265 Grove v Lock

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

This free content was Born digital. All rights reserved.

'265 Grove v Lock', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640, (, ) pp. . British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/265-grove-lock [accessed 5 March 2024]

In this section

265 GROVE V LOCK

Francis Grove of St Saviour, Southwark, co. Surrey, esq v William Lock of the same, gent

May 1636 - Trinity term, 1639

Figure 265:

Wenceslaus Hollar's bird's eye view of Southwark in the mid seventeenth century, showing, in the foreground, the palace of the Bishop of Winchester where William Lock served as the bishop's registrar.

Abstract

There was a string of cases in the Court of Chivalry between these two men. Grove brought at least two actions against Lock and Lock in turn was involved in two cases against Grove [see cause 385]. Grove, a justice of the peace and captain in the trained bands, appears to have complained initially that at some time between the previous June and August at Guildford, Surrey, Lock had said before several gentlemen that 'he was a gentleman, but I was not gentleman, but a mechanick fellow.' This may have been the cause that was heard between May and November 1636 for which no verdict survives. Most of the surviving proceedings relate to a second case brought on the libel presented 28 April 1638 in which Grove complained that in March-April 1637 in St Saviour's church, Southwark, Lock had said that 'while he was a gentleman born, and so should continue and die', Grove had 'come up by degrees, first an apprentice, then a journeyman, then master.' At the same place a few weeks later he had also said to the Bishop of Winchester that Grove 'walked like a mountebanke', along the foundations of Lock's new church pew. And between December 1637 and March 1638 in St Gregory's parish, London, Lock had denounced Grove before several gentlemen, saying of Grove 'that I was base all over, that there was nothing but corruption in me', and 'that he cared not a f[art] for me and although my Lord Marshall were a friend to Grove, he cared not for him.' By 20 October this case appears to have split into two separate causes and continued to be treated as such through to the final record of proceedings on 21 February 1639.

Although there had been sustained litigation and numerous suits between the two men for years, the quarrel which came before the Court of Chivalry was rooted in Lock's attempts to erect a new pew at the front of St Saviour's church. Lock claimed that he had permission to do this from the chancellor of the diocese, but Grove appealed to the Court of Arches, who sent Sir John Lambe to view the place as well. While the pew was being erected, Grove, who was churchwarden at the time, got involved in a remarkable verbal confrontation with Mrs Lock who had been left by her husband to supervise the work. According to Lock's defence, he made a mocking display of standing on the base and telling her to 'draw my picture'. He then told her that 'he did honour the place where her breech should sitt', and jeered at her social pretensions by saying that 'she was the best woman in the parish and that the very breath of the people would break her.... her husband said so.' He also accused her of being a scold and told her that 'she wanted witt and should go home to make sure that she was not being robbed by her maid. He then began on Lock himself. He asked why, 'as soon as your husband comes to the parish he must sit in the best seat in the church'; he should have 'risen by degrees as I did.' He then spent some time gloating on his victory over Lock in the earlier Court of Chivalry case. On Grove's account, at this stage Lock returned to make the remarks referred to in his libel and Susan Lock had insulted him by declaring that 'her father was no pisspot maker' [see cause 385].

Lock was registrar to the Bishop of Winchester, and the quarrel was picked up soon after at a hearing at St Saviour's in April-May 1637. The Bishop was doing his best to persuade the two men to refer their differences in High Commission and elsewhere to him for arbitration. This, however, simply inflamed the quarrel. Lock denied that he had any hand in a case being brought against Grove in High Commission which, Grove claimed, demonstrated that he would 'swear anything', whereupon Lock had retorted that on the earlier occasion Grove had 'walked like a mountebanke.' The details of the final outcome are uncertain; but it appears that Grove was successful in his second suit and was awarded £20 in fines and damages, with the expenses taxed at twenty marks.

Initial proceedings

19/5f, Libel

1. Grove's family had been gentry for up to 200 years, while Grove had been captain of a trained band in Southwark for up to 7 years. From last June to August, in Guildford, co. Surrey, William Lock had said before several gentlemen, that 'he was a gentleman, but I was noe gentleman, but a mechanick fellowe; he was a better man than I', which words were provocative of a duel.

