Scope and Content
by John Scholey of Saint Clement Dane’s [Middlesex], gentleman and Ann, his wife, one of the daughters of Thomas Inskip, late of Stanford, Southill, yeoman, deceased and Mary, his wife, also deceased:
- Ann Scholey’s father was possessed of a “considerable” real and personal estate and made his will in 1697 in which he devised to his wife his real estate in Stanford valued at £21 per annum, freehold estate in Stanford valued at £10 per annum and bequeathing to her all his corn, horses, cattle, household goods and stuff and implements of husbandry and made her sole executrix;
- death of Thomas Inskip leaving two sons and three daughters, all infants, having made no provision for them in his will but committed their care to his wife and proof of his will in Bedford Consistory Court;
- Mary Inskip laid out money to place her children in trades or callings;
- will of Mary Inskip of 8 May 1713: devising her real estate to Thomas Inskip of Ramerick [Hertfordshire], yeoman and Joseph Cotton of Chicksands, yeoman in trust for sale; to redeem mortgages and discharge debts and repair her dwelling in Stanford; set out at mortgage £80 as provision for her daughter Elizabeth “being a person of weak understanding and capacity” not liable to use by any husband; to pay £5 to her son Thomas for clothing and a farm of £10 in Stanford for his life; to Elizabeth the further sum of 20 shillings; to Thomas and Elizabeth small parcels of household goods; to devise and bequeath the residue of her estates to her children Richard, Mary and Ann; making Thomas Inskip and Joseph Cotton her executors;
- codicil to the will of Mary Inskip of 5 July 1715 devising to her daughter Elizabeth a cottage and garden of annual value 40 shillings for her life, remainder to Mary;
- death of Mary Inskip on 8 May 1726 leaving as issue her eldest son Thomas “a person of very weak understanding”, Mary Inskip of Southill, spinster, Elizabeth Inskip, spinster and Ann Scholey, Richard having died in London some time before;
- Thomas and Ann Scholey, living in London, had never heard anything of Ann’s mother’s sickness, death and burial until sometime afterwards “but believe the same was industriously kept secret” by Mary with the intent to deprive John and Ann Scholey of their share of her estate;
- the trustees “not knowing how to direct” to John and Ann Scholey in London several times desired Mary to write to them with the news and “after much persuasion” Mary did send a letter in which she stated that her share and that of Ann should be about £150 each;
- John Scholey then travelled from London to the house of Mary Inskip, deceased, in Stanford and sent for Thomas Inskip the trustee who informed him that the stock of Mary Inskip, deceased, had been appraised by William Fowler of Stanford, yeoman and Richard Brazier of Broom, yeoman;
- applying to the appraisers for a copy of the inventory and appraisal John Scholey was told that, through entreaty of Mary, they had been persuaded to appraise to a low figure and withhold the true amount from John and Ann Scholey and informed him that the estate was worth £33 per annum;
- after ten days in Stanford John Scholey then left from London and within a month of his return received a letter from Mary Inskip requesting him to return to Stanford to assist in settling the estate “for that the Executors “refuse further to act therein or to intermeddle therein”;
- “much to his loss and detriment in his business” went to Ramerick to ask why he refused to act and was told that Mary “was a litigious, troublesome person and never satisfied with what was or could be done in the execution of the said trust he did not care further to be concerned but that if the said Mary and her sister Ann, the principal Legatees in the will, named would take Administration he would assist them”;
- examining Mary Inskip, deceased’s papers John Scholey found that a year’s interest was owing on a £20 loan by mortgage to Mrs Bragg;
- Thomas Inskip and John Scholey desired William Fowler and Richard Brasier to make a fresh appraisal of the corn of Mary Inskip, deceased, which was about to be cut down and worth “more by considerable” than at the time of the former appraisal;
- the 28 acres of corn and grain was, in the second appraisal, valued at £50;
- the cows, horses, sheep, beds, bedding, pewter, corn in the chambers, money, household furniture and implements of husbandry were valued in whole at £70;
