The case of Edward Williams, Esq; against a bill caused to be brought to the House of Peers by Mr. George Weld, a member of the House of Commons, relating to the custody, tuition, and marriage of Sir Paul Pindar, Baronet, an infant of the age of thirteen years and ten months. 1698 Approx. 7 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 3 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2011-04 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2). B02577 Wing C910 ESTC R170942 52211902 ocm 52211902 175472

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

 Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. B02577) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 175472) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English Books, 1641-1700 ; 2738:12) The case of Edward Williams, Esq; against a bill caused to be brought to the House of Peers by Mr. George Weld, a member of the House of Commons, relating to the custody, tuition, and marriage of Sir Paul Pindar, Baronet, an infant of the age of thirteen years and ten months. 1 sheet ([2] p.) s.n., [London : 1698] Caption title. Half-title on p. [2]: The case of Edward Williams, Esq, in relation to Mr. Weld's bill concerning Paul Pindar. Publication data suggested by Wing. Reproduction of the original in the Lincoln's Inn Library.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

 eng Pindar, Paul, -- Sir, b. ca. 1680 -- Trials, litigation, etc. -- Early works to 1800. Weld, George -- Trials, litigations, etc. -- Early works to 1800. Williams, Edward, fl. 1698 -- Trials, litigations, etc. -- Early works to 1800. Guardian and ward -- England -- Cases -- Early works to 1800. Custody of children -- England -- Cases -- Early works to 1800. Broadsides -- England -- 17th century. 2020-09-21 Content of 'availability' element changed when EEBO Phase 2 texts came into the public domain 2009-04 Assigned for keying and markup 2009-05 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2009-07 Sampled and proofread 2009-07 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2009-09 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
The CASE of EDWARD WILLIAMS, Eſq Againſt a Bill cauſed to be brought to the Houſe of Peers by Mr. George Weld, a Member of the Houſe of Commons, relating to the Cuſtody, Tuition, and Marriage of Sir Paul Pindar, Baronet, an Infant of the Age of Thirteen Years and Ten Months.

SIR Peter Pindar, Baronet, had Iſſue Thomas Pindar, Eſq Charles Pindar, and three Daughters, whereof one married Mr. George Weld without her Father's conſent.

Robert Wynne, Eſq ſeized of an Eſtate of Inheritance, had Iſſue three Daughters, Ann, Mary, and Jane.

Thomas Pindar, Eldeſt Son of Sir Peter Pindar, married Ann, the Eldeſt Daughter and ſole Heir to the Inheritance of Robert Wynne, and by her had Iſſue Paul Pindar, and one Daughter.

Thomas Pindar in 1687. dyed in the Life-time of his Father.

In July 1689. Ann Pindar, the Widow of Thomas Pindar, by her Will named and appointed Edward Williams, Eſq (married to her Siſter Jane) Roger Moſtyn, and Ambroſe Thelwal, Eſquires Truſtees of her Eſtate, and Guardians to her Son Sir Paul Pindar (then an Infant about Nine Years old) for his Benefit, and conmitted the Care of him to her ſaid Brother Edward Williams in her Life-time, and left the Infant in his actual Cuſtody at her Death in June 1690.

Mr. Edward Williams her Brother took care of, and provided for her Funeral, Sir Paul Pindar the Infant continuing in his actual Cuſtody with the conſent of the other Truſtees and Guardians; and having Interred the Mother, he Peaceably without any Force or Violence brought the Infant with him from the Funeral of his Mother in the Preſence, and with the Approbation of his Co-Truſtees and Guardians, to Place Ward, the late Houſe of William Williams, Eſq in his way to Mr. Edward Williams his Houſe, and within two days brought the Infant to his own Houſe, where he hath continued in good Health, and Educated agreeable to his Mothers Appointment, and his own Quality.

In Michaelmas Term 1690. Mr. Weld exhibited a Bill into the Court of Chancery againſt Mr. Edward Williams in the Name of Sir Paul Pindar the Infant, naming himſelf his Prochein Am, untruly ſuggeſting that Mr. Edward Williams had by Violence ſeized the Infant, and detained him with an intent to diſpoſe of him in Marriage.

