Subjects: Godparents


Widget not in any sidebars

All Subjects

Back

Subjects: Gifts in connection with marriage


Widget not in any sidebars

All Subjects

Back

Subjects: Farm


Widget not in any sidebars

Historically, the right to receive rents or taxes which had been alienated by lease was known as a farm. In the consistory court of the sixteenth century this was most likely to relate to the right to receive tithes, or, indeed, the rights to a rectory in its entirety, including the appointment of clergy.

If the rightful ownership of the farm of certain tithes was a matter of dispute, the hapless occupier of the land might find that his tithes were demanded by both parties, in which case one option to avoid double payment was for the occupier to bring a cause in the consistory court and probably suffer the associated court costs.

Disputed ownership of a farm of tithes

EDC 5/1566/11 – Edward Ogells [Ogle] contra Richard Carter.
EDC 5/1575/3 – John Vawdrey and Richard Vawdrey contra Ralph Calveley.

Farm of a rectory including the tithes

EDC 5/1566/3 – William Farington, esquire, contra Thomas Ireland, senior.
EDC 5/1566/4 – William Farington, esquire, contra Robert Ratcliffe.
EDC 5/1566/5 – William Farington, esquire, contra John Harwood.

Farm of townships

EDC 5/1566/6 – John Leigh, esquire, farmer of the hamlets of Sutton and Wincle contra William Sutton and Ralph Gardner.

Farm of a perpetual vicarage including tithes

EDC 5/1580/6 – John Vawdrey and Richard Vawdrey farmers of the tithes of Saint Oswald contra Richard Webb, William Janeon the elder and William Janeon the younger.

All Subjects

Back

Subjects: Exchequer of Chester


Widget not in any sidebars

It was not always clear-cut as to which court had jurisdiction, particularly where matters of real property were concerned. Sometimes litigants might bring an action both in the Consistory Court and the Exchequer.

EDC 5/1575/3 – John Vawdrey and Richard Vawdrey contra Ralph Calveley.
The defendant argued that he was not bound to pay tithes to the plaintiffs because they were not entitled to receive them. The alleged rightful owner, rather than the defendant in the Consistory Court, brought the Exchequer suit, however.

All Subjects

Back

Subjects: Easter roll


Widget not in any sidebars

All Subjects

Back

Subjects: Duchy Chamber


Widget not in any sidebars

All Subjects

Back

Subjects: Divorce


Widget not in any sidebars

Divorce as we know it today was not permitted in the sixteenth century, but there were some situations in which one of the parties to a legal marriage could be granted what was then sometimes known as a ‘divorce’, which was also known in Latin as a separation a mensa et thoro (separation from bed and board). This did not give the parties the right to remarry, only the right to live apart, and the woman could sometimes then claim a form of maintenance.

Additionally, if one of the parties was already legally married and had contracted a bigamous second marriage, this second marriage would be declared invalid and the parties to this second marriage would be separated by a ‘divorce’.

Dissolution of a marriage which was invalid for other reasons was also known as a divorce. Sometimes a sentence of divorce might specify that the parties, or one of them, was free to marry again.

Sources:

R. H. Helmholz, Marriage Litigation in Medieval England, (London, 1974).

Ralph Houlbrooke, Church Courts and the People during the English Reformation , (Oxford, 1979).

Annulment on unknown grounds

EDC 5/7/1 – Hugh Holland contra Joan Bruckefeld or Holland

Separation on the grounds of adultery

EDC 5/1/2 – Elizabeth Levar contra Adam Levar
EDC 5/1580/2 – Thomas Darcie, gentleman, contra Cecily Darcie
EDC 5/1580/3 – Thomas Darcie, gentleman, contra Cecily Darcie

Separation on the grounds of adultery and cruelty

EDC 5/1580/1 – Elizabeth Cowley alias Johnson, wife of Richard Cowley alias Johnson, contra Richard Cowley alias Johnson

Separation on the grounds of bigamy

EDC 5/1/3 – Margery Thornycrofte contra John Cokkes alias Stokes

All Subjects

Back

Subjects: Disability and illness


Widget not in any sidebars

All Subjects

Back

Subjects: Defamatory words


Widget not in any sidebars

By the early sixteenth century the church courts began to see a limitation on their jurisdiction over defamation as the common lawyers increasingly challenged their right to hear matters relating to accusations of secular crimes such as theft. As the church courts could not impose any financial penalty, litigants who had the option might well choose temporal over ecclesiastical courts. Despite this, the number of suits for defamation brought before the church courts increased considerably during the sixteenth century. Accusations of sexual impropriety remained the preserve of the ecclesiastical courts as it was considered that they concerned spiritual welfare.

Source:

Martin Ingram, Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in England, 1570-1640 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 295-299

Accusation of papistry

As the reign of Queen Elizabeth progressed papistry was increasingly identified with disloyalty and consequently left those found guilty open to punishments of varying severity.

EDC 5/1591/2 – Andrew Brednam M.A., vicar of St John’s in Chester contra Henry Aneon, senior

Criminal behaviour

Such accusations are unlikely to be brought before the consistory court unless the offence was once which could be punished by the church.

EDC 5/4/1 – Pernell Danyell contra Joan Walton. The plaintiff had been accused of committing incest with her brother as well as fornication with others.

Illegitimacy

EDC 5/1/11 – Francis Holford contra Phillip Holford. The plaintiff had been called ‘bastard’ by his uncle which, if true,  could have adversely affected his right to inherit property from his grandmother.

Other

EDC 5/1/6 – John Minshull and Sir Gilbert Lightfoot, chaplain, contra Alice Scariot. The plaintiffs in this unusual defamation cause claimed that Alice had defamed them by saying that they had bribed her to defame Agnes, wife of Edmund Kinsey’.

Sexual slander

The importance of reputation is illustrated by many causes of this type. Plaintiffs might bring a suit because if they did not the rumours might be thought to be true, resulting in damage to reputation which might affect a litigant’s marriage prospects or relationship with their spouse, as well as their standing in the community.

It was often mentioned in libels in causes of this kind that prior to the alleged defamation the plaintiff was considered to be a person of ‘honest conversation’. In this context ‘conversation’ refers to way of life or behaviour, rather than talk or discussion.

EDC 5/1/7 – Agnes Rosbothom contra Robert Haryson
EDC 5/17/4 – Isabelle Holden contra Roger Rishton
EDC 5/1560/2 – Joan Fitton, wife of Robert Fitton, contra Ralph Leche
EDC 5/1566/9 – Ellen [Helen] Smith contra Katherine Moseley
EDC 5 /1575/1 – Jane Shepherd contra Francis Sefton and Margaret Sefton
EDC 5/1575/2 – Ellen Bamvile contra Rose Smith
EDC 5/1575/4 – Urian Bowdon contra William Charlton and Ellen Lether
EDC 5/1580/10 – Anne Jackson contra Anne Jones, wife of Thomas Jones
EDC 5/1580/11 – Jane Chetam, wife of Henry Chetam, contra Richard Hall, clerk. Hall referred to Jane Chetam’s husband as ‘cuckold’ thereby branding her an adultress.
EDC 5/1580/12 – Ralph Shalcrosse contra Robert Ridinges

 

All Subjects

Back

Subjects: Consanguinity


Widget not in any sidebars

All Subjects

Back