Richard Powell and Joan his wife v. Oliver Meredith

     Bridgnorth attorney: John Moore, William Warter
    (for other Bridgnorth error cases with the same attorneys, see and see)

     Error plaintiff's king's bench attorney: George Lawley

The lord king sent to his bailiffs and the burgesses of his town of Bridgnorth his writ close in these words:

James by the grace of God king of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., to the bailiffs and burgesses of his town of Bridgnorth, greetings. Because in the record and process and also in the rendering of judgment of a plea that was before or in our court of the abovesaid town without our writ according to the custom of the same town between Richard Powell and Joan his wife and Oliver Meredith concerning a debt of 60s that the same Richard and Joan exact from the aforementioned Oliver as it is said manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same Oliver as we have received from his complaint, we, wanting the error if any there was to be corrected in due manner and full and swift justice to be done to the abovesaid parties in this part, order you that if judgment thereof has been rendered then you should send distinctly and openly the record and process abovesaid with everything touching them to us under your seal, and this writ, so that we have them at Trinity three weeks wherever then we shall be in England so that, the abovesaid record and process having been inspected, we may make to be done further thereof for the correction of that error what of right and according to the law and custom of our realm of England should be done. Tested me myself at Westminster May 23 in the 5^th year of our reign of England, France, and Ireland and the 40^th of Scotland [May 23, 1607].

The record and process of which mention is made in the abovesaid writ follows in these words:

Bridgnorth. Pleas held at Bridgnorth abovesaid in the common hall on November 3 in the years of the reign of our Lord James by the grace of God king of England, France, and Ireland etc., the 4^th and of his reign of Scotland the 40^th [November 3, 1606] before John Pagett and John Cheese the lord king’s bailiffs of his town abovesaid according to the custom of the same town used and approved in the same town from time whereof the memory of men runs not to the contrary.

Bridgnorth. At this court came Richard Powell and Joan his wife and they complain against Oliver Meredith concerning a plea that he render to them £3 of the lawful money of England that he owes them and unjustly detains. And he found pledges to prosecute his complaint, scilt., John Doe and Richard Roe. Therefore it is ordered to John Blackwey and Rowland Prene serjeants at mace to the said bailiffs according to the custom of the town abovesaid that they or one of them attach the abovesaid Oliver by his body so that he be before the abovesaid bailiffs in the common hall of the abovesaid town at the next court of the same town to be held on Monday, viz., November 17 then next following [November 17, 1606] to answer to the aforementioned Richard Powell and Joan his wife concerning the abovesaid plea.

Bridgnorth. The court of the lord king held on November 17 in the year of the reign of our Lord James by the grace of God king of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., the 4^th and of Scotland the 40^th [November 17, 1606] before the bailiffs abovesaid according to the custom of the abovesaid town.

At this court came the abovesaid Richard and Joan by John Moore their attorney and presented themselves against the aforementioned Oliver Meredith concerning the abovesaid plea. And in the same court the abovesaid serjeants at mace now sending according to the custom of the abovesaid town say that the abovesaid Oliver is attached by his body, whose body they have here as it was ordered to them to answer to the aforementioned Richard and Joan concerning the abovesaid plea.