No date [c.1635-6?]

20/3g, Libel

1. Grove had been a justice of the peace in Southwark for up to 5 years, and a captain of a trained band in Southwark for up to 7 years. His family had been gentry for up to 200 years.

2. In 1635/6, Lock brought a suit against Grove saying that he was not a gentleman but a 'mechanick'. Lock had to pay damages and expenses, and perform a submission.

3. In 1637 a libel was admitted by Grove against Lock for injurious and contumelious words. He referred to the libel and depositions of witnesses that were produced and published.

4. Between March and July 1637 in St Saviour's parish, Southwark, Lock said before the Bishop of Winchester and several gentlemen, that Francis Grove 'walked like a mountebanke'.

5. Between last December and March in St Gregory's parish, London, Lock said of Grove before several gentlemen 'that I was base all over, that there was nothing but corruption in me that he cared not a f[art] for me and although my Lord Marshall were a friend to Grove, he cared not for him.'

6. These contemptuous words were provocative of a duel.

Dated 28 April 1638.

Signed by Arthur Duck.

11/25, Exceptions

[Badly damaged document, faded, and close to illegible. Folded in the middle, the document was formerly stuck together, so that the text has reflected and superimposed itself over the original text on each side.]

7 items in English.

Signed by William Merrick.

[Overleaf] 1638.

Plaintiff's case

14/1aa, Defence interrogatories [damaged]

1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. What was the age, occupation and condition of the witness? Where had the witness lived for the last ten years? How long had he known the parties in this case?

2. Was the witness a relative, household servant or retainer of the parties? Was the witness indebted to either of the parties?

3. How much was the witness worth in goods with their debts paid?

4. In exactly what place and at exactly what time were the pretended words in the libel spoken? What was the occasion or provocation for this?

5. Did Grove 'first speak of rising by degrees' because he took exception to Locke for presuming to sit in the same seat at church as Grove did, who 'thereupon told Mr Locke that he must rise by degrees.'

6. Where were the words spoken, and what was happening: 'whether was not a seat setting up in the church'?

7. At the time and place 'pretended' in the libel did Grove say to Locke's wife: 'As soon as your husband comes to the parish he must sit in the best seate in the church, he must sit with me; your husband should have risen by degrees as I did.' And did not Mr Grove then say that he was a captain and esquire repeating it twice'? Did Locke answer, 'I will sit but where I sat twenty years ago, and I know no reason why I should rise by degrees, for I was then a gentleman and am no better now'?

8. Did Grove say to Locke's wife, 'your husband wants witt that he sets you here to see this done, meaning the erection of a pew which was then in hand'? Did Grove ask Mrs Locke in her husband's presence 'what her mother was: Mr Grove himself making answer she was a good woman in a disparageing and jeering manner'?

9. Did Grove 'in a disparageing and scornefull manner' bid Mrs Locke, 'get her home, and eat her dinner, and said that she kept but one maide, and that she was runninge awaie with her things (meaning Mrs Locke's)'?

10. Did Grove 'not get upon the foundation of the pew in the church and *vaunting* himself said unto Mrs Locke will you take my pickture'?

11. Did Grove tell Mrs Locke that 'he did honour her breech and repeating it twice over, said I honour your verie breech'? Did Grove tell Mrs Locke 'in a scoffing manner' that 'she was the best woman in the parish, and that the very breath of the people would breake her, and said that her husband said soe'?

12. Did Grove upbraid Mr Locke 'in a scornefull, provokeing manner saying unto him that he had him at his mercie not long since to have kept him fast enough'? Did Grove then say to Mrs Locke in her husband's presence 'in a scornefull and insulting manner that her husband knew, and she might know, that her husband had paid for that not long since meaning and intending the business depending before the Right Honourable Judge of this Court mentioned in the plaintiff's libel.'

13. Did Grove call Mrs Locke a scold?

14. Did Grove say to Mrs Locke 'get you home and learn more wit, for that he had too much witt for her, and her husband to deal with.' Did Grove say that he gave more at his door in a day than the Lockes did in a month?

No date.

No signatures.

10/12/12, Plaintiff's complaint

1. Grove complained that the witness Nicholas Bestney had been sent a letter by his sister, the wife of Henry Hodgson, urging him not to testify for Grove, and that if he did not do so Hodgson would lend Bestney £5.

