This free content was Born digital and sponsored by AHRC and University of Birmingham. CC-NC-BY.
560 RIVERS V BURLEY
Edward Rivers of St Sepulchre, London, gent v John Burley of London, tailor
February 1638 - Trinity term, 1639
Rivers complained that between October and January 1638 Burley insulted him at the Holy Lamb tavern on Snowhill in St Sepulchre's parish, London. Burley maintained that he had been provoked by a drunken Rivers, who, when Burley refused to drink a health to his mother, struck him and called him 'a base lousie rascallie...taylor'. Burley prosecuted Rivers for battery in the Court of Common Pleas and also questioned Rivers's gentility, maintaining he was a tobacco seller who 'doth live with his father after the manner of a servant'. Rivers countered this by arguing that neither he nor his father were tobacco sellers. He was the grandson of Sir George Rivers of Chafford, Kent, and his father was a wealthy wholesale grocer and freeman of the Company of Grocers, with lands of his own. Rivers entered his libel on 22 February 1638, but failed to prove it and in Trinity Term (May-June) 1638 the case was dismissed with 20 marks costs awarded to Burley.
Rivers promptly made an additional complaint that on 9 May 1638 Burley had said to Mr Henry Mitton that 'every cobler might have his arms as well as Rivers'. He claimed that this remark was made in contempt of the court, which allowed him to initiate an additional cause of office against Burley. Burley's defence challenged the integrity of Rivers' principal witnesses, Mitton and George Brookes, claiming that Mitton, on Rivers' behalf, had attempted to buy him off from pursuing his action in Common Pleas and that Brookes had acted as Rivers' attorney in the same case. He also alleged that in July 1638, at the Queen's Head Tavern, near Holborn, they had been boasting that he would never benefit from the earlier judgement in his favour by the Earl Marshal: 'yet we will have the trick of him; we will make him spend a hundred pounds before he shall have his twenty marks.' Burley's witnesses were examined between November 1638 and February 1639; but, in spite of his defence, Rivers won the second action and was awarded £40 damages, and 20 marks costs against Burley. He performed his submission on 16 July 1639, at the house of Mr Richard Robinson near the conduit on Snow Hill, London, in front of Rivers and six others, apologising for his 'rash and inconsiderate wordes' and promising thereafter to behave himself 'with all due respects to Mr Rivers and all the gentry of the kingdome.'
7/106, Plaintiff's bond
20 March 1638
Bound to duly prosecute his suit and appear in the court in the painted chamber, Palace of Westminster.
Signed Edward Rivers.
Sealed, subscribed and delivered in the presence of Humphrey Terrick.
14/1kk, Defence interrogatories
1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. What was the age, occupation and condition of the witness? How long had they known the parties in the litigation?
2. Did they live of their own or were they dependent upon another? How much were they worth in their own goods with their debts paid? Had they been compelled to testify? How much had they received or expected to receive in expenses?
3. Were they a household servant or waged employee of either of the parties? Were they related to either of the parties, if so in what degree? Which party would they favour for victory in this cause?
4. Had he had been taught or instructed how to depose, and been promised a reward, and by whom; and had Rivers threatened him with revenge if he did not depose to his liking?
5. If the witness deposed that Burley did use provoking speeches at the time in the libel, let the witness set down the hour, day and month, the place, who was present, and whether the witness saw Burley or only heard him?
6. 'Whether at the same tyme and place that the words in the libel were pretended to be spoken was not John Burley in company at dinner with the witness, or some other of the Burleys' acquaintance, and whilst they were at dinner did not the witness or any other of the company send Rivers, being a tobacco man, to bring them some tobacco; and he being come into the company did not he fall to drinking with them'? 'At that tyme did not Ryvers demeane himself verie uncivillie and outrageously by most horrid swearing and cursing and otherwise; and whether did not the mother of Ryvers hearing of his ill carriage at the tyme, place and company aforesaid much blame him for his cursing and swearing and other his intemperate demeanour of himself'?
7. After his mother left, did Rivers drink 'a pint of wine at one draught as he said to the health of his mother'? Did Rivers challenge Burley to do likewise, 'who refusing to oppresse his body with such excessive drinking, and to pledge the health, did not Rivers swear he would make him at which Burley still refused'? 'Did not Rivers thereupon in much anger and indignation use many disgraceful speeches against Burley, and said that he was a base lousie rascallie nietiie taylor with other like words of provocation'?
