Ref: EDC 5/1575/2

Click to view fullscreen

[1575/2 image 1]

 […] of Oliver Smith […] and offered in a cause of defamation, taken before the venerable Master Robert Leche, Doctor of Laws, 22nd of June 1575.

Adam Johnson of the parish of Holy Trinity within the city of Chester, draper, his age about 33 years, has known the plaintiff for about 16 years and the defendant for a similar time, or longer.

 To the first article he says that he believes it to be consonant with law and equity.

 To the 2nd article This deponent saieth that he vppon sundaie ether fortnight or thre wekes before Sundaie last sitting in <a certen> Settell by the defendantes husbandes dore <in Chestre> together with Saolomon Smith sonne to the said defendantes husband, & the plaintiff & this deponentes weif  <sytting the same tyme> ouer against this deponentes owne dore <being next howse adioning to ye defendents husbands house>, the defendent came furth of her husbandes house & set her downe in another Settell nere <to> the <place where ye> plaintiff & this deponentes weif <were setting> And when she had <satte> there a litle while she called vnto her Prudence Smith one of her husbandes doughters & said <alowde> doest not thou see these bawdrie[1] whores howe they sitt here to countenaunce me & these naughtie[2] Jades[3] & other reprochfull wordes <she vsed meaning the same plaintiff and this deponentes wief for this deponent sayth there were none other women then & there nere them> that she cold meane saving William browne his maide wherevppon this deponent said to the said Salomon Smith, this is an evill hearing to heare your mother speake so farre out of order by her neighbors, for she spake that the plaintiff & this deponentes weif did <or might> heare her. And this deponent being therwith greved departed because he cold not abide to heare suche disorderly talke otherwise he says that he knows nothing to depose.

To article 3 he says that he doethe verely beleue that the good name of the plaintiff is muche impaired by reason of the <said wordes spoken as deposed as above> & the rather because this deponent hath certenly heard of his neighbors that the defendent hath sclaundred the said plaintiff diuers & sundrie tymes calling her whore & errand[4] whore

[1] Bawdry – immoral, sometimes implying connection to a brothel.

[2] Naughty or naught- here means immoral.

[3] Jade -a term of condemnation usually only applied to women.

[4] Probably for ‘errant’ meaning arrant = notorious or ‘common’.

Click to view fullscreen

[1575/2 image 2]

[…]  & is a verie honest
gentleman […] <as above deposed>doeth th[ink] that she wold haue bene loth to haue complayned but that she <hath> bene so oft sclaundred by her <the said Rose smythe>, that if she shold suffer from tyme to tyme as she hath done <it myght happen to be thought> that there were some matter why she durst not shewe her greif

To 5 he says that the same is true.

To 6 he believes that the same is true.

To the last he says that the things deposed before by him are true and that fame is circulating about this.

by me Adam Johnson [signed]

Katherine Johnson, wife of Adam Johnson the previous witness, her age is about 23 years, has known the plaintiff about 3 years and the defendant 5 or 6 years.

To the first article she believes that the same is true.

To the 2nd article This deponent saieth that diuers & sundrie tymes she hath heard the defendant raile[5] against the plaintiff in calling her whore & saieng that she was not mete[6] to kepe companie with any honest women And further saieth that the defendant spake to this deponent vppon a tyme & said, katherine did not you see what countenaunce yonder whore (meaning the plaintiff) beared towardes my husband as they sat together And this deponent answered & said she sawe not And she the defendant said agayne yf you had marked it aswell as I you shold haue sene it.

[5] Rail – to utter abusive language.

[6] Meet – suitable or appropriate

Click to view fullscreen

[1575/2 image 3]

[…] And further […] depose concerning this article of her owne knoledge

To article 3 she says that this deponent hath heard the said Rose Smith diuers & sundrie tymes speake such reprochfull wordes by the said plaintiff that she beleueth the good name of the plaintiff is much impaired by occasion of the same evill wordes pronounced & spoken by the defendant amonges her neighbors

To 4 she says that the said plaintiff was taken & reputed for an honest gentlewoman for any thing this deponent heard but only by the defendant

To 5 she says that the same is true.

