1 6 ARGENT V CRAYFORD William Argent of Eastry, Co. Kent, Esq V
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 6 ARGENT V CRAYFORD William Argent of Eastry, co. Kent, esq v William Crayford of London and Mongeham, co. Kent, gent March 1638 – February 1639 Name index: Allen, Thomas Argent, Mary Argent, William, esq Barham, Robert, innkeeper Birkenhed, Richard, notary public (also Birkened) Blechenden, Thomas, esq (also Bleachinden, Blechynden) Boyes, Edward, esq (also Boys) Boys, Edward, knight Byng, William, esq Crayford, William, gent (also Craford) Dethick, Gilbert, registrar Duck, Arthur, lawyer Exton, Thomas, lawyer Gookin, John, gent Hayward, Rowland, knight Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey Master, Edward, knight (also Masters) Munings, Edward, esq Nevinson, Mary, lady Nevinson, Roger, knight Price, Ann Richardson, Thomas, notary public Ryden, Anna Ryden, Robert, yeoman Sackett, John, clerk Sladden, John, yeoman Smith, Joanna, widow Stuart, Charles I, king Stuart, James I, king Terrick, Humphrey, lawyer Wood, George, esq Wright, John, yeoman Place index: Kent, Betteshanger Canterbury Eastry Kennington Littlebourne Mongeham 2 Northbourne Ripple River Sandwich Selling Tilmanstone Uffington Walmer Woodnesborough Surrey Subject index: assault challenge to duel denial of gentility drunkenness nicknaming office-holding reconciliation royal servant sexual insult ship money threatened killing Abstract Argent complained that around March 1636, at the Pelican Inn in Sandwich, Kent, at ‘an ordinary where gentlemen meete’ on a market-day Saturday, Crayford had insulted him by taking the place above him at the table and then declaring that ‘I was a base fellow and no gentleman, and that none of my ancestors were gentlemen, and that he would prove me so whensoever he met me, that he would kill me or I him, and badd some or one present tell me so to my face.’ Crayford was married to the daughter of Argent’s wife, ‘Lady Mary Nevinson’ [sic], widow of Sir Roger Nevinson. In his defence he claimed to have been systematically vilified by ‘Lady Mary’ whilst staying in Argent’s house at Eastry during his wife’s pregnancy. ‘Lady Mary’ told him that ‘he came sneaking up and down the country till she took him in and married her daughter to him’, persistently called him ‘Will foole’ and tried to bar him from his wife’s bedroom. About a month before the incident in Sandwich, Argent had assaulted him in the house, leaving him with a bloody nose. He therefore insisted that his action had been provoked, although Argent claimed in interrogatories for Ann Price in Crayford’s counter suit [see cause 140] that the local minister had reconciled this quarrel and the two men had ‘received the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper together.’ The commissioners, led by Sir Edward Boyes, took depositions on Argent’s behalf at the Dolphin Inn, Sandwich, on 17 May 1638, with the witnesses including Thomas Blechenden, esq, Edward Boyes, esq, and John Gookin, gent, all of whom, had been present at the original dinner. Depositions for the defence were taken at the 3 Chequer Inn, Canterbury, on 17 August 1638, with the commission led by Sir Edward Master and the witnesses including Argent’s former butler and Mrs Crayford’s nurse. The result of the case does not survive, but despite late efforts at arbitration, the sentence was ordered to be heard on 23 February 1639. Documents Initial proceedings Petition to Arundel: 7/102 (1 Mar 1638) Citation: 15/2m (1 Mar 1638) Plaintiff’s bond: 7/99 (1 Mar 1638) Libel: EM120d (14 Apr 1638) Personal answer: 17/4a (no date) Plaintiff’s case Letters commissory for the plaintiff: EM120c (9 May 1638) Defence interrogatories: EM120b (2 May 1638) Plaintiff’s depositions: EM120a (17 May 1638) Defendant’s case Defence: Cur Mil I, fo. 187 (no date) Letters commissory for the defence: Cur Mil I, fo. 188 (19 Jun 1638) Plaintiff interrogatories: Cur Mil I, fo. 185 (no date) Defence depositions: Cur Mil I, fos. 175-181 (17 Aug 1638) Subpoena: Cur Mil I, fo. 186 (18 Aug 1638) Notary public’s certificate: Cur Mil I, fo. 182 (1 Oct 1638) Proceedings Proceedings before Arundel: R.19, fos. 434r-449v (20 Oct 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: 1/9 (28 Jan 1639) Proceedings: 1/7, fos. 36-47 ( 9 Feb 1639) Proceedings before Arundel: 1/6, fos. 20-33 (21 Feb 1639) Proceedings before Arundel: 1/6, fos. 1-9 (23 Feb 1639) Notes Initial proceedings 7/102, Petition to Arundel ‘Your petitioner is discended of an ancient family; was gent usher in ordinary qtr wayter to K: James seaven yeeres next before his death and hath beene for nyne yeeres last past esqr of the body to our soveraigne Lord King Charles. William Crayford of Mongeham in the county of Kent gent (who married the daughter of the Lady Nevinson your petitioner’s wife) hath within these two years last past att a publique meeting at Sandwich taken place of your petitioner in an insolent and scornefull manner. 