By the sixteenth century the majority of local churches had seats and the right to occupy a specific seat was often hotly contested and could lead to violence.
EDC 5/1566/13 – Richard Clive, esquire, contra Joan Calkin, wife of Peter Calkin
EDC 5/1582/11 – Richard Massey contra John Brereton
The formation of a marriage at this time could be legally complex.
It was possible for children over the age of seven to contact a lawful future marriage per verba de futuro (by words of future intent). This was conditional upon consummation once the couple reached puberty, deemed to be fourteen for boys and twelve for girls. Much younger children were also promised in marriage, sometimes before they could talk.
However, if either party did not later wish to continue with the marriage it could be annulled before consummation. Annulment could be arranged informally before witnesses, but formal confirmation by the court precluded any uncertainty. Non-consummation might have to be proved through physical examination by sworn witnesses.
As proof of age might be difficult to obtain, it was often additionally claimed that one party had been compelled to the marriage by parents or friends, so that it was invalid through ‘force or fear’.
At this time, the church courts had sole legal authority in matrimonial matters.
Sources:
R. H. Helmholz, Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (London, 1974).
R. B. Outhwaite, Clandestine Marriage in England 1500-1850 (London, 1995).
A marriage of minors could be dissolved if either party did not later wish to continue with the marriage once they reached the age of discretion and the marriage had not been consummated.
EDC 5/1/1 – Ellen Knottisford contra Ralph Bury
EDC 5/1580/4 – Elizabeth Meycock contra Thomas Davie
A purported marriage where at least one of the parties was under the age of seven was found to be invalid.
EDC 5/1/4 – Joan Dutton alias Sompnor contra Richard Sompnor
It may be that the value of produce as claimed in tithe causes is over-stated to increase the value of the claim, and often values were not precisely given.
Some definitions may also be useful:
Acre – the Cheshire acre was 10,240 square yards, as opposed to a statute acre of 4,840 square yards. The Cheshire acre was also used in parts of south Lancashire.
Thrave – twenty four sheaves.
Robert Holland, A Glossary of Words Used in the County of Chester, (1885).
EDC 5/13/3 – Robert Assheton, rector of Middleton, contra Giles Johnson.
EDC 5/13/1 – Roger Lever contra Roger Walmysley, senior and Roger Walmysley, junior.
EDC 5/10/2 – Roger and Ellen Fulbeke and Nicholas Jacson, farmers of the tithes of Irton, contra John and Nicholas Sherween and Roland Hartley.
EDC 5/12/1 – Robert Assheton, rector of Middleton, contra John Aspenhawlgh, John Alens and John Bradley.
EDC 5/13/2 – Sir Richard Egerton, farmer of the tithes of Prestbury, contra William Andrewe.
EDC 5/11/1 – Sir Thomas Langton, farmer of the tithes of the chapelry of Low, contra Lawrence Banastre.
EDC 5/12/2 – Thomas Cuverden contra Richard Sherley.
EDC 5/10/1 – William Aldersey contra Thomas Wright and Richard Broster.
EDC 5/1580/6 – John Vawdrey and Richard Vawdrey contra Richard Webb, William Janeon the elder and William Janeon the younger; a piglet valued at between 6d and 12d.
EDC 5/1575/3 – John Vawdrey and Richard Vawdrey contra Ralph Calveley; a thrave of wheat valued between somewhere between 2s and 9s.
Divorce as we know it today was not permitted in the sixteenth century, but if adultery without subsequent reconciliation could be proved a divorce a mensa et thoro (separation from bed and board) could be granted. Although often described as divorce, it did not give the parties the right to remarry, only the right to live apart.
Sometimes a sentence of divorce a mensa et thoro would specify that adultery had been proved and that there was no reconciliation.
EDC 5/1/2 – Elizabeth Levar contra Adam Levar.
EDC 5/13/7 – Joan Carter contra Randle Carter.
EDC 5/1580/1 – Elizabeth Cowley alias Johnson, wife of Richard Cowley alias Johnson, contra Richard Cowley alias Johnson.
EDC 5/1580/2 – Thomas Darcie, gentleman, contra Cecily Darcie.
EDC 5/1580/3 – Thomas Darcie, gentleman, contra Cecily Darcie.
EDC 5/11/2 – Sir Robert Worsley – the papers in this matter indicate that Sir Robert Worsley understood that his first marriage was invalidated by his wife’s adultery but this was not accepted by the church authorities who considered that his second marriage was bigamous and he was therefore committing adultery.
EDC 5/14/1 – Elizabeth Smyth, otherwise Rixton, contra Giles Smyth and Margaret Barington.
Helen Sorrowcolt wife of Gilbert Sorrowcolt c James Greenhough and Edward Scholes for calling her a whore. James had watched the street door and Scholes the back door and saw one Robinson come out of the house at 9pm – libel, sentence.
