The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.
This free content was Born digital. CC-NC-BY.
Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '629 Stradling v Mayler', 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/629-stradling-mayler [accessed 18 December 2024].
Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '629 Stradling v Mayler', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Edited by Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online, accessed December 18, 2024, https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/629-stradling-mayler.
Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "629 Stradling v Mayler". The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online. Web. 18 December 2024. https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/629-stradling-mayler.
In this section
629 STRADLING V MAYLER
John Stradling of Middlezoy, co. Somerset, gent v Christopher Mayler of the same
June - October 1637
Abstract
Stradling complained that between April and August 1635 Mayler had said to him, 'Art thou a gentleman? Thou art a base beggarly gentleman. Thou art not able to find thy selfe, thy wife and children meate, drinke and apparel, but I, and such as I, must maintaine thee, thy wife and children.' Proceedings were under way in June 1637 and on 14 October Mayler and his counsel, Dr Talbot, pleaded for the cause to be dismissed as Dr Duck had failed to prosecute it within the legal time. Dr Talbot also produced two royal writs that charged Stradling with outlawry. Duck pleaded the pressure of other business and Sir Henry Marten was due to give a verdict on 31 October; however, nothing further survives.
Initial proceedings
15/1u, Libel
Stradling's family had been gentry for up to 200 years, whereas Mayler was a plebeian. Between April and August 1635 Mayler had said to him, 'Art thou a gentleman? Thou art a base beggarly gentleman. Thou art not able to find thy selfe, thy wife and children meate, drinke and apparel, but I, and such as I, must maintaine thee, thy wife and children', which words were provocative of a duel.
Signed by Arthur Duck
[Overleaf] '14 October 1637'.
Sentence / Arbitration
10/12/1, Defendant's bill of costs
Trinity term 1637 and Michaelmas term 1637.
Total: £19-9s-8d
Signed by H. Martin
Dated 30 October 1637.
Summary of proceedings
Dr Duck acted as counsel for Stradling and Dr Talbot for Mayler. On 14 October 1637 Christopher Mayler appeared in person with Dr Talbot and they pleaded that Dr Duck had failed to prosecute the cause within the legal time and that it should be dismissed. Dr Duck claimed he had been prevented by other business, but was now ready to prosecute. Mayler and Talbot petitioned that Dr Duck be condemned for the expense of these delayed proceedings and unfair vexation of Mayler. Dr Talbot also produced two royal writs that charged Stradling with outlawry. On 31 October 1637 the court was to hear Sir Henry Marten's verdict on expenses.
Notes
Neither party appeared in the Somerset Visitations of 1623 or 1672: F. T. Colby (ed.), The Visitation of the County of Somerset in the year 1623 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 11, 1876); G. D. Squibb (ed.), The Visitation of Somerset and the City of Bristol, 1672 (Publications of the Harleian Society, new series, 11, 1992).
Documents
- Initial proceedings
- Libel: 15/1u (14 Oct 1637)
- Sentence / Arbitration
- Defendant's bill of costs: 10/12/1 (30 Oct 1637)
- Proceedings
- Proceedings before Arundel: 8/26 (14 Oct 1637)
- Proceedings before Maltravers: 8/28 (31 Oct 1637)
People mentioned in the case
- Duck, Arthur, lawyer
- Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
- Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
- Marten, Henry, knight
- Mayler, Christopher (also Maylare)
- Stradling, John, gent (also Stradlyn)
- Talbot, Clere, lawyer
Places mentioned in the case
- Somerset
- Middlezoy
Topics of the case
- allegation of bankruptcy
- denial of gentility