Defamation Cases 

(From R. H. Helmholz, ed. Select Cases on Defamation to 1600. Selden Society Publications. vol. 101. 1985.)

Defamation. Vernycome v. Fawell.  

(Common Pleas 40/1024, m. 352. Easter term 1519.)  

Devon. Thomas Fawell, late of Broad Clyst in the aforesaid county was attached to answer Nicholas Vernycome in a plea why, although he...[writ om.] the same Nicholas is a free man and has been of free condition from the time of his birth, the aforesaid Thomas, not ignorant of the foregoing, scheming without right to injure the said Nicholas, and utterly to destroy and undo the selfsame Nicholas, on the twenty-fourth day of October in the tenth year of the reign of the present lord king did falsely impute, speak, and utter against the same Nicholas the name and fame of servile condition, namely `bond-churl', that is, villein by blood. By which the same Nicholas has been gravely injured, weakened and made the worse in his name, fame, and in the dealings to which before then he was accustomed with honest persons in buying, selling and lawfully bargaining; to the damage of the same Nicholas L20; whereby he says that he is the worse and has damage to the value of L25. And thereof he produces suit etc.

And the aforesaid Thomas by Bartholomew Prouz his attorney comes and denies force and wrong when etc. And he says that the aforesaid Nicholas should not have his action aforesaid against him therein because he says that at that time when etc. the aforesaid Nicholas was a villein of a certain Lewis Pollard, knight, Peter Caslegh, S.T.D., John Gilbert, esquire, and of John Bodley, regardant to their manor of Broad Clyst in the county aforesaid, and that the same Lewis, Peter, John and John and all their predecessors as lords of the aforesaid manor and all those who [held] the estate in the same manor which the same Lewis, Peter, John and John now hold, are and were seised of the aforesaid Nicholas and of all his predecessors as of their villeins regardant to the aforesaid manor from time out of mind, by which the aforesaid Thomas at that time when etc. said and uttered that the aforesaid Nicholas was a neif of the aforesaid Lewis, Peter, John and John, regardant to the aforesaid manor in the form aforesaid, as he was well entitled to. And this he is ready to verify; wherefore he prays judgment whether the aforesaid Nicholas should have or maintain his action aforesaid therein against him etc.

And the aforesaid Nicholas says that he should not be barred from having his aforesaid action against the selfsame Thomas by anything alleged above because he says that he is [now] and at the same time when etc. was a free man and of free condition and not the villein of the aforesaid Lewis, Peter, John and John regardant to their manor aforesaid in the form that the aforesaid Thomas has alleged above. And he prays that this may be inquired into by the country; and the aforesaid Thomas likewise etc. Therefore the sheriff is commanded to cause to come here on the morrow of the Ascension twelve etc. by whom etc., and who neither etc., to make recognition etc., because both etc. At which day the parties come here etc. And the sheriff has not sent the writ. Therefore as before the sheriff is commanded to come here in the octaves of Holy Trinity twelve etc. to make recognition in the form aforesaid etc. From which day the aforesaid jury between the parties aforesaid in the aforesaid plea was put in respite here until that day, namely in the octaves of St Michael then next following unless the justices of the lord king assigned to take the assizes in the aforesaid county by form of the statute etc. should have come beforehand to Exeter in the county aforesaid on the Thursday next following the feast of St James the Apostle just past. And now here on that day comes the aforesaid Nicholas by his attorney aforesaid. And the aforesaid justices of assize before whom etc. have sent their record in these words;

Afterwards at the day and place stated within, before Richard Elyot, knight, and Thomas Pygot, justices of the lord king assigned to take the assizes in the aforesaid county by form of the statute etc. the within-named Nicholas Vernicome comes in person. And the within-mentioned Thomas Fawell although solemnly called does not come but makes default. Therefore let the oath of the within-recorded jury be taken against him by default. The jurors, being called, come; who being chosen, tried and sworn to tell the truth concerning the matters stated within, say on their oath that the aforesaid Nicholas is, and at the time of the within-recorded utterance was, a free man and of free condition and not the villein of the within-recorded Lewis Pollard, knight, Peter Caslegh, John Gilbert and John Bodley regardant to the within-recorded manor as the aforesaid Thomas Fawell alleges against him within. And they assess the damages of the aforesaid Nicholas by reason of the false imputation and the utterance of the fame of servile condition, beyond the charges and costs laid out relating to his suit in this matter, at L10, and for those charges and costs 66s. 8d. 

Therefore it is determined that the aforesaid Nicholas should recover against the aforesaid Thomas his damages aforesaid assessed by the aforesaid jurors in the form aforesaid. And the aforesaid Thomas in mercy etc.

(King's Bench 27/1266, m.770. Trinity term 1578. ) 

Surrey. Be it remembered that at another time, namely last Easter term, before the lady the queen at Westminster, came William Netlingham by John Coxe his attorney and brought here in the court of the said lady the queen, then and there, a certain bill of his against Ralph Ode in custody of the marshal etc. in a plea of trespass on the case. And there are pledges for prosecuting, namely John Doo and Richard Roo. Which bill follows in these words:

