More than thirty years ago, Dr Gilbert H. Doane asked the question ‘Mr. John Done: who was he?’ (DFA Proceedings 1972). Four years later, he returned to this theme with his report ‘Clues to the Identity of Mr. John Done’ (DFA Proceedings 1976), presenting the results of his research into this question and identifying five clues that he considered to offer the best chance of finding out more about John Done before he arrived in America.
The story was continued in the 1990 report of the Deacon John Done Research Committee presented by its Chairman, John H Baker (DFA Proceedings 1990). He reported progress in pursuing Gilbert Doane’s clues, especially the third and fourth clues, indicating that although many questions remained unanswered, considerable progress had been made and several sources identified as justifying further investigation.
More recently, at the DFA International Reunion 2002, held at the George School, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, the Deacon John Done Research Committee was reconstituted under the chairmanship of Virgil Doan. At its meeting held on August 14th 2002, I reported the results of some preliminary research I had undertaken, still focussing on Gilbert Doane’s clues.
The Committee agreed that this research program should continue to pursue the lines of enquiry initiated by Gilbert Doane and that a report on progress should be presented to the meeting of this Committee due to be held in August 2004. I was asked to continue with this research program in London, near to where I live, and where many source documents were likely to be located. At the same time, Virgil Doan, who lives near Salt Lake City, and has direct access to many LDS records, would undertake and co-ordinate other aspects of the research, especially those where his expertise regarding these records would be of particular value. This report outlines the details of this research program, describes how it was conducted, and presents the results. It also includes and consolidates other material, some of which has already been presented to this Committee in the form of a number of interim reports made over the course of the past two years.
Potential sources for further study were mentioned in the 1990 report to the Deacon John Done Research Committee presented by Committee Chairman, John Baker. These were identified in more detail by reference to the correspondence that took place between John Baker and Michael Wood, the professional genealogist employed by the DFA, between September 1988 and July 1989. (An outline of such research not previously reported is attached in Appendix 1.)
Kay Blair, DFA Historian, also sent me a report by Marilyn London Winton, prepared in 1990, that addressed some of the questions posed in Gilbert Doane’s fifth clue, in particular, those relating to the identity of John Done, of Duddon in Cheshire. (A brief summary of the main points of this report is attached in Appendix 2.) Other background correspondence and other material has also been sent to me by both Kay Blair and Marshall Doane, and this has also helped to steer the direction the research has taken.
Also, because of the much greater access to many genealogical sources afforded by the advent of the Internet, a more ambitious approach to the analysis of records was adopted, and the research program included a detailed analysis of the English Parish Registers of the late 16th and early 17th centuries as recorded on the LDS website and elsewhere.
I also considered other possible sources.
The research program therefore targeted the following:
Most of these sources were identified and analysis of the following was carried out:
· Later Day Saints (LDS) records;
· The apprenticeship and other records of London Livery Companies - Merchant Taylors, Cordwainers (Shoemakers) and Bakers;
· Parish registers recording details of baptisms, marriages and burials held in the Library of the Society of Genealogists (SOG) in London, in the Family Records Centre (FRC) – part of the UK Public Record Office (PRO) - and elsewhere. Main records accessed were for:
o St Benet, Gracechurch Street, London;
o St Botolph, Bishopsgate, London;
o St Dunstan, Stepney, Middlesex;
o St Mary Aldermary, Bow Lane, London;
o St Bartholomew, Crewkerne, Somerset;
o St Mary, Eastham, Cheshire.
· Access was obtained to the complete ‘Citizens of London’ records of Percival Boyd and to Boyd’s marriage records covering other counties of England held at the SOG;
· Chancery Records. Documents of relevance included pleadings (‘bills of complaint’, ‘answers’, ‘replications’ and ‘rejoinders’ collectively known as ‘Chancery Proceedings’), ‘evidence depositions’, ‘decrees’ and ’orders’. These documents were mainly in English, except for decrees and orders, which were usually in Latin. Documents accessed were:
o a ‘bill of complaint’ by Richard Evans, Susan his wife and Elizabeth Done, lodged 23 June 1631, and responses by those named in the bill. Elizabeth Done was the infant daughter of John Done ‘sayler’ (= sailor), the nephew of John Done ‘whitebaker’ (= baker using white flour). This bill is the mysterious document - reference code ‘1/59 – 1631 June 23’ mentioned by John Baker in the 1990 Research Committee Report - the correct PRO reference being ‘C2 CHASI E1/59’);
o a ‘bill of complaint’ by Agnes Done, the widow of John Done ‘whitebaker’, lodged 10 October 1631, and responses; and
o a replication (a repetition of a complaint) by Elizabeth Done
· The ‘Index Library’ was accessed at the FRC and elsewhere. Records shown here include those collected or created by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury (PCC). PCC documents of particular relevance were wills, ‘grants of administration’ and ‘sentences’ (judgments). In general, the wills themselves were in English, and pronouncements of the PCC, such as grants of probate, administration and sentences, were in Latin. Also, complete wills were available online from the UK Public Record Office (PRO) and on microfiche/ microfilm at the SOG and FRC. Wills obtained included those of:
o John Done ‘whitebaker’, dated 5 September 1624. proved initially on 13 September 1624 (subsequent sentences and administrations also obtained);
o John Done of St Pancras, Soper Lane, London, dated 24 July 1624, proved 5 December 1625;
o William Done of East Ham, dated 10 May 1627;
o John Done ‘sayler’, dated 25 November 1626, proved 29 December 1629;
o Agnes Done, widow of John Done ‘whitebaker’, dated 22 July 1633, proved 17 April 1635;
o John Donne, Rector of St Benet, Gracechurch, London, dated 19 May 1636, proved 17 January 1637 (1636/7);
o Other material from abstracts of probates, sentences and administrations in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury 1620 – 1648;
· The ‘Acts of Court’ books were accessed at the main PRO archives at Kew (London). These - in Latin - were a valuable source of information dealing with the family disputes at the PCC. Here we were fortunate in being able to call on the services of a young researcher, Simon Neal, who worked part time at the PRO as a translator and transcriber of Elizabethan material, and who translated most of the documents that were in Latin for a very reasonable fee.
· Records created by other bodies analysed here included the administration and inventory of Thomas Done of Henley-in-Arden, Warwickshire (father of John Done ‘whitebaker’) dated January 1595 (1594/5). This record was held in the Worcestershire County Record Office (Henley-in-Arden being part of the diocese of Worcester).
