Click to view fullscreen

[1580/3 image 1]

In the name of God, Amen; before you venerable Robert Leche, Doctor of Laws, lawfully deputed official principal of the Chester consistory court, the party of the distinguished Thomas Darcie, gentleman, of the parish of Saint Peter of the city of Chester, against Cecily Darcie, his pretended wife, and against any other person or persons whomsoever lawfully intervening before you in judgement for the same says, alleges and propounds in these writings in law in articles as follows:

Firstly, that although the same Thomas Darcie and Cecily lawfully contracted matrimony together and caused or obtained it to be solemnised between them in the face of the church, and afterwards cohabited together as man and wife in conjugal duty for some space of time, however, the said Thomas Darcie is not to be bound and compelled by law further to cohabit with the said Cecily, his wife, or to provide conjugal rights to the same inasmuch as the said Cecily, from the time of the aforesaid marriage contracted and solemnised between him and the same Cecily, as is previously set forth, regarded, just as she now regards, the said Thomas, her husband, with the greatest hatred and cruelty (ignoring God’s commandment) and he propounds jointly, severally and concerning any part thereof.

Also, that the said Cecily, having neither the fear of God nor dread of the censure of the church before her eyes, after the said marriage contracted and solemnised, as aforesaid, with the aforesaid Thomas Darcie, her husband, shamelessly and basely had intercourse with a certain Francis Ederman, born in Germany, and was and has been carnally known by the same and lived impurely with the same in adulterous embraces for some space of time wickedly committing adultery with the same (as is said); and he propounds as before.

Also, that the aforesaid Francis Ederman fathered a male child by the name of Francis, upon the body of the said Cecily Darcie, after the said marriage contracted and solemnised (as aforesaid) with the aforesaid Thomas Darcie, her husband; so notoriously that the afore-mentioned Francis was forced to leave this city to live in distant parts, greatly fearing ecclesiastical censure and penances to be imposed upon him by the ordinary; and he propounds as before.

Click to view fullscreen

[1580/3 image 2]

Also, that the said Cecily Darcie took in the aforesaid Francis Ederman as a lodger in the house of her husband, Thomas Darcie, in the absence of her husband dwelling and spending time in parts beyond the sea, the which Francis (as aforesaid) not only had carnal knowledge of the same Cicely but also despoiled the goods of the same Thomas Darcie, he even (as aforesaid) carried out the carnal act in the accustomed dwelling house of the said Thomas; and he propounds as before.

Also, that the said Francis Ederman paid, or caused to be paid, to the said Thomas Darcie for this despoiling of goods 20 ‘markes’ of good and lawful money of England by the hand of William Stiles, ‘alderman’ of the city of Chester; and he propounds as before.

Also, that all and singular the premises were and are true, public, notorious and well known, and public voice and fame were and are circulating regarding and concerning this; whereupon the party of the said Thomas Darcie prays that right and justice may be done to him in the premises etc.

Humbly imploring your office etc. distinguished judge aforesaid.

Click to view fullscreen

[1580/3 image 3]

[Endorsement]

Libel of Thomas Darcie against Cecily Darcie exhibited 1580.

 [in pencil in a different hand]

 Chester

Chester

[Produced with the permission of the Chester Diocesan Board of Finance.]

Translation copyright ©2022 P J Cox All Rights Reserved

Click to view fullscreen

[1580/3 image 4]

In the name of God, Amen; in a certain pretended cause of defamation or foul slander which was in dispute for a considerable time and is still in dispute and pending undecided before you, worshipful Master Robert Leche, Doctor of Laws, in the Chester consistory court, between worshipful John Nutter, clerk, preacher of God’s word, plaintiff and complaining party on the one part and Ralph Janion, pretended defendant and party complained of, on the other part; the party of the said Ralph Janion to every consequence of law and fact that can follow thereon against the said John Nutter and against any other whomsoever lawfully intervening before you in judgement for the same and also against Richard Wright, Nicholas Massie and Hugh Rogerson, pretended witnesses on behalf of the said John Nutter in whatever way, although invalidly, produced, admitted, sworn and examined before you upon a certain pretended libel given and offered before you on behalf of the said John in this behalf and the whole of their claim in the same, says, alleges and in these writings in law propounds jointly, severally and in articles as follows:

1          Firstly, this party, in excepting, propounds against the aforesaid Richard Wright, Nicholas Massie and Hugh Rogerson, that their testimony is null and void and not to be admitted in law and completely to be excluded and rejected inasmuch as they are conflicting, vacillating, singular, coached, suborned and their depositions are inconsistent as is more fully clear and appears in their evidence; and he propounds jointly, severally and concerning any part thereof.

