199 Eyre v Keresforth

199 EYRE V KERESFORTH

Gervase Eyre of Chesterfield, co. Derby, gent v Thomas Keresforth of Dodworth, co. York, gent

May 1638 - July 1639

Abstract

Eyre complained he had been insulted by Keresforth in the hall of William Dickenson's inn at Rotherham, Yorkshire, in the presence of other gentlemen on 18 March 1638. The two men were quarrelling over a Star Chamber case in which John Reresby and Samuel Ballard esqs had brought an action against Keresforth, George Sitwell gent and others. Keresforth's contention was that Reresby and Ballard had abandoned the action, but that it had been continued at the instigation of Eyre. When Eyre denied this Keresforth asked, 'Why? You will not lie will you?', and added, 'If thou, or you, are or art a gentleman, you are, or thou art, an Aerie one, and... a latent fellow, and a knave and a base knave.' Keresforth explained that by 'Aerie', he simply meant to refer to the fact 'that he must derive himself from some of the Ayres familie that are gentleman.' The reference to 'latent' - which puzzled several of the witnesses - he explained as an allusion to a celebrated Star Chamber case of 1610 in which Eyre and various other locals had been heavily fined for lampooning the puritan magistrates and ministers of Nottingham, after which Eyre had fled to Ireland and hid himself to avoid the penalties (Keresforth exhibited the sentence in the case as part of his defence.) Eyre retorted that Keresforth was 'a foole and a knave' for saying these things and that 'I cannot spell knave without you, or an u'. He added that 'he did not believe Keresforth's name to be Keresforth, but Kefforth', and one of his companions declared that 'he could not be a gentleman, for that his mother did use to ride upon a payre of panniers to Barneslie market to sell butter or soape.' Keresforth's defence concentrated on discrediting Eyre's principal witnesses and revealed a web of litigation over debt, stretching to the court of the Council of the North in York, in which plaintiff and defendant had both been involved in their professional capacity as attorneys. Keresforth demonstrated that Henry Bates, cleric, and Thomas Revell, yeoman, had been involved in counterfeiting a bond and his predilection for punning at one point prompted to declare that 'Bates, his father's name was Base.'

Eyre entered his libel in May 1638 and his four witnesses were examined by a commission headed by Gilbert Millington, esq, on 24 July, at Dickenson's inn in Rotherham. Keresforth's defence witnesses were examined on 5 January 1639 at the inn of Francis Clayton by a commission headed by Sir Francis Foljambe, bart, and John Reresby, esq, who was been the plaintiff in the star chamber case. Despite Keresforth's vigorous defence, Eyre won the cause and was awarded 20 marks damages and 20 marks costs. Keresforth launched a counter suit which was dismissed by the court [see cause 341] and also brought an action against Robert Scamarden who in March-August 1639 questioned his gentility in the context of this case [see cause 342].

Initial proceedings

Acta (5), fo. 364, Affidavit concerning Star Chamber

Star Chamber, 1 December 1637

'John Rearesby of Thriburgh in the County of Yorke, esq, sworne sayth, That the bill fyled in this honorable court in Hillary Terme last in the name of [Reresby] and Samuel Ballard, esq, plaintiffs, against George Sytwell, gent, and others, defendants, was exhibited without his privitye or knowledge. Neither did [he] at any time since the same was soe exhibited give any consent thereunto, or retayne any accompt or solicitor, or gave any directions to any person or persons whatsoever to prosecute the same.'

Signed by ?Keeper? Ayleway and M Goad.

Acta (5), fo. 380, Star Chamber Order

Star Chamber, 13 February 13 Charles I

'It is this day ordered by this honorable court upon reading the certificate of Mr Goad deputy clarke of this courte, in the matter where Samuell Ballard and John Reresby, esquire, are plaintiffs against George Sitwell, gent, and others defendantes that the cause may still proceede in both the plaintiffs' names, but that Mr Reresby shall not bee liable to pay costes if any shall bee hereafter taxed to the defendantes in the cause, his name being used without his consent or privity and because he was a leasee to the other plaintiff.'

Signed M: Goad

[In a different hand] 'That Ballard lay long a prisoner in the Fleete for debt and 4 several outlawryes produced at barr under seale.'

11/38d, Libel

1. Eyre's family had been gentry for up to 60 years.

2. When Eyre spoke to Keresforth in a room at an inn in Rotherham, co. York, on 18 March 1638, he told him he would not sue him in the Star Chamber. Keresforth replied, 'Why? You will not lye? Will you?'. This suggested that Eyre had lied. Eyre then claimed Keresforth said, 'If thou or you ,are or art, a gentleman, you are, or thou art, an aerie [sic] one, and that I was a latent fellow and a knave, and a base knave'.

Signed by Thomas Rives.

[Overleaf] Dated 9 May 1638.

R.19, fo. 22v, Summary of libel

Eyre and his ancestors had been gentlemen for over 100 years. Around 18 March, 'in a certaine chamber within an inn in the towne of Rotherham', Keresforth said 'before divers persons' when Eyre told him that he did not sue him in the Star Chamber, 'why you will not lye, and said if thou or you are or art a gentleman, you are an aery [sic] one and that he was a latent fellow and a knave, and a base knave, or that effect and thereby to provoke him and c.'

1638

No signature.

13/2l, Personal answer

About 18 March 1638 Keresforth meeting with Eyre in the house of William Dickinson, vintner, in Rotherham, spoke to Eyre as follows: 'I never gave you cause to bee an occasion to bring mee into the Starre Chamber att Mr Reresby his suite; itt must needes be you, for Mr Reresby hath disclaymed itt upon oath, and that itt was nott done with his consent or privity. Whereunto, Mr Eyre presently sayd hee is a knave and a foole that sayeth soe; I cannot spell knave without you; sayeing alsoe that Thomas Keresforth was noe gentleman, or descended from any. Whereupon, Thomas Keresforth, being thus provoked, tolde Gervase Eyre that if hee were a gentleman he was an Ayrie one, meaning that he must derive himself from some of the Ayres families that are gentlemen. And said further that, in regard that Thomas Keresforth well knewe that Mr Eyre had beene formerly censured in the Starr Chamber for divulging an infamous libell against the Mayor and Aldermen of Nottingham, and to avoyde execution of the censure fled into Ireland where hee hidd himselfe a long time, Mr Eyre was a latent fellowe.'

Signed by Arthur Duck.

Endorsed: 'Responsa: Keresforth to the libel Eyre, 2 June 1638'.

R.19, fo. 11r, Personal answer

Thomas Keresforth 'saith that no credit is to be given to Robt Mariot and all witnesses for Eyre, for that these are poore meane fellows, and his domestick servants, and that Bates, another of the witnesses, counterfeited a bill of 32 li and c, and was sued upon the collusion. That a bill was exhibited in the Star Chamber by Eyre and one Ballard for embracery and c against Keresforth, and that Eyre disclaimed the same, yet prosecuted the same with violence, whereupon telling Eyre thereof, he answered Keresforth, None but knaves and fooles would say soe, and that he could not spell knave without you or an, u, upon which provocation he said Eyre was a latent fellow, or to that effect.'