LDS records were analysed online to produce a spreadsheet that listed all individuals with the name Done (including Doan, Donne and other variants) appearing on the International Genealogical Index for the British Isles for the period to 1650. A team of volunteers (Deacon John Research Committee members and others) then undertook a further analysis to extract other relevant information, such as names of spouses and parents, and record it on the spreadsheet. This analysis was very much helped by Virgil Doan’s specialist knowledge of the LDS source, enabling unreliable records to be eliminated. (Since this analysis was completed, I have added references to records in the name of ‘Dune’).
Study of the records of the Merchant Taylors’ Company confirms the earlier findings. The name John Done does not appear on these records, although a musician of that name played the Lute before King James the First at a banquet hosted by the Company.
Summary: no new information or conclusions
Gilbert Doane, in describing the nature of his second clue, referred to the possibility that Deacon John may have renamed Nauset ‘Eastham’ after the town where he may have come from, and listed four towns or villages of that name in England.
The Victoria History of the Counties of England, in the volume that records the history of Somerset, mentions that the manor of Eastham, later known as Easthams, was ‘held in 1066 with the king’s manor of Crewkerne, by Godwin, the king’s reeve’. Eastham(s) was never a major settlement. John Baker reported in the 1990 Research Committee Report that the name John Done did not appear in the Crewkerne parish register ‘at the right time to identify him with our man’. However, according to the transcript published by W. Phillimore in 1904, the Crewkerne (St Bartholomew) Parish register shows that a marriage took place between John Dunne and Joane Abbot on 10 July 1587 ( Boyd’s marriage Index records the marriage as being between John Dun and Joan Abbot), and a search of the microfilm of the parish register held by the SOG showed the birth of a ‘John Dune’ in April 1589, possibly the son of John and Joane Dunne. I also searched the Index of Somerset Probate Inventories for records of wills of Dones (and name variants), but there were none for the relevant period.
I confirmed the findings of Gilbert Doane, as recorded in a letter dated 6 December 1969, concerning:
a. the appearance of a John Donne in the Crewkerne ‘hearth tax’ records for 1664/5;
b. the christenings (baptisms) of Rachel and Humphrie Done, children of Davie Done, in 1587 at the parish church St Mary Aldermary in London (the former church of John Donne of Crewkerne); and
c. the trade of Davie Done. He was a ‘merchant tayler’. However, so were 18 out of the 22 fathers whose children were baptised in the church in 1587. Two of the others were a ‘shoomaker’ and a ‘mercer’ - a trader in silk textiles. (St Mary Aldermary was presumably the church for the garment workers of London at that time).
(Subsequently, Gilbert Done probably considered the findings referred to in this letter to be of little relevance, since they were given only passing reference in his commentary on the five clues published in his 1976 Report to the Committee.)
Summary: His name, his birthplace and date of birth could make ‘John Dune’ a possible candidate to be the Deacon, but I have found no other link.
Gilbert Doane referred to the will of one Edward Done of East Ham, but I have not been able to trace it. Probably not important - Gilbert Doane found no relevant links.
Michael Wood referred to the will, dated 1627, of a William Done of East Ham, Essex (East Ham is now an inner suburb of London). I looked at a copy of this will at the SOG, and confirmed the findings of Michael Wood, ‘that the testator was not of the immediate family of John Done the whitebaker of London’. It was interesting that the district is today known as East Ham, two separate words, whereas in the will it is spelt Eastham, which certainly today in England would be pronounced as “East’m” i.e. with the accent on the first syllable.
Summary: little new information gleaned and no evidence of anyone named John
A search of the PRO records did not reveal any ‘Done’ wills for Eastham residents. The ‘volunteer analysis’ of the IGI records showed no relevant birth or marriage records for Eastham (a parish for which the IGI includes a record of the complete register to 1880). This finding was confirmed by an analysis of the parish register transcripts held at the SOG. Indeed, the only relevant IGI record for the whole of Worcestershire is that of the baptism of John Done (Donne), born in Alvechurch in 1592 (See Clue 4 below), although, since Eastham is more than 20 miles from Alvechurch, he is unlikely to have had any connection with the village of that name.
Summary: no new conclusions
I consulted the register for this parish, and confirmed that there were no records in the name of Done (or variants) at the relevant time.
Summary: no new information
The IGI appears not hold a record of the register for this parish covering the relevant period, but I consulted an (incomplete) copy held by the SOG, and confirmed that there was an entry for the marriage of John Warren and Mary Donne on 3 August 1626. In that document there were no other entries of interest. I have also produced a transcript of the will of John Donne, Rector of St Benet, written on 18 May 1636 and proved on 17 January 1637. It shows him to have had a grandson, John Donne, who was under 21 years of age at the time the will was written, and who therefore must have been born after May 18 1615, ruling him out as having been the Deacon.
Summary: Neither John Donne, Rector of St Benet Gracechurch, London, nor his grandson of the same name, can have been the Deacon
All of the six sources listed in the 1990 report of the Deacon John Done Research Committee (p.18 lines 32-41) as needing further study have now been tracked down, and many analysed, so that some of the earlier questions raised by Gilbert Doane, Michael Wood, Marshall Doane, John Baker and others can now be resolved:
a. John Done, clearly the ‘whitebaker’, is listed as occupying the post of ‘Master’, the senior position in the Bakers’ livery company, in 1603 and 1604. This information appears in a list of holders of that post published in ‘A short history of the Worshipful Company of Bakers of London’, by Sylvia Thrupp;
b. The Boyd’s ‘Citizens of London’ records confirmed many of the relationships between John Done ‘whitebaker’ and his family as reported by Michael Wood - except for the relationship between John Done ‘whitebaker’ and John Done ‘sayler’ (see para c. below).
c. The Chancery Proceedings were a most valuable source of the background to the ‘Done v Done’ disputes, throwing light on many of the relationships between John Done ‘whitebaker’ and his family. Among other things, it confirmed, contrary to what Michael Wood believed, that John Done ‘sayler’ was indeed related to the ‘whitebaker’ as suggested by Percival Boyd in his ‘Citizens of London’ index. He was his nephew, and named as one of the principal beneficiaries in his will.
