Elizabeth Borde v. Benjamin Dennam, court of king’s bench, 1607
London. Memorandum that formerly, scilt., in Hilary term last past before the lord king at Westminster came Elizabeth Borde widow by Edward Bawtre her attorney and proffered here in the lord king’s court then there her certain bill against Benjamin Dennam in custody of the marshal etc., concerning a plea of trespass on the case, and there are pledges of prosecution, scilt., John Doo and Richard Roo. Which certain bill follows in these words:
London. Elizabeth Borde widow complains of Benjamin Dennam being in the custody of the marshal of the lord king’s marshalsea before the king himself for this, viz., that,
[Elizabeth’s pure life and untarnished reputation leading to a probable good marriage]
whereas the abovesaid Elizabeth was from the time of her birth a true, chaste, and honest liege of the Lady Elizabeth late queen of England and now of the said Lord King and lived and continued her life true, chaste, incorrupt, and immaculate without any stain of an unchaste or light life or gesture or suspicion of them, wholly intact, immaculate, spotless and free for the whole abovesaid time, always desiring, embracing, and exercising every kind of modesty, sincerity, probity, and honesty, by pretext of which not only did the same Elizabeth not unworthily gain for herself in the great favor and benevolence of divers honorable and venerable persons but also divers honest men of excellent reputation and singular credit offered to take to wife the same Elizabeth to themselves on account of her pure, immaculate, and incorrupt conversations and enthusiastically sought to marry the same Elizabeth,
[the nearly-completed colloquium for marriage between George Smyth and Elizabeth]
and whereas also a certain George Smyth armiger a man of venerable and laudable conversation and eminent credit on June 20 in the 4th year of the reign of James now king of England greatly sought and desired the abovesaid Elizabeth to be married and joined to himself, and he had a colloquium for the conclusion of that marriage with her abovesaid relatives and friends and with the same Elizabeth, and that marriage was then nearly concluded and agreed, whereby the same Elizabeth for a brief time then afterwards was to be put and preferred in a great degree of seeming happiness,
[Benjamin Dennam defamed her by calling her a whore with two bastard children, by force of which she was defamed and the colloquium for marriage was stopped]
the abovesaid Benjamin, knowing the premises to have been most true, vehemently jealous of the same Elizabeth’s happiness and preferment and maliciously scheming totally to deprive that Elizabeth not only of her good name, fame, credence, and reputation but also wholly to impede and disturb the abovesaid marriage with the abovesaid George Smith, and to cause the same Elizabeth to come into extreme discredit among the abovesaid honorable, venerable, and honest persons having faith and good opinion in the same Elizabeth and to take away and deprive her of all her preferment in the abovesaid marriage, on October 20 in the 4th year abovesaid [1606] at London, viz., in the parish of the Blessed Mary of the Arches in the London ward of Cheap said, asserted, and published these false, feigned, and scandalous, opprobrious English words following concerning the aforementioned Elizabeth in the presence and hearing of divers subjects of the said now lord king to the same Elizabeth notoriously, falsely, and maliciously, clearly, publicly, and openly, viz., “Thou (meaning the abovesaid Elizabeth now complainant) are a filthie whore and common whore and I (meaning the abovesaid Benjamin now defendant) will prove thee (meaning the abovesaid Elizabeth now complainant) a common whore for thou (meaning the abovesaid Elizabeth now complainant) hast had two bastardes.” By pretext of the saying and pronouncing of which false and scandalous English words the same Elizabeth not only fell into great shame and scandal of the stain and the wicked crime of incontinence and unchasteness among the abovesaid honorable, venerable persons and her own other neighbors and faithful subjects of the said now lord king with whom the same Elizabeth had been in great favor, credit, and esteem before then, as the same Elizabeth was had and reputed with the said honorable and venerable persons and others the honest subjects of the said now lord king as a great whore and a woman of the abovesaid stain of the related crime after the abovesaid publication of the abovesaid English words, but also by occasion of the saying of the abovesaid English words the abovesaid George Smyth wholly refused to take the same Elizabeth as his wife and totally stopped it, and all other persons subjects of the said now lord king men of good esteem and credit who were accustomed or intended to have access to the same Elizabeth to discuss matrimony and who with great fervor and love had desired or intended to desire to be joined to the same praiseworthy Elizabeth by the conjugal bond refuse and diminish the company of the same Elizabeth, whereby the same Elizabeth had totally been despoiled of and lost all her credit, esteem, and preferment, wherefore the same Elizabeth says that she is worse off and has damages to the value of £1,000, and thereof she produces suit etc.