1638.

No signature.

Plaintiff's case

11/38c, Letters commissory for the plaintiff

Addressed to commissioners Gilbert Millington, esq, Francis Stephenson, gent, and also, William Rookby, esq, and Stephen Bright, gent, to meet in a cause of scandalous words provocative of a duel from 24 to 26 July 1638 at the inn of William Dickenson in Rotherham, co. York.

Gilbert Dethick assigned Edward Latham as notary public.

Dated 2 June 1638.

Signed by Gilbert Dethick.

7/38a, Miscellaneous Latin document

On this day Gervase Eyre alleged that Thomas Keresforth had inflicted previous injuries on him, amongst which he had alleged that Eyre had previously been condemned in Star Chamber and fled to Ireland where he had remained in hiding for a long time, and by reason of this had called him 'a little man in hiding' or 'a latent fellow'. He therefore requested the court to repair his honour.

Dated 19 June 1638

11/38a, Defence interrogatories

1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. What was the witness's age, occupation, place and condition of living during the last seven years? How did they know the parties?

2. Was the witness related to Eyre, and if so, by what degree? Was the witness a retainer, household servant or dependant upon Eyre?

3. Was he a subsidy man or taxed for ship money? What was he worth his debts being paid? Which party did he most favour, or would give the victory to if he were able?

4. Were Mr Keresforth and his ancestors gentlemen of an ancient family? Were they not 'beyond memory of man' descended of the family of the Keresforths of Keresforth Hill, co. York?

5. Where and when were the words spoken?

6. At the time of speaking the words, did Mr Keresforth tell Eyre 'in a myld and temperate manner that he had no reason or that he never gave Eyre cause to be an occasion of bringing him into the Star Chamber at the suite of one Mr Rersbye'? Did not Eyre reply 'he is a knave and a foole that saith soe'? Or what words were then spoken by Eyre against Mr Keresforth?

7. Had he heard that Eyre had been censured in Star Chamber for a misdemeanour? For what misdemeanor was he so censured? Did Eyre 'to avoid execucon of the censure hyde or absent himself for some time and live in some obscure place not to be knowne where to be found'? Where and for how long did Eyre absent himself?

8. At the time of speaking the words, did not Eyre, before any words of provocation or malice were uttered by Mr Keresforth, 'utter words that imported or implyed that Mr Keresforth was a knave'? What other words of provocation did Eyre then use? Did not those who heard the words 'conceive and understand them in that sense and meaning'?

9. At the time of speaking the words, did not Eyre say that Mr Keresforth was no gentleman nor descended from any, 'and that he did not believe that his name was Keresforth with other such like words of contempt and scorne'?

10. If the witness deposed that he heard the words in the libel, he was to be asked who spoke the provoking speeches to Keresforth first, whether it was Eyre or one of his witnesses? 'Let such witness express what words of provocation or anger were uttered by him or any other of Eyre's witnesses at the time and place'?

No date.

Signed by Arthur Duck.

11/38b, Second set of defence interrogatories

1. Was Thomas Marriott 'not by bill obliged to one William Bates, and whether did not Henry Bates, Eyre's witness, procure the money due thereby from Marriott by delivery of a false bill under hand and seale, and names thereto counterfeited or subscribed as witnesses, and who were nominated as witness thereunto *or how was the same*? Lett such witness declare and fully express the same, and what the debt was, and when the same was paid to Henry Bates, and what Henry Bates was content to take in satisfaction of the bill to have his money at his time, and whether Keresforth was not afterwards reteyned as William Bates's attorney to sue the right and true bill against Marriott, and how William Bates was satisfied'?

2. Had Marriott a bill, or bond of Henry Bates 'and one Thomas Revel, Eyre's witness, who married off Henry Bates's sister, or the one of them to save Marriott harmless of and from the debt? And how and upon what occasion came Thomas Revell to be bound with Henry Bates to Marriott? Did not Marriott put the counterbond in suit at law against Revell and Henry Bates, or the one of them? And was not Gervas Eyre to be Revell's attorney or solicitor, and what end was made thereof and by whose mediacon?' Let the witness 'declare whether it was not by the mediacon of Eyre, and whether, before any such end made, did not Revell oftentimes move Keresforth to deliver him the true bill'? And for what cause was the bill denied him by Keresforth? And have not Henry Bates and Revell taken offence of Keresforth therefore? And what have they, or either of them, divulged tending to that purpose, and said that they or the one of them would witness on the parte of Eyre against him? And wherefore did they, or either of them, take such offence, as you verily beleeve ? Was it not for that [that] false bill came to be further published abroad'?

3. Did Keresforth 'deny to deliver his client's bill without a letter or note from Mr Butler, the earl of Newcastle's solicitor, of whom he received the same to put in suit, or for what reason did he deny it? And did he not deliver the same to Revell soe soone as Revell brought him Mr Butler's letter to that purpose signifying that satisfaction was made'?

4. Did Revell when he desired the bill of Mr Keresforth, or since, tell Mr Keresforth he stayed not at the time and place in the libel, 'for that he went his way soe soone as he heard Eyre begin to abuse Keresforth'?

5. Was Gervase Eyre an inhabitant of Chesterfield, co. Derby? Ws he a subsidy man? Did he pay ship money there, or where, 'or was he taxed for the same, or any for him? And where doth he inhabit and dwell, or sojourne, or hath sojourned for this long space'? What family or servants did Eyre keep and what profession did he follow? What did Eyre pay at your house 'for his yearlie comeing thither; and doth he not often lodge at your house as your guest'?

6. Did he know the father and grandfather of Gervas Eyre, or any other of his ancestors? What were their Christian names? How and where did they live in Nottinghamshire?

7. Had not Eyre's witness, Joseph Woodrove 'for a long time borne unkindness to Keresforth, and hath not he heertofore assaulted or wounded Keresforth'? Had he not recently boasted that Eyre would get £200 or £300 out of Keresforth in the Court of Honour? What words or abuse did he give Keresforth at the time and place in the libel? Did he not say that he knew Keresforth 'to be a knave and a foole of ould'? Did he not offer to assault Keresforth'?

8. Had Eyre lately 'lodged at your house, and upon what occasion, and how often hath he so done before'? How long had he known Eyre? 'Was it not upon the cause that concerned your brother in law Henry Bates upon the bill of debt with Marriott; or how long before that occasion'?

No date.

No signatures.

11/38e, Plaintiff depositions

Taken before commissioners Gilbert Millington, esq, Francis Stephenson, gent, William Rookby, esq, and Stephen Bright, gent, on 24 July 1638, in the inn of William Dickenson in the town of Rotherham, co. York, with Edward Latham as notary public.

