270 Hach v Ratcliffe

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

This free content was Born digital. All rights reserved.

'270 Hach v Ratcliffe', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640, (, ) pp. . British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/270-hach-ratcliffe [accessed 2 March 2024]

In this section

270 HACH V RATCLIFFE

Thomas Hach of South Molton, co. Devon, esq v Hannibal Ratcliffe of the city of Exeter

December 1639

Abstract

Hach complained that Ratcliffe said that he 'was as good a gent as your petitioner, and better, and would not bate him an ace of itt'. Maltravers appointed Sir Lewis Pollard, bart, Sir John Chichester, knt, Arthur Basset, esq, and John Courtney, esq, to examine the case, call witnesses and attempt an arbitration; however, Ratcliffe was 'found refractory', and he, therefore, granted process against him on 3 December 1639. No further proceedings survive.

Initial proceedings

2/93, Petition to Arundel

'He (being well qualified as abovesaid), formerlie petitioned your lordship against Haniball Ratcliffe (being no gent) for saieing he was as good a gent as your petitioner, and better, and would not bate him an ace of itt, with other disgracefull and provoking speeches. And yet in favour of Ratcliffe your honor then made thereof a reference to Sir Lewes Pollard baronet, Sir John Chichester kt, Arthur Basset, esq and John Courtney, esq, thereby giving them, or any two or three of them power to call both parties before them and their witnesses, and to examine the difference and end it if they could. And if they found either of the parties refractory then to certifie the same and their opinions of the controversie. That accordinglie Sir Lewes Pollard Sir John Chichester and John Courtney did call both parties before them, and examined witnesses which proved the complaint, but Ratcliffe they found refractory, no way enclining to submit to any end they should sett downe between them, but peremptorily declyneinge the reference departed from them.'

Petitioned Ratcliffe be brought to answer.

Maltravers granted process 'in respect of his neglect of the favour done him by my reference', on 3 December 1639.

2/92, Plaintiff's bond

4 December 1639

Bound to appear 'in the Court in the painted Chamber within the Pallace of Westminster'.

Signed by John Rosier of Chulmleigh, co. Devon, yeoman, on behalf of Hach.

Sealed, subscribed and delivered in the presence of John Watson.

Notes

Thomas Hatch was the son and heir of Arthur Hatch and Margaret, daughter of Thomas Mallet of Enmore, co. Somerset. Thomas was aged 21 in 1620.

F. T. Colby (ed.), The Visitation of the County of Devon in the year 1620 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 6, 1872), p. 141.

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Petition: 2/93 (3 Dec 1639)
    • Plaintiff's bond: 2/92 (4 Dec 1639)

People mentioned in the case

  • Basset, Arthur, esq
  • Chichester, John, knight
  • Courtney, John, esq
  • Hach, Arthur (also Hatch)
  • Hach, Margaret (also Hatch)
  • Hach, Thomas, esq (also Hatch)
  • Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
  • Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
  • Mallet, Margaret
  • Mallet, Thomas
  • Pollard, Lewis, knight
  • Ratcliffe, Hannibal
  • Rosier, John, yeoman
  • Watson, John

Places mentioned in the case

  • Devon
    • Exeter
    • Chulmleigh
    • South Molton
  • Middlesex
    • Westminster
  • Somerset
    • Enmore

Topics of the case

  • arbitration
  • comparison