Thomas Papworth of Alconbury-Weston, husbandman v. Thomas Varnam of Little Stukeley, husbandman

     Huntingdon attorneys: Michael Laxton, John Lukyn

        for another Huntingdon error case with attorneys William Walden, Anthony Smythe, see

     Error plaintiff's king's bench attorney: John Grene

The lord king sent to the bailiffs and burgesses of his town of Huntingdon 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 Huntingdon, 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 town without our writ according to the custom of the same town between Thomas Papworth and Thomas Varnam concerning a certain trespass on the case inflicted on the same Thomas Papworth by the aforementioned Thomas Varnam as it is said manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same Thomas Varnam 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 thereof then send distinctly and openly the abovesaid record and process with everything touching them to us under your seals, and this writ, so that we have them on the Octaves of the Purification of Blessed Mary wherever then we shall be in England so that, the record and process thereof 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 should be done. Tested me myself at Westminster January 18 in the 5^th year of our reign of England, France, and Ireland and the 41^st of Scotland. Morley.

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

The Borough of Huntingdon. Pleas at the common hall of the abovesaid borough before George Lambe and William Wytlsey bailiffs of the same town and borough according to the custom of that borough used and approved from a time whereof there is no memory of men in the same lord king’s court held there on October 13 in the 5^th year of the reign of our lord James by the grace of God king of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland and the 41^st of Scotland [October 13, 1607].

At this court came Thomas Papworth of Alconbury-Weston in the county of Huntingdonshire husbandman in his proper person and complains against Thomas Varnam of Little Stukeley in the abovesaid county husbandman concerning a plea of trespass on the case etc. And there are pledges to prosecute: John Doo and Richard Roo. And he seeks that the abovesaid Thomas Varnam according to the custom of the abovesaid borough be attached by his body to answer to the same Thomas Papworth concerning the abovesaid plea. And it is granted to him etc. Therefore according to the custom of the abovesaid borough it was ordered by the abovesaid bailiffs of that borough to William Jaye serjeant at mace and minister of this court that he take the abovesaid Thomas Varnam if he should be found within the jurisdiction of this court and guard him safely so that he have his body here at the next lord king’s court to be held here, scilt., October 29 next to come to answer the aforementioned Thomas Papworth concerning the abovesaid plea.

At which certain next court held here, scilt., at the common hall of the abovesaid borough on the abovesaid October 29 before the aforementioned bailiffs of that borough according to the custom abovesaid came both the abovesaid Thomas Papworthe and the abovesaid Thomas Varnam in their proper persons. And the abovesaid William Jaye serjeant at mace and minister of this court now sends that he according to the custom of the abovesaid borough took the body of the abovesaid Thomas Varnam, whose body now he has here ready as it was ordered to him in the abovesaid form.

And thereon according to the custom of that borough came here in court a certain Cuthbert Peacocke in his proper person and according to the custom of the abovesaid borough became pledge for the aforementioned Thomas Varnam in the abovesaid plea, viz., he mainperned and undertook on himself that if it happen that the judgment is rendered in court here for the aforementioned Thomas Papworth against the aforementioned Thomas Varnam in the abovesaid plea that then the same Thomas Varnam will render his body in execution of this manner judgment in the court here or satisfy the aforementioned Thomas Papworthe of his damages and costs to be adjudicated to him here in same plea, otherwise the same Cuthbert Peacocke wants and grants those damages and costs to be made from the same Cuthbert Peacock’s land and chattels according to the custom of the abovesaid borough and to be levied to the work and use of the abovesaid Thomas Papworth etc.

Thereon the abovesaid Thomas Papworthe puts in his place Michael Laxton against the aforementioned Thomas Varnam concerning the abovesaid plea.

