Yorkshire Quarter Session, Thomas Scatchard - 1717

[mezentia]

Me again

I have absolutely no idea what this entry is about except that Thomas might be a butcher? My attempt at transcribing it is

Scatchard Thomas
{?}est
Thomas Walkington   Jun
Johes Brunton
Bill {D}era
Sam^le Cottie

Po:se {??}

Ac Quod Thomas Scatchard imper de {??}
In Burges pr{ae}d{ictum} Lauius primo die Septembris anno requi D{ei}
Georgy Dei gratia nunc Regis Mague Britanie {??} Rono{??}
Continue {posteor} usqe ad primum diem Octobris aus Nono Supr{??}
egisten per Spatium unius meusis Julogri apud Leeds pr{ae}d{ictum} in
Burgo pr{ae}d{ictum} illuite pro Suire Snoproprio usus fuite ex erimit of Ott{ley}
: pavit Artem misteriu Sive Occupatouem (Ang{li}ce a Butcher)
Existen{er} Arte misteriu Sive Occupatioue infra hor Regnum duo :
: decimo die January An{n}o Rui Due Elizabethe imper {Regina} Anglie
et Quinto usitat et {Onupat} ubi reversa idem Thomas Scatchard
eodem duodecimo die January Anno Rui die Due Elizabethe nuper
Requie Anglice et Quinto Supradre non usus fuit autr Exerimit
Legitime pr{ae}d{ictum Arten misteriu{?} Sive Occupatouem (Ang{li}ce a
Butcher) pr{ae}d{ictum nec miquam prostea {eduia?} fuit ni pr{ae}d{ictum Arte
Misterio Sive Occupatouem (Ang{li}ce a Butcher{)} per Spatium
Septem A{??} tauquam Apprentinius (Ang{li}ce Apprentice) Contra
Forinam Statuti die dio An{n}o Quinto Rui die Due Elizabethe nuper
Rue Anglie {??} in h{??}di Casu imperedit et porovi{??} {Nernon}
{??}parcem dii Diu Regis nunc Coronam et Siguitat Suas Etc.

I know I have some word endings incorrect, and probably quite a few other errors, so corrections and a translation, please. The image has damage to the right hand side, so some lines may be truncated. I have tried to make educated guesses where this occurs.

[Bookbox]

Essentially, he's been working in Leeds as a butcher without ever having completed an apprenticeship in that trade (contrary to the Statute of Artificers, 1562).

Afraid I don't have time to do a full transcript now, but I might do it later this evening, if no-one else has.

[Bookbox]

[marginated]
Scatchard Thomas
Test(es) - Thomas Watkinson, Joh(ann)es Brunton, Jur(ati)
Bill(a) Vera
Sam(ue)ll Tottie

po(nit) se Non cul(pabilis)
Ac Quod Thomas Scatchard nuper de [...]
in Burgo p(re)d(icto) Lanius primo die Septembris anno regni Do[mini nostri]
Georgij Dei gratia nunc Regis Magne Britanie &c Nono [et]
Continue postea usq(ue) ad primum diem Octobris An(n)o Nono Supr[adicto]
existen(s) per spatium unius mensis Integri apud Leeds p(re)d(ictum) in [...]
Burgo p(re)d(icto) illicite pro Lucro Suo proprio usus fuit exercuit et Occ(u)-
pavit Artem misteriu(m) Sive Occupac(i)onem Lanij (Ang(li)ce a Butcher[)]
Existen(s) arte misterio sive Occupatione infra hoc Regnum duo-
decimo die Januarij An(n)o R(eg)ni D(omi)ne Elizabethe nuper Regine Anglie
&c Quinto usitat(us) et occupat(us) ubi revera idem Thomas Scatchard
eodem duodecimo die Januarij Anno R(eg)ni d(i)c(t)e D(omi)ne Elizabethe nuper
Regine Anglie &c Quinto suprad(i)c(t)o non usus fuit aut exercuit
Legitime p(re)d(ictam) Artem misterium sive Occupac(i)onem Lanij (Ang(li)ce A
Butcher) p(re)d(icta) nec unquam postea educat(us) fuit in p(re)d(i)c(t)a Arte
misterio sive Occupac(i)one Lanij (Ang(li)ce A Butcher[)] per Spatium
Septem annor(um) tanquam Apprenticius (Ang(li)ce Apprentice) Contra
formam Statuti de d(i)c(t)o an(n)o Quinto R(eg)ni d(i)c(t)e D(omi)ne Elizabethe nuper
R(egi)ne Anglie &c in hu(ius)modi Casu nuper edit(i) et provis(i)  Necnon
contra pacem d(i)c(t)i D(omi)ni Regis nunc Coronam et dignitat(em) suas &c

[marginated]
Scatchard Thomas
Witnesses - Thomas Watkinson, John Brunton, sworn
A True Bill
Samuel Tottie

Puts himself (before a jury) – Not Guilty
And that Thomas Scatchard lately of [...] in the aforesaid borough, a butcher, on the first day of September in the ninth year of the reign of our lord George by the grace of God now King of Great Britain etc., [and] continuously afterwards until the first day of October in the abovesaid ninth year, being a period of one whole month, at Leeds aforesaid in the aforesaid borough, did unlawfully and for his own profit establish, carry out and trade in the craft, mystery or trade of a butcher (in English, a butcher), being established in and trading in a craft, mystery and trade of this kingdom [as specified] on the same twelfth day of January in the abovesaid fifth year of the reign of the said lady Queen Elizabeth, late Queen of England etc., whereas in reality the same Thomas Scatchard did not lawfully establish or carry out the aforesaid craft, mystery or trade of a butcher (in English, a butcher), nor afterwards was he ever instructed in the aforesaid craft, mystery or trade of a butcher (in English, a Butcher) for a period of seven years as an apprentice (in English, apprentice), against the form of the statute of the said fifth year of the reign of the said lady Elizabeth, late Queen of England etc. that was lately issued and provided in this matter, and also against the peace of the said present lord King, his Crown and Dignity etc.

Notes
The year is 9. George I = 1722 (not 1717, despite Ancestry’s index)
He was probably ‘of Leeds’ (missing at the end of line 1), because ‘Leeds aforesaid’ is referenced below, with no prior mention of it here.
The legislation referred to is the Statute of Artificers, 12 January 1562/63 (5. Elizabeth), which included a section drawn up to prevent people working in certain trades unless they had completed a 7-year apprenticeship.

[mezentia]

Thank you once again, Bookbox.

I clearly need to make more effort to distinguish u and n, and my declensions certainly need attention.

[Bookbox]

I clearly need to make more effort to distinguish u and n, and my declensions certainly need attention.

But u and n are almost indistinguishable in a hand like this one, and many of the n's are suspended anyway, so it's tricky. It can be helpful to look out for the common phrases that come up time and again in these indictments.

It's interesting that he was found Not Guilty. Perhaps the witnesses failed to convince the jury, or perhaps he produced proof of an apprenticeship after all?