Joan Hancok c. Master Henry Aprece

This is a tale of two Joan Hancoks, sisters-in-law, who appear to have been mistaken for one another several times. The testimony is not entirely clear, but the situation seems to have gone like this: Joan Hancok the elder, who was married to Christopher Hancok, was summoned at least three times before one of the diocese of London’s lower-level courts, either the Commissary court or the Archdeacon’s court, on “a matter of correction” (i.e. an allegation of sin). This was apparently, however, a case of mistaken identity; the judge of the court, realizing this, said she should be dismissed, except he asked her to pay the court’s expenses (8d or 12d). Perhaps not unreasonably, she did not do so; why should she pay for the court’s error? Given that her sister-in-law, also named Joan Hancok (called “the younger” in the testimony) was in another situation confused with her, it’s quite possible that the sinner had in fact been the sister-in-law. When Joan the elder had not paid those court expenses, a summons was issued for her to appear in the court; but for some reason, it was the younger Joan Hancok who went to the court this time, accompanied by her brother Christopher, who was the elder Joan’s husband. The second judge dismissed her as the wrong Joan. Christopher, aided by a Consistory court official, tried to argue that his wife’s fee should be dismissed, but Master Henry Aprece,^[1] to whom the fees were owed, refused to give them up. Christopher promised to send him the money by the following Saturday. Evidently the money did not appear and so on Sunday Joan the elder was officially suspended from entering her parish church (a step below excommunication). Christopher in response went to the Consistory court to seek an order stopping the suspension, which was issued, and that presumably brought the case to court.

[Collin Bonnell and Shannon McSheffrey]

LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fols. 126v-129r, 141v-142r

Testimony of William Hynd, Witness for the plaintiff, 18 Jan. 1493

[On[2] behalf of Hancok c. Aprece, on the positions.

William Hynd of the parish of St. Andrew Hubbard, where he has lived for twelve years, literate, of free condition, thirty-two years old as he says. Sworn as a witness, etc., he says that he has known Joan Hancok for six years and Master Henry Aprece for a year and more. To the first and second positions, he believes their contents are true. To the third position, he says that on a certain day falling between the feasts of St. John the Baptist [24 June] and Christmas, on which day he cannot otherwise specify, he heard from the said Joan and her husband that when Joan appeared before Master Richard Roston in the parish church of St. Laurence Pountney[3] that the said Master Richard said to Joan these words in English or others similar: “Woman, ye be called to the court for diverse causes, but ye be taken for another woman, therefore go you home, in God’s name, for there is nothing against you.” And thus he dismissed her and to the other contents in the position he knows nothing to depose. To the fourth and fifth positions, he says that on a certain day about three months ago, what day he cannot further specify, this witness was present in the parish church of St. Michael le Querne, together with Christopher Hancok and Thomas Hancok, where and when the said Christopher Hancok spoke to Master Richard Draper[4] and said to him these words in English, “Sir, if I would know what is against my wife or my sister,” and then Master Henry Aprece then and there present said, “Nay, it is not for your sister, it is for thy wife, for she oweth 12d. for fees of the court, the which she shall pay me.” And immediately Master Richard said, “I cannot skill of this matter, nor I will not meddle therewith, for it was done before my days.” And then Master Henry said, “Ye must needs meddle with this matter, and other more as will before your time, as after within your time, for the advantage of the court and then ye will give your fee, I will not give mine.” And to the other contents he knows nothing to depose. To the sixth position, he believes it. To the seventh and eighth positions, he said that a certain suspension was issued by the court of the lord official of the arch[deacon] directed to the curate of the church of St. Andrew Hubbard to denounce the said Joan as suspended from entering the church, but the said Joan at that time acquired an inhibition from the Consistory Court of the bishop of London restraining the said Master Richard, Henry Aprece, and the curate of the aforesaid church from proceeding against Joan. To the ninth position, he says what he said above is true and concerning fame he has nothing to depose.]

On behalf of Hancok c. Aprece on the libel, etc.

