Modernized Spelling Transcription
Repeated before Dr Nenckman etc. on
17 January 1639 on the part of
Blitham (alias Samwayes) and against Hayter upon the libel.
Deposition 1
Witness 1
William Gilbert of the city of Salisbury in the county of Wiltshire,
tailor, where he has lived for 20 years. Born
in [...]Chirton in the same county, age 47.
The witness is admitted and deposes as follows:
To the first article he has nothing to depose and refers himself to the law.
To Article 2 of the above libel he says and deposes that
at Michaelmas
last past and at Weyhill fair, this dep it chanced that the articulate Thomas Hayter
cha coming into this deponent's
booth there, where he kept entertainment for such as came,
full where the
producent, was Elizabeth
Blitham, was
helping this deponent's wife to attend their guests and to do such other business as
was then there to be done. He the said Thomas Hayter mistaking or disliking, as it seemed, some words that the
said Elizabeth spoke, shortly fell out with her the said Elizabeth and in an angry manner
called her the sayd Eliz Blitham
whore, and
dirty whore. In the presence and hearing of this
deponent, his wife and one Amy Due and to the hurt and discredit of her the said
Elizabeth, as this deponent conceives. And otherwise he has nothing to depose.
To Article 3 he responds that the said Eliz is a young woman never married that ever this
deponent heard of. And otherwise he has nothing to depose on his part other than referring to the article.
To Article 4 only what he has deposed.
To 5 he refers only to what he has already deposed.
To 6 he says it is true.
To the final he says that what he has deposed is true.
Interrogatories
To the first it is as stated and he knows the litigant parties and favours the parties alike and otherwise he has satisfied this claim.
To 2 he responds no.
To 3
he has paid his debts etc. and otherwise says no.
To 4 he responds no.
To 5 he believes it for the reasons above.
To 6 he hopes that right will take place etc.
To 7 he has satified this in the deposition he has already given.
To 8 he comes as commanded and receives nothing etc.
To 9 he responds
that as he now remembers it was in the evening of one of the fair days and the
last as he takes it. And otherwise he knows nothing for his part.
Ad 10 he responds that at the time and place before by him deposed of the said Thomas Hayter called her the
said Blitham
whore two or three times.
To 11 he responds that he has already set down their names and they were all in one and the same
booth attending
and going up and down.
To 12 he responds that she was then
folding up of linen with this respondent's wife and the defendant
was sitting in the
booth drinking opposite against her.
To 13 and 14 he refers himself to what he has already deposed and otherwise knows nothing.
15 does not concern him.
To 16 he responds that it is true this respondent was very unwilling of this suit. But being questioned by the articulated
Cabble about the matter in question whether he heard his, the said Cabble's son-in-law (the defendant),
call the said Elizabeth
whore, he told him he did and that they were all in the same
booth together, and
that his [...] wife was with the maid opposite against the place where he the said Hayter was.
And otherwise know he knows only of the communication between him and the said Cabble.
To 17 he responds that it is true he thanks God for it heretofore he has been somewhat
distracted but not these five or six years
last past and he never kept the fair but this year and the last and never thinks to do it
again and otherwise responds no to the question.
Ad 18 he responds that the plaintiff's sister lives with this respondent's wife and not a married woman and she had
had a child being a single woman for ought he knows, but Amy Due is not his servant.
To 19 he refers himself to what he has already deposed and says the
booth was known by the
Sign of the Antelope;
and there were eight rooms in it (as is in the interrogatory) with form but the doors were all open out of one room
into another, and the room where the said Hayter was at the time was opposite to the
buttery where the
plaintiff was.
To 20 he responds they were servants for that time and there was but a woman more that was the cook and a maid
of this respondent's that
turned the spit. And otherwise he knows no more than he has already deposed saving he says it is true the said Hayter did dislike
the
reckoning about a pint of wine and he did see the plaintiff for they used many words one to another and he called her
whore as he has already deposed.
