John Cooke v. George Huntington administrator, court of king's bench, 1607 AND

John Cooke v. John Baylys, court of king's bench, 1607

          This pair of cases concerned the same marriage negotiation. Neither of the cases indicates that the initial discussion involved a third party, so that the lesson for historians is that the cases retail the context relevant for the particular claim, not a full social description of the happenings. Here the father of the bride promised to pay the groom 45 pounds and the bride’s brother-in-law promised a further 5 pounds. Both commitments clearly took place at the same time, and the marriage then followed after six months.

John Cooke v. George Huntington administrator of John Huntington, court of king’s bench, 1607

[the case John Cooke v. George Huntington administrator now continues]

Worcestershire. Memorandum that formerly, scilt., in the term of St. Hilary last past before the lord king at Westminster came John Cooke by William Symondes his attorney and proffered here in the court of the said lord king then there his certain bill against George Huntington administrator of all and singular the goods and chattels, rights and credits that were of John Huntington his father deceased in custody of the marshal etc., concerning a plea of trespass on the case, and there are pledges to prosecute, scilt., John Doo and Richard Roo, which certain bill follows in these words:

[there was a colloquium between John Cooke and John Huntington about a marriage between John Cooke and Mary the daughter of John Huntington]

Worcestershire. John Cooke complains of George Huntington administrator of all and singular the goods and chattels, rights and credits that were of John Huntington his father deceased in custody of the marshal of the marshalsea of the lord king being before the lord king for this, viz., that, whereas on January 20 in the first year of the reign of the lord James now king of England at Feckenham in the abovesaid county a certain colloquium was had and moved between that John Cooke and the aforementioned John Huntington in his life of, for, and concerning the marriage between that John Cooke and a certain Mary the natural and legitimate daughter of the abovesaid John Huntington then thereafter to be had and solemnized,

[John Huntington promised to pay John Cooke 45 pounds after the marriage]

the abovesaid John Huntington then and there in his life, in consideration that the abovesaid John Cooke would take as his wife the abovesaid Mary, undertook on himself and then and there faithfully promised the aforementioned John Cooke that he the same John Huntington would want to pay and content the same John Cooke 45 pounds of the lawful money of England whenever to this he should be asked by the abovesaid John Cooke after the abovesaid marriage to be had and solemnized in the abovesaid form,

[John Cooke, relying on that promise, married Mary about six months later]

and the same John Cooke in fact says that he the same John, relying on the promise and undertaking of the abovesaid John Huntington in his life made in this part, afterwards, scilt., on the last day of July in the second year of the reign of the Lord James now king of England at Feckenham abovesaid in the abovesaid county took the abovesaid Mary as his wife and espoused her according to the ecclesiastical laws of this realm of England then and there,

[but neither John Huntington while alive nor George Huntington (John Huntington’s administrator) paid John Cooke the 45 pounds]

nevertheless, the abovesaid John Huntington in his life not at all caring for his promise and undertaking abovesaid but scheming and fraudulently intending hotly and craftily to deceive and defraud the abovesaid John Cooke in this part, and the abovesaid George Huntington after the death of the abovesaid John Huntington (to whose hands after the death of the same John came at Feckenham divers goods and chattels that were the same John Huntington’s at the time of his death sufficient to pay both to the same John Cooke the abovesaid 45 pounds and all John Huntington’s other debts and are still in his hands) similarly not at all caring for the promise and undertaking of the abovesaid John Huntington thus made as set out above but scheming in this part hotly and craftily to deceive and defraud that John Cooke, have still not paid the abovesaid 45 pounds nor have either of them although to this the abovesaid John Huntington in his life afterwards, scilt., on November 1 in the second year abovesaid at Feckenham abovesaid in the abovesaid county, he was asked thereof by that John Cooke, and although to this the abovesaid George after the death of the abovesaid John Huntington, scilt., on November 1 in the fourth year of the reign of the Lord James now king of England at Feckenham abovesaid in the abovesaid county was similarly asked by the abovesaid John Cooke, but the abovesaid John Huntington in his life and the abovesaid George after the death of the that John Huntington completely refused to pay them to him and the abovesaid George still refuses to pay those 45 pounds to the same John Cooke, wherefore the same John Cooke says that he is worse off and has damages to the value of 100 pounds, and thereof he produces suit etc.

