The story of the 'Domus Dei' of Stamford (hospital of William Browne) / by H.P. Wright.

  • Wright, Henry Press
Date:
1890
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The story of the 'Domus Dei' of Stamford (hospital of William Browne) / by H.P. Wright. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    236/570 (page 202)
    instance of the Mayor’s nominating a Confrater, or even so much as claiming a right to such nomination.* Q. 5. “ The Bishop of Lincoln, who is our friend, having insisted on his right of nominating by his Petition, as before stated. Whether it is necessary, on the part of Mr. Ross, to prove by affidavit his nomination, &c., by the Bishop, or leave it for the Bishop to do ? Ans. “The Bishop’s nomination of Mr. Ross may be properly proved either by the Bishop or Mr, Ross, but it should be proved by one of them. Q. 6. “ Ridlington was actually nominated by Spinckes as heir of the Founder, and endeavoured to get admitted, but he has not taken any notice of it in his Petitions or Affidavits, Whether we should prove, on the affidavits to be made on the part of Ross, that his opponent dare not rely on Spinckes being the heir of the Founder, and therefore it may be presumed that he is not the heir, but Browne is ? A ns. “ I do not see any necessity to prove this, for Ridlington having relinquished that right, Spinckes being heir-at-law to Browne seems to be out of the question. \Note. On talking with Mr. Wood he agreed that it would not be improper to prove this, and therefore it stands inserted on Dr. Stukeley’s affidavit.—R. C.] Q. 7. “ Whether anything, or what else, is to be proved by affidavit. Ans. “What are mentioned above seem to be all the matters necessary to be proved on the part of Ross. “J. Wood. ^^Jicne 9, 1739.” * Such a course would be worthless in itself, were not facts dead against it. Supposing no lapse from Dean and Vicar of All Saints’ had ever taken place, then neither Heir nor Alderman could have appointed or claimed an appointment. Still their right, under certain circumstances, would have continued undisturbed.