\"arrow\"testimony of Katherine Miller  p-link

#36: John Brocher  c.  Joan Cardif  - Witness for Plaintiff, 1487-07-04
sourceLondon Metropolitan Archives, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, 24r
summaryTestifies that her husband told her Joan Peryn (Cardif) and John Brocher had contracted marriage in Peryn`s house during Lent. Testifies that she was present on 18 April 1487 when Peryn and Brocher confirmed the promise of marriage they had made earlier. Testifies that she in that moment gave Peryn her blessing, and that when Peryn had approached her previously seeking marriage advice regarding Brocher, she told her he was an honest man and suitable for her.
subjectsParental consent 
placenamesEssex - Enfield  Essex - Walthamstow 
english translation latin text
Katherine Miller, wife of John Miller, of the aforesaid parish of Enfield, where she has lived for almost four years, of free condition, fifty-three years old, as she says. Inducted as a witness etc., she says that she has known John Brocher for four years, and Joan Peryn, her daughter, from the time of Joan`s birth. To the first and second articles of the libel, she says that she heard from her husband and from others that John and Joan had contracted marriage between them in Joan`s house during Lent last past. And she says that on the Wednesday in the last Easter Week[1] the aforesaid John and Joan were present in the dwelling-house of her husband at Enfield when John Brocher, in the presence of this witness and her husband, asked Joan whether she wished to make permanent by matrimonial words what she had previously promised before John Miller and others at Walthamstow. Joan responded thus, "Yea, by my faith and my troth," and then John gave her a certain kerchief which she took and put around her neck. This witness, joyful about this matter, gave Joan her blessing. To the third article, she knows nothing concerning its contents other than what she deposed above. To the fourth article, she knows nothing concerning its contents. To the fifth article, she says that what she said above is true and she says that especially in the parish of Enfield John and Joan are thus said and reputed just as is contained in the article, according to her knowledge, as she says. To the sixth article, she says that what she deposed above is true and public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it since the feast of Easter. To the first interrogatory, she says as she said above. To the second and third interrogatories, she says as she said above, and then that when Joan praised John and consulted the witness whether she should have him as her husband, this witness said that John was an honest man and suitable for her, but she did not make any other solicitations or efforts, as she says. And to its other contents she responds negatively. To the fourth interrogatory, she says that she loves well both parties and would love Joan better if Joan would keep her faith and accept John as her husband. And she does not want Joan to have victory in this case because she believes in her conscience that then she would lose her soul. To the fifth interrogatory, she responds negatively to all its contents. To the sixth interrogatory, she says that the fame is the common voice of the people and that it began to circulate from the feast of Easter or at most the time of the issuing of banns between them among the greater part of the neighbours and inhabitants of the parish, and otherwise she knows nothing concerning its contents. To the seventh interrogatory, she says that she knows nothing concerning its contents.Katerina Miller, uxor Johannis Miller, de parrochia de Enfeld predicta, ubi moram traxit fere per iiii annos, libere condicionis, liii annorum etatis ut dicit. Testis et cetera, dicit quod Johannem Brocher per iiiior annos, Johannam Peryn filiam naturalem istius jurate a tempore nativitatis eiusdem Johanne bene novit ut dicit. Ad primum et secundum articulos dicti libelli, dicit quod ista jurata audivit ab eius marito et aliis quod dicti Johannes et Johanna adinvicem contraxerunt matrimonium in domo eiusdem Johanne in xlma ultima preterita. Et dicit quod die mercurii contingente in septimana pasche ultima preterita predictis Johannes et Johanna in domo habitacionis mariti istius jurati apud Enfeld situata presentes fuerunt ubi et quando idem Johannes Brocher in presencia istius jurate et eius mariti interrogavit eandem Johannam an voluit permanere per verba matrimonialia que prius protulit coram Johanne Miller et aliis apud Walcomstow, que respondebat eidem sic, “ye, by feith and my trouth.” Et tunc dictus Johannes donavit eidem quoddam flammiolum quod ipsa recipiens posuit circa collum suum. Et ista jurata ex huiusmodi facto gausa dedit eidem Johanne suam benediccionem. Ad iii articulum, nescit deponere de contentis in eodem aliter quam superius desposuit. Ad iiiitum articulum, quod nescit deponere de contentis in eodem. Ad vtum articulum, dicit quod continet in se veritatem et dicit quod presertim in dicta parrochia de Enfeld quod Johannes et Johanna sic dicti et reputati sunt prout in eidem articulo continetur de sciencia sua ut dicit. Ad vi articulum, dicit quod superius per eum deposita sunt vera et super eis laboraverunt a festo pasche ultimo et laborant publica vox et fama ut dicit. Ad primum interrogatorium, dicit prout superius dixit. Ad secundum et tercium interrogatoria, dicit prout superius dixit. Et tunc quod quando prefata Johanna laudavit dictum Johannem et consuluit istam juratam an haberet eum in maritum, ista jurata dixit quod idem Johannes erat vir honestus et vir conveniens pro ea, et alias labores aut solicitationes non fecit ut dicit. Et ad alia contenta in eodem, respondet negative. Ad iiiitum interrogatorium, dicit quod bene diligit utramque partem casu quo et melius diliget dictam Johannam casu quo servare voluit fidem suam et accipere eundem Johannem in eius maritum. Et nollet eam obtinere victoriam in ista causa eo quod credit in consciencia sua quod tunc perderet animam suam. Ad quintum interrogatorium, respondet negative ad singula contenta in eodem. Ad vitum interrogatorium, dicit quod fama est communis vox populi et illa incepit laborare a festo pasche maxime a tempore edicione bannorum inter eosdem apud maiorem partem vicinorum et habitantium dicte parochie, et aliter nescit deponere de contentis in eodem. Ad vii interrogatorium, dicit quod nescit deponere de contentis in eodem.
[1] I.e. 18 Apr. 1487.