241 Garton v Bland

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

This free content was Born digital. All rights reserved.

'241 Garton v Bland', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640, (, ) pp. . British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/241-garton-bland [accessed 29 February 2024]

In this section

241 GARTON V BLAND

Henry Garton of Woolavington, co. Sussex, esq v George Bland of Aldingbourne, co. Sussex

Michaelmas term, 1635 - November 1637

Abstract

This involved two separate cases brought by Garton against Bland. The first began in Michaelmas term 1635 and passed to sentence on 16 February 1637. In this Garton complained that Bland had said that Garton was 'no gentleman, but a base fellow' and that he was a better gentleman than Mr Garton. At the commission to examine Mr Garton's witnesses, Bland repeated these words before the commissioners and Mr Garton requested Bland be thrown out of the room and appealed to the commissioners 'to be judges between him and Bland of the injuries offered.' In the second cause, which Garton launched with his libel on 11 February 1636, he complained that Bland had assumed the titles of gentleman and esquire in Aldingbourne, Westminster and London, after Bland's father Thomas had forfeited his gentility and been made incapable of bearing arms by a sentence in Star Chamber in 1606/7 to stand in the pillory. Bland claimed in his defence that he was descended from Adam Bland, Sergeant Skinner to Elizabeth I, and that his father had been pardoned for his crimes. This case does not appear to have reached a conclusion and Bland was protesting against it in July 1640 [see cause 51]. The surviving case papers relate mainly to the first cause.

The quarrel began at the Ship Inn, Brighton, Sussex, on 16 September 1635 at a Court of Wards inquisition into the lands of Nicholas Page. Bland's witnesses, most of whom were gentlemen or yeomen on the jury, were examined by a commission headed by Henry Sherley and Henry Pecke, esqs, 29-30 March 1636 at the Bell Inn, Lewes, Sussex. Their version of events was that, after the decision had gone against Mrs Page, Garton, her main backer, rebuked the jurors for not bringing in the right verdict. Bland said that 'he did not doe well to trouble the jury when they had done according to their consciences', to which Garton retorted that he was 'a knave, a villaine, a rogue, and a jack, and that he did lye'. Bland answered, 'I am no villayne; I am a freeman and gentleman as yourself', whereupon Garton grabbed Bland by the neck and struck his nose with such force that he drew blood. Humphrey Orme gent then added insult to injury by declaring, 'It is strange there should be such a stirre about this fellow, a groome.' The witnesses were also asked if they were aware of the sentence against Bland's father, but this was not generally known about. In spite of this evidence, on 16 February 1637 Bland was sentenced to make submission and pay £50 damages and 20 marks in costs.

Initial proceedings

17/1l, Libel [damaged]

[The libel was written on the back of this document, but in layout it looks more like articles (necessary or voluntary promotion).]

Henry Garton was the eldest son and heir of the late Sir Peter Garton of Woolavington, while George Bland was the son of the late Thomas Bland, and was a plebeian. Bland had assumed the title of gentleman and esquire in Aldingbourne, and in the city of London and Westminster.

Dated 11 February 1636.

Signed by Arthur Duck.

Defendant's case

Acta (4), fo. 287, Defence

It was alleged in the libel that he said to Garton '...that he was a knave a vilayne a rogue and a jacke, and that he did lye'. Bland 'did not say that Mr Garton was no gentleman, nor a base fellow, nor that he was a better gentleman then Mr Garton, save only when Mr Garton did utter the words to and of George Bland, George Bland in a mild and quite manner in answer to Mr Garton said that he was no knave, no villayne,no rogue, no jack, but he was a gentleman.' Bland also claimed Humfrey Orme and Jane Page acted in a riotous manner towards him.

Signed by Clere Talbot.

R.19, fo. 25r, Summary of defence

Bland was here styled as 'of London, gentleman.'

He 'did not say that Mr Garton was noe gentleman, nor a base fellow, nor that he was a better gentleman than Garton, save only when Mr Garton did utter these words of George Bland, vizt, that he was a knave, a villaine, a Rogue, and a Jack, and that he did lye. George in a mild and quiet manner answered Garton that he was noe knave, noe villaine, noe rogue, noe Jake, but he was a gentleman, and not otherwise' as was alleged in the libel, and Bland prayed for the cause to be dismissed.

1635

No signature.

R.19, fo. 9r, Summary of defence

'Geo. Bland, by way of defence or exception to a certaine libel of Henry Garton for Bland's assuming the title of esq in all writings, *his father Tho. having by certaine crimes forfeited the same, and speaking scandalous words and*, for defence says that he is descended of an ancient family of gentry, and that his father Thomas Bland, late of the City of London deceased was the son of Adam Bland, late of the said city esq, who was Serjeant Skinner to Queen Elizabeth; *that if his father did commit any crimes the same were after pardoned and c*. And that he doth only assume the title of gentleman in all writings and instruments and c which is his right. Therefore prayes to be dismissed with his costs and c.'

