161 Dingley v Maulten

161 DINGLEY V MAULTEN

William Dingley of Naunton Beauchamp, co. Worcester, gent v Thomas Maulten of Claines, co. Worcester, yeoman

May 1639 - February 1640

Abstract

Dingley complained that Maulten, a substantial yeoman 'reputed' to be worth £1000 a year, had spat in his face and insulted him in the Nag's Head, in Worcester, on 27 August 1638, saying: 'Thou art a base gentleman, or noe gentleman, a base fellow, a base lying fellow, a base rascall, thou art not worth two pence. Thou art noe Dingley, thou art no gentleman. Thou a gentleman? Thou a turd.' On Maulten's account the quarrel had begun when his wife claimed that 'if she and her husband had been well dealt withal they had had that land.' Dingley responded by calling her 'base queane' or 'base woman', to which Maulten replied that 'it was not a gentleman's part to give a woman such words.' Dingley then 'made mocks and mouths, and grinded his teeth at him', and told him he was a 'Rascall and knave, and an ill condiconed fellowe, and not fitt to keepe any gentleman company.' He also made as if to throw a 'pott' of wine at him and draw his sword, all of which provoked Maulten into uttering the words. The defendant also claimed that later on the same day the two men had made up their differences, and 'pledge[d] each other, lovingly and friendlie'; however, Richard Somers, an attorney and county grand jury man, had persuaded Dingley to bring the court action by saying 'it was a shame that a gent. should be overtopped by such a fellow as Maulten.'

The case was under way by May 1639 and Dingley's two witnesses were examined by a commission headed by Thomas Cresheld, gent, 23-25 September, in the Crown Inn, at Evesham. Maulten's four witnesses, including his attorney, Richard Wythie, gent, were examined by William Norris and George Street, gents, in the town hall at Worcester, on 2-3 January 1640. Dingley won the case and Maulten was sentenced to perform a submission and fined £20 damages and £23 expenses, plus taxes.

Initial proceedings

6/52, Defendant's bond

19 June 1639

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

Signed by Thomas Maulten [his mark].

Sealed, subscribed and delivered in the presence of Humphrey Hoare, notary public, George Gibbons and Richard Wythie.

Acta (4), fo. 160, Libel

Dingley was of Naunton Beauchamp, 'commonly called Durly Nanton'.

Dingley claimed to be from a gentle family of up to 300 years standing, and alleged Maulten insulted him: 'Thou art a base gentleman, or noe gentleman, a base fellow, a base lying fellow, a base rascall, thou art not worth two pence. Thou art noe Dingley, thou art no gentleman. Thou a gentleman? Thou a turd.'

No date

Signed by Thomas Eden.

R.19, fo. 17r, Summary of libel

'That Dingley and his ancestors for above 300 yeares is and have beene gentlemen. And that Maulton (at such a time and place), before many persons, said that he was a base fellow, a base lying rascall, and that he would not take Dingley's bond for two pence and c., thereby to defame and provoke him and c.'

1639

No signature.

Plaintiff's case

Acta (4), fo. 161, Letters commissory for the plaintiff

Taken before commissioners Thomas Cresheld, gent, Giles Pigeon, gent, Thomas Symonds and Henry Smith gent, and also, Francis Street, esq, George Street, William Norris and Urban Eyre, gent, to meet in a cause of scandalous words provocative of a duel, from 23 to 25 September 1639, in William Matthew's, Crown Inn, at Evesham, co. Worcester.

Dated 31 August 1639

Humphrey Terrick appointed John Watson as notary public.

Acta (4), fo. 159, Defence interrogatories

1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. What was their age, occupation and condition? Where had their lived during the last ten years? How did they know the parties?

2. Did you or others urge Mr William Dingley to promote this and assure him that he would win against Thomas Maulten? Was this done for good will to Mr Dingley or ill will to Thomas Maulten?

3. Was the witness related, dependant or indebted to Mr Dingley? If so how, or by how much, and which doe you love best of them? To which would you give the victory and why?

