Bedfordshire Archives Service Catalogue
  • Reference
    R6/15/7/35
  • Title
    Statement for the arbitrator on reference
  • Date free text
    November 1833
  • Production date
    From: 1833 To: 1833
  • Scope and Content
    Statement for the arbitrator on reference: - Duke of Bedford was Lord of the Manor of Cranfield; - disputes had arisen respecting the joint ways and headlands and the distinguishing of copyhold in the open fields from freehold, “several persons having ploughed their copyhold lands in with the freehold and a requisition of July 1827 was signed by fifteen of the principal holders for a survey to: (a) ascertain joint ways; (b) distinguish copyhold from freehold; (c) present encroachments; (d) revise and confirm byelaws; (e) recognise and preserve respective rights of the lord and tenants; (f) allow the Steward to conduct necessary business as a court baron had not been held for many years - Fisher, the Duke’s solicitor asked Thomas Evans of Ampthill, surveyor, to set out joint ways and headlands and distinguish copyhold from freehold; - Evans did not proceed according to instructions and sent in a bill for £343/13/1 which the duke refused to pay; - at a meeting between Eagles & Son, Mrs Evans’ attorneys, Thomas Bennett and Samuel Davis it was agreed that Evans had been employed; - Rachael Evans, widow, had sent a copy of her demand as executrix; - Bennett and Davis contended that Evans had exceeded his brief, the view of Eagles & Sons had not yet been ascertained; - the terrier comprised 221 pages and an index of 20 pages; - Davis had written to Evans thus: “Mr Davis will thank Mr Evans to refer to the number of the folio in the Court Rolls in the last description or admission of each Copyholder and the same respecting the few freeholds of the Manor of Cranfield as such reference to the Copyholds and Freeholds in the intended Schedules will be useful”; - “The charges for measuring seem to be quite out of reach of any order and there in examining the Terrier (the man’s own work) are utterly irreconcilable with any reputable practice”; - the payments to John Millard and Timms quoted in the order have not been fully made; - Ezra Eagles had to prove his client’s account; - “In reply to his Case if a reply should be even necessary it will be proved on the part of the Duke that the Orders were confined to a certain work and that the account is altogether an outrageous one and totally inconsistent with such employment and the following witnesses may be called”: - Fisher and Davis to prove the original order to Evans; - Tween who cautioned Evans he was exceeding his orders; - Paine of Cranfield, a large proprietor, to prove Evans’ work of no use; - Millard and Roe “will prove that Letting, Evans’ man, was of no use”; - Austin of Ampthill, Davis’ clerk and bailiff of the manor that much of Evans’ work could have been collected from the rolls and that Evans altered rolls in the course of his work “in many instances”
  • Level of description
    item
Hierarchy browser