Difference between revisions of "STAC Roos"
From Waalt
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | '''Roos, ''' | |
| + | *STAC 7/28/23 - - - Roos v Brian Denman | ||
| − | + | '''Roos, Henry ''' | |
| − | + | *STAC 5/R22/26 - B A - 40 Eliz - Henry Roos v William Kynder, Robert Blagne et al | |
| − | |||
| − | '''Roos, Henry''' | ||
| − | *STAC 5/R22/26 - B A - 40 Eliz - Henry Roos v William Kynder, Robert Blagne et al | ||
'''Roos, Peter''' | '''Roos, Peter''' | ||
| Line 11: | Line 9: | ||
*STAC 5/R11/33 - B A C I D - 34 Eliz - Nottinghamshire - Peter Roos v William Cardynall, John Anderson | *STAC 5/R11/33 - B A C I D - 34 Eliz - Nottinghamshire - Peter Roos v William Cardynall, John Anderson | ||
*STAC 5/R36/15 - Rn - 34 Eliz - Nottinghamshire - Peter Roos v William Cardinall | *STAC 5/R36/15 - Rn - 34 Eliz - Nottinghamshire - Peter Roos v William Cardinall | ||
| + | *STAC 5/R22/11 - I D - 35 Eliz - Peter Roos v Richard Watson, William Clerk et al | ||
*STAC 5/R18/29 - B Dr - 37 Eliz - Peter Roos v Henry Kendall | *STAC 5/R18/29 - B Dr - 37 Eliz - Peter Roos v Henry Kendall | ||
*STAC 5/R4/17 - B - 39 Eliz - Peter Roos v Thomas Adwicke, Nicholas Adwicke | *STAC 5/R4/17 - B - 39 Eliz - Peter Roos v Thomas Adwicke, Nicholas Adwicke | ||
| − | *STAC | + | *STAC 10/1/132 - I - - Peter Roos |
| − | |||
''' Attorney General ''' | ''' Attorney General ''' | ||
*STAC 5/A27/16 - B A Rr C I D - 34 Eliz - AG v Peter Rosse (or Roos), William Sutton, John Bassett | *STAC 5/A27/16 - B A Rr C I D - 34 Eliz - AG v Peter Rosse (or Roos), William Sutton, John Bassett | ||
*STAC 5/A26/21 - I D - 33 Eliz - AG v Peter Roos | *STAC 5/A26/21 - I D - 33 Eliz - AG v Peter Roos | ||
| + | *STAC 7/10/20 - - - Nottinghamshire - AG (John Popham) v Peter Roos | ||
| + | *STAC 7/10/20 - - - Nottinghamshire - AG v Peter Roos | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''' Bevan Case Index ''' | ||
| + | *Rouse v Adams - STAC 5/R42/32 see [[STAC Rowse]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Adwicke - STAC 5/R4/17 | ||
| + | *Rouse v Artys - STAC 5/R9/20, STAC 5/R35/19, STAC 5/R5/17 see [[STAC Rowse]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Arundell - STAC 5/R31/33 see [[STAC Rous]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Brooke - STAC 5/R32/1 | ||
| + | *Rouse v Burton - STAC 5/R19/8 see [[STAC Rosse]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Cardinall - STAC 5/R11/33, STAC 5/R36/15 | ||
| + | *Rouse v Chamock - STAC 5/R38/35 see [[STAC Rous]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Coryn - STAC 5/R23/31, STAC 5/R37/4 see [[STAC Rowse]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Dacre - STAC 5/R32/12 see [[STAC Rosse]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Denman - STAC 7/28/23 | ||
| + | *Rouse v Franklin - STAC 5/R40/7, STAC 5/R43/10 see [[STAC Russe]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Grosse - STAC 5/R2/35 see [[STAC Rowse]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Helhouse - STAC 5/R8/28, STAC 5/R7/37, STAC 5/R18/1 see [[STAC Rowse]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Herbert - STAC 5/R13/12 see [[STAC Rosse]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Johnson - STAC 5/R4/10 see [[STAC Rosse]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Josselyn - STAC 5/R38/26 see [[STAC Rowse]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Keble - STAC 5/R30/19, STAC 5/R37/30 see [[STAC Rous]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Kendall - STAC 5/R18/29 | ||
| + | *Rouse v Kinder - STAC 5/R22/26 | ||
| + | *Rouse v Littlejohn - STAC 5/R2/13, STAC 5/R24/23 see [[STAC Rowse]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Prowse - STAC 5/R3/31 see [[STAC Rowse]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Rouse - STAC 5/R32/40 see [[STAC Rous]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Rowney - STAC 5/R19/25 see [[STAC Rowse]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Shinkwin - STAC 5/R30/6, STAC 5/R1/21, STAC 5/R9/24, STAC 5/R18/13, STAC 5/R24/15 see [[STAC Rosse]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Thimbleby - STAC 5/R6/15, STAC 5/R6/39, STAC 5/R8/26, STAC 5/R10/35, STAC 5/R40/5, STAC 7/28/24 see [[STAC Rowse]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Throckmorton - STAC 5/R22/40, STAC 5/R5/27, STAC 5/R19/31 see [[STAC Rowse]] | ||
