In this lawsuit, the deponents, including defendant Richard Haymond himself, all tell different parts of the same story, that Richard was already married to Elizabeth Kirkhouse when a year later he bigamously married Emma Cowper. The point of the lawsuit was clearly to annul Haymond’s marriage to Cowper so that he could resume his spousal relationship with Kirkhouse. But what really happened? It could have been that Haymond really did just suddenly decide that he could no longer deny his previous and true marriage; or perhaps he simply used a previous non-marital relationship with Kirkhouse to get out of a marriage to Cowper he no longer wanted. What Cowper thought of all this is not at all clear from the testimony. The invention of a previous contract to dissolve a marriage one no longer wanted had been a common legal gambit in the London Consistory two to three decades before[1] and was still used occasionally in the 1490s. The court was alert to such fraudulent lawsuits but in the face of clear admissions from the parties and testimony from witnesses, there was not a lot a Consistory court judge could do but rule for the first contract. My guess is that was what happened in this case.
There is a bit of interesting information here about the procedure in such an annulment regarding alimony and the separation of the couple’s estate: that could, of course, get messy.
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fols. 212r-215v.
Testimony of William Ketylwell, 17 Sept. 1494
On behalf of Kirkhouse c. Haymond and Cowper
17 September, A.D. etc. [14]94, by Master William Wilton, Commissary of the lord Official, in my, Richard Grome’s, presence as scribe
William Ketylwell of the parish of Sutton in the county of Kent for a year, and before that time in the parish of Appundon [Lower Heppington, Kent?] for the most part from the time of his birth, illiterate, of free condition, 40 years old or thereabouts as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Elizabeth Kirkhouse for seven years, Richard Haymond for the same time, and Emma Cowper he does not know. To the first and second, he says that on a certain Wednesday falling in the week before the feast of St. John at the Lateran Gate [6 May] six years ago, this witness was present in the dwelling house of the said Richard Haymond in Cornhill, City of London, together with Robert Paytrell, the said Richard, and Elizabeth Kirkhouse. There and then after much was discussed between Richard and Elizabeth about contracting marriage between them, Richard took Elizabeth by her right hand, and said to her in English, “I Richard take thee Elizabeth to my wife, and all others to forsake, and only to thee to take, and thereto I plight thee my troth.” And thus they unclasped their hands and then Elizabeth in similar manner put her hand in Richard’s hand, and said to him in English, “I Elizabeth take thee Richard to my husband, all others to forsake, and only to thee take, and thereto I plight thee my troth.” And thus they unclasped their hands and kissed one another, and also Richard broke a certain silver ring in half, and he gave one half to Elizabeth as a token of the contract that had been made between them, as above. Questioned further, he says that Richard Haymond often knew her carnally and that he fathered a male child on Elizabeth, and this he knows because he heard both from Richard and from Elizabeth that at the time of the contract as related above she was pregnant with that child. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose. To the third article, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fourth article, he says that what he said above is true, and that he knows nothing to depose about the fame.
Testimony of Robert Paytrell, 17 Sep. 1494
Robert Paytrell, tailor, of the parish of St. Botulph without Bishopsgate, City of London, where he has lived for twelve years, illiterate, of free condition, thirty-seven years old and more, as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Elizabeth Kirkhouse for seven years, Richard Haymond for twelve, and Emma Cowper as long as she has been married to Richard. To the first and second articles, he agrees with the first witness examined above, adding this, that this witness says that the child that was born between them was nursed in this witness’s house. And asked whether that child was Richard’s, he says that Richard often confessed it to this witness and in other things he agrees with the witness. To the third article, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning the contract between Emma and Richard, but he says that he has heard that marriage was solemnized between them and that they lived together as man and wife as he believes after the contract that had previously been made between Elizabeth and Richard. To the fourth article, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the parish of St. Cornhill[2] and other neighbouring places. To the first interrogatory, he says as he answered above. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the third interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose. To the fourth interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that he has come to give testimony to the truth at the request of Elizabeth Kirkhouse, and that he does not care which party has victory as long as justice is done. And to its other contents he responds negatively. To the sixth interrogatory.[3] To the seventh interrogatory, he says that he heard that fame circulated amongst the neighbours but this witness does not know the origin of the rumour, but he says that what he said above is true.
