Latin paragraph from 1595

[goldie61]

From WAALT, the date given is Hilary Term 1595.
I’d be grateful for a precis of this piece to see what it is all about.
Is there any more specific date?

It starts with Thomas Vaughan.
On line 3 is ‘Agnetem Thursffeelde’. I can see she is of Bemersley, Staffordshire, and is a spinster.
What else does it say about her?
Why is she involved in this case?

Thanks for any help

[horselydown86]

Please post the URL for the page on AALT.

It may be more readable from there.

[goldie61]

Thanks HD.
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/Eliz/CP40no1544/aCP40no1544fronts/IMG_0644.htm

[horselydown86]

At its heart it's a straightforward suit about a debt.

Thomas Vaughan is the plaintiff.

The defendants are:

William Sne?ode of Chatterley in Com' Staff husbandman

Thomas Horden of Bemersley in Com' Staff Webster

Agnes Thursfeelde lately/formerly/recently of Bemersley in Com' Staff Spinster

The plea is that any of the defendants should render to Thomas Vaughan 80 shillings which they owe and unjustly detain.

The rest is procedural and quite lengthy (and not easily translated).

It appears they didn't come to court.  The sheriff was ordered to arrest them.

At some stage the men were either outlawed or to be outlawed.  Agnes had or was to have a different action against her but it's not one I'm familiar with.

More procedural follows this.

There's nothing to explain why Agnes was involved with the male debtors or with Thomas Vaughan.

ADDED:

I can't see anything to more exactly identify a date.

[goldie61]

Thanks very much HD.
There is what seems a follow on here.
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/Eliz/CP40no1574/aCP40no1574fronts/IMG_0913.htm
The 6th entry on the page.
Does it give any more information?

Just these two entries from what I can see.

I think he's probably William Sneyd.
I know there were Sneyds in this area from Court Rolls.

[horselydown86]

This second record doesn't add anything major.

It confirms William Sneyd is the first defendant.  The sheriff reports that the defendants have nothing etc.

The differences are in the procedural aspect.

[goldie61]

 The sheriff reports that the defendants have nothing etc.

Thanks Horselydown.
What does this bit mean?
Could you point our where that bit is, and perhaps elaborate a bit more on what it says? Thanks

[horselydown86]

It's towards the end of line 5.

Bypass the last two words of line 5.  Before them you'll find this:

Et vic(ecomes) modo mand(avit) q(uo)d nichil h(ab)ent &c 

A common part of the process to deal with debt was for the sheriff to make a survey of possessions which could be seized (distrained) either to ensure the defendant's appearance at court or to repay the creditor.

In this case the return of the survey is that they have nothing in this sheriff's jurisdiction, presumably Staffordshire.

These matters are covered peripherally in this guide from TNA:

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/outlaws-outlawry-medieval-early-modern-england/

Agnes had or was to have a different action against her but it's not one I'm familiar with.

This research guide answered this question.

On the first of your records, I now think line 7 begins:

p(re)d(i)c(t)a Agneta waivet' &c

I think waivet' refers to this in para 1: "Women were said to be ‘waived’ rather than outlawed although the practical outcome was the same."

Second to last in line 6 is utlagent', for the two men.

[goldie61]

Thanks for the explanations Horselydown.
Poor old Agnes. 
I'm not sure she's 'my' Agnes Thursfield. Although it's quite a distinctive name, there were a few Thursfield families in this area at this time.