148 Danby v Bates

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

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

Citation:

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '148 Danby v Bates', 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/148-danby-bates [accessed 21 November 2024].

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '148 Danby v Bates', 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/148-danby-bates.

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "148 Danby v Bates". 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/148-danby-bates.

In this section

148 DANBY V BATES

Thomas Danby of South Cave, co. York, esq v John Bates of York, clerk

February 1638 - November 1638

Abstract

Danby petitioned that Bates had abused him as 'a base fellowe, a beggerly fellowe and an idle fellowe' in December and January 1638, thereby provoking him to duel. Process was granted on 23 February 1638 and Dr Eden was petitioning for sentence on Danby's behalf on 6 November; but no further proceedings survive.

Initial proceedings

8/3, Petition

Danby petitioned he was 'an esq. descended of an auncient and generous family, that one John Bates... about December or January last past much abused the peticoner and, before many credible persons, said the pet[itio]ner was a base fellowe, a beggerly fellowe and an idle fellowe; and uttered many such like scandalous and injurious wordes, thereby provokinge the peticoner to duell'.

Petitioned for process for Bates to answer the premises.

'Mr Dethick, the peticoner being descended as he informes I take the cause to bee fitt for my L[ord] Marshall's court 23 Feb 1637/8'.

Signed by Arthur Duck.

8/4, Plaintiff's bond

23 February 1638

Bound to appear 'in the court in the painted chamber within the Pallace of Westminster'.

Procured by William Danby of St Andrew's Holborn, London, gent.

Sealed by John Watson.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Eden acted as counsel to Danby and Dr Exton to Bates. The cause was heard Lord Maltravers and the earls of Huntingdon and Bath in October and November 1638, and Dr Eden, acting on behalf of Danby, was petitioning for sentence by 6 November 1638.

Notes

This may have been the Thomas Danby of Farnley and Thorpe Perrow in the North Riding of Yorkshire who was a vigorous ship money sheriff in 1638 and M.P. for Richmond in 1640 and a royalist lieutenant-colonel; although this is unlikely since South Cave was near Hull in the East Riding. Alternatively there was a Thomas Danby of Braworth, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, whose son and namesake was among the royalists slain at Naseby.

P. R. Newman, Royalist officers in England and Wales, 1642-1660: A biographical dictionary (London, 1981), pp. 101-102; R. Davies (ed.), The Visitation of the County of Yorke begun in 1665 and finished in 1666, by William Dugdale (Surtees Society, 36, 1859), p. 93.

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Petition: 8/3 (23 Feb 1638)
    • Plaintiff's bond: 8/4 (23 Feb 1638)
  • Proceedings
    • Proceedings before Arundel: R.19, fos. 434r-449v (20 Oct 1638)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 454r-468v (6 Nov 1638)
    • Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 400v-412v (20 Nov 1638)

People mentioned in the case

  • London
    • St Andrew's, Holborn
  • Middlesex
    • Westminster
  • York
  • Yorkshire, East Riding
    • South Cave

Topics of the case

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