Click to view fullscreen

[1566/13 image 1]

In the name of God, Amen; in a certain pretended cause of disturbance or claim to a form or seat, which was disputed and is disputed and depending undecided before you, the right reverend father in God, William, by divine permission lord bishop of Chester, or your vicar general in spirituals lawfully deputed to decide ecclesiastical causes in your Chester diocese, between Richard Clive, esquire, of the parish of Waverton of your Chester diocese, pretended party plaintiff and complainant, on the one part and Joan Calkin, wife of Peter Calkin, of the parish of Waverton of the aforesaid diocese and of your jurisdiction, pretended defendant and party complained of, on the other part. The party of the said Joan Calkin against the said Richard Clive aforesaid, and against any other person whomsoever lawfully intervening before you in judgement for the same, and also against a certain pretended libel, such as it is, although invalidly given and offered in the said cause, and the whole claim of the said Richard Clive, based on the same; says, alleges to all consequence of law following therefrom, in every best way, manner and form of law, by which he was or is ablein law in these writings propounds jointly, severally and in articles as follows:

1          Firstly, that this pretended libel is null and void and completely to be excluded and rejected in all points and not to be admitted in law in that it is exceedingly general, obscure, doubtful, vague, false by turns, not only in almost all parts but also chiefly in its parts where it acts against the propounding party in articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the libel concerning a certain form or seat called ‘a forme or a knilinge place’ situated and being in the parish church of Waverton aforesaid, which belonged by ancient custom to the house of the plaintiff and her predecessors where the wives of Peter Jenson and Richard Jenson otherwise Duncorn, tenants of the plaintiff and of the predecessors and household of the said plaintiff and of her predecessors for 10, 20 etc. poured forth their prayers at the time of divine worship, and it is recognised to belong to all and each one of them by law and not to any other person, in the way that he has less than truly asserted; whereas in truth this said form or seat, called in English ‘a knilinge place’ belonged to the tenants, inhabitants and lodgers in a certain house, messuage or tenement of the venerable, Ralph Dutton, esquire, and of his predecessors, commonly called ‘Manifoldes Howse’ within the parish of Waverton aforesaid, now in the tenure or occupation of Peter Calkin, husband of the party propounding, for 10, 20, 30,40, 50, 60 years and more and also from the time and throughout the time of the beginning or to the contrary of which there exists no memory of men belonged inviolably without interruption and fully authorised, or at least the use of the same church seat belonged to them, just as it should have and should belong and appertain in future in which certain form or seat the tenant, his wife, children and household of the house, messuage or tenement in which this party now lives for her space of time and years aforesaid peacefully sat, knelt and poured forth and rendered their prayers to God and heard other offices and divine worship according to and in accordance with the laudable use, custom and usage of Christian people, and not ever to the wives of the said Peter Jenson and Richard Jenson or to the household of the aforesaid Richard Clive […]

Click to view fullscreen

[1566/13 image 2]

this form or seat should have or should belong at all to the house of the same Richard Clyffe called ‘the hall of huxley’ because the said Richard Cliffe or Clive esquire, holds, occupies and has the use of another place of prayer called ‘a pewe’ belonging to his house or hall where he, his wife, children and household kneel and pray, and it ought not otherwise to have belonged or to belong to the aforesaid wives of Peter Jenson and Richard Jenson or to the household of the aforesaid Richard Clive or to any other person whomsoever in the way in which the plaintiff states in the libel, unless by licence and permission of the said Ralph Dutton, esquire, holding and inhabiting the house aforesaid; seeing that it is not the holding of the said Peter Jenson and Richard Jenson, but a cottage ‘le cottage’, and not a holding granted at any time to a small house or cottage, but the cottage is always granted to the tenement, that is the place given etc. and he propounds jointly, severally and in articles.

2          Also, that the said Joan Calkin, parishioner of the church aforesaid of Waverton, her husband and predecessors, tenants of the aforesaid Ralph Dutton, esquire, in their times held, owned, and occupied for suitable use as specified that same form or seat for the space of time and years above-said without interruption, vexation, molestation and disturbance, just as this party should occupy it by right, interest, title and in the name of the messuage or tenement in which this defending party and her husband live at the present time, who are ready to make and pay for all repairs and rebuilding and to all other necessary obligations to the same church of Waverton and were always contributors in accordance with the form or seat aforesaid, like the other parishioners of the same church occupiers of their seats; and he propounds jointly, severally and concerning any part thereof.

3          Also, furthermore, he says that this seat from time immemorial belonged to the tenement aforesaid by right and interest of his house, and should still belong by right in the manner and form aforesaid nor did the tenant of the said tenement, his predecessors, wife, children or household used to have or have noted or prescribed any other place in the said parish church of Waverton for himself by right, title or in the name of his use or interest in his house or tenement aforesaid; and he propounds as before.

4          Also, in excepting the party aforesaid propounds and says that notwithstanding the premises and matters concerning them, in fact the successors of the tenants of Ralph Dutton, esquire, aforesaid had until now by right the use and interest in the said seat or form and should have in future by reason of the house or tenement, the plaintiff is attempting to expel them unjustly from their peaceful possession against the long-established custom aforesaid and the canons and statute issued in that behalf, just as he contends that they should be expelled in his pretended libel given and offered before you; and he propounds jointly, severally and concerning any part thereof.

All and singular of which matters were and are true, public, notorious, manifest and equally well-known.