2. After writing the letter, Sibilla Hodgson sent her servants, and several times went herself to Nicholas Bestney to persuade him with offer of reward not to testify. 'Sibill Hodgson told Bestney that Mr Locke had earnestlie intreated her to speake to him not to appear but to withdrawe himselfe and absteine from testifying.'

3. 'On Wednesday last William Locke went to Nicholas Bestney and asked him whether he had been sworne against him on the behalfe of Grove upon the libel or the articles, and Bestney answering it may be I am or I am not. Locke earnestlie desired him, that if he was not, that he would abstain from testifying for Grove and that Bestney should loose nothing by it'.

4. 'Last term, Francis Grove brought Nicholas Palmer into the Court Military to depose' on his behalf as a witness. But Palmer was dissuaded from testifying, Lock or others telling him he would be arrested and thrown in prison if he did so. Palmer withdrew himself and refused to depose, 'saying that he doth not dare to come for feare of being arrested and clapt in prison', and that by Lock's means, he had been threatened with arrest by Mr Clarke, a bailiff of Westminster.

No date

Signed by Francis Grove.

14/2n, Defence interrogatories [damaged and faded]

1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. Of what age, occupation and condition was the witness? Where had the witness lived for the past ten years? How did the witness know the parties?

2. Was the witness a relative, household servant or retainer to either of the parties?

3. How much was the witness worth in goods with their debts deducted?

4. How had the witness come to testify in this cause? To whom would the witness give the victory if it were in their power?

5. For Susan Taunt: did she know Locke and for how long? How often, when and where had she seen him, and whether he spoke the 'pretended words', where, when and in whose presence?

6. For Susan Taunt: how did she know that Mrs Hudson had written to Mr Bestney? Had she seen the letter? How could she tell it was written on Lock's behalf? Had she read it, or had Mrs Hudson read it to her? Whether 'Mrs Hudson, your mistress, did use to acquaint you with any secret business at any tyme, or with the contents of her letters'?

7. For Susan Taunt: had she spoken with Bestney before or since she was sworn, how many times, and what had been said? Did Bestney or Grove promise her reward for her testimony, and how had she become acquainted with Grove?

8. For Susan Taunt: had she talked with Grove, where, and what had been said? Who were present, and what words did Grove use against Lock?

9. For Susan Taunt: in case she deposed she went to Bestney with a message from Mrs Hudson that Bestney should not be a witness against Lock, 'whether do you believe that your mistress did soe by reason she feared her brother Mr Bestney might unadvisedlie forswear himself, and whether you did not heare Mrs Hudson at any time speak to the same purpose'?

10. For Susan Taunt: had she 'heard that Mr Bestney is a man of a careless and ill life and apt to swear an untruth'?

11. For Nicholas Bestney: how many times had he been to church in the last three or four years? Had he received Holy Communion in the last year? If so, where and by whom?

12. For Nicholas Bestney: 'whether you have any spleene *hatred or malice* against Mr Lock and whether it is not given out you will sue Mr Lock'?

13. For Nicholas Bestney: had he told Mrs Hudson that he would have her servant imprisoned for not testifying on Grove's behalf?

14. For Nicholas Bestney: in case he deposed that Lock came to him last Whitsunday [rest too faded].

Introduced 10 July 1638.

Signed by William Merrick.

14/2s, Defence interrogatories

Interrogatories on the part of William Lock ministered against Sybill Hudson and Edmunds:

1. Sybil Hudson: 'if she deposed she did write any letter to Bestney concerning the business whether or no it were not without the instigation or knowledge of William Locke or any other person from William Locke or by his enemies'? If she did write any letter to Bestney, 'whether it was not by way of admonition only to him in regard she was doubtful or fearful that he might be drawne or seduced to sweare untruth'?

2. Sybil Hudson: 'whether (in all the time of her acquaintance and knowledge of Mr Locke) he hath not been and now is generally reputed and taken to be a very honest and just man, and such an one as, for any good, would not use any unjust or indirect meanes to compass his ends either in this business or any other, by the dissuading and withdrawing of any witness or witnesses in such manner'?