And thereon in the same court the abovesaid Richard and Joan were exacted, appeared by their attorney, and complain against the aforementioned Oliver in the abovesaid plea [IMG 0661]. And they find pledges as is said above. And they say by their attorney that the abovesaid Oliver on the last day of October in the 44^th year of the reign of the late our Lady Elizabeth [October 31, 1602] at Bridgnorth abovesaid on the high road of the same town within the liberty and jurisdiction of this court borrowed from the aforementioned Joan while she was single 2s6d of the lawful money of England to be paid to the same Joan when he should be asked thereof, and that the abovesaid Oliver on September 20 in the 45^th year of the reign of the said Lady Elizabeth late queen of England [sic] at Bridgnorth abovesaid on the high road of the same town within the liberty of this court borrowed from the aforementioned Joan while she was single 4s of the lawful money of England to be paid to the same Joan when the abovesaid Oliver should be asked thereof, and also that the abovesaid Oliver Meredith on October 28 in the 45^th year of the reign of the said Lady Elizabeth late queen of England [sic] at Bridgnorth abovesaid on the high road abovesaid within the jurisdiction of this court borrowed from the abovesaid Joan while she was single 3s of the lawful money of England to be paid to the same Joan when the abovesaid defendant should be asked thereof, and also that the abovesaid Oliver on January 1 in the 45^th year of the reign of the said Lady Elizabeth late queen of England [January 1, 1603] at Bridgnorth abovesaid in the said high road of the same town within the jurisdiction of this court borrowed from the aforementioned Joan now one of the plaintiffs while she was single 2s of the lawful money of England to be paid to the same Joan when the abovesaid defendant should be asked thereof, and further the abovesaid plaintiffs say that the abovesaid defendant on June 7 in the 1^st year of the reign of our Lord James by the grace of God king of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., and on divers separate other days afterwards at Bridgnorth abovesaid on the said high road of the same town within the jurisdiction of this court borrowed from the aforementioned Joan now one of the plaintiffs while she was single divers sums of money as attain to the sum of 48s6d of the lawful money of England the residue of the abovesaid £3 to be paid to the same Joan when the abovesaid defendant should be asked thereof, and the abovesaid plaintiffs further say that afterwards, scilt., on August 1 in the 4^th year of the reign of the said our lord now king of England [August 1, 1606] the abovesaid Joan at Bridgnorth abovesaid within the jurisdiction of this court took as her husband the abovesaid Richard according to the ecclesiastical law of this realm of England, whereby action accrues to the same plaintiffs to seek, exact, and have from the aforementioned plaintiff the abovesaid £3, nevertheless the abovesaid defendant although often asked thereof has not yet rendered the abovesaid £3 to the aforementioned Joan while she was single nor to the aforementioned [IMG 1528] Richard and Joan after espousals had between them nor to either of them, but wholly refused to render or pay to them and still refuses, wherefore the abovesaid plaintiffs say that they are worse off and have damages to the value of 20s, and thereof they produce their suit.

And thereon the abovesaid Oliver in the same court, exacted according to the custom of the abovesaid town, appeared by William Warter his attorney, and his abovesaid attorney came and defended force and injury when etc., and in the same court sought license to emparl thereof until the next court there to be held on Monday, viz., December 1 then next following, and has it etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned Richard and Joan to here at the abovesaid court.

Bridgnorth. The court of the lord king there held on December 1 in the 4^th year of the reign of our Lord James by the grace of God king of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., and the 40^th of Scotland before the abovesaid bailiffs.

At which day the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys appeared. And the abovesaid bailiffs in the same court say to the aforementioned Oliver Meredith that he answer the abovesaid plaintiffs in the abovesaid plea.

And thereon the abovesaid Oliver in the same court abovesaid came as before and defended force and injury when etc., and says that the abovesaid plaintiff ought not to have or maintain his abovesaid action against the same Oliver, and that the matter contained in the abovesaid declaration of the abovesaid plaintiffs is not sufficient in law to maintain the abovesaid action of the plaintiffs against the same defendant. And this he is ready to verify, because he says that he is not nor can he be understood to be the same person against whom the abovesaid plaintiffs brought their abovesaid action by the name of Oliver Meredith, because he says that he is named and called Meredith Oliver and by the same name and surname from the time of his birth and always has been known and called,, without this that he is named and called Oliver Meredith or by the same name and surname was known and called, as the abovesaid plaintiffs by their narration abovesaid suppose, wherefore he seeks judgment if the abovesaid plaintiffs ought to maintain any action in this case against the same defendant.

And the abovesaid plaintiffs by their abovesaid attorney say that they have no need nor by the law of the land are bound in any way to answer the abovesaid plea of the abovesaid Oliver Meredith pleaded in the manner and form abovesaid above in quashing of the abovesaid plea, wherefore for the lack of a sufficient answer of the abovesaid Oliver Meredith to the said complaint they seek that the judgment and their abovesaid debt be adjudicated to them.

And the abovesaid defendant by his abovesaid attorney says that he pleaded sufficient matter in bar of the abovesaid action of the plaintiffs; he seeks judgment.

And because the court of the lord king wants to be advised of and on the matter and others premisses abovesaid before it proceeds to render judgment thereof, day is given to the abovesaid parties until the next court of the abovesaid town, scilt., on December 15 then next following [December 15, 1606] to hear the judgment.

At which day came both the abovesaid plaintiffs and the abovesaid defendant by their abovesaid attorneys. And thereon the premisses having been seen and understood by the abovesaid bailiffs here it seemed to the same bailiffs that the plea abovesaid by the abovesaid defendant above pleaded in the manner and form is not sufficient in law to preclude the abovesaid plaintiffs from having their abovesaid action, but that the abovesaid plaintiffs ought to recover their abovesaid debt against the aforementioned defendant. Therefore it is granted by the abovesaid bailiffs that the abovesaid plaintiffs recover against the aforementioned defendants their debt of £3 [IMG 1529] and money for damages by the occasion of the detention of the abovesaid debt with 16s6d for the abovesaid costs of the abovesaid plaintiffs expended on their abovesaid suit, and the abovesaid defendant in mercy.