William Hynd, sherman, of the parish of St. Andrew Hubbard of the City of London, where he has lived for twelve years, literate, of free condition, thirty-two years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Joan Hancok for six years and Master Henry Aprece for two years. To the first part of the said libel, he says that its contents are true as far as he ever knew or understood. To the second part of the said libel, he says that Joan Hancok, the wife of Christopher Hancok, was cited to appear before Master Richard Draper in the parish church of St. Michael le Querne of the city of London on the Wednesday before the last feast of All Hallows [1 Nov.]. She did not appear herself that day, but her husband and his sister, Joan Hancok, who is younger than the married Joan, appeared. Seeing them, Master Henry Aprece said that he had nothing to charge against the younger Joan, but that he had summoned the other older Joan to appear on that day and at that place for the non-payment of 12d that she owed to the court as the fee for her dismissal when she was called previously in a matter of correction. Then Christopher Hancok urged the judge to remit and pardon the said fee, and the judge said that he could do nothing to interfere with this matter as it was owed from before his days. Immediately Master Henry said in English, “Yes, ye must needs meddle in this matter and in other more, and though you lose your fees, I will not lose mine.” And then he says that the said Christopher promised to send Master Henry 12d on the following Saturday. This witness deposes these things from his own sight and hearing, because he was present in the said court with Christopher. Moreover, he says that he saw on the following Sunday a sealed letter, whether a suspension or a citation he does not know, delivered to the curate of St. Andrew’s church. Then the said Christopher, seeing this, went and urged Master Henry to give a letter called a supersedeas[5] and Master Henry refused to give it to him as he heard Christopher saying. And Christopher went to Master William Imbroke and sought an inhibition from the Consistory court to restrain the judge and Master Henry and the curate of the church from proceeding further against Joan Hancok. And he says that he does not know to testify whether the citation or suspension was issued at the instance of Master Henry or at the instance of the judge. To the third part, he says that he believes it is contested. To the fourth part, he says that what he has said above is true, and concerning fame he has nothing to depose. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the third, he says that he does not care which party has victory in the case, and to the other contents he responds negatively.

Testimony of Thomas Hancok, Witness for the plaintiff, 18 Jan. 1493

Thomas Hancok of the parish of St. Sepulchre, city of London, where he has lived in the city of London for seven years, literate, of free condition, thirty-six years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Joan Hancok for three-quarters of a year and Master Henry Aprece for a quarter of a year. To the first part of the said libel, he says that its contents are true as far as this witness ever knew or understood. To the second part, he says that on the Tuesday or Wednesday before the feast of All Hallows last past, this witness was present in the church of St. Michael le Querne of the City of London, together with Christopher Hancok, William Hynd his fellow witness, and Master Robert Mareys. There and then this witness spoke to Master William Imbroke to ask him what the issue was against Joan Hancok, and Master Henry Aprece answered and said that she owed 12d to the court for fees for her dismissal when she was previously called in a matter of correction. And then Master William Imbroke entreated and urged the judge to remit and pardon the said fee. The judge said that he did not want to interfere as it was owed from before his days. And immediately the said Master Henry Aprece said in English, “Ye must needs meddle in this matter, and in other more, and though you lose your fees, I will not lose mine.” And then Christopher Hancok promised that he would come to a fair agreement with Master Henry for the fees before the following Saturday. And these things the deponent testifies from his own sight and hearing. And moreover he says that on the Sunday following, he heard that letters had been issued, whether a citation or a suspension, from the court of the Officiality of the lord archdeacon of London, and were delivered to the curate of the church of St. Andrew. The curate sent for Christopher Hancok and showed him a letter, and said, “It is incumbent on me to enforce this letter against your wife.” And then Christopher came for advice to Master William Imbroke in the cathedral church of St. Paul and to this witness, and he told this witness and Master William that Masters Richard Draper and Henry Aprece had sent a letter of suspension denouncing his wife as suspended [from entering the church]. And then Master William Imbroke went to Masters Richard and Henry and asked them, in the presence of this witness, for a letter called a supersedeas, and then both Master Richard and Master Henry refused to give him one. And then Master William Imbroke left and sought an inhibition from the Official of the Consistory of the bishop of London to inhibit the judge and Master Henry and the curate of the said church from proceeding any further against her. And therefore he believes that the suspension was issued at the request of Master Henry, as he says. To the third part, he says that he believes it is contested. To the fourth part, he says that what he said above is true, and he knows nothing to depose concerning the fame. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he says that he does not care which party has the victory, and he says he does not favour one party more than the other, other than that he wants justice. And to the other contents, he responds negatively.

