Star Chamber Reports
8 Charles I

Sponsor

History of Parliament Trust

Publication

Author

John Rushworth

Pages

44-53

Citation Show another format:

'Star Chamber Reports: 8 Charles I', Historical Collections of Private Passages of State: Volume 3: 1639-40, pp. 44-53. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=74932 Date accessed: 23 November 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Pasc. 8 Car:

Attor. Regis versus Caston Attorney; Champarty in buying his Client's Judgment.

The Defendant being Attorney for one Armiger and Goddard, put a Bond of 100 l. in Suit against one Walton, and obtained Judgment thereupon, and upon that Judgment sued forth a Writ of Fieri Facias to levy the said Debt with 5 l. Costs, and procured a Warrant thereupon to be directed to the Defendant Walton, who by virtue thereof took in Execution Goods of the said Walton, which were valued at 77 l. 18 s. 6. which being sold, Caston received the Money, and then refused to deliver either the Money or Goods to the Sheriff, yet caused the Sheriff to be amerced 40 l. for not returning his Writ, the said Caston having before bought the said Judgment of his Clients, which the Court judged to be Champarty; and Caston afterward sued forth an Elegit, and extended the Moiety of the said Walton's Lands for the rest of the Judgment, and Goddard his Client had only 5 l. for his Share of the said Judgment: and one Jenner owing Caston 20 l. upon a Bond, which was forfeited, being made payable on a Sunday; Caston, altho the Money was tender'd him the day before it was due, the day after procured Jenner to be arrested by the Defendants Walton and Gonnel, his special Bailiffs, upon a Writ of Privilege; whereupon Jenner acknowledged a Judgment with a Defeazance, and paid the Money at the day. Yet the Defendant Caston, for vexation, took advantage against the Bailiff of the Liberty of St. Etheldred's, and five of his Bailiffs, for arresting the said Jenner, and taking him out of the Custody of the said Walton and Gonnel, who had arrested him at Caston's Suit, but would not acknowledge it, tho they were asked, and caused Walton and Gonnel to return a Rescue against them, and the five Bailiffs were thereupon fined, imprisoned and out-law'd; and yet Caston not therewith satisfied, caused all the said Bailiffs to be arrested upon several Actions, and several Writs of Privilege, for the same Rescue, at his Suit, and brought one of the Actions down to Tryal, but would not proceed; and the rest being arrested, gave Bond to the Sheriff to appear, but did not, in respect they were not able to find special Bail; and then Caston got from the Under-Sheriff's Clerk their Bonds to the Sheriff, and without the Sheriff's consent put them all in Suit, severally, against them and their Sureties, to their great Charge and Vexation. The Defendant Caston also procur'd several Blank Warrants from the Under-Sheriff with the Sheriff's Hand and Seal thereunto, and fill'd up some of them by inserting the names of special Bailiffs. He also sued one Hills, both in the Court of Kings-Bench and Court of Common-Pleas, for one and the same Debt, and made him pay the Charges of both Suits. He also sued forth Execution upon a Judgment against his own Client, and offer'd Money to have it executed. He also taxed Sir Robert Hitcham Knight, publickly sitting on the Bench with other Justices, at a General Sessions, that he was partial, and not indifferent in a Matter then in dispute, and was not sit to hear the Business, for that he bore malice to the Party, and that he was both Witness, Judge, and Party, and would not desist until he was committed, and bound to his good Behaviour. And the said Defendant's practice with a Maid-Servant of Sir Robert Hitcham's, and with her Mother, procured her treacherously to take a parcel of Articles out of her Master's Chamber-window, which were deliver'd him against Caston, and to send them to him the said Caston; and would have persuaded her falsly to have sworn that they were written by her Master. Walton having arrested one Burd several times, refused to take Bail upon both Arrests, but beat, kick'd, and dragg'd him, because he would not go to the Attorney against him: and the Defendant Gonnel at Bury Assizes, at the Tryal of a Cause between one Spooner Plaintiff, against Threlkeld, by Persuasions, Threats and Bribes, procured two of the Plaintiff's Witnesses to go away before they had given their Evidence, so as the Plaintiff was forced to be non-suited; and for these several Offences Caston was committed, fined 1000 Marks, thrown over the Bar, and disabled ever to be an Attorney; the Decree to be read at the Assizes, and there Caston to acknowledge his Offences, and ask Sir Robert Hitcham Forgiveness: Gonnel committed and fined 100 l. bound to his good Behaviour, and disabled to be a Bailiff; and Walton bound to his good Behaviour, and disabled to be a Bailiff ever after; but not fined, in respect his Offence stands prov'd but by one Witness. Quod Nota.