Afterwards, scilt., on Friday next after the Octaves of Michaelmas this same term before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Oliver by George Lawley his attorney. And he says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment it was manifestly erred in this, viz.,

that by the abovesaid record it appears that the abovesaid Richard and Joan by their abovesaid narration suppose that the same Oliver on September 20 in the 45^th year of the reign of the said late Queen Elizabeth borrowed from the aforementioned Joan while she was single 4s and on October 28 in the 45^th year of the reign of the same late Queen Elizabeth borrowed from the aforementioned Joan while she was single 3s, whereas indeed there were never any days September 20 or October 28 in the 45^th year of the reign of the said late Queen Elizabeth.

Likewise it was erred in this that whereas by the record abovesaid it appears that the abovesaid Richard and Joan by their narration abovesaid suppose that the same Oliver on June 7 in the 1^st year of the reign of the said now lord king and on divers separate other days afterwards borrowed from the aforementioned Joan while she was single divers sums of money such as amount to 48s6d, and so the abovesaid Richard and Joan do not allege any certain contract to maintain their abovesaid action against the same Oliver for the same 48s6d as by the law of the land in this case they ought to have alleged.

It was erred likewise in this that whereas by the abovesaid record it appears that the abovesaid Oliver pleaded to the complaint and narration abovesaid that he was known and called by the name Meredith Oliver and not by the name Oliver Meredith and that on that plea the abovesaid issue was joined in law in the abovesaid court of the abovesaid town and that also thereon by the same court it was granted that the abovesaid Richard and Joan recover against the same Oliver the abovesaid debt and damages whereas according to the law of the land judgment in this case ought to be rendered that the abovesaid Oliver answer to the abovesaid narration and thus in the record and process abovesaid etc.

And also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment it was manifestly erred on account of which certain errors and other etc.

The same Oliver seeks a writ of the lord king to warn the aforementioned Richard Powell and Joan to be before the lord king to hear the record and process abovesaid, and it is granted to him etc., whereby it is ordered to the sheriff of Shropshire that by prudent etc., of his bailiwick he should make known to the aforementioned Richard and Joan that they be before the lord king on the Octaves of St. Hilary wherever etc., to hear the record and process abovesaid if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned Oliver etc.

At which certain day before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Oliver by his abovesaid attorney. And the sheriff returns that the abovesaid Richard and Joan have nothing in his bailiwick whereby he can make known to them nor are they found in the same. And they did not come. Therefore as formerly it is ordered to the sheriff that by prudent etc., he make known to the aforementioned Richard and Joan that they be before the lord king on the Octaves of the Purification of Blessed Mary wherever etc., to hear the record and process abovesaid if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned Oliver there etc.

At which day before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Oliver by his attorney abovesaid. And the sheriff as before returns that the abovesaid Richard and Joan have nothing in his bailiwick whereby he could make known to them nor are they found. And they did not come but made a default. And thereon the abovesaid Oliver as before says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the judgment manifestly [IMG 0662] it was erred by alleging the abovesaid errors alleged by him in the abovesaid form. And he seeks that the judgment abovesaid on account of those errors and others being in the abovesaid record and process be revoked, annulled, and completely had for nothing, and that he be restored to everything that he lost by occasion of the abovesaid judgment etc., and that the court of the lord king here proceed to the examination both of the record and process abovesaid and of the abovesaid matters above assigned for errors. And because the court of the lord king here is not yet advised to render its judgment of and on the premisses, day is given thereof to the aforementioned Oliver before the lord king until the quindene of Easter wherever etc., to hear his judgment thereof because the court of the said lord king here thereof not yet etc.

At which day before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Oliver by his abovesaid attorney. Thereon all and singular the premisses having been seen and more fully understood by the court of the lord king here and mature deliberation having been had thereof, for this that it seems to the court of the lord king here that the in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred, it is considered that the abovesaid judgment on account of those errors and others being in the abovesaid record and process be revoked, annulled, and completely had for nothing and that the abovesaid Oliver Meredith be restored to everything he lost by occasion of the abovesaid judgment etc.

[Margination:]

Let the judgment be revoked.