Modernized Spelling Transcription
Burnell against Cullen.
Depositions of witnesses to some of the articles of the libel on the part and for Marie Burnell.
Repeated before the Chancellor on
23 March 1681 in the hall of his accustomed place of dwelling in the presence of Mr G.L. Lynton
N.P.
Deposition 1
Susanna Hewlett of the parish of St John, Glastonbury in the county of Somerset,
widow, where she has lived since infancy and where she was born,
age 61. The witness is produced, admitted, sworn etc.
To Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the libel she deposes and says that she this deponent
being at work in her
porch at her
door some time
about St Paul's tide last (but the very day she cannot now call to mind), there sat at work with her one Mary Fear, her
contest, and one Joanne Pittman, her daughter. And upon a sudden she heard a
scolding in the street while they were there, the
producent,
Mary Burnell, came up the street by the door and presently after, she heard
a scolding between her and the defendant, Cullen, who lived in the other side
of the street. And the said Cullen called the said Burnell
murderous whore several times whereupon the said Burnell came back to this deponent and her
contest and the said Joane Pittman, and
bade them bear witness of what the said Cullen had called herfor that she should hear of it again
and otherwise and otherwise she refers to the law.
To 5 she deposes and says that the said Dorothy Cullen lived in the parish of St John in Glastonbury and otherwise she knows nothing.
To the final she deposes that what she has already deposed is true and otherwise she knows nothing.
Signed Susanne Hewlett ^her mark^
Deposition 2
On the above libel
Repeated as above
Maria Fear, the
wife of Christopher Fear of the parish of St John, Glastonbury where she has lived for the space of seven years, age 28.
The witness is produced, admitted, sworn etc.
To Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the libel she deposes and says that upon a certain day upward of a month since as she believes
(but the very day she cannot well remember), she this deponent being in her
contest's
porch
a knitting there came by
up the street the
producent by the door. And as soon as she was past along, the defendant called somebody that [...]
who lived a little above on the other side of the street called somebody
murderous whore. Whereupon the said Burnell came back to this deponent and her
contest, Susanna
Hewlett,
who was then also working in her said
porch, and
bade them bear witness, by which
the it seemed to them that the said Cullen had called the said Burnell
murderous whore. And otherwise she knows nothing saving that
she refers to the law.
To Article 5 of the libel she deposes and says that the defendant lives in St John's parish in Glastonbury.
To the final she deposes that what she has deposed is true and otherwise she knows nothing.
Signed Maria Feare ^her mark^
Deposition 3
Burnell against Cullen
Depositions relating to the articles of the allegation
on the part of and for Dorothy Cullen.
Repeated before Mr Jacob Aiton, surrogate etc. in the presence of G.L. Lynton
N.P on 2 May 1682.
John Treasure of the parish of St John the Baptist Glastonbury, where he has lived for the space of around 16 years, age 47.
The witness is produced, admitted, sworn etc.
To Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the allegation he deposes and says that he was very well acquainted with Nathaniel Burnell (mentioned in these articles) and says that he had the repute of a very
honest poor man and never heard or understood but that he was any way addicted to follow or keep company with strange women. But says that the said Nathaniel was ill at ease and was in a
wearing condition, so that he looked ill and green worse and worse. Whereupon about
Christmas 1680at length he discovered that he had the
French Pox and that he
had got if off his wife, for he said that his wife, coming home from Wells, he had
carnal knowledge of her body and immediately he found a great alteration in himself. And then growing worse
and worse, he discovered it to this deponent who was then
churchwarden of St John's Parish in Glastonbury and to diverse others of Glastonbury. And
at length he grew so bad in that distemper that this deponenent and the
overseers of the the said parish with others of the parishioners concluded that there should
be some help looked after for him. And by a general consent, they treated with one Mr Perryam Grimsteed which who did then practice
physick about the cure
and when the said Burnell came to the said Perryam Grimsteed and he had made inspection into the distemper, he found it to be that which is called the
French Pox.
