Peter Gosnold v. John Roydon, court of king’s bench, 1607

This marriage arrangement was not made in a “colloquium,” but was rather a straightforward offer from John Roydon. The simple offer format probably relates to the fact the bride was not a relative but a servant of John Roydon. The status of the couple was further indicated by the form of the promise: four milk cows worth 8 pounds or 8 pounds in money at the groom’s election.

[the case Peter Gosnold v. John Roydon now continues]

Suffolk. Memorandum that formerly, scilt., in Easter term last past before the lord king at Westminster came Peter Gosnold by Edmund Kirke his attorney and proffered here in the court of the said lord king then there his certain bill against John Royden in the 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:

[John Roydon agreed to pay Peter 4 cows worth 8 pounds or 8 pounds when Peter married Suzanna Whiting, a servant of John]

Suffolk. Peter Gosnold complains of John Roydon in the custody of the marshal of the marshalsea of the lord king being before the king himself for this, viz., that, whereas the abovesaid John on September 8 in the second year of the reign of the Lord James now king of England at Halesworth in the abovesaid county, in consideration that the abovesaid Peter at the special instance and request of the same John Roydon would take as his wife a certain Suzanna Whitinge then a servant of that John Roydon, undertook on himself and faithfully promised to the same Peter then and there that he the same John Roydon would want well and faithfully to hand over and deliver four milk cows of a price of 8 pounds of the lawful money of England to the sole and proper work and use of the same Peter Gosnold when thereof by the same Peter he would be asked after the espousals between the same Peter and the abovesaid Suzanna or at the election of Peter otherwise would want well and faithfully to pay and content 8 pounds of the lawful money of England to the same Peter when thereof by the abovesaid Peter he would be asked after the espousals celebrated between the same Peter and Suzanna,

[Peter Gosnold, relying on that promise, married Suzanna four days later]

and the same Peter Gosnold in fact says that he the same Peter afterwards, scilt., on September 12 in the second year of the reign of the said Lord James now king of England abovesaid, at Halesworth abovesaid in the county abovesaid took as his wife the abovesaid Suzanna Whitinge according to the ecclesiastical laws of this realm of England,

[but John Roydon did not pay, whereby Peter is worse off]

nevertheless, the abovesaid John Roydon, not all caring for his abovesaid promise and undertaking but scheming and fraudulently intending hotly and craftily to deceive and defraud the same Peter in this part, has not yet paid the abovesaid 8 pounds to the same Peter according to the promise and undertaking of the same abovesaid John nor otherwise has contented him for the same up to this time, although the same John was asked by the same Peter to pay to the same Peter the abovesaid 8 pounds after the espousals celebrated between the same Peter Gosnold and the abovesaid Suzanna Whitinge, scilt., on December 1 in the third year of the reign of the said Lord James now king of England, at Halesworth abovesaid in the county abovesaid, whereby the same Peter completely lost all the benefit, gain, and profit that he could have had and gained with the abovesaid 8 pounds by buying, lawfully selling, and bargaining if the abovesaid John had performed and fulfilled his abovesaid promise and undertaking, wherefore he says that he is worse off and has damages to the value of 20 pounds, and thereof he produces suit etc.

[John Roydon denies that he undertook in the mode and form alleged; issue joined but the jury was not actually summoned]

And now at this day, scilt., on Friday next after the morrow of Holy Trinity this same term, until which day the abovesaid John Roydon had licence to emparl to the abovesaid bill and then to answer etc., before the king himself at Westminster come both the abovesaid Peter Gosnold by his abovesaid attorney and the abovesaid John Roydon by James Caston his attorney, and the same John defends force and injury when etc., and says that he did not undertake on himself in the mode and form as the abovesaid Peter above before against him counted, and of this he puts himself on the countryside. And the abovesaid Peter similarly. Therefore let come thereof a jury 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.