Testimony of Stephen Flapp, 4 Oct. 1494
4 October, by the lord Official, in my, Richard Grome’s, presence
Stephen Flapp, brewer, of the parish of St. Michael Cornhill, where he has lived from the time of his birth and where he was born, literate, of free condition, twenty-five years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Elizabeth Kirkhouse for eight years, Richard Haymond from the time of his childhood, and Emma Cowper for five years. To the first and second articles, he says that he knows nothing to depose about their contents, except what he has heard from others, but he says that Richard fathered a female child on Elizabeth, and that he knows this from what Robert Paytrell’s wife told him, who was nurse to that child, and also another child, and that they were commonly said, held, and reputed as man and wife. To the third article, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning the contract between Richard and Emma Cowper, but he says that marriage was solemnized between them and that they lived together as man and wife. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose. To the fourth article, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it both in the City of London and outside it. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he says that he is Richard Haymond’s servant and to its other contents he responds negatively. To the third interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the fourth interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that he has come to offer testimony to the truth at Elizabeth’s request. And he does not care who has victory as long as justice is done. And to its other contents he responds negatively. To the sixth interrogatory, he says that he would spend forty shillings on Agnes’s[4] behalf. To the seventh interrogatory, he says that this fame had its origin from Richard and Elizabeth among their neighbours.
Testimony of Agnes Bakar, 4 Oct. 1494
Agnes Bakar of the parish of St. Olave[5] of the city of London, where she has lived for two years and more, and before that time in the parish of St. Andrew in Eastcheap for forty years, illiterate, of free condition, sixty years old and more, as she says. Sworn as a witness etc., she says that she has known Elizabeth Kirkhouse for seven years, and Richard Haymond for seventeen years, and Emma Cowper as long as she has stood as Richard’s wife. To the first and second articles, she says that she does not know anything to depose about the contract except from what Elizabeth has told her, but she says that Richard frequently knew her carnally, and that she was impregnated by him and that they had a female child together, and this she knows as much from what Richard told her as Elizabeth. And otherwise she knows nothing to depose. To the third article, she agrees with Stephen Flapp examined above. To the fourth article, she says that what she said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate concerning it, both about the sexual intercourse and the contract, both within the parish of St. Michael and the parish of St. Andrew, and in other neighbouring parishes. To the first interrogatory, she says as she said above. To the second interrogatory, she responds negatively. To the third interrogatory, she says as she said above. To the fourth interrogatory, she responds negatively. To the fifth interrogatory, she says that she was asked by Elizabeth to come offer testimony to the truth, and she does not care about the victory as long as justice is done. To the other contents she responds negatively. To the sixth interrogatory, she says that she is a pauper, and that she does not care which party loses in this case. To the seventh interrogatory, she says that the fame had its origin from Elizabeth, and otherwise she knows nothing to depose.
Response of Richard Haymond, 4 Oct. 1494
Responses personally made by Richard Haymond on the positions. To the first and second positions, he admits their contents. To the third position, he says that he left his wife Emma and abstains and still abstains from her company and cohabitation with her, because he precontracted with a certain Elizabeth Kirkhouse about six years ago from the feast of St. Andrew [30 Nov.], before the solemnization between this witness and Emma. To the fourth position, he says that Elizabeth does not labour in such a destitute state but she can live and feed herself. To the fifth position, he says that he has enough goods to feed himself, but not her,[6] but none the less to support her he gives her every week six pence while the case is ongoing and a five-gallon pitcher of best beer. To the seventh position, he says that an accounting has been made of goods between them, and he is ready to follow the law for restoring to her those goods.[7] To the eighth and ninth positions, he admits them. To the tenth position, he says that it is disputed, but not legitimately. To the eleventh and twelfth positions, he believes what is believed and does not believe what is not believed, and he believes that fame circulates concerning the confession.
