Exeter held its own Quarter Sessions that were separate to the county sessions. The minute books, recording examinations and all aspects of court business, contain the usual type of cases brought before such courts, including theft, slander, illegal trading, settlement and removal, fornication, issues concerning assault, apprenticeship and many more, especially during the Civil Wars. The following is an account of the few cases mentioning Dorset people brought before the court, which have been arranged thematically for publication in SDNQ.
Some cases involved Dorset people as the victims of theft, such as James Crosse of Whitchurch, Dorset. On 4 Aug. 1619 he deposed how Nicholas Manninge’s wife, Anna, whilst in her husband’s house, took a napkin with 2s 6d wrapped up in it out of the deponent’s pocket. When Crosse reported this to a local justice, Manninge’s wife returned the napkin to Crosse, but without the money in it. But Crosse was having none of it and subsequently arrested Manninge’s wife ‘uppon suspition of felonye’. Nicholas was a metalman by occupation.1 Some entries in the minute books tell us very little, such as the case of Mary Stevans of Sampford in the county of Somerset, spinster, who was accused of theft. In her defence she confessed to the authorities of being in possession of numerous items belonging to different people in Somerset and Devon, and how she had paid 10s ‘unto one Balland of Sherborne’ but she did not say what for.2
Two separate cases involved the theft of horses, the first of which was brought before the Mayor of Exeter in the Court of Quarter Sessions held on 15 March 1630/1. John Sall of Sutton near Bridport, Dorset, a husbandman, sold a bay mare to William Tucker of Shobrooke, Devon for £3 6s 8d. However, Tucker only paid 22s ‘in hand’ to Sall with the remainder to be paid at Easter but the mare was alleged to have been stolen. Because of the status of the horse the matter was brought before the mayor of Exeter, Thomas Flaye esquire, when Sall stated that he was given the horse by his father, John Sall of Sutton, husbandman, about four or five days previously. Sall junior alleged Tucker had kept the mare for him whilst Sall was living in Exeter at the house of Daniel Treat for about two weeks. Before that time he lived at Shoobrooke for about three months and before then he lived with his wife at Sowton (near Exeter) where he was married.3
Although the distance between Sutton and Exeter is about 35 miles, as Sall junior was in Exeter where the transaction took place, the sale was a local matter to the city. Sall’s legal place of residence was near Bridport in Dorset, even though he had spent nearly two years in Devon. Hence the case was brought before the mayor as it was a private transaction allegedly involving stolen goods.
Another such case was brought before the authorities on 7 June 1631, concerning John Nossiter of ‘Tollafratrum’, Dorset a miller. He informed the court that
on wednesdaye last was senighte being the xxvth daye of Maye last he had one sorrell nagg worth iijli: xs: taken awaye out of his ground att Tollafratrum aforesaid and arrested one John Hall for the stealinge of the same, whereuppon he arrested him uppon suspition of felonie . . .
The said John Hall beinge examined where he had the sorrell Nagg which was found on him there in this Cittie and claymed by the said John Nossiter to bee his proper goods, sayeth it was delivered unto him this examinant, about fower myles distant from this Cittie by a man unknowne, which this examinant brought to this Cittie and here proffered it to sell.
John Nossiter claimed that the ‘nagg’ belonged to his father, Thomas, who was also a miller.4 Although the case was first brought in June, a decision regarding its outcome was heard at the General Sessions held in September.5
Cases that were very common involved settlement and removal, and the authorities desire to reduce the burden on its citizens. Only one appears to have involved someone from Dorset, and then it is possible it may have only been coincidental. On 9 March 1619/20 a settlement examination of Katherine Warr ‘late wife of William Warr that of late was Executed att Dorchester’, was taken. She stated that she laid on the night of the 18th at Mrs Ryders house, but Mrs Ryder denied that she did. Katherine then changed her mind and said that she laid at the house of Joane Bole, where she had staid since arriving at Exeter the previous Friday. She came to Exeter to visit a friend in Southgate, called Edward Catter. Five weeks before coming to Exeter from Colyton she sometimes lived in Seaton, and she also visited ‘some kyndred’ at Plymouth. The mayor wanted to know what business she had at the Sign of the Kings Arms without Eastgate (Exeter), to which she replied that she had to return there to see Mr Ryder and fetch her belongings that she left behind about three months ago. She also confessed to being in Exeter with Matthew Capthorne, dining on a capon and a quart of wine for breakfast, and the pair had previously been together in Plymouth. Other examinants gave conflicting information concerning the dates Katherine arrived and even who she was with.6
Cases of assault were not so common. Julius Dowton of Yetminster, labourer, complained to the justices on 28 April 1623 that Henry Southwood did ‘give him ill termes’ and, in reply, Dowton struck Southwood with a staff causing Henry to fall to the ground. Dowton had been in Exeter since about Michaelmas last and he lived without Westgate, at the house of one Martyn, a cook.7 The authorities appear to have been very dutiful in bringing even the most trivial of misdemeanours to court.