Second session, Easter term, 1636.

No signature.

Acta (4), fo. 288, Letters commissory for the defendant

Addressed to commissioners Henry Shelley, Henry Pecke, Arthur Midleton esqs, John Michell, esq, and also, Sir Edward Bishop, baronet, Henry Bishop, esq, Thomas Buttricke, gent and Daniel German, clerk, to meet in a cause ofscandalous words provocative of a duel, from 29 to 31 March 1636 at the Bell Inn, Lewes, co. Sussex.

Dated 11 March 1635/6.

Cause to be heard at the High Court of Chivalry on 7 May 1636

Gilbert Dethick assigned William Aucock as notary public.

Acta (4), fo. 269, First set of plaintiff interrogatories

1.The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. What was their age, occupation and condition of living for the last seven years? Were they of gentle status? What were they taxed in pounds at the last subsidy?

2. Were they a household servant, relative of or indebted to Bland? Had they received or been promised anything for their testimony?

3. Had they been instructed how to depose and if so by whom?

4. Was Henry Garton the son and heir of Sir Peter Garton, late of Woolavington, co. Sussex, knt, deceased? Was Henry Garton an 'Outerbarrister at Lawe and a gentleman descended of an ancient family and soe commonlie accounted, reputed and taken'?

5. Was Thomas Bland the father of George Bland condemned to stand in the pillory by the court of Star Chamber; 'and was he not by the sentence deprived of all offices, titles and dignities'? Was not 'Thomas Bland (also by the said sentences) and his posterity made incapable of bearing armes or assuming the degree and dignity of gentleman'?

6. In the last year, did he hear George Bland say that he was a gentleman and that Henry Garton was 'not gentleman, but a base fellow and that George Bland was a better gentleman than Henry Garton'?

7. Did he know 'Robert Greenhill, Edmund Lewknor, John Hudson, Thomas Campion, John Worgar, Richard ?Dufer?, Jane Page, Humphrey Orme and Simon Garton'? Were 'they not persons of honest life and conversation and such to whose testimony credit is to bee given, and whoe will not depose untruely on their oaths'?

8. Was George Bland the son of Thomas Bland deceased? Was this Thomas Bland not the same Thomas Bland who was censured in Star Chamber 'and adjudged to the pillory in or about the 4th yeare of King James'?

No date.

Acta (4), fo.267, Second set of plaintiff interrogatories

1. Was John Newman, one of Bland's witnesses 'commonly reputed and taken for an incontinent liver and adulterer or fornicator, and hath not had divers twoe, or at least one, bastard'? Was Newman presented or detected and convicted in the ecclesiastical court of the Bishop of Chichester for adultery or fornication divers times, twice, or at least once'? Was Joane Hart, another of Bland's witnesses, 'a woman of a light name and fame, and much suspected or publickly defamed for incontinency, adultery or fornication'?

No date.

Signed by Richard Stanley, notary public.

14/1g, Further plaintiff interrogatories

1. How long had the witnesses known Bland and how had they become acquainted? Did they know of Bland's bill against Garton in Star Chamber? Did they know of its contents before or after it was exhibited in that court?

2. Did they know that Bland disliked the addition of esq to his name mentioned in that bill, before it was exhibited? Did Bland peruse the bill before it was exhibited? Did Bland direct that esquire be blotted out or added to his name?

3. If a witness deposed that Bland ordered esquire to be added or blotted out, they were to be asked where, when, to whom and in whose presence did Bland give such directions, and whether it was before or after the exhibiting of the bill?

No date.

14/1j, Further plaintiff interrogatories

1. Henry Bartlett was to be asked whether he was a commissioner at the time and place when the violence was 'pretended to be offered' by Garton to Bland? Did Bland then speak publicly before the commissioners 'diverse contemptible and disgraceful words' against Garton, intended to provoke him to violence, saying Garton 'was a base fellow and no gentleman'? Did Garton then suggest to the commissioners that Bland might be 'thrust out of the room in regard he was so uncivil'? Did Bartlet then answer: 'Why? What shall we do to him? Or what can I do to him?' Did not 'Mr Garton then make a publique protestation before the commissioners that he appealed to them to be judges between him and Bland of the injuries offered.'

2. Did Bland say that Garton was no gentleman and that Bland was as good a gentleman as Garton?

No date.

Signed by Arthur Duck.

Acta (4), fo. 268, Letters substitutional

Short document in Latin comprising Arthur Duck's authorisation for the notary public Richard Stanley to act for him in interrogating the witnesses.

