163 Dixon v Hulker

163 DIXON V HULKER

Robert Dixon of St Martin-in-the-Fields, co. Middlesex, esq v Thomas Hulker of Kings Langley, co. Hertford, gent

October 1638 - April 1639

Abstract

Dixon complained that Hulker, an attorney in the Court of Common Pleas, insulted him in public in the presence of many people, by saying that 'Robert Dixon did favour none but knaves such as were like himself, and that he was a dishonest man, and that he would prove the same'. Dixon was a justice of the peace for Westminster and secretary to the Lord Privy Seal, the earl of Worcester. This case was part of the ongoing litigation between Dixon and Hulker, which included lawsuits concerning the manor of Kings Langley in the King's Bench and Court of Requests. Hulker claimed that William Kelsey of Kings Langley, gent, was largely responsible for instigating these suits and the current case.

Proceedings began on 20 October 1638 and Dixon won the case in February 1639. Hulker was fined 100 marks damages to Dixon and £100 fine to the king, which was reported by Edward Rossingham on 5 March 1639 as another example of the court's severity. Hulker was ordered to perform his submission before the manor court of Kings Langley on 23 April 1639, and Dixon was permitted to bring up to twelve onlookers with him. Hulker was to apologise to Mr Dixon and the Earl Marshal for his 'false and scandalous' words, and to acknowledge Dixon as 'a man every way well deserving, and no way subject to any such crime or calumny as aforesaid.'

Initial proceedings

7/101, Defendant's bond

15 October 1638

Bound to attend the court in the painted chamber, Palace of Westminster, and to pay costs and charges and perform the orders of the court.

Signed by Thomas Hulker.

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

11/32/7, Libel

1. Robert Dixon had been a gentleman bearing arms for up to 40 years and was a justice of the peace for Westminster.

2. Between June and August 1638, Thomas Hulker had said that 'I, Robert Dixon, did favour none but knaves such as were like myselfe, and that I was a dishonest man and that he would prove the same.'

3. These contemptuous words were provocative of a duel.

No date.

Signed by Arthur Duck.

R.19, fo. 21r, Summary of libel

Robert Dixon had been a gentleman for up to 40 years, 'had the proper armes of his familiy, and for 20 yeares past was and is a justice of peace within the liberty of Westminster. And that Tho. Hulker publickly before many honest and worthy persons (such a day and place) said Robert Dixon did favour none but knaves such as were like himself, and that he was a dishonest man, and that he would prove the same, thereby to provoke him to a duell and c.'

Michaelmas term, 1638.

No signature.

Plaintiff's case

14/2q, Defence interrogatories [damaged]

1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. Of what age, occupation and condition was the witness? Where did they live?

2. Was the witness a relative of either party, and if so by what degree? Was the witness indebted or obliged to either party and if so by how much?

3. Was the witness a tenant or servant to Dixon; if so, where, or for what wages?

4. When, where and before whom were the words spoken? Who were nearest and who furthest from Hulker? What were the exact words spoken, by whom and in what order?

5. Was Dixon present at the speaking of the words? If not, who told him of them? Did the witness or any of his fellow witnesses 'solicite of these witnesses nowe produced to know what words Hulker spake of Dixon'?

6. Was Hulker Lord of the Manor of Kings Langley? Was Dixon among Hulker's 'undertenants' there, sometimes living in a house of which Hulker held the freehold?

7. Before this cause began, 'vizt. before Satterday the 20 of this month of October 1638', was there a lawsuit depending between Hulker and Dixon in 'the Dutchie Court of King's Bench and the Crowne office, and the Court of Requests concerning the manor of Kings Langley and some of the Liberties or Royalties thereof'?

8. 'Of what condition' was Dixon born, and 'what course of life his father was and lived in'?

9. Was the witness William Kelsey 'an instigator of Robert Dixon to this suite', and was he commonly known in Kings Langley 'to raise and foster suites, quarrels and debates' between Dixon and Hulker, 'and to set himself in all business there... and to be Hulker's enemy'.

10. [Damaged and torn off]

Introduced 31 October 1638

18/3e, Exhibit

'These are to certifie that Robert Dixon of the parish of St Martins in the field, esq and secretary to the right honorable the Lord Privy Seal is in commission of the peace for the Cittie and liberties of Westminster, and so hath been for many years now past.'

Dated 5 but exhibited on 6 November 1638.

Signed by Jo. Bakeley, clerk of the peace.

