STAC 5/L15/27r

From Rpalmer
Jump to: navigation, search

Les reportes del cases in Camera Stellata, 1593 to 1609 from the original ms. of John Hawarde edited by William Paley Baildon Published 1894 Page 27-28

In Camera Stellata, 28 Januarij, anno Elizab. Reginae 38, coram consilio ibidem, termino Hillarij. Anno Domini 1595.

Phillips opened cause of hearing between Littleton and Parker, plaintiffs, and Lord Dudley and 68 others [defendants] for three riots and one misdemeanor; the first riot was in taking the beasts of the plaintiffs, with force and weapons, gunnes, bowes, & javelins; the second and third riots in chasing them from one county to another by night with a multitude of armed men; and the misdemeanor in rescuing the said beasts from the bailiffs of the Sheriff when they came to replevy the beasts, &c.

Heskins for the defendants opened the cause as above, but alleged pardon for the riot, if riot it be, by the general pardon of 25 Elizabeth, for the supposed riots were made in the 28 Elizabeth, on the 17th, 18th, and 19th days of October, and in the said pardon is only one exception material to this point, [namely,] "Excepted oute of this generall pardon all offences, contempts, disorders, covens, frauds, deceits and misdemeanors whatsoever heretofore committed by any person or persons, & whereof & for the which any suite by bil, plaint or informacyon at any time within 4 yeres next before the last day of this present session of parliament is or shalbe commenced or exhibited in the Court of Starre Chamber at Westminster, & shalbe there the same laste daye of this session of parliamente dependinge."

The Parliament commenced the 19th of February, Anno R. Elizabeth 35 [1593], and was dissolved on the 10th of April following. The riot was made 34 Elizabeth, and a bill (p.28) was preferred in December before the session of Parliament, and process issued in Hilary Term, before the Parliament, but returnable in Easter Term, after the dissolution of the Parliament. The question was if this bill was pending or not. By Popham, Chief Justice: If process was returned and so prosecuted with effect, it would have relation to the beginning. Anderson, [C. J.] thought otherwise. The matter was referred to them.


Les reportes del cases in Camera Stellata, 1593 to 1609 from the original ms. of John Hawarde edited by William Paley Baildon Published 1894 Pages 34-36

In Camera Stellata, 4th Februarij, 38 Elizabeth, [1595-6], coram consilio ibidem.

The previous bill of Litleton and Parker, plaintiffs, and Lord Dudley, defendant, was certified by the Judges to be sufficient, and therefore sentence was now [given].

The charges were two riots and a misdemeanour, in this manner, Lord Dudley assembled 300 men, of whom 69 have answered, and they drove 320 sheep and divers other cattle, belonging to the said Litleton, to the castle of Dudley, which is in Staffordshire, the town of Dudley is in another county, and kept them there; Litleton afterwards replevied them, and Lord Dudley rescued them and assembled 400 men with pikes, bowes, staues, with javelins and other weapons, and at 4 a clocke in the nighte in October, drove the said beasts 9 miles to a market; and because they could not sell them, they drove them back again with 600 men in all, and Lord Dudley himself with them. Lord Dudley made answer that a patent was made to the Earl of Northumberland in 1 Henry VI that he should have all outlaws goods within his Castle of Dudley, and he seized Litletons goods because he was outlawed, and in truth they were not Litletons goods, save as executor of another. The Queens Attorney said that (p.35) the said patent was re-assumed in 22 Henry VI.

The Lord Treasurer said that the answer could not be held good, for Lord Pagets case was similar and was adjudged bad. Therefore, it was of no consequence, and he, with much vehemence, held him to the matter in question and contained within the depositions. The other defendants answered that Lord Dudley commanded them, being his tenants and allies, to assist him to apprehend hunters in his chase, and they did not know otherwise, and no assault or affray was made. But Lord Dudley and all the others were fined for both riots and the misdemeanour, by Sir John Fortescue and the Chief Justice and the Chief Baron a larger sum, and by the Lord Treasurer and his son, a lesser sum, because they knew his estate, and a broken Latin word intrudes in an estate saluo sibi contenemento suo. But the Lord Chief Baron on the contrary, "If he has not the means let him pay with his body," and, "The greater the man the greater the punishment as an example to others; "and the riot was such as has not been heard of in the Queens time, and the most part of the rioters were naylors, to wit, minors de Coles, who live all their days in drink [en boyer], and if they were assaulted we know not what would follow, and ignorantia juris nan excusat a toto sed a tanto, and they did wrong in obeying their lord and doing this unlawful act; and it is a rout if they assemble with weapons, and a riot if they do an unlawful act. Therefore let the servant beware how he perform his masters wish in unlawful acts, for the servant himself shall be punished.

So the Court disagreed as to the fine, the Lord Chief Justice and the others being for the greater fine, and the Lord Treasurer and his son for the lesser; but Lord Buckhurst, the Archbishop and the Lord Keeper agreed on a sum between the two, and this was the sentence of the Court: Lord Dudley for the first riot [to pay a fine of] 500 marks, [Page 36] others £20, and for the misdemeanour, each £5, and for the last [riot, Lord Dudley] £500, and each of the others £20. The Lord Treasurer would have imposed fines of £300 only on Lord Dudley for everything and £5 on each of the others, and the [Lord Chief Justice and the] others would have imposed 1000 marks on Lord Dudley and £40 on the others for the first riot, and £500 [on him] and £20 on the others for the other [riot].


Les reportes del cases in Camera Stellata, 1593 to 1609 from the original ms. of John Hawarde edited by William Paley Baildon Published 1894 Pages 34-36

In Camera Stellata, coram Consilio ibidem, Mercurij, 28 Junij, termino Trinitatis, Elizab. 40, An, Do. 1598.

Also ruled in the case of Gilberte Litleton, the father, plaintiff, and John Litleton, his son, defendant, that if a plaintiff complain against several defendants for divers particular and several offences, and not [against] any two of them for one and the same offence, [one] defendant may use the [other] defendants as witnesses in all matters (p.99) with which they are not charged by the plaintiff in his bill and this is the rule of the Court.


See also STAC Littleton and STAC Dudley