William Norton and Katherine his wife v. Henry Chapman

     Norwich attorneys: Henry Chapman, Wiliam Edyley, Richard Rosse

     King's Bench error plaintiff's attorney: William Small

The lord king sent to the sheriffs of his city of Norwich 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 sheriffs of his city of Norwich, 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 city abovesaid without our writ according to the custom of the same city between William Norton and Katherine his wife and Henry Chapman concerning a certain trespass on the case inflicted on the same William and Katherine by the aforementioned Henry as it is said manifest error intervened to the grave damage of the same Henry as we have received from his complaint, we, wanting the error if any there was to be corrected in due form and full and speedy justice to be done to the abovesaid parties in this part, order you that if judgment thereof has been rendered then send the record and process of the abovesaid plea with everything touching them to us under your seals distinctly and openly and this writ, such that we have them at a month after Easter wherever then we shall be in England so that, the record and process abovesaid having been inspected, we may make to be done further 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 on March 9 in the 4^th year of our reign of England, France and Ireland and the 40^th of Scotland [March 9, 1607]. Adderley.

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

Pleas at the city of Norwich in the county of the city abovesaid in the lord king’s court of the Guildhall of the same city held at Norwich abovesaid in the guildhall of the abovesaid city before Thomas Blosse and John Shovell sheriffs of the same city of Norwich according to the use and custom of that city used and approved from time whereof the memory of man runs not to the contrary in the same and the liberties, privileges, and franchises granted to the citizens of the city by divers late kings of England and confirmed by the now lord king, on Saturday, viz., February 7 in the 4^th year of the reign of the lord James by the grace of God king of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., of of Scotland the 40^th [February 7, 1607].

At this court comes William Norton and Katherine his wife in their proper persons and complain against Henry Chapman concerning a plea of trespass on their case etc., and they found pledges to prosecute their complaint abovesaid, viz., John Doo and Richard Roo, and they seek process to be made for them thereof against the abovesaid Henry according to the custom of the said city of Norwich, and at this court according to the use and custom of the city of Norwich abovesaid and the liberties, privileges, and franchises of the abovesaid city used for the whole time abovesaid in the same it is ordered to Thomas Williams one of the serjeants of the said sheriffs and minister of the abovesaid court that he take the abovesaid Henry Chapman if etc., and him safely etc., such that he have his body before the aforementioned sheriff at the next court of the said lord king to be held on Wednesday, viz., February 11 next coming in the guildhall of the city abovesaid to answer the aforementioned William Norton and Katherine his wife concerning the abovesaid plea and to do that which the aforementioned now sheriffs at the said next court shall certify, and the same day is given to the aforementioned Henry here etc. And thereon the same William Norton and Katherine his wife put in their place Nicholas Emes their attorney against the abovesaid Henry Chapman concerning the abovesaid plea.