d. Gilbert Doane believed that the John Done who contested the whitebaker’s will, calling himself the next of kin and rightful heir to the estate, was the eldest son of the whitebaker’s eldest brother, Robert (i.e. the nephew who was a sailor). This belief was expressed in the article “Clues to the identity of Mr John Done” published in DFA Proceedings – 1976 (p. 40 lines 34-37) and repeated in the 1990 Report of the Research Committee (p.18 lines 6-11). This is not so. The claimant was John Done ‘cordwainer’ (= shoemaker), not the nephew (the sailor).
e. The 1990 Research Committee Report (P.18 lines 24 – 26) suggested that there was no evidence that the lawsuit uncovered by Michael Wood was the same as that mentioned in Gilbert’s fourth clue. However, it is now clear that this lawsuit, as recorded in “Chancery Proceedings ChasI/ E1/59” involved many of the same people as were involved in the suit Gilbert Doane was investigating as recorded in the PCC ‘Acts of Court’ books mentioned by Michael Wood (1990 Research Committee Report, p.17 lines 46-50).
f. I have looked at a transcript of the parish register of St Dunstan Stepney, but it does not add to what was found by Marshall Doane in 1987 - See 1990 Research Committee Report (p.17 lines 8-12).
a. The work done by the volunteer groups analysing the IGI records has been very useful. It provides a useful frame of reference against which to check any new suggestions as to the identity of Deacon John. It has also shown that there were not very many people across England at the relevant time who carried the name John Done (including variants of the name) and who were likely to have subsequently been honoured with the title ‘Deacon John’. There are undoubtedly parishes that we have not been able to investigate, either because no parish registers exist, or we have not been able to locate them. However, there is no reason to assume that those that we have not been able to track down are more likely to contain families by the name of Done than those that we have been able to find. We also know that we have relatively good coverage of areas of the country that even today, contain relatively high proportions of those with the name (i.e. the North West of England, the West Midlands and the Welsh Marches)
b. The main disputes surrounding the will of John Done ‘whitebaker’, arose out of the fact that his widow, Agnes Done, was, under the terms of that will, granted use of the property contained in the estate whilst she lived, whilst many of those who were named as ultimate beneficiaries died before she did. This led to claims against the estate, and against Agnes Done personally, by others such as John Done ‘cordwainer’ (son of Nicholas Done, first cousin of John Done ‘whitebaker’) and Elizabeth Done, infant daughter of John Done ‘sayler’ (nephew of John Done ‘whitebaker’).
c. John Done ‘cordwainer’ remains high on the list of candidates for the Deacon. What do we know about him so far?
i. He was born in Alvechurch, Worcestershire on 28 May 1592, the son of Nicholas Done, the cousin of John Done ‘whitebaker’.
ii. On 30 April 1630, John Done ‘cordwainer’, appeared in court in person to request that administration of the estate of John Done ‘whitebaker’, be awarded to him. This followed a continuing court case initiated by him in June 1628 against Agnes Done, the whitebaker’s widow, in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, contesting the validity of the will. However, he did not appear in person at any subsequent hearing. He was granted administration of the estate on 6 May 1630, following Agnes Done’s excommunication for failure to respond to a summons to attend the court.
(The ‘Handmaid’ sailed for New England on 10 August 1630. According to Gilbert Doane, John Done arrived in America in 1630. No passenger list has been found for the ‘Handmaid’ but he was not listed as travelling on any other vessel recorded as arriving in America in that year)
iii. A ‘Bill of Complaint’ brought against him and others by Agnes Done, the whitebaker’s widow, in the Court of Chancery, alleged that he had conspired with others to defraud Agnes Done out of her inheritance. He responded to this Bill some time in 1631 or 1632 (document is undated) stating that since Agnes Done had been excommunicated, he had no need to respond, and asking for costs to be awarded to him. This response, unlike that of other respondents, was in handwriting that suggested it had not been written by a professional scribe. Could it have been handwritten by the cordwainer himself, assuming he did not have access to such professional services, and sent by a messenger to the court?
(Deacon John is likely to have been in New England at this time)
iv. In this Bill he was described as ‘cordwainer’, although it is worth remembering that defendants were frequently described in unflattering terms in legal documents prepared by the plaintiff. The Lists of the ‘Court of Assistants and Liverymen of the Worshipful Company of Cordwainers of London’ did not include any Dones (or variants) at the relevant time, but he could just have been an apprentice, or might have been a member of a guild outside London.
v. Elizabeth Done and Richard Evans also raised a Bill of Complaint against John Done ‘cordwainer’ and others, including Agnes Done, in which they stated that John Done ‘sayler’, the nephew of John Done ’whitebaker’, was the true heir to his estate, but that, following his death at sea between 1626 and 1629, his daughter Elizabeth should have inherited it. The Bill alleged that there was a conspiracy on the part of Agnes Done and the cordwainer to defraud Elizabeth of her inheritance. (Richard Evans, her stepfather, the joint complainant, had married Susan, the sailor’s widow). The Bill makes reference to witnesses who ‘depart this realm or remayne in foraigne parts’. Although there is no indication that this comment refers to John Done ‘cordwainer’ (the document is illegible at this point) there was clearly a sense that some of the witnesses listed were very likely to have left the country. John Done ‘cordwainer’ did not make a response to this Bill of Complaint, a response on his behalf being made by fellow defendants, John Betteson and Richard Kilvert in October 1632.
(Deacon John was in New England at this time)
vi. Early research into his background suggests that immediately before going to America, John Done lived in London, a city where much research into parish records has been carried out (e.g. Percival Boyd’s index of citizens of London) showing that the city had relatively few families with the name of Done (or Donne). John Done ‘cordwainer’ is the only person of that name, and with birth dates that match, recorded as living in London at the relevant time.
vii. He used the name ‘Done’, and he was referred to under that name by others, in all of the legal proceedings in which he was involved, including his suit against Agnes Done and the Bills of Complaint brought against him by Agnes Done and by Elizabeth Done and Richard Evans. At the same time, the Alvechurch (= Alchurch) parish register that records his baptism uses the spelling ‘Donne’. However, the relationships described both in the lawsuits and in the register itself clearly relate to the same family.