4. If any witness endeavoured to depose that Maulten uttered the words in the libel, then they were to be asked where and when, and who were also present?

5. Did the witness know of others present at the speaking of the pretended words who heard them as well as the plaintiff's witnesses?

6. What words of anger or provocation did Mr Dingley use against Maulten before the pretended words were spoken?

7. Was Thomas Maulten 'a man of sober life and conversation and an honest man and so reputed', and what 'bad termes or names of scorne or contempt did Mr Dingley use' against Maulten or his wife before the pretended words were spoken?

7. Since the speaking of the pretended words, did not Mr Dingley and Maulten 'drinnke and keepe company together', and 'pledge each other lovingly and friendlie'. Did 'Mr Dingley remitt and forgive expressly, or at least seeme to remitt and forgive all angry words or passages that had past betweene Maulten and himself'?

8. Had they talked to anyone concerning their deposition?

9. Had they been asked to testify or been promised anything for their testimony?

10. Were they taxed at the last subsidy or for ship money? How much were they worth with their debts paid?

11. Speak the truth of what you know, believe or have heard.

No date.

Signed by Thomas Exton.

Acta (4), fos. 151r-155r, Plaintiff's depositions

fos. 151r-152v (Witness 1), Edmund Baxter of Throckmorton, co. Worcester, husbandman, aged 30

To Dingley's libel:

1. He had known Mr Dingley for 17 years, and Dingley 'hath beene allwaies reputed a gent descended of an ancient familie of gentlemen bearing armes; and [Baxter] never heard the contrary until the speaking of the words hereafter menconed by Thomas Maulton'.

2. About 27 August at Cooke's house, the Nag's Head in Worcester, he heard Maulten speaking to Mr Dingley in 'a very violent and angrie manner', saying 'Thou arte a base gentleman. Thou arte noe gentleman att all. Thou arte a base fellow, a base lying fellow, a base rascall, thou art not worth two pence. I will not take thy bond for two pence. Thou art noe Dingley, thou art no gentleman. Thou a gentleman, thou a turd'. Mr Somers, Mr Withie, Thomas Kinges and Maulten's wife were also present.

3. Hearing these words, Mr Dingley was 'very much provoked to strike Maulten'.

To Maulten's interrogatories:

1. He had known Maulten for ten years, and 'wisheth right may take place and in respect of the truth favoureth the parties indifferently'.

3. The words were spoken in a lower room near the street side of the Nag's Head, Worcester, about an hour before nightfall.

4. He believed all the people in the room heard, or might have heard, the words.

5. He did not hear Mr Dingley give Thomas Maulten or his wife any provoking language at that time and place.

7. After the speaking of the words Mr Dingley talked with Maulten's wife and she told him that Mr Dingley's land was her husband's, and Mr Dingley replied that 'she was a lienge woeman and that it was more fitt for her to be att home'. Baxter thought 'Maulten is an honest sober man and so reputed and a man not given to quarrel'.

10. He was summoned by a warrant from the commissioners to be a witness, and Mr Dingley gave him 6d for his charges.

11. He was no subsidy man but was taxed for 36s in ship money, which he paid.

Signed by Edmund Baxter [his mark], and commissioners Symonds, Pigeon and Eyre.

fos. 153r-155r (Witness 2), Richard Somers of Whiston, in the parish of Claines, co. Worcester, gent, born at Clifton in the parish of Severn Stoke, co. Worcester, aged 43

To Dingley's libel:

1. He knew Dingley's grandfather and had known Dingley for 2 years. The Dingleys 'have beene allwaies reputed gentlemen descended of an ancient familie.'

2. As witness 1, with Edmund Baxter, Mr Withie, Mr Dingley, Maulten and himself present, and 'others which he now remembreth not.'