(Witness 1), Thomas Frith of Rotherham, vintner, aged 21, had known Eyre for 3 years

To Eyre's libel:

1. Mr Gervase Eyre had always been 'reputed and taken to be a gentleman.'

2. On a Monday night in March 1637/8 in the hall of the house of William Dickenson, his master, in Rotherham, he heard Mr Gervase Eyre and Mr Thomas Keresforth at some wordes'. He heard Eyre say that he did not sue Keresforth in the Star Chamber, and Keresforth reply 'why you will not lye will you'. Keresforth also said 'if you are a gentleman you are but an Ayrie gentleman'. Keresforth also said that 'Mr Eyre was a latent fellowe, a knave, and a base knave, two or three several tymes in the presence of this deponent William Dickenson, Francis Dickenson, Mr Lambert, Thomas Revell and Henrie Bates.'

To Keresforth's first set of interrogatories:

3. He was no subsidy man 'and being a young man expecteth a porcon from his father and favoreth both parties in this suite alike.'

4. He had heard that Mr Keresforth was descended from the Keresforths of Keresforth Hill in Yorkshire.

5. The words by him before deposed were spoken in the hall of William Dickenson's house in Rotherham at about 9pm, but he did not remember on what day. He was in the room at the speaking of the words in the libel, 'and did verie well heare and understand the same saveing that he did not understand what the word latent did signifie'. The first words he heard spoken were by Mr Eyre, saying, 'I doe not sue you in the Star Chamber'. Then Mr Kerisforth replied 'You will not lye? Will you'? Then Keresforth said that if 'Mr Eyre was a gentleman he was an Ayrie gentleman; and called him knave and base knave. Whereunto, Mr Eyre replied and said I cannot spell knave without you, the wordes being spoken in the presence of the witnesses before deposed.'

6. When Mr Keresforth said that Eyre did sue him in the Star Chamber, Eyre replied that 'none but knaves and fooles would saye soe, or else he is a knave and a foole that sayth soe, but whether of these [Frith] remembreth not.'

9. He did not hear any words spoken in contempt of Mr Keresforth other than what he had formerly deposed.

10. He did not remember any disgraceful speeches spoken by any of Mr Eyre's company against Mr Keresforth at the time or place in the libel.

Signed by Thomas Frith and the four commissioners.

(Witness 2), Robert Lambert of Blyth, co. Nottingham, gent, had known Keresforth for about 4 years, aged about 60

To Eyre's libel:

1. Mr Gervase Eyre, his father and his uncle had always been 'reputed and taken' to be gentlemen by him and others.

2. About 19 March 1637 he came to William Dickenson of Rotherham's inn to see Mr Gervase Eyre. After he had been in the hall there a little while, Mr Keresforth came into the room to see Lambert as Mr Keresforth told him. After a while Keresforth said to Mr Eyre 'you sue me in the Star Chamber'. Mr Eyre answered that he did not, and then Mr Keresforth replied, 'but you doe, for the partie in whose name the bill is layd against me doth disclayme from it'. Mr Eyre denied this and Mr Keresforth said 'you will not lye will you'? 'Noe' said Mr Eyre, 'that I will not, and there are none but either fooles or knaves will saye that I sue you there'. Then Keresforth said 'it may be you will saye soe'. Mr Eyre answered 'I cannot spell knave without you, or an V'. Upon 'further discourse of theire antiquitie, practice and creditt, Mr Kerisforth tould Mr Eyre that he was a latent fellowe with divers other *crosse* termes and languages which [Lambert] doth not now remember, in the presence of William Dickenson, Francis Dickenson, Thomas Revell and Henrie Bates, and others.'

To Keresforth's first set of interrogatories:

3. He had been taxed for ship money 'at 16s a tyme and sayth he cannot tell his own estate'. He favoured the parties equally and would give victory according to the truth.

4. He knew nothing 'concerning the contents thereof.'

5. The words were spoken at about 8 or 9pm, and he was in the hall 'all the tyme the words were spoken'. He 'did heare many words passe betwixt the parties at that time some whereof he did understand and some he did not, and sayth that he did not heare anie further wordes of provocation then what he hath formerlie deposed to his best remembrance.'

7. He had heard that Mr Eyre was fined in the Star Chamber, but not that he absented himself for that cause.

8. He 'did not heare anie such words otherwaies then he hath formerlie deposed to his best remembrance.'

9. He did not remember hearing any of the words in the interrogatory uttered at the time and place of the libel.

10. Mr Bates was present at the time in the interrogatory and he blamed Mr Keresforth for his words at that time 'and tould him that if Kerisforth would not begonn from out of the house he would put him out himselfe'.

To Keresforth's second set of interrogatories:

5. He did not know where Mr Eyre lived, 'nor whether he is taxed either for subsidie or shippmoney, nor what servants Mr Eyre doth kepe, but beleeveth he is by profession a sollicitor or an atturneye. And also sayth Mr Eyre doth not use to come unto his this house or paye for anie lodging there.'

6. He knew Eyre's father was William Eyre who lived in Nottinghamshire for twenty years 'upon [Lambert's] knowledge in a gentile manner.'

7. He did not know Woodroofe, but heard that he came into the house soon after the words were spoken, and was told 'of the wronge offered by Mr Kerisford to Mr Eyre'.Woodroofe 'made answer that it was an usuall thinge for Kerisford soe to doe, or to that effect, and did give him some other ill words which this deponent doth not now remember.'

Signed by Robert Lambert and the four commissioners.

(Witness 3), Henry Bates of Letwell, co. York, clerk, aged about 25

To Eyre's libel:

1. He believed Eyre 'to be an ancient gentleman because he is of kindred and alliance unto the best familie of the Eyres in the County of Yorke, and was educated and brought up by Thomas'.

2. In March, 'the certayne day he doth not certaynlie remember', Mr Gervase Eyre, 'Robert Lambert, *Thomas Revell*, William Dickenson and Francis Dickenson *and others* beinge all sat together at a table in the hall of William Dickenson, an innkeeper in Rotherham, there came in Mr Kerisforth; and setting himselfe at the neither end of the table *being not called nor invited thereunto* he looked upwards towards Mr Eyre and said unto him, *O, Sir are you there*; you sue mee in the Star Chamber. Eyre replied and said I doe not, whereupon Kerisforth answered what you will not lie, will you'? Keresforth then said to Eyre, 'if you be a gentleman you are an Ayrie one; and did then and there alsoe call Mr Eyre knave three tymes, and did tell Eyre that he was a latent fellowe'. Afterwards Francis Dickenson offered to remove Mr Keresforth from the room, telling Keresforth that 'he was sorrie that Mr Kerisforth should fall out with Mr Eyre'. Keresforth responded, 'hange him he is a base knave.'

To Keresforth's first set of interrogatories:

3. He paid ship money and was worth £300 his debts paid.

5. The words were spoken at about 8 or 9pm and he was present for all the time with the other witnesses. He heard and understood all the words, except what Keresforth meant by the word latent 'although he did know the right signification thereof; and further saith that Mr Eyre did not use anie wordes of provocation at all unto Kerisforth, but did privatelie advise [Bates] to forbeare anie wordes against him for feare of advantages or exceptions.'