Defendant's case

14/2m, Plaintiff's interrogatories

1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. Of what age, occupation and condition was the witness? How did they know the litigants and to which would they give the victory were it in their power?

2. Was the witness a household servant or retainer of either party? Was the witness indebted to either party, and if so, how much? How much were they worth in goods with their debts paid?

3. Had the witness been instructed how to depose?

4. Did he hear Hulker say to Mr Kelsie or some other that Dixon 'was a dishonest man and that he would prove it, and that he was a favourer of knaves and favoured none but knaves like himself'. Did Hulker tell Kelsie to tell Dixon so, and did Kelsie respond that 'Dixon would not have given such disgraceful speeches to the meanest company that Houlker kept'.

5. Had William Greenhill said that he was 'ashamed to hear and see the ill carriage and demeanour of Thomas Houlker'?

6. On the day of the words in the libel, did Robert Cater tell Edward Franklin that Hulker had said Dixon was a knave.

7. Was Dixon's witness, Mr Kelsie 'a person of honest life and conversation' who would not depose an untruth?

8. In case any witness deposed that Kelsie was one of Dixon's tenants, he was to be asked whether Kelsie was not a tenant of the Earl of Worcester for many years before the land was purchased by Dixon [rest damaged]?

9. Did Kelsie live by his own means 'and no waies dependeth on Robert Dixon'? Whether Kelsie 'hath not occasion to resort to fairs and markets', and whether Kelsie was more a neighbour than a servant to Dixon?

10. If any witness deposed that Kelsie 'did labour and tamper with or solicite any man, especially Robert Cater', to depose the words in the libell were said by Hulker, let the witness be asked what words of solicitation Kelsie used, and did not the witness acknowledge that he heard Hulker use the words in article 4 that Dixon 'was a dishonest man and favoured none but knaves'.

11. If any witness deposed that Kelsie was Hulker's enemy, or conducting lawsuits against him, let the witness depose why this was so, and in what court the suites were depending. Was Kelsie the defendant in these suites and were they concerning the whole parish of Kings Langley?

12. Had John and Nicholas King been shown a copy of the libel by Hulker, who then demanded what they would depose? Had Hulker threatened either of the Kings that he would bring them into Star Chamber if they deposed against him? If so, in what place and how often did he use such threatening words, and did the Kings complain of this to their neighbours?

13. Did either of the Kings, or another person tell Thomas Joyce that Hulker had threatened them with Star Chamber? Did Hulker or another person then inform Dixon of this?

No date.

Signed by Arthur Duck.

Submission

4/29, Submission

Hulker was to perform his submission 'standing bareheaded in some eminent and convenient place' and 'with an audible voice in submissive manner' on Tuesday 23 April 1639 'in the Court House or Roome where the Court for the Manor of Kings Langley aforesaid is usually kept'. Robert Dixon was permitted to bring up to twelve on lookers with him to witness it in addition to 'such others as shall casually be there.'

'Whereas I, Thomas Hulker, stand convicted... to have much abused and vilified in words Mr Robert Dixon of this town of Kings Langley esq and amongst other scandalous and disgraceful speeches used of him, to have said that Mr Robert Dixon did favour none but knaves such as were like himself, and that he was a dishonest man or to that effect, I doe hereby humbly confess that I am hartily sorry for my such rash and unadvised speaking of the words, of and against Mr Dixon, whom I do hereby acknowledge to be an honest worthy gentleman, an esquire by place and one of his Majestie's justices of the peace within the City of Westminster, a man every way well deserving and no way subject to any such crime or calumny as aforesaid. And I do hartily and humbly pray pardon and forgiveness of the right honourable Thomas, Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Earl Marshal of England, and Court Military and also of Mr Dixon for my such rashe and inconsiderate speaking of the words which I do hereby acknowledge to be most false and scandalous. And I do promise to behave my self ever hereafter towards all the gentry of this kingdom, and in particular towards Mr Dixon with all due observance and respect.'

[Overleaf]

'40 l. damages

20 marks costs [these sums are not as reported by Rossingham or as recorded in the Latin proceedings]

a base lowsie knave and that he would be hanged'.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Duck acted as counsel to Dixon and Dr Eden to Hulker. Record of proceedings begins on 20 October 1638 when Dr Duck gave the libel and Dr Eden was required to respond. On 30 October, Dr Duck was to produce the prosecution witnesses Thomas Joyce, clerk, William Kelsey the elder, John King the elder and Nicholas King the younger. On 6 November 1638 Dr Duck was to publish their testimony and prove Mr Dixon's gentility, while Dr Eden was to relate the defence. On 12 December 1638, Hulker objected to Mr Dixon's witnesses, and in January 1639 the witnesses were examined for Hulker's defence. The 20 February 1639 was appointed to hear the sentence and Dr Duck porrected the sentence sought by Dixon: a £100 fine to the king, 100 marks damages to Dixon and £20 expenses.

