299 Hobart v Mickleburgh

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

This free content was Born digital. All rights reserved.

'299 Hobart v Mickleburgh', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640, (, ) pp. . British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/299-hobart-mickleburgh [accessed 4 March 2024]

In this section

299 HOBART V MICKLEBURGH

James Hobart, esq and Anthony Hobart, gent, of Hales Hall, co. Norfolk v Robert Mickleburgh the younger of Hales, yeoman

October 1639 - September 1640

Abstract

James Hobart, one of the king's esquires of the body, and Anthony complained that Mickleburgh said that the Hobarts 'and all that do belong to their house are rogues, knaves and rascalls', 'that they keepe none' but 'knaves and rascalls' and 'that they were not all worth a hundred pounds.' Witnesses for the Hobarts were examined by a commission headed by Gregory Calver, gent, at the White Horse Inn, in Tombland, in Norwich, on 20 March 1640. They testified that Mickleburgh had uttered such words in a cornfield in Hales parish, Norfolk in September 1639 and at his own house on 20 November 1639.

Mickleburgh denied saying the words and argued that the prosecution witnesses were all hired labourers who owed their livings to the Hobarts. Mickleburgh was prosecuting a Star Chamber lawsuit against the Hobarts for riotously attempting to take from him some of his corn at harvest time in 1639. He also maintained that in March or April 1640, by the mediation of Calver and William Denny, gent, he and the Hobarts negotiated and signed an end to all the lawsuits between them. However, this was not accepted and the witnesses for Mickleburgh's defence were examined by a commission headed by Denny on 22 September 1640, at the George, in Loddon, Norfolk. Order was given for the court to move towards sentence on 4 December 1640; but nothing further survives and it appears that the case was lost amidst the cessation of the court's proceedings.

Initial proceedings

6/22, Plaintiff's bond

12 October 1639

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

Signed by Antho: Hobart

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

2/106, Defendant's bond

30 November 1639

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

Signed by Robt: Mickellburgh.

Sealed, subscribed and delivered in the presence of Jo: Buckenham.

Also signed by Deny Mickellburgh of the same county.

10/6, Libel [damaged]

1. James and Anthony Hobart were of a family that had been gentry for up to 300 years, and some of their ancestors were knights.

2. They were related to Sir Miles Hobart of Plumstead and Sir John Hobart.

3. From October to December 1639 Robert Mickleborow said 'that they... and all that do belong to their house are Rogues, knaves and Rascalls and that they keepe none [damaged] and knaves and Rascalls.'

No date.

Signed by Clere Talbot.

Plaintiff's case

10/2, Letters commissory for the plaintiff

Addressed to commissioners Gregory Calver, gent, William Hill, gent, and also Richard Burnell, gent, and Thomas Denny, gent, to meet in a cause of scandalous words provocative of a duel, from 19 to 21 March 1640 at the White Horse Inn, Tombland, in the city of Norwich.

William Lewin assigned Edward Crane notary public.

No date.

10/4, Defence interrogatories

1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. What was the witness's age, occupation and condition? Where had the witness lived for all the years of their life?

2. Was the witness related to the Hobarts, and if so, by what degree? Was the witness indebted to them, and if so for what sum?

3. Was the witness a household servant, retainer or otherwise dependent upon the Hobarts? Was the witness a solicitor for the Hobarts or had he been produced for reward?

4. Exactly where, when and in whose presence were the words spoken?

5. 'What was the very formal words which Mickleborow then and there spake? What words or actions passed from Hobart and Hobart or either of them to or against Mickleborowe at that tyme'? 'Lett every such witness set downe all such words in such order as they were then and there spoken, which first and which last.'

6. Was there 'a suite now depending in the Starr chamber between Mickleborowe alone or him and some others plaintiffe, and James Hobart and Anthony Hobart both or one of them, alone or with others defendants? Upon what occasion grew the suite, when was the first subpena served for the suite'?

7. Were the words deposed 'not spoken after September 1639'?

No date.

Signed by Thomas Eden.

Cur Mil 1631-1642, fos. 71r-72v, Preamble to plaintiff depositions

Taken before the commissioner Gregory Calver, gent, at the White Horse Inn, in Tombland, in the city of Norwich, on 20 March 1639, in the presence of Edward Crane, notary public and his deputy John Cubitt, notary public. The other commissioners, William Hill, Richard Burnell and Thomas Denny, gents, were absent.

