William Boyer v. Henry Sambell
Error in king's bench (Michaelmas term, 1607) on an action in the court of Penryn, Cornwall
AALT images for Boyer v. Sambell This action of error on a suit of debt in the court of Penryn yielded a
spare record with rapid process, perhaps the reason no actual process
was necessary in king’s bench. The lord king sent to the seneschal and provost of his borough of Penryn
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 seneschal and provost of
his borough of Penryn, greetings. Because in the record and
process and also in the rendering of the judgment of a plea that was
before you in our court of the borough abovesaid without our writ
according to the custom of the same borough between William
Boyer and Henry Sambell concerning a debt of £42 8d6d that the
same William exacts from 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 manner and full and swift
justice to be done to the abovesaid parties in this part, order you
that if judgment has been rendered thereof then send distinctly and
openly the abovesaid record and process together with everything
touching them to us under your seals, and this writ, so that we have
them on the quindene of Martinmas wherever we shall then 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 October 26 in the 5th year of our reign of England,
France, and Ireland and the 41st of Scotland.Fyttz. The record and process of which mention is made in the abovesaid writ
follow in these words: Penryn Borough. The court of the borough abovesaid held there
February 18 in the 4th year of the reign of our Lord James now king
of England, and the 40th of Scotland [February 18, 1607]. William Boyer complains against Henry Sambell in a plea of debt.
The abovesaid defendant was attached by John Edie and John
Reyle and for default of security was committed to the prison of
the abovesaid borough. William Boyer complains against Henry
Sambell in a plea of debt. Pledges to prosecute: John Doo, Richard
Roo. And wherefore the same plaintiff in his proper person comes,
complains, and says that, whereas the abovesaid defendant here at
Penryn Borough within etc., on November 10 in the 3rd year of the
reign of our Lord James now king of England, France, and Ireland
and the 40th of Scotland [November 10, 1605] bought and had from
the same plaintiff 700 pounds of soap, in English seven hundred
poundes weight of sope for the sum of £21 of the good and lawful
money of England to be paid to the same plaintiff completely when
the same defendant should be asked thereof, and whereas also the
abovesaid defendant here at Penryn borough abovesaid on January
29 in the 4th year of the reign of the said our Lord James now king
of England, France, and Ireland and the 40th of Scotland [January
29, 1607] had accounted together with the aforementioned plaintiff
of and on divers sums of money owed to the same plaintiff by the
same defendant beforehand and on the abovesaid account the
abovesaid defendant then and there was found in arrears and
acknowledged himself to owe the same plaintiff £21 8s6d of the
good and lawful money of England to be paid to the same plaintiff
completely when etc., which certain separate sums in all amount to
the abovesaid sum of £42 8s6d, nevertheless the abovesaid
defendant although often etc., not yet etc., and he owes etc., to the
damage of the abovesaid plaintiff at £10. And thereof he produces
suit. On February 18 in the year of the lord 1606 it was ordered by the
court that the abovesaid John Edye and John Reyle should proffer
here in the abovesaid court Henry Sambell to answer the abovesaid
plaintiff in the abovesaid plea. And the abovesaid John Edye and
John Reyle return at this court that the abovesaid defendant did not
want to appear but refused that. And because the abovesaid
defendant, being exacted three times, did not come, therefore he is
condemned. Wherefore it is granted by the court that the
abovesaid plaintiff recover against the abovesaid defendant the
abovesaid debt of £42 8s6d, for damages 2s, and for expenses of
court 11s, and the abovesaid defendant now is detained in prison
until he satisfy the plaintiff of his abovesaid recovery and there he
languishes in extremis. [No process in king’s bench is enrolled.]
0852