3. Hearing the words, Mr Dingley was 'much provoked to anger and was readie to strike Maulten'. Maulten's wife had requested Mr Somers 'to be spareing in his deposition against her husband'. Maulten also threatened him 'that if he should erre in his deposition he would have his eares'.

To Maulten's interrogatories:

1. He was an attorney in the Court of Common Pleas and had known Maulten for 13 years.

2. After the speaking of the words, he told Mr Dingley that 'if he did putt up those abuses he was a foole'.

3. He was 'of kinne in a farre of[f] degree' to Mr Dingley's wife. He wished right may take place and would give the victory to him that had most right.

4. As witness 1.

5. Maulten repeated the words several times, and he believed those that were present heard or might have heard them.

6. Mr Dingley did not give Maulten or his wife provoking words, but after Maulten spoke the words in the libel, 'some angrie words passed from Mr Dingley which he now remembreth not.'

7. 'Maulten is a very honest man for ought [Somers] ever heard.'

10. He was served with a warrant from the commissioners to be a witness and had received 5s for his charges for travelling about twelve miles to come to testify.

11. He had been a subsidy man 'and is soe still for ought he knoweth and hath payd ship money severall times but how much remembreth not.'

Signed by Richard Somers, and commissioners Symonds and Eyre.

Acta (4), fo. 155r, Notary public's certificate

Certificate in Latin signed by John Watson, notary public, that the above examinations had been completed and were now being returned.

No date.

No notary's mark.

Defendant's case

Cur Mil I, fo. 87, Defence

2. At the time and place when the pretended words were spoken he was in a Worcester tavern or inn 'with other companie met together about earnest business', when Mr Dingley, Mr Richard Sommers and Edmund Baxter intruded themselves into the room. Then Mr Dingley, without any provocation, 'rayled at Thomas Maulten and uttered many scandalous words against Maulten's wife calling her base woman with divers other scandalous speeches, and called Thomas Maulten, clowne and base fellow, and made mocks and mouthes, and grinded his teeth at him, and took up a pott and threatened or offered to throw the same at him.' There were several other witnesses present in the room for all the time in question, and they did not hear Maulten speak any of the words in the libel against Mr Dingley.

3. If Maulten had said any words, it was 'through the provocation of Dingley as in the second article mentioned.'

4. Soon after the pretended words and before Mr Dingley and Maulten parted they drank together. Mr Dingley drank to Maulten, and Maulten pledged him. And after that Maulten drank to Mr Dingley and Mr Dingley pledged him. 'And they were at least they seemed to be good friends and soe parted, and have since the said time dranke together.'

5. Richard Somers and Edmund Baxter were 'overtaken with drink' at the time when the pretended words were spoken and therefore were 'not in case to remember the same'. Somers was the 'sole instigator and stirrer up' of Mr Dingley to commence the suit. Somers's 'forwardness therein maketh Sommers appear to be very partial for, and in behalf of, Mr Dingley, and so he is reputed to be.'

No date

Cur Mil I, fo. 86, Letters commissory for the defence

Addressed to commissioners Francis Streete, esq, George Streete, gent, William Norris, gent, and Urban Eyre, gent, Ralph Styche, gent, Phillip Dingley, gent, Thomas Symons, gent, and Richard Nicholls, gent, to meet to examine a cause of scandalous words provocative of a duel, from 2 to 4 January 1639/40, in the town hall in Worcester.

Humphrey Terrick assigned Humphrey Hoare as notary public.

Dated 26 November 1639.

Signed by Humphrey Terrick.

Cur Mil I, fos. 84-5, Plaintiff's interrogatories

1-4. No articles survive.

5. Did the witness know Richard Somers and Edmund Baxter, and if so, for how long? Had Somers served as a Grand Jury man in Worcester? Were both honest men who would not depose untruthfully?

6. Was the witness present in the Nag's Head with Mr Dingley and Maulten around August 1638? Did Maulten 'then and there *spit in Mr Wm Dingley's face and* in your hearing use these words following: Thou arte a base gentleman and noe gentleman a base fellowe, a base lying fellowe, a base Rascall thou arte not worth twoe pence, thou arte no Dingley, thou arte noe gentleman, thou a gentleman, thou a turd', and did Maulten 'say that he would spend a thousand pounds but that he would not leave him worth vi d.'