8. If a witness deposed that Burley did speak the words in the libel, let them be asked was he provoked by 'many disgraceful speeches and words of provocation' from Rivers, and what were those words? Were Burley's words in the libel 'spoken immediately and by way of reply and defence to the aforesaid words spoken by Rivers and not otherwise'?
9. Was the witness present for all the time Burley and Rivers were together? Whether the witness 'did much blame and reprehend Ryvers for his abusing Burley by his rude and disorderlie carriage and demeanour'? Was Ryvers 'overcome with excessive drinking and whether he be not much given to drinking, quarrelling and swearing'?
10. Were Rivers and his ancestors accounted gentlemen? Did Rivers now live in the quality of a gentleman? Did he live by selling tobacco, and of what trade or profession was Rivers?
11. Was William Newis 'a verie poore man and an osteler or of some other meane calling'?
12. Whether Jane Dormer 'be not a verie poor woman, and an herbwoman and a poore tenant to Rivers and whether Maudlin Burnes be not a sillie young girle and an apprentice to the mother of Ryvers.'
13. Speak the truth of what you know, believe or have heard.
14/2y, Defence interrogatories
1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. What was the witness's age, occupation and condition? How did the witness know the parties?
2. Did the witness live of their own or were they dependent upon another? How much was the witness worth in goods with their debts paid? Had they received or been promised expenses for their testimony? If so, how much?
3. Was the witness a household servant, retainer or relative to either party? To whom would they give the victory if it were within their power?
4. Had the witness been instructed how to depose in this cause?
5. If the witness deposed that Burley 'by sinister and indirect means' had withdrawn Henry Mitten from testifying, they were to be interrogated whether they had heard him do this themselves. If so what words did he use, or whether they had only heard of it, and from whom, when and in what place? Did [the] witness know of any letter sent from Burley to dissuade Mitten from testifying for Rivers? When such a letter was sent, had the witness seen it or heard it read? When did he see it, or was he only told of it and by whom?
6. If Mitton deposed that Burley had dissuaded him from testifying let him be asked where and when did they have such conference, and what words Burley used? Or if Burley sent him a letter, when and by what messenger, and how he knew for certain it was written by Burley? Let him set out the contents of the letter, 'or let him shew the letter, or elce [Burley] desireth that such letter be sent up by him and presented in the Court Military'. Had Rivers ever desired the witness to testify in the cause, and had the witness ever refused?
Signed by Arthur Duck.
14/2pp, Defence interrogatories
1. 'Inquire the names of the parties and the places where they dwell.'
2. 'Ask every witness how long they have known Rivers and whether they do not know whether William Rivers doe sell tobacco; and whether the [sic] doe not know that the sunne Edward Rivers doth live with his father after the manner of a servant; and whether Rivers have not solde tobacco for this 12, 10, 8, 6 or 4 yeares to there knowledge; and whether that the [sic] have not bought tobacco of William Rivers or Edward by the pound or half pound or ounce or pipe; and whether the [sic] have not heard or doe know that any man for money may have tobacco at there shop either by the pound, half pound or ounce or pipe and whether Rivers doe not paye asertayne yearely rent unto the right honourable the Lord Goring for a licence to sell tobacco'?
14/2z, Defence interrogatories
Interrogatories to be ministered to Henry Mitton on behalf of John Burley:
1. Last Christmas, had Mitton entertained Rivers and one Farren who lodged at his house for a week? Had they come there from London to persuade, 'and by sinister meanes to adduce him, Mitton, to testifie for Ryvers in this cause'? What persuasions and 'proffers' did they use?
2. Had Rivers told him that if he did not depose it would cost Rivers £140.
3. Had Rivers misinformed Mitton against Burley by telling him that Burley had reported that Mitton 'owed him money for clothes and thereby had disgraced Mitton amongst Mitton's countrymen; and whether by such false information hath not he instigated Mitton against Burley, and thereby hath not Mitton conceived distaste and displeasure against Burley'?
4. If Mitton deposed that Burley had tried to divert him from testifying, let him be asked where and when Burley had done so?
