465 Nicholls v Lloyd

465 NICHOLLS V LLOYD

Randolph Nicholls of Melbourne, co. York v George Lloyd of St Andrew, Holborn, co. Middlesex

October 1638 - February 1639

Abstract

Nicholls complained that between March and May 1638 in St Andrews, Holborn, Lloyd had said that 'Randolph Nicolls is noe gentleman, but a rogue and a rascall; and the cause I will not fight with him is because hee is a base fellow, but I will have a broome man that shall bastinado him'. Lloyd, described as 'of Gray's Inn', maintained that he had been provoked because Nicholls had assaulted him at the Spread Eagle tavern in Gray's Inn Lane, on 29 April 1638. Dr Duck was required to prove the libel on 20 October 1638 and on 20 November witnesses were produced to support it. On 19 December Dr Merrick presented material for the defence and proceedings continued in February 1639; but nothing further survives.

Initial proceedings

13/2g, Libel

Between March and May 1638 in St Andrews, Holborn, Lloyd said that 'Randolph Nicolls is noe gentleman but a rogue and a rascall; and the cause I will not fight with him is because hee is a base fellow, but I will have a broome man that shall bastinado him'.

No date.

Signed by Clere Talbot.

Plaintiff's case

14/2g, Defence interrogatories

1. Were Nicholls and Lloyd present on 29 April 1638 at the Spread Eagle tavern in Gray's Inn Lane? For how long? Who else was present? How much drink was consumed?

2. When William Plomer, esq, and one Hublethwayte departed, did they leave Lloyd asleep? Did they or some others not suddenly return 'and in what case or fashion did they then see or find Lloyd'? Was his 'face and doublet durty and his nose bluddy; and did not Lloyd then say that Randolph Nicholl had abused him'?

3. Had Mr Plomer soon after sent for Lloyd and asked him 'how his brother Randolph Nicoll had abused him'? Had Lloyd then related how?

4. Had the witness heard Nicholl confess that he had abused Lloyd at the Spread Eagle on 29 April, that Nicholl had pulled Lloyd from the chair on which he had been asleep, 'or that he tooke Lloyd by the arme and struck up his heeles and threw him on his back, trampled or kicked or spurned him'? [the rest too tightly bound].

Introduced 26 November 1638.

Signed by William Lewin.

Defendant's case

18/2p, Defence

1. 'The day before or some short time before the pretended speaking of the pretended words and more particularly upon 29 April or thereabouts George Lloyd was at the Spread Eagle Tavern in Gray's Inn Lane and in company with Randoll Nicolls and others; and that I, George Lloyd, being fallen asleep and sitting on a stool, the said Randoll did violently take me by the arme and pulled the stoole from under me and struck up my heeles, and threw me on my back, and sett his foote upon my brest, and trampled me under his feet, and drew blood of me and dirtied my clothes.'

2. 'All the time and place aforesaid there was no occasion given by me to Randoll to offer me such abuse and injury'.

3. Since then, Nicolls had 'confessed and gloried that Randoll struck up mine heeles and had me downe and trampled on me at the time and place aforesaid; and this he hath often or at least once confessed and gloried of before divers credible witnesses.'

Introduced on 19 December 1638.

Unsigned.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Duck and Dr Talbot acted as counsel for Nicholls, with Dr Lewin and Dr Merrick for Lloyd. Dr Duck was required to prove the libel on 20 October 1638. On 20 November the witnesses William Plumer, Francis Eason and James Nowell were named to support the libel, along with Sir Henry St George, Norroy King of Arms. On 5 December the testimony of Nicholls's witnesses was to be published and Dr Talbot petitioned to hear sentence. On 19 December Dr Merrick gave material for the defence, but Dr Duck challenged it and Dr Merrick was required to prove it in the first session of the next term. On 23 February 1639 several witnesses were warned to undergo examination concerning expenses.

Notes

Nicholls did not appear in Dugdale's Visitation of York, while Lloyd is not referred to in the Middlesex pedigrees.

R. Davies (ed.), The Visitation of the County of Yorke begun in 1665 and finished in 1666, by William Dugdale (Surtees Society, 36, 1859); J. W. Clay (ed.), Familiae Minorum Gentium (Publications of the Harleian Society, 37-40, 1894-6); G. J. Armytage (ed.), Middlesex Pedigrees (Publications of the Harleian Society, 65, 1914).

Documents

• Initial proceedings
  • Libel: 13/2g (no date)
• Plaintiff's case
  • Defence interrogatories: 14/2g (26 Nov 1638)
• Defendant's case
  • Defence: 18/2p (19 Dec 1638)
• Proceedings
  • Proceedings before Arundel: R.19, fos. 434r-449v (20 Oct 1638)
  • Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 454r-468v (6 Nov 1638)
  • Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos.400v-412v (20 Nov 1638)
  • Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 422r-428r (28 Nov 1638)
  • Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 474r-484v (5 Dec 1638)
  • Proceedings: R.19, fo. 491r (19 Dec 1638)
  • Proceedings before Maltravers: 1/9 (28 Jan 1639)
  • Proceedings before Arundel: 1/6, fos. 1-9 (23 Feb 1639)

People mentioned in the case

• Duck, Arthur, lawyer
• Eason, Francis
• Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
• Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
• Hublethwayte
• Lewin, William, lawyer
• Lloyd, George
• Merrick, William, lawyer
• Nicholls, Randolph (also Nicolls, Nichols)
• Nowell, James
• Plomer, William, esq (also Plumer)
• St George, Henry, knight
• Talbot, Clere, lawyer

Places mentioned in the case

• London
  • Gray's Inn Lane
• Middlesex
  • Holborn
• Yorkshire, East Riding
  • Melbourne

Topics of the case

• apparel
• assault
• challenge to a duel
• denial of gentility
• drunkenness
• tavern brawl