6. Mr Keresforth told Mr Eyre that he was 'told by them that would justifie it that Mr Eyre was the occacon of his being brought into the Star Chamber'. Eyre answered 'he was a knave or a foole that told him soe'.

7. He knew nothing about this interrogatory.

8. Negative.

9. There were 'words betwixt the parties concerning theire gentries on both sides at the tyme and place'. Mr Eyre told Keresforth that he did not believe Keresforth's name to be Keresforth, but Kefforth; but that he believed the family of the Keresforths were gentlemen.

10. Several times he entreated Mr Keresforth to keep quiet, and Mr Keresforth asking him his name, told him he knew his father 'and asked what difference was betwixt Bates and Base, with other disgracefull words against him and his dead father. Whereupon, [Bates] would have thrust Kerisforth out of the doores and strucken him had not Mr Eyre held him'.

To Keresforth's second set of interrogatories:

1. He knew of no bill between Thomas Marriott and William Bates, 'but sayeth that there was two severall bargaines of corne betwixt Marriot and him, for both which he had severall bills from Marriott, the one whereof was in his hands and custodie and the other in his brother's, *Wm Bates', hands*'. He met Marriott at Rotherham before the day of payment and Marriott asked him 'what he would abate him; and he would paye him in his moneys'. Whereupon, he 'did abate him six shillings eight pence and not having the right bill did deliver in the other bill; and Marriott was afterwards sued upon the right bill and arrested, Mr Keresford being imployed as an atturney therein; but the right bill was afterwards delivered unto Marriot at such tyme as he had it from his brother.'

2-3. Thomas Marriott sued him for his bill and he 'not haveing the same did give a counterbond to save Marriot harmless, wherein Thomas Revell was alsoe bound with [Bates] which was put in suite; and Mr Eyre being then present did put his hand unto the writt for appearance thereunto'. But 'the suite went no further on for that [Bates] afterward procured the bill and delivered a letter unto him to deliver the same from one Mr Whitehead; but he would not deliver it until Mr Butler did write unto him for to deliver the same, saying that he never tooke any offence for not delivering the same.'

5. He believed that Mr Eyre 'doth for the most parte in the vacacon live at Chesterfield, and beleeveth him to be an Atturney by his profession.'

7. Woodroofe wished those present to take heed what they said, 'for that Mr Kerisford did come into companie on purpose to gett advantages; and that Woodroofe did knowe Kerisford to be a knave and a foole of ould, and alsoe said that Kerisford could not be a gentleman, for that his mother did use to ride upon a payre of panniers to Barneslie markett to sell butter or soape.'

Signed by Henry Bate and the four commissioners.

(Witness 4), Thomas Revell of Brampton, co. York, yeoman, had known Keresforth for 6 years, aged about 38

To Eyre's libel:

1. As witness 1.

2. On Monday before Easter day 1637/8 he was with Mr Eyre in the inn of William Dickenson in Rotherham together with Henry Bates and Robert Lambert, when Mr Keresforth came into the room and said, 'Mr Eyre are you there, you sue me in the Star Chamber'. Mr Eyre answered 'I do not'. Keresforth replied 'you will not lye, will you'? Whereunto, Mr Eyre said 'he was a knave and a foole that told him he lyed'. Mr Keresforth then said 'you are a knave and a base knave'; and Mr Eyre replied 'he was a gentleman'. Whereunto, Mr Keresforth answered, 'if you be a gentleman you are an Ayrie one, and then did alsoe tell Mr Eyre that he was a latent fellowe'. Then the witness 'seeing them at such termes did depart the roome'.

To Keresforth's first set of interrogatories:

3. He was taxed for ship money at 13s-4d. He owned land worth £40 p.a., 'and wisheth equallie to both parties'.

5. The words were spoken in the hall of the inn upon Monday 19 March 1637/8 at about 7pm, 'in the presence of Henrie Bates, clarke, Robert Lambert, Francis Dickenson, *Thomas Fayth* and [Revell]'. He stayed in the room until the words by him deposed were spoken. He heard and understood the words, and 'there were not anie words of provocacon uttered by Mr Eyre at that tyme.'

6. He heard Mr Keresforth speak of Mr Reresby 'but what were the wordes he doth not nowe remember.'

7. He 'hath heard a flying reporte that Mr Eyre was censured in the Star Chamber.'

9. 'He heard Mr Eyre say at the time in the interrogatory that he did not believe that Mr Keresforth was a gentleman.'

To Keresforth's second set of interrogatories:

1-3. Thomas Marriot was indebted unto William, Henry, and Seth Bates executors unto their father for corn bought of them. He believed William Bates had the bill in his hands, 'but unto which of the three it was made he knoweth not, but sayth that Henrie Bates did receive the moneye and was afterwards sued for not delivering the bill unto Marriot'. He heard 'Henrie did give counterbond to save Marriot harmless or to answer the suite, and he further beleeveth that Mr Kerisforth was putt in trust to sue Marriot upon the bill'. After that he 'sett even some accounts betwixt the brothers and ended the suite aforesaid'; and 'he came unto Mr Kerisford for the bill whoe would not deliver the same until [Revell] brought in a letter from Mr Butler the Earl of Newcastle's servant to that effect'.At the time of the words in the libel, he came to retain Mr Eyre to be an attorney for him in that business, and farther he did not take anie offence at Mr Keresford for not delivering the bill.'

4. On a Monday after the time in the interrogatory, Mr Keresforth met him in Rotherham and asked him 'what he could saye in the business nowe in question'. He answered that 'he did rise and goe his waye presentlie and heard nothing to anie purpose'. Then Keresforth asked him whether he heard Keresforth call Mr Eyre knave and he told him 'that he did and all the other wordes by him deposed.'

5. He believed Mr Eyre was by profession an attorney.

8. When Mr Eyre came to serve him to be a witness in this cause, he 'was late ere that he came home, and so desired him to staye there all night which he did, and further sayth that Mr Eyre and [Revell] were acquainted together before the time in the interrogatory.'

Signed by Thomas Revell and the four commissioners.

11/38f, Notary public's certificate

Certificate in Latin signed by Edward Latham, notary public that the above examinations had been completed and were now being returned.

5 August 1638.

Notary's mark.

Defendant's case

Acta (5), fo. 381, Defence [damaged]

2. No credit should be given to Eyre's witness, Henry Bates, who was guilty of fraud and issuing a counterfeit bill to one Marriott; 'and thereon Marriot was afterwards sued upon the true bill, and constrained to sue Henry Bates for the collusion, who compounded the same with Marriott by the meanes and procurement of *Thomas Revill, one other of the witnesses produced in this cause and* of Eyre, who procured Marriott to deliver back the false bill for counterfeited, or at least to promise so to doe, and not to prosecute Hen. Bates thereupon.'