5. Had Mitton been daily conversant with Rivers since coming to London, and whether he lodged with him and for how long?
6. 'Whether since his last coming to London, which was about a fortnight or three weeks hence, did he not solicite (on the behalfe of Mr Rivers) Mr Burley to compound and make an end of this cause in controversy between Burley and Rivers; and did not Mitton earnestly entreat Burley thereunto, and did not he and Rivers profer Burley 30 li to make an end of this suite and proceed no further against Rivers; and did not Mitton also tell Burley that if he would make an end of this cause and accept of the 30 li that Mitton would give Burley 5 li more out of his own purse, and did not Mitton then forthwith lay downe five pounds before Burley desiring him to accept thereof'?
7. 'Whether since the profer in the [previous] interrogatory menconed, and because the profer of 30 li and 5 li was refused by Burley, hath not Mitton expressed great malice and hatred towards Burley, and much disliked and become very much discontented with Burley for that Burley refused to accept of the profer and so compound this cause? And doth not Mitton continue discontented with Burley for the same wishing that he may be overthrowen in this suite'?
8. 'Doth he know that the executing or speeding of a commission in this cause decreed in Hillary terme last on the behalf of Ryvers was neglected and the commission lost, and because Mitton was not present'?
Introduced 17 May 1638.
13/2f, Additional complaint
Rivers alleged that on 9 May, and 19-20 May 1638, Burley desired to speak with him and Mr Henry Mitton, his witness, and 'John Burley did again practize and endeavour to withdrawe Mr Henry Mitton from giveinge his testimonie in this cause for the plaintiff. And did earnestly entreat Mr Mitton not to sweare against him in the cause, and further told Mr Mitton that if the cause went against him, hee Burley should bee undone and loose his eares. And further while they the partyes weare together, Burley in a scandalous manner said to and of Rivers is hee... a gentleman, every cobler might have his arms as well as Rivers. And this hee spake as well in disgrace to the plaintiff, as in contempt of this hoble court and the officers of arms'.
2 June 1638
14/2ff, Defence interrogatories
1. Was the witness indebted to either party, and if so by how much?
2. Whether Brookes was an attorney of Common Pleas, acting for Rivers in a cause in that court between Burley, the plaintiff and Rivers, the defendant.
3. Where, when and in whose presence were the words spoken?
4. Ask Henry Mitton whether he had lodged and eaten at Rivers's house in London for the last 2-4 weeks, and had much conversation with him about the case?
5. Had Rivers kept a tobacco shop at Snow Hill, London for the last 5 to 10 years?
Signed by Thomas Eden.
Burley introduced 21 June 1638.
EM137, Defendant's petition
Burley petitioned that Rivers's suit 'altogether fayled in the proofe thereof, and afterwardes gave in a scandalous allegacon against Burley pretending that hee did suborne his witnesses, which allegacon hee gave in on purpose to delay the causes, to undoe your poore petitioner (which he hath often affirmed that he would doe yf it cost him £100 in the presence of diverse witnesses), and hath likewise failed in the proofes thereof. Whereupon your honour was graciously pleased findinge Rivers had unjustly sued your petitioner and could make noe proofes of his [preceding] suggestions, to give sentence the last court day for your petner against Rivers and to dismisse him from further suit or molestacon against him in the cause by Rivers, and to condemne Rivers in your petitioner's charges'.
Burley petitioned that even now Rivers was still seeking Burley's 'utter ruyne by putting him to further charges in suits of lawe' and that Rivers has since then given in to the Earl Marshal further articles 'concerninge the same cause wherein your honour hath been pleased to give sentence for your peticoner', 'which Rivers now desires to have admitted'.
Added that 'your petitioner is a taylor by profession, a poore tradsman undone by the unjust vexacons and suits of Rivers ...unless your honour be graciously pleased to assist him herein'.
Requested that Arundel 'be pleased to reject the admission of the producendum articles and to free your petitioner from further molestacon by Rivers'.
No date [Between July 1638 when Mitton and Brookes made the threats mentioned here and November when Burley began his defence]
1. Rivers lived with his father William Rivers in a house at Snowhill in St Sepulchre's parish, London, for from 4-10 years, and there they kept a tobacco shop from which they earned their living. Neither had ever lived as a gentleman 'and for such they are commonly taken.'
