orator" and did expel and put out Robert Langeshaw and Robert Hasteley who occupied the same, threatening to beat and kill the said Edward Fleetwood or any who should enter the said premises. The said Fleetwood therefore is without any tenant to his great losse and hindrance, "which wilbe to the disinheritans of the seid orator and his successors, parsons there, for ever."[1]
The answer of Hugh Langshaw, Gilbert Langshaw, and James Langshaw, given in 18 Eliz. (1575-6), is that the said bill is only devised of malice and "evill will " to put them (being poor men) to charges and expenses, by the special procurement of Peter Nelson, "being a greate enemye to James Langshaw, and havyng manye tymes sought hys utter undoinge as is manyfestlie knowen to all their neightbours." They declare the said title to be determinable at the Common Law, at which court they pray the case may be tried. Hugh Langshaw says that he and all his ancestors have used and enjoyed a 4th part of one of the said water mills mentioned in the said bill, or such profit as amounted to the 4th part, paying to the parson of Wigan for the time being the 4th part of the rent of the said mill. Gilbert Langshaw says that he is seised of an estate of and in a 4th part of the other water mill by good and lawful conveyance in law. James Langshaw says that he is seised of and in one 3rd part of a 4th part of the last-mentioned water mill. The said defendants deny that the parson has any right to the said mills, or that they have in their possession any writings or deeds concerning them, and aver that they claim only that part to which they are justly entitled.[2]
The answer of William Langshaw, given on 6th February, 1583, was that the said mill had been erected and built "longe tyme since as he hath herd" by some of his ancestors, and that ever since he and his ancestors, and his and their assigns, have continued in the quiet occupation thereof: that about 7 years ago "controversie did growe" between the said defendant and
