Report – Wharton vs Hall – 1 Dec 1664

(a.)  The case betweene Wharton & Hall drawn up as thus by George Wray & fit for the Lord Bpp of Durham to understand & consider. 



1. The Lo. Bpp of Durham above Sixty yeares agoe grants to Mr. Whartons Ancestors a patent for tearme of life expressing as thus: That he is Mooreman als. Moorem<aste>r of all the Moores, waste Ground & soile within the parrishes of Stanhop & Wolsingham with power to digg Mines for the wineing of Lead ure, soe that it be not within any mans severall or inclosed ground. 



2 dly Mr. Whartons Ancestors enjoyed this patent for life& did renew it about foure or five discents before any lease that Hall had or any for him. Now I conclude in law & reason that Mr. Wharton neither had or hath (by the expressed words of that patent) due to any Interest there, but Moores & waists of wch he hath one Great Moore called Bollyhoope, another called Stanhop Hoope both in Stanhop parrish, & other large Moores in Woolesingham parrish wch are noe stinted pastures, but every man may put on wt he pleases without limitacon. Therefor Moores & wasts : And these Mr. Hall challengeth noe Interest in, & further Mr. Whartons Ancestors & his, have, doe & probably may worke Lead mines by the vertue of that patent in these two particulars abovenamed. 



3 dly For the Forrest wch is all stinted pastures, mans severall and inclosed Grounds I hold it plaine that they are excepted in Mr. Whartons patent, & though he have enjoyed them without any molestacon, till this question, he either did or was to Accompt to the Bpp for them & soe not in him. 



4thly My reason is this Mr. Halls father who tooke the former Lease (before this wch is now in being) in Alphonsus Bulmers name, wch was the first lease wch ever was taken of the Bps of these Mines, For he looked into Mr. Whartons patent & ground & found that all severall & inclosed grounds were free for any man to take, & soe accordinly went to the Bp & acquainted him with the same, & so the Bp granted him a Lease & recd a Considerable fine of him in moneys, & reserveing the Lot or such a rent for him & his successors. And his lease was granted in these very words, all Copyholders, all Customary Tenants & all Leaseholders in Woolesingham & Stanhop parish in Wearedale. 



5thly It is to be considered that it had beene an high wrong in the Bp 3 waies as thus First to grant away from Mr. Wharton wt he had granted before to him, & now Mr. Wharton conceives & stands upon the same as his right; & it was as great a wrong in the Bpp to receive Mr. Halls money, & grant him that wch he cannot injoy, & 3rdly the greatest wrong as it plainely appeares to himselfe if he had not plainely understood wt he did but both by the expresse words in the patent & the lease it is plaine he did. 



6thly Now sixthly & lastly Mr Halls father understood all this in his former lease wch was taken about eight & Twenty or Thirty yeares agoe, & urged & alleadged all this to Sr Arthur Haselrige when he first begannne his commands here, but Mr. Hall being a papist & a delinquent could have no Justice nor right from him, but carried all before him, And therefor this is a Just & true reason why Mr. Hall could not question Mr. Whartons patent before this time. And for the whole point wch Mr. Wharton stands soe upon, wch is his continuance by severall patents. All Mr. Halls councell doe possitively affirme, It is a cleare point to all the Inclosers wch were but a Moneth before the last patent & soe to the whole Forrest, that is allseveralls & stinted pastures have beene & dayly are Inclosers taken of the Forrest, & may be all, or likely to be in time, with the consent of the Customary Tenants without any priudice at all to the Bp.’ 



(Endorsed : ' Mr. Wm. Hall Lead Mines. Co : Geo Wreys opinion ' followed in bishop Chandler's handwriting : 'upon a dispute between the moor master & Mr. Hall Lessee of the mines in the 

enclosed grounds.')