The seat in controversy stands on the north side of the chancel and joins to the church upon the west... Ever since this deponent can remember Mr Rich or his predecessors used to sit in the pew in controversy as likewise all the neighbouring gentlemen when they came to church used always to sit there but this deponent cannot tell by whose right... About 8 or 9 years ago Mr Rich and Mr Scargill having had a quarrel, Mr Rich left his seat in the chancel and went and sat in his wife's pew and Mr Scargill coming to this deponent's house soon after to drink a bottle of cider, he asked him the meaning of it, whereupon Mr Scargill replied that Mr Rich would not be beholden to me nor sit in the chancel for fear I should sue him... He hath heard the pew in controversy called Mr Rich's pew and that the men sit on one side of Mulbarton church and the women on the other.
Ever since this deponent can remember Mr Scargill always repaired the chancel... The seat in controversy is the most westwards next the church on the north side, but this deponent doth not remember that Mr Scargill ever repaired or lowered the said pew, and that ever since this deponent can remember Mr Rich hath always sat in the said seat but he cannot tell whether in his own right or by leave of Mr Scargill, neither can this deponent tell by whose leave the neighbouring gentry sit there when they come to church... Mr Huson is reputed owner of a house of about 50li per annum and hath likewise a wife and 4 or 5 children, but he hath a seat in the church which belongs to his house, but this deponent cannot tell whether it is convenient or no, and about 3 years ago this deponent being at Mr Scargill's house together with Mr Huson, Mr Scargill offered Mr Huson that for a yearly acknowledgment of a bottle of wine he should sit in the said seat, which was agreed to and a note drawn up accordingly to which this deponent is witness, and Mr Huson and his family have sat in the said seat ever since... He never heard of anybody who disputed Mr Rich's right to the pew and it always went by the name of his pew, and he never knew any other parishioner of Mulbarton sit in the said seat before Mr Huson and it is the custom for men and women to sit apart.
Rich was and is proprietor of the Hall in Mulbarton and lord of the manor and patron of the rectory of Mulbarton but how long he hath been so he can't well tell, and Mr Huson well knows the same to be true... Rich and his predecessors the proprietors of the Hall and patrons of the living have for above the 60 years to this deponent's knowledge quietly enjoyed the said seat that goes by the name of the patron's or lord's pew now in controversy exclusive of all others and that he never knew or heard the patron's title to that seat questioned before now... Mr Huson hath, did and still continues to intrude into the seat with his family several times in the year 1703 last past and now in 1704... The owners of the Hall and patrons of the living always used to repair the seat... He doth know the seat in controversy above the 60 years and that it is situate in the chancel and that... when Mr Scargill's father and brother came to church they did not sit in the seat now in controversy but in a pew that belongs to Mrs Scargill on the other side of the chancel, and when Sir Francis Windham, Mr Onslow, Mr Berney and Mr Branthwait came to church, they sit in the seat by Mr Rich's leave and not by Mr Scargill's... He hears Mr Huson is to give Mr Scargill a bottle of wine per annum for sitting there and that he hath sat there about a year... There is such a seat as in the interrogatory described but that ever since he can remember it always belonged to the patron's lady, it being the custom in Mulbarton church for men and women to sit asunder.
He believes Mr Rich lord of the manor, owner of the Hall and patron of the living of Mulbarton and that without doubt Mr Huson knows the same... This deponent's father Mr Anthony Frere was instituted into the rectory in the year of Our Lord 1616 and that though his father and Colonel Robert Rich the present Rich's grandfather's elder brother were in suit together for many years yet his said father never questioned Rich's right of sitting in the seat now in controversy, and that Mr Long this deponent's father's successor never disturbed the said family in the quiet possession thereof, but they have always for times past for whatever this deponent heard had an undoubted title to the said seat which commonly goes by the name of patron's or lord's or Mr Ricch's pew, and that they enjoyed the same exclusive of all others... Ever since this deponent can remember Rich's ancestors always repaired the said seat... He doth know the seat in controversy and that it is situate in the chancel and that this deponent's father did repair the leads and north wall... Nobody ever asked this respondent's father leave to sit in the said seat, and that if this respondent's uncle who was one of the justices of the peace for the county came to church he always sat with his mother on the other side of the chancel, but as for the gentlemen named in the interrogatory he doth believe that they came there by the said fanily's leave and not by Mr Scargill's... He hath heard that the said Huson is to give Scargill some wine for sitting there... There is such a pew as is described but that ever since this respondent can rememeber the women belonging to Rich's family always used to sit their, viz. their wives and kindred.
He hears that Mr Huson is to give Mr Scargill a pint of wine a year for sitting in it and that he hath sat there about three quarters of a year.
Mr Huson hath sat in the seat in controversy about half a year or better and he hears that he is to give Mr Scargill a bottle of wine per annum for sitting there and further cannot answer.