141 Crofte v Froysell

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

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

Citation:

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '141 Crofte v Froysell', 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/141-crofte-froysell [accessed 18 December 2024].

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '141 Crofte v Froysell', 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/141-crofte-froysell.

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "141 Crofte v Froysell". 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/141-crofte-froysell.

In this section

141 CROFTE V FROYSELL

Thomas Crofte of Dilwyn, co. Hereford, gent v Philip Froysell of Eardisland, co. Hereford, yeoman

November - December 1639

Abstract

Crofte complained that Froysell had called him a base fellow, given him the lie, and asserted that he was a better man, in company as they travelled home from Bewdley, co. Worcester. Process was granted on 27 November 1639 and Crofte entered bond to prosecute on 2 December; but no further proceedings survive.

Initial proceedings

2/103, Petition to Arundel

'One Phillipp Froysell yeoman, upon discourse betweene him and your petitioner in the company of divers persons as they travailed upon the way from Bewdley homewards, did divers and sundrie times, in disgracefull and provoking manner, give your petitioner the lye in those tearmes saying, thou liest; and also called the petitioner base fellowe, and said he was a better man then your petitioner, with other reprochfull language (as by good proofe will appear to your lordship). And for that the petitioner is a gentleman discended of an ancient famelie, and by those uncivill and scandalous speeches of the said Froysell, publiquelie uttered, doth greatlie suffer in his reputation, and hath noe fitt meanes to right himselfe, but by your lordship's authority and noble favor usually extended to gent in like cases.'

Petitioned that Froysell be brought to answer.

Maltravers granted process on 27 November 1639.

2/102, Plaintiff's bond

2 December 1639

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

Signed by Thomas Croft.

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

Notes

Neither party appeared in the Visitation of Herefordshire of 1634. M. P. Siddons (ed.), The Visitation of Herefordshire, 1634 (Publications of the Harleian Society, new series, 15, 2002).

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Petition to Arundel: 2/103 (27 Nov 1639)
    • Plaintiff's bond: 2/102 (2 Dec 1639)

People mentioned in the case

  • Crofte, Thomas, gent (also Croft)
  • Froysell, Philip, yeoman
  • Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
  • Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
  • Watson, John

Places mentioned in the case

  • Herefordshire
    • Dilwyn
    • Eardisland
  • Middlesex
    • Westminster
  • Worcestershire
    • Bewdley

Topics of the case

  • comparison
  • giving the lie
  • denial of gentility
PreviousTable of contentsNext