1
The Common Room / Re: Can anyone read this occupation please, from the 1939
« on: Tuesday 26 December 17 08:43 GMT (UK) »
.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
The Common Room / Re: Wives & husbands testifying against each other
« on: Sunday 10 December 17 21:52 GMT (UK) »
Thank you to everyone who responded, I'm much clearer on the issue now. I'm waiting for more copy documents from Lambeth which I think will clarify the issue, but thanks to all your help I think I'm on the right track now. One thing I do know is that I wouldn't have liked to be a woman in the 17th century.
3
The Common Room / Re: Wives & husbands testifying against each other
« on: Sunday 10 December 17 11:55 GMT (UK) »
To Jim1
To divert just a little. I noticed in the names you're researching Lutwyche and thought I'd mention that in this case I'm looking at the defence counsel was Sir Edward Lutwych and it concerns a Warks family called Stepkin, one of whom, Peter, married Mary Lutwych of Seighford in Staffs, daughter of Rev. Stocket Lutwich/Lutwych of Swinnerton Staffs. Just thought it worth mentioning.
To divert just a little. I noticed in the names you're researching Lutwyche and thought I'd mention that in this case I'm looking at the defence counsel was Sir Edward Lutwych and it concerns a Warks family called Stepkin, one of whom, Peter, married Mary Lutwych of Seighford in Staffs, daughter of Rev. Stocket Lutwich/Lutwych of Swinnerton Staffs. Just thought it worth mentioning.
4
The Common Room / Re: Wives & husbands testifying against each other
« on: Sunday 10 December 17 11:26 GMT (UK) »
Thanks Jim,
This was a case of the wife's adultery. Though I believe the husband also followed her example, hence her fury at him later, but initially it was the wife who abandoned her husband to live openly with another man and gave her husband grounds.
This was a case of the wife's adultery. Though I believe the husband also followed her example, hence her fury at him later, but initially it was the wife who abandoned her husband to live openly with another man and gave her husband grounds.
5
The Common Room / Re: Wives & husbands testifying against each other
« on: Sunday 10 December 17 10:48 GMT (UK) »
Thank you Aelfric,
I've checked back through my papers and it is listed as a "matrimonial case, divorce, adultery" on the Lambeth Palace Library records where all these ecclesiastical marital disputes are located. I'm not certain of the procedure - whether all divorces needed a private Act of Parliament, but then the Court of Arches handled what were basically formal separations (yet it is catalogued as divorce etc) - no doubt it was a procedure far less expensive for the parties. For this couple I've seen no Act of Parliament for a divorce, so I suspect you're right, that it was a formal separation. The wife I notice didn't remarry until the husband was dead - which might seem to confirm that. This seems to answer the circumstances I'm seeing: the couple were rather "separated" in legal terms (but not in the eyes of God) and were in a kind of marital limbo. Not free to remarry and, certainly the wife, would have been restricted in what she might do without the husband's consent (i.e. business dealings). The would perhaps explain why she could not testify against her estranged husband. I've come across this separation arrangement before where it was particularly hard on the wife as (in the 1680s) she was entirely dependent on the hostile husband for support. Thank you for helping me inch towards some clarity!
I've checked back through my papers and it is listed as a "matrimonial case, divorce, adultery" on the Lambeth Palace Library records where all these ecclesiastical marital disputes are located. I'm not certain of the procedure - whether all divorces needed a private Act of Parliament, but then the Court of Arches handled what were basically formal separations (yet it is catalogued as divorce etc) - no doubt it was a procedure far less expensive for the parties. For this couple I've seen no Act of Parliament for a divorce, so I suspect you're right, that it was a formal separation. The wife I notice didn't remarry until the husband was dead - which might seem to confirm that. This seems to answer the circumstances I'm seeing: the couple were rather "separated" in legal terms (but not in the eyes of God) and were in a kind of marital limbo. Not free to remarry and, certainly the wife, would have been restricted in what she might do without the husband's consent (i.e. business dealings). The would perhaps explain why she could not testify against her estranged husband. I've come across this separation arrangement before where it was particularly hard on the wife as (in the 1680s) she was entirely dependent on the hostile husband for support. Thank you for helping me inch towards some clarity!
6
The Common Room / Re: Wives & husbands testifying against each other
« on: Sunday 10 December 17 08:35 GMT (UK) »
Thank you.
7
The Common Room / Re: Wives & husbands testifying against each other
« on: Saturday 09 December 17 16:16 GMT (UK) »
Thank you Galium,
I think its a case of different jurisdictions. Husband and wives testifying against each other, say in an abuse cases, would of course be allowed but it would be a matter for the ecclesiastical courts. In this case it was a criminal matter at the King's Bench. The judge during the trial said "But by the Law the Husband cannot be a Witness against his Wife, nor a Wife against her Husband, to charge them with anything Criminal, except only in Cases of High Treason. This is so known a Common Rule, that I thought it could never have borne any Question or Debate".
But thank you for responding.
I think its a case of different jurisdictions. Husband and wives testifying against each other, say in an abuse cases, would of course be allowed but it would be a matter for the ecclesiastical courts. In this case it was a criminal matter at the King's Bench. The judge during the trial said "But by the Law the Husband cannot be a Witness against his Wife, nor a Wife against her Husband, to charge them with anything Criminal, except only in Cases of High Treason. This is so known a Common Rule, that I thought it could never have borne any Question or Debate".
But thank you for responding.
8
The Common Room / Re: Wives & husbands testifying against each other
« on: Saturday 09 December 17 14:55 GMT (UK) »
Thank you, much appreciate your thoughts.
9
The Common Room / Re: Wives & husbands testifying against each other
« on: Saturday 09 December 17 11:58 GMT (UK) »
Thanks Jim,
I know the husband began the process of petitioning for a divorce - I'm checking it went through to completion with the Court of Arches now. As regards the forgery process, this was in respect of documents being forged rather than coin of the realm being counterfeited and yes, the lady knew the process and described in court; how saffron was obtained to make the ink seem aged, parchment was rubbed against glass windows to make documents seem old etc. Their reasons for testifying against each other after the marriage ended I believe was mutual animosity/hatred. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and the marriage faltered over adultery. The bit I'm not sure about is whether testifying against a spouse is okay after a divorce, or whether "what God hath joined together ...." continues to mean a couple are still one in the eyes of God, even if not the law.
I know the husband began the process of petitioning for a divorce - I'm checking it went through to completion with the Court of Arches now. As regards the forgery process, this was in respect of documents being forged rather than coin of the realm being counterfeited and yes, the lady knew the process and described in court; how saffron was obtained to make the ink seem aged, parchment was rubbed against glass windows to make documents seem old etc. Their reasons for testifying against each other after the marriage ended I believe was mutual animosity/hatred. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and the marriage faltered over adultery. The bit I'm not sure about is whether testifying against a spouse is okay after a divorce, or whether "what God hath joined together ...." continues to mean a couple are still one in the eyes of God, even if not the law.