Smith versus Stoner & al; Fraud.

John Stoner, by the Advice of Angelo Stoner, his Brother, after the Decease of one Henry Eveseed, made an Assignment in Writing to the said Angelo of a supposed Lease, which he pretended the said Eveseed had made to him the said John in his life-time, of all his the said Eveseed's Lands for ninety nine years, and in that Assignment expressed a pretended Consideration of 500 l. to be paid to the said John by his Brother Angelo for the said Assignment, and the same was signed and sealed as an Assignment of a good Deed made bona side, and so published by the Defendants, who confess they never knew of any such Lease as is mentioned in the said Assignment, neither was there any one penny of the pretended 500 l. consideration paid, or intended to be paid by the said Angelo, to the said John for the said Assignment: and for this new kind of Fraud to disturb Titles and Estates, the said Defendants were both committed to the Fleet, and fined 200 l. apiece. This Sentence was grounded upon Matter confessed, but not charged by the Bill. This Suit was also for the Forgery of a Will, but the Court would not proceed to damn the Will, because the Parties charged with the Forgery died, Pendente Lite; and for that the Lands in question by the Will of one of the Defendants deceased came to an Infant, his Majesty's Ward, no Party to the Suit.

Trin. 8 Car.

Young Gen. & Sales, servus suus, versus Broughton Arm. & al; Disturbance in the Church.

The Defendant Broughton coming unto the Chappel of Ease in Charnes in Com. Stafford, to hear a Sermon, placed himself in a Seat, where the said Sales then was by his Master's direction, being a Seat whereto Mr. Broughton claimed an Interest; and holding Sales, being Young's Plow-man, unfit Company to sit with him, and conceiving it was done to affront him (as in truth it was) the said Defendantt wished Sales to go forth of the Seat; which he refusing, Broughton took him by the Hair, or Ear, with one Hand, and therewith, and with his other Hand forcibly thrust him out of the Seat, and threw his Staff after him, which Young perceiving intended to go sit there himself, and in the Sermon-time endeavoured so to do, but Broughton perceiving him coming, met him at his entrance, took him by the Collar of his Doublet, and hastily thrust him backward, saying he should not sit there; whereat the Preacher made a pause: and for this he was committed, and fined 100 l. but no Costs on either side.

Broughton Arm. versus Young & al; Disturbance in the Church.

The Defendant Young seeing the Plaintiff put Sales, the said Young's Plow-man, out of the Seat, where the said Broughton was to sit in the Chappel of Charnes, and where Young and his Ancestors also used to sit being the chief Seat there, rose out of his own Pew in the Sermon-time, and endeavour'd violently to get into the said Seat, but was resisted by the Plaintiff, to the disturbance of the Preacher and People; and for this Disturbance Young was committed, and fined 50 l. the Disturbance being occasion'd by the said Young's placing his Plow-man in the uppermost Seat, to sit with the Plaintiff, which the Court misliked, and condemned: yet order'd neither Side to have Costs.

Jackson Mil. versus Dom. Savile & al; Riotous Assault of the Plaintiff; 250 l. damage.