Mr. Edward Williams anſwered that Bill, denying the Force and Violence, ſetting forth his Cuſtody of the Infant and Truſt under his ſaid Mother's Will and Appointment, ſhewing alſo tha he was Guardian in Soccage to the Infant.

The Commiſſioners of the Great Seal in February 1690. Aſſuming the Juriſdiction of the Court of Wards over the Eſtate and Perſon of this Infant, Ordered, That Mr. Edward Williams ſhould Receive the Rents of the Infant's Maternal Eſtate, and Mr. Charles Pindar (the Infant's Uncle of the Father's ſide) ſhould Receive the Rents of the Infant's Paternal Eſtate.

Soon afterward upon the Death of Mr. Charles Pindar, the Commiſſioners Appointed Mr. Weld Receiver of the Infant's Paternal Eſtate, and Mr. Thomas Jones to be Receiver of the Infant's Maternal Eſtate; and other Orders were made by the Commiſſioners in Relation to the Perſon and Education of the Infant.

Mr. Edward Williams Humbly conceiving that the Court of Chancery had no Juriſdiction of the Perſon of the Infant, or Power over his Eſtate in this Caſe to controul the Mother's Will and Dſpoſition therein, and his Guardianſhip in Soccage, did in purſuance of the Truſt in him repoſed and Guardianſhip, take care of the Perſon of the Infant, and of his Education.

Mr. Weld having received the Profits of his Eſtate all this tine without Account or Security for the Benefit of the Infant, or any Maintenance allowed him, though there's a Bill filed for tht purpoſe in the Infant's Name, Mr. Weld inſiſting upon his Priviledge.

Now the Infant drawing near the Age of Fourteen, enabling him to chooſe a Guardian, Mr. Weld fearing he may be compelled to Account for what he hath Received out of the Infant's Eſtate, hath cauſed this Bill to be brought to the Houſe of Peers, Complaining that Mr. Edward Williams and Mr. William Williams by Force and Violence ſeized and carried away the Infant, and that he hath been detained by them ever ſince, in order to Mary him to a Daughter of the ſaid Edward Williams.

All which Suggeſtions are notoriouſly untrue.

I. It cannot be pretended that Mr. William Williams was concerned, or intermedled in any taking or detaining of the Infant, otherwiſe than that Mr. Edward Williams and the Infant lay at his Houſe a Night or two in their way from Mrs. Pindar's Funeral to Mr. Edward Williams his Houſe. Mr. William Williams is a ſtranger to the Infant, and was ſo in June 1690. and hath ſo continued ever ſince without intermedling in any thing that concerns his Perſon, Eſtate, Cuſtody, or Marriage; he hath no Power over the Infant, neither hath he ſeen him ſince he was at his Houſe in June 1690. II. Mr. Edward Williams had the actual Care and Cuſtody of the Infant's Perſon in the Life-time of his Mother, and hath continued ſo ever ſince, and doth Humbly inſiſt upon it, that he is Entituled to the Cuſtody of his Perſon, and Management of his Eſtate with the other Co-Truſtees, by the Appointment of his Mother's Will. III. He is alſo Entituled to the Cuſtody of the Infant as Guardian in Soccage, having married the Infant's Mother's Siſter. IV. The Infant is very well pleaſed with his being under the Management of Mr. Edward Williams, and has been very well Educated, and deſires to continue under the Care and Management of his Guardians appointed by his Mother's Will. V. There's no Ground for the Preſumption of his being married to Mr. Edward Williams his Daughter, it's rather to be ſuſpected and feared, that the Perſon who married his own Wife without her Father's Conſent, and Sollicites this Bill, would Marry this Infant to one of his Daughters, if he could get him into his Power, having already made a Marriage for one of his Daughters to an Infant Baronet, unequal in all reſpects, except the Infancy of the Perſons.

Wherefore it is Humbly hoped this Bill will be rejected.