3. 'A bill was exhibited in the Starr Chamber in the name of Mr Rearsby and Mr Ballard against Mr Keresforth and others charging him with imbracing of a jurie and suborning of witnesses, Mr Eyre soliciting the same, Mr Ballard beinge a prisoner in the Fleet and not prosecuting the cause, Mr Rearesby declaimed the same in Michaelmas terme 1637. Notwithstanding the next terme followinge until the time in the libel, Jervas Eyre prosecuted the suite with violence against Keresforth in the names of the disclaimers, and thereupon, about the time and place in the libel, Keresforth tould Eyre that Eyre himselfe prosecuted the suite against him. and thereupon Jervas Eyre called Thomas Keresforth foole and knave, and said that none but fooles and knaves would say soe, and said he could not spell knave without you'.

4. Keresforth was provoked into the words in the libel by Eyre's words above.

5. 'Thomas Keresforth hath confessed in his answeare that he sayd Jervas Eyre was a latent fellow. The said words were by him soe spoken by and through the provocation in the fourth article menconed, and set downe for and in regard that the said Jervase Eyre had formerly beene censured in the Starr Chamber for publishinge two scandalous libels against the magistrates and ministers of the towne of Nottingham, and fined 500^li on some other such sume to the king's Majestie, and 300^li, 200^li or at least 100^li to the relator or prosecutor of the cause, and to be bound to his good behaviour for a whole yeare next ensuinge, and to be imprisoned during the king's pleasure and to make submission at the publique assizes held for the towne of Nottingham; and that thereupon Jervas Eyre did obscure and hide himselfe to avoid the execution of the censure.'

No date.

Signed by Th: Exton.

Acta (5), fo. 379, Letters commissory for the defendant

Addressed to commissioners Robert Rockley, esq, William Rokeby, esq, Richard Burrowes, gent and Stephen Bright, gent, and also Sir Francis Foliambe, baronet, Sir Walter Norton, knt and baronet, John Reresby, esq, and Francis Stephenson, gent, to meet in a cause of scandalous words provocative of a duel, on 5, 7 and 8 January 1638/9 in the house of Francis Clayton.

Gilbert Dethick assigned Edward Latham as notary public.

Dated 5 December 1638.

Signed Gilbert Dethick.

Acta (5), fo. 365, Copy of forged bill of payment

'Bee it knowne unto all men by these presents that I, Thomas Marriott of Rawmarsh, in the countie of Yorke, husbandman, doe owe and stand indebted unto Henry Bate of Letwell, clarke, in the true and instant summe of sixetiene pounds of lawfull money of England, to be payd unto Henry Bate, or to his certaine atturney, heires, executors, administrators or assignees, at or upon the five and twentieth day of March commonly called Lady Day, at or in the now dwelling house of Will Dickinson in Rotherham, without fraud or further delay, for the true payment whereof I doe bind my selfe my heires, executors, administrators and assignees firmely by these presents' dated 25 February 1636/7

Thomas Marriot [his mark]

Sealed signed and delivered in the presence of George Good[w]in.

This was a true copy, dated 5 September 1638

Signed by Luke Colson, and Thomas Barnsley

'The three schedules were given in by Thomas Barnesley at the commission at Rotherham', 5 January 1638/9.

Edward Latham notary public.

Acta (5), fos. 367r-373v, Defence depositions

Taken before commissioners Sir Francis Foliambe, baronet, John Reresby, esq, William Rookeby, esq, Richard Burrowes, gent and Stephen Bright, gent, on 5 January 1638/9 in the house of Francis Clayton, with Edward Latham as notary public.

fos.368r-v (Witness 1), Thomas Marriott of Rawmarsh, co. York, born there, aged 30

To Keresforth's defence:

1. A little before Candlemas 1638, he gave a bill of £32 for the payment of £16 to Henry Bates, and about a month before the money became due, he met Henry Bates in Rotherham and told him that if he would give him his bill he would pay him his money. So Henry Bates fetched a bill to him, '*for soe much money due* from Henrie Bate, *and received the money*'. But afterwards Marriott was sued for the money in William Bates's name, whereupon he 'proferred an informacon before the councell of Yorke *against Henrie Bate for collusion*, and thereupon Henrie Bate delivered another bill in William Bates name' to him so the suite ended. This bill was the true right bill for the debt, and 'the first bill was not a true bill.'

Signed by Thomas Marriott [his mark] and by the above five commissioners.

fos.368v-369r (Witness 2), Richard Robinson of Upper Haugh in the parish of Rawmarsh, co. York, yeoman, aged about 57

To Keresforth's defence:

1. 'He knoweth not Robert Lambert, but he knoweth Thomas Revel and Henrie Bates, and soe hath done for two yeares last past, and sayth he never knewe to the contrary but that Revell and Bates were and are men of good credit, save onelie concerninge a business betwixt Thomas Marriott and Henrie Bates.'

2. 'Thomas Marriott about a yeare since and upwards, tould him that he had paid sixteene poundes being a debt from him unto Henrie Bate, and that Bate had given him his bill in for it; and that afterwards Marriott went unto one George Goodwin, and tould him alsoe that he had paid in the sixteen poundes and shewed the bill unto George Goodwin being a witness thereunto, whoe after he had received the same tould Marriott, that that bill was not his right bill, for it was none of Goodwin's hande, and that Marriott was to blame to paye his moneye before his daye, for soe he might come to be sued for it or to that effect. Whereupon, Marriot went unto Henrie Bate, and tould him that he had not dealt well with him, in not giveinge him his right bill, and then Bate did give him an acquittance for the moneye. But not longe after Thomas Marriot was sued upon another bill for the moneye which was the right bill, at the suite of William Bate, soe that Marriot was fayne to profer a bill before the Councell of York against Henrie Bate, and alsoe procured a writt of rebellion for not appearinge against him, upon the serveing of which writt Bate and one Thomas Revel gave bonde unto Thomas Marriot, either to repay the sixteene poundes, or else to bring in the right bill. And soe the business was ended, and afterwards Henrie Bates delivered up the right bill from Wm Bates unto Thomas Marriot, and payd the charges of the suite in the presence of Thomas Revel, Gervase Eyre, [Robinson] and others; and further sayth he believeth that the first bill delivered in by Henrie Bates was a counterfett bill.'

Signed by Richard Robinson [his mark] and by the above five commissioners.

fo.369v (Witness 3), George Goodwin of Rawmarsh, co. York, yeoman, born there, aged about 35

To Keresforth's defence:

1. 'He knoweth not Robert Lambert, but saith that Thomas Revel and Henrie Bate are knowne to [Goodwin] and he knoweth nothing to the contrary, but that they arepersons of creditt, savinge his subsequent deposicon.'

