504 Pattricke v Phillipps

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

This free content was Born digital. CC-NC-BY.

Citation:

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '504 Pattricke v Phillipps', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640, ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/504-pattricke-phillipps [accessed 31 October 2024].

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '504 Pattricke v Phillipps', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Edited by Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online, accessed October 31, 2024, https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/504-pattricke-phillipps.

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "504 Pattricke v Phillipps". The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online. Web. 31 October 2024. https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/504-pattricke-phillipps.

In this section

504 PATTRICKE V PHILLIPPS

William Pattricke of Huntingdon, co. Huntingdon, gent v Thomas Phillipps the elder and Thomas Phillipps the younger, both of the same

June 1637 - February 1638

Figure 504:

Early Stuart Huntingdon, where William Pattricke complained that he had been insulted by Thomas Phillipps at a muster of his company in 1637 (From John Speed, The Theatre of Great Britain (1611))

Abstract

Pattricke complained that Phillipps the younger called him 'base rascal' at a muster of Pattricke's company in the town of Huntingdon, saying that what he did in the king's service 'was basely done'. Pattricke was then struck by a bystander with 'a great cudgel' in order to raise a mutiny. Since then Phillipps's father had called Pattricke 'base fellow and base Rascall', and threatened to drive him out of town. There was a history of conflict between the families as the elder Phillipps had already commenced suits against Pattricke's father and brother. Process was granted on 28 June 1637 and in November a commission headed by Sir Ralph Beadles, bart, was nominated to meet 10-12 January 1638 in Edgemond's inn at Huntingdon. A note on 12 February 1638 revealed that the cause was to be referred to gentlemen arbiters by agreement between the two parties.

Initial proceedings

3/175, Petition to Arundel

'Your Lordship's petitioner, being a gent. and an officer in his Majestie's military service under Captayne Wauton in the county of Huntingdon, in execucon of which service in his place one Thomas Phillips the younger of the town of Hunt. in the county affronted your petitioner in the head of the company called together for his Majestie's service, and used many uncivill speeches towards your petitioner, calling him base rascall and said that which your petitioner did in the service was basely done. And further in disturbance of the company, and to raise a muteny, a stander by stroke your petitioner with a great cudgel, he all this while continuing in the prosecution of his office in his Majestie's service.

Tho. Phillips the elder father of Tho. the younger in abetment of Tho. his sonne hath also since that tyme, in the hearing of divers credible witnesses, called your petitioner base fellow and base rascall and threatened to drive your petitioner out of the towne of Hunt. (the father and the sonne both inhabiting there); and Phillips the father doe give out that he will undoe your petitioner, having already commenced many suits against your petitioner's father and brother only out of malice.'

Petitioned that both Phillipses, father and son, be brought to answer.

Maltravers granted process, 23 June 1637.

3/174, Plaintiff's bond

23 June 1637

Bound to appear 'in the Court in the painted Chamber within the Pallace of Westminster'.

Signed by William Pattricke.

Sealed, subscribed and delivered in the presence of Humphrey Terrick.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Lewin acted as counsel for Pattricke and Dr Exton for the Phillippses. On 28 November 1637 the commissioners Wheathill Hudley of St Ives, esq, Francis Beadles of Kimbolton, gent, Richard Langley of Hemingford, gent, and also Sir Ralph Beadles, bart, Robert Bernard, esq, and Robert Middlemore, esq, were nominated to

meet from 10 to 12 January 1638 in Edgemond's inn at Huntingdon. There were further proceedings on 27 January and 3 February 1638. A verdict was to be heard on the taxing of expenses on 12 February 1638, and a note that day revealed that the cause was to be referred to gentlemen arbiters by agreement between both parties.

Notes

William Pattricke did not appear in the Visitation of Huntingdon of 1684: J. Bedells (ed.), The Visitation of the County of Huntingdon, 1684 (Publications of the Harleian Society, new series, 13, 2000).

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Petition to Arundel: 3/175 (23 Jun 1637)
    • Plaintiff's bond: 3/174 (23 Jun 1637)
  • Proceedings
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 8/27 (14 Oct 1637)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 8/28 (31 Oct 1637)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 8/30 (28 Nov 1637)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 1/5, fos. 1-15 (27 Jan 1638)
    • Proceedings before Arundel: 1/5, fos. 23-35 (3 Feb 1638)
    • Proceedings before Arundel: 1/5, fos. 38-56 (12 Feb 1638)

People mentioned in the case

  • Beadles, Francis, gent
  • Beadles, Ralph, baronet
  • Bernard, Robert, esq
  • Edgemond, innkeeper
  • Exton, Thomas, lawyer
  • Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
  • Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel
  • Hudley, Wheathill, esq
  • Langley, Richard, gent
  • Lewin, William, lawyer
  • Middlemore, Robert, esq
  • Pattricke, William, gent
  • Phillipps, Thomas the elder
  • Phillipps, Thomas the younger
  • Stuart, Charles I, king
  • Terrick, Humphrey
  • Wauton, Captain (also Walton)

Places mentioned in the case

  • Huntingdonshire
    • Hemingford
    • Huntingdon
    • Kimbolton
    • St Ives
  • Middlesex
    • Westminster

Topics of the case

  • assault
  • denial of gentility
  • military officer
  • previous litigation
  • weapon
PreviousTable of contentsNext