The Lord Savile, out of malice, and to disgrace and affront the Plaintiff, did, by colour of preservation of his Majesty's Game, come into Materfriston Fields, with twenty or thirty others in his company armed, where the Plaintiff with divers other Gentlemen were, by the leave of Mr. Vavasor, who had free Warren in the Mannor, hunting the Hare; and applying himself to the Plaintiff with a frowning discontented Countenance, said, Sirrah, by what Authority do you hunt here ? and the Plaintiff answering, by Mr. Vavasor's leave, the Lord Savile in disgrace of the Plaintiff replied, Sirrah, be gone, or I will send you packing; I scorn both you and Mr. Vavasor: and thereupon he and divers others of his Company drew forth their Swords, and the Lord Savile furiously assaulted the Plaintiff, who had nothing to defend himself but his Hunting-Pole, and pursued and chased him about the Field, called him Coward, challeng'd him to fight with him, and in disgrace told him, a Pot of Ale was fitter for him than a Sword; yet the Plaintiff to avoid Bloodshed, neglected his Provocations, and went out of the Field. And for these Offences the Lord Savile and Graunt, who also drew his Sword and pursued the Plaintiff, were committed to the Fleet; the Lord Savile fined 1000 l. and Graunt 200 l. but the Lord Savile to pay that also, if he be not able; and he to pay 250 l. damage to the Plaintiff, and make him such other Reparation for his foul and disgraceful Speeches as this Court shall direct.

Dymock Arm. versus Chambers & Dee-Champarty and Maintenance; 30 l. Damage.

The Defendants after a special Verdict given up by the Jury, upon a Tryal touching certain Lands in controversy between the Plaintiff and one Jenkins, did, by way of unlawful Champarty, buy the said Jenkins's Estate in the Lands in controversy, and procured a Deed thereof to be made to the Defendant Chambers, but to Dee's use, and a Fine to be levied; and did by way of unlawful maintenance of the said Suit, assist Jenkins, and retain Council and an Attorney, and gave them Fees, and the Clerks employ'd in the Business; and after the special Verdict argued, and given for the Plaintiff's Title, the Defendants sued forth, and at their own Charge prosecuted a Writ of Error in the Court of Kings Bench, in Jenkins's Name, and agreed, that if Dee did not pay Chambers all the Money he disbursed at the end of the Suit, Chambers should have the Land. And for this they were both committed, fined 100 l. apiece, 30 l. damage to the Plantiff; and the Decree to be read at the Assizes in the County of Flint.

Michael. 8 Car.

Smith & al. versus Tufton Armig. & al; Libel; 100 l. damage.

The Defendants Harrison and Spyer, at several times, and places, and in presence of several Persons, published an infamous Libel, which they called, Verses made of the purer sort, to the scandal and disgrace of the Plaintiffs, whom all the Defendants confess to have lived in good repute, and to be of hones Life and Conversation. And the Defendant Tufton having procured a Copy of the said Libellous Verses from Harrison and Spyer, he published them to divers Jurats of the Town of Rye: And after he was told, he would be punished for it, he gave his Copy to a Gentlewoman, and told her, that Libel was intended by the Plaintiffs. And the Defendant Martin, upon Conference about the said Libel, said, he would bear out him that was the Contriver of them, tho it cost him 100 l. and said the Libel was true, and that the Plaintiff Smith lay with the Plaintiff Martha Osmonton, and therefore it was not a Libel, but a True Bill. And for this they were committed to the Fleet, Martin fined 500 Marks, the other three 200 l. apiece, and 100 l. Damage to the surviving Plaintiffs, one being dead; Martin bound to his good Behaviour, and all of them to acknowledge their Offences, and great Injury done to the Plaintiffs, both at this Bar, and at Rye, in the presence of the Plaintiffs, and the Mayor, and Jurats there, and shew themselves heartily sorry for the same.

Dr. Peterson Deacon of Exeter versus Travers Cler. & al; Conspiracy to accuse the Plaintiff of Incontinency. 250 l. damage.