2. 'About a yeare and a halfe since Thomas Marriott came unto him, and seemed to bee verie merrie, tellinge him that he had payd the moneyes hee ought unto Mr Henrie Bate, and that Mr Bate had given him his bill, and thereupon shewed [Goodwin] a bill made unto Henrie Bate (as was pretended) from Marriott for sixteene poundes which, after that [Goodwin] had viewed and well looked upon, he tould Marriott that it was not the right bill for his moneye, nor that it was his hande that was sett thereunto as a witness; neither doth he believe it was soe.'

Signed by George Goodwin and by the above five commissioners.

fo.370r (Witness 4), Jane Marriott, wife of Thomas Marriott of Rawmarsh, co. York, aged about 28

To Keresforth's defence:

1, 2. 'She knoweth not Robert Lambert, but doth say that she knoweth Thomas Revel and Henrie Bate'. About Lady day 1637 her husband payed to Henry Bates £16 then owed by her husband, and Henry Bates delivered a bill to her husband in which George Goodwin was mentioned as a witness. Her husband showed the bill to George Goodwin who told him it was not the right bill, and that Goodwin's name had not been subscribed by his hand. She did not believe it to be the right bill.

Signed by Jane Marott and by the above five commissioners.

fos.370v-371v (Witness 5), Thomas Barneslie of Dodworth, co. York, yeoman, aged about 25

To Keresforth's defence:

1, 2. He had seen abill of £32 for payment of £16, 'unto William Bate by Thomas Marriott; and that he hath heard it reported that Henrie Bate did before the bill became due come unto Marriot, and pretending the money was due unto him, desire payment thereof, which Marriot contented to paye unto Bates, if he might have some abatement thereof, and have in his bill'. He heard 'that upon the receipte of the money Henrie Bate instead of the right bill, did give Marriot another bill of his owne making in Henrie Bate's owne name, with witness thereunto, and had some abatement thereof'. Mr Thomas Keresforth 'as attorney unto William Bate was afterwards trusted to put in suite the bill due unto William Bate, which he did accordinglie, whereupon Marriot proferred an information against Henrie Bate before his Majestie's Councell at Yorke as [Barneslie] hath hearde; and afterwards the business was agreed and Mr Keresford, [Barneslie] master upon the receipt of a letter from one Mr Butler delivered the true bill unto Thomas Revel brother in law to Henry Bate'. During 'the time that the bill unto William Bate was in the handes of Mr Kerisford, Thomas Revel did divers tymes come unto Mr Kerisford for to have the bill delivered unto him, and seemed to be discontented that Mr Kerisford would not deliver the same, insoemuch that this witness conceiveth that neither Revel nor Henrie Bate did beare anie good will to Mr Kerisford at the tyme; and the rather for that Thomas Revel pretended that Mr Kerisford tould Mr Henrie Bates he knew him, whoe he was, his father's name was Base, or wordes to that effect'. He 'heard that the suite commenced at Yorke was compounded by Henrie Bates, by the meanes of Thomas Revel, and that Henrie Bates paid all the charges thereupon unto Thomas Marriott, and that a writeing now exhibited by [Barneslie] [fo. 365] is a true copie of a writing which Richard Robinson affirmed unto [his] was the same bill that Henrie Bates delivered unto Thomas Marriott upon payment of the money, as neere as [he] could examine the same.'

4. He had seen a copy of a Star Chamber bill in the names of John Reresby and Samuel Ballard esq, against George Sitwell gentleman and others 'for subornacon of perjurie and other matters, and hath seen a coppie of an affidavit [fo. 364] under the hand of Mr Goad, whereby it appeareth that the bill was fyled in the court without the privitie of Mr Reresbie. and hath alsoe seene an order of the courte of Starr Chamber, that the cause should proceed in the name of Mr Reresby, but that he should be liable to noe costs as appeareth by the order and affidavit unto which he referreth himselfe.'

Signed by Tho: Barnsley and by the above five commissioners.

fo.372r (Witness 6), William Green of Rotherham, co. York, mercer, aged about 34

To Keresforth's defence:

1 and 2. He knew Thomas Revel and Henrie Bates, 'and sayeth he hath heard Henrie Bates *since the beginning of this suite* sayth he never heard Mr Keresford saye anie thinge to prejudice Mr Eyre'.

Signed by William Greene and by the above five commissioners.

fos.372r-v (Witness 7), Robert Wessie of Brampton, co. York, gent, aged about 25

To Keresforth's defence:

1. 'A day or two before the last commission he met Thomas Revel going to Rotherham and asked him where he went, and Revel told him he was to be a witness in a commission between Mr Eyre and Mr Keresforth. Revel told him that he could not depose that Mr Keresforth said 'Mr Eyre was no gentleman he was an Ayrie [sic] one'. Revel told him 'that hee could not saye that Mr Keresford did call Mr Eyre, base fellow.'

Signed by Robt: Wesey and the commissioners Foliambe and Bright.

fos.372v-373r (Witness 8), George Sitwell of Renishaw, co. Derby, gent, aged about 38

To Keresforth's defence:

3. 'About a yeare since and more there was a bill exhibited in the Starr Chamber, in the name of Mr Reresbie and Mr Ballard, against Mr Thomas Kerisford, [Sitwell] and others which was afterwards disclaimed by Mr Reresbie, Mr Ballard being then a prisoner in the Fleete. He 'verilie beleeveth that the suite was prosecuted principallie by Gerase Eyre: first because he sawe no other solicitor in the cause, but Gervase Eyre; secondlie because one the suite in Mr John Reresbie's name and Mr Samuell Ballard's, and Mr Reresbie hath disclaimed the same, as may appeare by affidavit made in that court whereunto he refereth himselfe'. Lastly because he heard Mr Gervase Eyre affirm at the assizes at York in open court, 'before Mr Francis Bartlet of his Majestie's justices of the King's Bench, that Mr Samuel Ballard was a verie weake simple mann, and not able to sollicite his owne business, but easily drawne to anie thinge that might prejudice himselfe.'

Signed by George Sitwell and by the above two commissioners.

fos.373r-v (Witness 9), Thomas Tompson of Clayton, co. York, gent, lived there for 2 years, aged about 28

To Keresforth's defence:

2. Thomas Marriot at about Michaelmas 1637, told him that he had 'paid certaine moneys unto Mr Henrie Bate upon a bill which he did afterward see, <and was due unto William Bate brother of>; and sayth that after the payment of the moneys upon the former bill, Marriot was declared against upon another bill, at the suite of William Bate brother of Henrie, and he hath heard that the first bill delivered by Henrie Bate was a false bill. And that Mr Eyre being atturney for Henrie Bate was chosen an arbitrator with [Tompson] and the twooe [sic] ended the business.'

Signed by Thomas Tompson and by the above two commissioners.

Acta (5), fo. 374r, Notary public's certificate

Certificate in Latin signed by Humphrey Terrick, notary public that the above examinations had been completed and were now being returned.

21 January 1638/9

Notary's mark.