(Gilbert Doane points out that Deacon John himself always spelt his surname ‘Done’ and that it was only the next generation that used the spelling ‘Doane’)
Marilyn London Winton, in the report summarised in Appendix 2, suggested further research was needed to establish whether John Done of Duddon remained in Cheshire after he ‘took the oath of allegiance in London in 1635’ as recorded by Gilbert Doane. If the Parish Register of Tarvin, the parish in which the village of Duddon is situated, showed him to have done so, this would clearly rule him out as being the man who became the Deacon. Unfortunately, the Tarvin Parish Register is not available either at the IGI or the SOG, and so this lead has not been followed up. It therefore awaits someone able to visit the Cheshire Record Office in Chester to check the Tarvin Parish Registers to follow up this lead.
Men carrying the name John Done (or variants) who have been definitely identified as not the Deacon are:
As individuals are eliminated from the list of candidates that may include the man who later went on to become Deacon John, that list is getting shorter. It still includes John Done of Duddon in Cheshire, but as yet we know little about him.
Another for whom such claims have not yet been disproved is John Done ‘cordwainer’, born in Alvechurch, Worcestershire on 28 May 1592. There is much circumstantial evidence to support the theory that he is the Deacon. But as yet it remains a theory, and we need more concrete evidence. One possibility worth pursuing is that we might be able to compare the signature of Deacon John with the signatures of possible ‘candidates’. I have already referred to the ‘Answer’ of John Done ‘cordwainer’ to Agnes Done’s Bill of Complaint, and to the fact that it is not written in the stylised legal writing of the other documents. I suppose it is conceivable that he wrote it himself rather than use the services of a scribe, giving us a sample of his handwriting to compare with the Deacon’s signature. Both Kay Blair and Marshall Doane have been trying, so far without success, to obtain a facsimile of the Deacon’s signature on his will and other documents that he signed in America. I also plan to see whether I can get a signature of the cordwainer to compare it with. If we were to be lucky enough to find a clear match, that would be strong evidence that we had found the right person.
We still hope to be able to find Deacon John’s signature on the will he drew up in 1678 and to match it with that of the ‘cordwainer’ some 45 years earlier. At present this remains our best lead. But if this shows that the ‘cordwainer’ was not the Deacon, we would then have to continue our search elsewhere. If so, the Deacon’s signature would still be valuable as providing a way of checking the identity of other ‘candidates’.
One line of research not completely exhausted is that which relates to the Cheshire Dones. Although Gilbert Done proved conclusively that John Done Esq, son and heir of Sir John Done of Utkinton in Cheshire, could not have been the Deacon, since he died in 1629, other Cheshire Dones, as identified by Marilyn Winton, have not been eliminated from the list. The Tarvin Parish Register is not available either at the IGI or the SOG, and so the lead relating to John Done of Duddon, Cheshire has not yet been followed up (Duddon is in Tarvin Parish). The Tarporley Parish Register is also not available in the IGI, and at some stage it may be necessary to visit the Cheshire Record Office in Chester to check this and to pursue her other leads relating to John Done, son of Richard and Jane Done of Stableford and John Done, son of James Done of Tarporley.
It may also be necessary to look again at the Parish registers of St Benet, Gracechurch London (the IGI appears not to contain the complete record), Crewkerne (Eastham), Somerset and elsewhere.
It might also be worthwhile trying to follow up a suggestion made by Michael Wood. This was for analysis to be made of areas in England where the names Done, Harding and Atwood appeared together (these names appearing in the early records of Plymouth Colony). The idea is that this would enable further research to be concentrated in a few areas. I have started such an investigation, but it has not so far been very fruitful, largely because of the widespread occurrence of the Harding name.
Also, recent research has identified several witnesses to wills. Tracking them down might throw up more possible clues. Such names could be checked to see whether they appear in any lists of early New England colonists whose places of origin in England are known and, if so, such leads could be followed via the IGI and other sources.
Michael Wood consulted Boyd’s ‘Citizens of London’ Index at the Society of Genealogists in London. This source suggested that John Done, the son of Robert Done (the brother of John Done ‘whitebaker’) was also John Done ‘sayler’:
Michael Wood believed that there was no connection between this John Done ‘sayler’ and the family of John Done ‘whitebaker’. (This was subsequently found to be untrue. John Done ‘sayler’ was the nephew of John Done ‘whitebaker’ as suggested by Boyd)
Boyd referred to ‘Chan Proc 1/59 1631 Jun 23’ in connection with John Done ‘whitebaker’. John Wood attempted to check out this reference by looking at Volume 1, page 59 of Chancery Proceedings Temp. Charles 1 – Class C2, but it did not match.
The first appearance of John Done ‘whitebaker’ in the ‘quarterage book’ of the Bakers’ Company was in 1585/6 when his first quarterage due (membership subscription) was in the fourth quarter of that year.
Cases listed by Michael Wood were:
D 5/35 Done v Done &tc
D 20/63 Done v Dixon
D 22/10 Done v Mountstephens
D 31/60 Donne v Donne
D 38/2 Done v Southcott, Knt
D 51/59 Done v Dixon
D 52/5 Done v Rogers
D 52/42 Donne v Donne
D 53/9 Dowe v Dowe
D 54/42 Done v Rogers etc
D 55/9 Done &tc v Done &tc
D 58/18 Downe v Downe &tc
D 58/48 Downe v Downe
Michael Wood considered that the testamentary case we are interested in was more likely to be D5/35 or D55/9, both Done v. Done, although the ‘&tc’ indicated that persons with other surnames were also parties.
The absence of a will for brother Robert (either in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury or amongst the wills of Londoners proved in a local ecclesiastical court) may be because he left no will, but may also be because he was not a Londoner and his will was proved locally elsewhere.
The document collection at the Society of Genealogists has a photocopy of the first two pages of the will of William Done of East Ham, Essex, dated 1627. This indicated that he was not of the immediate family of John Done ‘whitebaker’.
Michael Wood suggested a search of St Dunstan’s parish register for Done entries not on IGI (letter to John Baker dated 26 September 1988)
Michael Wood noted that the ‘Acts of Court’ books are registers in which are summarised the proceedings before the Prerogative Court concerning testamentary disputes. He listed entries under codes PROB 29/28 and PROB 29/29 that refer to ‘Done v Done’ (letter to John Baker dated 6 July 1989).