The Defendant Travers, upon some heart-burning and discontent taken against the Plaintiff for crossing his Advancement to the Place of a Canon-Residentiary in the Church of Exeter, did conspire with the Defendant Frost, and Katharine Bampton, his Daughter, falsely and maliciously to accuse the Plaintiff with the foul Crime of Incontinency with her the said Katharine, which the said Katharine was drawn to do, partly by Wine, and partly by Promises and Importunities. And for this, Travers was committed to the Fleet, fined 1000 l. to the King, and 250 l. damage to the Plaintiff, and to make his acknowledgment, and ask the Plantiff forgiveness at this Bar, and at the Assizes at Exeter, and the Decree to be then read. Frost committed to the Fleet, during his Majesties pleasure, bound to his good Behaviour, fined 500 l. to be set on the Pillory at Exeter, with a Paper on his Head declaring his Offence, and there to make an acknowledgment, and ask the Plaintiff forgiveness, the Decree being read: And Katharine Bampton committed to the Fleet, thence to be carried down into the Country, to be well whipp'd at Cullampton, and through the City of Exeter; and then committed to the House of Correction a Year, and before her Enlargement find Sureties for her good Behaviour. Others of the Defendants reproved, and left with a Non Liquet, and all the Records in this Cause, saving the Plaintiffs Bill, and this Decree, as also all Copies thereof to be called in and burned, that no Scandal remain to the Plaintiff hereafter.

Pelham Bar. versus Lunsford Jun. & al; Riotous hunting and killing the Plaintiff's Deer, and beating the Keepers.

The Defendant Lunsford, having conceived displeasure against the Plaintiff, did, together with the other Defendants, in January 5 Car. go into the Plaintiffs Park, and there by day and night, being provided with Grey-hounds, and armed with several unlawful Weapons, and there hunted, and killed one Male Deer, and a Doe, and a Fawn, and carried away the Male Deer, and left the Doe and Fawn behind; and the Plaintiff's Keepers hearing the Bray of a Deer, and coming in unto them, the Defendant Lunsford with a long Staff gave one of them several blows, one on the Shoulders, and another on the Back; and another of the Defendants with a Forest-Bill knock'd down the other Keeper, and whilst he was on the ground, he was run through the Back, and so into the Breast, three or four Inches deep, with a Rapier; and one of them took a Pistol from his side, and swore he would shoot the Rogues, meaning the Keepers, and told them they should never come back if they followed them; and Lunsford, at several other times by day and night in season and out of season, did in revenge hunt, kill, and carry away the Plaintiff's Deer; and upon Conference with one Mr. Levet touching his hunting, and killing the Plaintiff's Deer, he used many words of scorn and contempt against the Plaintiff, terming him Fool, and saying, He cared not a Fart for him. And for this, Lunsford was committed, fined 1000 l. bound to his good Behaviour, with Sureties 10 l. apiece Lands in the Subsidy in the Sum of 2000 l. and in respect he is fled into another Kingdom, to shun the Justice of this Court, they held fit his Majesty should be moved for his Privy Seal to command him to come over, which if he did not do by Whitsuntide next, his Fine then to be doubled, and he to endure three Years Imprisonment when he did return: The other two committed to the Fleet, fined 200 l. apiece, and bound to their good Behaviour; and all the Defendants to acknowledge their Offences at the Quarter-Sessions in the County of Sussex, and pay the Plaintiff 500 l. damage, and 200 l. damage to the Plaintiff's Keepers.

Attorn. Regis virsus Steward & al; Riotous destroying the inclosures in Feelenham Forest.

