26 Ballard v Kestian

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

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

Citation:

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '26 Ballard v Kestian', 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/26-ballard-kestian [accessed 31 October 2024].

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '26 Ballard v Kestian', 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/26-ballard-kestian.

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "26 Ballard v Kestian". 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/26-ballard-kestian.

In this section

26 BALLARD V KESTIAN

Thomas Ballard of Wandsworth, co. Surrey, gent v Richard Kestian of the same

June - October 1637

Abstract

Ballard charged Kestian with having said that Ballard lied at Sir Abraham Dawes's house in Putney and in the presence of justices of the peace. Process was granted on 21 June 1637; but no further proceedings survive.

Initial proceedings

3/176, Fiat

'Good Mr Dethick

My Lo: Marshall doth give order that Mr Ballard shall have process against Richard Kestian.'

Arundel house

21 June 1637

Signed by John Coxe.

R.19, fo. 26r, Summary of libel

'That I Ballard and my Ancestors, is and have bin gentlemen for above 3 [sic] yeares past and soe commonly reputed. And that Kestian at the house of Sir Abraham Dawes at Putney before the king's commissioners or Justices of peace, then said publiquely, that Tho: Ballard did lye, or that, that which I had tould to the commissioners was a lye, or the like in effect, thereby to provoke and c.'

Third session, Trinity term, 1637.

No signature.

Summary of proceedings

The cause was set to be examined on 14 October 1637, with Dr Ryves representing Ballard and Dr Duck acting for Kestian, but lines were struck through the cause by the clerk suggesting the cause did not appear.

Notes

Neither party appeared in the Surrey Visitations of 1623 or 1662-8. Ballard may have been the Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Ballard in viscount Grandison's regiment in 1640 and killed in the civil wars.

W. B. Bannerman (ed.), The Visitations of the County of Surrey in 1530, 1572 and 1623 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 43, 1899); G. J. Armytage (ed.), A Visitation of the County of Surrey, 1662-1668 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 60, 1910); P. R. Newman, Royalist Officers in England and Wales, 1642-1660: A biographical dictionary (London, 1981), p. 15.

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Fiat: 3/176 (21 Jun 1637)
    • Summary of libel: R.19, fo. 26r (Tri 1637)
  • Proceedings
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: 8/27 (14 Oct 1637)

People mentioned in the case

  • Ballard, Thomas, gent
  • Coxe, John
  • Dawes, Abraham, knight
  • Dethick, Gilbert, registrar
  • Duck, Arthur, lawyer
  • Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
  • Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
  • Kestian, Richard
  • Ryves, Thomas, lawyer
  • Villiers, William, viscount Grandison of Limerick

Places mentioned in the case

  • Ireland
    • Limerick
  • Middlesex
    • Arundel House
  • Surrey
    • Putney
    • Wandsworth

Topics of the case

  • giving the lie
  • justice of the peace
  • office-holding
  • royalist
PreviousTable of contentsNext