325 Ingepen v Penny

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

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

Citation:

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '325 Ingepen v Penny', 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/325-ingepen-penny [accessed 21 July 2024].

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '325 Ingepen v Penny', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Edited by Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online, accessed July 21, 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/325-ingepen-penny.

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "325 Ingepen v Penny". The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online. Web. 21 July 2024. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/325-ingepen-penny.

In this section

325 INGEPEN V PENNY

Richard Ingepen of Bartley Regis, Eling, co. Hampshire, gent v George Penny of the same, gent

February 1639 - February 1640

Abstract

Ingepen, one of the regarders of the New Forest, complained that Penny insulted him in public, calling him 'knave, a base knave, a rogue, a base fellow, a cheating knave', and 'challenged him to fight with him; and cast downe his glove upon the ground as a pledge'. Penny denied speaking these words, maintaining that he was a gentleman and that Ingepen's cause was void because his real name was Inckepen, and he 'liveth in the fashion and manner of a yeoman... laboureth in husbandry ordinarily with his own handes, holdeth the plough, maketh hay, selleth his corne att the markett himselfe and keepes noe man or attendant on him... and in the parish rates and other writings hee is only written Richard Inckpen without the addition of gentleman to his name.' Dr Duck was called to respond to the libel on Penny's behalf on 2 March 1639; however, on 5 February 1640 Penny petitioned that the previous September commissioners chosen by Ingepen and himself had succeeded in reconciling the dispute. On 10 February Maltravers dismissed the case and returned their bonds.

Initial proceedings

R.19, fo. 8r, Summary of libel

'Ingepen and his ancestors is and have been an ancient family of gentry, and for more than 3 years past he has bin regarder of his Majestie's New Forest. Penny publiquely, before many persons, said that Ingepen was a knave, a base knave, a rogue, a base fellow, a cheating knave, or to the like effect; and challenged him to fight with him; and cast downe his glove upon the ground as a pledge, thereby to provoke andc.

1639

No signature.

Defendant's case

9/3/5, Defence [badly damaged]

1. No credence was to be given to the testimony of William Gosse and William Coles, witnesses produced on behalf of Ingepen because they were his familiar friends.

2. 'George Penny is a gentleman discended of an ancient family, the naturall and lawfull sonne of John Penny of co. Dorset. George Penny liveth in the ranke, fashion and quality of a gentleman and hath a good estate and revenues to support him in the degree of a gentle; and for such a person he hath bene for divers yeares past and still is accounted, reputed and taken.'

3. Richard Ingepen 'is commonly called and written by the name of Inckpen, and not Ingepen as in the libel is sett forth; and hee liveth in the fashion and manner of a yeoman (and not of a gentleman), laboureth in husbandry ordinarily with his own handes, holdeth the plough, maketh hay, selleth his corne att the markett himselfe and keepes noe man or attendant on him but such as are imployed in labouring and husbandry, and in the parish rates and other writings hee is only written Richard Inckpen, without the addition of gentleman to his name.'

4. William Gosse and William Coles produced as witnesses on behalf of Inckpen are all of them regarders of the New Forest, co. Southampton 'and the regarders are for the most part yeomen and not gentlemen and are soe accompted, reputed and taken.' And Goss and Coles are 'familiar friends' of Inckepen.

5. Three years ago Inckepen as collector of the poor rate in the parish where he lives collected the money but did not distribute it to the poor and then levied another rate at a higher price than before.

6. Penny denied speaking the words in the libel.

7. Inckepen purchased a lease of some woods belonging to William Chamberlen at Berkeley Regis in the New Forest in Hampshire; and Penny leased the herbage of the same woods from Chamberlen. Inckepen had cut down some timber in the wood and Penny informed Mr Goddard about this, who asked Mr Lapp a woodward in the forest to inspect the spoil. Lapp asked Penny to accompany him to the site and when they were there Ingepen confronted them 'in a chollericke and furious fashion'... [too badly damaged to read any more].

7/28, Defendant's petition to Arundel

Penny petitioned that he was an esquire and that Ingepen had launched a suit against him for 'certaine words of discontent' he had made 'upon a meeting of friends'. Last September the commissioners chosen by Ingepen and himself 'did fully reconcile' the parties and 'made a finall ende of all controversies betweene them'. Penny petitioned for Arundel to dismiss the case and return the bonds.

Dated 5 February 1640

An order from Maltravers on 10 Feb 1640 confirmed this was 'witnessed by a release under the hand and seale of Mr Ingepen', and ordered the case to be dismissed and the bonds returned.'

Summary of proceedings

Dr Tooker acted as counsel for Ingepen and Dr Duck for Penny. On 21 February 1639 Penny was required to enter a bond for £100, and a commission was appointed on 2 March 1639.

Notes

Richard Ingepen may have been the son of Francis Ingepen. Richard married Alice, daughter of Sir John Rivers, knt and mayor of London in 1573-4. There was no indication of a George Penny in the Visitations of 1622-34 or 1686.

W. H. Rylands (ed.), Pedigrees from the Visitations of Hampshire, 1530, 1575 and 1622-34 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 64, 1913), p. 30; G. D. Squibb (ed.), The Visitation of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, 1686 (Publications of the Harleian Society, new series, 10, 1991).

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Summary of libel: R.19, fo. 8r (1639)
  • Defendant's case
    • Defence: 9/3/5 (no date)
    • Defendant's petition to Arundel: 7/28 (5 Feb 1640)
  • Proceedings
    • Proceedings before Arundel: 1/6, fos. 20-33 (21 Feb 1639)
    • Proceedings before Marten: 1/6, fos. 9-12 (2 Mar 1639)

People mentioned in the case

  • Coles, William, yeoman
  • Chamberlen, William
  • Duck, Arthur, lawyer
  • Gosse, William, yeoman
  • Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
  • Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
  • Ingepen, Francis, gent (also Inckepen)
  • Ingepen, Richard, gent (also Inckepen)
  • Lapp, Mr
  • Marten, Henry, knight
  • Penny, George, gent (also Penney)
  • Penny, John, gent (also Penney)
  • Rivers, Alice
  • Rivers, John, knight
  • Tooker, Charles, lawyer

Places mentioned in the case

  • Hampshire
    • Bartley Regis
    • Eling
    • New Forest

Topics of the case

  • arbitration
  • challenge to a duel
  • denial of gentility
  • mayor
  • office-holding
  • reconciliation