Helen claimed that James and Edward had accused her of adultery. She said that they had watched outside her door and claimed to have seen James Robinson leave her house about 8 or 9 o’clock at night; as a result of these allegations Helen’s husband was refusing to live with her. Outcome: plaintiff won against James Greenhalgh but Edward Scholes is not mentioned in the judgement.
1533
Libel; Sentence
Buckley, Francis; witness
Greenhalgh, Henry; witness
Greenhalgh, James; defendant
Greenhalgh, Robert; witness
Haughton, John; witness
Hilton, Peter; witness
Legh, Richard; witness to the sentence
Orton, William; witness to the sentence
Redishe, Thomas; witness
Robinson, James; named in libel
Scholes, Edward; defendant
Sorocold, Gilbert; husband of plaintiff
Sorocold, Helen; plaintiff
White, Robert; witness to the sentence
Downham, William; bishop
Gillam, Hugh; witness to the sentence
Leche, Robert; commissary general
Defamation (effect of) Defamatory words Illness Jerkins Neighbours Tailors Women as litigants
Man, William; for plaintiff
Parkinson, Robert; for defendant
Prichard, John; for defendant
Eccles
Manchester
Salford
See also EDC 5/1569/21 for two letters relating to this cause.
Depositions in this cause survive at EDC 2/8 ff. 183v-184v; 191-192v. (See Notes below for transcript.)
Link to transcript of folios from EDC 2/8 – a Word file
Helen Sorrowcolt wife of Gilbert Sorrowcolt c James Greenhough and Edward Scholes for calling her a whore. James had watched the street door and Scholes the back door and saw one Robinson come out of the house at 9pm – libel, sentence.
Helen claimed that James and Edward had accused her of adultery. She said that they had watched outside her door and claimed to have seen James Robinson leave her house about 8 or 9 o’clock at night; as a result of these allegations Helen’s husband was refusing to live with her. Outcome: plaintiff won against James Greenhalgh but Edward Scholes is not mentioned in the judgement.
1533
Libel; Sentence
Buckley, Francis; witness
Greenhalgh, Henry; witness
Greenhalgh, James; defendant
Greenhalgh, Robert; witness
Haughton, John; witness
Hilton, Peter; witness
Legh, Richard; witness to the sentence
Orton, William; witness to the sentence
Redishe, Thomas; witness
Robinson, James; named in libel
Scholes, Edward; defendant
Sorocold, Gilbert; husband of plaintiff
Sorocold, Helen; plaintiff
White, Robert; witness to the sentence
Downham, William; bishop
Gillam, Hugh; witness to the sentence
Leche, Robert; commissary general
Defamation (effect of)
Defamatory words
Illness
Jerkins
Neighbours
Tailors
Women as litigants
Man, William; for plaintiff
Parkinson, Robert; for defendant
Prichard, John; for defendant
Eccles
Manchester
Salford
See also EDC 5/1569/21 for two letters relating to this cause.
Depositions in this cause survive at EDC 2/8 ff. 183v-184v; 191-192v. (See Notes below for transcript.)
Link to transcript of folios from EDC 2/8 – a Word file
Helen Sorrowcolt wife of Gilbert Sorrowcolt c James Greenhough and Edward Scholes for calling her a whore. James had watched the street door and Scholes the back door and saw one Robinson come out of the house at 9pm – libel, sentence.
Helen claimed that James and Edward had accused her of adultery. She said that they had watched outside her door and claimed to have seen James Robinson leave her house about 8 or 9 o’clock at night; as a result of these allegations Helen’s husband was refusing to live with her. Outcome: plaintiff won against James Greenhalgh but Edward Scholes is not mentioned in the judgement.
1533
Libel; Sentence
Buckley, Francis; witness
Greenhalgh, Henry; witness
Greenhalgh, James; defendant
Greenhalgh, Robert; witness
Haughton, John; witness
Hilton, Peter; witness
Legh, Richard; witness to the sentence
Orton, William; witness to the sentence
Redishe, Thomas; witness
Robinson, James; named in libel
Scholes, Edward; defendant
Sorocold, Gilbert; husband of plaintiff
Sorocold, Helen; plaintiff
White, Robert; witness to the sentence
Downham, William; bishop
Gillam, Hugh; witness to the sentence
Leche, Robert; commissary general
Defamation (effect of) Defamatory words Illness Jerkins Neighbours Tailors Women as litigants
Man, William; for plaintiff
Parkinson, Robert; for defendant
Prichard, John; for defendant
Eccles
Manchester
Salford
See also EDC 5/1569/21 for two letters relating to this cause.
Depositions in this cause survive at EDC 2/8 ff. 183v-184v; 191-192v. (See Notes below for transcript.)
Link to transcript of folios from EDC 2/8 – a Word file