London, 14 March 1635/6.

Signed by Arthur Duck.

Acta (4), fos. 270r-284v, Defence depositions

Taken before commissioners Henry Shelley, esq, Henry Peck, esq, Thomas Buttricke, gent, and Daniel German, clerk, from 29 to 30 March 1636 at the Bell Inn, Lewes, co. Sussex, with William Aucock as notary public, and with Richard Stanley (acting for Garton).

fos. 272r-273r (Witness 1), William Heath of Beddingham, co. Sussex, gent, born at Godstone, co. Surrey, aged 57

To Bland's defence:

On Wednesday 16 September 1635 at a meeting of gentry in a room at the Ship Inn, in Brighton, he was a juror in the case between Mr Garton and George Bland who were both present also. Immediately after the jurors returned their verdict, Mr Garton 'did tax [Heath] and the rest of the jury that they had not done well therein and said that they should hear of it in another place'. Then George Bland told Mr Garton 'that he did not well, it was more then he ought to doe to urge the jury when they had given up theire verdict'. Mr Garton replied to Bland 'that he was a jacke, a base knave and a villayne and went to Bland and did take him about the necke and did strike him in the face with his right hand whereby he drew much blood from Bland and provoked him to fight'. Bland did not say that Mr Garton 'was no gentleman nor a base fellowe nor that he was a better gentleman than Mr Garton, save only when Mr Garton did utter the foresaid words to and of Bland, Bland in a mild manner in answer to Mr Garton said that he was no jacke, no knave, no villayne, but he was a gentleman; and did not speake any other injurious or diffamatory words against Henry Garton at the time and place aforesaid', and 'if there had been any such spoken he must needs have heard them'. He believed Mr Orme was 'a gentleman of good worth and quality and did not carry himself as a par [binding too tight] in a riot as [Heath] believeth, but onely [binding to tight] say to Bland that he was a groome.'

Signed by William Heath.

To Garton's first set of interrogatories:

1. He was born at Godstone, co. Surrey, was aged about 57, 'liveth of his land', and 'sayth that he is a gentleman, having purchased his armes; and that his father was no gentleman so farre as he knoweth, and he was taxed in the last subsidy book at £6 lands.'

4. Mr Garton was son and heir to Sir Peter Garton knight and a gentleman well descended, and commonly reputed to be a barrister.

5. He never heard of this until this day when he was told that Mr Garton had found that Bland's father was so sentenced.

6. He heard Bland say that he was a gentleman, but did not hear him say that Mr Garton was no gentleman, nor give Garton 'any other words of disparagement.'

7. He knew Edmund Lewknor and Humphrey Orme 'and sayth that he doth think they are honest gent and that credit is to be given to theire testimony.'

Signed by William Heath.

fos. 273r-274v (Witness 2), John Mascall of Plumpton, co. Sussex, gent, for 35 years but was born in Chiltington, co. Sussex, aged 59

To Bland's defence:

On 16 September 1635 'there was a meeting of diverse gentlemen and others about the execucon of a writt out of his Majestie's Court of Wards for the taking of an inquisition of the lands of one Nicholas Page' at the Ship Inn, Brighton. Mr Garton and Mr Bland were present, and after the jurors brought in their verdict, Mr Garton 'did seem to tax the jurors, whereunto Mr Bland spake some words which [Mascall] doth not now remember but gave no words of provocation as [he] conceaveth'. Thereupon Mr Garton told Bland 'that he was a villayne', and Bland answered 'he was a gentleman'. Then Mr Garton said to Bland 'you are a knave' and Bland again answered, 'I am no more knave then yourself'. Then Mr Garton went to Bland, 'and did strike him in the face whereby he bled very much'.

Signed by John Mascall.

To Garton's first set of interrogatories:

1. He was 'a gentleman by birth, liveth by his lands and goods and is a subsidy man.'

4. As witness 1.

7. He knew Mr Lewknor and Humphrey Orme and did not know any thing of them to the contrary of what was in the interrogatory.

Signed by John Mascall.

fos. 274v-275v (Witness 3), Edward Blaker of Portslade, co. Sussex, gent, born at Preston, co. Sussex, aged 70

To Bland's defence:

At the time and place in the above depositions, Blaker was one of the jurors 'and did stand betweene Mr Garton and Bland', who returned the verdict at 5 or 6pm. Mr Garton 'did finde some fault with the jury, and did call Bland jacke and knave'. Bland answered he 'was no more knave then you are'. Then Mr Garton said Bland was 'a villayne and with all did strike Bland in the face whereby he bled very much'. But Bland 'carried himselfe very mildely'. He did not hear Bland say that Mr Garton was no gentleman nor a base fellow 'nor any other provoking words'. He did not hear Bland give Mr Garton 'any ill word before nor after saving that he sayd he was no more knave then he'. Humphrey Orme spoke on Mr Garton's behalf 'but did not carry himselfe riotously or tumultuously'.