7. Was Mr Dingley 'a gentleman descended of a very ancient family and soe reputed and Maulten is a yeoman and worth a thousand pounds in his estate and soe reputed'?

8. 'When and where and in what manner such words were spoken and in whose presence'?

9. Had 'Withie given out and boasted in despight of the Dingleys, Thomas Maulten should not come to London to answer this suite or care for the Dingleys in this cause'? Did not Withie say to Maulten, 'fye, Thomas Maulten, thou hast done Mr Dingley more wrong than thy estate is able to make good if thou be questioned in the Court Military.'?

Signed by Thomas Eden.

[Overleaf]

Addressed to Mr Hoare

Town Hall in Worcester

2-4 January [1640]

Cur Mil I, fos. 79-84, Defence depositions

Taken before commissioners William Norris and George Streete, gents, on 2 and 3 January 1640, in the presence of Humphrey Hoare, notary public.

2 January 1640

fos. 80r-v (Witness 1), Joseph Draper of All Saints parish, city of Worcester, vintner, lived there for 9 years, born at Huntley, co. Gloucester, aged about 37

To Maulten's defence:

1,2. 'That upon a day happening about the beginning of winter last was twelvemonths next before this his examination, Thomas Maulten, Mr Richard Withy and Thomas Kings were in the roome of the Naggs head a taverne in the Citty of Worcester and [Draper] then drew wine there; and after he had drawne them some wine when he was called againe in the roome there were with them Mr William Dingley and Richard Somers, when and where, at his coming into the roome, he heard Mr Dingley use this language unto Thomas Maulten without any provocation on the behalf of Maulten for ought [he] could understand: vizt. Mr Dingley called Maulten, Rascall and knave, and an ill condiconed fellowe, and not fitt to keep any gentlemen company,and laid his hand upon the pott, in so much that [Draper] conceived he would have *throwne* the same at his head*, and also put his hand upon the hilt of his sword in a threatening way*. In all which passages Thomas Maulten shewed himself very patient. After the which words uttered by Mr Dingley the company parted, and Mr Dingley and Richard Somers continued in the same roome in the house, and [Draper] drewe them wine there, at which time he heard Richard Somers urge Mr Dingley to prosecute Thomas Maulten, saieing it was a shame that a gent should be overtopped by such a fellow as Maulten'.

Signed by Joseph Draper and by commissioner George Streete.

fos. 80v-81r (Witness 2), Richard Wythie of St Swithin's parish, city of Worcester, gent, lived there since birth, aged about 33

To Maulten's defence:

2,3,4. 'That upon a day happening to his best remembrance about three weeks *before Michaelmas* last was twelvemonths next before this his examination', he went to the Nag's Head with Maulten and his wife, and Thomas Kings. After they had drank some wine, Dingley, Somers and 'Edmund Backster' came in and sat and drank with them. After a while, Maulten's wife said 'if she and her husband had been well dealt with they had had that land, with which words *and other passages between them which he now remembereth not *Mr William Dingley seemed to be much moved and said that Maulten's wife was a base queane, or a base woeman*, or such like ill language* the particular words he remembreth not'. Thomas Maulten then replied to Dingley 'that it was not a gentleman's part to give a woman such words'. Then Dingley 'took hould on a pott, *as he remembereth*, and grinned with his teeth, *as he now also remembereth*, and had throwne or struck Thomas Maulten with the same (as he conceaved) if he had not been prevented; but at that time Mr Dingley called Thomas Maulten Clowne and base fellow, *as he also remembereth*.' Also 'that he was present in the roome as long as Mr Dingley and Thomas Maulten were together.'

