Page:The History of the Church & Manor of Wigan part 2.djvu/49

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
229
History of the Church and Manor of Wigan.

parson for the time being, and as his tenants at will; and the defendants claimed the inheritance of the said mills by and under a certain grant made by John Maunsell, sometime parson of Wigan, to the burgesses of the said town, but shewed not any such deed; now this day the cause coming to hearing, the same was debated long by counsel learned on both parts; and upon the hearing of the said cause and upon the consideration of the proofs, objections, and answers on both sides, it plainly appeared that the said mills did belong to the complainant as parcel of the Glebe of the said parsonage, and that the parsons of the said parsonage had continually received rents for the same; therefore, and for that the defendants did shew forth no title at all to the said mills, it is ordered and decreed by the chancellor and council of this court that the said complainant and his successors, parsons of Wigan, shall for ever hereafter have, hold, and enjoy the said fulling mills without stop, let, or interruption of the said defendants or any of them, and that the defendants shall forthwith yield the possession of the said fulling mills unto the complainant, and shall not in the meantime do or commit any wilful or voluntary waste, nor suffer any waste to be done by their means so long as they or either of them continue any possession in or upon the said mills or either of them

(signed) Edw. Moseley."[1]

Dr. Bridgeman records in his Wigan Leger that the chancellor entreated him to be good to the said defendants, and to let them have a lease of the mills upon the old rents; whereto he assented, but they obstinately refused to accept the offer, and so the decree was established for the plaintiff.[2] There is also a memorandum in the same Leger to the effect that there was one other tenant of these mills, namely Anderton, included in Dr. Bridgeman's bill, but because he mistook his christian name, which he thought to be John, he appeared not, so nothing was then done against him.[3]

  1. Duchy of Lancaster Decrees and Orders, 16 James I, Trinity Term, folio 1272.
  2. Wigan Leger, fol. 20.
  3. Ibid.