449 Morris v Andrews

449 MORRIS V ANDREWS

Richard Morris of St Dunstan-in-the-East, London, barber surgeon v Michael Andrews of St Martin-in-the-Fields, co. Middlesex, surgeon to the king

February - November 1638

Abstract

Morris complained that in September-October 1637 at the Court of Assistants in the hall of the Company of Barber Surgeons in London, Andrews called him 'viper and of a viperous disposition', and accused him of having been 'an old viper to his company'. Andrews maintained he had been provoked by Morris giving him the lie and declaring that 'he had spent more money in the Company of Surgeons' than he had, but Morris claimed that the Court of Assistants had voted that he had suffered the wrong in the dispute between the two men. Their quarrel apparently began when Morris disputed a summons he had received to appear before the master of the Company and Andrews insisted that the Court continue with its business because he had to leave to attend the king at Hampton Court. Dr Eden gave the libel on 3 February 1638 and provided supporting witnesses over the following weeks; however, Morris was unsuccessful and on 28 November Andrews was awarded £30 damages and 20 marks in expenses, with Morris required to perform a submission on 1 February 1639 [see Andrews' counter suit, cause 5]. Morris also brought a suit against John Woodhall, another barber surgeon [see cause 450], and Woodhall responded with a counter suit [cause 591].

Initial proceedings

20/2k, Libel

1. Morris's family had been gentry for up to 100 years and were from co. Brecknock. From August to December in the parish of St Olave's Silver Street, London, Andrews called him 'viper and of a viperous disposition' and that he had been 'an old viper to his company', the company of surgeons in London. These contemptuous words were provocative of a duel [3 February 1638].

No date.

Signed by Thomas Eden.

Plaintiff's case

14/1jj, Defence interrogatories

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

2. Was the witness related to either of the parties? Was the witness a household servant or liveried retainer to either of the parties? Were they indebted to either of the parties?

3. How much were they worth in their own goods with their debts deducted?

4. In what place, house and room were the words pretended in the libel spoken? And in what year, month and day were the pretended words spoken? Upon what occasion or provocation were the pretended words spoken?

5. Had he received or been promised anything from Morris to depose in the cause? If so, what was it? Where, when and by whom was it given or promised?

6. Was he present at the beginning of the 'pretended falling out', and were his fellow witnesses present with him? What were their names?

7. Had Morris given 'contumelious and injurious words' to Andrewes just before the time of the 'pretended words' in the libel? If so, what ill language was this?

Introduced 17 March 1638.

Signed by William Merrick.

Defendant's case

17/4h, Defence

1. Andrews claimed that Morris had said that he was a better man than Andrews, and 'that he had spent more money in the Company of the Surgeons' than Andrews 'had spent or ever should be able to doe'. Andrews also complained that Morris 'gave me the lye, and said he cared no more for me then he cared for his shoestrings'.

Dated 28 April 1638.

Signed by William Merrick.

13/2b, Warrant to warn witnesses

To warn William Clowes, esq, Richard Watson, esq, Richard Powell, Martin Brown, George Dun, John Pinder, and Richard Turner to appear in the Court Military in the Painted Chamber at Westminster on the third day after this warning was received.

Dated 9 May 1638.

Endorsed by Gilbert Dethick, registrar, 2 June 1638.

14/2d, Plaintiff interrogatories

1. 'Whether Lawrence Cotton, Daniel Hinchman, John Heydon and William Kinge be not chirurgeons, freemen of London and of companie of Barbar Chirurgions and generally accompted, and taken to be of that profession? Did not the above named parties give their votes with the major part of the companie at the Court of Assistants that Mr Morris had received the wrong in the falling out between Mr Andrews and Morris?'

No date.

Signed by Thomas Eden.

Plaintiff's case

14/2b, Defence interrogatories

1. The witnesses were warned of the penalty for perjury and bearing false witness. Where had the witness lived for the last ten years? How did the witness know the parties?

2. Was the witness a relative, household servant, retainer or indebted to either of the parties?

3. How much was the witness worth in goods with their debts paid?

4. Exactly where and when were the pretended words in the libel spoken, and upon what occasion?

5. Had he received or been promised anything from Morris to depose in the cause? If so, what was it? Where, when and by whom was it given or promised?

6. Was he present at the beginning of the 'pretended falling out', and were his fellow witnesses present with him? What were their names?

Introduced 19 May 1638.

Signed by William Merrick.

