80. RECORDS OF CASES IN STAR CHAMBER (1505-53)[1]
(A) The Bishop of Worcester v. Thomasyn and Others (1505)
To the king our sovereign lord. Humbly showeth unto your highness your faithful chaplain and continual orator Sylvester, bishop of Worcester, that, where at a law-day and court holden for your suppliant at Stratford-upon-Avon, in your county of Warwick, election was made, by the twelve men sworn at the same law-day and court, of two constables for the conservation of your peace within the precinct of the same town, and of a bailiff, there to be for the year following ...: one Thomas Thomasyn, of the said town yeoman, which of his own presumptuous mind would have been bailiff there for this year, not pleased with the said election, assembled with one Richard Bentley and John Staffordshire of the same, yeoman, and other misruled persons to the number of twelve, with bills, clubs, stones, and swords, came riotously to the house where the said law-day and court was held; and then and there would have slain one John Elys, deputy steward, sitting and keeping the said court; and there with exclamation said that William Cottoun, which was elected bailiff as is aforesaid, should not be bailiff there, whosoever should say nay; and with assaults and exclamations riotously kept the said deputy steward, bailiff, and twelve men till it was past ten of the clock in the night, to the great disturbance of your peace and in contempt of your highness, and of your laws, to the perilous example of misdoers unless they may have due punishment therefor....
This is the answer of Thomas Thomas [yn], Richard Bentley, and John Staffordshire to the bill of complaint of Sylvester, bishop of Worcester. They say that, at the said law-day held at the town of Stratford-upon-Avon ... , such twelve men that there should be sworn have been used out of time of mind to be twelve of the most substantial and honest persons of the same town, to the intent that they should choose substantial men and men of honest conversation to be constables and bailiffs of the same town for the year ensuing; and one John Elys, being steward deputy of the same town, to the intent that he would make bailiffs and constables of the said town such as him should please, caused the jury to be made of the most silliest and simplest persons of the said town — and some of them were but men's servants — and left the substantial men out of the same jury; and after the said jury was sworn, they could not agree upon one of the bailiffs; and, they so being not agreed, the said John Elys proclaimed bailiffs and constables at large in the said town such as him pleased, as though the same jurors had been fully agreed upon the same, without the assent or agreement of the said twelve men and before any verdict by them given; and then Richard Bentley and John Staffordshire came to the said John Elys and showed him that they did not well to proclaim the said officers before the said jury were agreed upon them, but advised him to put the said jury in a house until they were agreed. And the said Thomas Thomas [yn] says that, in the morning of the same day out of the court and long before the court began, the same John Elys and the said Thomas Thomas [yn] fell at words for an entry made by the said John Elys in the name of the said bishop into certain lands of Thomas and his wife, by occasion whereof the same John Elys was about to draw his knife at the said Thomas Thomas [yn]....
Leadam, Select Cases in Star Chamber, I, 230 f.
