Author Topic: Extract from Chancery  (Read 261 times)

Offline MattD30

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,747
    • View Profile
Extract from Chancery
« on: Sunday 23 April 17 00:25 BST (UK) »
Can anyone help me decipher the top part of this record from the Court of Cancery. I can see the names David Denne and Margery Denne at the side but I'm not sure what the text next to it at the top of the picture says. Also is the second paragraph of text a different case or is it related?

Thanks in advance for any help or ideas.

Matt

Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,917
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Extract from Chancery
« Reply #1 on: Sunday 23 April 17 00:52 BST (UK) »
David Denne Jun(ior) (Plaintiff)
Michael Denne sen(ior) Def(endant)
27 Jan(uary)
The def(endan)t hath this Daie made his p(er)sonall appearance in open Court
upon A Com(mission) of Rebellion for saveing of his bond given to the Com(missione)rs in
that behaulf


A Commission of Rebellion was a type of writ served on a defendant who had sworn a bond to appear in court on an appointed day, but hadn’t shown up. This entry shows that he had now appeared, in order to avoid having to pay up on his bond.

The second paragraph relates to a separate case (different plaintiff and defendants).

Offline MattD30

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,747
    • View Profile
Re: Extract from Chancery
« Reply #2 on: Sunday 23 April 17 15:49 BST (UK) »
David Denne Jun(ior) (Plaintiff)
Michael Denne sen(ior) Def(endant)
27 Jan(uary)
The def(endan)t hath this Daie made his p(er)sonall appearance in open Court
upon A Com(mission) of Rebellion for saveing of his bond given to the Com(missione)rs in
that behaulf


A Commission of Rebellion was a type of writ served on a defendant who had sworn a bond to appear in court on an appointed day, but hadn’t shown up. This entry shows that he had now appeared, in order to avoid having to pay up on his bond.

The second paragraph relates to a separate case (different plaintiff and defendants).

Many thanks for that.

I wonder why Michael and John were in court, and why Michael didn't appear when he was supposed to?

Thanks again

Matt