At which certain court of the said lord king of the Guildhall of the city of Norwich abovesaid held, viz., on Wednesday, viz., February 11 [February 11, 1607] here etc., come the abovesaid William Norton and Katherine his wife by their abovesaid attorney and offered themselves against the abovesaid Henry Chapman concerning the abovesaid plea. And the abovesaid serjeant etc., now attests here and returns that he by virtue of the abovesaid precept directed to him in the abovesaid form took the abovesaid Henry Chapman, whose body now he has here ready to answer the aforementioned William Norton and Katherine his wife concerning the abovesaid plea as it was ordered to him. Thereon here at the same court of the said lord king of the Guildhall of the city abovesaid held in the abovesaid guildhall before the aforementioned sheriffs on the said Wednesday, viz., February 11, according to the use and custom and the liberties, privileges, and franchises abovesaid the same Henry Chapman found for the aforementioned sheriffs mainpernors and pledges to stand to right in the abovesaid court in the abovesaid plea, viz., William Gowldinge and Richard Chambers citizens of the abovesaid city, who are present in the same court in their proper persons before the aforementioned sheriffs here at the request of the abovesaid Henry Chapman according to the use and custom and the abovesaid liberties, privileges, and franchises became mainpernors and pledges for the abovesaid Henry that the same Henry would stand to right in the same court here in the abovesaid plea from day to day at whatsoever day of pleas until the same plea be determined and judgment be rendered thereof according to the use and custom of the abovesaid city used and approved for the whole abovesaid time in the same, which certain custom is such that the defendant in whatsoever complaint in the abovesaid court of the lord king in the guildhall of the city of Norwich abovesaid affirmed by process on that complaint against this manner defendant adjudicated, taken, and personally appearing in the same court in the abovesaid complaint before he withdraw from the same court ought to find for the sheriff of the same city sufficient mainpernors and pledges to stand to right in the same court here in the same plea, viz., that he the same defendant will appear from day to day at each court of the lord king of the Guildhall of the abovesaid city to be held before the sheriffs of the abovesaid city until the same plea be determined and judgment thereof rendered and that he will stand to a judgment of the court to be rendered against this manner defendant in the same plea and that he will submit and surrender himself [to the execution] of that judgment if it happen that the judgment be rendered against this manner defendant in that plea, and if this manner defendant absent himself and not surrender to the execution of that judgment that then this manner mainpernors and pledges ought to undergo the execution of this manner judgment in like manner as he the same defendant ought to undergo the execution of this manner judgment if he had not absented and eloined himself from the same, and thereon this same Henry by mainpernors and pledges and according to the custom of the abovesaid city withdrew at bail etc., and thereon the same Henry Chapman put in his place William Edyley and Richard Rosse his attorneys jointly and severally against the abovesaid William Norton and Katherine his wife concerning the abovesaid plea. [IMG 6232]

Pleas at the city of Norwich in the county of the said city in the court of the lord king of the Guildhall of the abovesaid city held at Norwich abovesaid in the guildhall of the same city before the aforementioned Thomas Blosse and John Shovell sheriffs of the abovesaid city according to the use and custom of the abovesaid city used and approved in the same from time whereof the memory of man runs not to the contrary and the liberties, privileges, and franchises granted to the citizens of the said city by divers late kings of England and confirmed by the now lord king, on Wednesday, viz., on February 11 in the 4^th year of the reign of the lord James by the grace of God king of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith etc., and of Scotland the 40^th.

Henry Chapman was attached to answer William Norton and Katherine his wife concerning a plea of trespass on their case etc. And wherefore the same William and Katherine plaintiffs by Nicholas Emes their attorney complain of this that, whereas on April 1 in the 4^th year of our lord James now by the grace of God king of England and the 39^th of Scotland [April 1, 1606] the abovesaid defendant was indebted to the aforementioned Katherine while she was single in £40, and thus being indebted thereof the same defendant on the day and year abovesaid at Norwich abovesaid in the parish and ward abovesaid in consideration thereof undertook on himself and then and there faithfully promised the same Katherine to pay the aforementioned Katherine [heavy erasure] the abovesaid £10 [sic] when he should be asked thereof, and whereas also on May 4 in the 4^th year of the reign of the said lord James now king of England etc., and of Scotland the 39^th the abovesaid defendant was indebted to the aforementioned Katherine while she was single in £5 and thus being indebted thereof on the day and year abovesaid at Norwich in the abovesaid parish and ward in consideration thereof he undertook on himself and then and there faithfully promised to pay the aforementioned Katherine the abovesaid £5 when he should be asked thereof, and whereas also on May 10 in the 4^th year of the reign of the said lord James now king of England and of Scotland the 39^th the abovesaid defendant was indebted to the aforementioned Katherine while she was single in £7 and thus being indebted thereof the same defendant on the day and year abovesaid at Norwich abovesaid in the parish and ward abovesaid in consideration thereof undertook on himself and then and there faithfully promised to pay the aforementioned Katherine the abovesaid £7 when he should be thereof requested, nevertheless the abovesaid defendant little weighing his separate undertakings and promises and trying hotly and deceitfully to deceive and defraud the same Katherine while she was single and the abovesaid William and Katherine after espousals had and celebrated between them in this part did not pay the aforementioned Katherine while was single or the aforementioned William and Katherine after the espousals had and celebrated between them the abovesaid £40 nor the abovesaid £10 nor the abovesaid £5 nor the abovesaid £7 nor any parcel thereof although the same defendant afterwards, scilt., on January 11 in the 4^th year of the reign of the said lord James now king of England etc., and of Scotland the 40^th at Norwich abovesaid in the parish and ward abovesaid was thereof asked by the same plaintiffs according to his separate assumptions and promises, but he wholly refused to pay them to her and still refuses, wherefore the same plaintiffs say that they are worse off and have damages to the value of £100, and thereof they produce suit etc.

