Back to results

Archive

Legal cases: Archer of Tanworth

Description

Papers relating to dispute between Thomas Lucas and Andrew Archer [see also DR 37/83/52-4; 60] 12 Nov 1612 Lucas filed Bill of Complaint v. Archer Lucas alleges a lease for 3000years from Thomas Archer [deceased son of Andrew] in a moiety of premises which Archer states were held of the Crown by knights service. If Lucas, he answers, took the lease, it was in order to defraud Crown of any fines, licences for alienation, wardships c. Archer claims that he obtained licence of alienation to grant various lands, purchased variously (in Yardley; in Wootton; of Richard Balamy; of John Fulwood) to his sons Thomas and Simon, as trustees with power of disposal of the inheritance during his life, by his direction or with his consent. With regard to premises in occupation Alice Hunt, it was always intended she should have quiet occupation for life at rent of 6s 3d p.a. as she had before Archer bought it. Claims that Lucas knew of all this before time of alleged lease from Thomas Archer. During lifetimes of sons Andrew has taken rents and revenues although has occasionally allowed one or other of them to receive certain rents they beinge Batchelers and Livinge onely at the defendants Alowance. Denies that he ever gave sons free disposal of any of the premises in question. Believes that Thomas Archer was made to agree to lease by virtue of debt due upon bond, defaulted by John Ilshaw, for which he had stood surety and for which sum Lucas had obtained judgement in Kings Bench not for lands in alleged lease. Description of property of Thomas Archer at time of his death at the house of his father in Tanworth: two geldings which he left in his father's care when went to London to study and for which father paid; a trunk worth 5s containing papers re father's time as Sheriff and another small trunk containing a suit of serge and other old wearing apparel not worth more than 16s 8d. Has no knowledge of what books or bedding might be in Simon's chambers in Grays Inn, London where Thomas usually lodged. Whatever they are, is sure were bought by his father. When he died Thomas owed his father more than £500. At his death had been outlawed at the suit of Lucas, by virtue whereof, whatever goods he did die possessed of, passed to the King. Archer admits that William Lucas became bound with Thomas Lucas for £25 owed by William to Archer. States that William has been in debt to Archer for that and other sums. After the bond was forfeit, William repaid £25 by 4 even instalments, not £15 £10 as Thomas Lucas claims. William still owes him £14 over and above penalties due upon the bond. Denies ever agreed with William Lucas for the sale to him of premises, by lease for life, as alleged by Thomas. Premises in question were granted to William by 21 year lease, more than 21 years ago, at rent of £9pa. Lucas undertook to build a barn. Got behind with rent during term and two years before the expiry William Lucas left the premises and the area, returning only by stealth. When he left William handed over £60 in lands and goods to Thomas for payment of debts, which Thomas has kept for own use. Since William's departure the tenant of the premises has been Richard Darby who has sub-let to William Jones at £14pa.. William Lucas owes £36 unpaid rent. Due to negligence of William of his wife, servants c, a great part of the building burnt down before he left. He was subject to an action of waste and rebuilt three of the bays. With regard to moiety of premises occupied by Alice Hunt, son Thomas granted them to his father for a term of 30 years at a rose rent in 1603. All transactions were to secure defendants inheritance - his son being trustees merely and he maintaining them at his own charge. Lucas made replication: All his claims in Bill of Complaint are true: the conveyance from Archer to his sons was in fee simple not as trustees to uses. Claims that Thomas and Simon were still minors at the time of the conveyance to them. Claims that the sons received and used the rents of the other lands for their own benefit and made no account thereof to their father. Animadverts against Archer's character: grasping, cruel, corrupt, mean [basically everything everyone else says about Lucas!] Accuses Simon Archer and his brother Richard of concealing the younger Thomas's possessions after his death to defraud Lucas. Papers include various statements by inhabitants of Tanworth concerning the scandalous and criminal life of Thomas Lucas - threatening behaviour, immorality, fraudulent dealings as lawyer c, 1599