To 6 she says that she believes the same to contain the truth in it.

To the last she says that the things deposed before by her are true and that fame is circulating about this.

 Elizabeth Johnson, widow, her age about 60 years, of the parish of Holy Trinity, has known the plaintiff about 12 years and the defendant about 20 years.

To the first article she says that she believes the same to be true and consonant with law.

To the 2nd article she says that the said defendant hath reported diuers & sundrie tymes to this deponent that the said plaintiff was not an honest woman & hath called her whore & <hath said to this deponent> that she liked not the countenaunce betwene the defendantes husband & the plaintiff, & saieth further that she this deponent hath heard the defendant speake these wordes or the like within Trinitie parishe in Chester diuers & sundrie tymes in the presence of diuers persons whom she toke no hede to of late tyme & a good while agoe otherwise she knows nothing to depose.

Click to view fullscreen

[1575/2 image 4]

To article 3 she says […] knewe nor heard any thing by […] then honest & good Saving [that] the said Rose Smith hath reported as she has deposed above otherwise she refers herself to the matters deposed before.

To 5 and 6 she says that she believes the same to be true.

To the last she says that the things deposed before by her are true and that fame is circulating about this.

Alice Massey, wife of William Massey, of the parish of Holy Trinity, her age about 34 years, has known the plaintiff about 12 years and the defendant about 16 years.

To the first article she says that she believes it to be consonant with law and equity.

Ad ijd articulum [To the 2nd article] This deponent saieth that vppon a Sundaie or hollie daie within this moneth or vj wekes last past this deponent & the weif of Thomas Tetlowe merchaunt & the plaintiff were sitting together in the Roe[7] nere vnto the defendantes husbandes dore, as neighbors commonly vse to mete & sitt in the same Roe and the said Rose Smith came furth and sat downe vppon a Settell nere by & when she had sitt there a while she rose & goeng awaie said alowd, doe you not see howe they bring an errand whore to face me & so went into her husbandes house againe, meaning as this deponent verely beleueth in her conscience, the said plaintiff, because this deponent hath diuers & sundrie tymes heard the defendant report evill of the plaintiff & call her whore otherwise she knows nothing to depose.

To 3 and 4 she says that this deponent <neuer heard nor> knoweth but the said plaintiff is an honest gentlewoman saving by the report of the defendant

To 5 and 6 she says that she believes that the same are true.

To the last she says that the things deposed before by her are true and that fame is circulating about this.

[7] The Rows comprise multi-storey properties of a design unique to Chester and many of these properties can still be seen in the centre of the city. Most of the premises have an undercroft, often partly below ground level The ground floor is either a shop or other commercial premises, set back from the street and fronted by a gallery. These galleries form the base of a covered walkway above, giving access to the first floor.

Click to view fullscreen

[1575/2 image 5]

Elizabeth Bristowe wife of […], of the parish of Holy Trinity within the city of Chester, her age about 34 years, has known the plaintiff about 10 years and has known the defendant well for about 5 or 6 years.

To the first article she says that she believes it to be consonant with law and equity.

To the 2nd article she says That the defendant in communicacion betwene her & this deponent hath reported evill by the said plaintiff calling her whore & saieng that she was informed that her husband & the said plaintiff had bene nought together this deponent saieth that she wold be loth to haue vttered this but because of her othe sake And being examined vppon the rest of the articles saieth she cannot depose any thing materiall Saving she knoweth not nor hath heard but of the defendant, but the plaintiff is a verie honest woman & so reputed & taken amonges her neighbors otherwise she knows nothing to depose].

Click to view fullscreen

[1575/2 image 6]

[Endorsement]

Ellen Bamvile against Rose Smith, 1575.