3. 'Ask every witness whether that Captain Grove hath not much laboured with them, by himselfe, or one Mr James Hayward, or some others, to procure them to depose for him accordingly as is menconed in the allegation on which they are examined on the behalfe of Grove; and what wordes and conference they or either of them have hadwith Grove or any other from him concerning this pretended business'?

4. 'Ask every witness whether they do not verily believe in their conscience that Susan Taunt, a pretended witness in this cause, is careless of her oath and may easily be drawne and seduced to sweare an untruth for hope of reward or otherwise; and whether the brother of Susan Taunt did not robb you, Mrs Hudson, of divers things in that time that Susan lived with Mrs Hudson; and whether you do well believe that Susan might have a hand in consenting unto the theft'?

No date.

Signed by William Merrick.

14/2v, Defence interrogatories [damaged]

1. Was he present in St Saviour's church on 25 June 1636 when Grove first came in and the workmen were erecting the pew for Mrs Lock. Was William Lock already there, or how long after did he arrive? 'Was it not halfe an houre or better'? How long after was it that the constable arrived?

2. Ask Thomas Stanton if he was sent to fetch the constable, and was therefore absent when the words were spoken? 'And whether you Stanton had not professed yourselfe to be thicke of hearing, by which means you might easily mistake the words which were spoken'?

3. Whether the Lockes had lawful authority from the 'chancellor of the dioces' to erect the pew, and whether the chancellor did view the place where the pew was to be erected? After Grove appealed to the Court of Arches, did Sir John Lambe, Dean of the Arches, also view the place. Had there been a sentence passed in the Court of Arches on behalf of Locke against Grove, and that the pew had been set up?

4. Did Grove say to Mrs Locke 'your husband wants wit that he sets you here to see this done, meaning the erection of a pew'? Did Grove ask Mrs Locke in her husband's presence 'what her mother was'? Did Grove say 'she was a good woman in a disparaging and jeering manner'?

5. Did Grove say 'in a disparaging and scorneful manner... wife get her home and eat her dinner and said she kept but one maid and that she was running away with her things'? Did Grove walk on the foundations of the pew and 'vaunted himself... and said unto Mr Locke will you take my picture or the same in effect'?

6. Ask every witness whether Grove got onto the foundation of the pew and told Mrs Locke that 'he did honour the place where her breech should sitt', and repeated this twice over 'in a scoffing manner'? Did Grove say to her that she was the best woman in the parish and that 'the breath of the people would break her, and said that her husband said so'?

7. Did Grove say to Mrs Locke 'as soon as your husband comes to the parish he must sit in the best seat in the church', saying 'your husband should [have] risen by degrees as I did'? Did Mr Lock reply 'I did twenty years ago and I know no reason why I should have risen by degrees for I was a gentleman then'? [rest damaged]

8. Did Grove call Mrs Locke a scold? [damaged]

9. Did Grove say to Mrs Locke 'have and learn more witt, for that he had too much witt for her and her husband to deale with him... and did not Mr Grove then and there say that he gave more in his door in a day then Mr Locke did in a month'?

10. Did Mr Grove or someone on his behalf instruct any of the witnesses how to depose?

Introduced 25 November 1638

Signed by William Merrick.

14/2x, Defence interrogatories [damaged]

1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. What was the witness's age, occupation and condition? Where had they lived for the last ten years and how did they know the parties?

2. Was the witness a relative, household servant, retainer or indebted to either party?

3. How much was the witness worth in goods with his debts paid?

4. At what hour, day, week and month were the 'pretended' words spoken?

5. Exactly where were the 'pretended' words spoken?

6. At the time of the 'pretended words', was the witness in Mr Lock's company, or if not, how could he hear the words, and who was with the witness and Mr Lock at the time?

7. Did he see Mr Lock, and was he in the same room?

8. If he only heard, what room was he in, whose voices did he hear, and who was with Mr Locke?

9. Did he 'peep through any hole or craney to see or hear Mr Locke'? How often 'hath he been in Mr Lock's company'? How 'cometh he to know Mr Lockes voice'? How did he know it was not another man that had spoken the 'pretended' words?

