This free content was Born digital and sponsored by AHRC and University of Birmingham. CC-NC-BY.
474 OFFICE OF THE JUDGE V ROGERS
Office of the Judge v Richard Rogers of Allensmore, co. Hereford, gent
This was a cause of office against Rogers for obstructing Richard Gardener's attempted arrest of John Quarrell of Didley, Hereford, at Quarrell's house in August-September 1639. Quarrell had been summoned to answer a charge in the Court of Chivalry brought against him by John Morgan of the Wayne Green, Monmouth, gent.
Rogers and others were charged with having assaulted Gardener with swords or truncheons, preventing him from executing his warrant, calling him 'a base fellow and a bumme bailiffe', and saying that they cared not for 'a piece of wax or any law business whatsoever'. When Gardener returned in December or January 1640 with a warrant to arrest Rogers and the rest, Rogers told him that 'all the fetches and wares of our court was but to get money out of men', and warned his accomplices to get away. Rogers allegedly added that he 'cared not a pinne' if the business cost him £20 and 'that he hoped shortly to see our court putt downe'. No further proceedings survive, but by January 1640 Morgan had also commenced an action against Rogers [see cause 441].
1. 'There was a suite commenced and begun in our honorable Court Militarie in or about Easter term in the yeare 1639 by one John Morgan of the Waine, in the county of Monmouth, gent, against one John Quarrell of Didley in the parish of St Devorax in the county of Hereford; and John Quarrell for his contempt in not appearing was decreed to be attached'.
2. 'One Richard Gardener, on some other mandatory of our court... did, about the month of August or September last past, come into the county of Hereford with an attachment under the seale of our court with a purpose and intent to have arrested and attached John Quarrell for his contempt. and repairing to the house of John Quarrell in Didley, and hearing that John Quarrell was with others in a lower roome of the house, knocked at the door of the house with an intent to have spoken with John Quarrell. And that you, Richard Rogers, together with Hercules Bascerville, John Morgan, yeoman, George Quarrell and John Quarrell and divers others, whose names are not yet knowne, being then in the lower roome and knowing that it was the mandatory of our court that was come thither to the end and intent aforesaid, yet notwithstanding refused to open the door; neither would you permit him to speake with John Quarrell.'
3. 'Not long after our said mandatory coming againe to the house and desiring to speake againe with John Quarrell, or any other on his behalf, you, Richard Rogers and the rest that were then present with you (whose names we require you particularly to express), came all out against our mandatory with swords and truncheons in your hands, which our mandatory perceiving charged you and all the rest then present in the king's Majesty's name to keep the peace; and told you withal that he came about the king's business with a warrant out of our honorable court to attach and apprehend John Quarrell, and charged you and all the rest then present to be aiding and assisting to him. Whereupon, you Richard Rogers, and the rest then present with you, cried out that our mandatory was a base fellow and a bumme bailiffe, and that you and they would defend him John Quarrell, saying further what cared you, or either of you, for a piece of wax or any law business whatsoever. And our mandatory thereupon retiring back to save himself from Richard Rogers and the rest, some or one of you followed him and divers times struck at him, and thrust him with your truncheons against the staple of the dore, and divers times following and pursuing him told him they would make him eate; and at last in a scoffing manner bad him go into the house if he would for he saw what entertainment he should have, by meanes of which evell entreaty of your's our mandatory was forced to forsake the place and returne home againe, without having executed and performed the warrants and commands of our court.'
4. 'Our mandatory, having made complaint to us and our honorable court of the riotous contempts and misdemeanours done by you and the rest against our mandatory, and we having decreed an attachment against you Richard Rogers and the rest for your misdemeanours and contempts and our mandatory, came the second time with an attachment under the seale of our court to apprehend you Richard Rogers and the rest, thereby to bring you in to answer articles of contempt concerning the misdemeanours (which was in or about the month of December or January last past); and serving you Richard Rogers with attachment, you thereupon spake and expostulated with our mandatory in these words, vizt. What if he were in the companie when the former riot was committed, this was but a trick to gett money; and that all the fetches and wares of our court was but to get money out of men; that you cared not a pinne if the business cost you 20li; and that he hoped shortly to see our court putt downe. And besides your large speeches concerning our court, you having seen the warrant or attachment under the seale of our court, and thereby taking notice of the other parties therein nominated to be attached, you forthwith caused notice to be given them thereof and wished them to gett themselves out of the way, which they did accordinglie soe that our mandatory could never afterwards meete with anie of them whereby to serve them the warrant of our court.'
Signed by Richard Hart.
No date [c. February 1640].
No Richard Rogers appeared in the 1634 Visitation of co. Hereford: M. P. Siddons (ed.), The Visitation of Herefordshire, 1634 (Publications of the Harleian Society, new series, 15, 2002).
- Initial proceedings
- Articles: 11/10 (c. Feb 1640)
People mentioned in the case
- Bascerville, Hercules (also Baskerville)
- Gardener, Richard
- Hart, Richard, lawyer
- Morgan, John, yeoman
- Quarrell, George
- Quarrell, John
- Rogers, Richard, gent (also Rodgers)
Places mentioned in the case
- St Devereux
- Wayne Green
Topics of the case
- cause of office
- denial of gentility