309 Hopton v Laicocke

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

This free content was Born digital. CC-NC-BY.

Citation:

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '309 Hopton v Laicocke', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640, ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/309-hopton-laicocke [accessed 27 July 2024].

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '309 Hopton v Laicocke', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Edited by Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online, accessed July 27, 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/309-hopton-laicocke.

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "309 Hopton v Laicocke". The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online. Web. 27 July 2024. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/309-hopton-laicocke.

In this section

309 HOPTON V LAICOCKE

Ingram Hopton of Leathley, co. York, gent v George Laicocke of Farnley, co. York, yeoman

November 1639

Abstract

Hopton complained that in July 1639 Laicocke had said that he 'was a knave and he would justify it', for taking the tithe corn of Leathley which had been in the possession of his father in law. Process was granted on 15 November, but no further proceedings survive. [His father, Ralph Hopton, appears as plaintiff in cause 306].

Initial proceedings

2/126, Petition to Arundel

'Your petitioner is a gentleman of coate armor, and of an ancient familie, and that one George Laicocke of Farnley in the said countie, yeoman, in or about the month of July last, hearinge that the halfe tithe-corne of Leathley (which had lately been in the possession of the father in law of Laicocke) was lett to farme to another, did say that he was a knave that had taken it. Whereupon, reply being made that Mr Hopton had taken it, and was no knave; he directly answered, that he was a knave and he would justify it, with other speeches, both tending to your petitioner's disparagement and much provoking him to duell.'

Petitioned that Lacock be brought to answer.

Maltravers granted process on 15 November 1639

Notes

Ingram Hopton (d. 1643) was the son of Ralph Hopton of Armley, in the parish of Leeds, esq (d. 1643), and Mary, daughter of Roger Nowell. Ingram married Ellinor, daughter and heiress of Arthur Lindley of Leathley, esq. Ingram was later knighted but was among the royalists slain at Winceby on 11 October 1643. [His father, Ralph Hopton, appears as plaintiff in cause 306 Hopton v Bolton].

J. Foster (ed.), Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire: The West Riding (London, 1874), vol. 1, unpaginated.

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Petition to Arundel: 2/126 (15 Nov 1639)

People mentioned in the case

  • Hopton, Ellinor
  • Hopton, Ingram, gent
  • Hopton, Mary
  • Hopton, Ralph, esq
  • Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
  • Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
  • Laicocke, George, yeoman
  • Lindley, Arthur, esq
  • Lindley, Ellinor
  • Nowell, Mary
  • Nowell, Roger

Places mentioned in the case

  • Lincolnshire
    • Winceby
  • Yorkshire, West Riding
    • Armley
    • Farnley
    • Leathley
    • Leeds

Topics of the case

  • allegation of cheating
  • provocative of a duel
  • royalist
PreviousTable of contentsNext