Difference between revisions of "STAC Harlackenden"

From Rpalmer
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 22: Line 22:
  
 
''' Harlackenden, Walter '''
 
''' Harlackenden, Walter '''
*STAC 5/H35/15 - B - 44 Eliz - Walter Harlakenden v James Cromer
+
*STAC 5/H35/15 - B - 44 Eliz - Kent - Walter Harlakenden v James Cromer
*STAC 5/H40/8 - B - 44 Eliz - Walter Harlatkenden v James Cromer
+
*STAC 5/H40/8 - B - 44 Eliz - Kent - Walter Harlatkenden v James Cromer
 +
**see [[STAC co Kent]]
  
 
'''Notes, Additions and Corrections'''  
 
'''Notes, Additions and Corrections'''  
 
*Les reportes del cases in Camera Stellata, 1593 to 1609 from the original ms. of John Hawarde edited by William Paley Baildon Published 1894.  The Attorney then informed, ore tenus, for the Queen, first against one Moulseworth, a merchant of London, for cosinage in this manner: he took bonds, statutes and recognizances from the son of one Harlacherden of Kent to the value of £3150, and a lease of all his land to commence from the death of his father, and all this for commodities of no value; but since this did not appear to the Court judicially, he was not sentenced for it. And the said Moulseworth, intending to have a statute for £300 from Zachee Harlackerden, the younger brother, who was within age. Lord Anderson, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, refused to take any statute from him, finding him on examination to be within age; thereupon they went (knowing the said younger brother to be within age) to Doctor Hone, a Master of the Chancery, who took a recognizance from him. Moulesworths offence was double: 1. Fraude or cosinage at common law (as [the A.G.] now informed), the taking of a statute or recognizance from an infant, knowing him to be within age, which is a great offence at common law, and so it was agreed by the whole Court: 2. Abusing a Judge, first the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, who refused, and then Doctor Hone, the Master of the Chancery, which is a judicial place also. [Page 60] And for this Moulseworth was sentenced by the Court to be imprisoned, to pay a fine of £100, and to be pilloried. But the Lord Chief Justice of the Bench and the Earl of Essex did not agree to the pillory. And Sir John Fortescue was of opinion that he could only be sentenced on bill and answer, but this was negatived by the whole Court. And so the sentence of the Court was £100 fine, pillory, and imprisonment. The Lord Treasurer said that this corporation of cosiners was now discovered, but the estates of such adolescents did not deserve pity; and he wished to have Dr. Hone removed from his place in the Chancery, because he had at other times taken recognizances from other infants and he said to the Lord Keeper, " Have you any neede of him ? " and the Lord Keeper answered, "We have many we neede not, and we neede many we have not, for since I came to the place I could never learne how manye Mr of the Chauncery there are, or by what authoritye they were made." The Lord Treasurer answered, " Then, my Lo., you had neede appointe some daye to muster them." So the gravity, wisdom, and sincerity of Anderson were commended, and the indiscretion and folly of Dr. Hone were condemned, by all. It was agreed to be law by all, that if an infant acknowledge a fine, statute or recognizance while within age, and do not remedy this before he come to full age, he can never avoid those things which are matters of record. Therefore the fraud and the abuse of the Judge are so much greater.
 
*Les reportes del cases in Camera Stellata, 1593 to 1609 from the original ms. of John Hawarde edited by William Paley Baildon Published 1894.  The Attorney then informed, ore tenus, for the Queen, first against one Moulseworth, a merchant of London, for cosinage in this manner: he took bonds, statutes and recognizances from the son of one Harlacherden of Kent to the value of £3150, and a lease of all his land to commence from the death of his father, and all this for commodities of no value; but since this did not appear to the Court judicially, he was not sentenced for it. And the said Moulseworth, intending to have a statute for £300 from Zachee Harlackerden, the younger brother, who was within age. Lord Anderson, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, refused to take any statute from him, finding him on examination to be within age; thereupon they went (knowing the said younger brother to be within age) to Doctor Hone, a Master of the Chancery, who took a recognizance from him. Moulesworths offence was double: 1. Fraude or cosinage at common law (as [the A.G.] now informed), the taking of a statute or recognizance from an infant, knowing him to be within age, which is a great offence at common law, and so it was agreed by the whole Court: 2. Abusing a Judge, first the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, who refused, and then Doctor Hone, the Master of the Chancery, which is a judicial place also. [Page 60] And for this Moulseworth was sentenced by the Court to be imprisoned, to pay a fine of £100, and to be pilloried. But the Lord Chief Justice of the Bench and the Earl of Essex did not agree to the pillory. And Sir John Fortescue was of opinion that he could only be sentenced on bill and answer, but this was negatived by the whole Court. And so the sentence of the Court was £100 fine, pillory, and imprisonment. The Lord Treasurer said that this corporation of cosiners was now discovered, but the estates of such adolescents did not deserve pity; and he wished to have Dr. Hone removed from his place in the Chancery, because he had at other times taken recognizances from other infants and he said to the Lord Keeper, " Have you any neede of him ? " and the Lord Keeper answered, "We have many we neede not, and we neede many we have not, for since I came to the place I could never learne how manye Mr of the Chauncery there are, or by what authoritye they were made." The Lord Treasurer answered, " Then, my Lo., you had neede appointe some daye to muster them." So the gravity, wisdom, and sincerity of Anderson were commended, and the indiscretion and folly of Dr. Hone were condemned, by all. It was agreed to be law by all, that if an infant acknowledge a fine, statute or recognizance while within age, and do not remedy this before he come to full age, he can never avoid those things which are matters of record. Therefore the fraud and the abuse of the Judge are so much greater.

