This seems a straightforward debt case: William Plumbe sued Richard Reynold over a two-year-old loan of ten shillings that Reynold had only partially repaid. It is worthy of note, however, that the witnesses’ evidence is vague on the central legal issue: debts could be pursued in a church court because failure to pay was a form of perjury or breach of faith, because an oath had been violated. Neither deponent witnessed the solemn swearing to repay that was usually involved in the making of a loan, and instead could only speak to conversations about it afterwards. It is thus quite possible that Plumbe was unsuccessful in his suit.
[Shannon McSheffrey and Collin Bonnell]
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fol. 166rv
Testimony of William Lincoln, Witness for the plaintiff, Jul.-Nov. 1493
On behalf of Plumbe c. Reynold on the libel etc.
William Lincoln of the parish of Dagenham [Essex], London diocese, where he has lived for twenty years, illiterate, of free condition, forty years old and more as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known William Plumbe for twenty years and Richard Reynold for seven years. To the first article, he says that its contents are true. To the second article, he says that on a certain day falling between the feasts of Easter [3 Apr.] and Pentecost [13 May] two years ago [1491], this witness was present in the dwelling house of John Plumbe the younger, together with John Coker and a certain man named Hatche, William Plumbe, and Richard Reynold. After various things were discussed between them, Richard Reynold promised William that he would pay the 10s. 3d. that he owed him. At that time William Plumbe received 20d. in part payment of those ten shillings. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the third and fourth articles, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents except from what William Plumbe has told him. To the fifth article, he believes that it is disputed. To the sixth article, he says that what he said above is true, and concerning fame he knows nothing to depose.
Testimony of John Coker, Witness for the plaintiff, Jul.-Nov. 1493
John Coker of the parish of Dagenham aforesaid, where he has lived for fifty years, illiterate, of free condition, fifty-eight years old and more as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known William Plumbe from the time of his boyhood and Richard Reynold for eight years. To the first article, he says that its contents are true. To the second article, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the third and fourth articles, he says that on a certain day falling between the feasts of St. John the Baptist [24 Jun.] and St. Michael the Archangel [29 Sept.] last past, this witness was present in the cemetery of Dagenham, when and where William Plumbe demanded of Richard that he keep his promise and pay the money that he owed him. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fifth article, he believes that it is disputed. To the sixth article, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate concerning it in the parish of Dagenham.
Consistory 