[George Huntington denies that John Huntington made the undertaking as alleged; jury summons; no verdict recorded]

And now at this day, scilt., the Friday next after the morrow of Holy Trinity in that same term, until which day the abovesaid George Huntington had licence to emparl at that bill and then to answer, before the lord king at Westminster come both the abovesaid John Cooke by his attorney abovesaid and the abovesaid George Huntington by Stephen Bunce his attorney, and the same George defends force and injury when etc., and says that the abovesaid John Huntington in his life did not undertake on himself in the mode and form as the abovesaid John Cooke above against the aforementioned George complains, and of this he puts himself on the countryside. And the abovesaid John Cooke similarly etc. Therefore let come thereof a jury before the lord king at Westminster on the Tuesday next after the third week of Holy Trinity and who neither etc., to recognize etc., because both etc. The same day is given to the parties abovesaid there etc.

          John Cooke v. John Baylys

[the case John Cooke v. John Baylys now continues]

Worcestershire. Memorandum that formerly, scilt., in the Easter term last past before the lord king at Westminster came John Cooke by William Symondes his attorney and proffered here in the court of the said lord king then there his certain bill against John Baylys in custody of the marshal etc., concerning a plea of trespass on the case, and there are pledges to prosecute, scilt., John Doo and Richard Roo, which certain bill follows in these words:

[there was a colloquium between John Cooke and John Baylys concerning a marriage between John Cooke and Mary who was the daughter of John Huntington and also the sister of Eleanor the wife of John Baylys]

Worcestershire. John Cooke complains of John Baylys in the custody of the marshal of the marshalsea of the lord king being before the king himself for this, viz., that, whereas on January 20 in the first year of the reign of the Lord James now king of England at Feckenham in the abovesaid county a certain colloquium was had and moved between that John Cooke and the aforementioned John Baylys of, for, and concerning the marriage between that John Cooke and a certain Mary daughter of a certain John Huntington and the sister of Eleanor the wife of John Baylys then thenceforth to be had and solemnized,

[John Baylys promised to pay John Cooke 5 pounds after the marriage]

the abovesaid John Baylys then and there, in consideration that the abovesaid John Cooke would take as his wife the abovesaid Mary, undertook on himself and faithfully promised the aforementioned John Cooke then and there that he the same John Baylys would want well and faithfully to pay and content 5 pounds of the lawful money of England to the same John Cooke whenever to this he was asked by the abovesaid John Cooke after the abovesaid marriage to be had and solemnized in the abovesaid form,

[John Cooke, relying on that promise, married Mary about six months later]

and that John Cooke in fact says that he the same John, relying on the promise and undertaking of the abovesaid John Baylys made in this part, afterwards, scilt., on the last day of July in the second year of the reign of the Lord James now king of England, at Feckenham abovesaid in the county abovesaid took Mary as his wife and espoused her according to the ecclesiastical laws of this realm of England then and there,

[John Baylys did not pay, whereby John Cooke is worse off]

nevertheless, the abovesaid John Baylys not at all caring for his abovesaid promise and undertaking but scheming and fraudulently intending hotly and craftily to deceive and defraud the abovesaid John Cooke in this part, has still not paid the abovesaid 5 pounds to the aforementioned John Cooke or otherwise contented for them in any way although to this the same John Baylys afterwards, scilt., on the last day of November in the fourth year of the reign of Lord James now king of England, at Feckenham abovesaid in the abovesaid county was asked by the abovesaid John Cooke, whereby the same John Cooke completely lost divers gains, benefits, and advantages that he could have had and gained with the abovesaid 5 pounds by buying and lawfully dealing if the abovesaid John Baylys had performed his abovesaid promise and undertaking, wherefore he says he is worse off and has damages to the value of 20 pounds and thereof he produces suit etc.

[John Baylys denies the undertake as alleged; issue is joined but no day is even assigned for the first jury summons]

And now at this day, scilt., on the Friday next after the morrow of Holy Trinity in this same term, until which day the abovesaid John Baylys had licence to emparl to this bill and then to answer etc., before the lord king at Westminster come both the abovesaid John Cooke by his attorney and the abovesaid John Baylys by Stephen Bunce his attorney, and the same John Baylys defends force and injury when etc., and says that he did not undertake on himself in the mode and form as the same John Cooke above complains against him, and of this he puts himself on the countryside. And the abovesaid John Cooke similarly. Therefore let come a jury thereof before the lord king at Westminster on the day [blank] next after [blank] and who neither etc., to recognize etc., because both etc. The same day is given to the parties abovesaid there etc.