404 Cadnam. 



the said John Crikelade the yonger saith that the said John Crikelade the 

 elder made destolacon' & distruccon' of the said manerez londez & ten' & 

 graunted the said annuitez in the nianer & forme as he hath supp[osed] be 

 his said bill with [out] that the wol of the said Thomas was that he shuld 

 graunte eny annuitez in nmner and foime as he hath allegged in his said 

 answere and in as moche as he hath confessed the said graunt of annuitez 

 unto the disenheritaunce of the said John Crikelade the yonger he prayith 

 that he be compelled be this court suffcently to recompense him &c. 



Earlti Chancery Proceedings, Bundle 31, no. 152. 



The courfc upon this trial came to a decision wholly in the 

 plaintiffs favour, as appears by the recital in subsequent (44, 93) 

 proceedings. The refeoffment was actually made, and in fee. 

 There was still time for the nephew to bar the uncle's reversion. 

 In August, 1468, he sold the manors of Cadnam aud Studley to 

 his brother-in-law, Edward Hungerford. A release, dated 3rd 

 August in that year, by John Cricklade, the younger, to the said 

 Edward, of the manor of Cadenham, is in the British Museum 

 {Additional Charters, 40061), and the manor of Studley was, 

 doubtless, similarly conveyed away, and about the same time, by 

 deed of feoffment and release had thereon. Having accomplished 

 this, John Cricklade, the younger, died, and died without issue. 

 The exact date of his death does not appear, but it was within a 

 comparatively short time of the sale. 



By his nephew's death John Cricklade, the elder, became sole 

 heir to his mother. But for the refeoffment, which after ten 

 years' resistance he had been compelled to make, he would after 

 his nephew's death, have entered upon the whole of her inheritance, 

 subject to dower. Even as matters stood, he was not in the least 

 degree disposed to submission. But before we proceed to the 

 further stages of the struggle for the possession of Cadnam, it may 

 be well to insert a bill, relating to a different affair, but of much 

 the same date as the bill and answer last above, which shows 

 incidentally that the uncle had been committed, probably in con- 

 nection with his nephew's suit, to the prison of the Fleet. 



Vnto the right honorable and reuerent ti'ader in God the 

 Archebysshop of York and Chanceller of Englond. 

 Beseketh in the most lowly wyse your pore and contynuall oratour Thomas 

 Bake where that youre said beseker was seased in his demeane as in fee of 



