264 Groome v Mudd

264 GROOME V MUDD

Robert Groome of East Bergholt, co. Suffolk, gent v Henry Mudd of Darmsden, co. Suffolk

No date

Abstract

Groome complained that the previous January at Barking, Suffolk, in the presence of 'divers persons of good credit, Mudd gave him the lie and called him 'base, lying rogue and capcious jack'. Process was granted but no date was given for this and no further proceedings survive.

Initial proceedings

2/18, Petition to Arundel

'Your petitioner, being lineally descended from good ancestors, whose armes and pedigree are upon record, your petitioner being at Barking in the county aforesaid, in the moneth of January last, one Henry Mud, of Damesden in the county of Suffolk, did revile your petitioner in most unsufferable manner, calling your petitioner, base lying rogue and capcious jack, all which wordes, with other provocations, giving your petitioner oftentimes the lie, were spoken in the hearing of divers persons of good credit, to the great disgrace of your petitioner.'

Petitioned that Mud be brought to answer.

Maltravers granted process, no date.

Notes

Neither of the parties appeared in the Suffolk Visitations of the 1660s: W. H. Rylands (ed.), A Visitation of the County of Suffolk, 1664-1668 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 61, 1910).

Documents

• Initial proceedings
  • Petition to Arundel: 2/18 (no date)

People mentioned in the case

• Groome, Robert, gent (also Groom)
• Mudd, Henry (also Mud)
• Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
• Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey

Places mentioned in the case

• Suffolk
  • Barking
  • Darmsden
  • East Bergholt

Topics of the case

• coat of arms
• denial of gentility
• giving the lie
• nicknaming