The Defendants, with about five hundred others in their Company, 28 Mar. 7 Car. assembled themselves in Feckenham Forest, upon that part thereof, which upon the Disaforestation was allotted for his Majesties part, and wherein his Majesties Farmers had made and set up Hedges and Ditches, about three Miles in length, and did there with Spades, Shovels, and Pitch-forks, in riotous and unlawful manner, throw down about 1000 Perches of the said Fences: And the Sheriff and Justices coming thither, making Proclamation, and commanding them to depart, and give over their said riotous Actions; they not only refused so to do, but also riotously assaulted the Sheriff's Company that came with him to suppress the Riot, threw stones at them, hurt divers of them, and beat them back, and would not be drawn to yield any obedience. And for this they were all committed to the Fleet, fined 500 l. apiece, bound to their good Behaviours, and at their own Charges between that and Christmas, repair and make up all the Ditches, Hedges, and Fences by them and their Confederates riotously thrown down, and what in them lie, save the said Fences from farther spoil hereafter; the Decree to be read at the next Quarter-Sessions for Worcestershire, and then the Defendants publickly to acknowledge their Offences, and shew themselves sorry for the same.

Attorn. Regis ore tenus versus Jupp; Putting Counterfeit Colchester Seals on Bocking Bays.

The Defendant in July last bought in Leadenhall-Market 110 Flemish Ells of Minikin Bays of Booking making, and three other Pieces of about fifty like Ells the Piece, for one Goddard a Seafaring Man; and afterward, to grace the Commodity, and to make them sell the dearer beyond Sea, (where it seems they are bought, and their goodness known by the Seal, without opening them) the Defendant affixed Seals to the said Bays, like the Colchester Seals, which he made with Stamps he had gotten for that purpose, Colchester Bays being better, and selling dearer than other Bays, and this Bays being worse than the worst Colchester Bays. The Defendant also confesseth, that a hundred and hundred times, and above he hath for Merchants made the faulty Bays of Colchester have the whole Seal, which before had but the half Seal, and was marked as faulty by cutting off a piece, and fixing the Seal at the Angle, and this he did by cutting of the Puckle of the Bay at the Angle, and drawing it, and fixing that Seal at another place. And for these Frauds the Defendant was committed during the King's pleasure, not to be enlarged, until he had discovered and made known the Names of such Merchants for whom he used and practised the said deceit, and found Sureties for his good behaviour, fined 1000 l. and a power of inflicting further punishment, and compulsory means to make him confess their Names; if he continued stubborn, and will not discover them, and to be set on the Pillory in Cheapside, Cornhill, Blackwell-hall, Bocking and Colchester, with a Paper on his Head declaring his Offence, and at each place the Decree to be read, and Printed Copies thereof to be set up upon the Pillory, and other places thereabout, to the end they may there remain and be seen, and that the cause of his punishment may be generally known to the Clothiers in all parts of the Kingdom.

The Court declared, that whosoever should discover and bring to Sentence any Delinquents of this kind, they should for their Reward have half the Fines, which should by this Court be imposed upon them.

Herbert Arm. & al. versus Lownes & al; A Counsellor suffering himself to be misled.