10. What else did Mr Lock say to the parties then present, and what gave occasion to Locke to speak those words?

11. In case the witness testified that Lock had said of Grove that he 'walked like a mountebanke upon the foundation of the pew', did not Grove provoke him to it 'by giving him disgracefull words before the Right Reverend Father in God the Lord Bishop [damaged] that Mr Locke would swear anything', or what other provoking speeches did Grove give Lock?

No date.

Signed by William Merrick.

Defendant's case

13/2z, Defence

1. Locke did not acknowledge the words attributed in the libel.

2 When Mrs Susan Lock was in the church of St Saviour's in Southwark, to oversee the erection of a family pew, Mr Francis Grove said to her before 'diverse sufficient witnesses', that her husband 'wants witt that he setts you here to see this doune, signifyinge the erectinge the seate aforesaid'. Grove then said to Susan Lock 'what was your mother, what was your mother, shee was a good woman, shee was a good woman, in a disparaging and jeering manner'.

3. Grove then said to Susan Lock 'in a disparraginge and disgracefull manner', 'gett her home and eate her dynner', saying 'shee kept but one mayd and that shee was runninge away with her things'.

4. Then Grove got 'upon the foundacon of the pew in the church and vanting himselfe said to Mistress Locke will you draw my picture'? Grove also said 'I doe honour your breech and repeatinge it twice over said I doe honnour your very breech; and further (in a scoffinge manner) said to Mrs Locke, you are the best woman in the parish and the very breath of the people will breake you, your husband said soe much'.

5. On the same occasion Grove called Susan Lock a scold.

6. On the same occasion Grove said 'that this was her pride to have this new pew', and 'that as soon as her husband came in the church he must sit in the best seat in the church saying he must sit with me, meaning himself'. Mrs Lock replied 'what are you that my husband may not sitt with you'? Then Grove turned about and said I am an esquire and I am a captayne. Then Mrs Locke said, I hope if you were a knight, a gentleman may sitt with you. Then he replied I, but your husband should have risen by degrees as I did, to which Mrs Locke replyed in a quiett and peaceable maner, without any derogation, of Mr Grove's gentility, I sitt but where I did twenty yeares agone. I know noe reason why I should have risen by degrees; I was a gentlewoman at first; I am noe better now. And those were all the wordes which att the tyme and place passed from the woman to Francis. And if William had spoken any other wordes the witnesses that were then and there present could not choose but have heard the same.'

7. On the same occasion Francis Grove said to Susan Lock 'get you home and learne more witt for that I have to much witt for you and your husband, meaning William Locke being then also present, to deale with me. And Francis Grove said to William that he gave more at his dore in a day than he did in a quarter of a yeare'.

14/3c, Plaintiff's interrogatories [faded]

1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. What was the witness's age, occupation and condition? Where did he live? How long had he known the parties? To whom would he grant the victory if it was in his power? How much was he worth in his own goods with his debts paid?

2. Whether 'he be servant unto Mr Locke, or hath not he some dependence on him by reason of his registership? Whether he be not an apparitor belonging unto Mr Locke's office? Whether he hath soe promised him some reward'?

3. Had the witness been instructed what to depose by Mr Lock or some other?

4. Did 'he frequenteth the church on Sundaies and holie daies to heare divine prayer'? Had he 'prophaned the lord's day by sitting, tippling and drinking in alehouses'? Had the witness heard that Thomas Greene, Thomas Dyer, William Edwards and Ralph Whistler, witnesses for Mr Lock, were 'given to excessive drinking, and frequenting of innes, alehouses and taverns, and common prophaners of the Sabbath day, rash and common swearers and blasphemers of God's name'? Were they, or some of them, 'of such dissolute life that he judgeth them to have no feare of God; and therefore easily to be drawne to depose an untruth on their oaths'?

5. Where and when did the witness see Bestney with Grove? Did the witness see Grove eat or drink with Bestney? If so, where and when? Did Grove give Bestney money or clothes, 'and of what colour were the clothes, when they were given and by whom delivered? Had Bestney, 'long before, and since, his examination, averred that he heard Locke utter the words in the libel against Mr Grove'? Where, when and in whose presence 'did such witness heare Besney deny that he heard the uttering of the words in the libel by Mr Locke? Did he 'know or hath crediblie heard that Locke hath indevored and plotted to hinder and withdrawe Bestney from deposing for Mr Grove or to contrary and deny what he had formerly deposed'?