Cur Mil 1631-1642, fos. 63r-68v, Plaintiff depositions
fos. 63r-64r (Witness 1), William Merser of Loddon, co. Norfolk, yeoman, aged about 37

20 March 1639/40

To the Hobarts' libel:

1-2. Not examined by consent of the Hobarts.

3. Around 20 November 1639 he heard Mickleborow in his house in Hales say of Mr James and Mr Anthony Hobart of Hales Hall, in the presence of Thomas Wales of Bungay, co. Suffolk, 'that they and all of them that belonged to their house were Rogues and Rascalls and that they are not all of them worth a hundred pounds'. Mickleborow repeated this 'in a very opprobrious and scandalous manner'. Mickelborow was not provoked, neither of the Hobarts were present, and Mickleborow said the words to 'disgrace and disparage them and their house'.

Signed by William Merser [his mark]

To Mickleborow's interrogatories:

1. He was born in Bilstone, co. Leicester, and had lived in Lodden for 8 or 9 years.

2. 'He is neither of affinity nor consanguinity to either' the Hobarts or Mickleborow. He was not indebted to any 'save only in the way of trading with Mr Anthony Hobart for making of pott ash for sope boylers.'

3. He was not a solicitor, servant or dependent upon any of the parties.

4. The words were spoken at 4 or 5pm on Wednesday or Thursday in the parish of Hales at Mickleborow's house, in the presence of Thomas Wales, Mickleborow's wife and others.

5. The 'very formal words' Mickleborow spoke were that 'Mr James Hobart and Mr Anthony Hobart and all that belonged to their house were Rogues and Rascalls and that they kept none but Rogues and Rascalls and that they were not all worth a hundred pounds'. Neither of the Hobarts were present.

6. There was a lawsuit depending in Star Chamber brought by Mickleborow with the Hobarts among the defendants, which the witness believed 'grew by reapeing of corne which grew in a close in Hales; but when the first subpoena for the said suite was served he knoweth not'.

Signed by William Merser [his mark] and by the commissioner Calver.

fos. 65r-66r (Witness 2), Thomas Wales of Bungay, co. Suffolk, husbandman, aged about 24

To the Hobarts' libel:

1-2. Not examined by consent of the plaintiffs.

3. As witness 1. Wales acknowledged Merser was present.

Signed by Thomas Wales [his mark]

To Mickleborow's interrogatories:

1. He was born in Filby, co. Norfolk, and had lived in Bungay, co. Suffolk for 8 or 9 years 'using husbandry'.

2. 'He is neither of affinity nor consanguinity to either' the Hobarts or Mickleborow. He was not indebted to any of them.

3. He was not a solicitor, servant or dependent, or hired by any of the parties.

4. As witness 1.

5. Referred to article 3 of the libel for the very words spoken. Neither of the Hobarts were present.

Signed by Thomas Wales [his mark] and by the commissioner Calver.

fos. 66r-v (Witness 3), William Cornwallis of the city of Norwich, gent, aged about 66

To the Hobarts' libel:

1. Both of the Hobarts were 'gentlemen of an ancient family discended linially from Sir James Hobert who was Attorney Generall' to Henry VII, and who built 'the great church at Lodden and the great bridge at St Olaves in the county of Norfolk at his owne cost and chardge the memory, whereof stands in Lodden Church at this day to be seen in the east windowe of the church; and that James Hobart is commonly reputed to be Esq to his Majestie's body.'

2. That the Hobarts were 'very near in blood' to Sir John Hobart, knt and bart, and Sir Miles Hobart knight of the Bath.

Signed by William Cornwallis and by the commissioner Calver.

To Mickleborow's interrogatories:

This witness was 'of some small affinity by matches to the house of the Hobarts'.

Signed by William Cornwallis and by the commissioner Gregory Calver.

fos. 66v-68r (Witness 4), William Burrish of Loddon, co. Norfolk, yeoman, aged about 28

To the Hobarts' libel:

1-2. Not examined by consent of the Hobarts.