Peter Bland being in 1615. seized of Lands to the value of 230 l. per Annum, and also possessed of a Personal Estate of good value, did, by a Will made that year, distribute the greatest part thereof unto and among his three Children, and their Issues; and in 1621. estated his Lands upon his Brother John Bland, and the Defendant Lownes (who had then married his Niece, with whom Bland gave him 150 l. Portion, and trusted him, being a Scrivener, with the letting out of his Money) and to their Heirs in Trust, to sell the same, and dispose the Money according to his the said Peter Bland's Will, or in default of such appointment, then to be distributed among his Children and Grand-children, at the discretion of the said Lownes and John Bland, with a Proviso therein to revoke the same, paying 200 l. apiece to the said Lownes and John Bland, and in March 1622. Peter Bland made a second Will, and thereof made Executors the said Lownes and John Bland, and one Mr. Baldwin, his best trusted Friend; and to preserve that Will, he put it into a Box with three Locks and three Keys, and deliver'd to each Executor a Key, and said it should not be opened until they all met; and by that Will, as himself reported, he devised his Lands among his Children and Grand-children, and also all his Personal Estate, saving some small Legacies to his Friends. After which Lownes, by a Letter written by the Defendant Hoskins, who was Peter Bland's Servant, to Mr. Baldwin, whereto Peter Bland's Name was suspiciously subscribed, got Mr. Baldwin's Key, and then the Chest wherein the said Box with three Locks was kept, was carried to Lownes his House, and what is become of that Will since cannot be discovered: but Peter Bland being grown very aged, and infirm, and weak in Body and Understanding, by reason of his Age, and of an Apoplexy, and being wholly guided by the Defendants Lownes and Hoskins, was, in July and November 1624. during such Weakness, drawn to make two other Wills, and seal and deliver some Conveyances of his Lands to the said Lownes, and others in Trust for Lownes his use; and in June 1 Car. Lownes having gotten him to his House, did by practice with Hoskins, circumvent Peter Bland in his greater Weakness, and drew him to sign and seal one Deed indented, dated 25 Junii 1 Car. whereby Lownes, in consideration of the said former Conveyance to him, and others to his Use, of the said Peter Bland's Lands, and of 1150 l. in hand paid to the said Lownes by the said Bland, did covenant to pay several Sums of Money therein mentioned to several Persons therein named, in such sort as was therein expressed: And Lownes then sealed a Bond of 4000 l. to Peter Bland, and his Executors, &c to perform those Covenants, and at the same Instant, by the practice of the said Hoskins, drew the said Peter Bland to seal and publish a Writing, as his last Will and Testament, but dated June 27. reciting and confirming the aforesaid Deed; and of that Will made the said Lownes and John Bland his Executors, but none of Bland's Children or Grand-children were privy thereunto, nor any of his Friends Witness thereunto; and by this means Lownes would have defeated all Peter Bland's Children and Grand-children of his whole Estate; and by making himself Executor of that last Will, he made void the Bond of 4000 l. by him enter'd into to perform the Covenants of the Deed of 25 Junii. And for this Fraud, Deceit, and Circumvention, Lownes and Hoskins were committed to the Fleet, and fined, Lownes 1000 l. and Hoskins 300 l. and did confirm and strengthen the Decree in Chancery, whereby the now Plaintiff Bland's Children are relieved for his Estate. And Sir Richard Minshull Knight, who was of Council with Lownes for the drawing of the Deed of the 25th of June, and the Will of the 27th of June, for suffering himself to be misled by Lownes, and receiving his Instruction from Lownes to draw them, and not from Bland, to whom he did often resort; and for suffering the same to pass with unfit Clauses and Provisoes, and never acquainting Bland how prejudicial it was to his Children and Grand-children, nor asking him whether it were his Intention so to prejudice them, as he ought to have done, being present also at the sealing and delivery of them, was committed to the Fleet, and fined 500 l.

Kilbert versus Hanger; Libel; Five hundred pound damage.

The Defendant being discontented with an Award made by the Plaintiff and another Merchant, did, out of malice, under colour of setting down in writing Exceptions to the said Award, and the proceedings thereupon, frame and put in writing a Libel against the Plaintiff, wherein he unjustly and scandalously charged him as a general Wrongdoer, Deceiver, and Oppressor of the King's Subjects, who resided at Sevil, and other parts of Spain, during such time as he resided there, and falsely terming him A Briber, a Judas, and Viper, and stuffed the same with divers other notorious, false and libellous Untruths, nothing concerning the Award or Reference; and the more to scandalize him, denoted and signified the Plaintiff by the Letter K, saying, he came to shew the falshood of that base and shameless K. and published the same. And for this he was committed and fined 500 l. to the King, and 500 l. damage to the Plaintiff and make a Recognition and acknowledgment to the Plaintiff of wrong done unto him.

Best, Pauper, versus Neale & Winter Arm. & al; Riotous proceedings.

