Richard Pearle v. Anthony Woodward

     Hereford attorneys: Thomas Manne, Thomas Taylor

The lord king sent to the mayor of his city of Hereford 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 mayor of his city of Hereford, greetings. Because in the record and process and also in the rendering of judgment of a plea that was before you in our court of the abovesaid city without our writ according to the custom of the same city between Richard Pearle gentleman and Anthony Woodward of this that the same Anthony render to the aforementioned Richard his reasonable account of the time at which he was the receiver of money of the same Richard manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same Anthony 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 as formerly we ordered that, if judgment has been rendered thereof, then you send distinctly and openly the record and process of the abovesaid plea with everything touching them to us under your seal, and this writ, so that we have them at Easter month wherever then we shall be in England so that, the record and process abovesaid having been inspected, we may make to be done 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 or signify to us the cause why you value so little our order formerly directed to you thereof. Tested me myself at Westminster March 17 in the 4^th [sic] year of our reign of England, France, and Ireland and the 40^th of Scotland.Palmer

The record and process of which mention was made in the abovesaid writ follow in these words:

The City of Hereford. The lord king’s court of his city of Hereford abovesaid held in the guildhall of the same city on Monday, viz., July 21 in the year of the reign of the Lord James by the grace of God king of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., viz., of England, France, and Ireland the 4^th and of Scotland the 39^th [July 21, 1606] before James Russell armiger mayor of the same city according to the charter of the Lady Elizabeth late queen of England granted under his great seal of England to the mayor, aldermen, and citizens of the abovesaid city etc.

At this court comes Richard Pearle in his proper person and complains against Anthony Woodward concerning a plea that he render to him a reasonable account of the time at which he was receiver of money of the same Richard and he finds pledges to prosecute his abovesaid complaint, scilt., John Doo and Richard Roo. And he seeks process to be made thereof for him against the aforementioned Anthony Woodward according to the custom of the abovesaid city. And it is granted to him etc. Therefore according to the custom of the abovesaid city which is thus and used and approved in the abovesaid city from time whereof there is no memory of men and confirmed by the abovesaid grant that in each complaint or personal action prosecuted and levied in the court of the abovesaid city there the first precept or process in this manner complaint or action was the precept of capias against the defendant in this manner complaint or action without any attachment or summons purchased or adjudicated thereof before, it is ordered to George Seaborne a serjeant at mace of the said lord king in the abovesaid city and minister of the abovesaid court that he take the abovesaid Anthony Woodward if etc., and him safely etc., so that he have his body at the next said lord king’s court to be held at the guildhall of the abovesaid city before the aforementioned mayor of the abovesaid city, viz., on Thursday, July 24 then next following [July 24, 1606] to answer the aforementioned Richard Pearle concerning the abovesaid plea. The same day is given to the aforementioned Richard Pearle there etc.

And thereon the same Richard Pearle puts in his place Thomas Manne against the aforementioned Anthony Woodward in the abovesaid plea.

At which certain court of the said lord king in the guildhall of the abovesaid city before the aforementioned mayor on the abovesaid Thursday, July 24 in the abovesaid year [July 24, 1606] comes the abovesaid Richard Pearle by his abovesaid attorney. And the abovesaid George Seaborne a said lord king’s serjeant at mace and minister of the abovesaid court now sends that he by virtue of the abovesaid precept directed to him took the abovesaid Anthony Woodward, whose body there he had ready to answer the aforementioned Richard Pearle concerning the abovesaid plea, as it was ordered to him.

And the abovesaid Anthony Woodward solemnly exacted comes and puts in his place Thomas Taylor against the abovesaid Richard Pearle in the abovesaid plea.

And thereon the abovesaid Richard Pearle then and there by narrating against the same Anthony Woodward in the abovesaid plea says that, whereas the abovesaid Anthony had been a receiver of money of the same Richard from July 11 in the 4^th year of the reign of our Lord James now king of England etc., and in the 39^th of Scotland for the 2 whole years then next following and for the same time received from the money of the same Richard by the hands of a certain Richard Bullocke here at the city of Hereford abovesaid within the jurisdiction of this court £6 of the lawful money of England to merchandise and make profit of the same Richard Pearle thereof and to render a reasonable account of the time and abovesaid money when he should be asked thereof, nevertheless the abovesaid Anthony although often asked has not yet rendered a reasonable account of the time and money abovesaid to the aforementioned Richard Pearle but to this time has refused to render it to him and still refuses, wherefore he says that he is worse off and has damages to the value of £10, and thereof he produces suit etc.