| + | *Rouse v Watson - STAC 5/R22/11 | ||
| + | *Rouse v Williams - STAC 5/R30/9 see [[STAC Rous]] | ||
| + | *Attorney General v Rouse - STAC 5/A27/16, STAC 5/A26/21, STAC 7/10/20 | ||
| − | '''Notes, Additions and Corrections''' | + | '''Notes, Additions and Corrections''' |
| − | * | + | *STAC 10/1/132 TNA Note. Interrogatories to be put to Anthony Yates, John Moody and Ralph Bennett on behalf of Peter Roos, esquire, probably from the case Roos v Cardinall, since the Nottinghamshire JP William Cardinall in mentioned many times in the document. The case concerned an alleged crime spree by 6 or 7 score of Egyptians [gypsies] in Elkesley, Tuxford and East Markham on the Great North Road in Nottinghamshire, as they travelled towards Lincoln. |
*STAC 7/10/19 - TNA Note: Release of gipsies arrested. | *STAC 7/10/19 - TNA Note: Release of gipsies arrested. | ||
Revision as of 18:19, 17 February 2016
Roos,
- STAC 7/28/23 - - - Roos v Brian Denman
Roos, Henry
- STAC 5/R22/26 - B A - 40 Eliz - Henry Roos v William Kynder, Robert Blagne et al
Roos, Peter
- STAC 5/R32/1 - B A - 18 Eliz - Peter Roos v Thomas Broke, Stephen Hakin et al
- STAC 5/R11/33 - B A C I D - 34 Eliz - Nottinghamshire - Peter Roos v William Cardynall, John Anderson
- STAC 5/R36/15 - Rn - 34 Eliz - Nottinghamshire - Peter Roos v William Cardinall
- STAC 5/R22/11 - I D - 35 Eliz - Peter Roos v Richard Watson, William Clerk et al
- STAC 5/R18/29 - B Dr - 37 Eliz - Peter Roos v Henry Kendall
- STAC 5/R4/17 - B - 39 Eliz - Peter Roos v Thomas Adwicke, Nicholas Adwicke
- STAC 10/1/132 - I - - Peter Roos
Attorney General
- STAC 5/A27/16 - B A Rr C I D - 34 Eliz - AG v Peter Rosse (or Roos), William Sutton, John Bassett
- STAC 5/A26/21 - I D - 33 Eliz - AG v Peter Roos
- STAC 7/10/20 - - - Nottinghamshire - AG (John Popham) v Peter Roos
- STAC 7/10/20 - - - Nottinghamshire - AG v Peter Roos
Bevan Case Index
- Rouse v Adams - STAC 5/R42/32 see STAC Rowse
- Rouse v Adwicke - STAC 5/R4/17
- Rouse v Artys - STAC 5/R9/20, STAC 5/R35/19, STAC 5/R5/17 see STAC Rowse
- Rouse v Arundell - STAC 5/R31/33 see STAC Rous
- Rouse v Brooke - STAC 5/R32/1
- Rouse v Burton - STAC 5/R19/8 see STAC Rosse
- Rouse v Cardinall - STAC 5/R11/33, STAC 5/R36/15
- Rouse v Chamock - STAC 5/R38/35 see STAC Rous
- Rouse v Coryn - STAC 5/R23/31, STAC 5/R37/4 see STAC Rowse
- Rouse v Dacre - STAC 5/R32/12 see STAC Rosse
- Rouse v Denman - STAC 7/28/23
- Rouse v Franklin - STAC 5/R40/7, STAC 5/R43/10 see STAC Russe
- Rouse v Grosse - STAC 5/R2/35 see STAC Rowse
- Rouse v Helhouse - STAC 5/R8/28, STAC 5/R7/37, STAC 5/R18/1 see STAC Rowse
- Rouse v Herbert - STAC 5/R13/12 see STAC Rosse
- Rouse v Johnson - STAC 5/R4/10 see STAC Rosse
- Rouse v Josselyn - STAC 5/R38/26 see STAC Rowse
- Rouse v Keble - STAC 5/R30/19, STAC 5/R37/30 see STAC Rous
- Rouse v Kendall - STAC 5/R18/29
- Rouse v Kinder - STAC 5/R22/26
- Rouse v Littlejohn - STAC 5/R2/13, STAC 5/R24/23 see STAC Rowse
- Rouse v Prowse - STAC 5/R3/31 see STAC Rowse
- Rouse v Rouse - STAC 5/R32/40 see STAC Rous
- Rouse v Rowney - STAC 5/R19/25 see STAC Rowse
- Rouse v Shinkwin - STAC 5/R30/6, STAC 5/R1/21, STAC 5/R9/24, STAC 5/R18/13, STAC 5/R24/15 see STAC Rosse
- Rouse v Thimbleby - STAC 5/R6/15, STAC 5/R6/39, STAC 5/R8/26, STAC 5/R10/35, STAC 5/R40/5, STAC 7/28/24 see STAC Rowse
- Rouse v Throckmorton - STAC 5/R22/40, STAC 5/R5/27, STAC 5/R19/31 see STAC Rowse
- Rouse v Watson - STAC 5/R22/11
- Rouse v Williams - STAC 5/R30/9 see STAC Rous
- Attorney General v Rouse - STAC 5/A27/16, STAC 5/A26/21, STAC 7/10/20
Notes, Additions and Corrections
- STAC 10/1/132 TNA Note. Interrogatories to be put to Anthony Yates, John Moody and Ralph Bennett on behalf of Peter Roos, esquire, probably from the case Roos v Cardinall, since the Nottinghamshire JP William Cardinall in mentioned many times in the document. The case concerned an alleged crime spree by 6 or 7 score of Egyptians [gypsies] in Elkesley, Tuxford and East Markham on the Great North Road in Nottinghamshire, as they travelled towards Lincoln.
- STAC 7/10/19 - TNA Note: Release of gipsies arrested.
