115 Cogan v Reynold

115 COGAN V REYNOLD

Henry Cogan, esq v John Reynold of the Precinct of the Tower, London

February - May 1636

Abstract

Cogan, the sub-controller of the Tower Mint, alleged in his libel that between September and November 1635, within the precinct of the Tower, Reynold had called him 'a base fellow, a cheating base fellow', which words were provocative of a duel. In proceedings on 7 May 1636 Sir Thomas Aylesbury, Sir Ralph Freeman and Sir William Parkhurst, all senior commissioners for Treasury affairs, were mentioned as arbiters, but according to Dr Duck the cause had not been settled. No further proceedings survive.

Initial proceedings

17/1g, Libel

The plaintiff's family had been gentry for over 300 years, while Reynold was a plebeian. Between September and November last within the precinct of the Tower, Reynold said to Cogan 'that I was a base fellow, a cheating base fellow, and he would prove it', which words were provocative of a duel.

Dated 11 February 1636.

Signed by Arthur Duck.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Duck alleged before Lord Maltravers on 7 May 1636 that the cause had still not been agreed. Sir Thomas Aylesbury, Sir Ralph Freeman and Sir William Parkhurst were mentioned as arbiters.

Notes

Aylesbury, Freeman and Parkhurst were listed in January 1636 along with senior treasury commissioners to regulate the new proclamation for gold and silver thread: CSP Dom. 1635-6 , p. 178.

Documents

• Initial proceedings
  • Libel: 17/1g (11 Feb 1636)
• Proceedings
  • Proceedings before Maltravers: 68C, fos. 74r-83v (7 May 1636)

People mentioned in the case

• Aylesbury, Thomas, knight
• Cogan, Henry, esq (also Coggan)
• Duck, Arthur, lawyer
• Freeman, Ralph, knight
• Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
• Parkhurst, William, knight
• Reynold, John

Places mentioned in the case

• London
  • Tower of London

Topics of the case

• allegation of cheating
• arbitration
• denial of gentility
• provocative of a duel