Latest revision as of 11:13, 4 November 2019

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

Harlackenden, Margaret

  • STAC 5/H53/31 - B A Rn Rr - 15 Eliz - Essex - Margaret Harlakenden v Thomas Humfreye, William Clarke
  • STAC 5/H37/5 - I D - 16 Eliz - Essex - Margaret Harlakenden v Thomas Humphrey, William Clarke
  • STAC 5/H29/39 - I D - 15 Eliz - Essex - Margaret Harlakenden v Thomas Humphrey et al
  • STAC 7/23/10 - - - Essex - Margaret Harlakenden v

Harlackenden, Roger

  • STAC 5/H57/10 - B A Rn C - 29 Eliz - Roger Harlakynden v Simon Ive et al
  • STAC 5/H31/15 - I D - 30 Eliz - Roger Herlakinden v Robert Ive, Eliachem Ive

Harlackenden, Walter

  • STAC 5/H51/12 - B A - 44 Eliz - Kent - Walter Harlakenden v Sir George Delves, Humfrey Kibbet
  • STAC 5/H56/6 - B A - 44 Eliz - Kent - Walter Harlakenden v Sir George Delves, Paul Cocke
  • STAC 5/H28/9 - I D - 44 Eliz - Kent - Walter Harlackenden v Sir George Delves
  • STAC 5/H21/6 - C I D - 44 Eliz - Kent - Walter Harlackenden v Sir George Delves

Harlackenden, Walter

  • STAC 5/H35/15 - B - 44 Eliz - Kent - Walter Harlakenden v James Cromer
  • STAC 5/H40/8 - B - 44 Eliz - Kent - Walter Harlatkenden v James Cromer

Notes, Additions and Corrections

  • Les reportes del cases in Camera Stellata, 1593 to 1609 from the original ms. of John Hawarde edited by William Paley Baildon Published 1894. The Attorney then informed, ore tenus, for the Queen, first against one Moulseworth, a merchant of London, for cosinage in this manner: he took bonds, statutes and recognizances from the son of one Harlacherden of Kent to the value of £3150, and a lease of all his land to commence from the death of his father, and all this for commodities of no value; but since this did not appear to the Court judicially, he was not sentenced for it. And the said Moulseworth, intending to have a statute for £300 from Zachee Harlackerden, the younger brother, who was within age. Lord Anderson, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, refused to take any statute from him, finding him on examination to be within age; thereupon they went (knowing the said younger brother to be within age) to Doctor Hone, a Master of the Chancery, who took a recognizance from him. Moulesworths offence was double: 1. Fraude or cosinage at common law (as [the A.G.] now informed), the taking of a statute or recognizance from an infant, knowing him to be within age, which is a great offence at common law, and so it was agreed by the whole Court: 2. Abusing a Judge, first the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, who refused, and then Doctor Hone, the Master of the Chancery, which is a judicial place also. [Page 60] And for this Moulseworth was sentenced by the Court to be imprisoned, to pay a fine of £100, and to be pilloried. But the Lord Chief Justice of the Bench and the Earl of Essex did not agree to the pillory. And Sir John Fortescue was of opinion that he could only be sentenced on bill and answer, but this was negatived by the whole Court. And so the sentence of the Court was £100 fine, pillory, and imprisonment. The Lord Treasurer said that this corporation of cosiners was now discovered, but the estates of such adolescents did not deserve pity; and he wished to have Dr. Hone removed from his place in the Chancery, because he had at other times taken recognizances from other infants and he said to the Lord Keeper, " Have you any neede of him ? " and the Lord Keeper answered, "We have many we neede not, and we neede many we have not, for since I came to the place I could never learne how manye Mr of the Chauncery there are, or by what authoritye they were made." The Lord Treasurer answered, " Then, my Lo., you had neede appointe some daye to muster them." So the gravity, wisdom, and sincerity of Anderson were commended, and the indiscretion and folly of Dr. Hone were condemned, by all. It was agreed to be law by all, that if an infant acknowledge a fine, statute or recognizance while within age, and do not remedy this before he come to full age, he can never avoid those things which are matters of record. Therefore the fraud and the abuse of the Judge are so much greater.