and John's in the family
the death date of each is shown also.
COURT
RECORDS
both in
the form of litigation and conveyance have provided us
with much historical evidence of early Murgatroyd family
relationships and property deals.
Bill (W.B.) Murgatroyd, trained as a solicitor, has been
able to decipher these early records and provides an
insight into the life of and times of Murgatroyds in the
16th and 17th century.
The story of the
Boon Hen
has already been told (Wealth) and is a light hearted
action occasioned mainly by the obstinacy of James (d.1653) about traditions.
There are other civil actions mentioned in
the late 16th and early 17th centuries that regard road
maintenance, restraining savage dogs and small debts
which one would accept as part of life. For example about
1583 at a court held in Sowerby we
read::
"and William Md. Lord's tenant
and sworn surrendered into the Lord's hand 1 acre and 1
rood with the buildings thereon in Crawelshaes now in the
tenure of Ed. Maude of Crawelshaes."
|
1688 a baronets income was
reckoned to be £880 per annum
..
|
In the heady days of 1642, James Murgatroyd was a
wealthy merchant with an income of above £2,000 per
annum and a son John (d.1662) with his own income of over £500
per annum. Yet within a few years John is involved in
debt and he died in 1662 leaving his estate in a muddle
(Riddlesden Hall). I wonder whether like the Sunderlands
of Coley Hall, he was more than a Royalist supporter.
Could he have served in the Royalist Army? Assuming he
came to the Hall in 1642, it was barely a year later that
his father James was defending himself when besieged at
Murgatroyd (23rd October 1649) when he held out against
thirty-nine armed Roundheads. The Murgatroyd family had a
duty to defend the Monarch as is shown in the Will of
John's grandfather James who died in 1601. In his Will he
mentions 'all
my armour and weapons which I have for Her Majesty's
Service'
This testator
must have been liable to serve the Queen or to fit out a
man to do this service. The armour and weapons must have
been his own to have been left by Will. Perhaps the same
passed to James and then to his son John. John would have
been of the right age and James would have been rather
old for service. The Sunderlands formed a mounted armed
force and marched to Aldwelton Moor. They would have
passed close to East Riddlesden Hall, we shall never know
whether they picked up their relative John on the way. It
proved a Royalist victory but woe betide the local
victors in the years which followed. |
From various court records:
p147.......Halifax....13APL1640
---- a highway in Warley betwn Holmhouse Bridge and
Blanckehome Lane belonging to JAMES MD--- which is not
yet a-mended. Therefore we amerce them in 3s 4p for every
week since the last day of November last past.
36/155...York.....1649
James, Henry, Thomas Md.
v. King Samuel and vx. Mary, John Learoid, Joseph Dixon
and
Michael Robt Hold
|
James Murgatroyd (d.1653) was by any standard
extremely wealthy and he fought a number of money and
property claims in his lifetime. On his death and for the
next nearly fifty years there were various litigation's
concerning the property at East Riddlesden and other
money bonds both with others and between family, until in
the end all was lost at Riddlesden and the remaining
Murgatroyds retired to the Warley area. Even the house of
Murgatroyd was lost in the end, not through litigation
but marriage and became knows as 'The Hollins' |
Chancery
record.C9/28/126..22MAY1663
Orator
HENRY of Midgley gent,
THOMAS do.
SUSAN of Riddlesden (widow) and relict
of JOHN
JOHN of Luddenden (son)
v.. SAMUEL King and Bailiff
Whereas Susan and John the son are exors of the will of JOHN
decd whereas in 1656 he was bound to S.King in the sum of
£80. £292.8s.was paid in 1659. In 1661 King issued a
writ out of Westminster with £1000 surety (Henry and
Thomas) for John appearing. In 1662 goods of John Md.
Seized..220 cows, 2 oxen, 1 bull, 5 geldings...value of
£220-----and agreement betn King and John but within a
few days thereafter John died and had appointed Susan and
John his exors who duly proved the sd will under the
Prerogative Court of York and claimed £203.15s.6d. was
overpaid.