5. Afterwards, there was wine called for and Mr Dingley and Thomas Maulten drank together and parted as friends.

6. At the time of the words, Richard Somers was 'somewhat touched with drink'. He had 'seen the demeanour and condicons of Richard Somers when he is coole, as also when he hath been heated with drink'. He 'hath heard and believeth that Richard Somers hath bin an instigator of this suite.'

To Dingley's interrogatories:

3. He had been an attorney for Thomas Maulten in several causes, and at the request of Maulten he had paid doctor's and proctor's fees in this cause.

5. He had known Somers for 8 or 10 years, and knew Somers had served on the Grand Jury for the county and outside at quarter sessions. He believed Somers would not swear an untruth.

9. When Dingley and Maulten fell out 'he did much blame Thomas for giving ill language to Mr Dingley.'

Signed by Richard Wythie and by commissioner Phillip Dingley.

3 January 1640

fos. 81r-82v (Witness 3), Thomas King of Ashchurch, co. Gloucester, husbandman, lived there for 2 years, born at Lenchwick, co. Worcester, aged about 63

To Maulten's defence:

2. Since King got married, he had called Maulten cousin 'but which way the kindred came in, he knoweth not.'

4. 'Mr William Dingley is an honest gentleman and his loving friend.' Formerly there have been suits between him and Mr Dingley, 'but now they are all ended and they are reconciled, and saith there are suits as he believeth, between Richard Jones and Mr Dingley; but the last night Mr Dingley and Mr Jones and old Mr Bissell went to the Globe tavern to drink wine and to compose differences between Mr Dingley and Mr Jones, and would have had [King] gone with them.'

6-9. 'That he was present all the while that Mr Dingley and Maulten were at the taverne', and that Maulten 'did not use any of the actions or words to Mr Dingley which are conteyned in the interrogatories; neither did Mr Withie speake the words' referred to.

Signed by Thomas Kings [his mark], and by commissioners George Streete, William Norris and Phillip Dingley.

fos. 83r-v (Witness 4), Richard Jones of Claines, co. Worcester, yeoman, lived there for 8 years, born at Omberlsey, co. Worcester, aged about 36

To Maulten's defence:

1-2. About Michaelmas 1638 he was in a lower room of the Nag's Head with Mr Dingley, Maulten, Richard Withy, Thomas King, Joseph Draper and John Trapp 'to make an end of some differences between Mr Dingley and Thomas Kings'. Mr Dingley would not allow Jones to be present 'in respect of suits between them'; so Jones 'went and walked in the entrie of the house where he might hear the words that passed amongst them. And then and there he heard Thomas Maulten tell Mr Dingley that he used his kinred basely in not paying them their porcons without sute of lawe; and saith that Mr Dingley and Thomas Maulten were very loud insomuch that people that passed by made a stopp in the street to hearken what the matter was.'

3-6. Somers and Edmund Baxter were present, but Somers had drunk much and was asleep on a bench in the room.

To Dingley's interrogatories:

2. Since Jones's marriage, Maulten and he 'have called cozins, but how the kindred cameth in he knoweth not.'

4. There had been lawsuits between Jones and Dingley, 'but there is no malice between them and things are in a faire way of reconciling between them *and they have lately drank together*.'

Signed by Richard Jones and by commissioners George Streete, William Norris and Phillip Dingley, and by the notary public, Humphrey Hoare.

Sentence / Arbitration

11/16, Plaintiff sentence

Maulten had called Dingley 'a base lying fellowe, noe gentleman, not worth two pence' for which he was to perform a submission and pay £20 damages and £23 expenses, plus taxes.

Signed by Thomas Eden and Arundel.

11/15, Defence sentence

Document missing from archive.

11/28, Plaintiff's bill of costs

[Damaged- bottom half torn off, the rest remains badly faded]

Easter and Trinity terms, 1639.

