Difference between revisions of "STAC Swift"

From Rpalmer
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(3 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
''' Swyft, Robert '''
+
''' B ''' Bill of Complaint ''' Dr ''' Demurrer  ''' A ''' Answer ''' Rn ''' Replication ''' Rr ''' Rejoinder
 +
''' C ''' Commission ''' I ''' Interrogatories ''' D ''' Deposition
 +
<BR> <BR>
 +
 
 +
'''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
  
''' Attorney General '''
+
'''Attorney General '''
*STAC 5/A14/24 - Rn - 36 Eliz - AG v Thomas Swifte
+
*STAC 7/1/6 - B A C I D - 42 Eliz - London - AG (Edward Coke) v Thomas Swyfte.
*STAC 5/A36/5 - I D - 36 Eliz - AG v Thomas Swift  
+
*STAC 5/A14/24 - Rn - 36 Eliz - London - AG v Thomas Swifte
*STAC 5/A6/26 - I D - 36 Eliz - AG v Thomas Swift
+
*STAC 5/A36/5 - I D - 36 Eliz - London - AG v Thomas Swift  
*STAC 7/1/6 - - - AG (Edward Coke) v Thomas Swyfte
+
*STAC 5/A6/26 - I D - 36 Eliz - London - AG v Thomas Swift
 +
**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/A36/5 – ?Essex? www.oxford-shakespeare.com/NationalArchives/STAC_5_A36-5-5.pdf
+
*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)
*STAC 7/1/6 -TNA Note: Extortion and conspiracy to compel defendant's marriage with Frances Cornwallis
+

Latest revision as of 15:12, 16 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 7/1/6 - B A C I D - 42 Eliz - London - AG (Edward Coke) v Thomas Swyfte.
  • 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

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)