And thereon the abovesaid Thomas Papworthe by his abovesaid attorney seeks a day for narrating until the next court, and he has etc. [IMG 1388]

At which certain next court held here, scilt., November 25 at the common hall of the abovesaid borough before the aforementioned bailiffs of that borough according to the abovesaid custom the abovesaid Thomas Papworthe by his abovesaid attorney says that, whereas in consideration that the abovesaid Thomas Papworthe at the special instance and request of the same Thomas Varnam would sell and deliver to a certain Ralph Claye 7 tods of wool, in English, todds of Wolle, the same Thomas Varnam on July 1 in the 5^th year of the reign of the Lord James now king of England etc., at Huntingdon here within the jurisdiction of this court in consideration thereof undertook on himself and then and there faithfully promised to the same Thomas Papworthe to pay the same Thomas Papworth £7 2d at or before August 1 then next following, and the same Thomas Papworthe in fact says that he sold and delivered to the aforementioned Ralph Claye the abovesaid 7 tods of wool, nevertheless the abovesaid Thomas Varnam not at all caring for his promise and undertaking but scheming and intending hotly and deceitfully to deceive and defraud the same Thomas Papworthe in this part, although often asked has not yet paid the abovesaid £7 2s to the same Thomas Papworth but to this time has wholly refused to pay them 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 Thomas Varnam by John Lukyn his attorney came and sought license to emplead until the next court and had etc.

At which certain next court held, scilt., on December 9 [December 9, 1607] at the common hall of the borough abovesaid before the aforementioned bailiffs according to the custom abovesaid came the abovesaid Thomas Varnam by his abovesaid attorney and defends force and injury when etc. And by protesting says that the abovesaid Thomas Papworthe did not sell or deliver to the aforementioned Ralph Claye the abovesaid 7 tods of wool at the request and instance of the aforementioned Thomas Varnam, nevertheless for a plea the aforementioned Thomas Varnam says that he did not undertake in the manner and form as the abovesaid Thomas Papworth narrated against him. And of this he puts himself on the countryside. And the abovesaid Thomas Papworthe similarly.

And at that court came the abovesaid Thomas Papworthe by his abovesaid attorney and sought process to make to come 12 prudent and lawful men of his bailiwick that they be at the next court to make a certain jury of the countryside between the abovesaid parties to be held, scilt., on December 22 at the common hall of the abovesaid borough before the aforementioned bailiffs of that borough according to the custom abovesaid and that he have their names and that precept, the tenor of which follows in these words:

James by the grace of God king of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., to William Jaye serjeant at mace and minister of the court there. We order you that you make to come 12 prudent and lawful men of your bailiwick that they be at the next court to be held at the common hall before our bailiffs of the borough at Huntingdon abovesaid, scilt., on December 22 next to come by whom the truth of the matter can better be known and who touch neither Thomas Papworthe plaintiff nor Thomas Varnam defendant by any affinity to make a certain jury of the countryside between the abovesaid parties concerning a plea of trespass on the case, because both the same Thomas Papworthe and the abovesaid Thomas Varnam between whom thereof is [IMG 2746] a contention have put themselves on that jury, and have there this writ and the names of the jurors. Tested George Lambe and William Witlesey our bailiffs of our borough of Huntingdon December 9 in the 5^th year of our reign of England, France, and Ireland and the 41^st of Scotland [December 9, 1607].

At which certain court the serjeant returned that the execution of that writ appears in a certain panel annexed to this writ, viz., that he summoned George Midlam, Lawrence Rigges, Oliver Hurland, George Watson, Thomas Phillipps, Phillip Pilkington, John Abbott, Richard Wemington, Richard Loddon, Richard Bolton, John Laxton, John Peacocke, John Guide, Thomas Jaye, Charles Rigg, James Bolton, Thomas Smythe, Robert Feilde, Edward Thorpe, Edward Stockwell, Henry Handishe, William Watson, Richard Daye, William Morris. And because the abovesaid jurors made a default and did not appear at the same court abovesaid Thomas Papworthe by his abovesaid attorney came and sought process for having the bodies of all and singular the jurors before named. Therefore according to the custom of that borough it is ordered to the said serjeant at mace that he attach each of the abovesaid jurors by pledge that they be at the next court held at the common hall before our aforementioned bailiffs of the borough of Huntingdon, scilt., January 7 [January 7, 1608].

