The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.
This free content was Born digital. CC-NC-BY.
Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '661 Vaux v Cheney', 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/661-vaux-cheney [accessed 21 November 2024].
Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '661 Vaux v Cheney', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Edited by Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online, accessed November 21, 2024, https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/661-vaux-cheney.
Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "661 Vaux v Cheney". The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online. Web. 21 November 2024. https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/661-vaux-cheney.
In this section
661 VAUX V CHENEY
John Vaux of Whipsnade, co. Bedford, esq v Thomas Cheney of Sundon, co. Bedford, esq
October - November 1639
Abstract
Vaux, a justice of the peace for Bedfordshire, complained that Cheney said several times, before a large number of people, that he 'was a base fellow, and that all the Vauxes (meaninge the petitioner and his brothers) were the sonns of a whore'. Moreover, Cheney 'hath since bragged of the speaking of the said wordes.' Process was granted on 25 October 1639 and Vaux entered bond on 15 November; but nothing further survives.
Initial proceedings
2/156, Petition to Arundel
'The petitioner being a justice of peace in the county aforesaid, and in the execution of the office, one Thomas Cheney of Sundon in the county of Bedford did diverse times, before a great number of people, say of the petitioner that the petitioner was a base fellow, and that all the Vauxes (meaninge the petitioner and his brothers) were the sonns of a whore, and hath since bragged of the speaking of the said wordes.'
Petitioned that Cheney be brought to answer.
Maltravers granted process on 25 October 1639.
2/116, Plaintiff's bond
13 November 1639
Bound to appear 'in the Court in the painted Chamber within the Pallace of Westminster'.
Signed by Robert Fairebeard of London, gent, on behalf of Vaux.
Sealed, subscribed and delivered in the presence of John Watson.
2/157, Plaintiff's bond
15 November 1639
Bound to appear 'in the Court in the painted Chamber within the Pallace of Westminster'.
Signed by John Vaux.
Sealed, subscribed and delivered in the presence of Humphrey Terrick.
Notes
John Vaux was the son of Robert Vaux of Whipsnade, co. Bedford, and Elizabeth, daughter of a Mr Heriot. John married Mary, daughter of Andrew Wilmer of Totteridge, co. Hertford. Thomas Cheney, esq, was the son of Sir Thomas Cheney of Sundon, co. Bedford, knt, and Margaret, daughter of Oliver, third baron St John of Bletsoe. Thomas married a daughter of Sir Thomas Merry, knt.
F. A. Blaydes (ed.), The Visitations of Bedfordshire, 1566, 1582 and 1634 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 19, 1884), pp. 91, 148.
Documents
- Initial proceedings
- Petition to Arundel: 2/156 (25 Oct 1639)
- Plaintiff's bond: 2/116 (13 Nov 1639)
- Plaintiff's bond: 2/157 (15 Nov 1639)
People mentioned in the case
- Cheney, Margaret
- Cheney, Thomas, esq
- Cheney, Thomas, knight
- Fairebeard, Robert, gent
- Heriot, Elizabeth
- Heriot, Mr
- Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
- Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
- Merry, Thomas, knight
- St John, Margaret
- St John, Oliver, baron St John of Bletsoe
- Terrick, Humphrey
- Vaux, Elizabeth
- Vaux, John, esq
- Vaux, John
- Vaux, Mary
- Watson, John
- Wilmer, Andrew
- Wilmer, Mary
Places mentioned in the case
- Bedfordshire
- Bletsoe
- Sundon
- Whipsnade
- Hertfordshire
- Totteridge
- London
- Middlesex
- Westminster
Topics of the case
- denial of gentility
- justice of the peace
- sexual insult