Surrey. William Netlingham complains of Ralph Ode in custody of the marshal of the Marshalsea of the lady the queen, being before the queen herself, in that although the aforesaid William is a good, true, faithful and honest liegeman and subject of the lady the present queen, and is of good name, fame, conversation and condition, and has been held, spoken of, named, reputed and taken [to be] of such estate and bearing both among many magnates and all other subjects and liegemen as well of the said lady the present queen as of her progenitors the past kings of England from the time of his birth to the present, and has remained and continued unspotted and untainted by any stain of theft, felony, sorcery, falsity or whatsoever other magic or noxious art for the entire time aforesaid, and has never used or undertaken and sorcery or magic art or ever fallen under any suspicion of any such crime, by reason of which the same William has led a peaceful, honest, and praiseworthy life to his own great comfort; nevertheless the aforesaid Ralph, not ignorant of the foregoing, inflamed by malice and envy and stirred up by diabolical inspiration, scheming unjustly and without cause entirely to cut off, impair and denigrate the name, estate and fame of the same William, with which he had previously been imbued, and to cause the same William to be proclaimed and to fall into the reproach, contempt and vituperation of all liegemen of the said lady the present queen, so that all faithful subjects of the said lady the present queen would entirely withdraw from the company of the selfsame William, on the first day of April in the twentieth year of the reign of the said lady the present queen, at Camberwell in the county aforesaid, in the presence and hearing of divers faithful subjects of the said lady the present queen, then and there jpresent, did speak, assert and publish these false, slanderous Englist words following of the said William Netlingham, namely, `If there ever were any witch, thou (speaking to the aforesaid William the present plaintiff) art one.' And the aforesaid William says that there were many sorcerers, called witches, within this realm of England, and that the aforesaid art or sorcery, called witchcraft, is a monstrous transgression and offence against the word of God and the laws and statutes of this realm of England, and also that all those who practise the same art, called witchcraft, offend not only against the word of God and the laws and statutes of this realm of England aforesaid, but also are punished in various ways by the laws of this realm of England. By reason of the utterance and recitation of which words not only is the aforesaid William Nitlingham grievously injured and harmed in his good estate and name, in his dealings to which he was accustomed, and in the company which he had with honest persons and subjects of the said lady the present queen, but also the same William has been compelled and coerced to lay out and spend divers sums of money for clearing himself in this matter; whereof he says that he is the worse and has damage to the value of L100. And therein he produces suit.

And now, at this day, namely Friday next after the morrow of Holy Trinity this same term, until which day the aforesaid Ralph Ode had leave to imparl to the aforesaid bill and then to answer etc., before the lady the queen at Westminster come both the aforesaid William by his attorney aforesaid and the aforesaid Ralph Ode by Thomas Lane his attorney. And the same Ralph denies force and wrong when etc. And he says that the aforesaid William should not have or maintain his action aforesaid therein against him, because he says that at the aforesaid time when the utterance and speaking of the aforesaid English words specified in the aforesaid bill is supposed, he spoke and uttered these words following to the said William, namely, `I (meaning the same Ralph) will not say that thou (meaning the aforesaid William) art a witch, but if there is any witch on earth, as some say there are, I think in my conscience that thou art one;' without this, that he, the same Ralph, did speak of the said William the aforesaid English words specified in the aforesaid declaration, namely, `If there ever were any witch, thou (speaking to the aforesaid William the present plaintiff) art one,' in the manner and form that the aforesaid William complains against him above. And this he is ready to verify; wherefore he prays judgment whether the aforesaid William should have or maintain his action aforesaid against him therein etc.

And the aforesaid William Netlingham says that he should not be barred from having his action aforesaid against the selfsame Ralph by anything alleged above in plea by the aforesaid Ralph Ode, because, as before, he says that the same Ralph spoke the aforesaid English words of the said William Netlingham specified above in the aforesaid declaration, namely, `If there were ever any witch, thou (speaking to the aforesaid William the present plaintiff) art one,' in the manner and form that the aforesaid William Netlingham complains against him above. And he prays that this may be inquired by the country. And the aforesaid Ralph Ode likewise etc. Therefore let a jury therein come before the lady the queen at Westminster the Saturday next after the quindene of Holy Trinity; and who neither etc., to make recognition etc., because both etc. The same day is given to the parties aforesaid there etc., ...[common adjournments om.]. 

Afterwards, at the day and place mentioned within, before John Southcote, one of the justices of the lady the queen assigned to hold pleas before the lady the queen herself, and Thomas Gawdy, another justice of the said lady the queen assigned to hold pleas before the lady the queen herself, justices assigned to take the assizes in the county of Surrey by form of the statute etc., come both the within-named William Netlingham by his attorney and the within-mentioned Ralph Ode by his attorney. And the jurors of the jury of which mention is made within, being called, some of them. namely John Allen and Robert Hiller, come and are sworn on that jury. And because the rest of the jurors of that jury do not appear, therefore others from the bystanders, being chosen by the sheriff at the request of the said William and by command of the aforesaid justices, are newly selected, whose names are attached to the within-recorded panel according to the form of the statute made and provided for such cases; and certain jurors [who] are newly appointed, namely Thomas Goone, James Goulston, Milo Hooker, Geoffrey Payce, Alan Colcook, Richard Mannsfield, William Bristowe, Richard Cuddington, John Repley and Thomas Stone come, who being chosen, tried and sworn to tell the truth about the matter within together with the aforesaid jurors previously impanelled and sworn, they say on their oath that the within-recorded Ralph did speak the within-recorded false slanderous words specified in the declaration within of the said William Netlingham, namely, `If there were ever any witch, thou (speaking to the aforesaid William Netlingham) art one,' in the manner and form that the aforesaid WIlliam Netlingham has alleged in replication within. And they assess the damages of the selfsame William, by reason of the within-recorded matter, beyond the charges and costs laid out by him relating to his suit in this matter, at L6, and for those charges and costs 5s. 

Therefore it is determined that the aforesaid William Netlingham should recover his damages against the said Ralph Ode assessed by the aforesaid jurors in the form aforesaid, and also L5 for his charges and costs awarded with his assent by the court of the lady the queen here in addition; which damages in all amount to L11 5s. And the aforesaid Ralph Ode in mercy. 

Damages L11 5s.