Where might I be able to locate a 17th century divorce case?

[goldie61]

Page 5
(Going to go with ‘es’ on the end of words instead of ‘s’  from now on)

............ Mary caused severall goodes
Chattells plate Diamondes Ringes and other of the Compl(ainan)ts
estate to the value of five hundred poundes to be taken away
and carryed to London and then wrote a letter to the said
Manly the Confident to receive the same and soone
after followed them and contrary to the Complainants consent
carryed with her twoe of the said Children and lived and
inhabited in London as the wife of the said Manly untill
such five hundred poundes worth of goodes were all consumed
and Spent which according to their lascivious  and profuse
way of liveing lasted not above three weekes and that
then the Defendant Mary toook on her againe the name of
Hockmore haveing before gone by the name of Manly and
alleadged that shee was the Complainants wife and
haveing about that time gott an acquaintance with
severall ill persons did by combinac(i)on with the said
Manly and severall tradesmen att London load the Compl(ainan)t
with debt on account of the said Defendant Mary and
children notwithstanding the Complainant by severall publicke
printes and perticuler papers printed and dispersed for that
purpose did give notice that the said Defendant Mary
was eloped and runne from the Complainant and carryed
away twoe of his Children with plate and severall other
goodes to the value of five hundred poundes and was come
to London  and contracted debtes contrary to the Complainants
consent amd knowledge and thereby did advise all tradesmen
and other persons not to give creditt or trust her for any
goodes or sum(m)es of money for that the Complainant would
not pay the same and that if any person could discover
where the said Children were soe as to be had againe
should be well rewarded and that the Complainant
caused three thousand of such advertizements to be printed
and dispersed in and about the Cittye of London and
Westminster on which the said Defendant Maryes creditt
?wing was the Complainant  was in hopes to have
p(re)vayled on her to have returned againe or att least  to
have lived att her Jointure house according to the
said Articles that the said Defendant Mary haveing
gotten into such acquainance as aforesaid and by giveing
extraordinary prizes for goodes had contracted severall
great debtes in London and elsewhere since the said

Image 6

second elopement perticulerly with the said Defendants
John Ridgely and Dorcas Pearson and for which the
Complainant had beene arrested and prosecuted and was
dayly in danger of being arrested for the rest contrary to the
Intenc(i)on and true meaneing of the said Articles and that
notwithstanding this the said Defendant Mary and her
Children by their Guardian had exhibited their bill into
this Court against the said Complainant to have a
specificke performance of the said Articles THEREFORE
that the Defendants might answere the premisses and
that the said Articles might be delivered upp to the
Complainant to be Cancelled And the Defendants the
Creditors might discover the natures and kindes of their
pretended debtes and if they had any and what securitys
for the same and from whom and had not notice of
the said elopementes before or att the time of contracting
such p(re)tended debtes and when and that their proceedings
att law touching the same might be stayed by the
Iniunc(i)on of this court and for RELEIFE in all and
singuler the p(re)misses the said Complainant further
prayed the Ayde and assistance of this honourable Court
and that processe of supua might be awarded against
the said Defendantes to compell them to appeare and
answere the said bill which being granted and the said
Defendantes therewith all served they appeared accordingly
and put in their severall Answeres to the said Complainants
bill AND the Defendant Mary Hockmore for answere
sayed that about the time in the bill  she intermarryed
with the Complainant and that she had such
porc(i)on and that such settlement was made in consid(er)ac(i)on

Iniuncion = Injunction

process of Supua (or Supna) = subpoena?

Looks like Mary is going to have her say now after hubby has painted her in the worst light possible! 

[Nick93]

Good morning everyone, sorry it took me a bit to get back to the thread as of yesterday, I live in the US. Wow, thank you so, so much for all the transcribing, it's extremely kind of you, and I greatly appreciate it like you wouldn't believe!

Haha, interestingly, regarding it being great novel fodder, Prestwood's grandson did serve as a character-model for a villain in a Victorian novel, the Maid of Sker:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Froude

My family comes down through his presumably tamer sister, who married Georg Fritche, a German immigrant inkeeper and church organist (presumably how he met the daughter of the reverend John Froude Sr. ).

Still going through the thread now, reading the transcriptions on page 2, I'm very appreciative. Regarding the 1698 case, I did see it listed in the National Archives. I saw the option to "Request a copy" and registered an account, but when I clicked that option it took me to a long page regarding the process of in-person visits to the NA. I saw they had a Q&A section but didn't see anything about requesting online copies. I sent them an email regarding it last night, asking for advice on how to go about it. Maybe I'm confused, is it possible to request pictures of the forms, like in the 1701 case? Does anyone here have experience with requesting forms online from them?

[Bookbox]

The National Archives document copying service is not available at present because of COVID-19 restrictions (as mentioned in reply #3 above). Relatively few staff members are working onsite at TNA.

[horselydown86]

Just picking up the two matters queried in goldie's Reply #18:

...the said Defendant Maryes creditt
growing low the Complainant...