4 Within the time afforesayd hee hath uttered divers disgracefull and scandalous words against your petitioner, sayeing that hee is a base fellow, and noe gentleman, and that he would prove him soe, and tell him soe to his face where ever he mett with him, sayeing allsoe that neither your petitioner nor any of his ancestors were gentlemen, with divers other provokeing and contumelious speeches.’ Petitioned for a grant of process for his cause. Dr Duck ordered Mr Dethick to grant process on 1 March 1637/8. 15/2m, Citation Crayford to appear at the suit of Argent for scandalous words provocative of a duel. Dated: 1 March 1637/8 By special direction of Gilbert Dethick, registrar. 7/99, Plaintiff’s bond 1 March 1637/8, Bound to duly prosecute his suit in the court in the painted chamber, Palace of Westminster. Signed by Roger Nevinson on behalf of Argent. Sealed, subscribed and delivered in the presence of John Watson. EM120d, Libel 1. Argent’s family had been gentry for up to 200 years. 2. Argent married Dame Mary Nevinson, the widow of Sir Roger Nevinson, knt. 4. Crayford said that ‘I was a base fellow and no gentleman, and that none of my ancestors were gentlemen, and that he would prove me so whensoever he met me that he would kill me or I him, and badd some or one present tell me so to my face.’ Dated 14 April 1638. No signatures. 17/4a, Personal answer 2. This was true. 3. On the occasion mentioned at Sandwich, co. Kent, he ‘did sitt above or before William Argent as he did then and doth still conceive it is his right to doe.’ 4-6. Negative. No date. Signed by Thomas Exton. Plaintiff’s case EM120c, Letters commissory for the plaintiff 5 Addressed to commissioners Sir Edward Boyes, knt, William Byng, esq, George Wood, esq, and also, Sir Edward Master, knt, Edward Munings, esq, and Mr Boyes of Uffington, co. Kent, gent, in a cause of scandalous words provocative of a duel, to meet from 17 to 19 May 1638, at the Dolphin Inn, Sandwich, co. Kent. Dated 9 May 1638. Humphrey Terrick, or in his absence, Thomas Richardson assigned as notary public. Signed by Gilbert Dethick. EM120b, Defence interrogatories 1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and giving false witness. What were the witnesses’ age, occupation, place and condition of living for the last ten years and for how long had they known the parties in this cause? 2. How much were they worth, their debts paid, and how much were they taxed in the last assessment for the King. 3. Were they a household servant, retainer or relative to Argent, and if a relative by what degree? Which party did they favour and to whom would they give the victory if it were in their power? 4. Had they been asked to testify and how much had they received in expenses? 5. Had there been discord or controversy between the witnesses? 6. Had they communicated with others concerning their deposition and had they been instructed how to depose? If so by whom? 7. When and where were the alleged words spoken? 8. ‘What provocacon did Mr Crayford give Mr Argent to speake those words and what words passed betweene them at time both before and after’? Introduced 2 May 1638. Signed by Thomas Exton. EM120a, Plaintiff depositions Taken before commissioners Sir Edward Boyes, knight, William Byng, esq, and George Wood esq, on 17 May 1638 at Robert Barham’s Dolphin Inn, Sandwich, co. Kent. (Witness 1) Thomas Blechenden of Woodnesborough, co. Kent, esq, born in Kennington, co. Kent, aged 52 To Argent’s libel: 2. He had seen Lady Mary Nevinson alive that day ‘and further to this article he cannot certainly depose.’ 3. He met with other gentlemen at Sandwich and they were about to sit down to dinner together when Blechenden desired Argent to sit down. Mr Crayford desired Argent to take his place and sat. Crayford then sat down ‘at the upper end of the table above Argent’. To Crayford’s interrogatories: 1. He had known Argent and Crayford for 10 years. 6 2. ‘He lives on his own revenues and doth not depend on any man, he is worth his debts paid one hundred pounds at the least and he is taxed for the shipping at 44s. for the last cess.’ 3. Argent was his ‘neighbour, Crayford his kinsman, and he wisheth the right to take place, to the rest negative.’ 7. The meeting ‘was at a tavern in Sandwich at an ordinary where gentlemen meet and Bleachinden came to the ordinary for his pleasure and for the rest he can say no more then he hath deposed to the third article.’ Signed by Thomas Blechenden, and the three commissioners.