And the abovesaid defendant by William Edgley and Richard Rosse his attorneys jointly and severally come and defend force and injury when etc., and seeks license to emparl thereof [IMG 6233] here until the next court of the lord king of the Guildhall of the city of Norwich before the aforementioned sheriffs to be held on the Saturday, viz., February 14 next to come etc., and it is granted to him etc. And the same day is given to the aforementioned plaintiff here etc.

At which day here come both the abovesaid plaintiffs and the abovesaid defendant by their abovesaid attorneys, and thereon the same defendant seeks further license to emparl thereof until and to the next court of the lord king of the Guildhall of the city of Norwich to be held before the aforementioned sheriffs on the Saturday, viz., February 21 next to come etc., and it is granted to him etc. And the same day is given to the aforementioned plaintiff here etc.

Pleas at the city of Norwich in the county of the said city of the lord king of the Guildhall of the city abovesaid held at Norwich abovesaid in the Guildhall of the same city before Thomas Blosse and John Shovell sheriffs of the said city according to the use and custom of the said city used and approved in the same from time whereof the memory of man does not run to the contrary and the liberties, privileges and franchises granted to the citizens of the said city by divers late kings of England and confirmed by the now lord king on Saturday, viz., on February 21 in the 4^th year of the reign of the lord James by the grace of God king of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, and of Scotland the 40^th.

Henry Chapman was attached to answer William Norton and Katherine his wife concerning a plea of trespass on their case etc., and wherefore the same plaintiffs by Nicholas Emes their attorney complain of this that, whereas on April 1 in the 4^th year of the reign of our lord James by the grace of God now king of England etc., and of Scotland the 39^th the abovesaid defendant was indebted to the aforementioned Katherine while she was single in £40, and being thus thereof indebted the same defendant on the said day and year here at Norwich in the parish of St. Peter in the ward of Mancroft and within the jurisdiction of this court in consideration thereof undertook on himself and then and there faithfully promised to the same Katherine to pay the aforementioned Katherine the abovesaid £40 when he should be asked thereof, and whereas also on [IMG 4630] April 3 in the 4^th year of the reign of the said lord James now king of England etc., and of Scotland the 39^th the abovesaid defendant was indebted to the aforementioned Katherine while she was single in £10 and thus being indebted thereof the same defendant on the abovesaid day and year at Norwich abovesaid in the parish and ward abovesaid in consideration thereof undertook on himself and then and there faithfully promised the same Katherine to pay the aforementioned Katherine the abovesaid £10 when he should be asked thereof, and whereas also on May 4 in the 4^th year of the reign of the said lord James now king of England and of Scotland the 39^th the abovesaid defendant was indebted to the aforementioned Katherine while she was single in £5 and thus being indebted thereof the same defendant on the abovesaid day and year at Norwich abovesaid in the parish and ward abovesaid in consideration thereof undertook on himself and then and there faithfully promised the same Katherine to pay the aforementioned Katherine the abovesaid £5 when he should be asked thereof, and whereas also on May 10 in the 4^th year of the reign of the said lord James now king of England etc., and of Scotland the 39^th the abovesaid defendant was indebted to the aforementioned Katherine while she was single in £7, and thus being thereof indebted the same defendant on the abovesaid day and year at Norwich abovesaid in the abovesaid parish and ward in consideration thereof undertook on himself and then and there faithfully promised the same Katherine to pay the aforementioned Katherine the abovesaid £7 when he should be required thereof, nevertheless the abovesaid defendant little weighing his separate undertakings and promises abovesaid and trying hotly and deceitfully to deceive and defraud the same Katherine while she was single and the abovesaid William and Katherine after the espousals between them had and celebrated in this part did not pay the aforementioned Katherine while she was single or the aforementioned William and Katherine after the espousals had and celebrated between them the abovesaid £40 nor the abovesaid £10, nor the abovesaid £5 nor the abovesaid £7 nor any parcel thereof although the same defendant afterwards, scilt., on January 11 in the 4^th year of the reign of the said lord James now king of England etc., and of Scotland the 40^th at Norwich abovesaid in the abovesaid parish and ward was asked thereof by the same plaintiffs according to his abovesaid separate promises and undertakings, but he wholly refused to pay them to them and still refuses, wherefore the same plaintiffs say that they are worse off and have damages to the value of £100 and thereof they produce suit etc.