At which certain court the serjeant returned that each of the jurors were attached by pledge, and at the same court held, scilt., January 7 [January 7, 1608] before our aforementioned bailiffs of the borough of Huntingdon at the common hall, 12 of the abovesaid jurors, viz., George Midlam, George Watson, Thomas Phillipps, Richard Wemington, John Laxton, John Peacocke, Thomas Jaye, Thomas Smythe, Edward Thorpe, Edward Stockwell, William Watson, Robert Feilde, appeared, who, sworn and impaneled, say for the plaintiff and assess the damages at £7 2s and for the outlays and costs at 2d. Therefore judgment is entered, but stay execution until the next court to be held, viz., January 19 [January 19, 1608] before our aforementioned bailiffs of our borough of Huntingdon.

At which certain court came the abovesaid Thomas Papworthe by his abovesaid attorney and sought execution against the abovesaid Thomas Varnam of the abovesaid damages and costs according to the form of the recovery abovesaid to be adjudicated to him. Therefore it is considered by the court that the abovesaid Thomas Papworthe have execution against the aforementioned Thomas Varnam concerning the damages and costs abovesaid. Thereon the abovesaid Thomas Papworthe by his abovesaid attorney seeks the process of capias ad satisfaciendum against the aforementioned Thomas Varnam to be directed to the serjeant at mace of the abovesaid borough and minister of this court for the execution of the abovesaid judgment. And it is granted to him, returnable at the next court to be held before the aforementioned George Lambe and William Witlesey bailiffs of the abovesaid borough of Huntingdon at the common hall, scilt., February 19 next to come, in testimony of which matter we the aforementioned George Lambe and William Witlesey bailiffs of the abovesaid borough have affixed our seals, given February 6 in the 5^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.,[IMG 2747] and the 41^st of Scotland.

Afterwards, scilt., on the Wednesday next after the quindene of Easter then next following before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Thomas Varnam by John Grene his attorney. And he says that in the record and process abovesaid as well as in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment it was manifestly erred,

firstly, viz., in this that by the abovesaid record it appears that on the levying of the complaint of the aforementioned Thomas Papworth against the same Thomas Varnam in the plea of trespass on the case and on the petition of the same Thomas Papworth of process against the same Thomas Varnam thereon to be made by consideration of the abovesaid court a precept of capias was first adjudicated against the same Thomas Varnam, whereas by the law of the land a precept of attachment (in the nature of a pone at common law) in this case ought to have been adjudicated, and thereon the serjeant at mace ought to have returned that the same Thomas Varnam had nothing within the liberty of the abovesaid town before any precept of capias was adjudicated against him. Therefore for default of sufficient original process in this part it was manifestly erred.

It was erred also in this that in the abovesaid record (after the adjudication of the abovesaid precept of capias) at each court following (the abovesaid plea pending) it is not shown that the same court was the court of the lord king as it ought to have been shown, and therefore in this it was manifestly erred.

Likewise it was erred in this, whereas by the abovesaid record it appears that the abovesaid Thomas Papworth had a day for narrating from the abovesaid court held on October 29 until the next court, nevertheless in this that at the next court the same Thomas Papworth did not narrate in any form of right nor pretending to narrate did not show by that pretended narration in certain at which time or place the abovesaid Thomas Varnam made the instance and request to the aforementioned Thomas Papworth that he sell and deliver to the aforementioned Ralph Clay named in the abovesaid narration 7 tods of wool nor at which day or place the same Thomas Papworth sold and delivered the same 7 tods of wool to the aforementioned Ralph, nor narrated in certain any day or place of his own request made to the aforementioned Thomas Varnam for the payment abovesaid of £7 2s specified in the pretended narration abovesaid above as by law he ought to show and narrate, and therefore in this it was erred.

Moreover, it was erred in this that neither the precept of venire facias and the execution and return thereof nor the precept of habeas corpus juratorum and the execution and return there is sufficient in law, but completely void and erroneous, nor did the jurors impaneled thereof ever give any verdict at all sufficient in law to warrant the abovesaid judgment rendered in the abovesaid form, and therefore that judgment thus rendered is void and erroneous in law.

And finally it was erred in this that in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment it is not adjudicated whether the abovesaid Thomas Varnam was in mercy or not as by the law of the land it ought to have been adjudicated, and therefore in this it was manifestly erred and the abovesaid judgment was wholly vicious and void in law.

And the same Thomas Varnam seeks the lord king’s writ to warn the aforementioned Thomas Papworth to be before the lord king to hear the record and process abovesaid. And it is granted to him.