304 Hooke v Hall

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

This free content was Born digital. All rights reserved.

'304 Hooke v Hall', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640, (, ) pp. . British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/304-hooke-hall [accessed 2 March 2024]

In this section

304 HOOKE V HALL

Humphrey Hooke of Bramshott, co. Southampton, gent v Galfridus Hall of Clerkenwell, co. Middlesex

November 1637 - February 1639

Abstract

Hooke complained that Hall had described him as Humphrey Hooke alias Lyon in a bill in the court of Chancery of October or November 1637, and by so doing had insulted his family name and gentility. Hall maintained that the insertion had been made by his agent and solicitor against his will. Dr Duck entered the libel for Hooke on 27 January 1638 and Dr Eden began producing material for the defence from November 1638. Proceedings continued into February 1639 but no indication of sentence survives.

Initial proceedings

13/1o, Libel

1. Hooke was a gentleman and Hall was a servant to Lord Gerrard of Clerkenwell.'

2. In October or November in a bill in Chancery he described Hooke as Humphrey Hooke alias Lyon.

5. This was a disgrace and insult to himself, his family, family name and gentry title, and had been intended to provoke him to a duel. On account of this he asked the Earl Marshal to summon Hall to answer.

No date [27 January 1638]

Signed by Arthur Duck.

Plaintiff's case

14/1c, Defence interrogatories

1. Was the witness related to Hooke and if so in what degree? Was the witness a servant to either of the parties in the case?

2. Did he see Hall exhibit a bill as in the articles 2 and 4 of the libel was mentioned? Who gave in the bill in person? Was it the attorney, or the solicitor? How did the witness know this to be true?

3. After the bill was exhibited did Hall find fault with his solicitor for naming Hooke, and ask him why he done so? What answer did the solicitor give? Did he not say to Hall: 'Let me alone, I know what I have to do I will warrant you from all the harme therein'?

4. Was Hall a gentleman by birth? Was not his father reputed a gentleman and at his death possessed of land worth £80 or £100 per year, and 'lived in the fashion of a gentleman and bore armes'?

No date.

Signed by Thomas Eden.

Defendant's case

13/2e, Defence

1. The two bills exhibited in Chancery in Hall's name were not given in by Hall himself but by another, without any instruction from him to term Hooke as Humphrey Hooke alias Lyon.

2. After the giving in of the first bill, Hall went to his attorney, agents and solicitor and asked them to forbear from terming Hooke as Humphrey Hooke alias Lyon. They replied 'wee or I knowe what wee have to doe better then you, trouble not yourselfe wee will or I will maynteyne what I doe. Mr Hooke doth use such cavills but to scare you'.

3. On several occasions during the Chancery suit Hall's agents and solicitors asserted that the adding of alias Lyon to Hooke's name was their doing and that Hall had no hand in it.

No date.

Signed by Thomas Eden.

14/2h, Plaintiff interrogatories

1. Was the witness kindred, servant, attorney, solicitor or clerk to Hall? Had the witness been instructed how to depose and by whom?

2. Was he present when Hall forbade his clerk or attorney to write Hooke's name with the addition of 'alias Lyon'? Did Hall's clerk or attorney say he would justify the addition? Where and when did he say so? What was the clerk or attorney's name?

3. Had the witness heard Hall use the name Hooke with the addition 'alias Lyon' after he had forbade his clerk or attorney from doing so? Had Hall since written or consented or directed it to be written so?

4. Had Hall's attorney or clerk written in a writ of subpoena Hooke alias Lyon, and did Hall know this was so and executed the writ with the name so written?

Introduced on 25 November 1638

No signatures.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Duck acted as counsel for Hooke and Dr Eden for Hall. Duck presented the libel for Hooke on 27 January 1638. The following week, on 3 February Dr Eden responded to the libel on Hall's behalf, while Dr Duck produced Anthony Smyth and Bridges Wiseman as witnesses. From 6 November 1638 Dr Eden began producing material for the defence. On 20 November he produced the witnesses Robert Goldwell and John Whitfield. Proceedings continued into February 1639 but no indication of sentence survives.

Notes

The Hookes of Bramshott appear in the Hampshire Visitations of 1622-34 and 1686. There is no record of a Humphrey in these pedigrees, but there was a Henry Hooke of Bramshott, esq, in 1634.

W. H. Rylands (ed.), Pedigrees from the Visitations of Hampshire, 1530, 1575 and 1622-34 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 64, 1913), pp. 83-4; G. D. Squibb (ed.), The Visitation of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, 1686 (Publications of the Harleian Society, new series, 10, 1991), p. 149.

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Libel: 13/1o (27 Jan 1638)
  • Plaintiff's case
    • Defence interrogatories: 14/1c (no date)
  • Defendant's case
    • Defence: 13/2e (no date)
    • Plaintiff interrogatories: 14/2h (25 Nov 1638)
  • Proceedings
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 8/29 (18 Nov 1637)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 1/5, fos. 1-15 (27 Jan 1638)
    • Proceedings before Arundel: 1/5, fos. 23-35 (3 Feb 1638)
    • Proceedings before Arundel: 1/5, fos. 38-56 (12 Feb 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 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)

People mentioned in the case

  • Duck, Arthur, lawyer
  • Eden, Thomas, lawyer
  • Dutton Gerard, baron Gerard
  • Goldwell, Robert
  • Hall, Galfridus
  • Hooke, Henry, esq
  • Hooke, Humphrey, gent (also Hooke alias Lyon)
  • Smyth, Anthony
  • Whitfield, John
  • Wiseman, Bridges

Places mentioned in the case

  • Hampshire
    • Bramshott
  • Middlesex
    • Clerkenwell

Topics of the case

  • Court of Chancery
  • denial of gentility
  • other courts