Difference between revisions of "STAC Puckle"

From Waalt
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
''' B ''' Bill of Complaint ''' Dr ''' Demurrer  ''' A ''' Answer ''' Rn ''' Replication ''' Rr ''' Rejoinder
 +
''' C ''' Commission ''' I ''' Interrogatories ''' D ''' Deposition
 +
 
''' Puckle, Robert '''
 
''' Puckle, Robert '''
 
*STAC 5/P19/19 - B - 17 Eliz - Robert Puckell, Robert Tyvidale, William Evans v Richard Ecocke, Robert Barker, Richard Thacker et al
 
*STAC 5/P19/19 - B - 17 Eliz - Robert Puckell, Robert Tyvidale, William Evans v Richard Ecocke, Robert Barker, Richard Thacker et al
Line 4: Line 7:
 
*STAC 5/P27/18 - B A Rn Rr - 21 Eliz - Robert Puckle v Robert Glover, Robert Bridges
 
*STAC 5/P27/18 - B A Rn Rr - 21 Eliz - Robert Puckle v Robert Glover, Robert Bridges
 
*STAC 5/P43/3 - I D - 21 Eliz - Robert Puckle v Robert Glover  
 
*STAC 5/P43/3 - I D - 21 Eliz - Robert Puckle v Robert Glover  
*STAC 5/P50/23 - B A - 22 Eliz - Robert Puckle v William Lockett, Robert Bridges et al
+
*STAC 5/P50/23 - B A - 22 Eliz - London - Robert Puckle v William Lockett, Robert Bridges et al
*STAC 5/P30/20 - I D - 21 Eliz - Robert Puckle v William Lockett
+
*STAC 5/P30/20 - I D - 21 Eliz - London - Robert Puckle v William Lockett
*STAC 5/P20/21 - I D - 20 Eliz - Robert Puckle v Robert Bridges
+
*STAC 5/P20/21 - I D - 20 Eliz - London - Robert Puckle v Robert Bridges
*STAC 5/P37/6 - I D - 22 Eliz - Robert Puckle v Robert Bridges
+
*STAC 5/P37/6 - I D - 22 Eliz - London - Robert Puckle v Robert Bridges
*STAC 5/P42/11 - I D - 22 Eliz - Robert Puckle v Robert Brydges, William Lackett
+
*STAC 5/P42/11 - I D - 22 Eliz - London - Robert Puckle v Robert Brydges, William Lackett
 +
 
 +
''' Bevan Case Index '''
 +
*Puckle v Bridgen - STAC 5/P41/13
 +
*Puckle v Bridges - STAC 5/P20/21, STAC 5/P37/6, STAC 5/P42/11
 +
*Puckle v Ecocke - STAC 5/P19/19
 +
*Puckle v Glover - STAC 5/P27/18, STAC 5/P43/3
 +
*Puckle v Lockett - STAC 5/P50/23, STAC 5/P30/20
  
'''Notes, Additions and Corrections'''
+
'''Notes, Additions and Corrections'''  
 +
*STAC 5/P27/18 - Case Book BL Harley MS 2143 fo. 13r. Costs of this court deducted out of the cost recovered at the common law. Puckell, plaintiff; Bridges, defendant: £52 costs recovered by the defendant against the plaintiff at the common law, the costs awarded against the defendant here, which costs the Court ordered the plaintiff to deduct out of the costs recoverred at the common law. Michaelmas 24 Elizabeth (kk)
 +
*In 1579/80, a London draper’s servant called William Lockett offered an account of the coercion that could underwrite paternalism. Lockett said that he had been pressured by his master, Robert Brydges, to depose about a debt which Brydges claimed to have paid. On multiple occasions, Lockett protested that he knew nothing about the debt in question. Brydges then told him: ‘Thow muste remember howe I saved thee oute of Brydewell, where thow shouldest have remayned had I not [helped] thee. Therefore thow muste not denye me’. After this reminder of his figurative debts and a series of beatings, Lockett agreed to depose. Brydges generously told him that he would give him a statement to memorize and the ‘leysure to learne the same’. Prior to his testimony, Brydges gave him ‘a hatt . . . to make him seame like an honest and substantiall person’. Discussing the deposition that was later called into question, Lockett remembered that he had ‘stammer[ed]’ while speaking, presumably due to some combination of nervousness and an inability to remember the exact letter of his script. His case suggests that blunt power could override prospective witnesses’ attempts to act according to their knowledge and conscience: he had, as he remembered, ‘resisted [his master] so nere as he coulde’ in his efforts to avoid testifying. - Hillary Taylor, The price of the poor’s words: social relations and the economics of deposing for one’s ‘betters’ in early modern England., Economic History Review (2018) https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.12773 STAC 5/P50/23, William Lockett (answer).

