STAC 5/J11/9r

From Rpalmer
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Case Book BL Harley MS 2143 fo. 62r.

Misdemeanor in a High Sheriff and justice of peace punished for taking of bribes to acquit a felon. Jorden, plaintiff; Willoughby as High Sheriff of Kent, defendant: riot, forcible entry, corruption, bribery and other misdemeanors. The defendant took exception to the plaintiff’s proceeding and would have staid the hearing of the cause for that the plaintiff was twice outlawed after judgment but Mr Attorney being present prayed to proceed on Her Majesty’s behalf which the court granted and the defendant was convicted for that it appeared that the defendant having a warrant which he had gotten from some other justice of peace did commit him to Maidstone gaol without bail or mainprise and thereupon went to the plaintiff’s house and took away his goods by colour of letters of administration to one of his own men and some of the plaintiff’s friends fearing and understanding lest the defendant would cause the plaintiff to be tried at the next assizes for the said rape they labored the defendant to defer the same and to that end they offered him £20 which he covertly refusing, his wife ret[ained?] it to his use and the defendant to work his further benefit at the assizes returned a jury for trial of the plaintiff who were partial and at his commandment and being a game dealt with by the plaintiff’s friends to alter the jury and find the plaintiff and he should have £80 for his labour and thereupon ret[ained?] the same and promised to return a jury that should acquit him and did it; accordingly 3000 marks fine, Fleet, and put out of the commission of the peace.

Michaelmas 37 Elizabeth.

(kk)


  • Case Book BL Harley MS 2143 fo. 64v.

Commission to prove the value and to restore the same to the plaintiff the court ordered the value upon the commission’s certificate. Jorden, plaintiff; Willoughby et al: the court ordered upon a certificate of the commissioners to whom a commission to prove the value of the goods and how much they should find the defendant ought to restore the plaintiff, the defendant should pay the money certified being £71 2d but the defendant’s counsel alleged that the plaintiff had received diverse parcels of goods before and therefore prayed that the plaintiff should be examined upon interrogatories touching the same.

Michaelmas 38 Elizabeth.

(kk)