633 Sutton v Denne

633 SUTTON V DENNE

John Sutton of Canterbury, Kent, esq v Edward Denne of the same, vintner

June - October 1637

Abstract

Sutton, a gentleman sewer to the queen, complained that Denne had said that he 'was a broken rogue, a base fellow, a cheating fellow; that I had cozened divers, that I came of a base house and gave nothing but the hornes for my armes.' Process was granted on 12 June 1637 and the libel was presented later in the month. Proceedings were under still way during October, but nothing further survives.

Initial proceedings

3/200, Petition to Arundel and Maltravers

'Your petitioner, having been much abused in many scandalous words uttered by Edward Denn against him, your petitioner for relief complained to your lordship and [your] lordship granted process against him, and appointed Fryday last for the hearing of the business, which day your petitioner wayted according to your appointment; but Edward Denn appeared not before your Lordship.

Your petitioner humbly beseecheth your lordship to be pleased to assigne this cause over to the Court Military, to be their judicially determined. And that your lordship would be pleased to signifie soe much to the register of that court, and to grant him process against Edward Denn. And he shall ever pray and c.'

Maltravers granted process, 12 June 1637.

3/188, Plaintiff's bond [damaged]

12 June 1637

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

Signed by [John Sutton].

Sealed, subscribed and delivered in the presence of Gilbert Dethick and John Watson.

3/194, Defendant's bond

13 June 1637

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

Signed by Edward Denne.

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

R.19, fo. 28r, Summary of libel

Sutton was here styled as 'one of the gentlemen sewers to the Queens Majesty'.

'Sutton and his ancestors for above 200 yeares past is, and have bin, gentlemen and soe commonly reputed. And that Denn (such a time and place) said, I, Sutton, was a broken rogue, a base fellow, a cheating fellow; that I had cozened divers, that I came of a base house and gave nothing but the hornes for my armes; and that I was a knave, thereby to provoke and c.'

Third session, Trinity term [June] 1637.

No signature.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Duck acted as counsel for Sutton and was required to prove the commission on 31 October 1637.

Notes

Neither John Sutton nor Edward Denne appear among the 1619-21 or 1663-8 Visitations of Kent: R. Hovenden (ed.), The Visitation of Kent taken in the years 1619-21 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 42, 1898); G. J. Armytage (ed.), A Visitation of the County of Kent, 1663-8 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 54, 1906).

Documents

• Initial proceedings
  • Petition to Arundel and Maltravers: 3/200 (12 Jun 1637)
  • Plaintiff's bond: 3/188 (12 Jun 1637)
  • Defendant's bond: 3/194 (13 Jun 1637)
  • Summary of libel: R.19, fo. 28r (June 1637)
• Proceedings
  • Proceedings before Maltravers: 8/27 (14 Oct 1637)
  • Proceedings before Maltravers: 8/28 (31 Oct 1637)

People mentioned in the case

• Denne, Edward, vintner (also Denn)
• Dethick, Gilbert, registrar
• Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
• Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
• Sutton, John, esq
• Watson, John

Places mentioned in the case

• Kent
  • Canterbury
• Middlesex
  • Westminster

Topics of the case

• allegation of cheating
• coat of arms
• denial of gentility
• royal servant
• sexual insult