And the abovesaid defendant by William Edgley and Richard Rossey their attorneys jointly and severally comes and defends force and injury when etc., and they say that he did not undertake on himself in the manner and form as the same plaintiffs above narrated against him, and of this he puts himself on the countryside. And the abovesaid plaintiffs similarly etc. Therefore it is ordered to Thomas Williams serjeant at mace etc., that he should make to come here at the next court of the lord king of the Guildhall of the city of Norwich to be held on Wednesday, viz., February 25 next to come 12 etc., of the vicinity of the parish of St. Peter abovesaid by whom etc., and who neither etc., to recognize etc., because both etc. And the same day is given to the parties abovesaid here etc.

At which day here come both the abovesaid plaintiffs and the abovesaid defendant by their attorneys abovesaid and the abovesaid serjeant etc., now attests here and returns his precept directed to him in the abovesaid form together with a certain panel of names of the jurors abovesaid served and executed in all things as it was ordered to him, and no jurors empaneled thereof come, therefore according to the custom of the said city it is ordered to the aforementioned serjeant etc., that he have here at the next court of the lord king to be held on Saturday, viz., February 28 next to come here etc., the bodies of the abovesaid jurors to recognize in the abovesaid form. And the same day is given to the parties here etc.

At which day here come the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys and the abovesaid serjeant etc., now here attests and returns his precept directed to him in the abovesaid form together with a certain panel of names of the jurors abovesaid served and executed in all things as it was ordered to him, and the jurors thus empaneled thereof, certain of them come and certain of them do not come; thereon at the same court of the lord king held here etc., on the said Saturday, viz., February 28, it is ordered to the aforementioned serjeant etc., that he distrain the jurors abovesaid by all their lands and chattels such that he have their bodies here at the next court of the lord king of the Guildhall of the city of Norwich to be held on Wednesday, viz., March 4 next to come here etc., to recognize in the abovesaid form, and the same day is given to the parties abovesaid here etc.

