C3/270/2

Forrest v. Ballard

[Document has lower part torn off and missing]

Bill of Complaint of John Forrest of Haughton, Notts.

11 June 1602,

About four years ago he needed to borrow 300 or 400 pounds. He was acquainted with William Ballard the elder of the County of Nottingham, gentleman, and knowing him to be a man well monied and willing to lend money at interest. He asked Ballard for a loan of 400 pounds who, at first, seemed unwilling to lend it, but ‘yet in kindness and goodwill, as he then pretended’, he agreed to lend the plaintiff as much money as he requested in return for the security of a lease on the Manor of Haughton, which the plaintiff had purchased from Mr Doctor Tyndall, one of the prebends of the Collegiate Church of Southwell; the title of the Manor being in the gift of the Abbey and was sold to William Nevill Esq. by Edward VI by virtue of the Statute of Dissolutions in 1547, as well as a mortgage of certain lands lying in the Manor called the Vicar’s lands. Loan from William Ballard was at the rate of 10 pounds per hundred on the profit of two meadow closes called the Swamp Closes for the term of one year, which closes are usually let for 10 pounds. By deed of 1 January 40 Elizabeth [1597/8], the plaintiff mortgaged the lands known as the Vicar’s Lands and the lease of the Manor of Haughton. But not to William Ballard himself but to his son, William. But he only received 200 pounds.  He was further prompted by William senior that he would lend more money, if needed, on the same security. Soon afterwards, the plaintiff asked for a further 100 pounds which Ballard agreed to lend but he was ‘too greedy and covetous’, that he forgot his previous promise and would have the plaintiff acknowledge a Statute Marchaunte or else the plaintiff would not have any further money, but such was the need of the plaintiff, and having no other lands to act as assurance, was enforced to agree to Ballard’s demands and to acknowledge a statute before the Mayor of Nottingham. He received the 100 pounds. The plaintiff was unable to repay the total debt of 300 pounds when it became due because he could not sell the premises because he had been ‘ensnared and entangled’ by William Ballard Senior. The statute became forfeited and Ballard Junior tried to extend the statute, which the plaintiff endeavoured to avoid and they came to an agreement whereby the Junior Ballard would lend the plaintiff 100 more, and have three years for its redemption. At the end of 3 years, as before, the plaintiff would pay 500 in one payment. If the plaintiff failed to pay, then William Jnr would have the premises for 16 years, paying the plaintiff 50 pounds a year. In order not to weaken the former assurance [the original agreement] the new lease of 16 years was to be granted to John Marten of Denton, Lincs., yeoman. An Indenture of Covenant was to be made between the plaintiff and Ballard Jnr in the nature of a Defeasance to frustrate and make void all former assurances and also to reconvey the premises to the plaintiff on the payment of 500 pounds in one sum. Since the plaintiff could repay anytime within 3 years, and dispossess William Jnr of the premises, thus leaving him without a house for his wife and children and grazing for his cattle, therefore it was further agreed that the plaintiff would give William Jnr six months notice of the payment and the place of payment be the Manor House of Haughton, where William then lived. It was further agreed that William would not meddle with the expelling of any of the tenants, should only have the rent payable by the tenants and wood necessary for hedging and fencing only. He was also to have the ‘Boones’ and services of the tenants as he pretended that he could not occupy the manor without such help. Accuses William Jnr of not drawing up the agreement correctly but the plaintiff was, by the extremity of his position, his living of 100 pounds about to be taken from him, was driven to seal the agreement. He received the 100 pounds, which should have been in two payments, in ten payments instead, which was a great hindrance to him. William is now breaking the agreement by expelling some of the tenants and spoiling the woods with his cattle and suffered the houses to fall into ruin and decay and intends to plough up the meadow grounds because he knows that the plaintiff can only repay the debt by the sale of the whole premises or part of them.

[Rest is missing]