3. Last September he heard Mickleburgh say that the Hobarts were 'bankrout [sic] knaves, lying knaves and Rebellious knaves and that he was a better man than all the Hobarts', that both of them 'had noe place of abode and that they were Runnagates, Rogues, and Rascalls'. Mickelborow was not provoked, neither of the Hobarts were present, and Mickleborow said the words 'out of mere malice to disparage and disgrace them and their house'.

Signed by William Burrish [his mark] and by the commissioner Calver.

To Mickleborow's interrogatories:

1. He was born in Wheatacre Burrow in Norfolk, and had lived in Hales Hall for over a year with Mrs Hobart, the plaintiffs' mother.

2. As witness 2.

3. He had not solicited the case for the Hobarts, nor been produced for reward, and had no other relation to them other than being their mother's servant.

4. The words were spoken at 2 or 3pm on a Tuesday during last September in a cornfield in Hales parish, in the presence of Francis Berry, gent, Robert Bollar, William Dennis, and several other labourers in the field.

5. For the exact words, he referred himself to article 3 in answer to the libel. He knew not what words passed between the Hobarts and Mickleborow.

6. He knew of a lawsuit depending in Star Chamber between Mickleborow and the Hobarts 'which grew by reason of the reapeing of some corne in the corne field aforesaid.'

7. He referred himself to article 3 in answer to the libel.

Signed by William Burrish [his mark] and by the commissioner Calver.

fos. 68r-v (Witness 5), Edward Mileham of Burlingham, co. Norfolk, gent, aged about 48

To the Hobarts' libel:

1. He knew 'by the view of the pedigree' that the Hobarts were 'gentlemen of an ancient family', and 'linially descended from Sir James Hobart', attorney general to Henry VII.

2. Sir John Hobart, deputy lieutenant for co. Norfolk, and Sir Miles Hobart, knight of the Bath were 'near of blood' to the plaintiffs.

Signed by Edward Mileham and by the commissioner Calver.

To Mickleborow's interrogatories:

1. He was born in Norfolk, and had lived there for most of his life.

2. He owed money to neither of the parties, but was related by marriage to the Hobarts.

3. He had not solicited the case for the Hobarts, and had no other relation to them other than above.

Signed by Edward Mileham and by the commissioner Calver.

Cur Mil 1631-1642, fos. 69v-70r, Notary public's certificate

Certificate in Latin signed by Edward Crane, notary public of the diocese of Norwich, that the examinations had been completed and were now being returned.

No date.

Notary's mark.

Defendant's case

20/1n, Defence

1. Thomas Wales, William Burrish, William Mercer, William Cornwallis and Edward Mylam, witnesses for the Hobarts in this cause were capital enemies of Mickleburgh who could be brought to depose untruths.

2. Thomas Wales was a domestic servant to one of the Hobarts, William Burrish was their gardener, William Mercer one of their day labourers. All three were poor 'and very mean people of no credit or reputation and have their maintenance solely or chiefly from the Hobarts'.

3. Wales, Burrish and Mercer had been his enemies for up to 3 years, and there were several suits of law depending between them and him. There were 3 or 4 between Mercer and him, 2, 3 or 4 between Burrish and him, and one between Wales and him, 'in which suite it being an action of debt for 6li. brought by me against Wales, I had judgement against him in Michaelmas tearme last past, vizt. 1639.'

4. In November 1639, he was at his house in Hales, co. Norfolk, with Wales, Mercer and the Hobarts. Francis Bransey, Matthew Aldrich, John Chamberlaine, then constable of Hales, Richard Leman, Elizabeth Sherman and Mickleborow's maidservant Suzanne were also present. All were in the house from the Hobarts' first coming till their departure, all heard what Mickelborow said, and all would depose that he did not say the words in the libel. 'I did not say that they and all that do belong to their house are Roagues knaves and Rascalls, and that they kept none but Roagues and knaves and Rascalls nor other words to that effect'. If he had spoken those words, the witnesses must have heard them.

5. Last harvest time in 1639, the Hobarts, Mercer, Wales and others 'did in violent and riotous manner go about to take from me some of my corne in Hales, whereupon I was advised and did by counsel put in against them all a bill into the court of Star Chamber, which suite is still depending in the said court; and was there begun in the beginning in Michaelmas terme last or before, and before the beginning of this pretended suite against me in this honourable court.'