The Defendant Neal with intent to get the Possession of the House, whereto he claimed Title, and wherein the Plaintiff, his Wife, Children and Mother then dwelt; and knowing no other way to get the Possession, but by starving them out, did to that end take away a Woman's Horse, as she was going with Food to them, and turned her back again on Foot, and threatned her with what violence he would use her, if ever she came to bring them any more Food or Sustenance: and by this means the Plaintiffs Mother being Fourscore years Old, was starved for want of Food, the Neighbours not daring to come to Relieve them for fear of Neale; and Neale with others in his Company came to the House, and with an Ax, or Hatcher, did Riotously cut down three of the doors of the House, the Plaintiffs Wife and Children being therein, carried away the doors, and reviled his Wife and Children; and another time with others in his Company did riotously, being armed with a Bill, throw and beat off part of the Tiles of the House: and for this he was committed, and fined 500 l.

Attornat. Regis ore tenus versus Palmer Armig; Residing in London contrary to Proclamation.

The Defendant having several Mannor-Houses and Lands in the Country, of great value, did (in contempt, and contrary to his Majesties Proclamation, whereby all Noblemen, Gentlemen and others were commanded to resort into their Countries, and not to make their Residence in London, or Suburbs there) reside and live in London, for divers years past, and went not to his Country-Dwelling: and for this Contempt and Disobedience he was committed to the Fleet, and Fined 1000 l.

Tapson Gen. versus Rowe Gen. & al; Riotous Outrages; A hundred pound damage to the Plaintiff, 40 l. damage to another no party to the Suit.

The Defendant Gregory, and John Rowe assaulted and beat the Plaintiff aboard a Ship, being then a Head-Constable; and at his going away, Gregory Rowe challenged him to fight, which the Plaintiff refusing, the said Defendant told him that if he would not fight with him at their next meeting, he should take what fell out: and the same day Gregory Rowe armed with a Sword and Pistol, together with John Rowe, and six or seven others armed with Swords, came before the Plaintiffs House, and Gregory there challenged the Plaintiff to fight with him; saying, if the Plaintiff would not fight he would be revenged on him; and thereupon an Officer of the Town requiring Gregory to keep the Peace, and yield up his Weapons, he refused so to do, and another of the Company then said they came to fight, and they would fight, and so there continued half an hour in that tumultuous manner. And the next day the two Rowes came to a Tipling-House, near the Plaintiffs House, and there Richard Rowe said that he would knock down the Plaintiff wheresoever he met him, and be revenged on him, although he died in the place: And the Constables being thereupon sent for to keep the Peace, they found the two Rowes standing before the Plaintiffs Door, one of them being armed with a Sword and Dagger, and the other with other like Weapons, and a Pistol charged with a Brace of Bullets; and the Constables requiring them to keep the Peace and deliver their Weapons, they refused; and John Rowe being thereupon disarmed, Gregory promised to deliver his Weapons to one of the Constables; but on a sudden drew forth his Sword, and asked, who durst come near him, he would drive the whole Town before him; and then Richard Rowe also drew his Sword, and so rescued themselves, and went out of the Town, and Creese, a Constable, and others going after them to see them out of the Town, Richard Rowe with a Staff, and Gregory with a Sword, and a Pistol with the Cock bent, turned back upon them, presented the Pistol against the Constable, and thrust at him with a Sword, no Violence at all being offered unto them: and for these Offences the three Rowes were committed to the Fleet, Gregory Rowe Fined 500 l. the other two 400 l. apiece, all bound to their good Behaviours, and 100 l. damage to the Plaintiff; and 40 l. damage to Creese the other Constable.

Hill. 8 Car.

Trevanion Gent. versus Vivian Mil. & al; Breach of Trust, and Deceit in a Captain of a Castle.