Signed by Edward Blaker.

To Garton's first set of interrogatories:

1. He was a subsidy man.

4. As witness 1.

5. He never knew Thomas Bland.

7. He knew 'Edmund Lewknor, John Hudson and Humfry Orme and sayth that he thinketh they are honest men and never heard other of them.'

Signed by Edward Blaker.

fos. 254v-276v (Witness 4), Jonas Rivet of Brighton, co. Sussex, clerk, born at Pytchley, co. Northampton, aged 46

To Bland's defence:

When the jurors had brought in their verdict Mr Garton spoke to them 'as though they not done well in finding as they did'. Mr Bland said to Mr Garton 'that he did not doe well to trouble the jury when they had done according to theire consciences'. Mr Garton 'seemed to be much moved and did say unto Bland that he was a jack, a villayne and a knave'. Mr Bland answered 'I am no more knave then yourself'. Then Mr Garton said that Bland 'did lye and was a base knave'. Bland answered that 'he was as good a gentleman as himselfe'. Mr Garton said, 'as I', and 'with all did fall upon Bland and strike him upon the face whereby he bled very much'. He did not hear Mr Bland say that Mr Garton was no gentleman, nor a base fellow, nor that he was a better gentleman then Mr Garton, 'nor any other diffamatory words nor speeches more then he hath before deposed'. He was present in the room for all of the above events and knew them to be true.

Signed by Jonas Rivet.

To Garton's first set of interrogatories:

4. He knew that Mr Garton was 'a counselor at lawe', and he knew 'Sir Thomas Garton, who was elder brother to Mr Garton as he hath heard.'

7. He knew Edmund Lewknor by sight, and he knew John Worger and Humphrey Orme, 'and doth not know any thing to the contrary, but that their testimony is to be taken'.

Signed by Jonas Rivet.

fos. 276v-277v (Witness 5), John Henshaw of Lewes, co. Sussex, gent, born there, aged 31

To Bland's defence:

When the jury brought in their verdict at 5 or 6pm, Mr Garton spoke to the jury 'in dislike of what they had done', whereupon Bland said, 'Mr Garton, I wonder you will interrupt or trouble the jury seeing they are upon their oaths'. Then Mr Garton said that 'he was jacke', whereunto Mr Bland answered that 'he was no jacke, but was a gentleman'. Then Mr Garton called him 'villayne' and Mr Bland answered, 'I am no villayne but a gentleman'. Then Mr Garton called him knave and gave him the lie. Bland responded, 'I am no more knave then your self', and then Mr Garton came to Mr Bland 'and did strike him upon the face wherewith Bland did very much bleed'. Then Mr Bland told him that 'he was a better souldier then a lawyer'. He did not hear Bland say that Mr Garton was no gentleman, nor a base fellow, nor that he was a better gentleman than Mr Garton, but Bland 'onely answered in a milde and quiet manner and stood very patiently not giving any other words to Mr Garton'. Henshaw was present for all of these events. Mr Orme was present and said to Bland that he was 'a groome'. Henshaw and a Mr Raynes, another witness, 'shortly after did take a note in writing for their remembrance supposing that the same would come in question and therefore he well remembreth what he hath predeposed to be true.'

Signed by John Henshaw.

To Garton's first set of interrogatories:

1. He was a gentleman, an attorney and a subsidy man.

4. As witness 1.

5. He never knew Thomas Bland father of George Bland, 'nor had he ever heard that he was sentenced to stand in the pillory, saving that this day he was told by one Daniel Shoulder that Mr Garton did say he was so sentenced.'

7. He knew Edmund Lewknor, Thomas Campion, Jane Page, John Worger and Humphrey Orme, 'and knoweth nothing the contrary but thinketh that they will not swear anything but what is true.'

Signed by John Henshaw.

fos. 277v-278v (Witness 6), Samuel Towns of 'Clivo juxta Lewes', co. Sussex, gent, born in London, aged 52

To Bland's defence:

Townes was on the Jury alongside William Heath, gent, John Mascall and others. When Bland rebuked Garton for criticising the jury, Garton called him 'villayne and base knave', to which Bland replied: 'I am no more knave than yourself. I am a gentleman as well as you'. Then Mr Garton went to Bland 'and tooke him about the necke and, holding him a while with his hand ready to strike, did strike him in the face with his right hand wherewith he drewe much bloud from Bland.'

He did not hear Bland at that time and place say that Garton was a base fellow, no gentleman, or that he was as good a gentleman as him, 'but answered mildly as before, and stood very patiently, without resisiting or offering any defense'.

