412 Marten v Salisbury

412 MARTEN V SALISBURY

Samuel Marten of the city of Chester, gent v Fulk Salisbury of the same, gent

November 1638 - February 1639

Abstract

This was a countersuit to Salisbury's complaint that Marten had insulted his office of alderman of Chester by saying 'he was as good a man as Salisbury though he wore a violett gowne' [see cause 575]. The grounds of Marten's complaint remain unknown, but on 23 February 1638/9 the proceedings refer to agreement being reached between the parties.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Exton acted as counsel for Marten and Dr Duck for Salisbury. On 20 November 1638 Dr Exton was to deliver the libel for Marten and on 28 November Dr Duck was required to respond. On 5 December 1638 Dr Duck was to respond to the libel. Dr Duck refuted the libel so Dr Exton was to prove it in the second session of next term. On 23 February 1639 the proceedings appeared to refer to agreement being reached between the parties.

Notes

A Fulke Salisbury of Chester does not appear in the 1613 Visitation but a Foulke Salisbury's son, George Salisbury, was listed as married to Elizabeth, daughter of Robert Chaloner.

G. J. Armytage and J. P. Rylands (ed.), Pedigrees made at the Visitation of Cheshire, 1613 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 59, 1909), p. 61.

Documents

• Proceedings
  • 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 Arundel: 1/6, fos. 1-9 (23 Feb 1639)

People mentioned in the case

• Chaloner, Elizabeth
• Chaloner, Robert
• Duck, Arthur, lawyer
• Exton, Thomas, lawyer
• Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
• Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
• Marten, Samuel, gent (also Martin)
• Salisbury, Elizabeth
• Salisbury, Fulk, gent
• Salisbury, George

Places mentioned in the case

• Cheshire
  • Chester

Topics of the case

• alderman
• apparel
• arbitration
• comparison
• office-holding