239 Garrard v Chapman

239 GARRARD V CHAPMAN

John Garrard of the Middle Temple, esq v Edmund Chapman of St Mary in the Savoy, co. Middlesex, esq, Gentleman of the Privy Chamber

Hilary term, 1635 - Trinity term, 1637

Abstract

Garrard complained that Chapman, a Gentleman of the Privy Chamber, had given him the lie on a tennis court at Blackfriars, London, claiming that Chapman had falsely called his ball a loss. Chapman's defence was that the ball had been below the line and that when he questioned this Garrard had given him the lie, then asked him his name and place of residence, apparently intending to follow up with a challenge. Duck presented the libel in May 1636 and Garrard's witnesses were due to be examined by a commission headed by Sir John Isham, bart, Sir Thomas Brooke, and the Earl of Carbery, 8-9 August 1636 at an inn in Northampton. Garrard was awarded 200 marks in damages and £20 in costs in May-June 1637, in spite of Chapman claiming that their quarrel had been 'under treaty of agreement' since April and that, as a result he had forborne 'his appearances and defensive proofs'. On 28 June, therefore, he petitioned the court 'to ease him of this fine and the rest of the sentence' on the grounds that he had paid £25 to Garrard in settlement.

Plaintiff's case

14/1n, Defence interrogatories

1. What was the age, occupation and condition of the witness? Where had they lived for the last ten years?

2. Were they related to the parties in this cause, and if so, in what degree? Were they a household servant or indebted to the parties, and if so for what amount?

3. What were the formal words spoken by Chapman, in what place, at what time, in whose presence and in what manner were they spoken? Were Thomas Prowde, gent, Robert Corser, Joseph Brandon and John Royle present?

4. What actions and words provoked Chapman to speak the words? Let the witness set down all passages of speech and actions in their order of happening 'as near as he can.'

5. Did John Garrard at the time and place of the libel, 'and namely in or near a tennis court in Blackfriars, London, tossing a ball there, make a losse under the line; did not Garrard say it was no losse, and did not Chapman say it was a losse; and did not John Garrard then and there give Edmund Chapman the lye, and also ask Chapman his name, and where he lodged, and what howers of the day he used to be at his lodgings'?

6. Was Chapman 'a gentleman of the Privie Chamber to the King's Majestie'?

7. Speak the truth of what you know, believe or have heard.

No date.

Signed by Thomas Eden.

Sentence / Arbitration

EM3149, Plaintiff's sentence

A fine of 200 marks damages was awarded to the plaintiff and £20 taxed costs.

No date [but Trinity term 1637]

EM3150, Plaintiff's bill of costs

Account for costs of £42-6s-0d, from Hilary term 1635 to Trinity term 1637

No date [but Trinity term 1637]

Submission

3/4, Defendant's petition to Arundel

'The difference between Sir John Garret, baronet, and the petitioner in question before your Lordships in the Court of honor, being under treaty of agreement ever since Aprill last, which occasioned this petitioner to assent to publication of the plaintiff's witnesses, and to forbeare his appearances and defensive proofs and the same nevertheless proceedinge to sentence contrary to [Chapman's] expectation and without his privity.

This petitioner choosing rather to submit to the sentence then dispute the remedies, and humbly acknowledginge the justice of the court, and his owne error in declining his proofs, and trusting to the agreement, hath in obedience made a finall conclusion of the business with the plaintiff and paid him 25^l, which he accepted in full satisfaccon of soe much of the sentence as concerneth him, and is at peace and unity with this petitioner who hopes to have noe more questions of this nature.

He therefore humbly beseecheth your Lordships that you will be honorably pleased, for the reasons aforesaid, to ease him of this fine and the rest of the sentence and to discharge his bonds and further attendance, and retaine him in your Lordships' good opinion.'

28 June 1637.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Duck acted as counsel to Garrard and Dr Eden to Chapman. The defendant was attached to appear and entered bond for £100 when Dr Duck gave the libel in May 1636. Garrard's witnesses were to be examined by a commission headed by Sir John Isham, bart, Sir Thomas Brooke, and the earl of Carbery, from 8 to 9 August 1636 at an inn in Northampton. In November 1636 witnesses Robert Dover and R. Randall were summoned. On 28 January 1637 Dr Duck was required to prove the libel and Humphrey Harley was required to appear in person. Witnesses were still being summoned to examinations in the following February and April.

Notes

John Garrard, esq, was the son and heir of Sir John Garrard of Lamer, Wheathampstead, co. Hertford, first baronet (1590-1637) and Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Edward Barkham of Southacre, Norfolk. The first baronet's will was dated April-May 1637 and proved on 21 June 1637, and he was succeeded by his son John as second baronet.

G. E. Cokayne (ed.), The Complete Baronetage, 1611-25 (Exeter, 1900), vol. 1, p. 188.

Documents

• Plaintiff's case
  • Defence interrogatories: 14/1n (no date)
• Sentence / Arbitration
  • Plaintiff's bill of costs: EM3150 (Tri 1637)
  • Plaintiff's sentence: EM3149 (Tri 1637)
• Submission
  • Defendant's petition to Arundel: 3/4 (28 Jun 1637)
• Proceedings
  • Undated proceedings: College of Arms MS. 'Court of Chivalry' (act book 1636-8) [pressmark R.R. 68C] (hereafter 68C), fos. 64r-67r (c. Apr 1636)
  • Proceedings before Arundel: 68C, fos. 89r-100r (May 1636)
  • Proceedings before Maltravers: 68C, fos. 74r-83v (7 May 1636)
  • Proceedings before Sir Henry Marten: 68C, fos. 84r-88v (9 May 1636)
  • Proceedings before Maltravers: 68C, fos. 112r-121v (Jun 1636)
  • Proceedings: 68C, fos. 105r-110v (8 Nov 1636)
  • Proceedings before Arundel: 68C, fos. 51r-59r (28 Jan 1637)
  • Proceedings: 68C, fos. 1r-11r (16 Feb 1637)
  • Proceedings: 68C, fos. 37r-41v (29 Apr 1637)

People mentioned in the case

• Hertfordshire
  • Lamer
  • Wheathampstead
• London
  • Blackfriars
  • Middle Temple
• Middlesex
  • St Mary in the Savoy
• Norfolk
  • Southacre
• Northampton

Topics of the case

• arbitration
• challenge to a duel
• giving the lie
• inns of court
• mayor
• royal servant
• sport