675 Walley v Whittrow

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

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

Citation:

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '675 Walley v Whittrow', 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/675-walley-whittrow [accessed 18 December 2024].

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '675 Walley v Whittrow', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Edited by Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online, accessed December 18, 2024, https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/675-walley-whittrow.

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "675 Walley v Whittrow". The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online. Web. 18 December 2024. https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/675-walley-whittrow.

In this section

675 WALLEY V WHITTROW

Charles Walley, gent v Richard Whittrow

November 1638 - February 1639

Abstract

Walley complained that Whittrow had spoken scandalous words of him likely to provoke a duel; however, Whittrow maintained he had been provoked by Walley calling him 'base rascall and base, tapsterly, lick spiggit rascall'. Dr Ryves presented the libel on behalf of Walley on 6 November 1638. In January 1639, Dr Exton, acting for Whittrow, claimed that the case had been settled; however, on 21 February 1639 the court resolved to move to sentence at the next term. Nothing further survives.

Plaintiff's case

14/2w, Defence interrogatories

1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness.

2. Did the witness live of their own or were they dependent upon another? How much was the witness worth in goods with his debts paid? Had they been taxed at the last assessment and for how much?

3. Was the witness a household servant or retainer of either party? Was the witness a relative to either party, and if so by what degree? Which party did they favour and to whom would they give the victory if it were in their power?

4. Had the witness been compelled to attend? How much had the witness received or how much did he expect to receive in expenses?

5. Had there been any discord or controversy between the witnesses?

6. Had the witness talked to anyone about the cause and had they been instructed how to depose? If so, by whom?

7. 'Whether Walley did not then and there or some short time before provoke Whittrowe to speak such words by other provoaking and revilinge language or abusive speeches.'

Introduced 24 November 1638.

Signed by Thomas Exton.

Defendant's case

18/2i, Defence

Throughout the document a blank has been left to fill in the Christian name before Walley's surname.

1. Nicholas Sinnett, Patrick Wittie and James Astrie, the witnesses examined on behalf of Walley, were capital enemies of Whittrow and could be brought to testify falsely.

2. Nicholas Sinnett, Patrick Wittie and James Astrie, the witnesses examined on behalf of Walley, did not hear in person all that was said between Whittrow and Walley.

3. 'Walley did call Whittrow base Rascall and base tapsterly lick spiggit Rascall'.

4. 'The words were spoken by and through the provocation of Walley as in the next precedent article is set downe'.

5. This was true, public and notorious. Whittrow pleaded the Earl Marshal and other judges to absolve him and pay his expenses.

Dated 11 December 1638.

Signed by Thomas Exton.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Ryves acted as counsel for Walley and Dr Exton for Whittrow. On 6 November 1638 Dr Ryves gave the libel and Dr Exton was to respond at the next sitting. On 20 November Dr Exton refuted the libel so Dr Ryves was required to prove it in the next session of the term. Dr Ryves was to produce as witnesses for Walley, James Aston, Patrick Whittin and Nicholas Senock, and to warn them to submit to examination at the next sitting. On 28 November and 5 December the witnesses were again warned to submit to examination. On 12 December Dr Exton gave the allegations upon the material for the defence before Sir Henry Marten but Dr Ryves refuted them. Exton was required to prove the defence in the first session of the next term. On 28 January 1639 when Dr Exton was required to prove material for the defence, he claimed that the case had been settled. On 9 February Dr Exton presented material for the defence and produced as witnesses James Seeley, Jos. Whittiff and George Andrew. On 21 February 1639 the court resolved to move to sentence at the next term.

Documents

  • Plaintiff's case
    • Defence interrogatories: 14/2w (24 Nov 1638)
  • Defendant's case
    • Defence: 18/2i (11 Dec 1638)
  • Proceedings
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 454r-468v (6 Nov 1638)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 400v-412v (20 Nov 1638)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 422r-428r (28 Nov 1638)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 474r-484v (5 Dec 1638)
    • Proceedings before Marten: R.19, fos. 488r-490v (12 Dec 1638)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 1/9 (28 Jan 1639)
    • Proceedings: 1/7, fos. 36-47 (9 Feb 1639)
    • Proceedings before Arundel: 1/6, fos. 20-33 (21 Feb 1639)

People mentioned in the case

  • Andrew, George
  • Aston, James (also Astrie)
  • Exton, Thomas, lawyer
  • Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
  • Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
  • Marten, Henry, knight
  • Ryves, Thomas, lawyer (also Rives)
  • Seeley, James
  • Senock, Nicholas (also Sinnett)
  • Walley, Charles
  • Whittiff, Jos.
  • Whittin, Patrick (also Wittie)
  • Whittrow, Richard

Topics of the case

  • denial of gentility
  • provocative of a duel
PreviousTable of contentsNext