Revision as of 16:10, 6 December 2018

B Bill of Complaint Dr Demurrer A Answer Rn Replication Rr Rejoinder C Commission I Interrogatories D Deposition

Puckle, Robert

  • STAC 5/P19/19 - B - 17 Eliz - Robert Puckell, Robert Tyvidale, William Evans v Richard Ecocke, Robert Barker, Richard Thacker et al
  • STAC 5/P41/13 - B A Rn Rr - 21 Eliz - Robert Puckle v Robert Bridgen, William Lockett
  • STAC 5/P27/18 - B A Rn Rr - 21 Eliz - Robert Puckle v Robert Glover, Robert Bridges
  • STAC 5/P43/3 - I D - 21 Eliz - Robert Puckle v Robert Glover
  • STAC 5/P50/23 - B A - 22 Eliz - London - Robert Puckle v William Lockett, Robert Bridges et al
  • STAC 5/P30/20 - I D - 21 Eliz - London - Robert Puckle v William Lockett
  • STAC 5/P20/21 - I D - 20 Eliz - London - Robert Puckle v Robert Bridges
  • STAC 5/P37/6 - I D - 22 Eliz - London - Robert Puckle v Robert Bridges
  • STAC 5/P42/11 - I D - 22 Eliz - London - Robert Puckle v Robert Brydges, William Lackett

Bevan Case Index

  • Puckle v Bridgen - STAC 5/P41/13
  • Puckle v Bridges - STAC 5/P20/21, STAC 5/P37/6, STAC 5/P42/11
  • Puckle v Ecocke - STAC 5/P19/19
  • Puckle v Glover - STAC 5/P27/18, STAC 5/P43/3
  • Puckle v Lockett - STAC 5/P50/23, STAC 5/P30/20

Notes, Additions and Corrections

  • STAC 5/P27/18 - Case Book BL Harley MS 2143 fo. 13r. Costs of this court deducted out of the cost recovered at the common law. Puckell, plaintiff; Bridges, defendant: £52 costs recovered by the defendant against the plaintiff at the common law, the costs awarded against the defendant here, which costs the Court ordered the plaintiff to deduct out of the costs recoverred at the common law. Michaelmas 24 Elizabeth (kk)
  • In 1579/80, a London draper’s servant called William Lockett offered an account of the coercion that could underwrite paternalism. Lockett said that he had been pressured by his master, Robert Brydges, to depose about a debt which Brydges claimed to have paid. On multiple occasions, Lockett protested that he knew nothing about the debt in question. Brydges then told him: ‘Thow muste remember howe I saved thee oute of Brydewell, where thow shouldest have remayned had I not [helped] thee. Therefore thow muste not denye me’. After this reminder of his figurative debts and a series of beatings, Lockett agreed to depose. Brydges generously told him that he would give him a statement to memorize and the ‘leysure to learne the same’. Prior to his testimony, Brydges gave him ‘a hatt . . . to make him seame like an honest and substantiall person’. Discussing the deposition that was later called into question, Lockett remembered that he had ‘stammer[ed]’ while speaking, presumably due to some combination of nervousness and an inability to remember the exact letter of his script. His case suggests that blunt power could override prospective witnesses’ attempts to act according to their knowledge and conscience: he had, as he remembered, ‘resisted [his master] so nere as he coulde’ in his efforts to avoid testifying. - Hillary Taylor, The price of the poor’s words: social relations and the economics of deposing for one’s ‘betters’ in early modern England., Economic History Review (2018) https://doi.org/10.1111/ehr.12773 STAC 5/P50/23, William Lockett (answer).