6. The testimony of Mercer and Wales that Mickleborow had spoken the words in the libel contradicted their answers upon oath to Mickleborow's bill in Star Chamber.

7. During last March or April Mickleborow and the Hobarts 'had treaty together about agreement of all suites at law whatsoever, between us in all courts whatsoever, especially of agreement of this pretended suite in this honourable courte, and we did come to an absolute agreement especially of this suite, and the agreement was written, and was also signed and sealed and consented unto by all three of us.'

8. After signing the agreement, one of the Hobarts said 'it will cost 3 or 4 [pounds] to send up and move the court to give way to the said agreement and we must or I must have of you twenty shillings or ten shillings towards that'. Mickleborow refused to give the money as it was not in the agreement, and then Mr William Deny or, Gregory Calver said to the Hobarts 'never stand upon so small a matter, whereupon the Hobarts were quiet and asked no more.'

No date, but 1640

Signed by Thomas Eden.

18/5f, Letters commissory for the defendant

Addressed to the commissioners Thomas Potts, clerk, Edward Trott and William Denny, gents, and also, William Hill the elder, William Hill the younger and Gregory Calver, gents, to meet in a cause of scandalous words provocative of a duel, from 22 to 24 September 1640 at the George Inn, Loddon, co. Norfolk.

William Lewin, registrar, assigned John Cubitt as notary public.

Dated 3 July 1640.

Signed by William Lewin.

20/1n, Defence depositions

Taken before commissioners William Denny and William Hill, gents, at the George, in Loddon, co. Norfolk, between 1 and 2pm on 22 September 1640, with John Cubitt as notary public.

(Witness 1), John Copping, born at Wooton, co. Norfolk, lived there for all his life

To Mickleborow's defence:

1-2. Wales, Burrish and Mercer were 'intimate friends' to the Hobarts, and 'capital enemies' to Mickleborow. Mickleborow had procured a judgement for Wales to be fined £6 before the beginning of this suite. Mickelborow had also sued Burrish and Mercer for forcible entry onto his land and for carrying off his corn. They were 'meane people and especially Wales and Mercer are men of noe credit or reputation.'

3. The judgement against Wales was not yet satisfied.

To the Hobarts' interrogatories:

1. He was Mickleborow's uncle by his mother's side.

2. Negative.

3. He was more familiar with Mickleborow than the Hobarts.

Signed by John Copping and by commissioners William Denny and William Hill.

(Witness 2), Matthew Aldrich of Hales co. Norfolk, lived there for all his life, had known Mickleborow for 12 years, aged about 22

To Mickleborow's defence:

2. Burrish was a domestic servant to the Hobarts.

3. As witness 1.

4. About St Martin's day last, in November 1639, Mickleborow, Wales and Mercer were at Mickleborow's house in Hales. There were also present this witness, Francis Bransby, John Chamberlain, Richard Lemon, Elizabeth Sherman and Mickleborow's maidservant Susan, all of whom were in the room for all the time Wales and Mercer were there. Mickleborow did not say any of the words in the libel, and if he had, this witness would have heard them.

Signed by Matthew Aldrich [his mark] and by the above two commissioners.

(Witness 3), John Chamberlain of Loddon, co. Norfolk, husbandman, lived there for 2 years, born at Hadeston, co. Norfolk, aged over 50

To Mickleborow's defence:

2. During the summer of 1639, Wales carried timber for the Hobarts, Burrish was their gardener and household servant since 1638, while Wales, Burrish and Mercer were 'poore and meane people of small credit or reputation', who 'had their chief maintenance from the Hobarts'.

5. At harvest time in 1639, he was reaping corn with Mickleborow's other servants in Mickleborow's close, when the Hobarts, Mercer, Wales and Burrish, with 9 others 'came with them in a violent or forcible manner into the close and cutt, destroyed and carried away from Mickleburgh all the corn growing upon two acres of land or thereabouts saving that within ten days after St Martin *ye Bpp* he heard Mickleburgh say that he had exhibited a bill into the Star Chamber against the Hobarts, Mercer, Wales and Burrish and others. But for the more certainty thereof he referred himself to the bill in the said court.'

