Difference between revisions of "STAC Swift"
From Waalt
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | ''' B ''' Bill of Complaint ''' Dr ''' Demurrer ''' A ''' Answer ''' Rn ''' Replication ''' Rr ''' Rejoinder | ||
+ | ''' C ''' Commission ''' I ''' Interrogatories ''' D ''' Deposition | ||
+ | <BR> <BR> | ||
+ | |||
'''Swyft, Robert ''' | '''Swyft, Robert ''' | ||
*STAC 5/S39/30 - B - 24 Eliz - Robert Swyft v Richard Byllyart, William Bery et al | *STAC 5/S39/30 - B - 24 Eliz - Robert Swyft v Richard Byllyart, William Bery et al | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''Swifte, Robert ''' | ||
*STAC 5/S43/9 - B - 37 Eliz - Robert Swifte, William Claydon v Nicholas Wisbitch | *STAC 5/S43/9 - B - 37 Eliz - Robert Swifte, William Claydon v Nicholas Wisbitch | ||
'''Swifte, Thomas ''' | '''Swifte, Thomas ''' | ||
*STAC 5/S63/28 - B - 23 Eliz - Thomas Swifte v John Milward, Ambrose Milward | *STAC 5/S63/28 - B - 23 Eliz - Thomas Swifte v John Milward, Ambrose Milward | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''Swifte, Thomas ''' | ||
*STAC 5/S77/24 - B - 43 Eliz - Thomas Swifte v John Arlash, Thomas Arlash, Symon Stephenson et al | *STAC 5/S77/24 - B - 43 Eliz - Thomas Swifte v John Arlash, Thomas Arlash, Symon Stephenson et al | ||
Line 11: | Line 19: | ||
*STAC 5/A36/5 - I D - 36 Eliz - London - AG v Thomas Swift | *STAC 5/A36/5 - I D - 36 Eliz - London - AG v Thomas Swift | ||
*STAC 5/A6/26 - I D - 36 Eliz - London - AG v Thomas Swift | *STAC 5/A6/26 - I D - 36 Eliz - London - AG v Thomas Swift | ||
− | *STAC 7/1/6 - - - London - AG (Edward Coke) v Thomas Swyfte. | + | *STAC 7/1/6 - - - London - AG (Edward Coke) v Thomas Swyfte. |
+ | **see [[STAC co London]] | ||
'''Almoner''' | '''Almoner''' | ||
*STAC 5/A50/11 - B A - 36 Eliz - Almoner v Richard Swyft et al | *STAC 5/A50/11 - B A - 36 Eliz - Almoner v Richard Swyft et al | ||
*STAC 5/A46/12 - I D - 37 Eliz - Almoner v Richard Swyft et al | *STAC 5/A46/12 - I D - 37 Eliz - Almoner v Richard Swyft et al | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
'''Notes, Additions and Corrections''' | '''Notes, Additions and Corrections''' | ||
− | *STAC 5/ | + | *STAC 5/S63/28 - Case Book BL Harley MS 2143 fo. 13r. A bill for perjury dismissed for the insufficiencies thereof. Swift, plaintiff; Milward et al, defendants: for perjury which was dismissed for the insufficiency of the bill for that the plaintiff in the bill charged the defendants that they had willfully and corruptly forsworn themselves in diverse points and parts of their depositions and doth not express certainly in what parts. (kk) |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |
Revision as of 09:52, 9 June 2019
B Bill of Complaint Dr Demurrer A Answer Rn Replication Rr Rejoinder
C Commission I Interrogatories D Deposition
Swyft, Robert
- STAC 5/S39/30 - B - 24 Eliz - Robert Swyft v Richard Byllyart, William Bery et al
Swifte, Robert
- STAC 5/S43/9 - B - 37 Eliz - Robert Swifte, William Claydon v Nicholas Wisbitch
Swifte, Thomas
- STAC 5/S63/28 - B - 23 Eliz - Thomas Swifte v John Milward, Ambrose Milward
Swifte, Thomas
- STAC 5/S77/24 - B - 43 Eliz - Thomas Swifte v John Arlash, Thomas Arlash, Symon Stephenson et al
Attorney General
- STAC 5/A14/24 - Rn - 36 Eliz - London - AG v Thomas Swifte
- STAC 5/A36/5 - I D - 36 Eliz - London - AG v Thomas Swift
- STAC 5/A6/26 - I D - 36 Eliz - London - AG v Thomas Swift
- STAC 7/1/6 - - - London - AG (Edward Coke) v Thomas Swyfte.
- see STAC co London
Almoner
- STAC 5/A50/11 - B A - 36 Eliz - Almoner v Richard Swyft et al
- STAC 5/A46/12 - I D - 37 Eliz - Almoner v Richard Swyft et al
Notes, Additions and Corrections
- STAC 5/S63/28 - Case Book BL Harley MS 2143 fo. 13r. A bill for perjury dismissed for the insufficiencies thereof. Swift, plaintiff; Milward et al, defendants: for perjury which was dismissed for the insufficiency of the bill for that the plaintiff in the bill charged the defendants that they had willfully and corruptly forsworn themselves in diverse points and parts of their depositions and doth not express certainly in what parts. (kk)