William Marshall v. Beatrice Marshall, court of king’s bench, 1607

The relationships in this case are not specified. The parties, obviously with few resources, all seem closely related. A decedent, just before his death, gave 20 sheep, a cow, and a mare to the plaintiff. The animals came into the possession of the defendant, plausibly the widow of the decedent and either the mother or step-mother of the plaintiff. Some time later the plaintiff promised that the defendant could use the animals until he married, and she promised that she would deliver the animals to him then. This situation makes sense if the plaintiff was not independent until he married and until then was living with the defendant.

[the case William Marshall v. Beatrice Marshall now continues]

Nottinghamshire. Memorandum that formerly, scilt., in Easter term last past, before the lord king at Westminster came William Marshall by Edward Aston his attorney and proffered here in the court of the said lord king then there his certain bill against Beatrice Marshall widow in the custody of the marshal etc., concerning a plea of trespass on the case, and there are pledges for prosecution, scilt., John Doo and Richard Roo, which certain bill follows in these words:

[Robert Marshall was possessed of 20 sheep, a cow, and a mare and gave them to William Marshall and then died, but the animals came into the hands of Beatrice Marshall]

Nottinghamshire. William Marshall complains of Beatrice Marshall widow in the custody of marshal of the marshalsea of the lord king being before the king himself for this, viz., that, whereas a certain Robert Marshall in his life, scilt., on October 1 in the thirty-ninth year of the Lady Elizabeth late queen of England, was possessed of and in 20 sheep, 1 cow, and 1 mare of the color bay as of his own goods and chattels, and thus being possessed thereof, the same Robert gave and delivered his goods and chattels and those things to the aforementioned William and afterwards there died, after whose death the goods and chattels abovesaid came into the hands and possession of the abovesaid Beatrice;

[five months later, William permitted Beatrice to retain the profit and use of the animals so that Beatrice would promise to deliver the animals to him when he married]

afterwards, on March 1 in the fortieth year of the reign of the said late queen at Sutton upon Trent in the abovesaid county, the abovesaid Beatrice, in consideration that the abovesaid William at the instance and request of the same William (sic) would permit the same Beatrice to have and enjoy the use and profit of the goods and chattels abovesaid from then until the day of the marriage of the abovesaid William, undertook on herself and then and there faithfully promised the same William that she the same Beatrice would want well and faithfully to deliver the abovesaid goods and chattels to the same William on the day of the marriage of the same William,

[William married more than a year and a half later, and, relying on Beatrice’s promise, promised that she could have the use of the animals until then]

and the William in fact says that the marriage of the same William was solemnized at Sutton upon Trent abovesaid on October 28 in the forty-first year of the reign of the said late queen, and that he, relying on the promise and undertaking of the abovesaid Beatrice and the instance and request of the same Beatrice, promised that the same Beatrice would have and enjoy the use and profit of the abovesaid goods and chattels until the said October 28,

[but Beatrice did not deliver the chattels as she had promised, whereby William is worse off]

nevertheless, the abovesaid Beatrice, not at all caring for her promise and undertaking abovesaid but scheming and fraudulently intending in this part hotly and craftily to deceive and defraud the same William of the abovesaid goods and chattels, did not at all deliver those goods and chattels to the same William according to her promise and undertaking nor did she otherwise content the same William up to this time, although to this she was often requested by the same William, whereby the same William completely lost all the profit and benefit that he could have had and gained with the abovesaid goods and chattels licitly by buying, selling, and bargaining, wherefore he says that he is worse off and has damages to the value of 40 pounds, and thereof he produces suit etc.

[Beatrice denied that she promised in the mode and form alleged; a jury is summoned]

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