Signed by John Chamberlain [his mark]

To the Hobarts' interrogatories:

3. Negative.

5. Negative.

Signed by John Chamberlain [his mark] and by the above two commissioners.

(Witness 4), Denny Mickleburgh of Hales, co. Norfolk, husbandman, aged about 22

To Mickleborow's defence:

2. Wales, Burrish and Mercer were 'servants, labourers or workemen' to the Hobarts, 'poore and meane people of small credit or reputation and had their maintenance or livelihood solely or chiefly' from the Hobarts.

3. There had been lawsuits between Mickleborow and Wales, Burrish and Mercer for over a year. Mickleborow had a judgement against Wales for £6, and suites depending against Burrish and Mercer.

5. As witness 3, but Mickleborow, who was then constable, asked by what right they took the corn and commanded them to keep the king's peace. But Anthony Hobart showed a writing and said it was a sequestration granted out of the Court of Requests to take away the corn, and that if he should resist, 'he had the Lord Privie Seale's commission to kill him'. Mickleborow commenced the Star Chamber suite for riot before the beginning of this suite in the Earl Marshall's court. This witness served the Hobarts, Wales, Burrish and Mercer with the process out of Star Chamber.

7. As article 7 of the defence, except that the agreement was delivered to the custody of Gregory Calver, gent. Thomas Haines and William Denny, gent, were also present.

8. As article 8 of the defence.

To the Hobarts' interrogatories:

1. He was Mickleborow's brother.

2. Negative.

3. He was most familiar with his brother 'and desireth that right may take place'.

Signed by Denny Mickelburgh.

(Witness 5), Thomas Leese of Hales, co. Norfolk, husbandman, born at Oulton, co. Suffolk, aged about 30 lived there for all his life

To Mickleborow's defence:

2. In Michaelmas 1639, Burrish worked for his main maintenance as a gardener for the Hobarts, and that Burrish, Wales and Mercer were 'poor and mean people of small credit or reputation.'

4. Last November, Robert Lowder went with Mercer and Wales to Mickleborow's house where he heard a conversation about money that Wales owed to Mickleborow, but did not hear any of the words in the libel about the Hobarts. If Mickleborow had uttered such words, he would have heard them. There were also present Francis Bransby, Matthew Aldrich, Robert White and others.

Signed by Thomas Leece.

(Witness 6), Matthew Mickleburgh of Hales, co. Norfolk, singleman, had known the Hobarts for 14 years and Mickleborow for 16 years, aged about 21

To Mickleborow's defence:

2. For the last 2 years, Burrish and Mercer had been domestic servants to the Hobarts, while Wales was a day labourer for them. All three were 'poore men of small credit or reputation.'

4. On 11 November 1639, he was at Mickleborow's house all the time that Mercer and Wales were there. Bransby, Aldrich, Chamberlain, Lemon, Sherman, Leese and the maidservant Susan were also there. He did not hear Mickleborow say any of the words in the libel, and if he had, he was sure to have heard.

Signed by Matthew Mickelburgh.

To the Hobarts' interrogatories:

1. He was the defendant's brother but not in any way indebted to him.

2. Negative.

3. He was more familiar with his brother than the Hobarts.

Signed by Matthew Mickelburgh

(Witness 7), Thomas Holmes of Loddon, co. Norfolk, lived there for 4 years, born at Mundham, co. Norfolk, had known the Hobarts for 3 years and Mickleborow for 5 years

To Mickleborow's defence:

2. For the last 2 years, Burrish, Wales and Mercer had been 'servants, labourers or workmen' to the Hobarts. All three were 'verie poore men of small credit or reputation.'

3. There had been several lawsuits between Mickleborow and Burrish and Mercer. There had been a Star Chamber suite commenced before this one. This witness carried a bill to Star Chamber against Burrish, Mercer and others at the start of last Michaelmas term, 1639.

7. During last Hilary vacation, Mickleborow and the Hobarts by the mediation of William Denny and Gregory Calver, gents, made an agreement of all their differences between themselves and their servants. The agreement was signed and given to Gregory Calver. There was a cessation of all their suites in the following Easter term. William Denny, Calver, Mickleburgh and others were present.

Signed by Thomas Holmes.