To 21 he responds that she was not in the same room but at the
buttery door opposite against the room where the said Hayter
sat where they might and did plainly see and hear one another and he says that the said Hayter
did not say 'Eliz Blithem, thou art a
whore' but speaking to and of her called her
whore as he has already deposed
and he knows that he meant her, the said Eliz, because they two only quarreled and passed words each
to other, the first occasion as he now remembers being for that the said Eliz:,
sitting folding up the linen in the
taphouse, as he had already deposed, the said to this respondent's wife that when they had done they would have the music
and be merry amongst themselves. Which the said Hayter sitting in the next room and hearing
seemed to be angry at that they should have the music and replied some words unto her thereupon and Thomas Wayte was then attending as he takes it but this respondent's wife gave the
reckoning. And otherwise he knows no more than he has already deposed.
To 22 he responds that he was going up and down between them to pacify the matter and this respondent did then see him.
To 23 he responds [...] and affirms the first part: but says no to the second part.
To 24 he refers himself to what he has already deposed and at the time there were then sitting with the
said Hayter in the
booth an old woman and her daughter whose names he knew not, and one Mr Moggridge as
they called him and the said Hayter and Moggridge sat in the inside with the young
wench between them
and the old woman was on the outside staying for her daughter, sometimes sitting, sometimes standing. For their credits he
knows not, they were all strangers to him and in all likelihood they must hear what the said Hayter then said.
To 25 he refers himself to what he has already deposed and further says that as he now remembers and believes
there was no other company in the
booth at that time but that company.
To 26 he responds that in the town he has been in the defendant's company before that time and he has heard him talk in Mr
Turnlyes house in Salibury a three or four days before the fair aforesaid and asked him whither he should
not see him at the fair to which the said and the said Hayter said it might be this respondent should see him there or some such
like answer he gave, but yet never had any familiarity with him.
William Gilbert
Deposition 2
2
Alice Gilbert,
wife of the aforementioned William Gilbert of the city of Salisbury,
tailor, where she has lived
for 30 years. Born in Charlton Musgrove in the county of Somerset, about 50 years old. The witness is admitted and deposes as follows viz:
To Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the libel she says and deposes that at Weyhill fair last past and in this
deponent's husband's
booth, there it chanced that the articulate Thomas Hayter, the party against
whom she is produced in this cause came into the said
booth with some other company to drink. And being there
so doing, the said Thomas Hayter fell out with the
producent Eliz Blithman about some words that then
and there passed between them and especially for that the said Eliz would not come and drink
with him the said Hayter, as this deponent conceived. And thereupon then and there in an
angry manner he, the said Thomas Hayter, called her the said Elizabeth Blithman
whore, base whore and dirty whore to
the hurt and discredit of her the said Elizabeth Blithman, who has ever been accounted an honest maiden
and to her great grief and discomfort. Which words were so spoken in the presence and hearing
of this deponent, her said husband William Gilbert, and Amy Due, whom the said Elizabeth
prayed to bear witness thereof, saying presently being much moved thereat, that she would not put it up near if there
were any law in England for him. And this deponent further says that the said Eliz is a young maiden,
about eighteen years of age as she has been informed. And can depose and say nothing further.
To 6 says it is true.
To the final she says that what she has deposed is true.
Interrogatories
To the first it is as stated and she knows the litigant party but she has no acquaintance with Hayter and favours each party equally
and otherwise has satisfied this claim.
To 2 she responds no.
To 3 she is
feme covert and otherwise says no.
To 4 she responds no.
To 5 believes it as above and otherwise knows nothing.
To 6 she hopes that right may take place and so etc.
To 7 she has satisfied this claim.
To 8 she comes at the citation of the party
producent and otherwise says no.
To 9 al[ite]r q magis perite q[ua]m ut pr[e]dep[osi]t ni[si] p[ar]t r[esp]ondere and as she now
remembers it was upon the next day
after Michaelmas day and it was in the evening about eight of
the clock as she now also remembers and it was in a room next the entrance into the
booth just before the
buttery door.
To 10 she responds that he called her so more then once but it was only that time and place.
To 11 she responds that in company with the said Hayter were one John Moggridge, a
tanner in Castle Street a maid
and an old woman and there were also attending in the
booth Ellis Antram William Cully and Thomas Wayte this deponents said husband's servants
for that time and this deponent at the time was in the
butterydoor
folding up of linen with the said Eliz: and Amy
Due and otherwise cannot respond.
