96 Carew v Weekes

96 CAREW V WEEKES

John Carew of Camerton, co. Somerset, gent v John Weekes of Clutton, co. Somerset

November - December 1639

Abstract

Carew prosecuted Weekes for having said that he was 'a knave, a base fellow, a base gentleman, a whoarmaster, with divers other odious termes of scandal'.Process was granted on 29 November 1639 and Carew entered bond; butno further proceedings survive.

Initial proceedings

2/110, Petition to Arundel

'Your petitioner is a gent of blood and armes and one John Weekes of Clutton in the county of Somersett did much abuse your petitioner by divers scandalous and malitious terms, and did say that your petitioner was a knave, a base fellow, a base gentleman, a whoarmaster, with divers other odious termes of scandal without anie provocation given by your petitioner.'

Petitioned that Weekes be brought to answer.

Maltravers granted process on 29 November 1639.

2/109, Plaintiff's bond

3 December 1639

Bound to appear 'in the Court in the painted Chamber within the Pallace of Westminster'.

Signed by John Meares of St Giles-in-the-Fields, co. Middlesex, notary public, on behalf of Carew.

Sealed, subscribed and delivered in the presence of Humphrey Terrick.

Notes

The marriage of Hester, daughter of John Weekes of Clutton, co. Somerset, to Richard Lansdowne of Camerton, gent, was recorded in the Visitation of 1672.

G. D. Squibb (ed.), The Visitation of Somerset and the City of Bristol, 1672 (Publications of the Harleian Society, new series, 11, 1992), p. 24.

Documents

• Initial proceedings
  • Petition to Arundel: 2/110 (29 Nov 1639)
  • Plaintiff's bond: 2/109 (3 Dec 1639)

People mentioned in the case

• Carew, John, gent
• Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
• Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
• Lansdowne, Hester
• Lansdowne, Richard, gent
• Meares, John, notary public
• Terrick, Humphrey
• Weekes, Hester
• Weekes, John

Places mentioned in the case

• Somerset
  • Camerton
  • Clutton
• Middlesex
  • St Giles-in-the-Fields
  • Westminster

Topics of the case

• denial of gentility
• sexual insult