He did not see Humphrey Orme or Jane Page 'carry themselves tumultuously or injuriously against Bland'.

Signed by Samuel Towns.

To Garton's first set of interrogatories:

1. As witness 3.

4. As witness 1.

7. He knew 'Edmund Lewknor and Humfry Orme, and hath seene Jane Page, and sayth that they are such persons as is menconed in the interrogatory for ought he knoweth.'

Signed by Samuel Towns.

fos. 279r-279v (Witness 7), John Easton of Broadwater, co. Sussex, husbandman, born there, aged 30

To Bland's defence:

At the Ship Inn, in Brighton, before any other words were spoken he heard Mr Garton call Bland 'villayne', whereunto Bland replied 'I am a gentleman'. Then Mr Garton called him 'knave', and Bland answered 'that he was no more knave then himselfe'. Then Mr Garton went to Bland and made Bland bleed. He did not hear Mr Bland say that Mr Garton was no gentleman nor a base fellow nor that he was a better gentleman than Mr Garton, 'but spoke mildely' without any 'diffamatory words'. The witness was present throughout and knew this to be true.

Signed by John Easton [his mark]

To Garton's first set of interrogatories:

1. He was no subsidy man.

To Garton's second set of interrogatories:

1. John Newman was accused 'for having of a bastard and questioned in the Bishop's Court thereupon and did a penance for the same offence'.

Signed by John Easton [his mark]

fos. 279v-281r (Witness 8), Edward Raynes of Lewes, co. Sussex, gent, of Lewes for 22 years, born at Brenchley, co. Kent, aged 41

To Bland's defence:

Mr Garton with no provocation beforehand called Bland a 'jacke'. Bland replied 'I am no jacke'. Garton then said 'thou art a villayne', and Bland answered, 'I am no villayne; I am a freeman and a gentleman as your self'. Then Mr Garton said 'thou lyest, thou art a knave', and Bland answered 'I am no more knave then your selfe'. At this, Mr Garton went to Bland 'and, took him about the necke and after he had held him awhile, did strike him on the face, having a ring in his hand, by which stroke he gave him a hurt upon the nose and thereby he bled very much'. He did not hear Mr Bland say that Mr Garton was no gentleman nor a base fellow, nor that he was a better gentleman than Mr Garton, 'save onely in answer to Mr Garton, in a milde and quiet manner said as before'. He did not hear Bland 'speake any other injurious or diffamatory words of or against Mr Garton'. After the blow was struck, Humphrey Orme rose up from his seat and said: 'It is strange here should be such a stirre about this fellow, a groome, meaning Bland'. Jane, the wife of Edward Page said that Bland 'was the cause of so much trouble in soliciting and defending of the suit'. Raynes was one of the witnesses in the inquisition that day and 'did take a note in writing of the passages for his remembrance therein.'

Signed by Edward Raynes.

To Garton's first set of interrogatories:

5. He never knew Thomas Bland, 'but saith that since the expediting of the writt he was told by one John Hudson, and yesterday he heard by diverse others, that the father of George Bland was sentenced in the Starre Chamber'.

6. Since the quarrel at Brighton he had heard Mr Bland say that 'he could prove himselfe a gentleman and as he did thinke as ancient a gentleman as Mr Garton'.

7. He knew 'Edmund Lewknor, John Hudson, the wife of Edward Page whom he believeth to be the interrogate Jane Page and Humfry Orme, and saith that he cannot speake any just cause of exception against the testimonyes of any of them.'

Signed by Edward Raynes.

fos. 281r-282v (Witness 9), John Aylwin of Lewes, co. Sussex, gent, lived there for 7 years, born in Charlewood, co. Surrey, aged 41

To Bland's defence:

Aylwin was among the jurors who, 'having brought in theire verdict, Mr Garton questioned them how they could find as they did; and thereupon the jurors were all called over by the poll and severally delivered up their verdict as they had formerly done, where at Mr Garton being somewhat moved and asking them how they could find as they did, Bland standing by told Mr Garton that he did not well to trouble or interrupt the jury when they had brought in their verdict'. Mr Garton told Bland that 'he was a jacke', and Bland answered 'he was no jacke, he was a gentleman'. Then Mr Garton said Bland 'was a villayne', and Bland answered 'he was freeborne and no villayne but was a gentleman'. Mr Garton said Bland 'was a knave', and Bland answered 'I am no more knave then yourself'. Then Mr Garton went to Bland, 'and took him about the neck, and held him a while, holding up his hand ready to strike, and then did strike Bland in the face having a ring on his hand, and by the stroke did hurt him on the nose, whereby he drew very much blood from him'. He did not hear Bland say that Mr Garton was no gentleman, nor a base fellow, nor that he was a better gentleman than Mr Garton, 'save onely in a milde and quiet manner' answering to Mr Garton as before. He did not hear Bland 'utter or speake any other injurious or diffamatory words to or of Mr Garton then or at any other time'. After the blowe given, while Bland stood bleeding, Mr Orme did say that himselfe should not have done lesse, Bland being but a groome'.Aylwin was among the jury 'and standing in the roome nere unto them did see and observe what he hath predeposed to be true.'

