406 Cadnnin. 



divert tlie inlieiitaiice from tlie heirs entitled to iiiycrformam doni! 

 In resisting the rights of Edward Hungerford as purchaser it was 

 upon tliis line of defence that John Cricklade apparently fell back ; 

 and in the result we are supplied with a quantity of valuable 

 detail as to the pedigree of the forn)er owners of Cadnani and 

 Studley, and the entails created by them. 



Edward Hungerford's bill is addressed to Robert Stillington, 

 bishop of Bath, who was chancellor from 20th June, 1467, to 9th 

 October, 1470, and again from April, 1471, to 18th June, 1473. 

 In this instance the preliminary proceedings in the suit are com- 

 plete, that is to say the bill is followed by the answer, the rejoinder, 

 and the replication. There is also, attached, an order staying 

 proceedings in other courts till the suit pending in Chancery shall 

 be decided. The date of this order is 8th February, 1473 — 4, 

 from which the date of the bill may be approximately inferred. 



To the right reverend ffadir in god the Bisshop of Bathe and 

 Welles Chaunceller of Englond. 



Mekely bisechith youre gracious lordship youre contynuellOratour Edward 

 Hungerford squyer That where con Thomas Crekelade Esquier was seased 

 of the nianers of Cadenham and Stodeley with thappurtenaunces in the 

 countee of Wiltes in his demeane as of fee and had issue Eobert his elder 

 Sonne and John his yonger sonne And the sauje Robert had issue John and 

 deyed and the saide Thomas so seased of the saide maners londes and tene- 

 mentes with thappurtenaunces upon grete truste therof enfeffed the saide 

 John his son and Waltier Sanibourn nowe on lyve and othir dede in fee 

 symple unto the use of the saide Thomas and his heires forevermore. By 

 vertue wherof the saide John son of Thomas and Waltier Sambourn were 

 therof seased in theire demeane as of fee unto the use and behofe aforsaid. 

 And the saide Thomas afterward died After whos decesse flfor asmuche as 

 the saide John son of Thomas and Walter Sambourn wold not make an 

 estate unto the saide John son of Eobert but kepte the possession of the 

 saide maners londes and tenementes with thappurtenaunces and therof toke 

 the issues and profites unto the use of the said John son of Thomas. And 

 because the saide John son of Thomas imagyned the meanes not oonly to 

 disherite the said John son of Robert of the maners londes and tenementes 

 with thappurtenaunces but also to destroye his person as by the bill of the 

 said John son of Robert remaynyng in the Kynges Court of Chancerye of 

 recorde more plenly appereth. the same John son of Robert as cosyn and 

 heire unto the saide Thomas in fourme aforsaide brought a writte of Sub pena 

 ayenst the seide John Crickelade son of Thomas and Waltier Sambourn upon 

 his saide bill to the which tliei appered. And the bill title answer replicacion 

 and rejoyndre with all othir thinges incydent therto duely replied b}' this 