2. Between October and January 1637/8, Edward Rivers was with Burley at the sign of the Holy Lamb on Snowhill. Rivers struck Burley when he refused to pledge him a pint of wine, and Burley brought an action of battery against him at common law. Then 'in Candlemas term' Rivers began this suit against Burley for 'words which he pretended I spoke of or against him, in which cause sentence went against him and I was dismissed with my costs'.
3. A 'pretended witness' in this cause, Henry Mitton, was now Burley's 'professed enemy', and on 2 or 3 July 1638 at the Queen's Head Tavern, near Holborn, said that 'Burley is a base rascally fellowe, and that suite (meaning this suite in this honourable court or some other suite between Edward Rivers and me), shall undoe him, and of the twenty mark that my Lord Marshall hath given him in the Court of Honour (meaning the twenty marks given me for charges in a former cause brought against me in this court by Edward Rivers) he shall never have one penny.'
4. During the dependency of the suit, Mitton had confessed that 'Rivers did intreate him to stand to him as a friend in these causes... else it would cost Rivers sevenscore pounds.'
5. Another pretended witness of Rivers's, George Brookes was his 'professed enemy' and an 'animator and abettor of Edward Rivers in this pretended action', and in the previous one. Within a few days or weeks after sentence was given in this previous cause during last Trinity term, Brookes said that although the Lord Marshall had given Burley 20 marks 'yet we will have a trick for him; we will make him spend a hundred pounds before he shall have his twenty marks'. Brookes had said this within a few days or weeks before he was produced for this cause.
6. Brookes solicited the cause, before his examination, and had solicited the previous cause against Burley. He had accompanied Rivers to the Register's office 'and had taken out copies of acts and paid fees', paid, instructed and advised Rivers's advocates, and acted as Rivers's solicitor in his Common Pleas case against Burley.
Dated 6 November 1638.
Signed by Thomas Eden.
20/2n, Official promotion
1. Edward Rivers lived with his father William Rivers, who was the natural and lawful son of Sir George Rivers, knight, who was the natural and lawful son of Sir John Rivers of London, knight.
2. William Rivers had been a freeman of the City of London and freeman of the company of Grocers for 30, 25, 20 or at least 15 years. For all that time he had kept a grocer's shop in St Sepulchre's, London, where he had 'returned by whole saile' £5000, £4000, £3000, £2000, £1000, or at least £500 worth of grocer's goods, 'and for a grocer a man of good esteem, fashion and qualitie for all the said time is and hath been accounted, reputed and taken amongst the Companie of Grocers; and in the parish and other parishes thereunto adjoining neither is he or Edward Rivers his sonne reputed to keepe a tobacco shoppe or to live and get their livinge by selling of tobacco.'
3. William Rivers had lately for several years £300, £200 or at least £100 per annum in inherited land besides his trade. Edward was his only son.
Dated 20 November 1638.
Signed by Thomas Exton.
14/2k, Plaintiff interrogatories [damaged]
1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness.
2. Did the witness live of his own or was he the dependent of another? How much was he worth in goods with his debts paid? How much had he paid at the last assessment?
3. Was the witness a household servant or retainer to either of the parties? Was the witness a relative to either party? To whom would they give the victory if it was in their power?
4. Had they been compelled to attend? How much had they received or what did they expect to receive in expenses for their testimony?
5. Had there been any discord or controversy between the witnesses?
6. Had they talked with anyone about their testimony or been instructed how to testify and if so by whom?
7. 'Whether that Mr Brookes did solicite or was solicitor for Mr Rivers since the last articles were proferred against him or whether did you see him pay any money to his Counsell or for any other fees belonging or appertaining to the cause *and to whom did he pay the said fees*; or whether Brookes received any money from Mr Rivers for such soliciting'?
8. Had he heard Burley confess the words in the libel?
9-12. [Too damaged] Witnesses Cartwright and Smith
11. Was 'Downehill' a witness and had he received money from Burley?
12. Did Burley tell Rivers 'that every cobbler... that the plaintiff was no gent and was not Burley rebuked for the same... say I know what I have said to be true or to the like effect...'
Signed by Thomas Exton.
13. Whether Brookes was 'an attorney for Rivers at the suite of Burley and in what court and how long since? And was not the cause removed by writ of error unto his Majesties Court of King's Bench, and how long since; and whether or no Brookes is or can be an attorney for Rivers upon the writ of error, and was not Browne attorney for the defendant in the cause depending in the Court of Common Pleas when Mr Brookes was attorney for the plaintiff'?