Signed by John Aylwin.

To Garton's first set of interrogatories:

1. As witness 3.

5. He never knew Thomas Bland, 'neither did he ever hear that he was sentenced in the Starre Chamber till yesterday' when 'Mr John Henshawe, a witness produced herein, did tell George Bland, that it was said, his father was sentenced in the Star Chamber, whereunto Bland answered he could not helpe his father's faults'.

7. He knew 'Edmund Lewknor, and Mr Humfry Orme, and doth believe that Mr Orme is a very honest gent and a competent witness, but doth not believe that Edmund Lewknor is a competent witness in the cause because at that time he did take part with Mr Garton, and it was conceaved by [Aylwin] and many others there present, that he could not so well remember the passages at that time as [he] and many others did, who presently after did speake of the matter and Mr Lewknor affirmed some things directly contrary to that which many others said.'

Signed by John Aylwin.

fos. 282v-283v (Witness 10), Joanna Hart of Broadwater, co. Sussex, lived there for 26 years, born there, aged 60

To Bland's defence:

After the verdict was given, Garton called Bland a knave and struck him in the face which drew much blood, 'and lost almost a pinte of bloud in that roome, as [Hart] verily believeth, and afterward he bled again.' Bland offered no words of provocation, but Garton called him a 'villayne'. And 'when Mr Garton did say that he was a knave, Bland in a quiet manner, and without any raging in answer to Mr Garton, said that he was no knave, no villayne but he was a gentleman'. At the time of expediting of the writ, Bland said to Jane Page, 'Mrs Page you have not your will yet', whereunto 'she answered that she would have it, meaning the land, or Mr Garton should spend one thousand pound more. Mr Humfry Orme did then call Bland groome; and that Thomas Campion a witness examined in this cause doth favour Mr Garton very much'. She was the daughter of Nicholas Page, deceased, and came with her mother, the widow Page, to the meeting and there sawe and heard what shee hath herein predeposed.'

Signed by Joanne Hart [her mark].

To Garton's first set of interrogatories:

1. As witness 7.

To Garton's second set of interrogatories:

1. 'John Newman had a bastard laid to him and did a penance for the same.'

Signed by Joanne Hart [her mark].

fo. 283v (Witness 11), John Newman of Worthing in the parish of Broadwater, co. Sussex, husbandman, born at Headley in co. Southampton, aged 30

To Bland's defence:

On 16 September 1635 towards nightfall he was at the George Inn in Brighton, when George Bland came in 'bleeding and bled very much with a hurt which he had received upon his nose, and lost almost a quart of blood after he came thither as [Newman] believeth, but who gave him the said hurt [he] knoweth not.'

Signed John Newman [his mark].

To Garton's first set of interrogatories:

1. As witness 3.

2. He owed money to Mr Bland.

Signed by John Newman [his mark].

fos. 284r (Witness 12), Richard Barnard of Lewes, co. Sussex, woollen draper lived there for 18 years, born at Goring, co. Sussex, aged 33

To Bland's defence:

Although he was present he did not hear the words that passed between Mr Garton and George Bland, but did see Garton strike Bland upon the face, and Bland's face bleed.

To Garton's first set of interrogatories:

7. He knew Edmund Lewknor 'and knoweth nothing to the contrary but that he is a man of honest conversation.'

Signed by Richard Barnard.

To Garton's second set of interrogatories:

1. He knew the parties named in the interrogatory, 'but lives not nere them.'

No signature.

fos. 284r-284v (Witness 13), Richard Ridder of Lewes, co. Sussex, yeoman, born there, aged 48

To Bland's defence:

When the verdict was given: 'Mr Garton did give urging words to Bland which [Ridder] doth not now remember, and withal went to Bland and did strike him on the face whereby he bled.'

Bland did not offer provoking words to Mr Garton, but 'answered in a milde manner', that 'he was a gentleman'. Ridder was one of the jury and was present through all the premises together with the rest of the jurors.'

Signed by Richard Ridder

To Garton's first set of interrogatories:

1. As witness 3.

4. He knew Mr Garton and believed him to be a barrister.

To Garton's second set of interrogatories:

1. He knew John Newman and Joane Page, alias Hart, and that 'Joane is accounted no better then she should be.'

Signed by Richard Ridder.