(B) Mulsho v. the Inhabitants of Thingden (1529)
To the king our sovereign lord. In full humble wise showeth unto your highness your faithful subject, John Mulsho of Thingden in the county of Northampton, esquire, that, where the same John Mulsho was and is seised of ... the manor of Thingden ... in the said county of Northampton ... in his demesne as of fee, and so ... hath inhabited himself in the said town of Thingden, using there great husbandry, sometimes with four ploughs and sometimes with three and with two at the least, and yet doth: the said John Mulsho, being lord of the said manor as is before said, having no several grass there to maintain his ... beasts necessary and convenient for the maintenance there of the said husbandry ... , lawfully improved and enclosed twenty-six acres of lea ground in Thingden aforesaid, being not ploughed many years before, and fourteen acres of arable ground, all which arable ground and leas were parcel of the demesne of the manor belonging to the said John Mulsho, with ditches and hedges quickset with oak, ash, elm, willow, sallow, maple, crab tree, and thorn, to the intent he would have increase of wood there for necessary fuel for his house, because the said town of Thingden is six or seven miles from any forest or great wood. Which enclosure was in several closes divided, and no house of husbandry [was] by the same decayed, and the freeholders, tenants, and inhabitants of the town, notwithstanding the said enclosure, had and yet have sufficient common pasture for all their cattle in the residue of the field of Thingden aforesaid after rate and quantity of their tenures. All which closes the said John Mulsho hath peaceably kept in severally without let ... , till now of late that by the sinister labour of the tenants-at-will and copyholders of the said John Mulsho of Thingden and other inhabitants of the same town made to Thomas, lord cardinal, late chancellor of England ... , who in the king's name granted a writ out of the chancery to Sir William Fitz-William, knight ... , sheriff of the county of Northampton, commanding him ... to take the power of the said county with him to throw down the said hedges and ditches about the said closes made by the said John Mulsho, without calling the said John Mulsho by any ordinary process to make answer to the same ...; whereupon the said Sir William Fitz-William ... , taking with him the power of the same county, hath thrown down the said hedges and ditches ... to the great decay of the husbandry of the said John Mulsho and to his utter undoing.... And the said tenants and inhabitants of the said town of Thingden, not contented with the throwing down of the said ditches and hedges and destroying of the wood ... , riotously assembled themselves and with force and arms hewed and cut up the gate-posts and supports of the gates that belonged to the said closes whereof the said hedges and ditches were thrown down as is aforesaid. And after the sheriff with the power of the shire were departed from thence, and had executed and done as much as the king's writ had commanded them ... , divers ... riotous persons to the number of three score ... riotously assembled themselves ... with force and arms, that is to say, with bills, hatchets, clubs, piked staves, pitchforks, shovels, and spades, riotously dug up the roots of all such willows ... and of all other trees which the said John Mulsho had there set for the increase of wood necessary for fuel for his house, and so daily continued riotously by the space of eight days together, with knelling of bells, hooting, and shouting in most riotous manner that the like thereof hath not been seen in these parts....
Ibid., II, 38 f.
To the king our sovereign lord. Whereas your subject Ralph Broke, gentleman, 8th December in this 26th year of your reign, came to a certain pasture ... belonging to John Broke, father of your beseecher, called the Newe Rudding, to see to such cattle as he then had in the same ...: at which time Hugh Spyttull of the Mere in the said county, husbandman; Sir William Spyttull of Enfield in the said county, priest; Richard Humphrey Taylor, other wise Wilcox; John Taylor, otherwise Wilcox; Thomas Spyttull, John Watkes, William Tyrry, and Thomas Kyrkham came to him, by the procurement of Hugh, Humphrey Spyttull, and John Spyttull, in forcible manner and riotously assaulted your subject and Michael Broke, his brother, and Thomas Bailey, then in his company, and sore threatened them, by means of which fear your subjects suffered the said riotous persons to approach nigh to them. And the said persons beat the said Ralph to the ground and sore wounded him, and Thomas Bailey by hard means escaped and came to the town called the Mere and raised hue and cry that his master and Michael his brother were in point to be slain.... Whereupon Sir Thomas Dasshefen, priest, Nicholas Moseley, John Dasshefen, and others, minding to keep the peace, came to the said assault. Then the said misdemeaned persons, perceiving that company, kept your said subject in their ward, and feigned that the said Ralph, Michael, and Thomas came to break their hedges about a ground called Small Heath, otherwise Clareheys. Wherefore they said they would justify the beating of them, and imprison them till they found surety that they would break no hedges; where of truth your subjects broke no hedges, although the said Clareheys ought to lie in common to the townships of Lutley and the Mere, [and was] lately enclosed by the aid Hugh Spyttull and others, contrary to right. Of which assault the said misdemeaned persons have been, before the justices of the peace in county Stafford, indicted. In consideration whereof, please your highness to grant your writ of subpoena to the said persons, commanding them to appear before you, etc....
