This is a somewhat curious case. It starts out straightforwardly with a witness saying that she heard the defendant, Elizabeth Pecoke, defaming the plaintiff, Elizabeth Pernell, with a rumour of sexual impropriety: Pecoke allegedly told the witness that Pecoke was being “kept” by a married man in the country. But there is only one witness – and for a successful suit, the plaintiff would need two. Pernell herself appeared and said that she, too, had heard Pecoke repeating the story, but that wouldn’t do the trick legally. So we learn a little bit about the circulation of rumour – especially the stories that might spread when a woman left the city (was she being “kept”?) – but Pernell herself could not have won her case with one witness. Someone was giving her bad advice.
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fols. 186rv
Testimony of Alice Reed, 8 Feb. 1494
On behalf of Pernell c. Pecoke
Alice Reed of the parish of St. Mary Staining, city of London, where she has lived for a month, and before that time in the parish of St. Botulph without Aldersgate for four years, literate, of free condition, twenty-six years old and more, as she says. Sworn as a witness etc., she says that she has known Elizabeth Pernell for a year and more and Elizabeth Pecok for two years. To the first and second and third articles, she says that their contents are true. To the fourth and fifth articles, she says that on a certain day falling between the feasts of Easter [7 Apr.] and the Nativity of St. John the Baptist [24 Jun.] last past, which day this witness cannot otherwise specify, this witness was present in her own dwelling house in the parish of St. Botulph, together with Elizabeth Pecok, when after many things discussed between them Elizabeth said to this witness about Elizabeth Pernell, then absent, these words in English or others similar in effect: “Elizabeth Pernell is out into the country to her friends, some folks weeneth [suppose] that a wedded man keepeth her”; the deponent does not know the name of the man. And otherwise she knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth article, she says that she believes that the good fame and opinion of Elizabeth fell because of the speaking of those words. And otherwise she knows nothing to depose about its contents. To the seventh article, she says that its contents are true as far as this witness ever knew or understood. To the eighth article, she says that its contents are true. To the ninth article, she says that it is disputed because she was brought forth as a witness. To the tenth and eleventh articles, she says that what she said above is true and concerning fame she knows nothing to depose.
Response of Elizabeth Pernell, 8 Feb. 1494
Responses personally made by Elizabeth Pernell.
Elizabeth Pernell sworn and examined on the positions, etc. To the first, second, third, and fourth positions, she admits their contents. To the fifth position, she does not believe it, but she says that she heard Elizabeth Pecoke saying the words in the position. To the sixth position, she does not believe it. To the seventh position, she believes what is believed and does not believe what is not believed, and she does not believe the fame.
Consistory 