Notes

The case was reported in one of Edward Rossingham's newsletters : TNA, C 155,8854, 5 March 1639:

'An other man was fined a 100 li. To the kinge, a 100 markes to Mr Dixon, lord privey seale's secretarie for telling Dixon hee was a dishonest man and that hee favours none but knaves and rogues like himselfe.'

Robert Dixon did not appear in the Middlesex Pedigrees or the Visitations of London:

G. J. Armytage (ed.), Middlesex Pedigrees (Publications of the Harleian Society, 65, 1914); J. J. Howard and J. L. Chester (eds.), The Visitation of London in 1633, 1634, and 1635 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 15, 1880), vol. 1; J. J. Howard (ed.), The Visitation of London in 1633, 1634, and 1635 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 17, 1883), vol. 2; J. B. Whitmore and A. W. Hughes Clarke (eds.), London Visitation Pedigrees, 1664 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 92, 1940); T. C. Wales and C. P. Hartley (eds.), The Visitation of London begun in 1687 (Publications of the Harleian Society, new series, 16, 2004), part 1; T. C. Wales and C. P. Hartley (eds.), The Visitation of London begun in 1687 (Publications of the Harleian Society, new series, 17, 2004), part 2.

Robert Dixon, esq, was restored to the Westminster commission of the peace in September 1631. Robert Dixon the younger, gent, was granted the office of clerk of the privy seal and register of the Court of Requests in reversion, in September 1638.

J. Broadway, R. Cust and S. K. Roberts (eds.), A Calendar of the Docquets of Lord Keeper Coventry, 1625-40 (List and Index Society, special series, 34, 2004), part 1, pp. 65, 206.

Thomas Hulker did not appear in the Visitations of Hertfordshire: W. C. Metcalfe (ed.), The Visitations of Hertfordshire made in 1572 and 1634 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 22, 1886).

Documents

• Initial proceedings
  • Defendant's bond: 7/101 (15 Oct 1638)
  • Libel: 11/32/7 (no date)
  • Summary of libel: R.19, fo. 21r (Mic 1638)
• Plaintiff's case
  • Defence interrogatories: 14/2q (31 Oct 1638)
  • Exhibit: 18/3e (6 Nov 1638)
• Defendant's case
  • Plaintiff's interrogatories: 14/2m (no date)
• Submission
  • Submission: 4/29 (no date)
• Proceedings
  • Proceedings before Arundel: R.19, fos. 434r-449v (20 Oct 1638)
  • Proceedings before Marten: R.19, fo. 449v (30 Oct 1638)
  • Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 454r-468v (6 Nov 1638)
  • Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 400v-412v (20 Nov 1638)
  • Proceedings before Marten: R.19, fos. 413v-416v (27 Nov 1638)
  • Proceedings before Marten: R.19, fos. 488r-490v (12 Dec 1638)
  • Proceedings before Marten: R.19, fos. 490v-491r (19 Dec 1638)
  • Proceedings before Marten: R.19, fo. 492v (25 Jan 1639)
  • Proceedings before Maltravers: 1/9 (28 Jan 1639)
  • Proceedings: 1/7, fos. 36-47 (9 Feb 1639)
  • Proceedings: 1/6, fos. 20-33 (20 Feb 1639)

People mentioned in the case

• Bakeley, Jo., clerk of the peace
• Cater, Robert
• Dixon, Robert, esq
• Duck, Arthur, lawyer
• Eden, Thomas, lawyer
• Franklin, Edward
• Greenhill, William
• Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
• Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
• Hulker, Thomas, gent (also Houlker)
• Joyce, Thomas, clerk
• Kelsey, William the elder, gent (also Kelsie)
• King, Nicholas, the younger
• King, John, the elder
• Marten, Henry, knight
• Rossingham, Edward
• Somerset, Henry, earl of Worcester
• Watson, John

Places mentioned in the case

• Hertfordshire
  • Kings Langley
• Middlesex
  • St Martin-in-the-Fields
  • Westminster

Topics of the case

• allegation of cheating
• Court of Common Pleas
• Court of Requests
• justice of the peace
• King's Bench
• office-holding
• other courts
• provocative of a duel
• royal servant
• Star Chamber