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

Translation copyright ©2022 P J Cox All Rights Reserved

Click to view fullscreen

[1575/2 image 7]

At Chester on Thursday, namely the 6th day of October 1575

[Marginal note]

Rose Smith against Ellen Bamvile in a cause of defamation

On which day John Prichard, in the name of proctor, and as lawful proctor of the said Rose Smith, in every better and more effective way, manner and form of law by which, in law, he has been or should be or is best or most effectively able and for every consequence of law that can follow thereupon in any way, says, alleges and in these writings propounds in law in articles as follows:

1          Firstly, namely that no credit, at least sufficient in law, was or is to be attached in any way in law to the pretended statements or depositions of Adam Johnson, Katherine Johnson, his wife, Elizabeth Johnson, Alice Massie and Elizabeth Bristowe, pretended witnesses on behalf of the said Ellen Bamvile, of and upon a certain pretended libel given and propounded in this court in whatever way produced, sworn and examined, inasmuch as all and singular the same pretended witnesses for the whole and entire time and place or places of their pretended production, reception, admission,  oath-swearing and examination had and done in fact in this matter were and are in their aforesaid pretended statements and depositions conflicting, vacillating, singular and inconsistent among themselves and they contradict themselves and are incompatible, not provable, at least sufficiently, on account of whom or what they were produced to prove, just as will be proved both from their pretended statements and depositions and from other lawful proofs in the event of this suit; and he propounds jointly, severally and concerning any part thereof.

2          Also that no credit, at least sufficient in law, was or is to be attached in law in any way to the pretended statements or depositions of the said pretended witnesses inasmuch as  all and singular the said pretended witnesses for the whole and entire time and place or places aforesaid and before and since were, just as they are at present, the greatest friends of the party producing them and her supporters and promoters of this cause and detractors of the said Ellen Bamville and of her good fame, malevolent and defamers, and such as regarded the said Ellen with the utmost hatred before the beginning of this suit, and voluntarily and without compulsion obtruded and offered themselves to testify in this matter; and he propounds as above.

Click to view fullscreen

[1575/2 image 8]

3          Also that no credit, at least sufficient in law, was or is to be attached in any way in law to the pretended statements or depositions of the aforesaid Adam Johnson, one of the pretended witnesses in this matter, in any way whatsoever rendered, had and done, inasmuch as the said pretended witness, Adam, the whole and entire time and place or places of his aforesaid pretended production, admission, oath-swearing and examination in this matter in the cause aforesaid was and is a supporter of the party producing him and a promoter of this cause of the said Ellen for whom he is being produced, and brought in for this reason namely because the aforesaid Adam Johnson and his wife aforesaid often and at various times before trustworthy witnesses have wickedly and maliciously defamed the same Ellen about several crimes and adulterous embraces to the damage and injury of the good name of the said Ellen Bamvile; and he propounds as above.

4          Also that there was and is no credit, at least sufficient in law, to be attached to the pretended statements or depositions of the aforesaid Katherine Johnson, Elizabeth Johnson, Alice Massie and Elizabeth Bristowe on account of their sex, and also inasmuch the aforesaid witnesses were defamers of the said Ellen Bamvile who spoke and uttered opprobrious words of the same, tending to the damage of her good fame, before the start of this suit; and he propounds as above.

Click to view fullscreen

[1575/2 image 9]

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

Having sworn the oath thereupon as required by law in this behalf, there is no credit, at least sufficient in law, in the pretended statements or depositions of the aforesaid pretended witnesses had and done in this matter in any way, assessing, pronouncing and declaring them invalid in law. And otherwise, doing, establishing and decreeing what will have been of right and reason in the premises and anything whatsoever concerning them,  which this propounding party propounds 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, and he asserts the right of adding to and correcting these exceptions, humbly imploring your office in the premises, lord judge aforesaid.

Click to view fullscreen

[1575/2 image 10]

[Endorsement]

Exceptions on behalf of Rose Smith against the pretended witnesses produced on behalf of Ellen Bamville, exhibited 1575.

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

Translation copyright ©2022 P J Cox All Rights Reserved

Click to view fullscreen

[1575/2 image 11]

Answers [ …] taken before the venerable Master Robert Leche, doctor of laws etc. on the 13 day of December in the year of our Lord 1575.

Margaret Maynwaring of the parish of St Peter within the city of Chester, widow, her age 60 years, says that she has known the plaintiff for the whole time of the dwelling of the same party in this city and the defendant from the time of the solemnisation of the marriage between her and her husband.

