Return to Files List    



All that remains of this lawsuit is the Answer of Christopher Goodlake, one of the defendants. The Answer of Thomas Woodward, the other defendant, if extant has not been found, nor has the Bill of Complaint of the following people: Edward and Elizabeth Ashe, George and Katherine Nutt, and Susan, Mary and Ann Woodward. At issue is the transfer of title to Pudding Mill. Text has been modernised, but surnames retain their original spelling. For unfamiliar terms, like 'defalk' or 'defeasance', see the Glossary.
    • The Answer of Christopher Goodlake

The Answer of Christopher Goodlake


Juratis 30 December 1631

The several Answer [sic] of Christopher Goodlake to the Bill of Complaint of Edward Ashe and Elizabeth his wife, George Nutt and Katherine his wife, Susan Woodward, Mary Woodward, and Ann Woodward, complainants

[1] All advantage and benefit of exception to the incertainty and insufficiency of the said Bill of Complaint to him this defendant now and at all times saved [2] and reserved for answer thereunto for as much as doth or may anyways concern him this defendant, he saith that true it is that about five years [3] before the decease of the said Christopher Woodward in the Bill of Complaint named, he the said Christopher Woodward did lend unto him this defendant the sum of five [4] hundred pounds, and that for security of repayment of the said sum with interest after the rate of eight percent, he this defendant did by surrender [5] mortgage unto him the said Christopher Woodward the said mill called Pudding Mill. Howbeit the truth is the said surrender was made without any condition [6] but this defendant's power of redemption thereof upon payment of the said five hundred pounds and interest for the same after the rate of eight percent about [7] a year after the date of the said surrender was mentioned and comprised in the indenture in the nature of a defeasance of the said surrender bearing [8] date the seventeenth day of April in the twentieth year of the reign of our late sovereign lord king James to which this defendant for the more [9] certainty referreth himself. And this defendant confesseth that the said sum of £500 with the interest or forbearance money was not paid by him at the [10] precise day limited by the said indenture, so that by the strict rules of the law the said Mill became forfeited, and likewise confesseth that the [11] said Christopher Woodward being an intimate and familiar friend of him this defendant did not take any advantage of the forfeiture of the said mortgage but [12] received the interest money as it grew due for the forbearance of the said £500 and continued the same until his death and then by his will in writing did [13] declare that the said sum of £500 with the interest to be due for the same should be repaid and equally divided amongst his daughters being the complainants [14] as in and by the complainants' Bill is set forth. And of his said will he made the parties mentioned in the Bill of Complaint his executors who after his decease [15] took upon them the execution of the said will and the same in due force of law proved, as this defendant believeth as by the said Bill of Complaint is set [16] forth. And this defendant further saith that about the time in the Bill mentioned the said Christopher Woodward died, after whose decease the other defendant Thomas Woodward [17] being his son and heir and one of his executors was (as this defendant hath heard and verily believeth to be true) according to the custom of the manor whereof the said mill [18] was holden, admitted tenant to the same. Howbeit shortly after there was some communication between the said Thomas Woodward and this defendant concerning the redemption of the [19] said mill called Pudding Mill so in strictness of law forfeited as aforesaid, Upon which communication the said Thomas Woodward shewed himself somewhat strict towards [20] him this defendant alleging that the money and interest for redemption of the said Mill was part of his sisters' portions and that he must have respect and regard of them [21] whereupon after several meetings and treaties it was agreed between the said Thomas Woodward and him this defendant (in regard he this defendant was not then furnished with [22] ready money for the redemption of the said Mill) that the said Thomas Woodward should defalk and allow unto himself for and on behalf of his said sisters (as [23] this defendant conceiveth) the said sum of £500 being the principal money lent upon the said mortgage together with the interest and forbearance thereof and that the [24] said Thomas Woodward should pay unto this defendant a certain sum of money then between them agreed upon for the absolute purchase of the said Mill. And this defendant further [25] saith that in prosecution of the said agreement the said Thomas Woodward did defalk and detain in his hands the said sum of £500 and the interest and forbearance thereof [26] which grew due after the decease of the said Christopher Woodward to whom this defendant did pay all such interest as did incur and grow due and payable during his life [27] according to the days in the said indenture of defeasance limited for the payment thereof. But what the same sum that this defendant did allow to the said Thomas [28] Woodward for interest did amount unto after the rate of eight percent this defendant doth not now well remember but referreth himself to the time being [29] calculated and cast up from the time that the same was due next after the decease of the said Christopher Woodward until the time of the absolute purchase [30] of the said Mill by the said Thomas Woodward from him this defendant which is (as this defendant taketh it) about half a year since. And this defendant further saith that [31] over and besides the said sum of £500 mortgage money and the interest thereof so defalked and allowed as aforesaid, he the said Thomas Woodward did pay unto him [32] this defendant for the absolute purchase of the said Mill the sum of two hundred and fifty pounds. And thereupon at the next court holden for the said [33] manor (the said Thomas Woodward having been formerly admitted tenant to the said Mill being forfeited as heir to his father as aforesaid) he this defendant [34] did deliver up all his right, title, and interest in and to the said Mill to him the said Thomas Woodward. And this defendant doth absolutely deny all [35] combination to or with him the said Thomas Woodward being the other defendant. Without that, that any other matter, cause, or thing in the said Bill of [36] Complaint contained material by him this defendant to be answered unto and not herein by him confessed and avoided, traversed or denied, is true. All which [37] this defendant is ready to aver and prove as this honorable court shall award, and humbly prayeth to be from hence dismissed with his reasonable [38] costs and charges in this behalf wrongfully sustained.