Response of Master Henry Aprece, Defendant, 26 Feb. 1493

Responses personally made by Master Henry Aprece

Master Henry Aprece sworn on the positions. To the first position, he believes its contents are true as it appears by the certification of the summoner, and he does not believe its other contents. To the second position, he believes its contents are true. To the third position, he does not believe it, except that Master Roston, judicially sitting as judge in the church of St. Lawrence, said to him that because of certain reasons moving his soul, “go forth and leave, because three times you have been taken for another woman, reserving the expenses of the court,” and he warned her to pay the expenses or to appear at the next court to say the reason why not. To the other contents he responds negatively. To the fourth position, he denies it. To the fifth position, he says that the husband of the said Hancok on that day and at that place, as he believes, appeared, and the said Master Henry said to him in English, “Pay the fees of the officers of this court, that is 8d., as for I will none have of you.” And he says that the said suspension was issued at the instance of John Foster, the summoner, as he believes. To the sixth position, he does not believe it as it concerns the deed of another. To the seventh position, he says that the letter of suspension was issued at the instance of Foster as he believes, and not at his instance. To the eighth interrogatory, he denies it but says that his servant at Foster’s request wrote the said suspension. To the ninth interrogatory, he believes what is believed and denies what is denied.

Testimony of John Dowland, Witness for the defendant, 26 Feb. 1493

John Dowland, servant of Master Henry Aprece of the parish of St. Gregory, where he has lived for four years and more, of free condition, nineteen years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Master Henry Aprece for seven years or thereabouts, and Joan Hancok only regarding the day about which he will testify below. To the first part, he says that he knows nothing to depose, and its contents are true as far as this witness ever knew or understood. To the second part, he says that on a certain day between October and December last past, which day he cannot otherwise specify, this witness was present in the church of St. Michael le Querne of the City of London together with John Wiseman, John Foster, John Porter, and others. There and then John Foster certified that he had cited Joan Hancok to appear at that time and place to answer to certain articles touching her soul and concerning correction. On that day she did not appear, and thus as Joan at that court had been legitimately cited, frequently publicly proclaimed, and did not appear, and as penalty for her contumacy, she was suspended following the process of the court, and he says that the suspension was issued at the instance of Foster the summoner.

---

[1] Henry Aprece was a notary who acted as one of the registrars or scribes of the Consistory court (see here, for instance), as a proctor [lawyer] in that same court, and as a functionary of some kind in the lower-level diocesan court involved in this case (either the Commissary or the Archdeacon’s court). Though Aprece was generally given the title of “Master” when he appears in the Consistory, he has not been identified in the biographical registers at Oxford or Cambridge (the variability of spellings of Welsh surnames/patronymics may deter identification); the title “Master” was also used by notaries.

[2] This passage in square brackets is deleted but still legible; it was presumably to be replaced by the largely similar following passage.

[3] As this indicates, the commissary court sat in one of the parish churches in the diocese.

[4] A later case (William Ely c. Master Richard Draper) identifies Draper as the Official (or presiding judge) of the Archdeacon of London (fol. 175v), who had another court; presumably Draper, like the others, fulfilled a number of roles in the diocesan courts, as here he seems to be working at the commissary court.

[5] In other words a letter that would stay the proceedings against Joan until the case could be heard, presumably in the Consistory, the term supersedeas (“you must desist”) coming from the Chancery writ of that name.