14. 'Whether Mr Millen and Mr Brookes two of the witnesses produced and examined in this cause are not men of good ranke and qualitie and honest conversation and such as will not forsweare themselves'?
Introduced 25 November 1638.
10/9/3, Plaintiff's sentence [damaged]
[Most of this document cannot be read as it is physically stuck to other documents in the bundle].
Burley was fined at:
20 marks in taxes
Signed by Thomas Exton.
Signed by Maltravers.
10/9/8, Defendant's sentence
An unnamed sum [space was left blank] for expenses and taxes was left for the Earl Marshal or his official to complete.
Signed by Thomas Eden.
10/1, Plaintiff's bill of costs
Trinity term, 1638: £7-6s-0d
Michaelmas term, 1638: £10-14s-0d
Hilary term, 1638: £10-6s-0d
Easter term, 1639: [document damaged]
Sum total: [document damaged]
Signed by Maltravers.
10/9/6, Defendant's bill of costs
Michaelmas term, 1638: £3-17s-8d
Hilary term, 1638: £4-0s-8d
Easter term, 1639: £7-6s-0d
Trinity term, 1639: £12-15s-0d
Sum total: £27-6s-8d
Signed by Thomas Eden.
On 16 July 1639 between 2 and 4pm, 'in the nowe dwelling house of Mr Richard Robinson scituate neare the conduitt on Snow Hill, London, and in the great room of the house, before Edward Rivers and six other persons, if Edward shall then bring so many thither, standing bareheaded and shall say with an audible voyce as followeth':
'Whereas I, John Burley, stand convicte by sentence given against mee in the Court Military by the right honorable Henry Lord Maltravers, lieutenant to the right honorable Thomas Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Earl Marshal of England, to have said that every cobler might be a gentleman as well as Edward Rivers, I doe hereby acknowledge myselfe to be sorry for my such rash and inconsiderate wordes, and I pray Mr Rivers to forgive and passe by the same, and doe promise never hereafter to offend in the like kind, but will behave myselfwith all due respects to Mr Rivers and all the gentry of the kingdome.'
'The submission being performed John Burley is to certify of the doing thereof the first court day in Michaelmas Term.'
4/35, Certificate of submission
Text of submission as above in 13/3u
Signed by H. Maltravers and endorsed by Humphrey Terrick, registrar as a true copy.
18 July 1639
'Mdd., that the day and year above written John Burley did perform his submission according to the sentence pronounced against him in the Court Militarie in the presence of us whose names are hereunto subscribed':
Summary of proceedings for Rivers v Burley
Dr Talbot, Dr Ryves and Dr Exton acted as counsel for Rivers and Dr Duck for Burley. On 12 February 1638 Burley was due to appear in the custody of the messenger of the court and Dr Talbot presented the libel. On 22 February Rivers appeared to deliver his libel and presented as witnesses Richard Farren, William Newis, Jane Driver and Magdalene Barus. On 13 November 1638 the court was to hear the verdict of Sir Henry Marten upon Burley's allegations. Dr Duck petitioned to admit the third, fourth, fifth and sixth articles. Dr Ryves was to disprove the sixth article within the term. Dr Exton denied the first, third, fourth, fifth and sixth articles, and Dr Duck was to prove them in the last session.
Summary of proceedings for cause of office
Dr Talbot, Dr Ryves and Dr Exton acted as counsel for Rivers and Dr Duck and Dr Eden for Burley. On 20 October 1638 the witnesses Mr Mitton and George Brookes were warned to submit to examination upon the articles. On 6 November the testimony from the witnesses for Rivers was to be published, material for the defence given, then the verdict of Sir Henry Marten was to be heard. On 20 November Dr Duck and Dr Eden produced the witnesses William Smyth, Nicholas Downing, John Renshaw, Richard Cartwright, Richard Foster and Anthony Browne who were warned to submit to examination. On 24 November Dr Duck produced the witness Robert More, clerk, and on 27 November the court was to hear the verdict of Sir Henry Marten upon the allegations of Dr Exton. On 28 January and 21 February 1638/9 testimony was examined and witnesses were warned to appear. On 30 October 1640 Dr Talbot accused Burley of non-payment of £6-13s-4d in damages and expenses. Burley appeared to answer in person.
