e and pasture ... in old
Stratford, and also one other tenement with the appurtenances in the
parish of ---- London; called or known by the name of the Wardropp, and
now in the tenure of one ---- Dickes."

Mrs. Nash had soldiers quartered on her at New Place during the very
month of her husband's death, one of whom was implicated in the robbery
of deer from the park of Sir Greville Verney on April 30, 1647. But she
did not fail in legal knowledge of what she ought to do under the
unexpected provisions of her husband's will, of which she was left sole
executrix and residuary legatee. She and her mother combined in levying
a fine on the property,[200] and reconveying it to the sole use of her
mother and herself, and their heirs for ever. She was not yet
thirty-nine years of age, and did not feel inclined even then to take it
for granted she would not marry again, even if Edward Nash agreed, as he
could be made to agree, that his inheritance could only come to him on
her decease without issue.

But Edward Nash did not like her proceedings, and filed a Bill in
Chancery on February, 1647-48, against Elizabeth Nash, and other
legatees, to compel them to produce his uncle's will in court, and
execute its provisions. Mrs. Nash admitted its contents, but averred the
testator had no power to demise property which had belonged to her
grandfather, and had been left to herself. She explained that her mother
was still living, and that in conjunction they had levied the fine. She
only disputed that part of her husband's will concerning her own
property, and mentioned her deeds and evidences. Her answer was taken by
commission, at Stratford, in April, 1648, and in June it was ordered
that the defendants should bring into court the will and other
evidences, and the writ was personally served on Mrs. Nash.

The will of Thomas Nash was produced before the Examiners in Chancery in
November, but Mrs. Nash defied all orders concerning the other
"evidences," as may be seen from the affidavit filed at the Six Clerks'
Office in December, 1649. She was brave in her determination that her
own rights and her mother's should not be assailed, and she was perhaps
prudent in her opinion that the fewer papers that were produced the
shorter time would the suit last. No replication or decree is recorded.
The litigation apparently terminated in a compromise, doubtless hastened
by Mrs. Nash's second marriage. Perhaps Edward Nash by this time
realized th