The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.
This free content was Born digital. CC-NC-BY.
Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '395 Lusher v Vandeburgh', 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/395-lusher-vandeburgh [accessed 27 July 2024].
Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '395 Lusher v Vandeburgh', 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/395-lusher-vandeburgh.
Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "395 Lusher v Vandeburgh". 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/395-lusher-vandeburgh.
In this section
395 LUSHER V VANDEBURGH
Thomas Lusher of St Peter, Cornhill, London, gent v John Vandeburgh of Lime Street, London, merchant
October 1638
Abstract
The cause of Lusher's complaint against Vandeburgh, a Dutchman, is unknown, but when Lusher's son served him with the court's process, Vandeburgh 'broke out into furious and passionate wordes' and called the younger Lusher's brother-in-law 'rogue and knave and said he would prove him soe'. Proceedings on 20 October 1638 referred to an agreement between the parties and Lusher's obligation to prosecute the cause was discharged.
Initial proceedings
12/3j, Affidavit
'This day appeared personally Moody Lusher aged about 24 yeares and maketh oath that he serving John Vandeburgh, a Dutchman, at his house in Lime St, London, with process of this hoble. court to appeare at the next court to answere to Thomas Lusher his father in a cause, John Vandeburgh broke out into furious and passionate wordes and called [Lusher's] brother in lawe rogue and knave, and said he would prove him soe, wch wordes he repeated very often and violently'.
No date.
No signatures.
Summary of proceedings
Dr Exton acted as counsel. Proceedings on 20 October 1638 referred to an agreement between the parties and Lusher's obligation to prosecute the cause was discharged.
Notes
Thomas Lusher (b. c. 1583) was the son of Thomas Lusher of Shoelands, co. Surrey and Elizabeth, daughter of Richard Eliot of Albury, co. Surrey, esq. He married Sibil, daughter of Henry Moody of Kent. His eldest son, Moody Lusher, was aged 19 in 1633. He was a common councilor for St Peter Cornhill who served on the City lands committee. He became a wealthy retailer of cloth goods but lost his council seat in December 1641. As a vestryman of St Peter Cornhill he opposed the attack on the royalist leaning rector, and resisted parliamentary taxes, but too old to fight himself, he sent his servant to serve in Sir Ralph Hopton's western royalist army during the civil wars.
J. J. Howard (ed.), The Visitation of London in 1633, 1634, and 1635 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 17, 1883), vol. 2, p. 72; K. Lindley, Popular Politics in Civil War London (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 63, 65, 174, 192-3, 230, 241, 253.
Documents
- Initial proceedings
- Affidavit: 12/3j (no date)
- Proceedings
- Proceedings before Arundel: R.19, fos. 434r-449v (20 Oct 1638)
People mentioned in the case
- Eliot, Elizabeth
- Eliot, Richard, esq
- Exton, Thomas, lawyer
- Hopton, Ralph, knight
- Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
- Lusher, Elizabeth
- Lusher, Moody
- Lusher, Sibil
- Lusher, Thomas, gent
- Moody, Henry
- Moody, Sibil
- Vandeburgh, John, merchant (also Vanbergh)
Places mentioned in the case
- London
- Lime Street
- St Peter, Cornhill
- Surrey
- Albury
- Shoelands
- United Provinces
Topics of the case
- arbitration
- civil war
- office-holding
- royalist