The Defendant having by Letters Patents from his Majesty the Captainship, Custody and Government of the Castle of St. Maures in Cornwal, and having for it a Fee of 3 s. per diem, and power to elect a Deputy or Lieutenant, a Porter, a Master Gunner and twelve Souldiers for his Assistance in guarding the said Fort, with a Fee of 1 s. 6 d. per diem for the Lieutenant, 1 s. per diem for the Porter, 1 s. per diem for the Gunner, and 8 d. per diem for each Souldier, aud all those Fees to be paid Quarterly to the Defendant, and he to pay the others, did, contrary to the duty of his Place, and the Trust reposed in him by his Majesty, neither maintain and keep the Castle guarded with so many Souldiers as he ought, nor give those Souldiers, which did attend and guard the Castle, such proportion of mony as was allowed by his Majesty, but continued the Castle guarded with a less number, and those that were he abated much of their Wages, and put it into his own Purse; and when his Majesty sent to take a view of the Castle, he would get a compleat number of Soldiers to attend, and some were enrolled there as Soldiers, who lived far off, and never had penny of Pay, nor ever did any service there: and for this deceit and breach of Trust he was committed to the Fleet, fined 2000 l. suspended from the Execution of his Place, until his Majesty give him farther Licence to execute it; and Mr. Attorney General required to call him to an account for the monies by him received from his Majesty, and unduly kept in his own Purse.

Dominus Barkley ver. Poole & al. Killing the Plaintiffs Deer; A hundred pound damage.

The Defendants at divers several times hunted and killed the Plaintiffs Deer, both Red and Fallow, in his Park called the Worthy, with Nets and other Instruments: and for the same Rowland Poole, whose Offence was aggravated by his denial of it upon Oath, and persuading the rest to perjure themselves also, and to deny the same, was committed, fined 200 l. bound to his good Behaviour seven years, and at Gloucester Assizes, standing in an eminent place with a Paper on his head declaring that he did in this Cause forswear himself, and persuade others to forswear themselves also, acknowledg his Offence, and ask the Plaintiff forgiveness: two others committed, fined 100 l. apiece, and bound to their good Behaviour four years, and five more committed, fined 50 l. apiece, and bound to their Good Behaviour three years; all of them to acknowledge their Offences at the Assizes, and submit themselves to the Plaintiff, and pay him 100 l. damages.

Bacon Armig. ver. Anderson Mil. & al; Riot and procurement thereof; A hundred pound damage.

The Defendant, Sir Henry Anderson, coveting to gain unto himself the Rectory of East-Cowton from the Plaintiff, threatned the Plaintiffs Tenant to set fire on his Hay, and that he would be troublesome to him, and Maultus told him he would be undone by it: and they bearing malice to the Plaintiff for that, as it should seem, he would not sell the said Rectory to Sir Henry; Sir Henry sent the Plaintiff a message full of provoking Language: and Maultus meeting him in the Town of East-Cowton, bid him get out of the Town, like a Ship-Jack-Fellow as he was; for he would have him packed out of the Town; and that if he did not go, he should be beaten out. And soon after, as the Plaintiff was going to the Pound to release a Horse of his Tenants there impounded, which they would in no wise deliver, unless the Plaintiff came in person; the Defendant Henry Anderson came to the Plaintiff, picked a quarrel with him, and Maultus being come almost to him, took hold of the Plaintiffs Horse-Bridle, and strook the Plaintiff on the Breast with a Staff, and Green beat him about the Neck and Shoulders with a Pitch-Fork; and the Plaintiff having gotten from them, Maultus standing by said, stay, Sirrah, stay, you go not so, I have something to say to you before you go, I told you you should be beaten out of the Town; and Sir Henry after said, he was not cudgelled half enough. And for this they were all committed to the Fleet; Sir Henry, for abetment of the Riot, and Henry his Son for the Riot, fined 300 l. apiece, Green and Maultus fined 200 l. and bound to their good Behaviour a year, and Sir Henry, and Henry Anderson to pay their Fines, if they be not able, and the Defendants convicted to pay the Plaintiff 100 l. damages.