At which day come the parties abovesaid by their abovesaid attorneys and the abovesaid serjeant etc., now attests and returns the precept abovesaid directed to him in the abovesaid form served and executed in all things as it was ordered to him. And the jurors thus empaneled thereof, viz., Lionel Claxton, John Bassam, William Staller, Edmund Burman, Robert Fideman, Samuel Bishoppe, John Everod, Luke Lawes, Martin Baker, [IMG 4631] Jake Dehenne, Nathaniel Remerton, and Thomas Payne exacted similarly come, who chosen, tried, and sworn to tell the truth in the premisses say on their oath that as to the abovesaid first undertaking above specified in the abovesaid narration of the plaintiff, the abovesaid defendant undertook on himself in the manner and form abovesaid as the same plaintiffs in the first above narrated against him, and they assess the damages of the same plaintiff by occasion thereof beyond their outlays and costs put out by them on their suit in this part at £40 5s, and the same jurors further say on their oath that as to the abovesaid second undertaking in the abovesaid narration of the plaintiff above specified the abovesaid defendant did not undertake on himself in the manner and form as the same plaintiffs above narrated against him, and the jurors say further on their oath that as to the third undertaking in the narration abovesaid of the plaintiff above specified the abovesaid defendant undertook on himself in the manner and form as the same plaintiffs in the third above narrated against him, and they assess the damages of the same plaintiffs by that occasion beyond their outlays and costs put out by them on their suit in this part at £5 1s and for outlays and costs by the abovesaid plaintiffs put on their suit in this part at 2s; and the same jurors further say on their oath that as to the abovesaid fourth undertaking in the abovesaid narration of the plaintiff above specified the abovesaid defendant did not undertake on himself in the manner and form as the same plaintiffs above narrated against him. And because the court of the said lord king here want to advise itself before it proceeds to render judgment in the abovesaid plea, day is given to the abovesaid parties here until the next court of the said lord king of the Guildhall of the city of Norwich to be held on the Saturday, viz., March 7 next to come here etc., to hear their judgment abovesaid.

At which certain court of the lord king on Saturday, viz., on March 7 above mentioned, here come the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys. Thereon the premisses having been seen and understood fully here by the court, it is considered by the court here as to the first and third undertakings whereof the abovesaid defendant was convicted by the abovesaid jurors in the abovesaid form that the abovesaid plaintiffs recover against the abovesaid defendant his abovesaid separate damages, which certain abovesaid separate damages in all amount to £45 8s assessed by the abovesaid jurors in the abovesaid form as well as 23s adjudicated by way of increment to the same plaintiffs at their request for their outlays and costs put out by them on their suit in this part etc., which certain damages amount in all to £46 11s. And the abovesaid defendant be in mercy etc. And also it is considered by the court that the abovesaid defendant as to the abovesaid second and fourth undertakings specified in the abovesaid narration whereof the abovesaid defendant was acquitted by the abovesaid jurors, as to the said second and fourth undertakings they take nothing by their complaint, but that they be thereof in mercy for their false claim, and that the abovesaid defendant as to the said second and fourth undertakings go thereof without day. And thereon the abovesaid Henry Chapman by his attorneys abovesaid comes and proffers and delivers to the aforementioned sheriffs a certain writ of the lord concerning the correction of error, the transcript of the said writ is sewn to this record. Therefore further process concerning the said plea etc. [IMG 6234]

Afterwards, scilt., on the Friday next after the Octaves of Holy Trinity this same term before the lord king at Westminster comes the abovesaid Henry Chapman by William Small his attorney, and says that in the record and process abovesaid and also in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment manifestly it was erred in this, viz.,

that whereas by the abovesaid record it appears that at the abovesaid court held at the city abovesaid on Saturday, viz., February 7 in the 4^th year of the reign of said now lord king it was ordered to Thomas Williams one of the serjeants at mace of the said sheriffs and minister of the court abovesaid that he take the abovesaid Henry Chapman to appear before the aforementioned sheriffs at the next court of the said lord king to be held on Wednesday, viz., February 11 then next following in the abovesaid guildhall to answer the aforementioned William Norton and Katherine concerning the abovesaid plea and day then was given by the abovesaid record there to the aforementioned Henry until the abovesaid next court when the same day ought to be given to the aforementioned William and Katherine, and thus by the abovesaid record it does not appear that the abovesaid William and Katherine had day given to them by the abovesaid court to appear at the abovesaid next court to be held at the city abovesaid on the abovesaid February 11 in the abovesaid guildhall to be made then on the appearance of the abovesaid Henry to prosecute against the aforementioned Henry in the abovesaid plea as it ought, therefore in this it was manifestly erred.