14/2c, Second set of defence interrogatories

1. At the time of the 'pretended words' in the libel, did Morris, 'as soone as the Court of Assistants was sett, rise up and take out the summons which was sent to him by the master for his appearance at the court, and shewing the same asked the master why the court was not kept according to the summons but the rules before the court, and thereupon quarrelled with the master? Did not then Mr Andrews desire the master to sit down and goe on with the court for he was then in haste, and was presently to attend his Majestie at Hampton Court'?

2. After Morris gave Andrews the lie, did Andrews stand up in court and ask the gentlemen to bear witness?

3. Did the witness know Mr Pindar and Mr Turner? For how long? Were they 'honest, able and sufficient men' who would not forswear themselves?

Introduced 21 May 1638.

Signed by William Merrick.

Summary of proceedings

Dr Duck and Dr Eden were counsel for Morris and Dr Merrick for Andrews. Dr Eden presented the libel on 3 February 1638. On 12 February Dr Merrick responded to the libel and Dr Duck produced a certificate to prove Morris's gentility from the office of arms which Dr Merrick accepted. Then Dr Eden produced as witnesses to the libel: Samuel Dye, George Pridy, Thomas Trevilian, William Burgin, Laurence Cotton, Robert Clarke and Ralph Foster. On 16 March 1638 Thomas Trevillian, William Burgin, Robert Clarke and Samuel Dye were again produced in support of the libel. On 20 October 1638 Dr Merrick was directed to prove the material for the defence, while on the petition of Dr Duck, the testimony of Morris's witnesses was to be published. Mention was made of the sentence and porrected sentence on 28 November 1638.

Notes

Richard Morris ap Evan Vaughan, barber surgeon, appeared in the Visitation of London of 1634, married to Ann, daughter of John Leonard, a niece of Sir Edward Peacock, knt.

J. Jackson Howard (ed.), The Visitation of London, 1633, 1634, 1635 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 17, 1883), p. 112.

See also CSP Dom. 1637 , pp. 46-7; CSP Dom. 1637-8 , p. 393, referring to a petition by Francis Norton that before April 1637 Richard Morris of Brentford and Thomas Smith, the constable, had violently obstructed him when he tried to take the lease of a house and then bribed an attorney to prevent him bringing a case in Star Chamber.

Documents

• Initial proceedings
  • Libel: 20/2k (3 Feb 1638)
• Plaintiff's case
  • Defence interrogatories: 14/1jj (17 Mar 1638)
• Defendant's case
  • Defence: 17/4h (28 Apr 1638)
  • Warrant to warn witnesses: 13/2b (9 May 1638)
  • Plaintiff's interrogatories: 14/2d (no date)
• Plaintiff's case
  • Defence interrogatories: 14/2b (19 May 1638)
  • Second set of defence interrogatories: 14/2c (21 May 1638)
• Proceedings
  • Proceedings before Arundel: 1/5, fos. 23-35 (3 Feb 1638)
  • Proceedings before Arundel: 1/5, fos. 38-56 (12 Feb 1638)
  • Proceedings before Marten: 1/5 (16 Mar 1638)
  • 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)
  • Proceedings before Maltravers: R.19, fos. 422r-428r (28 Nov 1638)

People mentioned in the case

• Andrews, Michael, barber surgeon (also Andrewes)
• Brown, Martin
• Burgin, William
• Clarke, Robert
• Clowes, William, esq
• Cotton, Lawrence, barber surgeon
• Dethick, Gilbert, registrar
• Duck, Arthur, lawyer
• Dun, George
• Dye, Samuel
• Eden, Thomas, lawyer
• Foster, Ralph
• Heydon, John, barber surgeon
• Hinchman, Daniel, barber surgeon
• Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
• Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
• Kinge, William, barber surgeon
• Leonard, Anne
• Leonard, John
• Marten, Henry, knight
• Merrick, William, lawyer
• Morris, Richard, barber surgeon (also Morris ap Evan Vaughan)
• Norton, Francis
• Peacock, Edward, knight
• Pinder, John
• Powell, Richard
• Pridy, George
• Smith, Thomas
• Stuart, Charles I, king
• Trevilian, Thomas
• Turner, Richard
• Watson, Richard, esq

Places mentioned in the case

• London
  • St Dunstan-in-the-East
  • St Olave's Silver Street
• Middlesex
  • Brentford
  • Hampton Court
  • St Martin-in-the-Fields
  • Westminster
• Wales

Topics of the case

• comparison
• giving the lie
• other courts
• provocative of a duel
• royal servant
• Star Chamber