This free content was Born digital and sponsored by AHRC and University of Birmingham. CC-NC-BY.
497 OWEN V HICKS
Maria Owen of Redriff [Rotherhithe], co. Surrey, widow v Robert Hicks of Stepney, London, Cobham Hopkins of Dover, co. Kent and Philip Humber, mariners
January - February 1639
Hicks, Hopkins and Humber appeared on 9 February 1639 and witnesses were examined on Owen's behalf; however, by 23 February they were all reported to be overseas and were bound over to appear on their return. The cause and result of Owen's complaint remain unknown.
Summary of proceedings
Dr Duck, Dr Ryves, Dr Exton and Dr Eden acted as counsel. On 28 January 1639 Hick and Hopkins were warned to appear. On 9 February they were warned to appear under their respective subpoenas; whereupon they and Humber all appeared in person and witnesses on Mary Owen's behalf were examined by Sir Henry Marten. There were further proceedings before Arundel on 21 February. On 23 February the parties were ordered to appear as stipulated under their respective sub poenas; but the three defendants appeared to be overseas and were bound over for £500 to appear within 15 days of returning to England.
None of the parties appear in the Surrey Visitations of 1623 or 1662-8: W. B. Bannerman (ed.), The Visitations of the County of Surrey, 1530, 1572 and 1623 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 43, 1899); G. J. Armytage (ed.), A Visitation of the County of Surrey, 1662-8 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 60, 1910).
- Proceedings before Maltravers: 1/9 (28 Jan 1639)
- Proceedings: 1/7, fos. 36-47 (9 Feb 1639)
- Proceedings before Arundel: 1/6, fos. 20-33 (21 Feb 1639)
- Proceedings before Arundel: 1/6, fos. 1-9 (23 Feb 1639)
People mentioned in the case
- Duck, Arthur, lawyer
- Eden, Thomas, lawyer
- Exton, Thomas, lawyer
- Hicks, Robert, mariner
- Hopkins, Cobham, mariner
- Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
- Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
- Humber, Philip, mariner
- Marten, Henry, knight
- Owen, Maria, widow
- Ryves, Thomas, lawyer
Places mentioned in the case