Welsh Journals

Having won this case they were again the subject of a legal challenge in 1641, this time in the Court of Great Sessions held in Pembroke, and on this occasion it was of a more serious nature than the mere display of arms; it involved property.70 The action was brought by John Laugharne esquire of St Bride's, a nephew of the deceased Sir James Perrot and youngest son of Rowland Laugharne and Lettice Perrot, half-sister of the former.71 The plaintiff claimed that by the terms of a document sealed in December 1609 certain named properties should have descended through his mother to him but that on the death of Sir James in 1637 these were taken by the defendant Herbert Perrot, gentleman. The defendant countered by claiming that in April 1622 the deceased cancelled the arrangement with Laugharne in favour of a new grant recognising him, his children and members of his family as heirs to these and other of his properties. The judgement of the court is unknown but it seems that the Herefordshire Perrots were again successful since the disputed properties remained in their possession. The case is important since it provides evidence of a legal relationship between Sir James Perrot and his 'cousins' from Herefordshire, involving entailing his Pembrokeshire properties, as early as April 1622. Clearly despairing of ever having children of his own, the fifty-one year old Sir James was taking steps to ensure that his property was apportioned according to his wishes. He made clear his intention to bequeath his properties in survivorship to each of the Perrots of Herefordshire, beginning with Herbert (b.1617) and his children, thereafter to devolve to Herbert's brothers, James (b.1618) and Francis (b.1619), to his uncle Francis (b. c.1574), to his great-uncle James (b.c.1550s) and finally to his cousin James (b.c.1570s), the son of his great-uncle. It was an arrangement that Sir James saw fit not to change and it remained in force, confirmed later in his last will and testament, until his death fifteen years later. With the exception of his nephew and godson Thomas Laugharne who was given property in Dale, there was no place for his closest relatives among those chosen to inherit his estates, namely, his nephews Essex and John Laugharne, Thomas Butler and Peter Morgan of Abergavenny. They at least (with the curious exception of John), together with a number of nieces, were mentioned in their uncle's will, enjoying in all a cash bequest amounting to some £ 250. This is more than can be said of Sir James's kin, Thomas Perrot of London (b. c.1602), the petitioner in the Court of Chivalry, who did not even rate a mention despite being 'placed in the Inns of Court' by the deceased with whom he had enjoyed an apparently close relationship.72 In truth, Thomas Perrot had every reason to feel aggrieved since his kinship with Sir James Perrot was closer than that of the Herefordshire Perrots and he at least, unlike them, could claim unequivocally 'to be of his blood'. Had the estates been bequeathed strictly according to family descent then he rather than Herbert should have been the main or sole beneficiary. However, documents survive