Bridge should be delivered to the Plaintiff by the Reciever already Appointed
in this cause And that she should be Quieted in the Possession thereof And it was
Ordered & Decreed that the said Defendants the Trustees should Assign the said
Leasehold Estate to the Plaintiff or to whom she should direct at her Expence And
it was Ordered that the said Reciever should be discharged and Pass his Accounts
before Mr Sawyer one of the Masters of this Court And pay the ballance
that should be reported in his hands to the Plaintiff And it was Ordered that all
Deeds & Writings relating to the said Several Estates in the Custody or Power
of any of the Parties should be delivered by them to the Plaintiff upon Oath
And it was Ordered that the Plaintiff and the Defendant the Attorney
General should be paid their Costs of this Suit to be taxt by the said Master
by the said Defendants the Executors out of the said Test[at]ors Personal Estate
they having Admitted Assetts for that Purpose It is therefore this present
day (That is to say) Saturday the twenty ninth day of January
in the thirtieth Year of the Reign of our Most Gracious Sovereign
Lord George the second By the Grace of God of Great Britain
France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith and so forth And in the
Year od outr Lord one thousand seven hundred and fifty seven By
the Right Honourable Sir John Willes Knight Sir Sydney
Stafford Smyth Knight And Sir John Earfley Wilmot Knight Lords
Commissioners For the Custody of the Great Seal of Great Britain
and by the Power and Authority of the High Court of Chancery
Declared that the Devise in the Will of the said Anthony
Brucer deceased of his Freehold Copyhold and Leasehold Estates and of
his Shares in Fulham Bridge to his said Trustees and Executors for the
Charitable Purposes therein mentioned is Void by the Statute of the ninth
year of the Reign of his Present Majesty And Ordered
Adjudged and Decreed that the Possession of the said

[Page 9 Lower - 0330]
Freehold Copyhold and Leasehold Estates and Shares in
Fulham Bridge be delivered to the Plaintiff by the Reciever already
Appointed in the Cause And that she will be Quieted in the Possession thereof
And it is Ordered and Decreed that the said Defendants the Trustees
Do Assign the said Leasehold Estate to the Plaintiff or to whom she
shall direct at her Expence And It is Ordered that the said Reciever be
discharged and Pass his Accounts before Mr Sawyer one of the Masters of
this Court and pay the Ballance that shall be reported in his hands to the
Plaintiff And It is Ordered that all Deeds & Writings relating to the said
Several Estates in the Custody or Power of any of the Parties be
delivered by them to the Plaintiff upon Oath And It is Ordered that the
Plaintiff and the Defendant the Attorney General be paid their Cost of this
Suit to be taxt by the said Master by the said Defendants the Executors
out of the said Testators Personal Estate they having Admitted Assetts for that
purpose

Sources

1. ↑ Letitia Mascall of Stanmore, Middx, formerly wife of Hugh Christian deceased and afterwards the wife and then the widow of Thomas Mascall being the daughter and only child and heir at law of Anthony Brucer, esq v. Thomas Ryves; Thomas Wollascot; Richard Haukins; Thomas Collins; and William Murray esq Attorney General. The National Archives, Kew, London, England, United Kingdom, reference C78/1952 no. 4 [3]. Images available on WAALT Accessed 11 November 2023
2. ↑ possibly the word "Father" omitted here
3. ↑ "an allegation of fact in a party’s pleading is completely and categorical denied by the opposite party in his pleading. Traverse of an allegation of facts may be specific or general." General Traverse, Where is your sting? Richmond Agbelengor 11 December 2022 Ghana Law Hub Accessed 18 November 2023