This research was inspired by the belief that Deacon John may have had some connection with the aristocratic Done family of Cheshire, centred on the Tarporley area of the county. Hence, in 1973, Marilyn London Winton ‘visited the Cheshire Record Office in Chester and extracted all Done/Donne entries up to about 1610 for the parishes of Tarporley (where Utkinton is located) and Tarvin (where Duddon is located)’. She also followed up sources referred to in Gilbert Doane’s article written for the DFA Reunion in 1976, especially that relating to his fifth clue. On the basis that the ages of very aged persons are frequently exaggerated, individuals born between 1589 and 1594 were considered possible Deacon ‘candidates’. Individuals identified as a result of her researches were:
Only one John Done was recorded as having been born in the area covered by the Tarvin and Tarporley parishes between 1589 and 1591. He was John Done, son of Richard and Jane (Hatton) Done of Stableford (Bruen Stapleford on today’s maps), who was baptised on 9 November 1591. An ‘administration’ was granted for the estate of a John Done of Stapleford in 1679, which if it is the same individual, would rule him out as being the Deacon. However, Ms Winton considered that ‘clarification is needed’ and that further research should be undertaken in the Tarvin Parish Register to establish whether he remained in the Parish or not during the period that the Deacon was in America, and if he did, to rule him out as being the Deacon.
This was the John Done discovered by Gilbert Doane as having taken ‘the oath of allegiance in London in 1635’. Ms Winton was unable to find further evidence of the existence of this John Done, but suggested a search of the Tarvin Parish Register in order to establish whether he continued to live in Duddon at the time the Deacon was in America. If he did, he could not be Deacon John.
This John Done, baptised in 1594 in Tarporley, was the son of Thomas and Jane (Myncho) Done. John had a brother Raphe and a sister Dorothy. Ms Winton also found a will of a John Done of St Pancras, Soper Lane, London dated 1624, probate being granted in December 1625. Legacies recorded to brother Raphe and sister Dorothy and other details in the will make it clear that this John Done was one and the same as John Done - the son of Thomas Done, Gent. He could not therefore have been the Deacon or the ‘John Done of Duddon Esqe’ who took the oath of allegiance in 1635.
John Done, the son of James Done of Tarporley, was baptised in June 1593. He had two brothers, Richard (baptised:1587) and Robert (baptised:1590/ died:1592). Again, Ms Winton suggested further research in the Tarporley Parish Register to establish whether or not this John Done remained in the area.
At the beginning of the 17th Century, the English legal system was extremely complex. Of relevance to our research is the fact that much legal activity relating to wills was conducted through the Prerogative Court of Canterbury (PCC), an ecclesiastical court (dealing only with matters covering the southern half of England and the Midlands) that granted ‘probate’ to the executors of wills or ‘letters of administration’ to others, e.g. where there was no executor, or where probate was revoked. The PCC could pass ‘sentences’ of the following kinds:
a) Granting letters of administration.
b) Confirming the grant of letters of administration
c) Revoking letters of administration
d) Declaring in favour of the validity of a will
e) Confirming a grant of probate
f) Revoking a grant of probate
Many actions relating to disputed wills were also pursued through the courts of equity, including ‘Chancery’ and the ‘Star Chamber’ and the courts of common law including ‘Kings Bench’. Chancery was a court that, in the words of the official Guide to the Public Record Office, ‘promised a merciful justice not bound by the strict rules of the common law courts’. The Star Chamber was ‘effectively the King’s Council sitting as a tribunal to enforce law and order’ but also used to adjudicate on ‘private disputes about property rights.’
It is clear that the legal activity surrounding the contesting of the will of John Done, whitebaker, involved several of these jurisdictions, including the PCC, Chancery and the Star Chamber.
Since the sequence of events is important, this table summarises the documents analysed in chronological order.
|
Date (1) |
Document Description |
Summary |
Reference (2) |
|
22 Jan 1595 (1594/5) |
ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE OF THOMAS DONE, father of John Done ‘whitebaker’
(in Latin & English) |
Administration granted to Juliana Done widow of Thomas Done. Document confirms his residence as Henley-in Arden, Warwickshire. |
WRO 92b 1594 (Worcestershire Record Office) |
|
24 July 1624 |
WILL OF JOHN DONE of St Pancras, Soper Lane, London
(in English) |
Legacies to: father Thomas Done, sister, Dorothy Widdens, Jane Turner, Mary Lord, Ann Gibson, Mr Money and his wife, Roger Halford, Christopher Salter, Brother Ralph Done’s son Thomas Done, John Crewes and Mistress Elizabeth and brother Hugh Aston
Brother Ralph Done named as executor.
|
PROB 11 147 (Public Record Office - Kew) Register Clarke/ Quire 135 |
|
05 Dec 1625 |
WILL OF JOHN DONE of St Pancras, Soper Lane, London Probate
(in Latin) |
Will proved. Administration granted to brother, Ralph Done |
PROB 11 147 (Public Record Office - Kew) Register Clarke/ Quire 135 |
|
05 Sep 1624 |
WILL OF JOHN DONE ‘whitebaker’
(in English) |
The will makes Agnes Done, his wife, the sole executrix of the will. His entire estate, situated in London (Aldgate and Whitechapel) is bequeathed to her ‘for and during the term of her natural life’. On her death the main part of his estate passes to John Done, William Done and James Done, sons of his brother Robert and his wife Elizabeth, and their heirs. Other small bequests are made to Elizabeth Done, daughter of Robert and Elizabeth Done and to Humphrey Done, Margery Done and Sara Done, children of his brother Edward Done. Witnesses: William Frithe, Phillipp Travors & Robert Stileman. Will proved 13 Sep 1624 (See below) |
PROB 11 144 (Public Record Office - Kew) Register Byrde Quire 82 |
|
13 Sep 1624 |
WILL OF JOHN DONE ‘whitebaker’ Probate
(in Latin) |
Will proved - eight days after it was written, suggesting it was made on his deathbed and proved very rapidly. Administration granted to Agnes Done (later revoked) |
PROB 11 144 (Public Record Office - Kew) Register: Byrde/ Quire: 82 |
|
25 Nov 1626 |
WILL OF JOHN DONE ‘sayler’, nephew of John Done ‘whitebaker’
(in English) |
The will makes Susan Done, his wife, the sole executrix of the will. His estate is bequeathed to her and to his daughter Elizabeth and their heirs. Witnesses: Robert Evans, Oliver Field & Stephen Danske. Will proved 29 Dec 1629 (See below) |
PROB 11 156 (Public Record Office - Kew) Register: Ridley/ Quire: 106 |
|
10 May 1627 |
WILL OF WILLIAM DONE gent, of Eastham Essex |
Legacies to: Anne, his wife/ the poor of the parish of Eastham/ the poor of the parish of Little Illford/ the two sons of brother George/ the two sons of brother Nicholas/ the two daughters of sister Mawer/ brother Edmond/ Sir Nicholas Coote/ Powle Waldegrave/ Sir Richard Heigham/Sir Thomas Fanshawe/ Mr William Fynch of Sereis
|
128 EW 18 (Essex County Record Office, Colchester ) |
|
??? |
WILL OF WILLIAM DONE gent, of Eastham Essex Proved
(in Latin ?) |
Page showing probate not yet found |
128 EW 18 (Essex County Record Office, Colchester ) |
|
??June 1628 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
John Done, the plaintiff, brought a suit against Agnes Done, the widow and executrix of John Done – whitebaker, contesting the validity of his will. He also claimed, through his counsel, Hunt, to be the next of kin of John Done – whitebaker, through the plaintiff’s father, Nicholas Done of Alvechurch, Worcestershire. Nicholas Done was the son of John Done, also of Alvechurch, who was the brother of Thomas Done, of Henley in Arden, Warwickshire, Thomas being the father of John Done - whitebaker, the testator. (i.e. if true, this makes Nicholas Done, the plaintiff’s father, the first cousin of the testator.)