16/1a, Star Chamber sentence from 1610

28 June 8 James I [1610]

'This day, as also the last sitting day, were spent in the hearing and sentencing of the matters of complaint here exhibited by Mr Attorney General upon the relacon of George Jackson against Wm Withington, Jervase Eyre, Xpofer Strelley, Wm Hansby clarke, Robert Leake, Wm Martindale, Thomas Nix and others defendants for and concerning the framing and publishing of two scandalous libels against divers of the magistrates and ministers of the town of Nottingham, as by the plaintiff's bill more at large appeareth. Upon full and deliberate hearing of which cause, it appeared to this honourable court that the defendant Wm Withington dwelling within the town of Nottingham, and being a person of idle behaviour, did frame and contrive a very infamous and slanderous libel and ryme in writing against Anthony Jackson, one of the aldermen of the town, and other persons of religious and honest conversation and of good worth and credit, which libel beginneth with the words, My muse arise and truth then tell, of a pure sorte that sprang from hell, and c., as in and by the plaintiff's bill more at large is set forth. In which libel the parties are taxed and injuriously wronged with divers imputations concerning theire religion and course of life; and the same was by Withington published abroade and divers copies thereof made and spreade in the towne. And Withington not soe contented did frame and contrive another libellous and scandalous ryme and writing against the magistrates and ministers of the towne; and amongst the rest against George Coates, clark, parson of the parish church of St Peters in the towne, which beginneth with these words, Bretheren goe home and pray, for we have lost a day, and c., as in and by the information is more at large set forth, which libel is stuffed with very prophane matter against religion and scandalous and scurrilous imputations against some of the ministers and divers of the inhabitants of the towne of Nottingham, which latter libel was also published and copies disposed thereof abroade. And the defendants Withington, Gervas Eyre, Wm Hansby, Clarke, Wm Martingdale, Xpofer Strelley, and Robert Leake maliciously and to disgrace the sayd Mr Jackson, and his sonne Mr Coldwell the minister, and others thereby ment, did publish, repeate and signe the libel in taverns and other their meetings in the towne. And the second libel was by musicians usually sung, and a musical tune put thereto, and the defendants themselves did usually sing the same in taverns and alehouses and in the streets in the night time and make their jests and mirth thereupon going up and downe the streets with candlesticks, fyre tongues and such like in semblance of musicke, and did expound and interpret the parties' names thereby ment and intended, for their more disgrace and scandal.

This honourable court hereupon highly condemned the defendants for their malicious and prophane proceedings and did pronounce and adjudge Wm Withington guilty of the malicious framing and contriving of the libels and publishing thereof and Jervas Eyre, Wm Martindale, Xpofer Strelley, Robert Leake, Wm Hansby, clarke, guilty of the malicious publication, and all of them worthy of severe and sharp punishment for example unto others in like cases. And thereupon the honourable court hath ordered, decreed and adjudged that Wm Withington be committed to the prison of the Fleet and before his enlargement to become bound with good sureties for his good behaviour for one whole year following, and shall pay one thousand marks for a fine to his Majestie's use; and the court holding it meet and necessary that some publique example should be made thereof, aswell for the repairing of the credit and reputacon of the parties traduced by the libels whome the court founde to be very injuriously wronged and slandered thereby, as for that others may be deterred from committing the like offence hereafter, and the country take notice how far this honourable court doth condemn and resolve to punish such kinde of offences, hath further ordered, decreed and adjudged that Wm Withington shall at the next assizes after his apprehension to be houlden for the county of Nottingham, standing in some high and eminent place in the face of the court, the judges sitting, publiquelie acknowledge and confess his offences and shew himself penitent for the same, att which time and place this decree is to be publiquely read for the better understanding of the matter to the assembly. And the court hath further ordered and decreed that Jervas Eyre, Wm Martindale, Wm Hansby, Xpofer Strelley and Robert Leake be committed to the prison of the Fleet and before theire enlargement to become bound with good sureties for their good behaviour for one whole year following; and Jervas Eyre to pay £500, Wm Martindale, Wm Hansby, Xpofer Strelley and Robert Leake £200 a piece for their several fines to his Majestie's use; and that Eyre, Martindale, Hansby, Strelley and Leake shall in like manner stand with Withington at the assizes after their apprehension and publiquely acknowledge and confess their offences in manner as aforesaid. And it is further ordered and decreed that the defendants shall pay unto Jackson the sum of £200, unto George Jackson £100, unto Richard Coldwell 200 marks, unto George Coates £100, and to Margaret Wilson £100 who were all wronged and scandalised by the libels for their several damages in that behalf. And as touching Thomas Nix, who was then maior of the town, the court found by divers proofs that he was very faulty and had very much offended not only in connivency at some of the principal offenders, but also in the continuancing of the publicacon and signing of the libels; and that he had sent for musicians to sing the same in derision of the parties thereby ment. The court by reason of his great indiscretion and apparent neglect of government therein doth think him unworthy to beare the office of maior, or magistrate, or charge in the towne and doth discharge him of the same. But forasmuch as the bill was not so certenly and fully kayed according to the proofes as that the court might have a full and perfect foundacon to ground a sentence of convicon against him, the court did forbeare to lay any punishment by fine of imprisonment or otherwise upon him; nevertheless hath thought fit and ordered that Thomas Nixe shall become bounden for his good behaviour hereafter.'

Signed by ?__? Arthur and M: Goad

'Memorandum that we examined this coppie with the record in the Star Chamber office, 23 January, anno 14 Car R [1638/9], and the same is a true coppie '

Signed by Geo Clarke, Heworth

[Overleaf]

'1639 Eyer and Kerisforth sent[ent]ia in camera Stellat'.

Sentence / Arbitration

13/3h, Plaintiff's sentence

Keresforth told Eyre 'or signified that hee lyed and called him knave, and base knave', so Eyre was awarded 20 marks and 20 marks respectively.

13/3m, Defendant's sentence

Nothing filled in or crossed out

Signed by Arthur Duck.

13/3ll, Plaintiff's bill of costs

Easter term, 1638 to Trinity term, 1639

Total: £31-9s-0d

Signed by T. Rives.

13/3kk, Defendant's bill of costs

Easter term, 1638: £2-16s-10d

Trinity term, 1638: £4-3s-0d

Vacation following: £7-3s-4d

Michaelmas term, 1638: £6-1s-4d

Vacation following: £14-3s-4d

Hilary term, 1638: £3-4s-0d

Easter term, 1639: £4-12s-0d

Trinity term, 1639: £11-4s-8d

Total: £50-4s-6d

Signed by Arthur Duck.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Ryves acted as counsel for Eyre and Dr Duck for Keresforth. On 19 June 1638 Gervase Eyre appeared on this day to reply to Keresforth's defence of his libel in which Keresforth alleged that he had once been condemned in Star Chamber and fled to Ireland where he had remained a long time. On 20 October 1638 Dr Ryves published the testimony of Eyre's witnesses and Dr Duck related the material for the defence through November and December 1638, producing defence witnesses, George Clarke and John Hayward in January and February 1639.