And the abovesaid Anthony Woodward at the same court by the same Thomas Taylor his attorney comes and defends force and injury when etc. And he seeks license to emparl until the next said lord king’s court of the abovesaid city to be held before the aforementioned mayor on the last day of July then next following [July 31, 1606], and he has it etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned Richard Pearle there etc.[IMG 0835]

At which certain court of the said lord king held in the guildhall of the abovesaid city before the aforementioned mayor on the abovesaid last day of July in the 4^th year of the reign of the said lord king of England, France, and Ireland and the 40^th of Scotland [July 31, 1606] come both the abovesaid Richard Pearle and the abovesaid Anthony Woodward by his abovesaid attorney. And thereon the abovesaid Anthony Woodward comes and defends force and injury when etc. And he says that the abovesaid plaintiff ought not have or maintain his abovesaid action against him, because he says that well and true it is that he the same defendant on the day and year abovesaid here at the city of Hereford within the jurisdiction of this court received from the Richard Bullocke named in the abovesaid narration the abovesaid £6 for a debt of a certain John Parrye gentleman, which certain John Parrye then was justly indebted to the aforementioned defendant in the abovesaid sum of £6 for food, drink, and bed, for which certain sum the same defendant then delivered to the aforementioned Richard Bullocke a certain writing of release for the receipt thereof and for exoneration of the abovesaid debt of the abovesaid John Parrye, without this that the same defendant ever was receiver of money of the same plaintiff or ever received by the hands of the abovesaid Richard Bullocke the abovesaid £6 or any parcel thereof to merchandise and to render account thereof to the aforementioned plaintiff as the same plaintiff above against him complains. And this etc., wherefore etc.

And the abovesaid Richard Pearle says that he by anything alleged before ought not to be precluded from having his abovesaid action, because he says that the abovesaid Anthony Woodward was the receiver of money of the same Richard and received from the money of the same Richard by the hands of the abovesaid Richard Bullocke the abovesaid £6 to merchandise and make a profit of the same Richard Pearle thereof and to render a reasonable account when he should be asked thereof to the same Richard Pearle as the same Richard above narrated against him. And he seeks that this be inquired by the countryside. And the abovesaid defendant similarly. Therefore at this same court of the said lord king it was ordered by the abovesaid mayor according to the custom of the abovesaid city to Anthony Turnor, George Seaborne, Thomas Treherne, and Richard Wotton the said lord king’s serjeants at mace in the abovesaid city and ministers of the abovesaid court and in this part [?] according to the use and custom of the same city used from time whereof there is no memory of men there that they make to come here at the court of the said lord [IMG 1664] king to be held in the guildhall of the abovesaid city before the aforementioned mayor on September 1 then next following [September 1, 1606] 12 etc., by whom etc., who neither etc., to recognize etc., because both etc. The same day is given to the abovesaid parties there etc.

At which certain court of the said lord king held here in the guildhall of the abovesaid city before the aforementioned mayor on September 1[September 1, 1606] come both the abovesaid Richard Pearle and the abovesaid Anthony Woodward by their abovesaid attorneys. And the abovesaid Anthony Turnor, George Seaborne, Thomas Treherne, and Richard Watton serjeants at mace and ministers of the abovesaid court now return here a certain panel annexed to the same precept executed in everything according to the custom of the abovesaid city, and they attest that each of the same jurors is attached by pledge of John Doo and Richard Roo. Which certain jurors then and there exacted come, who, chosen, tried, and sworn to tell the truth of the premisses, say on their oath that the abovesaid Anthony Woodward was receiver of the money of the same Richard and received from the money of the same Richard by the hands of the said Richard Bullocke the abovesaid £6 in the manner and form as the abovesaid plaintiff above narrated against him. Therefore it is considered that the abovesaid Anthony Woodward account with the aforementioned Richard Pearle of the time and money abovesaid, because it is found that the same Anthony received the same money, and thus in mercy because he did not account thereof before. And auditors are assigned to him, viz., William Maylard and John Warden gentlemen. And the same Anthony meanwhile is committed to the said lord king’s jail of the abovesaid city etc.