To our sovereign lord the king. We, Walter Wrottesley, esquire, and John Gravenour, gentleman, commissioners assigned by your writ of dedimus potestatem directed to us to hear and examine witnesses concerning the matter in variance in the books hereunto annexed contained, between Ralph Broke and others, plaintiffs, and Hugh Spyttull and others, defendants, certify your highness that we, by force of your writ, the Monday after the feast of St. John the Baptist last, sat at Tresull and called before us the said parties; and the plaintiffs brought before us divers persons hereunder named, who, then examined, deposed as hereunto annexed appears: —
Thomas Lea of the Woo, gentleman, aged 28 years. He saw Ralph Broke's head broken. He saw no hedges broken nor moved. He examined John Watkes, one of the parties with Spyttull, who said he saw not the said Broke within the said Clareheys. The said Thomas Bailey made hue and cry at the Mere, and Sir Thomas Dasshefen, John Dasshefen, Lewes Clare, and Nicholas Moseley came to the rescue. Clareheys is a mile from Enfield. The said Ralph and others say that they were led thither against their wills. On the night of the affray there was no hedge or ditch broken. He saw them as whole as they were the morning before.
William Byllyngesley of Ludston, aged 49 years.... On the Wednesday before the fray in Hampton the said Hugh Spyttull and Ralph Broke quarrelled. Further, for forty years past he knew Clareheys lie common, and never knew it enclosed till William Bulwardyn enclosed it and held it sometimes closed and sometimes open for three years or thereabouts.
Thomas Woorwood of Morff, gentleman, aged 88 years. He has known Clareheys lie open for eighty years past until, about sixteen or seventeen years since, William Bulwardyn enclosed it....
Thomas Dasshefen of Enfield, aged 47 years, says that there were nine persons at the said affray, and Hugh Spyttull and Sir William Spyttull had bows and arrows, and the others had staves; and that Ralph Broke had his head broken....
Nicholas Moseley of the Mere, aged 43 years, says that William Tyrry, being at the affray and therefore indicted of riot, said that Ralph Broke had no cause to indict him; for when he, the said William, had the said Ralph by one arm and Humphrey Taylor had him by the other, if he had not pulled the said Ralph back, Richard Spyttull would have slain him. At the same assault they did hit by command of Humphrey Spyttull. Thomas Bailey made hue and cry at the township of the Mere, by reason whereof this deponent, Sir Thomas Dasshefen, and Sir John Dasshefen came to the house of Beves Clares in the Mere, where the said Ralph and Michael were in custody....
Collections for a History of Staffordshire, 1912, pp. 71 f.
(D) Petyt v. Jobber and Others (1540-41)
To the king our sovereign lord: your orator, John Petyt, of Chebsey, county Stafford, gentleman. Whereas your orator, 8th May last, was at Chebsey, John Jobber, husbandman [and thirteen others] ... , with force and arms made assault on your said orator; may it please you to grant your writs of subpoena to be directed to them, to appear before you to answer the premises.
The answer of John Jobber, William Palmer, and Robert Stedeman to the bill of complaint of John Petyt. The said bill of complaint is untrue.... The town of Chebsey, wherein the pretended offences are supposed to be done, is held of the honour of Tutbury, parcel of the duchy of Lancaster, and all riots there done are determinable before the chancellor of the said duchy. There is a custom in the manor of Chebsey that, if any beasts and cattle or other distress have been taken for any cause ... , the same distress be impounded in the same manor; and if the takers thereof have been about to drive the same to any other place, the tenants thereof have been used to resist the same. Further, the defendants say that the plaintiff, John Hille of the Pype, John Petyt the younger, and John Bradley, arrayed in forcible manner, with other gentlemen of county Stafford, took and distrained four oxen of Robert Stedeman and would have driven them out of the lordship, whereupon the defendants resisted the same, which is the riot supposed by the plaintiff's bill.
Ibid., p. 140.
