140 Crayford v Argent

140 CRAYFORD V ARGENT

William Crayford of Mongeham, co. Kent, gent v William Argent of Eastry co. Kent, esq

June 1638

Abstract

This was the counter suit to Argent v Crayford [see cause 6]. Only Argent's interrogatories for Crayford's witness Anne Price from 21 June 1638 survive. In these he sought to establish that Crayford had given Argent the lie first and boasted of taking his place at table before the dinner at the Pelican Inn, Sandwich, Kent. He also sought to claim that in calling Crayford 'foole' he had been speaking in jest. Their differences had been reconciled by the local minister and they had taken the Lord's Supper together.

Plaintiff's case

14/2jj, Defence interrogatories

1. The witness Anne Price was warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. Asked Anne Price whether she had been a waged servant in Crayford or his wife's house, for how long and when, and where did the Crayfords then live? Which side did she most favour?

2. Asked Anne Price whether she had been present within the last 2 years when Crayford and Argent 'mett att some publique assembly to dyne or supp together; hath not Mr Crayford taken place of Mr Argent at such meeting' and had she heard Crayford boasting that he would take Argent's place?

3. If Anne Price deposed of any 'uncivil words or blows' given by Argent to Crayford, she was to be asked in what year and month, upon what occasion, and what speeches had passed between them directly before to provoke him? 'Did not Mr Crayford first give Mr Argent the lye, and other uncivil words and demeanours', and who else was present?

4. If Anne Price deposed that Argent called Crayford fool, she was to be asked whether she was present at the time, and whether she was sure the words were spoken by 'Mr Argent or Mr Crayford's sister, or by which of them; and were any such words spoken in jest or maliciously'? Did Crayford then refuse to go to dinner or 'was he then no waie discontented with Mr Argent for any such words; and did any person present conceive that such words were spoken otherwise than in jest, and by his wife's sister'?

5. Asked Anne Price whether any discontent happened between Argent and Crayford about such 'pretended words', and 'how long since was it'? Whether Argent and Crayford had been reconciled 'by the minister of the parish or some others', and whether they had lived in the same house since the time of the 'pretended words' and had 'expressed their loves each to other in a verie friendly mannor and received the sacrament of the Lords Supper together'?

Introduced 21 June 1638

No signatures.

Notes

The Visitation of Kent in 1619 shows a William Craford, aged ten, who was the grandson of Sir William Craford of Mongeham Magna. Craford's father, Edward, had married Anna, daughter of Sir Rowland Hayward, a lord mayor of London. By a later Visitation of 1663-8, there is mention of a Sir William Craford of Mongeham in co. Kent.

R. Hovenden (ed.), The Visitation of Kent, 1619-1621 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 42, 1898), p. 34; G. J. Armytage (ed.), A Visitation of the County of Kent, 1663-8 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 54, 1906), p. 115.

Documents

• Plaintiff's case
  • Defence interrogatories: 14/2jj (21 Jun 1638)

People mentioned in the case

• Argent, William, esq
• Crayford, Anna (also Craford)
• Crayford, Edward, gent (also Craford)
• Crayford, William, gent (also Craford)
• Crayford, William, knight (also Craford)
• Hayward, Anna
• Hayward, Rowland, knight
• Price, Anne

Places mentioned in the case

• Kent
  • Eastry
  • Mongeham
  • Sandwich

Topics of the case

• arbitration
• giving the lie
• inn
• nicknaming
• reconciliation
• sacrament