699 Wharton v Atkinson

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

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

Citation:

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '699 Wharton v Atkinson', 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/699-wharton-atkinson [accessed 14 July 2024].

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '699 Wharton v Atkinson', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Edited by Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online, accessed July 14, 2024, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/699-wharton-atkinson.

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "699 Wharton v Atkinson". The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online. Web. 14 July 2024. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/699-wharton-atkinson.

In this section

699 WHARTON V ATKINSON

George Wharton of Exelby, co. York, gent v James Atkinson of the same, yeoman

February 1640

Abstract

Wharton complained that Atkinson had said on 9 December 1638 that he was 'a cheator and a cozenor', wagering that he would prove the same and repeating this several times in the presence of 'divers honest men'. Process was granted on 16 February 1640 and Wharton entered bond, but no further proceedings survive.

Initial proceedings

2/22, Plaintiff's bond

15 February 1640

Bound to appear 'in the Court in the painted Chamber within the Pallace of Westminster'.

Signed by Sir John Redman of Thornton, co. York, knight on behalf of Wharton.

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

2/21, Petition to Arundel

'Your petitioner is a gentleman of coate armour, and of an auncient familie. And that one James Atkinson, of the same towne and countie, yeoman, upon the ninth day of December 1638 or thereabouts, did say, and with proffering of great sumes of money would have wager'd, that Mr George Wharton (your petitioner aforesaid) was a cheator and a cozenor, affirming that he would prove the same, which he did often repeate before divers honest men (who will be ready to depose the same upon oath, when they shalbe thereunto lawfullie called), with divers other speeches both tending to your petitioner's disparagement, and much provoking him to duell.'

Petitioned that Atkinson be brought to answer.

Maltravers granted process on 16 February 1640.

Notes

Wharton did not appear in Dugdale's Visitation of York: R. Davies (ed.), The Visitation of the County of Yorke begun in 1665 and finished in 1666, by William Dugdale (Surtees Society, 36, 1859).

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Plaintiff's bond: 2/22 (15 Feb 1640)
    • Petition to Arundel: 2/21 (16 Feb 1640)

People mentioned in the case

  • Atkinson, James, yeoman
  • Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
  • Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
  • Redman, John, knight
  • Watson, John
  • Wharton, George, gent

Places mentioned in the case

  • Middlesex
    • Westminster
  • Yorkshire, North Riding
    • Exelby
    • Thornton

Topics of the case

  • allegation of cheating
  • coat of arms
  • provocative of a duel