The answer of S.King and judgement were unfortunately too
obscured to read. |
Actions by and against one Samuel King:
It is interesting to note that James's (d.1653) sister,
Grace, married a Samuel Kinge. In 1650
James and others are involved in a money suit against
Samuel King (the son?) wife, Mary and a John Leoroid. No
result was recorded. But King must have been close to the
family as in 1656 John (d.1662) had
entered into some bond or obligation to King of the penal
sum of £80 . This was called in 1659
and John or his representative had paid an amount of
£292.8s. In 1661 King had issued a writ
on John claiming £544 of which only £292 had been paid.
In June 1662 he had sent the bailiff in to seize goods
for the outstanding amount; 220 cattle, 2 oxen, 1 bull
and 5 geldings of total value £220. John died in 1662
and then in 1663 Johns executors, Susan
his wife, Henry and Thomas his brothers claimed £203
from King as overpayment of the bond. No final result was
recorded.
|
Part of the tree of Murgatroyd::
...
James === Mary Lacy
b.1575 | m.1605
d.1653 |
|
___|_____________________________
| | | |
John === Susan Henry James Thomas
bc.1607 | bc.1609 d.1670 of Kershaw
d.1662 | m.1639 d.1699 bc.1616
[of Riddlesden] [of Oatsroyd]
______|__________________________
| | | |
James == Eliz. John William Thomas
b.1640 | d.1671 b.1645 b.1647 b.1649
d.1672 | d.1666 d.1669 d.1669
|
Susanna
b.1661 married James Oates in 1679...
Summary
of Chancery records::
[C10/99/132] -1665
James
v. Henry, James, John, Thomas
- parcel of manor, Wakefield
[B106/56/50] - 1669
John vx.Annie
v. Symonds
- N.Walsham copyhold of a manor, Norfolk
[C10/122/76] - 1671
Sussannah
v. Henry,Lister&vx.,Richard Hartley&vx
- Riddlesden manor
[C6/208/57] - 1671 - ditto
[C6/202/56] - 1672
Henry, Thomas
v. Hitch, Thomas Md
- money £300, York
[B220/527/97] - 1672
Henry (Midgley) v. John
- money, York
[C9/121/45] - 1673
Lister v. Md.
[B220/527/99] - 1673
Thomas v. Oldfield
- Warley, York
[B220/527/100] - 1674
- Thomas, John v. Denbeigh
- Keighley, York
[B220/527/101] - 1674
Thomas v. Wadsworth
- Wakefield copyhold of manor, York
[C10/130/50] - 1677
Thomas v. H Wadsworth
- money
[C10/133/87] - 1678
John,Nicholas, Midgley
v. Edmund Turner
- in Midgley
[B220/527/98] - 1679
Henry, Thomas v. Spencer
- apprenticeship, York
[C6/559/48] - 1679
Henry v. Spencer - York
[C7/228/55] - 1696
Henry v. Starkie
- Wadsworth, Morton, Bingley at York
|
Bill Murgatroyds summary of the
East Riddlesden litigation's.
1.
John (d.1662) moved into East Riddlesden Hall after his
marriage to Susan Midgley (licence 1639). He had a Family
of three sons and two daughters soon thereafter. He
inherited extensive estates being the First son and. heir
of James of Murgatroyd. By 1643 rents would probably be
difficult to collect and his expenses would be mounting.
He had two Water Mills on his estate but trade would be
bad due to the War.
2.
As a declared Royalist he would be out of tune
with the population around. His Father James,
by 1643 was defending himself and his wife Mary and for a
time lost control of the house, Murgatroyd to the
Roundheads.
3. John had a sister called Grace. She married
Nicholas Starkie. Nicholas died in 1643 - the beginning
of the War. He was blown up at Houhton Tower. Mary and
her son Edmund came to live at the Hall.
4.The failure to get the Will of James (d.1653) proved,
until 1663 (due to the closure of the York Registry)
meant that John was never clear about his title. As he
died in 1662 he did not have the opportunity to take up
his appointment as an Executor.
He left many debts but nevertheless his goods and
chattels were valued at £508. 19. 4d. He was not
mentioned in his father's Will (except as Executor). This
has caused historians to conclude that he was cut out. I
do not accept this as he would not have been made First
Executor. I think it more likely that James vested him 'inter vivos'
and set him up well before his own Will and
death. He inherited Murgatroyd, as well as East
Riddlesden Hall, and his mother Mary continued to live
there. We know from the Rev Oliver Heywood that she lived
there at Christmas 1672.