One case, which involved the authorities in obtaining numerous depositions, was brought to court in March 1636/7. The case involved the sale of butter and how it was redistributed after it arrived in the city in bulk from the Dorset countryside. It is worth noting that butter and cheese carriers were regulated by an act of parliament of 5. Eliz. cap 12, in which they had to obtain a license at Quarter Sessions where they had lived for at least 3 years. They also had to be a married man and a ‘house-keeper’ of at least 30 years of age, suggesting that these people were reliable and upright members of the community. Although these licenses only lasted for a year8 there are few examples in the Dorset Quarter Sessions order book from the period 1625 to 1638. However, in September 1633, John Gill of Rampisham was one of three tradesmen listed under ‘Butter Carriers Licensed’ at the Quarter Sessions held at Bridport.9 But his good name was tarnished five years later, as was one of a group of men whom a warrant for arrest had been issued ‘on an information laid by the Bailiffs of Bridport, for engrossing butter’.10
The first deposition was taken on 3 March 1636/7, when Henry Rendell of Lutton, Dorset, labourer was examined and
informeth that this present morninge he sold unto Elizabeth Muddyford the wife of Thomas Muddyford of this Cittie and unto Ruth Punchard the wife of Walter Punchard fuller for his Maister Stephen Hollett 30 dozen and one pound of Fresh butter for the same price, all which beinge then devided betweene then the said Elizabeth Muddyford and Ruth Punchard did foorthwith in this informants presents sell parte thereof againe unto severall persons in the markett within this Cittie att vd ob the pound.
This was witnessed by Humfrie Perry, a yeoman of Exeter, who confirmed Rendell’s evidence.11 Another Dorset man, Walter Burte of Yetminster, yeoman, deposed that
on Friday last about 5 of the clocke in the afternoon he sold unto Elizabeth Muddyford the wife of Thomas Mudyford 18 dozen of Salt Butter for the price of iiijs vjd for everie dozen and this morninge hath also sold unto Anne Toogood the wife of John Toogood 10: dozen of salt butter more att 5s the dozen
which Elizabeth Muddyford confessed to be true. At the next sessions, held on 13 March 1636/7, yet another Dorset butter seller from Yetminster, one Richard Gallamore, who was also described as a yeoman, gave his account of the amount of butter he had brought into the city during the last month and who he had sold it to. He stated ‘that the last weeke he sold unto Richard Gerrys of this Cittie widower 8 dozen of Butter as he nowe remembereth for the price of vs the dozen’. Robert Cozens of ‘Milberrye bubb’, a yeoman, said that ‘this day fortnight he sold unto one Whittrowes wife of Kenton 2 horse load of Butter for the price of iiijs viijd the dozen as he remembereth’. George Edwards, another yeoman from Yetminster, said that
this day fortnight he sold unto Ruth Punchard the wife of Walter Punchard of this Cittie Fuller one peece of Butter Containing 6 dozen or thereabouts and unto one Hingstones wife of this Cittie 5 dozen more and this present day hath alsoe sold unto one Newcombes wife of Kenton Five dozen more or thereabouts.12
John Gill of ‘Ransome’ (Rampisham), Dorset, whose conduct has already been mentioned, here described as a yeoman, was also examined and stated that
this day senight he sold unto Richard Gerrys of this Cittie widowe 3 horse load of Butter containg 18 dozen or thereabouts for the price of iiijs ixd for everie dozen and further sayeth that he doth usuallie sell most parte of the butter which he bringeth to this Cittie unto the said Richard Gerrys after the like manner.13
What is interesting about this particular case is the role several Yetminster farmers had with the supply of butter to Exeter. Also how at least one of them appears to have kept no formal written account of his transactions, which he could have easily have had recourse to in order to give the official who questioned him the exact figures he asked of him. Yetminster to Exeter is almost a 50 mile journey and this is a good example of market forces at work, whereby the demand from the city of Exeter was strong enough for perishable goods to be transported over 50 miles by land.
