I looked again because as part of the Ancestry website, purely out of curiosity I sent my DNA on to the luminaries there, I'll wait and see what comes back, I wonder how Patrick Sarsfield et. al. would have been affected by this technology...
John
Exchequer
WEXFORD ASSIZES, 1863.
BRIEF ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS
STATEMENT OF DEFENDANTS' CASE PREPARED FOR ADVISING PROOFS.
Patrick Sarsfield Colclough, Esquire, Felix Fitzpatrick, Michael Murphy and Charles Henry James, Official Assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency in Ireland, which said Felix Fitzpatrick, Michael Murphy and Charles Henry James, are Assignees of Patrick Sarsfield Colclough,
Plaintiff's
John Thomas Rossborough, calling himself John Thomas Rossborough Colclough, and Mary Grey Wentworth Rossborough Colclough, and others.
Defendants.
County of Wexford.
THIS is an action of ejectment on the title brought by the plaintiff, Patrick Sarsfield Colclough, who has been discharged as an insolvent, in the name of himself and his assignees, to recover possession of the Tintern estate, the property of the defendants.
Four writs of suranions and plaint in ejectment have issued, at suit of the plaintiffs against the defendants, one to recover the manor house, and demesne, of Tintern abbey; the second to recover the general lands forming the Tintem estate, situate in the county Wexford ; the third to recover that portion of the estate situate in Carlow ; the fourth to recover the lands of Ballydorough, in the county of Wexford, of which the defendants are not in possession ; but in the first instance the plaintiffs are only to try one of these actions as to the lauds comprised in the summons and plaint.
Although the official assignees are co-plaintiffs, these actions have been brought not merely without their consent, but against their strong remonstrances, and as they and their advisers are satisfied the other plaintiff's have no title, and that the proceedings have been instituted for a purpose not bona fide.
The plaintiff, Patrick Sarsfield Colclough, is the heir male of the late Caesar Colclough, of Tintern abbey, and of the late Sir Vesey Colclough. who was father of Caesar ; and the defendant, Mrs. Rossborough Colclough, is true heiress-at-law of same parties, and as such heiress-at-law of said Caesar Colclough and of Sir Vesey Colclough, and also as heiress-at-law of her father, Chief Justice
Caesar Colclough, who was devisee of Sir Vesey Colclough, as hereafter mentioned, is in possession of and claims to be owner of the estates in question. The plaintiff, Patrick Sarsfield Colclough, and defendant, Mary Grey Wentworth Rossborough Colclough, are respectively the heir male and heiress-at-law of Adam Colclough, formerly of Duffrey Hall, who was the common ancestor of both.
The defendants have no certain knowledge of the grounds on which the plaintiff rests his claim ; but it is believed the plaintiff will allege that he is entitled to recover on two grounds
1st. That as heir male, even though not heir-at-law, he is entitled, under the limitations, in a settlement dated in 1719, though these limitations were long since barred.
2nd. That if not entitled on that ground, he is entitled to recover as heir-at-law, falsely alleging that Mrs Rossborough Colclough is not the legitimate child of her father and mother, and even if she be, that she is not heiress-at-law of the Colclough family, as her father, the Chief Justice, was (as alleged) himself illegitimate, an allegation which is of a most important character, and which will be disproved so soon as made ; and in passing, it may be stated that even if defendant, Mrs Rossborough Colclough, be not heiress-at-law, the plaintiff would not, on that ground, be entitled to recover, as failing her and her issue, the heiress-at-law would be Miss Matilda Colclough, and not the plaintiff, the said Matilda being the grand-daughter of Dudley Colclough, the next brother of the Chief Justice, and next in priority, but to oust her claim the plaintiff also alleges that her grandfather was also illegitimate.
There is no reasonable doubt but that the plaintiff has instituted these proceedings to extort money from defendants; nevertheless, it being incumbent on defendants to defend their title, they state that title as follows —
First, referring counsel to the annexed pedigree, which can be proved.
The pedigree can be seen in earlier blogs 27 April 2013
Anyway do these look alike... 'Sir' Vesey and my late, the 'Great' Uncle Bernie...