|
PROB 29 28 - folio 147 & 147 b (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
?? July 1628 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
In the case of John Done versus Agnes Done, Agnes Done’s counsel, Rawe, claims that John Done’s allegations are false. |
PROB 29 28 - folio 160b (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
23 Sep 1628 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
At the request of Hunt, John Done’s counsel, a commission was set up to meet in Henley in Arden for 6–8 October 1628 to interview witnesses regarding John Done’s allegations. |
PROB 29 28 - folio 177 (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
?? Oct 1628 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
Certificate continued in the state it was. |
PROB 29 28 - folio 179 (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
?? Oct 1628 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
Results of commission giving witness statements. Hunt, John Done’s counsel, alleged that his case was proved and requested that letters of administration of the goods of the said deceased, John Done – whitebaker, be committed to his party t.a.i.(as if the testator died intestate), and that Rawe’s client be ‘condemned in the expenses’. Certificate continued in the state it was. |
PROB 29 28 - folio 195 (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
?? Oct 1628 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
Certificate continued in the state it was. |
PROB 29 28 FOLIO 205b (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
?? Nov 1628 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
Agnes Done required to appear before the Court with a Prepared inventory and account. |
PROB 29 28 - folio 220 |
|
?? Nov 1628 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
Judge fined Agnes Done. Rawe, Agnes Done’s counsel, dissented and exhibited the original will of John Done -whitebaker. Provision made for witnesses (for whom?) to appear in court the third session hence. Certificate continued. |
PROB 29 28 - folio 233b (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
?? Nov 1628 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
Judge assesses expenses at £4 to be paid by Agnes Done ‘ before Wolstan next’. |
PROB 29 28 - folio 239b (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
?? Jan 1629 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
Judge announced Agnes Done contumacious (refusing to respond to a legal summons) for not appearing in court and for non payment of fine, and announced her excommunication, but delayed implementation until next session. Certificate continued. |
PROB 29 28 - folio 278 (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
?? Jan 1629 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
Rawe paid Hunt the £4 due. Hunt accepted it on behalf of John Done and discharged Agnes Done and her executors from the same. Certificate continued. |
PROB 29 28 - folio 287 (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
?? Feb 1629 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
Rawe, Agnes Done’s counsel, produced as witnesses William Frith and Philip Travers, with the judge ruling that they be examined before the next session. Certificate continued. |
PROB 29 28 - folio 299 (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
?? Feb 1629 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
Witnesses pronounced contumacious. Rawe, Agnes Done’s counsel produced Robert Stileman as a witness, with the judge ruling he be examined before the next session. |
PROB 29 28 - folio 312b (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
?? Apr 1629 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
Rawe, Agnes Done’s counsel accused witnesses examined earlier of contumacy. Judge pronounced that they were contumacious, but reserved their penalties to the next session. Certificate continued. |
PROB 29 28 - folio 332b (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
?? Apr 1629 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
Penalty of contumacy of witnesses is reserved. Sentence in Next session. Certificate continued. |
PROB 29 28 - folio 346 (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
?? May 1629 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
Sentence promulgated in various writings. Royal writ of prohibition introduced. |
PROB 29 28 - folio 358 (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
06 May 1629 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – ‘SENTENCE’ OF JOHN DONE ‘ whitebaker’
(in Latin) |
Judgment on testamentary disputes still pending and undecided, but judge pronounced that Agnes Done had not proved her case, and that the alleged will of John Done - whitebaker was null and void. John Done, the alleged testator, was pronounced to have died intestate, or in an intestate manner, with no will having been made by him. Costs awarded to John Done against Agnes Done. |
PROB 11 155 (Public Record Office - Kew) Register: Ridley/ Quire: 47 |
|
02-09 Nov 1629 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – WILL OF JOHN DONE ‘whitebaker’
(in English) |
The original will was by order delivered into the Star Chamber |
PROB 11 144 (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
29 Dec 1629 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – WILL OF JOHN DONE ‘sayler’, nephew of John Done ‘whitebaker’ Probate
(in Latin) |
Will proved. Administration granted to Susan Done – widow |
PROB 11 156 (Public Record Office - Kew) Register: Ridley/ Quire 106 |
|
30 Apr 1630 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
John Done, Hunt’s party, appeared in court in person, claiming that a year had gone by since sentence had been passed against Agnes Done and requesting that it should be executed, with costs awarded to him and the administration of the estate of John Done - whitebaker given to him. |
PROB 29 29 - folio 207 (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
05 May 1630 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
Hunt, counsel for John Done, alleged that Agnes Done was hiding from the personal summons and from the certificate. The judge ruled that she should be summoned to appear at the third session after this. |
PROB 29 29 - folio 208 (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
?/ May 1630 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
The judge, at the petition of John Done’s counsel, demanded the execution of the sentence upon Agnes Done, and requested his counsel’s assessment of the expenses in the next session. He decreed that the administration of the goods, rights and credits of the deceased John Done whitebaker ought to be committed to John Done. |
PROB 29 29 - folio 219b (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
08 May 1630 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE OF JOHN DONE ‘whitebaker’
(in Latin) |
Administration tanquam ab intestate (‘as of an intestate’) of the estate of John Done - whitebaker - was granted to John Done, the whitebaker’s ‘nearest relative’, the present will, granted probate in September 1624, being revoked.