7. Was Thomas Greene committed to the Bridewell in October 1631 by Sir John Lemon, knt, for conspiring with others to falsely accuse Mr Thomas Westwood 'of adultery and fornication with a strumpet whome Green had suborned of purpose to lay her child to Westwood, thereby to have gotten some money from him. And did not Thomas Green profess the same on oath before the Governor of Bridewell'? Was Greene's only purpose 'to have gotten some money from Westwood'; and did he ask Westwood's forgiveness for the same? Was Greene corrected 'in the Bridewell by being whipped for so doing'?

8. Was Thomas Dyer 'a poor gaoler in the common gaol of the King's Bench'? Had he a wife in Wiltshire or elsewhere? Had Dyer fathered a bastard by Mrs Elleyn, whose child was called Thomas Dyer? Had Dyer fathered another bastard with his servant, Elizabeth? Was there 'a common fame thereof'? Had Dyer 'given something to Locke and Greene or one of them, whereby they should connive at his incontinencie'? How much did he give them? Was he punished for his incontinence?

9. Was he condemned by the keeper 'for his misdemeanours committed in the King's Bench prison', 'to stand in the pillorie at the King's Bench dore'?

10. Did William Edwards 'hear Bestney declare and maintain, by many protestations, that he heard Locke use the words in the libel and that the words were spoken in the presence of Mr Palmer and some other man'? Did he hear Mr Grove tell Bestney, 'doe not you in danger your soule for my cause, but speake the truth'? Did Mr Grove say to him, 'that he had rather lose a £1000 then Besney should for sweare himselfe for him'? Did Mr Grove tell Bestney 'that if he could not bring the two other witnesses in whose presence the words were spoken, Grove would let his cause fall? And did not Bestney protest that they would come to depose the words in the libel'?

11. Was Stockdale 'an ordinary prophaner of the lord's day, a common informer and contriver of dishonest plots'? Did he within the last two years inform against Grove in the Star Chamber, and upon reference of the business to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Keeper and the Lord Treasurer, 'did not Stockdale... markes for informing against them, and did not the lords tell Stockdale that he was a knave and dishonest man'?

12. 'In case any witness shall depose that Francis Grove said that William Locke would say or sweare... and place, in whose presence and on what occasion were the words spoken, whether did not Locke at the same time and place before the... words to him tending to such effect most falselie and untruelie say and protest (as it is most notoriously known to be false), that Locke had... proseqution of Grove [in] the Commission Court, nor that he had expended any money in that sute, and did not Locke sweare... to sweare soe much, and did not Grove thereunto replye that if Locke would say or sweare soe, he would... anything, and upon such provocation and occasion and noe otherwise were not the words used'?

13. Speak the truth of what you know, believe or have heard.

Introduced 3 May 1639.

Signed by Francis Grove.

14/3i, Plaintiff's interrogatories

'In the last interr[ogatory] aske whether Francis Grove was not without the church, and Mrs Locke stoode at the church doore and shee seeing Francis Grove cumminge by, and there taking out of the cart,

No date.

No signatures.

14/3j, Second set of plaintiff interrogatories

1. Did the bishop of Winchester demand of William Lock whether he was involved in prosecuting Francis Grove in the High Commission or spent money in that cause? What did William Lock reply? Did Locke 'protest that he had no hand in the same, nor had expended one penny in the cause but that one John Taylor was the promoter of the cause'? What did Francis Grove reply? Did he say that if Mr Lock denied that he had any hand in that cause then he would say anything, 'for that the verie daye of the first complaint against Francis Grove in the High Commission Court Locke was there put, and retained Dr Merricke and gave him twenty shillings for his fee, which he could verie well prove'? Was Mr Locke the Register at that time to the Bishop of Winchester?

2. Before the speaking of the words above, did Mr Locke say to the bishop '(amongst some words that there passed concerning the foresaid pew or seat), in a laughing and jeering manner against, Mr Francis Grove did walk upon the foundacon of that pewe lyke a Mountebancke.'

No date.

