686 Warren v Winston

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

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

Citation:

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '686 Warren v Winston', 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/686-warren-winston [accessed 21 November 2024].

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '686 Warren v Winston', 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/686-warren-winston.

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "686 Warren v Winston". 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/686-warren-winston.

In this section

686 WARREN V WINSTON

Thomas Warren of St Stephen, Walbrook, London, gent v Richard Winston of the same, confectioner

July 1639

Figure 686:

The Royal Exchange in London where Thomas Warren claimed to have been insulted by Richard Winston, a confectioner, in July 1639.

Abstract

Warren, a military man, complained that at the Exchange in London in July 1639 Winston had said that he 'had dealt knavishly and basely with him', and that when he challenged him, Winston repeated the words, thereby provoking him to duel. Process was granted on 20 July 1639 and Warren entered his bond on 24 July; but no further proceedings survive.

Initial proceedings

6/51, Petition

'The petitioner is a gent. descended of an auncient family, and for divers yeares last past hath exercised marshall discipline. One Richard Winston of the parish of St Stephens Walbrooke, London, confectioner did lately, vizt. within these three weeks last past, much abuse your petitioner, vizt. your petitioner being upon the Exchange in London, Winston publiquely told your petitioner that your petitioner had dealt knavishly and basely with him; whereto your petitioner making answeare, However knavishly and basely, Winston replyed againe, You have dealt knavishly and basely, thereby much disgraceing your petitioner and provoking him to duell.'

Petitioned that Winston be brought to answer.

Maltravers granted process on 20 July 1639.

6/50, Plaintiff's bond

24 July 1639

Bound to appear 'in the Court in the painted chamber within the Pallace of Westminster'.

Signed by Thomas Warren.

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

Notes

Thomas Warren of London, merchant tailor was entered under Walbrook in the 1634 Visitation as the third son of Richard Warren of co. Devon, and Margaret, daughter of Ambrose Searle of Godford Cross, co. Devon. Thomas married Ann, daughter of John Leach, Canon and Chancellor of Exeter. Richard Winston of London was the seventh son of Robert Winston of Brookthorpe, co. Gloucester, and Ellinor, daughter of one Coles. Richard married Mary, daughter of Christopher Symonet.

J. Jackson Howard (ed.), The Visitation of London, 1633, 1634 and, 1635, vol. II (Publications of the Harleian Society, 17, 1883), pp. 327, 358.

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Petition: 6/51 (20 Jul 1639)
    • Plaintiff's bond: 6/50 (24 Jul 1639)

People mentioned in the case

  • Coles, Ellinor
  • Leach, Ann
  • Leach, John, clerk
  • Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
  • Searle, Ambrose
  • Searle, Margaret
  • Symonet, Christopher
  • Symonet, Mary
  • Warren, Margaret
  • Warren, Richard
  • Warren, Thomas, gent
  • Watson, John
  • Winston, Ellinor
  • Winston, Richard, confectioner
  • Winston, Robert

Places mentioned in the case

  • Devon
    • Exeter
    • Godford Cross
  • Gloucestershire
    • Brookthorpe
  • London
    • The Exchange
    • St Stephen, Walbrook
  • Middlesex
    • Westminster

Topics of the case

  • denial of gentility
  • military officer
  • provocative of a duel
PreviousTable of contentsNext