Love Lost and Found in the Church Courts

THE SECOND CASE

CONSISTORY COURT FOR THE ARCHDEACONRY OF CHICHESTER: OFFICE PROCEEDINGS 7 – 21 SEPTEMBER 1609.[1]

Presentment against Richard Tayler, 7 September 1609:

That he hath carried away the wife of John Markwick contrary to the law; and by reason thereof it is vehemently suspected that he hath had carnal knowledge of her body; and thereof there is a common fame.

Tayler denied; judge ordered compurgation by six neighbours.[2]

Further presentment against Richard Tayler, 21 September 1609. He did not appear. No further court acts.

THE THIRD CASE

CONSISTORY COURT FOR THE ARCHDEACONRY OF CHICHESTER: INSTANCE PROCEEDINGS 25 MAY 1616 – 24 MAY 1617.[3]

Richard Tayler of the City of London, gentleman, against Margaret Osborne alias Markwick, daughter of George Osborne of West Wittering: Matrimonial (betrothal).

The second case attempted to deal with same issue as the first: to establish that there had been a binding contract at the time of the elopement 16 years earlier. The libel must have been in similar terms to the earlier one. Margaret's response has not survived but must have contradicted everything she said originally. After an initial statement by Richard about the fees of the previous case, the main process was through three allegations. That ex parte John Markwick established that his marriage had been properly solemnized. Richard's first articles aimed to show that Margaret had married under duress; his second articles promoted a claim that, after the elopement, Margaret's father had given a conditional consent to the couple marrying.

Judgement on 25 May 1617 was given in favour of Richard. Its terms have not survived but they appear to have validated the original contract – and in the process annulled Margaret's marriage to John Markwick. Subsequently, Richard and Margaret were married in February 1618 and John married Mary Holderness in April 1618.

Proctors: Cooke for plaintiff; Addams for first defendant (Margaret Osborne/Markwick); Swayne for second defendant (John Markwick). Process: personal response by defendant Margaret to plaintiff's libel (neither libel nor response has survived); personal response by plaintiff to allegation of one article [Al 1] by defendant John Markwick ; two depositions to second allegation of six articles [Al (2) 1-6] by defendant John Markwick ; three depositions to allegation of seven articles [Al (3) 1-7]by plaintiff; one deposition to second allegation of one article [Al (4) 1]by plaintiff.

1. Personal response of Richard Tayler. [4] Read over 6 July 1616.

Signature.

To allegation ex parte John Markwick [Al 1].

Al 1. In response to the allegation and attached positions: that he did receive of George Osborne the father of Margaret Osborne the expenses adjudged unto him in this court in the first instance, extending to the sum of £5. And that he did seal and make an acquittance upon his receipt thereof and did acquit Margaret of and from the expenses.

For the rest he does not believe any other part of the allegation.