11/14, Defendant's bill of costs

Easter term, 1639: £10-2s-6d

Trinity term and vacation, 1639: £10-0s-8d

Michaelmas term and vacation, 1639: £20-6s-0d

Hilary term, 1639: £11-6s-8d

Sum total: £51-15s-10d

Signed by Thomas Exton.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Duck and Dr Eden acted as counsel for Dingley and Dr Exton for Maulten. The case was examined in the Painted Chamber, in Westminster Palace, before Lord Maltravers and Dr William Lewin on 4 February 1640.

Notes

A William Dineley of Naunton Beauchamp was entered in the Visitation of 1634 as the third son of Henry Dineley of Charlton and Joan, daughter of Sir Edward Pits of Kyrewood.

A. T. Butler (ed.), The Visitation of Worcestershire, 1634 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 90, 1938), p. 32.

Documents

• Initial proceedings
  • Defendant's bond: 6/52 (19 Jun 1639)
  • Libel: Acta (4), fo. 160 (no date)
  • Summary of libel: R.19, fo. 17 (1639)
• Plaintiff's case
  • Letters commissory for the plaintiff: Acta (4), fo. 161 (31 Aug 1639)
  • Defence interrogatories: Acta (4), fo. 159 (no date)
  • Plaintiff depositions: Acta (4), fos. 151-5 (23-25 Sep 1639)
  • Notary public's certificate: Acta (4), fo. 155 (no date)
• Defendant's case
  • Defence: Cur Mil I, fo. 87 (no date)
  • Letters commissory for the defence: Cur Mil I, fo. 86 (26 Nov 1639)
  • Plaintiff interrogatories: Cur Mil I, fos. 84-5 (2-4 Jan 1640)
  • Defence depositions: Cur Mil I, fos. 79-83 (2-3 Jan 1640)
• Sentence / Arbitration
  • Plaintiff's sentence: 11/16 (no date)
  • Defendant's sentence: 11/15 (no date)
  • Plaintiff's bill of costs: 11/28(no date)
  • Defendant's bill of costs: 11/14 (Hil 1639/40)
• Proceedings
  • Proceedings before Maltravers: 8/31 (4 Feb 1640)

People mentioned in the case

• Baxter, Edmund, husbandman
• Cresheld, Thomas, gent
• Dingley, Henry (also Dineley)
• Dingley, Joan (also Dineley)
• Dingley, Phillip, gent (also Dineley)
• Dingley, Mrs (also Dineley)
• Dingley, William, gent (also Dineley)
• Draper, Joseph, vintner
• Duck, Arthur, lawyer
• Eden, Thomas, lawyer
• Exton, Thomas, lawyer
• Eyre, Urban, gent
• Hoare, Humphrey, notary public
• Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
• Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
• King, Thomas, husbandman
• Jones, Richard, yeoman
• Lewin, William, lawyer
• Maulten, Mrs (also Maulton)
• Maulten, Thomas, yeoman (also Maulton)
• Nicholls, Richard, gent
• Norris, William, gent
• Pigeon, Giles, gent
• Pits, Edward, knight
• Pits, Joan
• Smith, Henry, gent
• Somers, (also Sommers)
• Street, Francis, esq (also Streete)
• Street, George, gent (also Streete)
• Styche, Ralph, gent
• Symonds, (Symons)
• Terrick, Humphrey
• Trapp, John
• Watson, John, notary public
• Withie, Richard gent (also Withy, Wythie)

Places mentioned in the case

• Gloucestershire
  • Ashchurch
  • Huntley
• Middlesex
  • Westminster
• Worcester
  • All Saints
  • St Swithins
• Worcestershire
  • Charlton
  • Claines
  • Clifton
  • Evesham
  • Kyrewood
  • Lenchwick
  • Naunton Beauchamp
  • Ombersley
  • Severn Stoke
  • Throckmorton
  • Whiston

Topics of the case

• allegation of illegitimacy
• Court of Common Pleas
• denial of gentility
• drinking of healths
• drunkenness
• facial gesture
• other courts
• reconciliation
• scatological insult
• ship money
• spitting
• taxation
• weapon