516 Peyton v Mooreden

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

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

Citation:

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '516 Peyton v Mooreden', 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/516-peyton-mooreden [accessed 31 October 2024].

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '516 Peyton v Mooreden', 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/516-peyton-mooreden.

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "516 Peyton v Mooreden". 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/516-peyton-mooreden.

In this section

516 PEYTON V MOOREDEN

John Peyton of Isleham, co. Cambridge, esq v John Mooreden of Exning, co. Suffolk

December 1637

Abstract

Peyton, a son of Sir John Peyton, complained that Mooreden had given him the lie, called him a 'base fellowe' and said that 'he cared not a turd for any Peyton, and that hee was a better man than any Peyton in England'. Peyton entered bond to prosecute the cause on 20 December 1637, but no further proceedings survive.

Initial proceedings

3/67, Petition to Arundel

'Your petitioner, being a gentleman descended of a verie ancient familie, was in the monethes of Julie, August or September last in a most disgracefull manner abused by John Mooreden of Euninge in the countie of Suffolk, before divers persons. He gave your petitioner the lye of ten times and said he cared not a turd for any Peyton, and that hee was a better man than any Peyton in England; and said that your petitioner was a base fellowe, with many other reprochfull speeches, thereby provoking your petitioner to a duell and combate with him.'

Petitioned that Mooreden be brought to answer.

Duck desired Dethick to grant process, 20 December 1637, informing him: 'Mr Peyton is the sonne and heyre of Sir John Peyton whose family is very ancient and worthy, and his complaint I take to bee very fitt for my L. Marshall's Court and I pray lett process go out.'

Signed by Arthur Duck.

3/68, Plaintiff's bond

20 December 1637

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

Signed by John Peyton.

Sealed, subscribed and delivered in the presence of Jo: Watson.

Notes

John Payton was the second son of Sir John Payton of Isleham, co. Cambridge, knt and bart, and Alice, daughter of Sir Edward Osborne, knt, mayor of London.

J. W. Clay (ed.), The Visitations of Cambridge, 1575 and 1619 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 41, 1897), pp. 4-5.

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Petition: 3/67 (20 Dec 1637)
    • Plaintiff's bond: 3/68 (20 Dec 1637)

People mentioned in the case

  • Dethick, Gilbert, registrar
  • Duck, Arthur, lawyer
  • Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
  • Mooreden, John
  • Osborne, Alice
  • Osborne, Edward, knight
  • Peyton, Alice (also Payton)
  • Peyton, John, esq (also Payton)
  • Peyton, John, knight (also Payton)
  • Watson, John

Places mentioned in the case

  • Cambridgeshire
    • Isleham
  • Middlesex
    • Westminster
  • Suffolk
    • Exning

Topics of the case

  • comparison
  • denial of gentility
  • giving the lie
  • scatological insult
PreviousTable of contentsNext