BHO

Cecil Papers: 1655

Pages 430-431

Calendar of the Cecil Papers in Hatfield House, Volume 22, 1612-1668. Originally published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1971.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying and sponsored by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. All rights reserved.

Citation:

1655

Gabr. Taylor to the Earl of Salisbury.
1655, April 14. Order from the Trustees, appointed by Parliament for the sale of the late King's lands, dated March 1, 1655, for the recovery of arrears of rent, etc. Salisbury is requested to send his servants to appear on May 9th before him and the Auditor at "the Signe of the Bell over against ye Maypole in ye Strand" to pay £50 charged on him by the court held at Enfield as a fine "for causing the old pond in Enfeild to be fished and carying away the fish".—London, 14 April, 1655.
Holograph. Seal. 1 p. (General 67/16.)
Court Proceedings.
1655, May 3. A paper relating to the litigation between Elizabeth, widow of William, Duke of Hamilton, one of the daughters and coheirs of James Maxwell, Earl of Dirleton, plaintiff; and Elizabeth Maxwell, Countess of Dirleton, Charles, Lord Cranborne and Lady Diana his wife, and others, defendants. The case is concerned with the properties of Wanborough manor, Guildford Park, a tenement called the "Ffryens", in co. Surrey, and the manor of Ridlands and other lands in co. Northumberland. It was presided over by Justice Windham.
8 pp. (Deeds 227/7.)
Charges against the Earl of Salisbury.
1655, July 20. Presentment by the Jurors of Sewers of the Earl of Salisbury "for not arching and covering over the sewer betwixt Captaine Riders new building in Cock Lane and the end of Newport streete within the parish of Martins in the feilds, by meanes whereof the sewer there is much annoyed with durt and rubbidg falling thereinto and people and passengers in danger of falling therein". The Earl, by reason of his ownership of lands and tenements near to the sewer, is under obligation to cover it. Because of his failure to do so, he is fined £20.
1½ pp. (Legal 96/14.)