Acta (4), fo. 285r, Notary public's certificate

Certificate in Latin signed by William Aucocke, notary public that the above examinations had been completed and were now being returned.

Signed by commissioners Henry Shelley, Henry Pecke, Daniel German and Thomas Butterwick, 30 March 1636.

Notary's mark.

Sentence / Arbitration

17/1d, Plaintiff's bill of costs

Michaelmas term, 1635: £2-5s-0d

Hilary term, 1635/6: £3-11s-8d

Sum total: £5-16s-8d

Signed by Arthur Duck.

Taxed at 30 [shillings?].

Signed by Sir Henry Marten.

Dated 27 February 1636.

7/43, Note by Arthur Duck

He takes the order of the last court to be publication on behalf of Garton, with the exception of the repetition by Lewkner. Besides, Sir Henry Marten declared this day that Lewkner's repetition should be before first court day of next tearme

The exhibits on behalf of Garton 'to bee exhibited and used in both causes'.

27 May 1636

Signed by Arthur Duck.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Duck and Dr Eden acted as counsel for Garton, and Dr Talbot and Dr Merrick for Bland. Around April 1636, the commissioners were required to send the depositions of Bland's witnesses. On 7 May 1636 the proceedings involved producing exhibits of Elizabethan letters patent, and Star Chamber proceedings from the reign of James I and Henry Bislie, Henry Bartlett and Thomas Langharne, esqs, Henry Avery, gent, and John Page were mentioned as witnesses on behalf of Garton. On 30 May Dr Talbot produced the witnesses Edward Berry and Edward Rainford for Bland. Further witnesses for Mr Garton were examined in January 1636/7, and in February Dr Talbot was required to produce the witness Newman on Bland's behalf. On 16 February 1636/7 sentence was given on the first cause and Bland was warned to make submission and pay £50 in damages and 20 marks in costs, in instalments by the feast of St John the Baptist, and the feast of St Michael the Archangel. The second cause was still being tried in November 1637.

Notes

For another account of the case, see G. D. Squibb, Reports of Heraldic Cases in the Court of Chivalry, 1623-1732 (London, 1956), p. 22-3.

Henry Garton (c.1600-1641) appeared as the fifth son of Sir Peter Garton of Woolavington, knt, in the Sussex visitation of 1633-4. He attended Queen's College, Oxford, and the Middle Temple. He spent much of his life in London, practicing as a lawyer, especially in the Court of Wards. Henry married Mary, daughter of Sir John Luke of Flamstead, co. Hertford. He replaced Lord Maltravers as M.P. for Arundel, co. Sussex, during the Short Parliament. He remained M.P. for Arundel during the Long Parliament until his death of plague in October 1641. In 1641 two individuals petitioned the House of Lords that Garton's prosecutions of them in the Court of Wards and elsewhere had ruined them.

Despite being resident at Aldingbourne, co. Sussex, George Bland was arrested for failure to pay ship money in Castle Baynard ward, London, in 1635. In May 1639 a Bland was also imprisoned in King's Bench for insulting the kings of England, France, Denmark, Sweden and Spain and getting Captain Lumley, Captain Sinclair and Thomas Harrison, B.D., into trouble.

W. Bruce Bannerman (ed.), The Visitations of the County of Sussex in 1530 and 1633-4 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 53, 1905), p. 132; M. F. Keeler, The Long Parliament, 1640-1641: A Biographical Dictionary of its Members (Philadelphia, 1954), pp. 183-4; CSP Dom. 1635-6 , p. 8; CSP Dom. 1639 , p. 130; House of Lords MS , Historical Manuscripts Commission, 4th report (London, 1874), p. 40.

