657 Vaughan v Coulstocke

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

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

Citation:

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '657 Vaughan v Coulstocke', 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/657-vaughan-coulstocke [accessed 27 July 2024].

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '657 Vaughan v Coulstocke', 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/657-vaughan-coulstocke.

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "657 Vaughan v Coulstocke". 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/657-vaughan-coulstocke.

In this section

657 VAUGHAN V COULSTOCKE

William Vaughan of Lewes, co. Sussex, gent v Sampson Coulstocke of the same

May - October 1640

Abstract

Vaughan complained that during the six months up to May 1640 Coulstocke had said he 'was as good a gentleman as [Vaughan]', and 'that [Vaughan's] grandfather never kept so good men as Coulstocke was, unlesse it were to wayte upon him to the gallowes.' Process was granted on 1 May 1640 and both men entered bonds. The case was still under way in October 1640, but nothing further survives.

Initial proceedings

5/16, Petition

'Your petitioner is a gent. descended of an ancient family of gentry; and that one Sampson Coulstocke of Lewes aforesaid said in a very contemptuous manner, within these sixe moneths last past, vizt. that he, Coulstocke, was as good a gentleman as your petitioner and further sayd that your petitioner's grandfather never kept so good men as Coulstocke was unlesse it were to wayte upon him to the gallowes, thereby very much provoking your petitioner to duell.'

Prays that Coulstocke may be brought to answer.

Maltravers granted process on 1 May 1640.

5/15, Plaintiff's bond

1 May 1640

Bound to 'appear in Arundel house in the Strand without Temple Bar, London'.

Signed by William Vaughan.

Sealed signed and delivered in the presence of John Watson.

5/84, Defendant's bond

11 June 1640

That he was to 'appear in the Court in the Painted Chamber within the Pallace of Westminster'.

Signed by Samson Coulstocke.

Sealed, subscribed and delivered in the presence of John Watson.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Exton acted as counsel in this cause and a petition to hear him came before Lord Mowbray and Maltravers, and Lord Stafford on 30 October 1640.

Notes

Neither party appears in the Sussex Visitations of 1634 and 1662: W. Bruce Bannerman (ed.), The Visitations of the County of Sussex in 1530 and 1633-4 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 53, 1905); A. W. Hughes Clarke (ed.), The Visitation of Sussex, 1662 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 89, 1937).

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Petition: 5/16 (1 May 1640)
    • Plaintiff's bond: 5/15 (1 May 1640)
    • Defendant's bond: 5/84 (11 Jun 1640)
  • Proceedings
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 1/11, fos. 19r-30v (30 Oct 1640)

People mentioned in the case

  • Coulstocke, Sampson
  • Exton, Thomas, lawyer
  • Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
  • Howard, William, baron Stafford
  • Vaughan, William, gent
  • Watson, John

Places mentioned in the case

  • London
    • Arundel House
    • Strand
    • Temple Bar
  • Middlesex
    • Westminster
  • Sussex
    • Lewes

Topics of the case

  • comparison
  • provocative of a duel
PreviousTable of contentsNext