To 12 she responds that the defendant was sitting at a
board over right the
buttery door and she was at in the
buttery doore
aforesaid.
To 13 she knows nothing more than she has already deposed for her part.
To 14 she refers herself to what she has already deposed and otherwise does not know.
To 15 she responds that it is true that at the time the said Hayter came to this respondents husband's house to speak
with her said husband to know what he had said at Weyhill fair and to know whether this respondent and her
husband w could testify against him what he had said against the said Eliz:
Blithman, but this respondent did not then tell him what he had spoken and it is true this respondent had forgotten
him till (as is interrogated) a sister of the said Eliz: came for and asked whether [...] she knew the man that had
abused her sister at Wayhill fair and thereupon as she now remembers she told him she must swear he called her the
said Eliz:
whore and she says that it is true she never had much acquaintance with him but at the speaking the words aforesaid every one said his name was Thomas
Robert Hayter a
shoemaker of Salisbury.
To 16 she knows.
To 17 she responds that she thanks God about eight or nine years since, he was somewhat
distracted but ever since he has been well and
otherwise he is no such man saving he has kept a
booth at Weyhill these two years and last year at
Burford that is all that ever he kept and otherwise she responds no.
To 18 she responds no to the first part and she lodges at Milford. And the plaintiff's
sister is living with this respondent and is not a married woman and she has had a child being a single woman.
To 19 she responds that the words were spoken in this respondent's said husband's
booth known by the
Sign of the Antelope. And there were seven or eight
rooms in the
booth and those rooms were wattled at the time with fern but no doors to any of them.
To 20 she responds they were their servants for that present occasion and did so help and attend at the time and there were two
more women kind also but at that time one was abroad and the other sleeping. And it is true he unjustly disliked
the
reckon and swore them out of a pint of
sack, and the said Hayter did see the said Elizabeth
when as he called her
whore as aforesaid and otherwise she knows nothing more than she has already deposed.
To 21 she responds that she was sitting at the
buttery door and he was sitting at the
board in the next room and it is true he did not name
her by her name but he called her
whore and no body else for there passed no words between any one else but him the
said Hayter and her the said Elizabeth, and because indeed he first fell out with her
because she would not be entreated by him to keep her company. And this respondent gave the
reckoning to the interrogated
Thomas Wayte he gave who gave it to them the said Hayter and his company.
To 22 she responds that she was within the
buttery door
folding of linen as she has already deposed and this respondent saw him the
said Hayter when he spoke the said words.
To 23 she responds that her husband told her he was with the defendant at the time and otherwise does not know for her part.
To 24 this respondent's husband aforesaid And otherwise she refers to what she had already deposed and farther
says that as she now remembers the said Hayter the young
wench and Moggridge sat on the bench, the young
wench between them and they must hear the said words as she thinks.
To 25 she responds that the said Moggridge was there as she has already deposed but she saw and heard the said Hayter speak
the words, and as she now remembers there was not any other company in the house at that tyme save only the
said company, and there was no noise at all but what the said Hayter made.
To 26 responds that she knows him but she was never familiar with him, nor of his acquaintance that she knows of
^her mark^
Deposition 3
Amy Due of Milford in the county of Wiltshire,
spinster, where she has lived for three months. And before in Laverstock in the same county since
her birth and was there born age in Gomeldon in the same county, about 19 years old. The witness is admitted and deposes as follows viz:
To Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the libel she says and deposes that at Weyhill fair last past and upon the Monday
night
after Michaelmas day last as she now remembers and in the
booth of her
precontest
William Gilbert, there where this deponent de then attended, it chanced that the articulate
Thomas Hayter coming into the said
booth to drink with some other company viz. a young
wench,
an old woman and another man one John Moggridge, a
tanner of Salisbury. And there being drinking of
sack the
said Hayter espying the
producent Eliz: Blithman (as they passed by him) spoke unto her to come and
drink with him. But the said Elizabeth refused so to do, wishing him the said Hayter to use them well that he had there already, having the said young
wench
between him and the said Moggridge where. And so went away to the
buttery doore whereupon the said Hayter fell out with the
said Elizabeth in and then and there in an angry manner called her the said Elizabeth Blithman
whore, base whore, dirty whore and rotten whore to the hurt and discredit of her the said Eliz: and
to the taking away of her good name and fame. Being spoken so as aforesaid in the presence and hearing of this deponent the said William Gilbert and his wife and
diverse others. And this deponent further says that the said Eliz: presently spoke to this
deponent and her
precontests to bear witness how the said Hayter used her, saying she would be revenged on him if there were any law in England. And she says the said Eliz is a young woman
about nineteen years of age as she takes it. And otherwise she cannot depose.