And the next day being about the 16th of March 1680, one Dr Jaques Flowerston coming to Glastonbury, this deponent with the said Nathaniel Burnell went to him to advise with him also about the said
distemper, who upon search told the said Nathaniel that he had gotten the
French pox. Then they advised with him about the cure but they having first told him that they had treated with Mr Perryam
about it, he was unwilling to be concerned about it but he said that he thought it would be a hard matter to cure him. Then the said Burnell did declare that if he had the
Pox he got his
it by his wife and complained of her in a grievous manner. And he further says that the said said Burnell's wife was then also in a languishing condition and the said Perryam did declare
that she was in the same condition with her husband, but that it did not appear as yet to the full. Then this deponent did agree for the cure of the said Burnell and his wife at first for three pounds and he afterward brought
to to
50s and he gave him
10s in earnest for the cure. And says that afterwards the said Burnell was with the said Perryam in order to a cure,
but being not cured he returned to Glastonbury in a bad condition, where he grew very ill. And did publicly declare that his wife had ruined him and that she had brought him to that condition,
and this he declared generally to all people insomuch that it was noised through the town, everybody discerning of it. And says that the said Burnell grew worse and worse, till his death and died in a miserable condition
always crying out upon his wife that she had brought him to that miserable end condition. And says that it is generally now believed that in and about Glastonbury
that the said Burne Mary Burnell, the plaintiff (wife to the said Nathaniel Burnell), was the chief instrument of her said husband's distemper which hastened his death. And the cause of such
belief is for that the said Nathaniel did often and in extreme e agonies and protestations declare so much. And he does further say that when the said Burnell was this miserably dead,
he this deponent went to the said Burnell's house and meeting with his wife (the plaintiff in this cause) he asked her whether her husband was cured of his distemper which he formerly had upon him. For that if he was cured,
he was engaged to pay Mr Perryam the residue of the cure money which he promised him if the cure was perfected, to which she replied that he was not cured. And otherwise he knows
nothing saving that the
producent was sister to the deceased Burnell.
To the final he deposes that what he has already deposed is true. And otherwise he knows nothing.
Interrogatories
Repeated as above.
To Interrogatory 1 he responds that he has said as much as he can say to it in his former deposition and otherwise he knows nothing.
To Interrogatory 2 he responds that he never heard the plaintiff and defendant quarrel and says that since this [...]
miscarriage of Nathaniel Burnell, his wife's credit is not so clear as formerly. And otherwise he knows nothing.
To 3 he responds that Nathaniel Burnell was the first cause of the discourse that of what is before spoken. For he believes if that had been first spoken of by
him, nobody would have had any thing to say of it. And otherwise he knows nothing.
Jn: Treasure
Deposition 4
On the above allegation.
John Applin of the parish of St John the Baptist Glastonbury,
stocking maker, where he has lived since he was born,
[...] age 32. The witness is produced, admitted, sworn etc.
Repeated as above.
To Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the allegation he deposes and says that Nathaniel Burnell mentioned in these articles was heretofore of Glastonbury and had ever the repute
of a very honest man. And says that about March last was twelve months [ago], the said Nathaniel came to this deponent in being
overseer of the poor of Glastonbury,
and to John Treasure, his
contest who was
churchwarden. And told them that he was in a very bad condition for that he then had the
French Pox and desired that
some care might be taken upon the parish account for his care, for that he was incapable to work and he had not wherewithal to take care of the same himself by reason of poverty. Then this deponent told him that they were
not immediately to satisfy his desire upon bare his bare saying so, upon which he showed them his privities which were in such a lamentable condition that he really
pitied him. Then this deponent asked him how he got it, to which the said Burnell replied with horrid wishes that his wife was the cause thereof and that he got it of her, then
saying that upon a certain time (sometime before) she coming home from Wells, she was very solicitous with him for to lie with her, which having so so done
he found that he had gotten that distemper which they then saw. And this deponent further says that they did agree with one Mr Perryam, a
physician, for the cure and the said Burnell was with him
the said Perryam, but he returned to Glastonbury very ill. And in some time after, died in a miserable condition, always exclaiming against and crying out upon his wife that she had brought him to
that pass. And he further says that the said Mr Perryam did say that the said Burnell's wife had likewise the
pox (meaning the plaintiff) and that she must also be cured and upon the agreement
with this deponent and the said Treasure, he was to cure her also. And he further also says that of this now and for some time past, there has been a rumour in and about Glastonbury. And otherwise
he knows nothing saving that the deceased Burnell was sister to the
producent.
To the final he deposes that what he has already deposed is true.
Interrogatories
Repeated as above
To the first interrogatory he refers himself to what he has already deposed and otherwise knows nothing.
To 2 he responds that the plaintiff has had a very ill report in Glastonbury for several years last past and otherwise he knows nothing.
To 3 he responds that he this respondent did often hear the said Nath: Burnell say that his wife was the cause of his distemper and he was the original cause of the report as he believes. And otherwise
he knows nothing.