Notes

Gervase Eyre (1609-1644) was the son of Anthony Eyre of Laughton-en-le-Morthen, co. York, and Ann, daughter of John Markham. He was knighted in 1639 for his military service in the First Bishops' War. He was a royalist colonel in civil war and died of fever in Newark in 1644. Thomas Keresforth of Pule Hill, co. York (c.1598-1665), son of Gabriel Keresforth of Keresforth Hill (d.1641), was married to Elizabeth, daughter of Humphrey Clyncard of Abingdon, co. Berkshire. He was sequestered for royalism during the civil wars despite pleading that the Earl of Newcastle's royalist army had imprisoned him, plundered his house and cattle, and forced him to become a tax collector for them. He allegedly founded the Grammar School at Barnsley.

P. R. Newman, Royalist officers in England and Wales, 1642-1660: A biographical dictionary (London, 1981), pp. 124-5; R. Davies (ed.), The Visitation of the County of Yorke begun in 1665 and finished in 1666, by William Dugdale (Surtees Society, 36, 1859), p. 2; TNA, SP 23/223/284; R. Jackson, History of the Town and Township of Barnsley (London, 1858), pp. 150-1.

For an account of the anti-puritan satires in Nottingham in the 1610s, see A. Fox, 'Religious satire in English towns, 1570-1640', in P. Collinson and J. Craig (eds.), The Reformation in English Towns 1500-1640 (Basingstoke, 1998), pp. 233-4.

At the Heralds' Visitation of Yorkshire in 1665 (College of Arms Ms: C.40/4b) a family of Keresforth recorded arms of Quarterly (1&4) Azure two Millrinds Fessewise in pale Argent (2&3) Argent a Fess embattled Sable between three Butterflies Gules .

The editors are grateful to Mr. Thomas Woodcock, Norroy and Ulster King of Arms for the above passage.

Documents

• Initial proceedings
  • Affidavit concerning Star Chamber: Acta (5), fo. 364 (1 Dec 1637)
  • Star Chamber Order: Acta (5), fo. 380 (13 Feb 1638)
  • Libel: 11/38d (May 1638)
  • Summary of libel: R.19, fo. 22v (1638)
  • Personal answer: 13/2l (2 Jun 1638)
  • Personal answer: R.19, fo. 11 (1638)
• Plaintiff's case
  • Letters commissory for the plaintiff: 11/38c (2 Jun 1638)
  • Misc. Latin document: 7/38a (19 Jun 1638)
  • First set of defence interrogatories: 11/38a (no date)
  • Second set of defence interrogatories: 11/38b (no date)
  • Plaintiff depositions: 11/38e (24 Jul 1638)
  • Notary public's certificate: 11/38f (5 Aug 1638)
• Defendant's case
  • Defence: Acta (5), fo. 381 (no date)
  • Letter commissory for the defendant: Acta (5), fo. 379 (5 Dec 1638)
  • Copy of forged bill of payment: Acta (5), fo. 365 (5 Jan 1639)
  • Defence depositions: Acta (5), fos. 367-73 (Jan 1639)
  • Notary public's certificate: Acta (5), fo. 374 (21 Jan 1639)
  • Star Chamber sentence from 1610: 16/1a (23 Jan 1639)
• Sentence / Arbitration
  • Plaintiff's sentence: 13/3h (no date)
  • Defendant's sentence: 13/3m (no date)
  • Plaintiff's bill of costs: 13/3ll (Tri 1639)
  • Defendant's bill of costs: 13/3kk (Tri 1639)
• Proceedings
  • Proceedings: 7/38 (19 Jun 1638)
  • 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 before Marten: R.19, fos. 488r-490v (12 Dec 1638)
  • Proceedings before Maltravers: 1/9 (28 Jan 1639)
  • Proceedings: 1/7, fos. 36-47 (9 Feb 1639)

People mentioned in the case

• Ayleway
• Ballard, Samuel, esq
• Barnsley, Thomas, yeoman (also Barneslie)
• Bartlet, Francis, Mr
• Bates, Henry, clerk
• Bates, Seth
• Bates, William
• Bright, Stephen, gent
• Burrowes, Richard, gent
• Butler, Mr, lawyer
• Cavendish, William, earl of Newcastle
• Clarke, George
• Clayton, Francis, innkeeper
• Clyncard, Elizabeth
• Clyncard, Humphrey
• Coates, George, clerk
• Coldwell, Richard, minister
• Colson, Luke
• Dethick, Gilbert, registrar
• Dickenson, Francis (also Dickinson)
• Dickenson, William, innkeeper and vintner (also Dickinson)
• Exton, Thomas, lawyer
• Eyre, Gervase, gent
• Fayth, Thomas
• Frith, Thomas, vintner
• Foljambe, Francis, baronet (also Foliambe)
• Goad, Mr
• Goodwin, George, yeoman
• Green, William, mercer
• Hansby, William, clerk
• Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
• Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
• Jackson, Anthony, alderman
• Jackson, George
• Keresforth, Elizabeth (also Kerisford, Keresford)
• Keresforth, Gabriel (also Kerisford, Keresford)
• Keresforth, Thomas, gent (also Kerisford, Keresford)
• Lambert, Robert, gent
• Latham, Edward, notary public
• Leake, Robert
• Marriott, Jane (also Mariot, Marriot)
• Marriott, Robert (also Mariot, Marriot)
• Marriott, Thomas, husbandman (also Mariot, Marriot)
• Marten, Henry, knight
• Martindale, William
• Millington, Gilbert, esq
• Nix, Thomas, mayor
• Norton, Walter, knight and baronet
• Reresby, John, esq (also Rearesby)
• Revel, Thomas, yeoman (also Revell)
• Robinson, Richard, yeoman
• Rockley, Robert, esq
• Rookby, William, esq (also Rokeby, Rookeby)
• Ryves, Thomas, lawyer (also Rives)
• Sitwell, George, gent (also Sytwell)
• Stephenson, Francis, gent
• Strelley, Christopher
• Terrick, Humphrey, notary public
• Tompson, Thomas, gent
• Wessie, Robert, gent
• Wilson, Margaret
• Withington, William
• Woodrove, Joseph (also Woodroofe)

Places mentioned in the case

• Berkshire
  • Abingdon
• Derbyshire
  • Chesterfield
  • Renishaw
• Ireland
• London
  • Fleet prison
• Nottinghamshire
  • Blyth
  • Newark
  • Nottingham
• Yorkshire, West Riding
  • Barnsley
  • Brampton
  • Clayton
  • Dodworth
  • Keresforth Hill
  • Laughton-en-le-Morthen
  • Letwell
  • Rawmarsh
  • Pule Hill
  • Rotherham
  • Thrybergh
  • Upper Haugh

Topics of the case

• alderman
• Bishops' Wars
• corporation
• Council of the North
• debt
• denial of gentility
• forgery
• giving the lie
• insult before gentlemen
• King's Bench
• market place
• mayor
• military officer
• office-holding
• other courts
• puritan
• rough music
• ship money
• Star Chamber
• taxation