Whereupon, due proof being made as required by law in this regard, for the making of which according to the requirement of law this propounding party offers himself, ready and willing, at a suitable and

Click to view fullscreen

[1566/13 image 3]

opportune place and time, for which reason the party of Joan Calkin prays that right and a complement of justice may be done and administered to her in all and singular the premises, and that he […] will be dismissed from further vexation, disturbance, annoyance […] by the aforesaid Richard Clive, esquire, relating to this form or seat […] and is pronounced to be acquitted, and that perpetual silence is imposed upon him and his successors […] in relation to this form or seat and that the said Richard Clive, on account of his rashly […] this suit is condemned in the lawful costs incurred on behalf of the said Joan Calkin, and he protests those to be incurred, by you and the passing of your definitive sentence in this behalf. And otherwise, that what will have been of right and reason in the premises and anything whatsoever concerning them may be done, established and decreed. The party of the said Joan Calkin propounds the premises and prays that they are done jointly and severally, not binding himself to prove all and singular the premises, nor to the burden of a superfluous proof, against which he protests, but so far 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, lord judge aforesaid.

Click to view fullscreen

[1566/13 image 4]

[Endorsement]

Exceptive material of Joan Calkin, wife of Peter Calkin, against a certain pretended libel of Richard Clive, esquire, in a pretended cause of claim to a form or seat exhibited in the year 1566.

[in pencil in a different hand]

Waverton

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

Translation copyright ©2022 P J Cox All Rights Reserved

Click to view fullscreen

[1566/13 image 5]

Interrogatories to be administered on behalf of the venerable Richard Clive, esquire, against all and singular pretended witnesses produced and to be produced by Joan Calkin, wife of Peter Calkin, in a certain cause of disturbance of a form or seat in the parish church of Waverton are as follows:

1          Firstly, the penalty for perjury and false witness having been explained, let each pretended witness be asked whether he is related by blood or marriage, servant or tenant of the party producing him, or liable or indebted to the same party in any sum of money, and let him be asked jointly, severally and concerning every part thereof.

2          Also, let each pretended witness be asked with which party of the parties aforesaid he is associated more or which party of the parties he would favour more and would confer victory upon if he had power in that behalf, and let him be asked as before.

3          Also, let each said witness be asked whether he conferred with his fellow witnesses, or any of them, or his fellow witnesses, or any of them with him, what and how and in what way they may depose in this behalf; and let him be asked as before.

4          Also, let each pretended witness be asked whether he knew Peter Calkin and Joan, his wife, and how long he has known them; and let him be asked as before.

5          Also, let each witness be asked whether he knew the form or seat, in English ‘the knylinge place’ in the parish of Waverton which is now in controversy between the venerable Richard Clive, esquire, and Joan Calkin, wife of Peter Calkin, aforesaid; let him be asked as before.

6          Also, let each pretended witness be asked whether he knew the wife of Peter Calkin when she was a maid and before she was married and if he knew her, let him reveal where and in which parish she lived before the wedding, and if it was then in the parish of Waverton, as it now is, let him declare where and in which form or seat she used chiefly and commonly to sit and to offer her prayers, and by what right or title she possessed the said seat, also in which form or seat her mother used to sit during the time that she lived at Huxley in the tenement or messuage of a certain venerable man and by what title or right her mother had the use of the same form or seat; and let him be asked as before.

Click to view fullscreen

[1566/13 image 6]

7          Also, let each pretended witness be asked whether he knew the house or tenement in which Peter Calkin and his wife now live and how long she has lived in that place, and let him be asked as before.

8          Also, let each pretended witness be asked whether he knew the person or persons who used to live in the house or tenement (as tenants) in which Peter Calkin now lives before he, Peter, lived there and if he knows let him reveal the name of the tenant and his wife and in addition let him declare whichever form or seat the wife of that tenant had in the parish church of Waverton, and in which she chiefly and commonly used to sit and kneel and if she used to sit in the form or seat which is now in controversy, then let him answer and say, if he can, by what right or title she used to sit there, and let him be asked as before.

9          Also, let each pretended witness be asked whether he knew that a certain William Large has lived at one time in the same tenement or house where Peter Calkin now lives, and if he knew him let him also answer whether he knew the wife of the said William Large to have sat and offered up her prayers commonly and by her own right in the form or seat now in controversy, and let him be asked as before.

10        Also, let each pretended witness be asked whether he knew that the wife of a certain Manifouldes has ever sat in the form or seat aforesaid by reason and right of the house or tenement in which Peter Calkin now lives, and let him be asked as before.

11        Also, let each pretended witness be asked whether he knew and may be able to depose that Joan Calkin, wife of Peter Calkin, commonly sat in the form or seat about which there is controversy, and whether she sat in that place by proper right and just title or not and whether the form or seat aforesaid belongs to the house or tenement in which Peter Calkin, her husband, now lives and if it belonged then let him reveal and declare, whether he can take it upon himself to lay claim to the whole of that form or seat for himself and whether no other persons should share it, and if others can share it how many and who they are, and let him be asked as before.

Click to view fullscreen

[1566/13 image 7]

12        Also, let each pretended witness be asked whether he knew that any other woman or women in addition to Joan Calkin have sat in the same seat and by what right or title they sat in that place, and let him be asked as before.

13        Also, that they render true reasons etc..

Click to view fullscreen

[1566/13 image 8]

[Endorsement]

Interrogatories on behalf of Richard Clive, esquire, against the witnesses produced by Joan Calkin.

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

Translation copyright ©2022 P J Cox All Rights Reserved