Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-hd9dq Total loading time: 0.443 Render date: 2022-10-03T05:15:28.715Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

6 - London's Married Women, Debt Litigation and Coverture in the Court of Common Pleas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2013

Matthew Frank Stevens
Affiliation:
Swansea University
Cordelia Beattie
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Matthew Frank Stevens
Affiliation:
Swansea University
Get access

Summary

Introduction: the Court of Common Pleas and the London Evidence

In the weeks after the feast of St Hilary (13 January) in 1403 a plea brought on a writ of debt, between plaintiffs Margaret le Toller of Smithfield, London, and her husband John le Toller, and defendant Richard Barbour of Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, was heard before the justices of the royal Court of Common Pleas at West-minster. In this case, Margaret and her husband claimed that nearly two decades before, on 8 August 1384, while Margaret was a single woman, an accounting was held between herself and Richard Barbour in the London parish of St Bride Fleet Street before two London tradesmen appointed by Margaret as auditors. Margaret pleaded that this accounting found Barbour to owe her £10 arrears and clear debt concerning diverse monies and receipts, which ‘although often requested’ he had not yet paid, neither ‘to Margaret as a single woman, nor to John le Toller and Margaret since their marriage’. Barbour responded, not denying the alleged accounting nor debt, by pleading that just over three years before, on 6 October 1399, he, John and Margaret had submitted to arbitration before certain men, at Wycombe, concerning all debts and disputes between them from the creation of the world until that day. And further, Barbour pleaded that this arbitration had decided that he ought to pay John and Margaret 18d. to settle all disputes between them, which he duly paid, thereby acquitting himself of all obligations to the couple.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Boydell & Brewer
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×