The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.
This free content was Born digital. CC-NC-BY.
Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '379 Lloyd v Eyton', 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/379-lloyd-eyton [accessed 21 November 2024].
Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '379 Lloyd v Eyton', 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/379-lloyd-eyton.
Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "379 Lloyd v Eyton". 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/379-lloyd-eyton.
In this section
379 LLOYD V EYTON
Andrew Lloyd of Aston, co. Salop, esq v Sir Robert Eyton of Dudleston, co. Salop, knt
June - December 1637
Abstract
Lloyd, a justice of the peace, complained that Eyton gave him the lie in the presence of several gentlemen, 'and said he scorned to be compared to those that were come of bastards'. The quarrel may have been rooted in a family dispute as Sir Robert had married Jocosa, a daughter of Francis Lloyd of Hardwick, Shropshire. Process was granted in June 1637 and on 14 October Eyton was called to make answer' but no further proceedings survive.
Initial proceedings
3/185, Fiat
'Giving the lye andc: it is my L. Maltravers' desire that process [may go] out'.
No date.
Signed by Arthur Duck.
R.19, fo. 26r, Summary of libel
'Lloyd for several yeares past have bin, and is, one of his Majestie's justices of peace, and that I, Lloyd, and my ancestors for above 300 yeares past is and have bin gentlemen and soe commonly reputed. And that Sir Robert Eyton (att such a time and place), before many gentlemen and others gave me the lye, and said he scorned to be compared to those that were come of bastards, and that he would make it good upon me the next morning, thereby to provoke and c.'
Third session, Trinity term, 1637.
No signature.
Summary of proceedings
Dr Duck acted as counsel for Lloyd and Dr Tooker for Eyton. Sir Robert Eyton was called to answer on 31 October 1637, and on 14 December 1637 Arthur Lloyd gave bond to prosecute the case on behalf of Andrew Lloyd.
Notes
Andrew Lloyd did not appear in the 1623 Visitation. Sir Robert Eyton of Dudleston was the son of James Eyton of Dudleston, co. Salop, and Mary, daughter of Sir Richard Bulkeley of Beaumaris, knt. Sir Robert married Jocosa, daughter of Francis Lloyd of Hardwick, co. Salop, by whom he had at least four sons and three daughters.
G. Grazebrook and J. P. Rylands (eds.), The Visitation of Shropshire taken in the year 1623, vol. I (Publications of the Harleian Society, 28, 1889), p. 180.
Documents
- Initial proceedings
- Fiat: 3/185 (no date)
- Summary of libel: R.19, fo. 26r (Tri 1637)
- Proceedings
- Proceedings before Arundel: 8/26 (14 Oct 1637)
- Proceedings before Maltravers: 8/27 (14 Oct 1637)
- Proceedings before Maltravers: 8/28 (31 Oct 1637)
- Proceedings before Arundel: 7/20 (31 Oct 1637)
People mentioned in the case
- Bulkeley, Mary (also Bulkley)
- Bulkeley, Richard, knight (also Bulkley)
- Duck, Arthur, lawyer
- Eyton, James
- Eyton, Jocosa
- Eyton, Mary
- Eyton, Robert, knight
- Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
- Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
- Lloyd, Andrew, esq
- Lloyd, Arthur
- Lloyd, Francis
- Lloyd, Jocosa
- Tooker, Charles, lawyer
Places mentioned in the case
- Anglesey
- Beaumaris
- Salop / Shropshire
- Aston
- Dudleston
- Hardwick
Topics of the case
- allegation of illegitimacy
- comparison
- giving the lie
- insult before gentlemen
- justice of the peace
- office-holding