The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.
This free content was Born digital. CC-NC-BY.
Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '159 Dike v Harris', 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/159-dike-harris [accessed 31 October 2024].
Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '159 Dike v Harris', 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/159-dike-harris.
Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "159 Dike v Harris". 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/159-dike-harris.
In this section
159 DIKE V HARRIS
Zachary Dike, merchant v Richard Harris of the city of London, merchant
No date
Abstract
The cause and result of Dike's complaint against Harris is unknown, but Harris petitioned the Earl Marshal that Dike and his partner Walter Ward had long been indebted to him for over £2,000. Harris explained that he had commenced a suit for the recovery of this debt in Chancery and the Lord Keeper had referred the cause to arbitration. No further proceedings survive.
Initial proceedings
EM286, Defendant's petition
Recited that Dike had obtained a warrant for bringing the petitioner before the Earl Marshal, and that Dike and his partner, Walter Ward, had long been indebted to Harris for over £2,000 by their bill made at Naples. Harris explained that he had commenced a suit for the recovery of this debt and had been forced to exhibit his bill in Chancery, which Dike answered by confessing the bill, but seeking to avoid satisfaction. The Lord Keeper had lately referred the cause at short notice to Mr Abbot, Mr Leat and Mr Fishborne. The petitioner wished to attend his counsel and prayed that the Earl Marshal would either recall his warrant or postpone its execution until the Commissioners had reported the state of the petitioner's cause.
No date.
No signatures.
Notes
The defendant may have been Richard, eldest son of Josias Harris of London, apothecary, and Priscilla, daughter of William Brookes. Zachary Dike did not appear among the 1633-5 nor 1664 Visitations of London.
J. Jackson Howard and J. L. Chester (eds.), The Visitation of London, 1633, 1634 and, 1635, vol. I (Publications of the Harleian Society, 15, 1880), p. 351.
Documents
- Initial proceedings
- Defendant's petition: EM286 (no date)
People mentioned in the case
- Abbot, Mr
- Brookes, Priscilla
- Brookes, William
- Dike, Zachary, merchant
- Fishborne, Mr
- Harris, Josias, apothecary
- Harris, Priscilla
- Harris, Richard, merchant
- Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
- Leat, Mr
- Ward, Walter
Places mentioned in the case
- London
Topics of the case
- arbitration
- Court of Chancery
- debt
- other courts