[Dennam pleads that he is not guilty, and jury is summoned]
And now at this day, scilt., Friday after the octaves of St. Michael in this same term until which day the abovesaid Benjamin had license to emparl to the abovesaid bill and then to respond etc., before the lord king at Westminster come both the abovesaid Elizabeth by her abovesaid attorney and the abovesaid Benjamin by James Tetlowe her attorney. And the same Benjamin defends force and injury when etc., and says that he is not guilty thereof, and of this he puts himself on the countryside; and the abovesaid Elizabeth similarly. Therefore let come thereof a jury before the lord king at Westminster on Monday next after the feast of St. Hilary, and who neither etc., to recognize etc., because both etc. The same day is given to the abovesaid parties there etc.
[jury process]
Afterwards, process thereof having continued between the abovesaid parties concerning the abovesaid plea by juries put into respite thereof between them before the lord king at Westminster until the Monday next after the third week of Holy Trinity then next following unless the lord king’s beloved and faithful Thomas Flemynge knight chief justice of the lord kind assigned to hold pleas in the same lord king’s court before the king himself before then on Saturday next after the quindene of Holy Trinity at the London Guildhall come by form of the statute etc., for default of the jurors etc. At which day before the lord king at Westminster come the abovesaid parties by their abovesaid attorneys, and the aforementioned chief justice before whom etc., sent here his record had before him in these words:
[the jury finds that Dennam defamed her as alleged, but that George Smyth had never intended to marry Elizabeth nor had the colloquium to marry her. Judgment is adjourned for a year and a half and never recorded]
Afterwards on the within-contained day and place before Thomas Fleming knight chief justice within-written associating to himself William Prye by form of the statute etc., came both the within-said Elizabeth Borde and the within-named Benjamin Dennam by their within-contained attorneys, and the jurors of the that jury, whereof mentioned is made within, were exacted and certain of them came and certain of them did not come as appears in the panel annexed to this record. And the jurors of that jury now appearing, viz., William Chapman, John Partridge, Thomas Withers, Thomas Holte, John Cason, John Pasmore, Robert Hayes, William Lea, Edward Erby, and Hilary Turner are sworn into that jury. And because the rest of the jurors of the same jury did not appear, therefore others from those standing around chosen by the sheriff of London for this at the request of the abovesaid Elizabeth Borde and by the order of the abovesaid chief justice de novo are appointed, whose names are sewn to the abovesaid panel according to the form of the statute published and provided in this manner case. Which certain jurors thus de novo appointed now appearing, viz., Thomas Breese and George Hill exacted similarly come and are sworn into the abovesaid jury, who, to tell the truth concerning the within-contained together with the other abovesaid jurors previously empaneled and sworn, chosen, tried, and sworn, say on their oath that the abovesaid Benjamin Dennam falsely, maliciously, clearly, publicly, and openly said, asserted, and published the false, scandalous, and opprobrious English words mentioned in the within-written narration to the aforementioned Elizabeth in the presence and hearing of divers the said now lord king’s subjects, viz., “thou (meaning the abovesaid Elizabeth) arte a filthye whore and a common whore and I (meaning the abovesaid Benjamin) will prove the (meaning the abovesaid Elizabeth) a common whore for thou (meaning the abovesaid Elizabeth) hast had two basterdes” in the manner and form as the abovesaid Elizabeth within narrated against the same Benjamin. And the abovesaid jurors on their oath further say that the within-said George Smyth never sought nor desired the abovesaid Elizabeth to be joined and married to him in the manner and form as alleged in the abovesaid narration nor ever had with her a colloquium on a marriage to be had between them. And the abovesaid jurors ask the advise and discretion of the lord king’s court thereof being before the king himself. And if on the whole matter in the form abovesaid it shall seem to the said lord king’s court here it should be adjudicated for the complainant, then the abovesaid jurors say on their oath for the complainant and assess the damages of that Elizabeth by occasion of the trespass within-written beyond her outlays and costs put out by her on her suit in this part at £20, and for her outlays and costs at 53 shillings and 8 pence. And if on the whole abovesaid matter it shall seem to the said lord king’s court here to adjudicate for the defendant, then the same jurors say on their abovesaid oath for the defendant. And because the lord king’s court here is not advised still to render their judgment of and on the premises, day is given to the abovesaid parties before the lord king at Wesminster until the Monday next after the octaves of St. Michael to hear their judgment thereof, because the lord king’s court here is still thereof (not advised etc.) [And in the same way the parties were given day thereafter into the succeeding Hilary, Easter, Trinity, Michaelmas, and finally Hilary terms without any judgment recorded.]