- John Scholey and Thomas Inskip visited Stotfold to view the farm and premises which were let at an annual rent of £21 and were to be sold to redeem a mortgage of £200 on them as well as to pay legacies;
- enquiring the true value of the farm Thomas Inskip and John Scholey found it was £450 and upwards;
- the farm at Stanford of £10 annual value where Mary Inskip, deceased dwelt, was to be vested in Thomas Inskip, her son, “as provision for him during his life, he being in a manner uncapable of Governing his affairs by reason of his weak memory and understanding” and the sum of £81 was to be secured at interest and the cottage of 40 shillings per annum was to be let for a provision for Elizabeth;
- the residue of the estate after deductions to repay mortgages and to support Thomas and Elizabeth was to be shared equally between Mary Inskip and Ann Scholey and the sum to be shared was computed at about £300;
- John and Ann Scholey hoped that “after so much pains had been taken” by John “in taking two tedious journeys into Bedfordshire to his great loss and detriment in his business and by his expences in Coach hire, Horse hire and all other necessary Expences which did amount to Twenty pounds and upwards” the estate at Stotfold had been sold, legacies paid and trusts performed according to the will;
- “But now so it is … that the said Thomas Inskip and Joseph Cotton the Trustees combining and confederating themselves to and with Mary Inskip of Southill aforesaid, spinster and to and with divers other persons unknown … they the said Thomas Inskip and Joseph Cotton … refusing to intermeddle or act any further in Execution of the said Trust or to renounce their trust” Mary Inskip about the beginning of August 1726 made a journey without the knowledge of the Trustees or John and Ann Scholey to Bedford “and there surreptitiously obtained” Letters of Administration at the Consistory Court “contrary to her own promise and agreement and thereupon possessed herself of all and singular the goods, Chattels and effects of the said testatrix and sold and disposed of the Cattle, Corn and other personal Estate”;
- John and Ann Scholey had demanded of Mary Inskip a performance of the will of Mary Inskip, deceased, sale of the estate at Stotfold and payment of their legacy but she had refused to sell or pay the legacy, threatening that unless they took “fifty pounds or some other small and inconsiderable sum of money for their full share … as she had gotten the power into her hands” neither John nor Ann “should ever have one farthing”;
- for some years Mary Inskip had kept a shop in Southill and had borrowed £20 on bond from her mother to carry on the business “although the said Mary had before then had and received considerably more from the Testatrix than any other of her Children” and after some years using the money went to her mother “under pretence to pay her the said twenty pounds and Interest and demanded her bond which the said testatrix producing she the said Mary Inskip the Defendant by violence took the said bond from the Testatrix and cancelled or destroyed the same” or took it from her mother “without ever paying one penny of the principal or interest”;
- John and Ann Scholey contended that principal and interest of this loan were part of the personal estate of Mary Inskip, deceased and should be equally divided;
- the trustees and Mary Inskip despite often being asked by John and Ann Scholey “in a friendly manner” to sell the estate, pay off the mortgage and pay the legacies had always “utterly refused to comply”;
- Mary Inskip, having possessed her mother’s entire estate without paying the mortgages and legacies was “in great danger of being swallowed up “ and John and Ann Scholey and other legatees “utterly deprived of their part and share thereof”;
- Mary Inskip had let and received rents and profits for the estate without rendering any account;
- Mary Inskip “insists that she has a right and power so to do by virtue of her Administration “ whereas John and Ann Scholey “charge that tehs aid Confederates are but Trustees” for John and Ann Scholey “and are in equity accountable to them”;
- John and Ann Scholey were remediless at and by strict rules of the Common Law and relievable only in a court of equity as all the witnesses who could prove their case were “either dead or gone beyond the seas into parts remote and unknown”;
- John and Ann Scholey demanded answer to all points in the bill recited above and sale of the real estate of Mary Inskip, deceased