It was erred also in this that, whereas by the abovesaid record it appears that the abovesaid William and Katherine at the abovesaid court held at the abovesaid city in the guildhall of the same city before the same then sheriffs on the appearance of the abovesaid Henry by a bill they narrated against the same Henry in a plea of trespass on the case and that by the abovesaid record similarly it appears that the abovesaid Henry thence had license to emparl to that bill abovesaid until the court held there to be held on the same February 21 then next following, at which certain court the same William and Katherine appeared and on the appearance of the abovesaid Henry by one other bill they again narrated against the aforementioned Henry in the abovesaid plea of trespass on the case, whereas the abovesaid separate bills in the abovesaid form purchased against the abovesaid Henry were purchased for one and the same cause only and therefore in this likewise it was manifestly erred etc.

And he seeks the lord king’s writ to warn the aforementioned William and Katherine 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 that by prudent etc., he should make it known to the aforementioned William and Katherine that they be before the lord king on the Octaves of St. Michael then next following wherever etc., to hear the record and process abovesaid if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned Henry Chapman.

At which day before the lord king at Westminster come the abovesaid Henry Chapman by his attorney, and the sheriff did not send the writ thereof. Therefore as formerly it is ordered to the sheriffs that by prudent etc., of his bailiwick he should make it known to the aforementioned William and Katherine that they be before the lord king on the Octaves of St. Hilary then next following wherever etc., to hear the record and process abovesaid if etc., and further etc. The same day is given to the aforementioned Henry etc. [IMG 6235] At which day before the lord king at Westminster come the abovesaid Henry Chapman by his attorney abovesaid. And the sheriffs return that by virtue of the abovesaid writ directed thereof to them by Jerome Harvye and John Wake prudent and lawful men of their bailiwick they made it to be known to the aforementioned William Norton and Katherine that they should be before the lord king at the day and place contained in the said writ as it was ordered to them to hear the record and process abovesaid if etc., and further etc., which certain William and Katherine by the warning made to them by Robert Grene their attorney come.

         Thereon the abovesaid Henry Chapman 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 by him alleged in the form abovesaid, and he seeks that the abovesaid judgment on account of the abovesaid errors and others being in the abovesaid record and process be revoked and annulled and completely be had for null and that the abovesaid William and Katherine be returned to the abovesaid errors etc.

         And the abovesaid William and Katherine say that neither in the record and process abovesaid nor in the rendering of the abovesaid judgment was it erred in anything, and they ask similarly that the court of the lord king proceed here to the examination both of the record and process abovesaid and the matters abovesaid for any errors assigned, but because the court of the lord king here is not yet advised concerning rendering their judgment of and on the premisses, day is given thereof to the parties abovesaid before the lord king until the 15^th day after Easter wherever etc., to hear their judgment of and on the premisses because the court of the lord king here is not yet thereof etc.

         At which day before the lord king at Westminster come the parties abovesaid by their attorneys abovesaid and because the court of the lord king here is not yet advised to render their judgment of and on the premisses, day is given further to the parties abovesaid before the lord king until the morrow of Holy Trinity wherever etc., to hear their judgment of and on the premisses because the court of the lord king here thereof not yet etc.

         At which day before the lord king at Westminster come the parties abovesaid by their attorneys abovesaid and because the court of the lord king here is not yet advised to render their judgment of and on the premisses, day is given further to the abovesaid parties before the lord king until the Octaves of St. Michael wherever etc., to hear their judgment of and on the premisses because the court of the lord king here thereof not yet etc.

         At which day before the lord king at Westminster come the parties abovesaid by their abovesaid attorneys, and because the court of the lord king here is not yet advised to render their judgment of and on the premisses, day is given further to the abovesaid parties before the lord king until the Octaves of St. Hilary wherever etc., to hear their judgment of and on the premisses because the court of the lord king here thereof not yet etc.