Signed by Francis Grove.

Sentence / Arbitration

18/1o, Plaintiff's sentence

Lock was sentenced for having said that while 'he was a gentleman born, and so should continue and die', Grove had 'came up by degrees, first an apprentice, then a journeyman, then a master'.

The plaintiff was awarded £20 in damages and expenses and the case was taxed at 20 marks.

No date.

Signed by Arthur Duck and Lord Maltravers.

10/12/7, Plaintiff's sentence [badly damaged]

The names of Francis Grove and William Locke are added as superscript inserts over the names of Francis James and John Counsell.

No date or details survive on document, over half of which has been eaten away.

13/3f, Defendant's sentence

Requested that the case be dismissed with the section on the amount to be awarded against Grove crossed out.

18/1m, Defendant's sentence

Spaces for amounts left blank.

No date.

Signed by William Merrick.

18/1l, Plaintiff's bill of costs

Hilary term, 1637 - Michaelmas term, 1638

Sum total: £35-2d-4s.

Signed by Arthur Duck.

Taxed at £13-6s-8d.

Signed by Lord Maltravers.

18/1t, Defendant's bill of costs

Hilary term 1637/8 - Easter term 1639.

Sum total: £26-5s-8d.

Signed by William Merrick.

13/3cc, Defendant's bill of costs

Covers costs from Easter term, 1638 to Trinity term, 1639.

Total: £38-2s-6d.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Duck acted as counsel for Grove and Dr Merrick for Lock. The first surviving proceedings were from May and November 1636, and this refers to the first action by Grove for which no verdict survives. On 3 February 1638 Lock was summoned to appear. On 12 February, Dr Duck presented the libel for the second case with witnesses John Humfrey, Henry Mills and Thomas Crowder sworn in support of it, and Lock was warned to appear at the house of Sir Henry Marten to receive the libel. On 13 March Grove appeared in person, and in support of his libel produced Charles Hutchinson, clerk. The suit appears to have split into two causes by 20 October 1638, on which day Lock's witnesses for the first cause, including John Hayman, were warned to submit to examination. In the second cause, Grove's witnesses were to do likewise. On 6 November 1638, Dr Duck was ordered to produce the prosecution witnesses Sybil Hudson and John Edmund. Material began to be presented for Lock's defence in November and the testimony of Grove's witnesses was published on 5 December. On 9 February 1639 Lock's witnesses were named as Thomas Greene, Thomas Dyer, William Edwards, Leonard Stockdale, William Sheppard, Thomas Whistler and Ravis Benson. Grove's witnesses were also warned to appear. Lock's witnesses were warned to appear again on 21 February 1639.

Notes

Francis Grove of St Saviour's parish only contributed reluctantly to demands to contribute to parliament's war effort, and a Henry Grove of the same parish, possibly a kinsman, left London to join the royalist army.

K. Lindley, Popular Politics in Civil War London (Aldershot, 1997), p. 65.

William Lock of St George's parish, Southwark, co. Surrey was entered in the visitation of 1662-8 as an esquire and captain of the trained bands. By then, he had married Mary, daughter and heiress of Simon Cade of Sydenham, co. Kent, gent. He was the son of William Lock of Henley, co. Warwick, and Anne, daughter of Mr Stephens of Abingdon, co. Berkshire. The 1623 Visitation recorded the marriage of William Lock of Merton, co. Surrey, to Susan, daughter of Robert Cole of Sudbury.

Francis Grove does not appear in any of the Visitations.

W. B. Bannerman (ed.), The Visitations of the County of Surrey, 1530, 1572 and 1623 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 43, 1899), p. 134; G. J. Armytage (ed.), A Visitation of the County of Surrey, 1662-8 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 60, 1910), p. 77.