Responses made by Richard Haymond on the positions submitted on Elizabeth Kirkhouse’s behalf. To the first and second positions, he admits the contents, and says that this contract was made between Richard and Elizabeth on St. Andrew’s day six years ago. To the third position, he admits that marriage was solemnized between this witness and Emma about five years ago, notwithstanding that he had precontracted with the said Elizabeth. To the fourth position, he believes what is believed, and denies what is denied, and admits the fame.
Testimony of Thomas Godyer, 15 Oct. 1494
15 Octo[ber …], by the lord official, in his [dwelling] house in my, Richard Grome’s, presence
Further on behalf of Kirkhouse c. Haymond
Thomas Godyer of the parish of St. Magnus of the City of London, where he has lived for ten years, literate, of free condition, twenty-four years old, as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Elizabeth Kirkhouse for five years and Richard Haymond and Emma Cowper for ten years. To the first and second articles, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents, but he says that Richard often knew her carnally and she was impregnated by him, and he fathered a female child from her. And this he knows from what both Richard and Elizabeth told him. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose. To the third article, he says that on a certain day falling between the feasts of St. Michael [29 Sept.] and Christmas about five years ago, marriage was solemnized between Richard and Emma by the curate there at the church of St. Magnus, and this he knows because this witness was present together with others at the solemnization of that marriage. To the fourth article he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the City of London. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the fourth interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that he was asked by Richard Haymond to come and offer testimony to the truth, and that he does not care about the victory as long as justice is done. And to its other contents he responds negatively. To the sixth interrogatory, he says that he is a pauper and that he does not care who loses this case. To the seventh interrogatory, he says that the fame had its origin from Elizabeth, as he believes. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose.
Testimony of John Cawnton, 16 Oct. 1494
16 October, by the lord Official, in the Consistory place, in my, Richard Grome’s, presence
John Cawnton of the parish of St. Magnus of the City of London, where he has lived for eleven years, literate, of free condition, twenty-three years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Elizabeth Kirkhouse for five years, Richard Haymond for five years, and Emma Cowper for ten years and more. To the first and second articles, he says that he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the third article, he says that he agrees with the same witness. To the fourth article, he says that what he said above is true, and that he doubts the fame. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the third interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the fourth interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that he was asked by Richard Haymond to come and offer testimony to the truth and that he does not care about the victory as long as justice is done. And to the other contents he responds negatively. To the sixth interrogatory, he says that he is worth twenty marks in goods. And that he is of the craft called a hurer of caps. To the seventh interrogatory, he agrees with the last witness examined above.
[1] See a discussion of such mid-century cases in Shannon McSheffrey, “Detective Fiction in the Archives: Court Records and the Uses of Law in Late Medieval England,” History Workshop Journal 65, no. 1 (2008): 65–78 (see here for non-paywalled version with links to HWJ).
[2] The name of the parish is mistakenly omitted. It could have been either St. Peter Cornhill or St. Michael Cornhill.
[3] Sentence unfinished
[4] Agnes’s: this is probably a scribal error for Elizabeth’s.
[5] There were four churches within the City of London bearing a dedication to St. Olave (or Olaf): St Olave Bread Street (a.k.a. St Nicholas Olave); St Olave Silver Street (a.k.a. St Mary Olaf); St Olave Old Jewry; and St Olave towards the Tower. As the latter was the largest of these parishes and closest to the other parishes mentioned in the case, it is more likely to be the one meant here.
[6] It is not clear whether the “her” in this position is Emma or Elizabeth. Given that the last position addressed Elizabeth, this position probably concerns Emma.
[7] In this position, the “her” is presumably Emma, as the goods that she brought into the marriage, now to be declared null if the judgment follows Haymond’s admission that he precontracted with Elizabeth, would be restored to her.
Consistory 
One thought on “Elizabeth Kirkhouse c. Richard Haymond and Emma Cowper”
Comments are closed.