One of the most colourful cases was brought before the magistrates on 12 Aug. 1642. John Gollopp of Netherbury, Dorset, a musician, was ‘apprehended and examined touching the said scandalous songe or paper which was nowe shewed unto hym and being demaunded whither he had ever sung the same’. Gollopp denied the charge, or that he had ever seen it before, although he had seen a similar work in Bath and whilst in Exeter, but when offered them he refused to accept them. Gollopp claimed that he did not know who offered him the songs as they were strangers. He was also charged with singing another ‘scandalous songe this weeke at the Beare touching the Lord Kinbolton and five members of the house of Commons’. He was given a handwritten song by Edward Seymour esquire whilst he was playing cards in the Beare with many gentlemen. Gollopp subsequently sang that song but he could not remember whether it mentioned Lord Kimbolton, or ‘any other Parliament man’. After singing it he gave the song back to Seymour. The authorities once again presented the first song to him and this time Gollopp confessed to singing part of it, for which he was sent to prison ‘there to remayne untill further order’.
As for the other members of his troop, Walter Fooks, John Guy, Thomas Torrie and Thomas Woffard, who were all brought before the court at the same session, they were let off. The reason for avoiding a prison sentence was a lack of proof against them, or any proof that some songs in the possession of Fooks had actually been published by him.14 Gollopp remained in gaol until the 3rd of October when Robert Laurence of Netherbury, husbandman, Thomas Warner of Exeter, worstedcomber and John Stone of Exeter, barber put up a bond for his release.15
What makes this case stand out is the time that it occurred and the situation the troop found themselves in whilst singing in Exeter because in 1642 the corporation of Exeter supported parliament, as did the corporations of Plymouth, Barnstaple and Dartmouth, and the city was soon under siege, during which time many wealthy citizens, who supported the Royalist cause, refused to contribute to the cost of defending it. It was not until September 1643 that Exeter surrendered and became the Royalist headquarters in the West.16 At the time the case came to court it is not surprising that Gollopp found himself in trouble with the parliamentary authorities, because Lord Kimbolton was Edward Montagu, 2nd Earl of Manchester KG, KB, FRS (1602-1671) who was an important commander of Parliamentary forces in the First English Civil War, and for a time Oliver Cromwell’s superior. Edward Seymour esquire was most likely to have been Sir Edward Seymour, 3rd Baronet (1610-1688) was an English politician, who sat in the House of Commons at various times between 1640 and 1688. He fought for the Royalist cause in the English Civil War. He was appointed a colonel in the Royalist army in 1642 and was disabled from sitting in parliament in 1643. In the latter part of the Civil War Seymour was imprisoned in Exeter and was not released until 1655. Therefore it is highly likely that Seymour was trying to undermine the parliamentary cause in Exeter by getting Gollopp and his troop to sing inflammatory songs. Perhaps this was one of the reasons for keeping him incarcerated until 1655, thus denying him the opportunity to cause more trouble for the parliamentary authorities in Exeter.
Among the small number of cases relating to Dorset there were none concerning bastardy, apprenticeship, or illegal goings on in the bedroom, which at times dominated the business of the court. A comparison between the number of cases involving Dorset and Somerset people, shows that despite the distance from Exeter from both county boundaries, there were far more cases concerning Somerset people than Dorset. Details of the Somerset cases will appear in a future issue of SDNQ.
[1]. Devon Heritage Service (D.H.S.), ECA 61 folio 241.
2. D.H.S., ECA 62 folios 376-7.
3. D.H.S., ECA 63 f.20v.
4. D.H.S., ECA 63 folios 20v, 31v-32r.
5. D.H.S., ECA 63 f.36r.
6. D.H.S., ECA 61 folios 345-6.
7. D.H.S., ECA 62 folio 138.
8. Anon, The general shop book: or, the tradesman’s universal director (1753), not paginated but under entry for ‘Corn and Grain’. I am extremely grateful to the Dorset editor for supplying this information.
9. T. Hearing and S. Bridges (eds.), Dorset Quarter Sessions order book 1625-1638: a calendar, DRS vol. 14 (2006), 262. I am extremely grateful to the Dorset editor for supplying this information.
10. Hearing and Bridges, A calendar, 438.
11. D.H.S., ECA 63 folio 225v.
12. D.H.S., ECA 63 folio 226r.
13. D.H.S., ECA 63 folio 226v.
14. D.H.S., ECA 63 folio 7v-8r. This was printed in full in Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries, vol. 29, 82.
15. D.H.S., ECA 63 folio 12v.
16. E.A. Andriette, Devon and Exeter in the Civil War (1971), 64, 72, 74,76, 91, 95, 101, 110, 121, 157, 165-6.
Comments