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Libel: 19/5f (no date)
    • Libel: 20/3g (28 Apr 1638)
  • Plaintiff's case
    • Exceptions: 11/25 (1638)
    • Defence interrogatories: 14/1aa (no date)
    • Plaintiff's complaint: 10/12/12 (no date)
    • Defence interrogatories: 14/2n (10 Jul 1638)
    • Defence interrogatories: 14/2s (no date)
    • Defence interrogatories: 14/2v (25 Nov 1638)
    • Defence interrogatories: 14/2x (no date)
  • Defendant's case
    • Defence: 13/2z (no date)
    • Plaintiff interrogatories: 14/3c (3 May 1639)
    • Plaintiff interrogatories: 14/3i (no date)
    • Second set of plaintiff interrogatories: 14/3j (no date)
  • Sentence / Arbitration
    • Plaintiff's sentence: 18/1o (no date)
    • Plaintiff's sentence: 10/12/7 (no date)
    • Defendant's sentence: 13/3f (no date)
    • Defendant's sentence: 18/1m (no date)
    • Plaintiff's bill of costs: 18/1l (Mic 1638)
    • Defendant's bill of costs: 18/1t (Eas 1639)
    • Defendant's bill of costs: 13/3cc (Tri 1639)
  • Proceedings
    • Undated proceedings: College of Arms MS. 'Court of Chivalry' (act book, 1636-8) [pressmark R.R.68C] (hereafter 68C), fos. 64r-67r (c. Apr 1636)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 68C, fos. 74r-83v (7 May 1636)
    • Proceedings: 68C, fos. 105r-110v (8 Nov 1636)
    • Proceedings before Arundel: 1/5, fos. 23-35 (3 Feb 1638)
    • Proceedings before Arundel: 1/5, fos. 38-56 (12 Feb 1638)
    • Proceedings before Marten: 1/5 (13 Mar 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 Maltravers: R.19, fos. 400v-412v (20 Nov 1638)
    • Proceedings before Marten: R.19, fos. 413v-416v (27 Nov 1638)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 422r-428r (28 Nov 1638)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 474r-484v (5 Dec 1638)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 1/9 (28 Jan 1639)
    • Proceedings: 1/7, fos. 36-47 (9 Feb 1639)
    • Proceedings before Arundel: 1/6, fos. 20-33 (21 Feb 1639)

People mentioned in the case

  • Benson, Ravis
  • Bestney, Nicholas, Mr
  • Cade, Simon, gent
  • Clarke, Mr, bailiff
  • Cole, Robert
  • Cole, Susan
  • Counsell, John
  • Crowder, Thomas
  • Curll, Walter, bishop of Winchester
  • Duck, Arthur, lawyer
  • Dyer, Thomas, gaoler
  • Edmund, John
  • Edwards, William
  • Green, Thomas (also Greene)
  • Grove, Francis, esq
  • Grove, Henry
  • Hayman, John
  • Hayward, James, Mr
  • Hodgson, Henry (also Hudson)
  • Hodgson, Sibilla (also Hudson)
  • Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
  • Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
  • Humfrey, John
  • James, Francis
  • Lambe, John, knight
  • Laud, William, archbishop of Canterbury
  • Lemon, John, knight
  • Lock, Anne
  • Lock, Susan (also Locke)
  • Lock, William (also Locke)
  • Marten, Henry, knight
  • Merrick, William, lawyer
  • Mills, Henry
  • Palmer, Nicholas, Mr
  • Sheppard, William
  • Stanton, Thomas
  • Stephens, Anne
  • Stockdale, Leonard
  • Taunt, Susan
  • Westwood, Thomas, Mr
  • Whistler, Ralph
  • Whistler, Thomas

Places mentioned in the case

  • Berkshire
    • Abingdon
  • Hampshire
    • Winchester
  • Kent
    • Canterbury
    • Sydenham
  • Middlesex
    • Westminster
  • Suffolk
    • Sudbury
  • Surrey
    • Guildford
    • Merton
    • St George, Southwark
    • St Saviour, Southwark
  • Warwickshire
    • Henley-in-Arden
  • Wiltshire

Topics of the case

  • allegation of cheating
  • allegation of perjury
  • allegation of tradesman status
  • archbishop
  • bishop
  • Bridewell
  • chancellor
  • churchwarden
  • civil war
  • Court of Arches
  • denial of gentility
  • fornication
  • High Commission
  • imprisonment
  • insult before gentlemen
  • justice of the peace
  • King's Bench
  • military officer
  • office-holding
  • other courts
  • pillory
  • provocative of a duel
  • royalist
  • Sabbatarianism
  • Star Chamber
  • taxation
  • whipping