To 6 she says it is true.
To the final she says that what she had deposed is true.
Interrogatories
To 1 she responds that she does know the parties litigant viz. the plaintiff these three or four years, the defendant about a twelve moneths, she favours them alike and otherwise has already responded.
To 2 she responds no.
To 3
she is worth nothing but what her friends will bestow on her.
To 4 she responds no.
To 5 she believes it as above and otherwise cannot depose.
To 6 she hopes right may take place etc.
To 7 she has already satisfied this in her deposition.
To 8 she comes upon being cited and her charges paid by the
producent and otherwise says no.
To 9 she refers herself to what she has already deposed and otherwise cannot be more precise, saving she says it was in the evening
and in the room next against the
buttery door in the
booth aforesaid.
To 10 she responds that she does not know for sure but he called her
whore more than once, the time and place aforesaid.
To 11 she responds that besides this respondent and her
precontests, there were present Ellis Antram, William Cully and Thomas Wayte that were
attenders in the said
booth the time aforesaid. And she was close by the plaintiff when
the words were spoken, sitting by her as she now remembers and otherwise knows and remembers nothing.
To 12 she reponds that at the time the defendant was sitting in a room opposite the
buttery aforesaid and the plaintiff
was sitting at the
buttery door and otherwise she cannot depose.
To 13 and 14 she refers herself to what she has already deposed and otherwise cannot respond more.
15 does not concern her.
To 16 she does not know for her part.
To 17 he is now a very sensible man and she never knew him otherwise and he has kept a
booth two or three times and otherwise responds no, as she believes.
To 18 she responds no, that she herself lodges at Milford, where she lives, and the plaintiffs sister is dwelling there and she
is no married woman and had a child not being married.
To 19 she responds they were spoken in a
booth as she has already deposed and there were seven or eight rooms in the said
booth parted and wattled
at the time and they are private saving there are were no doors in the passages out of one into the other.
To 20 she responds they were his servants and did attend at the time and there were two women kind more viz. the cook woman and one of Goody Gilbert's
own maidens. And otherwise knows nothing more than she has already deposed saving she says it is true he disliked the
reckoning saying they were over reckoned a pint of
sack but she does not remember his arm of bears or grizy ar'st bears.
To 21 she responds she was not in the room at the time but was sitting at the
buttery door as she has already deposed, opposite the room where the
said Hayter sat. And it is true he did not call her by her name when as he called her
whore as she has already deposed, but she knows he called her the said Eliz
whore as she has already deposed
because she was the woman that only he spoke unto and that spoke to him again. And Gilbert's wife gave the
reckoning
to the interrogated Wayte and he gave it to the said Hayter and his company.
To 22 she responds that she was at the
buttery door as she has already deposed where the said Eliz. was at the time and place and
this respondent did see him when he spoke the said words.
To 23 she does not know for her part.
To 24 she responds that the said William Gilbert and there was (as she has already deposed) in company with the said Hayter
at the time John Moggridge, an old woman and a young
wench, whose names she knew not. And the
wench sat between
the said Hayter and Moggridge and the old woman sat at
the board end as she now remembers. And in all
likelihood they must hear the words spoken by the said Hayter as well as this respondent.
To 25 she responds that the said Moggridge was with the defendant at the time and she knew it was the said Hayter that
spoke the words before by her deposed because she saw him speak them and observed the passages that were between
them the said plainiff and defendant and at that time there was not any other or very little other company in the said
booth
so that there was no noise at all but what they made.
To 26 she responds that she was never in the defendant's company before, but she knew him before and has heard him talk before that time in his shop
as she has passed by and otherwise responds no.
Repeated before Doctor Lyme, chancellor 1639 etc.
^her mark^