To the king our most dread sovereign lord: your subject, Sir Thomas Gérard, knight, and William Hunt, servant to your said suppliant. Whereas your subject and all his ancestors have been seised by lawful title of descent of the manor of Bromley in the parish of Ecclessall, county Stafford, parcel of which manor is wood called Willibrydge Parke, in which wood for a long time there have eyried sparrowhawks by the space of sixty years last, and this present year the said hawk eyried there and had five young hawks, and your said subject commanded his said servant to make him a cabin in the said wood to keep and watch the said hawks there: so it is that John Dodd of Clorley, county Salop, esquire, enticed Robert Parkes, yeoman, his household servant; Thomas Taylor of Pyxley, county Salop, bailiff to the said John Dodd; and Richard Emys, otherwise Enys, of Drayton in Hales, county Salop, shearman; to convey away the said hawks. By force whereof, 27th June last, they assembled in riotous manner at the said woodside and entered the said wood with vizors upon their faces, hoods upon their heads, and otherwise disguised, one hour after sunrise, and made assault on the said William Hunt, then being within his cabin, and after took him and bound him to a tree, and after, with like force, took away five young hawks out of the nest of the said sparrowhawk and conveyed them to the house of John Dodd, to the loss of your suppliant and the utter undoing of William Hunt, who has consumed all he has in surgery and, by reason of his beating, is not able to serve again. In consideration whereof, please your highness to grant your writ of subpoena to be directed to the said John Dodd and Robert Parkes, commanding them to appear before you to make answer to the premises.
The answer of John Dodd, esquire. The said bill is uncertain....
If it were true, as it is not, it is determinable at the common law. As to the riot, entry, etc., he is not guilty....
The answer of Robert Parkes. As to any riot ... or other misdemeanours in the said surmised bill alleged, he is not guilty.
Ibid., p. 180.
(F) The King v. a Jury of Lichfield (1551-53)
The answer of John Pyllysworth [and ten others]. The said Rowlande Orme and William Fowler do, and at the time of the said verdict did, dwell two miles out of the city of Lichfield, and never dwelt there; and the rest of the defendants do, and at the time of the making of the said verdict did, dwell within the said town. The said Harry Oliver was indicted in the said town before the coroner there for murdering the said John Wescote, and was arraigned before the bailiff and recorder of the town at the said jail-delivery held within the said city, whereunto he pleaded not guilty; which they know to be true, because the said indictment was read to them when they, with the said Raufe Bagnolde, were sworn to try the said Harry. At the time of the said jail-delivery they came to the place where it was held, not thinking to be sworn to try the said Harry, and they, with the said Raufe Bagnolde, were sworn before the said justices to try the said Harry. Proclamation was made that, if any man would give evidence against the same prisoner, that he should come forth and be heard; but, notwithstanding, no man came to give any evidence, and so the said defendants with Raufe Bagnolde went to commune together of their verdict. And as they were going from the bar, one said that he could give evidence concerning the same matter. The recorder of the town asked him if he was not of another jury for life and death, and he said yes; so he could not be sworn to give any evidence. Therefore the said defendants had no evidences given them to find the said Harry guilty. They made their verdict plainly, without favour, and found the said Harry not guilty of the said murder; without that, that they were corrupted by John Ferrers and William Wescote and other their friends to acquit the said Harry, or that they had knowledge themselves how the said murder was committed, or that they found their verdict contrary to their conscience and knowledge....
William Corpson, of Lichfield, spurrier ... , says that John Wescote was slain in the open street at Lichfield on Ash Wednesday last, being fair day there, and by common report Harry Oliver killed the said Wescote and was indicted for the same, but how many times he knew not.... He denies that any labour was made to him to be of the inquest on the trial of the said Harry; nor any sum of money given to him or promised by any person to be favourable to the said Harry Oliver at his arraignment.... The said Wescote was slain indeed, and no other person but Harry Oliver was accused of his death and therefore he thinks the said Harry Oliver killed him; but how he knows not, nor had any evidence given thereof....[2]
Ibid., pp. 194 f.
[1] Cf. nos. 73B, 74A; and on the general character of these records, see Leadam's introduction to Select Cases in Star Chamber, vol. I.
[2] Five other jurymen, being interrogated, say the same.