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Libel: 17/1l (11 Feb 1636)
  • Defendant's case
    • Defence: Acta (4), fo. 287 (no date)
    • Summary of defence: R.19, fo. 25r (1635)
    • Summary of defence: R.19, fo. 9r (Eas, 1636)
    • Letters commissory for the defendant: Acta (4), fo. 288 (11 Mar 1636)
    • First set of plaintiff interrogatories: Acta (4), fo. 269 (no date)
    • Second set of plaintiff interrogatories: Acta (4), fo. 267 (no date)
    • Further plaintiff interrogatories: 14/1g (no date)
    • Further plaintiff interrogatories: 14/1j (no date)
    • Letters subsitutional: Acta (4), fo. 268 (14 Mar 1636)
    • Defence depositions: Acta (4), fos. 270-284 (29-30 Mar 1636)
    • Notary public's certificate: Acta (4), fo. 285 (30 Mar 1636)
  • Sentence / Arbitration
    • Plaintiff's bill of costs: 17/1d(27 Feb 1636)
    • Note by Arthur Duck: 7/43 (27 May 1636)
  • Proceedings
    • Undated proceedings: College of Arms. 'Court of Chivalry' (act book, 1636-8) [pressmark R.R. 68C] (hereafter 68C), fos. 64r-67r (c. Apr 1636)
    • Proceedings before Arundel: 68C, fos. 89r-100r (May 1636)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 68C, fos. 74r-83v (7 May 1636)
    • Proceedings before Sir Henry Marten: 68C, fo. 101v (30 May 1636)
    • Proceedings before Sir Henry Marten: 7/42 (1 Jun 1636)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 68C, fos. 112r-121v (Jun 1636)
    • Proceedings: 68C, fos. 105r-110v (8 Nov 1636)
    • Proceedings before Arundel: 68C, fos. 51r-59r (28 Jan 1637)
    • Proceedings: 68C, fo. 59r (8 Feb 1637)
    • Proceedings: 68C, fos. 23r-36v (11 Feb 1637)
    • Proceedings: 68C, fos. 1r-11r (16 Feb 1637)
    • Proceedings: 68C, fos. 14r-20v (16 Feb 1637)
    • Proceedings: 68C, fos. 37r-41v (29 Apr 1637)
    • Proceedings before Arundel: 8/26 (14 Oct 1637)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 8/27 (14 Oct 1637)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 8/27 (14 Oct 1637)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 8/29 (18 Nov 1637)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 1/4 (28 Nov 1637)
    • Proceedings: 68C, fos. 70r-73v (c.1636-8)
    • Proceedings: 68C, fos. 100v-101v (c.1636-8)
    • Proceedings: 68C, fo. 102v (c.1636-8)

People mentioned in the case

  • Aucock, William, notary public (also Aucocke)
  • Avery, Henry, gent
  • Aylwin, John, gent
  • Bartlet, Henry, esq (also Bartlett)
  • Berry, Edward
  • Bislie, Henry, esq (also Bisley)
  • Blaker, Edward, gent
  • Bland, George
  • Bland, Thomas, gent
  • Buttricke, Thomas, gent (also Butterwick)
  • Campion, Thomas
  • Dethick, Gilbert, registrar
  • Duck, Arthur, lawyer
  • Dufer, Richard
  • Easton, John, husbandman
  • Eden, Thomas, lawyer
  • Garton, Henry, esq
  • Garton, Mary
  • Garton, Peter, knight
  • German, Daniel, clerk
  • Greenhill, Robert
  • Harrison, Thomas, B.D.
  • Hart, Joanna
  • Heath, William, gent
  • Henshaw, John, gent
  • Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
  • Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
  • Hudson, John
  • Langharne, Thomas, esq
  • Lewknor, Edmund
  • Luke, John, knight
  • Luke, Mary
  • Lumley, captain
  • Marten, Henry, knight
  • Mascall, John, gent
  • Merrick, William, lawyer
  • Michell, John, esq
  • Midleton, Arthur, esq
  • Newman, John, husbandman
  • Orme, Humphrey
  • Page, Edward
  • Page, Jane
  • Page, John
  • Page, Nicholas
  • Page alias Hart, Joane
  • Peck, Henry, esq (also Pecke)
  • Rainford, Edward
  • Raynes, Edward, gent
  • Ridder, Richard, yeoman
  • Rivet, Jonas, clerk
  • Shelley, Henry, esq
  • Sinclair, captain
  • Stanley, Richard, notary public
  • Stuart, Charles I, king
  • Stuart, James I, king
  • Talbot, Clere, lawyer
  • Towns, Samuel, gent
  • Tudor, Elizabeth I, queen

Places mentioned in the case

  • Hampshire
    • Headley
  • Hertfordshire
    • Flamstead
  • Kent
    • Brenchley
  • London
    • Castle Baynard ward
    • Middle Temple
  • Middlesex
    • Westminster
  • Northamptonshire
    • Pytchley
  • Oxfordshire
    • Queen's College, Oxford
  • Sweden
  • Surrey
    • Godstone
  • Sussex
    • Aldingbourne
    • Arundel
    • Beddingham
    • Brighton
    • Broadwater
    • Chichester
    • Clivo-juxta-Lewes
    • Chiltington
    • Goring
    • Lewes
    • Plumpton
    • Portslade
    • Preston
    • Woolavington
    • Worthing
  • Sweden

Topics of the case

  • assault
  • bishop
  • church court
  • comparison
  • Court of Wards
  • denial of gentility
  • giving the lie
  • imprisonment
  • Long Parliament
  • King's Bench
  • member of parliament
  • other courts
  • pillory
  • royal servant
  • ship money
  • Short Parliament
  • Star Chamber
  • taxation