John Applin
Deposition 5
On the above allegation
Repeated before Mr Joseph Shallitt with Mr Ivaly in this new cause, in the presence of G.L. Lynton
N.P on 2 May 1682.
Andrew Tincknell of the parish of St John the Baptist Glastonbury in the county of Somerset,
worsted comber, where has has lived for the space of around nine
years, age 30. The witness is produced, admitted, sworn etc.
To Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the allegation he deposes and says that he this deponent was neighbour to the deceased Nathaniel Burnell (mentioned in these articles) and says that he was a
very honest man and this deponent was formerly very much in his company. And also that upon a certain time before
Michaelmas last was two years
twelve months [ago], there happened a difference between the deceased Nath: Burnell (mentioned in these articles) and his wife (the plaintiff in this cause) insomuch that they fought, and she threw him down and
broke his head, shortly upon which she, the said plaintiff, and went to Wells. And he further says that some time after her return, he this deponent did
meet with the said Burnell, the deceased, who told him that his wife had undone him for that she had
poxed him and then told him that she had been lately at Wells
and when she came home she was more than usually [...] to him and desired him very urgently to go to bed with him, which he accordingly did. And whilst he was yet in the
act of copulation with her, she bade him lie close or she would thrust a pin in him, which to satisfy her he did to his utmost strength. And then immediately as he ended, he found a strange alteration
in himself and from that very time (he then said) that he grew worse and worse till he came to that pass. And further says that many times after this, he the said Nathaniel did even weeping complain to this deponent that
his wife had ruined him, being then in extreme misery by reason of the height of his distemper. And says that it was reported after that she, his said wife that plaintiff, was troubled with the same distemper for she was ill for
some month about that time and complained extremely in her head, back and all her limbs. And he further says that the said Nathaniel Burnell continued in a deplorable state till his dying day, he dying about a year since to the
best of this deponent's remembrance. And otherwise he knows nothing.
To the final he deposes that what he had already deposed is true. And otherwise he knows nothing.
Interrogatories
Repeated as above
To the first interrogatory he responds that he cannot say any more to it that what he has said before and otherwise depose he knows nothing.
To Interrogatory 2 he responds that since the first sickness of the said Nath: Burnell, the said Mary his wife is out of all manner of credit amongst the better sort of people. And otherwise he knows nothing.
To Interrogatory 3 he responds that the said Mary Burnell's husband, the deceased, was the first causer of all the reports mentioned in his former depositions. And otherwise he knows nothing.
Andrew Tinknell
Deposition 6
On the above allegation.
Repeated as above.
Anna Spurlock of the parish of St John the Baptist Glastonbury, the
wife of William Spurlock, where she has lived since birth and was born, age 30
57. The witness is produced, admitted, sworn etc.
To Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 lib of the allegation, she deposes and says that there was a great rumour and report in and about the town of Glastonbury
that Natha: Burnell in his life time had gotten the
French Pox and that he got it from his wife, the plaintiff in this cause. And says that the Saturday before the deceased Nathaniel died, she went to see him
where he lay in his bed (he dying the Monday following) and she says that he was in a sad, lamentable condition and he spoke to this deponent, telling her that his time was but short and therefore desired her when
he was dead to strip him. And the time being come, she went to strip him and when she had so stripped him, she found his body full of large blue spots an for the scabs were fallen off and
his members were almost eaten off. And upon them there was a plaster which the said deceased's sister did take off, this deponent refusing to do it. And says when they had fully stripped
him, they went their way. And further says that the next day, the plaintiff sent for this deponent and desired her to go up with her into the chamber that they she might bear witness how
it it was with her husband, for that she said there was a speech about town that his members were cut off. But this deponent replied that it was not cut off, but there was but little left, but she
urged her to go up with her to see him which accordingly she did. And when they came up to him where he lay, she the said plaintiff uncovered him and then she put her finger upon
took up his yard in her hand of which there was little left, save only the middle thereof, which was as hard as a board, being there
very little flesh thereon of. Then she told this deponent that now she could testify that it was not cut off, so away she went. And otherwise she deposes and says that the said plaintiff,
before her said husband's death, was also very ill and complained extremely of the pain which she endured, and everybody concluded that it was the
pox that he was troubled with but what
the real cause was she knows [not].
To the final she deposes that was she has already deposed is true.
Interrogatories
To the first she cannot respond more than what she has before deposed.
To 2 she responds that since this accident, the plaintiff is of little credit. And otherwise dep she cannot respond.
To 3 she cannot respond.
Signed Anne Spurlock ^her mark^
