Copy decree in the court of the Exchequer, Nicholas Lechmere esq, Edmund Lechmere esq his son, John Kent, and William Watton, servants of Edmund, plts

Description: In Michaelmas term 2 James II (1686) they exhibited their English bill against Sir Edward Dingley knight, Samuel Hale, Anthony Ashfield, William Rumney, Daniel Webley, and John Finch, defts, setting forth that the plts Nicholas and Edmund and their ancestors have been seized of a capital messuage in Hanley co Worcs, in which they now dwell, and lands belonging to it. The greatest part of the parish anciently lay in open common fields, in great part the inheritance of Nicholas and Edmund. The fields lay open to the other freeholders after harvest. Time beyond memory, the freeholders have and may inclose their lands lying in common fields and keep them inclosed, discharged of common. Many inclosures have been made there accordingly from time to time, the freeholders always acquiescing in them, knowing it to be the constant usage of the place and that their common ceases with inclosure "being in the nature of vicinage", and no freeholder or other landholder ever pretended to any common after inclosure. No suit has ever been brought upon claim of common after inclosure, until Sir Edward Dingley bought divers lands discharged of common by inclosure, which after harvest laynopen to all the freeholders as does the land of other freeholders. But the defendants, to disturb the plts, made a large invective against inclosures and declared he would spend £1000 but he would have them thrown open. Last August before the exhibiting the bill, he sent the defendants Ashfield, Browne, and Hale to Hanley in the night-time and the next morning they, armed with swords and pistols accompanyed with the other defendants Finch, Webley and Rumney, and others unknown, threw open the plaintiff's inclosures. Since then, Dingley, Rumney, and Webley, have brought several actions against the plaintiffs concerning the inclosures, "wherein if they prevail they will put the whole parish into confusion" For the stablishing of the enclosures and to avoid multiplicity of suits, the plaintiffs prayed the process of the court against the defendants, who appeared and admitted the number of freeholdings, and that great part of Hanley lay in time past in open fields and that the freeholders may of right keep inclosed their lands in the common fields. They said that the plaintiff Nicholas "in the late tymes" began making inclosures and then made several in Northfield, Lechmeres field, the Longcrofte and Seaverne meadow, in all of which Dingley, Webley, Fynch and Rumney claimed common of pasture after harvest. Dingley denied he had any lands inclosed that ought to lie common, except ½ acre in Mousefield which formerly lay common after harvest, but he was willing to throw it open; and a few yards of Malverne Chase inclosed to a tenement he lately purchased from Mr Ashton, both inclosed before his purchase. Fynch confessed to keeping inclosed 2 acres in Mousefield. Webley and Rumney have no title to common in Hanley but only as tenants at a rack rent to Dingley. Dingley, Rumney and Webley confessed they have brought several actions against the plaintiffs, severally, concerning inclosures. The defendants say that after the Restoration, some of the plaintiffs' inclosures were thrown open and he compounded a considerable sum of money. The plaintiff justified his inclosured by the custom aforesaid Witnesses were heard and their depositions taken and the cause heard on the day of the date, in the Exchequer chamber. Decree in favour of the plaintiffs for stablishing of their inclosures, as it appeared to be permitted by custom and that inclosures in fields called Lechmere field, Organ field, Mousefield, Burley field, Pickrend field, Westfield, Meadow field and a part of North field in Hanley, having been quietly (enjoyed, are) discharged of common. Perpetual injunction against the defendants, that they may not disturb the inclosures. The deputy remembrancer of the court shall tax the plaintiffs their costs, thought if the defendants submit, it is though t fit the costs be spared. If the plaintiffs are further troubled, they may issue a process for them against the defendants. Docketed.

Date: 01/01/1687 - 31/12/1687

Last import: September 11, 2017