To the Hobarts' interrogatories:

2. Negative.

3. He was more familiar with Mickleborow than the Hobarts, 'and wisheth that right may take place.'

Signed by Thomas Holmes and by the above two commissioners.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Talbot acted as counsel for the Hobarts and Dr Eden for Mickleburgh. On 10 October 1640 the testimony of the defence witnesses was sent for. On 30 October Dr Eden alleged it was necessary to examine two more witnesses for the defence, but Dr Talbot claimed that Dr Eden was impeding process, and Eden was required to produce and examine these witnesses within five days. The testimony of the defence witnesses was published on 20 November. On 4 December the court moved towards sentence.

Notes

James and Anthony did not appear in the 1664 Visitation of Norfolk, but a pedigree of the Hobarts is given in: W. Rye (ed.), The Visitation of Norfolk of 1563, 1589 and 1613 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 33, 1891), pp. 164-6.

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Plaintiff's bond: 6/22 (12 Oct 1639)
    • Defendant's bond: 2/106 (30 Nov 1639)
    • Libel: 10/6 (no date)
  • Plaintiff's case
    • Letters commissory for the plaintiff: 10/2 (no date)
    • Defence interrogatories: 10/4 (no date)
    • Preamble to plaintiff's depositions: Cur Mil 1631-42, fos. 71-2 (20 Mar 1640)
    • Plaintiff's depositions: Cur Mil 1631-42, fos. 63-69 (20 Mar 1640)
    • Notary public's certificate: Cur Mil 1631-42, fos. 69-70 (no date)
  • Defendant's case
    • Defence: 20/1n (1640)
    • Letters commissory for the defendant: 18/5f (3 Jul 1640)
    • Defence depositions: 20/1n (22 Sep 1640)
  • Proceedings
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 8/31 (4 Feb 1640)
    • Proceedings: 1/11, fos. 56r-64v (10 Oct 1640)
    • Proceedings: 1/11, fos. 49r-52r (24 Oct 1640)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 1/11, fos. 19r-30v (30 Oct 1640)
    • Proceedings: 1/11, fos. 5r-9r (20 Nov 1640)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 1/11, fos. 79r-87v (4 Dec 1640)

People mentioned in the case

  • Aldrich, Matthew
  • Bollar, Robert
  • Berry, Francis, gent
  • Bransey, Francis
  • Buckenham, John
  • Burnell, Richard, gent
  • Burrish, William, yeoman
  • Calver, Gregory, gent
  • Chamberlaine, John, husbandman
  • Copping, John
  • Cornwallis, William, gent
  • Crane, Edward, notary public
  • Cubitt, John, notary public
  • Dennis, William
  • Denny, Thomas, gent
  • Denny, William, gent
  • Eden, Thomas, lawyer
  • Haines, Thomas
  • Hill, William the elder, gent
  • Hill, William the younger, gent
  • Hobart, Anthony, gent
  • Hobart, James, esq
  • Hobart, James, knight
  • Hobart, John, baronet
  • Hobart, Miles, knight
  • Holmes, Thomas
  • Leese, Thomas, husbandman
  • Leman, Richard (also Lemon)
  • Lewin, William, registrar
  • Merser, William, yeoman (also Mercer)
  • Mickleburgh, Denny, husbandman (also Mickelburgh)
  • Mickleburgh, Matthew, singleman
  • Mickleburgh, Robert the younger, yeoman (also Mickleborow)
  • Mileham, Edward, gent (also Myleham, Mylam)
  • Potts, Thomas, clerk
  • Sherman, Elizabeth
  • Talbot, Clere, lawyer
  • Trott, Edward
  • Tudor, Henry VII, king
  • Wales, Thomas, husbandman
  • Watson, John

Places mentioned in the case

  • Leicestershire
    • Bilstone
  • Middlesex
    • Westminster
  • Norwich
    • Tombland
  • Norfolk
    • Burlingham
    • Filby
    • Hadeston
    • Hales Hall
    • Hales
    • Loddon
    • Mundham
    • Plumstead
    • St Olaves
    • Wheatacre Burrow
    • Wooton
  • Suffolk
    • Bungay
    • Oulton

Topics of the case

  • allegation of bankruptcy
  • allegation of cowardice
  • arbitration
  • comparison
  • Court of Requests
  • other courts
  • previous litigation
  • royal servant
  • Star Chamber