|
PROB 6 13 - folio 167 (original ref 170/2) Part 1 (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
?? May 1630 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
Judge assessed expenses at £8 to be paid before the last session of this term. |
PROB 29 29 - folio 227 (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
?? May 1630 |
PREROGATIVE COURT OF CANTERBURY – DONE v DONE
(in Latin) |
Expenses not paid. Agnes Done was pronounced contumacious and excommunicated. |
PROB 29 29 - folio 229 (Public Record Office - Kew) |
|
Undated (1630 - 1631?)
|
COURT OF CHANCERY BILL OF COMPLAINT OF AGNES DONE - widow of John Done ‘whitebaker’
(in English) |
Agnes Done maintained that the will of John Done- whitebaker was valid, and that she had fulfilled its terms, paying the required legacies, and taking possession of her husband’s estate for her lifetime. She alleged that ‘John Done of London, Cordwainer, pretending himselfe to be heire unto the said John Done – whitebaker’ had conspired with Richard Kilvert, Robert Stileman, William Cooke and John Betenson’ to divide the estate between them. She also maintained that the reason she had not appeared before the Prerogative Court of Canterbury was that her counsel had advised her that the PCC, an ecclesiastical court, was not the competent authority to decide such matters, which ought to be decided in the Court of Chancery. Accordingly, she ‘did addresse herselfe for the obteyning of his Majesty’s gracious writt of prohibition, out of his highnes courte of Kings Benche to stay the said suite in the said Ecclesiasticall Court’. However, she alleged that John Done - cordwainer and his co-conspirators ‘having notice of the granting of the writt of prohibition and that the said writt would then forthwith be served and executed, did by some undue meanes obteyned sentence to passe in disproofe of the said will some shorte tyme before the said writt of prohibition was or could be served or delivered in or into the said court’. Agnes Done also requested that ‘the Kings Majesty’s gratiuos writt of Subpena be directed to the said John Done - cordwainer’ and his alleged accomplices, commanding them to appear before the Court of Chancery. |
C2 CHASI D5 35 (no folio number)
|
|
23 Jun 1631 |
COURT OF CHANCERY BILL OF COMPLAINT of ELIZABETH DONE - infant daughter of John Done ‘sayler’
(in English) |
Elizabeth Done, the four year old daughter of John Done ‘sayler’, her mother, Susan, and her step father Richard Evans, alleged that soon after John Done ‘ whitebaker’, had made his will, two of those set to inherit the estate, William Done and James Done, did themselves die, leaving John Done, ‘sayler’, as the only person remaining who was due to inherit most of the estate following the death of Agnes Done. They referred to the will of John Done ‘sayler’, which made Susan Done, his wife, the sole executrix of the will, and bequeathed his estate to her and to his daughter Elizabeth and their heirs, and argued that this made them due to inherit the estate of John Done, whitebaker, after the death of Agnes. They also allege that Agnes Done combined with John Done, cordwainer, ‘who pretendeth himselfe to be heire unto the sayd John Done whitebaker’ and with Richard Kilvert, Robert Styleman, William Cook, John Betenson and Sarah Maybank. They accused them of ‘combineing & plotting together to share & devide the said messuages lands & premises betweene them after the decease of the said Agnes Done, and thereby to defraud & defeate the said oratrixes (3) Suzan & Elizabeth and theire heires of theire sayd remainder or reversion of the property & premisses’. The document refers to the Bill of Complaint of Agnes Done (C2 CHASI D5 35) but alleges that ‘Agnes Done appeared and made a slight defence and by the combination and confederacie aforesaid suffered the said John Done, cordwainer, and the said confederates to witness in the Court of Starchamber in disproofe of the said will’ with ‘the intent to debarre the said oratryxes Suzan & Elizabeth and their heires’ whilst ensuring that ‘the said Agnes Done should hold and enjoy the said messuages lands premises unto her the said Agnes Done for and duringe her naturall life.’ It is also alleged that John Done, cordwainer, and his ‘confederates’ sought to have the will of John Done, ‘sayler’, also declared to be ‘voyd & ymperfect’. This Bill of Complaint also names the witnesses to the wills of both John Done ‘whitebaker’, and John Done ‘sayler’, in support of the claim that both wills were valid. There is also a very interesting comment about the difficulty of securing the evidence of witnesses (un-named) who ‘depart this realm, or remayne in foraigne & unknown parts ????? [handwriting illegible] wherby the sayd orators could not or shall not hereafter have or finde them wherby to make use of theire testimonyes.’ The document concludes by requesting that ‘writt of subpoena to be directed to the sayd John Done cordwainer Agnes Done, Richard Kilvert, Robert Stileman, Willliam Cooke, John Betenson & Sarah Maybank’ for them to ‘appear a certayne daie & under a certaine payne to appeare before your Lordship in his Majesty’s high Court of Chauncery’ and that ‘his Majesty’s most gratious writt of injunction to be directed to the said John Done, cordwainer, Agnes Done, Richard Kilvert, Robert Stileman, William Cooke, John Betenson & Sarah Maybank (theire & such of theire counselers, attorneys, & solllicitors) & to the judge or judges and theire surrogate or surrogates deputy or deputies or other in the sayd Ecclesiasticall Courts or the ????? [handwriting illegible] and to all other the officers ????? [handwriting illegible] of or in the said Court or Courts not to concerne prosecute mayntayne or followe any libel plainte or suite in the sayd Ecclesiasticall Courte or Courtes ????? [handwriting illegible] whatsoever for or in proofe or disproofe of the said will or wills, or in anye for & concerning fee ????? [handwriting illegible] will or wills until your Lordship, and your Lordship’s Court of Chancerye shall have given further & other order therein’.
