295 Le Strange V Creamer and Stileman
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 372 LE STRANGE V CREAMER AND STILEMAN Sir Hamon Le Strange of Hunstanton, co. Norfolk, knt v Robert Creamer of Little Massingham and Robert Stileman of Snettisham, co. Norfolk, gents Michaelmas term, 1638 – June 1640 Name index: Armiger, John, gent Bacon, Robert, mercer Banyard, Edmund, husbandman Bell, Mary Bell, Robert Blackhead, John, scrivener Bramston, John, knight (also Branston) Burnham, Thomas, yeoman Chosell, Thomas, husbandman Clarke, Dr Claxton, Hamon, clerk Clowdeslie, Thomas, gent Cobbe, Edmund, gent (also Cobb) Cobbe, George (also Cobb) Cobbe, Martin, gent (also Cobb) Crampe, Thomas, yeoman Creamer, Bridget (also Cremer) Creamer, Edmund (also Cremer) Creamer, Robert, gent (also Cremer) Crooke, George, knight (also Croke, Crook) Dawney, Thomas, clerk Dixe, Thomas, gent (also Dix) Duck, Arthur, lawyer Eden, Thomas, lawyer Eldgar, John the elder Eldgar, John the younger Garey, Nathaniel, notary public Goldsmith, Robert, miller Gooding, Mr Goodwin, Vincent, clerk Gournay, Edward, esq (also Gurney) Hendry, Thomas Houghton, Robert, esq Hovell, Hugh, gent Hoverson, Roger Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey Jenner, Edmund, yeoman (also Jeynor) Le Strange, Alice, lady (also L’Estrange) Le Strange, Hamon, knight (also L’Estrange) Le Strange, Mary, lady (also L’Estrange) Le Strange, Nicholas, baronet (also L’Estrange) Le Strange, Nicholas, knight (also L’Estrange) 2 Lewin, William, lawyer Lewkenor, Alice Lewkenor, Edward, knight Lownde, Ralph Mileham, Edward, esq Mordaunt, Henry, esq Neve, William, gent Newark, James, innkeeper Overman, William, husbandman Page, Robert, gent Parry, George, lawyer Parvis, John (also Parvish) Playford, William Pynnocke, William, carpenter Rogerson, John, husbandman / yeoman Salter, John, husbandman Smyth, William, clerk Spratt, Edward, steward Stileman, Anne (also Styleman) Stileman, Bridget (also Styleman) Stileman, Robert the elder, gent (also Styleman) Stileman, Robert the younger, gent (also Styleman) Strutt, Anne Strutt, Robert Stuart, Charles I, King Symond, Edward, gent Talbot, Clere, lawyer Terrick, Humphrey Thirlbie, Henry, gent (also Thirlby) Thornton, Nathaniel, clerk Thorowgood, Thomas Thurloe, William, gent Tracy, John, knight Trott, Matthew, notary public Tubbin, John, gent Turner, Charles, gent Warner, Roger, gent Place index: Ireland Cambridgeshire, Isleham Soham Norfolk, Beaupré Hall Brancaster Burnham 3 Burnham Norton Burnham Overy Burnham Thorpe Burnham Westgate Cales Carbrooke Castleacre Castle Rising Chosely Cley next the Sea Congham Denver Docking Field Dalling Gaywood Great Bircham Great Yarmouth Heacham (also Hitcham) Holkham Hunstanton Hunstanton Hall Ingoldisthorpe King’s Lynn Little Massingham Newton North Creake Outwell Sedgeford Snettisham Stiffkey Studdie Tattersett Thetford Walsingham Weasenham Wolferton Wymondham Norwich, Maid’s Head Inn Norwich Castle St Paul’s Suffolk, Hadleigh Surrey, Southwark Yorkshire, North Riding 4 Wilton Subject index: allegation of cheating allegation of riot assizes civil war deputy lieutenant fen drainage festival hundred court judicial maiming justice of the peace King’s Bench member of parliament other courts previous litigation provocative of a duel royalist Star Chamber taxation Abstract Stileman and his nephew Creamer were charged with penning a scandalous petition and uttering scandalous speeches against Le Strange, thereby to provoke a duel. The petition was delivered at the summer assizes in Norwich in 1638 before the judges, Sir John Bramston and Sir George Croke. It alleged that Sir Hamon had recently obtained from Creamer his copy of manor court roll and ‘had caused the same to be razed, altered, interlined and the rents augmented in severall places’, and that he was also a ‘riotour and peacebreaker.’ Their quarrel arose over lands held of the manor court of Hitcham over which Le Strange, as lord of the manor, claimed right of copyhold, which allowed him to increase the rent and plough them at will. The manor court roll had been altered by Mr Warner, the steward of the manor, something which Stileman believed had been done at the behest of either Sir Hamon or Lady Le Strange. At a meeting ten days before the assizes he confronted Le Strange with this, but Sir Hamon denied it and elicited a confession from Warner that it had been done without his knowledge. Creamer had already brought a suit in Star Chamber and the hundred court against Warner and Le Strange’s son, Sir Nicholas, for making the alterations and on this occasion Stileman refused to accept Sir Hamon’s assurances, telling him that he would proceed with his petition to the assizes and that ‘rasing and interlining was a verie fowle business and that there were those that had lost a peece of their eares for as little as that.’ When the petition was read by the judges, Croke told Stileman that ‘it was a foule business’ and ‘he should take heed that he proved it’, to which Stileman replied that if he could not do so, let him ‘be whipped out of the towne.’ Stileman’s defence was that he had no intention to defame Le Strange, and that it was not in his characater to ‘scandalize’ gentlemen, but that he was simply pursuing his nephew’s rights in a matter of land tenure. Some months later he was 5 boasting to his friends, in James Newark’s inn in Burnham Westgate, Norfolk, of how he had confronted Le Strange at the assizes and was determined to bring him to book. The case was an uneven contest as Sir Hamon was a J.P. and deputy lieutenant for Norfolk under the Earl Marshal and was said by witnesses to be ‘a riche man, of great commande and power in the countrie where he liveth.’ Stileman even told Le Strange that his nephew was ‘not able to wage law with him’. But this did not prevent the two men pursuing their campaign of litigation, with Creamer remarking at one point to a fellow gentleman that he had a bill prepared against Le Strange in Star Chamber which ‘should quiet him well inough.’ Dr Duck presented the libel for Le Strange on 9 February 1639 and his twenty one witnesses, including Sir John Tracy of Stiffkey, Sir Nicholas Le Strange and numerous other gentry, were examined by a commission headed by Edward Gournay, esq, on 17 September 1639, in Newark’s inn. Eleven witnesses on behalf of Creamer and Stileman were examined by a commission headed by Thomas Dawney, clerk, 14-16 January 1640, at the Maid’s Head Inn, Norwich. Sir Hamon won the case in February 1640 and the two recorded sentences awarded him £200 damages and £80 costs, and £200 damages and £30 costs, with a £200 fine to the king, respectively. Stileman was ordered to perform his submission on 10 March in the shirehouse at Thetford before the judge of the assizes. He was ordered to beg Le Strange’s forgiveness for his scandalous petition and scandalous speeches, and to promise to thereafter behave himself ‘with all due observance and respect towards Sir Hamon Le Strange and all other the gentry of this kingdome.’ Le Strange, however, was at some pains to demonstrate, as Croke had said of him, that he was ‘a worthy man and a stud [i.e.pillar] of the cuntrie, and a good commonwealth’s man’, and also ‘a good landlord to his tenants’ – something not entirely borne out by their testimony. Perhaps in this spirit, Stileman certified that Sir Hamon gave him permission to make the submission on 6 June 1640 at Newark’s inn rather than at the assizes. Documents Initial proceedings Libel: 10/14a ( 9 Feb 1639) Summary of libel: R.19, fo. 23r (1639) Plaintiff’s case Letters commissory for the plaintiff: 10/14d (9 Aug 1639) Defence interrogatories: 14/3r (no date) First set of defence interrogatories: 10/14 oversize (no date) Second set of defence interrogatories: 10/14c (no date) Third set of defence interrogatories: 10/14b (no date) Plaintiff depositions: 10/14e (17/18 Sep 1639) Notary public’s certificate: 10/14f (19 Sep 1639) Defendant’s case Defence: Acta (4), fo. 357 (no date) Summary of defence: R.19, fo. 24r (1639) Letters commissory for the defence: Acta (4) fo. 354 (9 Dec 1639) Second set of plaintiff interrogatories: Acta (4), fo. 353 (15 Jan 1640) Defence depositions: Acta (4), fos. 314-343 (14-16 Jan 1640) Notary public’s certificate: Acta (4), fos. 344 (17 Jan 1640) 6 Schedules: Acta (4), fos. 355-6 (no date) Note: Acta (4), fo. 357 (11 Jul 1638) Sentence / Arbitration Plaintiff’s sentence: 10/12/8 (no date) Plaintiff’s sentence: 11/5 (no date) Plaintiff’s bill of costs: 14/1h (no date) Submission Submission of Stileman: 4/46 (22 Feb 1640) Submission of Stileman: 4/47 (no date) Proceedings Proceedings: 1/7, fos. 36-47 ( 9 Feb 1639) Proceedings before Arundel: 1/6, fos. 20-33 (21 Feb 1639) Proceedings before Maltravers: 8/31 (4 Feb 1640) Notes Initial proceedings 10/14a, Libel 1. The family of Sir Hamond Le Strange had been gentry for up to 300 years. 2. Robert Creamer was a tenant on Le Strange’s manor of Heacham by a copy of the manor court rolls. 3. At the assizes at Norwich Castle, before the judges Sir John Branston and Sir George Crooke, Creamer alleged that Le Strange had recently obtained from Creamer his copy of manor court roll and ‘had caused the same to be razed, altered, interlined and the rents augmented in severall places, and had sued him for new rent’. Creamer also alleged that Le Strange was a ‘riotour and peacebreaker.’ Signed by Arthur Duck and William Lewin. No date [9 February 1638/9] R.19, fo. 23r, Summary of libel ‘Sir Hamond for 40 or 30 yeares was and is a knight, and for 30 or 20 yeares past a justice, and was high sheriffe of the county, and for some yeares past was and is deputy lieutenant of the county under the Earl Marshall and c.