According to the visitation of 1634 Edward Rivers was the son of William Rivers of London, grocer, and Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Cobbet of London, clerk. William Rivers's brother was Sir John Rivers of Chafford, co. Kent, knt and bart. Edward Rivers's grandfather was Sir George Rivers of Chafford, and great-grandfather Sir John Rivers, mayor of London in 1573. John Burley did not appear among the Visitations of London.
J. Jackson Howard (ed.), The Visitation of London, 1633, 1634 and, 1635, vol. II (Publications of the Harleian Society, 17, 1883), p. 201; G. E. Cokayne (ed.), Complete Baronetage, vol. 1, 1611-1625 (Exeter, 1900), p. 169.
- Initial proceedings
- Plaintiff's bond: 7/106 (20 Mar 1638)
- Plaintiff's case
- Defence interrogatories: 14/1kk (no date)
- Defence interrogatories: 14/2y (no date)
- Defence interrogatories: 14/2pp (no date)
- Defence interrogatories: 14/2z (17 May 1638)
- Additional complaint: 13/2f (2 Jun 1638)
- Defence interrogatories: 14/2ff (21 Jun 1638)
- Defendant's case
- Defendant's petition: EM137 (Jul-Nov 1638)
- Defence: 18/3c (6 Nov 1638)
- Official promotion: 20/2n (20 Nov 1638)
- Plaintiff interrogatories: 14/2k (25 Nov 1638)
- Sentence / Arbitration
- Plaintiff's sentence: 10/9/3 (no date)
- Defendant's sentence: 10/9/8 (no date)
- Plaintiff's bill of costs: 10/1 (Eas 1639)
- Defendant's bill of costs: 10/9/6 (Tri 1639)
- Submission: 13/3u (16 Jul 1639)
- Certificate of submission: 4/35 (18 Jul 1639)
- Proceedings in the 2 causes
- Proceedings before Arundel: 1/5, fos. 38-56 (12 Feb 1638)
- Proceedings before Marten: 1/5 (22 Feb 1638)
- Proceedings before Arundel: R.19, fos. 434r-449v (20 Oct 1638)
- Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 454r-468v (6 Nov 1638)
- Proceedings before Marten: R.19, fo. 470v (13 Nov 1638)
- Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 400v-412v (20 Nov 1638)
- Proceedings before Marten: R.19, fos. 412v-413r (24 Nov 1638)
- Proceedings before Marten: R.19, fos. 413v-416v (27 Nov 1638)
- Proceedings before Maltravers: 1/9 (28 Jan 1639)
- Proceedings before Arundel: 1/6, fos. 20-33 (21 Feb 1639)
- Proceedings: 1/11, fos. 49r-52r (24 Oct 1640)
- Proceedings before Maltravers: 1/11, fos. 19r-30v (30 Oct 1640)
People mentioned in the case
- Barus, Magdalene
- Bonner, Gabriel
- Brookes, George
- Browne, Anthony
- Burley, John, tailor
- Burnes, Maudlin
- Cartwright, Richard
- Cobbet, Thomas, clerk
- Dormer, Jane (also Driver)
- Downing, Nicholas
- Duck, Arthur, lawyer
- Eden, Thomas, lawyer
- Exton, Thomas, lawyer
- Farren, Richard
- Foster, Richard
- Goring, George, baron Goring of Hurstpierpoint
- Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
- Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
- Marten, Henry, knight
- Mitton, Henry, Mr
- More, Robert, clerk
- Newis, William
- Pettie, Miles (also Petty)
- Reeve, Roger
- Renshaw, John
- Rivers, Edward, gent (also Ryvers)
- Rivers, Elizabeth (also Ryvers)
- Rivers, George, knight (also Ryvers)
- Rivers, John, knight (also Ryvers)
- Rivers, John, knight and baronet (also Ryvers)
- Rivers, William, grocer (also Ryvers)
- Robinson, Richard
- Ryves, Thomas, lawyer (also Rives)
- Smyth, William
- Talbot, Clere, lawyer
- Terrick, Humphrey
Places mentioned in the case
- St Sepulchre
Topics of the case
- allegation of tradesman status
- cause of office
- city company
- coat of arms
- contempt of court
- Court of Common Pleas
- denial of gentility
- drinking healths
- King's Bench
- other courts