|
C2 CHASI E1 59 - folio 1 |
|
04 Aug 1631 |
COURT OF CHANCERY ANSWER TO BILL OF COMPLAINT of ELIZABETH DONE |
Answer of Agnes Done to the Bill of Complaint of Elizabeth Susan Done and Richard Evans. Agnes Done accepted the family relationships outlined in the Bill. She denied knowledge of any will made by John Done, sailor, but said that that was of no concern to her since the terms of the will of John Done, whitebaker, only gave her an interest in his estate whilst she was alive. She disputed the allegation that her ‘light defence’ indicated a conspiracy with John Done, cordwainer. Her explanation for this course of action was that her counsel advised her that the PCC was not the place for the case to be heard. She also denied being any part of the alleged conspiracy, although admitting that an approach had been made to her by John Done (i.e. the cordwainer) and others. ‘shee hopeth to prove that the saide defendants John Done, Richard Kilvert and John Betenson or one of them, have made offer unto this defendant, and unto some neere friends of her this defendant that if this defendant and her friends would give way to the setling of the said messuages & premises after her decease, unto & upon the said nowe defendant, John Done whom they pretend to be heire at law unto the said John Done, deceased, that yet this defendant, for her part should hold & enjoy whatsoever was given or intended unto her this defendant by the said will without further trouble or molestation.’ She also repeated that the will of John Done, whitebaker, was valid. Another interesting family relationship was referred to in the comment that ‘this defendant further saith that the said John Done this defendant’s late husband in his life time had & did beare greate love and affection unto Elizabeth the wife of the said Robert Done, his brother, by whose onlie meanes shee haveing a portion of Five hundred pounds or thereabouts, as this defendant hath crediblie heard, was married unto the said Robert Done, a man of small or noe estate, and noe way deserveing such or soe great a portion, the said Elizabeth being the daughter of a former wife of the said John Done, baker, & left to the care and tuition of the said John Done, her father in lawe.’
|
C2 CHASI E1 59 - folio 4 |
|
10 Oct 1631 |
COURT OF CHANCERY JUDGMENT IN RESPONSE TO BILL OF COMPLAINT OF AGNES DONE
(in English) |
Excommunication of Agnes Done |
C2 CHASI D5 35 - folio 5 |
|
08 Nov 1631 |
COURT OF CHANCERY JUDGMENT IN RESPONSE TO BILL OF COMPLAINT OF AGNES DONE
(in English) |
Excommunication of Agnes Done |
C2 CHASI D5 35 - folio 6 |
|
Undated (1631?) |
COURT OF CHANCERY ‘REPLICATION’ OF ELIZABETH DONE - infant daughter of John Done ‘sayler’
(in English) |
Repetition of matters raised in the Bill of Complaint of 23 June 1631. This replication (undated) was in response to the answers of Humphry Done, Mary Becke, Peter Woodamonne, John Symons, Abraham Seman, Sara Skelte and Thomas Sanitasillia the earlier complaint.
|
C2 CHASI D55 9 |
|
07 Feb 1632 |
COURT OF CHANCERY ANSWER TO BILL OF COMPLAINT OF AGNES DONE
(in English) |
Answer of Richard Kilvert. All allegations were denied. |
C2 CHASI D5 35 - folio 1 |
|
07 Feb 1632 |
COURT OF CHANCERY ANSWER TO BILL OF COMPLAINT OF AGNES DONE
(in English) |
Answer of Robert Styleman (his signature?). All Allegations were denied. |
C2 CHASI D5 35 - folio 2 |
|
07 Feb 1632 |
COURT OF CHANCERY ANSWER TO BILL OF COMPLAINT OF AGNES DONE
(in English) |
Answer of John Betteson. All allegations were denied. |
C2 CHASI D5 35 - folio 3 |
|
Undated (1632?) |
COURT OF CHANCERY ANSWER TO BILL OF COMPLAINT OF AGNES DONE
(in English) |
Answer of John Done. He disputed the need to respond to the allegations since Agnes Done had long been excommunicated. He referred to the documents dated 10 Oct and 8 Nov 1631. |
C2 CHASI D5 35 - folio 4 |
|
Undated (1632?) |
COURT OF CHANCERY ANSWER TO BILL OF COMPLAINT of ELIZABETH DONE
(in English) |
Disclaimer and answer of John Betteson. John Betteson denied all allegations, and also denied that John Done, cordwainer, had entered into any conspiracy. |
C2 CHASI E1 59 - folio 2 |
|
Oct 1632 |
COURT OF CHANCERY ANSWER TO BILL OF COMPLAINT of ELIZABETH DONE
(in English) |
Disclaimer and answer of Richard Kilvert. Similar response to that made by John Betteson, also denying that John Done, cordwainer had entered into any conspiracy. |
C2 CHASI E1 59 - folio 3 |
|
22 Jul 1633 |
WILL OF AGNES DONE - widow of John Done ‘whitebaker’
(in English) |
Legacies to: Anne and Margarett Crouch, sisters of daughter in law Leycrofte/ Cousin and Godson Raphe Bradwell son of brother Richard Bradwell/ godson Thomas Leycrofte son of William Leycrofte, when reaching the age of twenty one/ goddaughter, the daughter of Mary Leycrofte now wife of one (blank) Eater, Taylor when reaching the age of twenty one or when married if before then/ son Richard Leycrofte
Son Robert Leycroft named as executor
Bequests to the poor of the Parish of All Saints Steyninge (where I dwell) and to the poor of the Parish of St Peter upon Cornhill in London (where sometimes I dwell and where I doe appoint my bodie to be buried) Robert Leycroft to have the balance of the estate
Witnesses: William Frithe, Sir John Frithe, George Downes, William Powell and Richard Phillips
Will proved 17 April 1635 (See below) |
PROB 11 167 (Public Record Office - Kew) Register: Sadler/ Quire: 37 |
|
17 April 1635 |
WILL OF AGNES DONE - widow of John Done ‘whitebaker’ Probate
(in Latin) |
Will proved. Administration granted to Robert Leycroft - son |
PROB 11 167 (Public Record Office - Kew) Register: Sadler/ Quire: 37 |
|
19 May 1636 |
WILL OF JOHN DONNE - Rector of St Benet, Gracechurch, London
(in English) |
Legacies to: son Daniell and his wife/ son Nathaniel/son Benjamin/ grandson John (son of Robert Donne)/ granddaughter Elizabeth Donne (daughter of Robert Donne)/ Ellen Done (daughter in law)/ residue of estate to Elizabeth his wife.
Witnesses: John Squire and James Jenkins
Will proved 17 January 1637 (1636/7) (See below) |
Source unknown No reference except Folio number 257 |