To the first article she says that she well knows Adam Johnson, Katherine, his wife, Elizabeth Johnson, Alice Massie and Elizabeth Bristowe articulate and as for the rest of the contents of the said article she refers herself to their depositions and otherwise she knows nothing to depose Saving she saieth she beleueth they are honest persons.

To the 2nd article she says that the said witnesses & the said Ellen bamvile are neighbors & frendes in the waie of honestie and otherwise she knows nothing to depose.

To article 3 she says that she knows nothing to depose Saving she saieth she neuer heard the said Adam Johnson nor his weif slaunder the said Ellen

To article 4 she says that althoughe the said katherine Johnson Elizabeth Johnson Alice Massie & Elizabeth bristowe be women, yet she beleueth they are so honest as they are to be credited

To the last she says that the things deposed before by her are true and that fame is circulating about this.

Peter Maynwaring of the parish of St Peter within the city of Chester, merchant, his age about 34 years, has known the plaintiff for the space of 12 years and the defendant for 12 years similarly.

Click to view fullscreen

[1575/2 image 12]

He knows […] Alice Massie and Elizabeth Bristowe articulate well] & taketh them to be verie honest persons <& to be credited vppon their othes> otherwise he refers himself to their depositions.

To the 2nd article he says that he thinketh there is no suche familiaritie as is articulate betwene the said witnesses & Ellen bamvile articulate and otherwise he knows nothing to depose.

To article 3 he says that he knows nothing to depose except as he has previously deposed & saieth further that he neuer heard Adam Johnson sclaunder the said Ellen Bamvile

To 4 he knows nothing to depose], but saieth he neuer heard the said katherine Johnson Elizabeth Johnson Alice Massie nor Elizabeth bristowe <or any of them> slaunder the said Ellen bamvile as is articulated.

To the last he says that the things deposed before by him are true and that fame is circulating about this.

[Signed] Peter Maynwaryng

Margaret Leche, wife of Robert Leche, of the parish of St Michael within the city of Chester, her age about 36 years, has known the plaintiff sithence she married fraunces bamvile her nowe husband and the defendant sithence she was maried to oliuer Smith her nowe husband.

To the first article she says that she knoweth Adam Johnson katherine his weif Elizabeth Johnson Alice Massie & Elizabeth bristowe verie well & taketh them to be suche persons as are to be credited vppon their othes for she knoweth no cause to the contrarie And being further examined vppon this article she referreth herself to their deposicions

Click to view fullscreen

[1575/2 image 13]

[…] [w]as married out of her house <in the watergate str[eet]> into another strea[t] And during the tyme of her seruice with the said […] she neuer knewe nor heard of any dishonestie by the said Ellen bamvile nor any falling out amongest any of the parties articulate And by reason this deponent hath dwelled out of that streate for these vj yeres  <farre of from them &> she hathe had litle to doe there she cannot further depose of her owne certen knoledge concerning thecontentes of this article or any other thing matteriall in the said Excepcions but that she neuer heard that any haue sclaundred the said Ellen before the begining of this sute otherwise she knows nothing to depose.

John Dickenson of the parish of St Mary within the city of Chester, labourer, his age about 60 years, has known the plaintiff for about 10 years and the defendant sithence she was married to Oliuer Smith

Ad primum articulum dicit that he knoweth Adam Johnson &his weif Elizabeth Johnson Alice Massie & Elizabeth bristowe articulate & thinketh they are to be credited as honest  and otherwise he knows nothing to depose.

To the 2nd saieth he dwelleth in St Maries parishe farre from them & sometyme worketh with the defendantes husband & for the rest of the contentes of this article he cannot depose except as he has previously deposed.

To 3 and 4 he says that he is a poore laboring man & tendeth his labor in the feildes abroade for his lyving & marveileth why he shold be called about this matter <being not able to depose anything therein matteriall >And being asked whether he knoweth any dishonestie by the said Ellen bamvile saieth he knoweth non et aliter nescit deponere [and otherwise he knows nothing to depose.]

To the last he says that the things deposed before by him are true and that fame is circulating about this.

Click to view fullscreen

[1575/2 image 14]

[Endorsement]

[…] Bamvile 1575

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

Translation copyright ©2022 P J Cox All Rights Reserved