2          Also, this party, in excepting, propounds against Richard Wright, first pretended witness abovesaid, that his testimony is null and void and not to be admitted in law and completely to be excluded and rejected inasmuch as for the whole time of his production, admission, oath-swearing and examination, and before and since, he was and is notoriously defamed of the detestable crime of adultery; and to have committed adultery with several, or at least with one woman, the which sin he admitted before Richard Bavand, mayor of the city of Chester, and he is an intimate friend of the party producing him and hostile to this proponent; for he who has confessed or been convicted of a crime cannot be a witness in the ecclesiastical court as Lanfranc observes in the chapter Quoniam contra falsam[1] about the depositions of witnesses; and he propounds jointly, severally and concerning any part thereof.

[Part of this paragraph relating to the appearance of Richard Wright before the mayor of Chester charged with adultery has been deleted and is not included above, a marginal note has been added in writing resembling that of Robert Leche.] Required

[A translation of the marginal note ] This has been deleted because it does not seem that the said mayor is or was judicially competent.

[1] This was a requirement laid down by canon 38 of Lateran IV (1215) which necessitated the recording in writing of all judicial acts in case of future doubt.

Click to view fullscreen

[1580/3 image 5]

3          Also, this party, in excepting, propounds against Nicholas Massie, the second pretended witness abovesaid, that his testimony is null and void and not to be admitted in law but completely to be excluded and rejected inasmuch as he is an intimate friend and of the household of the party producing him and liable to the said producent on account of many favours and is a bitter enemy to this proponent, and the said Nicholas Massie was and is the first and original speaker of the pretended and fictitious defamatory words specified in the libel of the said Master Nutter as is more fully clear and appears by his testimony, for the  person who reports a crime cannot be a witness in the ecclesiastical court, as Lanfranc states in the above chapter;  and he propounds jointly, severally and concerning any part thereof.

4          Also, this party, in excepting, propounds against Hugh Rogerson, the third pretended witness abovesaid, that his testimony is null and void and not to be admitted in law but completely to be excluded and rejected inasmuch as he has deposed nothing of his own knowledge or hearing, but only from the accounts of others, as is plainly made clear and appears from his testimony, and he propounds as before.

Also, that all and singular the premises were and are true, notorious, public, manifest and equally well-known and regarding and concerning this public voice and fame were and are circulating within the city of Chester aforesaid.

Whereupon, due proof being made as required by law in this regard, the party of the said Ralph Janion prays that right and justice may be done and administered to him with effect in all and singular the premises, and by reason of the premises he will be dismissed and absolved from the claim, petition and further vexation and disturbance by the said Master John Nutter, together with his costs incurred in this behalf and he protests those to be incurred, by you, lord judge aforesaid, and passing your definitive sentence in that behalf; which the party of the aforesaid Ralph Janion propounds and seeks to be done jointly and severally, not binding himself to proving all and singular the premises, nor to all superfluous proof and the premises, or any of them, have not been propounded in order that he might defame the parties aforesaid  but only to defend his cause, concerning which he protests and so much as he shall prove in the premises so much may he obtain of the petitions, always reserving the benefit of law in all things, humbly imploring your office in the premises, distinguished judge aforesaid; and he asserts the right of adding to, correcting and amending etc..

Click to view fullscreen

[1580/3 image 6]

[Endorsement]

Exceptive material of Ralph Janion against the witnesses of Master Nutter, exhibited on the 21^st day of May in the year 1582.

[in pencil in a different hand]

No 3

[Produced with the permission of the Chester Diocesan Board of Finance.]

Translation copyright ©2022 P J Cox All Rights Reserved