5. John's second son, also named John (d.1666) died
only three years after his Father. This must have caused
a great upset. His first son James (d.1671) lived at Murgatroyd
and the second son at Riddlesden. A younger brother,
William, (d.1669) who was also at Riddlesden died three years
later in 1669. This was the end of the male line of
father John at Riddlesden.
Before making his Will, indeed only shortly before, John
the son made a very complicated arrangement with Thomas
Parkinson, a wealthy gentleman of Leeds. He was to marry
the daughter and heiress, Annie. In exchange Parkinson
advanced him a considerable sum. John could not perform -
as he died. What a surprise, Annie then married the
dreaded Edmund Starkie who was John's cousin and
successor at East Riddlesden Hall and the builder of the
Starkie wing. I suspect Starkie, who was obviously
wealthy had also advanced money to the family of John's
mother Mary, If we jump a Few years to 1696 we find Henry
of Oatsroyd suing Edmund in respect of all the estates
left after all the sales by the youngest son,Thomas.
Edmund must by this time have claimed the East Riddlesden
estates and I think he would have been still living
there. The spate of deaths of the Murgatroyds of
Riddlesden put a burden on the Midgley branch of the
family, Thomas and the widow of James, Elizabeth. This
burden passed also to James' only child and heiress
called Sussannah. However Edmund Starkie won the day and
obtained the Manor and Estate. The Starkie wing he built
(1692) is now reduced to a facade, the rear and body
having fallen into disrepair and demolished. The
Murgatroyd building looks as though it will survive for a
thousand years.
6. Sussannah the only child of James lived on at
Murgatroyd with her husband James Oates of Landshead,
Northowram, whom she married on the 21st January 1679 ,
seven years after her father had died. Oates was another
wealthy gentleman and he adopted the Murgatroyd coat of
arms. This appears in a Memorial in the nave of the
Parish Church of St Mary Luddenden the arms being within
a 'lozenge' to indicate they came from the female or
distaff side.
7. We still have to explain William the third
brother. He was indeed a trial. To have to put a son out
to become an apprentice was no doubt a reflection of the
dilemma which at the time faced father John. He probably
had no choice as he surveyed the family fortunes a year
or so before he died. William in turn died very young in
1669 (1st November) i.e. whilst his elder brother James (d.1672) was
still alive. Whether or not it was true that brother John
(d.1666)
aided and abetted by uncle Thomas (Kershaw House), took
over the Riddlesden Manor and deprived William of his
portion, William was only a minor and certainly could do
nothing about it (he was abroad for much of the time).
His eight years of apprenticeship to Nathaniel Spencer
was a disaster. Probably the latter was a rogue and he
obtained a Bond from both Henry and Thomas, who were
foolish enough to stand surety for their nephew; William.
Spencer vented his wrath on these two and pursued them
unmercifully through the Courts and eventually having
them both arrested and made to serve four years and six
years respectively in York prison (both were released in
l676), I calculate that William died at about the age of
twenty years. He certainly made a large dent in the
Murgatroyd family fortunes.
8.
The last sad fact which needs to be examined is
the mortgage of the Riddlesden estates by Henry and
Thomas in their joint effort to stave off the fate which!
awaited them both. This was dated the 8th December 1668
and was probably an attempt to appease the Mortgagee,
Nathaniel Spencer. This was an abortive attempt but did
not affect the aims of Edmund Starkie and in view of the
latter`s success in claiming the entire estate it looks
as though they purported to mortgage something they did
not own. |
A
final summing up before we leave East Riddlesden
Hall.. The Murgatroyds struggled against the effect of
the civil war in which they started on the wrong side.
They became isolated in their mansion and no doubt fined
heavily. Legal costs must have weighed them down and the
misfortunes of William were the last straw. Susan (or
Sussannah to give her the full name), safe with her
wealthy husband at Murgatroyd (which he promptly re-named
The Hollins) must have reflected that she was well out of
it after all... |




© 1997 R.D.Murgatroyd. Updated-June, 20202