\"arrow\"testimony of Thomas Lee  p-link

#34: John Brocher  c.  Joan Cardif  - Witness for Plaintiff, 1487-07-04
sourceLondon Metropolitan Archives, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, 23r
summaryTestifies that he witnessed on 10 April 1487, along with John Monk, Richard Brocher, and John Miller, a present contract between Joan Peryn (Cardif) and John Brocher. Testifies that it has been common knowledge in the parishes of Enfield and Walthamstow since Easter that Peryn and Brocher are married, and that he was present at the church of Enfield when banns were issued.
placenamesEssex - Enfield  Essex - Walthamstow 
english translation latin text
Thomas Lee of Enfield, where he has lived for twenty-six years, smith, illiterate, of free condition, seventy years old or thereabouts, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known John Brocher for twenty years, Joan Peryn he first saw and knew on the Tuesday after Palm Sunday[1]. To the first and second articles of the libel, he says that on the Tuesday immediately after Palm Sunday he was present in the hall of the dwelling-house of Joan Peryn at Walthamstow, together with Joan, John Brocher, John Monk, Richard Brocher, and John Miller, where and when after the meal and around two p.m. as he recalls, the aforesaid John Monk asked Joan whether she was a woman free and clear from any contract of marriage, and whether she could find it in her heart to have the same John as her husband. And she answered yes, by her faith, adding that since the death of her previous husband she had never seen a man whom she could love and have as her husband except John Brocher. And similarly he asked the same John if he would have Joan as his wife and he said yes. And then John, taking Joan by her right hand, following the instruction of John Monk, first said to her thus, "I John take thee Joan to my wedded wife, thee to love and keep, and as a man ought to love his wife, and thereto I plight thee my troth." And immediately Joan similarly at the instruction of John Monk said to John Brocher, "I Joan take thee John to my wedded husband, thee to love and to keep as a woman ought to do her husband, and therto I plight the my faith." And John Monk said that she should say, "thereto I plight the my faith and troth," and Joan replied immediately to him thus, "I will not plight him my faith and troth till I cover it before my mother." This witness deposes these things from his own sight and hearing, as he says. To the third article, he says that he knows nothing regarding its contents, except from what he has heard from others. To the fourth article, he says that he knows nothing concerning its contents. To the fifth article, he says that since the feast of Easter John and Joan were said, held, and reputed as husband and wife in the parishes of Enfield and Walthamstow, and that banns were issued between them in the church of Enfield in the hearing of this witness. To the sixth article, he says that what he said above is true and public voice and fame concerning it circulated and circulates in the parish and other neighbouring places. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. And otherwise he knows nothing concerning its contents. To the second and third interogatories, he says as he said above as he heard others say, and he [believes] that the previous witness was a solicitor for marriage between the parties. And to its other contents he responds negatively. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that he equally loves the parties and wishes them to be joined in marriage. And he responds negatively to its other contents. To the fifth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the sixth interrogatory, he says that from the time of the issuing of the banns between John and Joan, public voice and fame circulated concerning those things that he has deposed above amongst the greater part of his neighbours, and the fame is the common voice of the people, as he says. And otherwise he knows nothing regarding its contents. To the seventh interrogatory, he says the he knows nothing concerning its contents.Thomas Lee de Enfeld predicta ubi moram traxit per xxvti annos, faber, illiteratus, libere condicionis, lxx annorum etatis vel circiter ut dicit. Testis et cetera, dicit quod Johannem Brocher pe xxti annos, Johannam Peryn die martis proximo post dominicam in Ramispalmarum ultimam preteritam primo vidit et novit ut dicit. Ad primum et secundum articulos dicti libeli, dicit quod die martis contingente proximo et immediate post dominicam in Ramispalmarum ultimam preteritam presens fuit iste juratus in aula domus habitacionis dicte Johanne Peryn apud Walcomstow unacum dicta Johanna, Johanne Brocher, Johanne Monk, Ricardo Brocher, et Johanne Miller, ubi et quando post prandium et circiter horam iidam post meridiem ut recolit prefatus Johannes Monk interrogavit dictam Johannam an fuit mulier libera et soluta a quocunque contractu matrimoniali, et utrum potuit invenire in corde suo ad habendum eundem Johannem in maritum, que respondebat quod sic, per fidem suam, addendo quod citra mortem sui prioris mariti nunquam vidit virum quem potuit diligere et [...] admodum ad habendum in eius maritum nisi tamen dictum Johannem Brocher et similiter interrogavit eundem Johannem an voluit habere prefatam Johannam in eius uxorem qui respondebat quod sic. Et tunc ipse Johannes tenens antedictam Johannam per manum dexteram, secundum informacionem eiusdem Johannis Monk, primo dixit eidem sic, "I John take the Johan to my weddid wif, the to love and kepe, and as a man owght to love his wife, and therto I pliʒt the my trowth." Et incontinenter prefata Johanna similiter ad informacionem predicti Johannis Monk dixit antenominato Johanni Brocher, "I Johan take the John to my weddid husbond, the to love and to kepe as a woman ought to do her husband, and therto I pliʒt the my feith." Et predictus Johannes Monk dixit quod diceret, "therto I pliʒth the my feith and trouth," et ipsa Johanna respondebat incontinenter eidem sic, "I will not pliʒt him my feith and trouth tyl I cover it befor my moder." Que deponit iste juratus de visu et auditu suis propriis ut dicit. Ad iii articulum, dicit quod nescit deponere de contentis in eodem, nisi de auditu aliorum. Ad iiiitum articulum, nescit deponere de contentis in eodem. Ad v articulum, dicit quod a festo pasche ultimo preterito prefati Johannes et Johanna fuerunt dicti, tenti, et reputati pro viro et uxore in parrochiis de Enfeld et Walcomstow, et quod banna matrimonialia edita fuerunt inter eosdem in ecclesia de Enfeld de auditu et sciencia istius jurati ut dicit. Ad vi articulum, dicit quod superius per eum dicta sunt vera et super eis in dicta parrochia et aliis locis convicinis laboraverunt et laborant publica vox et fama ut dicit. Ad primum interrogatorium, dicit prout superius dixit. Et aliter nescit deponere de contentis in eodem. Ad secundum et tercium interrogatoria, dicit prout superius dixit prout audivit ab aliis dici, et [...] quod precontestis suus erat solicitator pro matrimonio inter partes predictas. [fol. 23v] Et ad alia contenta in eodem respondet negative. Ad iiiitum interrogatorium, dicit quod eque diligit utramque partem et vellet eos matrimonialiter copulari. Et ad alia contenta in eodem, respondet negative. Ad vtum interrogatorium, respondet negative ad singula contenta in eodem. Ad vi interrogatorium, dicit quod a tempore edicionis bannorum inter dictos Johannem et Johannam, laboraverunt publica vox et fama de et super premissis per eum depositis apud maiorem partem vicinorum suorum et fama est communis vox populi ut dicit. Et aliter nescit deponere de contentis in eodem. Ad vii interrogatorium, dicit quod nescit deponere de contentis in eodem.
[1] 10 Apr. 1487.