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 108-109
In Camera Stellata, coram consilio ibidem, veneris, 18 Aprilis, An. Do. 1600, Annoque Elizab. Rne 42.
Henry Bristowe, plaintiff, against Richard Lecheforde, Justice of the Peace, three of his sons and divers of his servants, defendants.
The matters were three riots, and a misdemeanour in making warrants against the plaintiff to vex him in the title to land, colore officii. They were all proved. And one man was mortally wounded, and expended in surgery £5; and corn in a barn was destroyed to the value of £7.
The defendant Lecheforde was fined by the whole Court 1000 marks, three of his sons and two of his servants were fined £1000, each £200 by himself, five (or six) others of his servants were fined £500, each £100 by himself; the total sum of all their fines £2200; and if any of them shall not be of sufficient ability to pay their fines, then Lecheford, the defendant, by the sentence of the Court, is to pay all; and each is to have imprisonment; and the defendant Lecheforde at the next Assizes in Surrey is to make confession on a stool, and to remain there while the decree be read; and Richard Bostoke, by the sentence of the Lord Keeper, both Chief Justices and the Chief Baron, was discharged and dismissed from the Commission of the Peace, because he agreed that Lecheford might set his hand to (p.109) any warrant made by him, which he had now done, and Bostoke on his examination confessed this; which (by the Lord Keeper) is contempt of the Queen and his Commission of the Peace and of his oath; and because he is content to be a 'pockette' Justice, he is unworthy of the Commission of the Peace.
It was decreed also by the Court that he who was wounded and paid £5 for the healing of his wounds, should have his costs if the 'presydente' of the Court would warrant it; also he that had his corn destroyed to have his damages if there be any ' presydente ' in Court that will warrant this; because neither of the two was party to the bill. And Bostoke was not in the bill, but since he was in the proofs, the Lord Keeper seized upon this, and would have his sentence parcel of the decree.
The Counsel on the part of the defendant endeavoured to quash the bill. First, because there was no certain limit of time when the riots were made, but it was allowed [by the Court] that there was a certain time; 2. otherwise because he was not charged particularly with offences as Justice of the Peace, and it was allowed also for this and ' in particularitye '; 3. otherwise that they could not be sentenced as procurers of the riot since they were not so charged; but it was good notwithstanding, because in the words, rioters and other misdemeaners, all rioters and procurers of riots are contained.
see STAC Bristowe