You are right that it's meant to be subpoena.  It's probably spelt:  su(b)p(e)na

[Bookbox]

The daughter, Prestwood, was apparently baptized in London (though William and Mary were from Devon, Mary apparently ran off to London during a dispute with her husband) in early 1696 under "Prestwood Buckmore, son [sic] of William and Mary Buckmore." Not sure why she was referred to as a son, Mr. Grylls doesn't say.

Have you read the original baptism register and is it in English or are you going off a translation or transcription? I wondered if there may be confusion between "f." or "fil.", abbreviations for filius (son) and filia (daughter). Although any confusion may have been in the mind of the baptising clergyman, thinking a baby named Prestwood was male. 

There is this entry in the parish register for St Margaret Lothbury, City of London:

Prastwood Buckmore the sonn of Willia[m]
Buckmore and mary his wife was
Borne the 30^th of January 1696 and
Baptised the 3^th of february following

(Both dates are 1697 in the modern calendar, not 1696.)

[goldie61]

Next installment of the saga!


Images 7  & 8.
.................settlement was made in Consid(er)ac(i)on
thereof as in the bill and that for some time after the
said marriage the Complainant lived with her peacably
and quietly and that she had severall children by him
but that about the yeare one thousand six hundred
ninety five the Compainant falling into ill Company
and enemyes to this Defendant was persuaded to
become a very ill husband frequently useing her with
very ill language and abuseing and beating her to
that Degree that she was very desireous if possible to
have reclaimed him by faire meanes but that his
unkindnesse soe farre increased as that it became
unsupportable and that after much patience she was
forced to discover his ill dealeings to her friends and
Relac(i)ons hopeing thereby to have brought him over to his
former temper who did endeavour to persuade him to use her
better but with soe little effect that by reason of his hard
usage she for the safety of her person was in December
one thousand six hundred ninety five forced to withdraw
herselfe  for that the Complainant often threatened her
death dureing which seperac(i)on she with three of her
children lived privately in a house taken by one Stephens
in Downeing street westminster save onely that shee
lodged some parte of the time in old Southampton
buildings dureing which time beleived the Complainant
knew where she lived and that shee onely tooke with
her one hundred and twenty poundes to the best of her
remembrance or thereabouts for her necessary support till
reconciliac(i)on could be procured and that what goodes
were taken by her were by her carryed back againe to
the Complainant att her returne and that she could not
conceive any reason the Complainant had to use her soe
severely onely that in Aprill one thousand six hundred
ninety and three the Complainant p(re)tending to be
pricked in Conscience for sone lewd courses she reproved
him for the same and denyed that either before or att
the time of her seperac(i)on or since shee contracted
acquaintance with any lewd persons or of ill Report or
cohabited with any such and sayed that dureing her
seperac(i)on by the frequent sollicitac(i)ons of this Defendants
relac(i)ons and of the Gentry of the County the Compain(an)t
about the time in the bill pretended he was prevayled on to

become a better husband for the future and that he was
sensible hee had not used her as he ought and
proposed to enter into the Articles in the bill and
thereby to be   bound to become a better husband and
to use her civilly or att least in case he should be againe
seduced by ill company to provide a convenient maintenance
for her and her children and hopeing to find a reformac(i)on in
him and with all the duty and tendernesse imaginable
apply herselfe to please the Complainant notwithstanding
all which endeavours in or about July one thousand six
hundred ninety and six the Complainant without the
least provocac(i)on did violently assault and beate her to
that degree that shee could not appeare to any of
her Relac(i)ons till the markes of such beateing were
worne off and whom she avoyed purely to prevent
disgraceing the Complainant AND denyed shee ever
invited any seamen or souldiers to the Complainants
house or that ever shee was acquainted with Culcutt
but confessed that Manly came to the said Complainants
house with one Tregee a Cornish gentleman as
acquaintant of Mr Tregees who came to visitt the
Complainant which Manly was civilly entertained by
her and not otherwise and denyed the Complainant was
ever locked upp or made a prisoner by her otherwise
then that about July one thousand six hundred ninety
and six the said Stephens being att the gate att
midnight and calling to the Complainant to lett him in
swearing he would Iniure this Defendant and her

Iniure = Injure

Look where she went to live in London!
How different two sides of a story can be.
I wonder who the Court believed?
Maybe we'll find out...........

[Maiden Stone]

     dureing which seperac(i)on she with three of her
children lived privately in a house taken by one Stephens
in Downeing street westminster


Look where she went to live in London!

Downing Street was fairly new at the time, built early 1680's by Sir George Downing. 2 storey townhouses with coach-houses and stables.
https://www.history.com/news/the-surprising-history-of-10-downing-street
There were between 15 and 20 houses. No. 10 used to be No. 5. The present No.10 was originally 3 houses. Houses 1-8 were demolished 1824 to make way for construction of government offices, Privy Council Office, board of Trade and Treasury Office. Houses on south side replaced by Foreign Office.
Lord Lansdowne resided in Downing St. 1692-6.