| The origin of the law suit, Pettus v Bancroft, is relatively clear. A William Pettus, citizen and merchant of London, had died in 1608. In February 1631/2 William Pettus junior, having come of age, had begun a law suit against Thomas Bancroft who was the surviving executor of the estate of William Pettus senior. And when, after contesting the suit for four years, both Thomas Bancroft and William Pettus junior died, Katherine Pettus, the wife of William junior, sued Margaret Bancroft who was Thomas's wife and executor of his estate. The argument hinged on a claim from William Pettus junior that the executors had not paid the portion of his father's estate due to him. That portion was one third of the estate, a sum of £1600. By the time Margaret Bancroft was being sued, around 1640, we see the first calculation of the amount then owed: the total including interest was nearly £4400. By mid 1641 an order was issued that no legacies were to be paid from the will of Thomas Bancroft until the debts were paid to Katherine Pettus. The Bancroft side of the argument had managed to stall for some years but the amount now owing was serious. |  |
|
This document contains one of a series of such calculations. Compound interest at a fixed rate is used, with an adjustment which is calculated by 'Morgans rule'. However, irrespective of the calculations, Margaret Bancroft seems to have had no intention of paying anything. Sebright papers number 2. | |
| Margaret Bancroft seems to have had prior knowledge of the 1641 order not to pay legacies from Thomas Bancroft's estate. Just in time, Margaret married off her youngest daughter, also Margaret, to Richard Aylett a few days before the order was put into effect. Richard Aylett was the son of Jeremy Aylett who lived at Rivenhall in Essex. Jeremy, who was becoming a prominent figure in Essex, must have been well known to Margaret to justify a quick marriage between their children. Margaret gave her daughter a significant portion of her wealth, which had the effect of hiding a proportion of the Bancroft estate from any sequestrator. Richard Aylett would in effect be the owner of that money. From Margaret's previous activity we can suspect that there was a private understanding that some of that money would be returned to Margaret at an appropriate time. Shortly afterwards, Margaret arranged that other debts owed to her were transferred to others of her friends, having previously claimed that those debts were 'desparate' - what we now call bad debts. This was surely yet another device to hide her assets from the court and frustrate the claims of Katherine Pettus. Soon after these transactions, as the pressure built up to cause her to pay the claim of Katherine Pettus, Margaret went into hiding. | |