Before which auditors afterwards, scilt., December 8 in the abovesaid year [December 8, 1606] come both Richard Pearle by his abovesaid attorney and the abovesaid Anthony Woodward in the custody etc. And it is asked from the aforementioned Anthony by the abovesaid auditors if he wants to account thereof with the aforementioned Richard or wants or can say anything to exonerate himself of the abovesaid £6. And the abovesaid Anthony Woodward alleged or showed no sufficient cause or matter in law before them in exoneration of his account abovesaid, by reason of which the same auditors ought to allocate or make any allocation of the abovesaid £6 or any parcel thereof as the same lord king’s auditors here within the abovesaid city certify and report. Therefore let him be taken etc.

Afterwards, scilt., on Friday next after the quindene of St. Martin this same term before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Anthony Woodward in his proper person and says that in the record and process abovesaid and in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred in this, viz.,

that whereas by the abovesaid record it appears that on the abovesaid plea levied in the abovesaid form in the abovesaid court the first precept or process emanating out of the that court was the said lord king’s writ for taking the same Anthony at the suit of the aforementioned Richard Pearle in the abovesaid plea, where indeed by the law of the land of this realm the first writ emanating from that court ought to have been a writ of summons to summon the aforementioned Anthony to be in that court to answer the aforementioned Richard Pearle in the abovesaid plea, and therefore it was manifestly erred.

And he seeks a writ of the lord king to be directed to the sheriff of Herefordshire to warn the aforementioned Richard to be before the lord king to hear the abovesaid record and process. And it is granted to him etc. Whereby it is ordered to the sheriff that by prudent etc., he should make known to the aforementioned Richard that he be before the lord king on the Octaves of the Purification of the Blessed Mary wherever etc., to hear the abovesaid record and process if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned Anthony etc.

At which day before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Anthony in his proper person. And the sheriff returns that that writ was delivered to him too late that on account of brevity of time he could not make execution thereof as it was ordered to him. Therefore as formerly it is ordered to the sheriff that by prudent etc., he make known to the aforementioned Richard that he be before the lord king at the quindene of Easter wherever etc., to hear the abovesaid record and process if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned Anthony etc. [IMG 1665]

At which certain day before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Anthony in his proper person. And the sheriff did not send the writ thereof. And thereon the abovesaid Richard Perle by Hugh Russell his attorney comes. Thereon the abovesaid Anthony says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred by alleging the abovesaid errors alleged by him in the form abovesaid. And he seeks 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 same Anthony be restored to everything that he lost by occasion of the abovesaid judgment, and that the abovesaid Richard rejoin to the abovesaid errors. And although the same Richard on the 4^th day of the plea was solemnly exacted he did not come but made a default and says nothing in bar or preclusion of the abovesaid matter assigned for error. Thereon the abovesaid Anthony seeks that the court of the lord king proceed to the examination both of the record and process abovesaid and of the abovesaid matter above assigned for error. And because the court of the lord king here is not yet advised to render judgment of and on the premisses, day thereof is given to the aforementioned Anthony before the lord king until the morrow of Holy Trinity wherever etc., to hear his judgment thereof, because the court of the lord king here thereof not yet etc.

[Similar adjournments:

from the morrow of Holy Trinity to the morrow of All Souls

from the morrow of All Souls to the Octaves of Hilary

from the Octaves of Hilary to the quindene of Easter

from the quindene of Easter to the morrow of Holy Trinity

from the morrow of Holy Trinity to Michaelmas month

from Michaelmas month to the Octaves of Hilary]

At which day before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Anthony in his proper person. Thereon, all and singular the premisses having been seen and more fully understood by the court of the said lord king here and mature deliberation having been had, it is considered that the abovesaid judgment on account of the abovesaid error and others found in the abovesaid record and process be revoked, annulled, and completely had for nothing and that the same Anthony be restored to everything he lost by occasion of that judgment.

[Margination:]

Let the judgment be revoked.

Let him be restored.