Unknown c. William Eve and William Hayward Jr.

These depositions are not especially informative about the substance of this lawsuit (or possibly disciplinary proceedings?) about a will – even the name of the party bringing it forward is unclear. William Hayward Sr. died in August 1493; as other evidence indicates, he lived in Chelmsford, Essex. Both he and his son appear in Chelmsford records in property transactions, so as one might expect with a contested will, the Haywards were men of some property. The case here appears to centre on whether the defendants had in fact been constituted executors and their denial that they had refused to execute a particular clause. Unfortunately, the recording of their testimony gives us no clue as to what the issue in dispute was. We nonetheless learn something about the interesting relationship between the written form of the testament and allegations about its contents. Though both witnesses refer to the written form of the testament and even indicate that the document was handed to the lord commissary when it was probated, there appears nonetheless to have been doubt about its form, perhaps (merited) skepticism that the written document was a true copy, free from tampering and revision.

Though both witnesses indicated that the will was probated before the Lord Commissary of London, I have not been able to locate the will either among the London commissary court wills or at the Essex Record Office.

LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fol. 203v-204r, 252r

Response of William Eve, Defendant, 11 Jun. 1494

Responses personally [made] by William Eve.

William Eve sworn and diligently examined on the interrogatories etc. To the first interrogatory, he says that on a certain [day] in the month of August last past, which day he cannot further specify, William Hayward made his testament, and this he knows because this witness was present at the time of the making of this testament or last will, together with Master John Asshwell who wrote the will,[1] [and] William Power, and afterward this testament was read in the present of John Grynley [and] John Clerk. And in this testament he named as executors this witness and William Hayward his natural[2] son, and this he knows because he showed a copy of the testament before the lord commissary. To the second interrogatory, he believes (admits[3]) it and its contents. To the third interrogatory, he does not believe it. To the fourth interrogatory, he does not believe it. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that the words specified in those interrogatories were not specified in the testament.[4] To the sixth interrogatory, he says that this testament was probated before the lord commissary of London by this witness and William Hayward, and the administration of each and every one of the deceased’s goods at the time was committed to this witness and the said William, sworn to be bound by the law, as he says. To the seventh interrogatory, he admits it.

Response of William Hayward, Defendant, 11 Jun. 1494

Responses personally made by William Hayward on the interrogatories

William Hayward sworn and diligently examined on the interrogatories. On the first interrogatory, he says that William Hayward on a certain day falling in autumn last past, which day he cannot further specify, made his testament, containing his last will, and in that testament he named and constituted this witness and William Eve as his executors, and this he knows from what he was told by William Eve and the others who were present at the time the testament was made, as they claimed, and this he knows because this witness and William proved the testament or last will of the deceased before the commissary of the lord of London in the church at Chelmsford. The administration of the goods was committed to this witness and to the said William, bound by the law, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose. To the second interrogatory, he admits it. To the third and fourth interrogatories, he does not believe them, nor their contents. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that those words specified in the interrogatory [were not] within the testament as far as this witness ever knew or understood. To the sixth interrogatory, he says as he answered above. To the seventh interrogatory, he admits it.

The above acknowledgement made on the 20 June by Master Wilton, commissary etc., in his dwelling house, in the presence of Trapp and Copland and by their consent. 

Administrative note, 20 Jun. 1494

20 June, A.D. 1494,[5] in the dwelling house of Master Wilton, commissary of the lord Official of the consistory of London, specially deputed, the lord commissary at the petition of Trapp and with the consent of Coplond licensed William Eve and William Hayward to appear by their proctor etc. And then the said William and William constituted Master Nicholas Trapp and Evilyn, Imbroke, Mareys, and Smyth their proctors, jointly and severally, in all their causes etc., in the presence of John Hollam, literate, witness etc.

---

[1] Asshwell’s name shows up in two other Consistory cases in 1494; he was the curate of the parish of Chelmsford. For more on him, see Office c Asshford.

[2] A “natural” son was a biological son, as opposed to a stepson; it did not in this period connote illegitimacy.

[3] admits is written above believes, perhaps to replace the latter.

[4] but outside deleted.

[5] Occasionally in the Consistory court deposition book there are records of parties to a suit appointing proctors or lawyers who will appear on their behalf for technical parts of the proceedings.