589 Sharpeigh v Street

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

This free content was Born digital. CC-NC-BY.

Citation:

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '589 Sharpeigh v Street', 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/589-sharpeigh-street [accessed 23 November 2024].

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '589 Sharpeigh v Street', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Edited by Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online, accessed November 23, 2024, https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/589-sharpeigh-street.

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "589 Sharpeigh v Street". The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online. Web. 23 November 2024. https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/589-sharpeigh-street.

In this section

589 SHARPEIGH V STREET

Sir Robert Sharpeigh of Cranbrook and Benenden, co. Kent, knt v William Street of the Strand, London

No date

Abstract

Sharpeigh, who was a salt patentee, complained that Street, a royal servant, had spoken 'some scandalous words against his dignitie', which Street denied, maintaining that Sharpeigh and his servants had caused 'an outrage and ryott' at Street's house in the Strand four years earlier, 'at which time fowle words passed on both sides'. Street, nevertheless, offered to make submission if Arundel would discharge him; but no further proceedings survive.

Initial proceedings

EM328, Defendant's petition

'About 4 yeares sithence the petitioner having then a house in the Strand Sir Robert Sharpeigh, knt, by his servants and others made an outrage and ryott upon the petitioner, at which time fowle words passed on both sides, and sithence Sir Robert Sharpeigh hath presented the petitioner with sundry malicious suites and threatened him to undoe him and make him runne away from his master, and hath nowe of late summoned the petitioner into his Majestie's most high and honorable Court of Honor upon pretence that the petitioner should speake some scandalous words against his dignitie. The petitioner had never anie exchange of ill language with him, and if any thinge slipte upon the broyle from the petitioner that was unfit, the petitioner is humblie sorry for it, and is readie to submit to what your honor and this honorable courte shall thinke fitt. And humblie praieth your honor that hee may be discharged.

And your petitioner will daylie pray for your honor.'

No date.

No signatures.

Notes

Robert Sharpeigh of Benenden, co. Kent, married Elizabeth, daughter of Stephen Porter of Sussex. He was probably the Robert Sharpie that matriculated from Christ's College, Cambridge in 1612.

G. J. Armytage (ed.), A Visitation of the County of Kent, 1663-1668 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 54, 1906), p. 147; J. and J. A. Venn (eds.), Alumni Cantabrigienses from the earliest times to 1751 (Cambridge, 1922), vol. 4, p. 51.

By 1637 Sir Robert Sharpey had also been granted letters patent for survey of sea coals at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. During 1637 Sir Robert Sharpey petitioned the King and Privy Council apologising for his previous petition concerning Derbyshire lead mines that had been condemned as obnoxious. He begged for pardon, expressing much 'contrition for his unadvised presumption'.

CSP Dom. 1637 , p. 160; CSP Dom. 1637-8 , p. 125.

For Sharpeigh's grant of a salt monopoly in October 1630, see J. Broadway, R. Cust and S. K. Roberts (eds.), A Calendar of the Docquets of Lord Keeper Coventry 1625-1640 (List and Index Society, special series, 35, 2004), p. 236.

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Defendant's petition: EM328 (no date)

People mentioned in the case

  • Porter, Elizabeth
  • Porter, Stephen
  • Sharpeigh, Elizabeth (also Sharpey, Sharpie)
  • Sharpeigh, Robert, knight (also Sharpey, Sharpie)
  • Street, William
  • Stuart, Charles I, king

Places mentioned in the case

  • Cambridgeshire
    • Cambridge, Christ's College
  • Kent
    • Benenden
    • Cranbrook
  • London
    • Strand
  • Northumberland
    • Newcastle-upon-Tyne
  • Sussex

Topics of the case

  • monopoly
  • privy council
  • royal servant
  • University of Cambridge
PreviousTable of contentsNext