This is an unusual defamation case: a mother, Alice Mayt, publicly accused a man, William Pepard, of having murdered her son, a child. The witnesses give some interesting details about precisely where each was standing when the words were spoken, at a corner by the church in the parish of St. Lawrence Jewry, the various men who testified either just leaning against the wall of the churchyard or standing around outside the craftsmen’s workshops fronting onto the street. There’s also some interesting evidence about scribal practice at the court: a draft of one of the witness’s responses was reorganized and rewritten by one of the court registrars, suggesting that it may have been common for clerks to streamline the narratives in the testimony. Regarding the main issue – the apparent disappearance of Alice Mayte’s child – there are only vague allegations, with no indication of what William Pepard’s link to the child might have been (his apprentice master?).
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fols. 114v, 115v-117v
Response of Alice Mayte, 26 Sep. 1492
Responses made personally by Alice Mayt of the parish of St. Lawrence in Old Jewry [London], 26 September, A.D. etc. [14]92, before Master Richard Blodewell in his dwelling house, in the presence of Richard Wood.
Alice Mayt sworn and examined. To the first, second, third, and fourth positions, she admits their contents. To the fifth position, she responds negatively to all its contents, but she says that she said to William Pepard these words, “Thou wretched man, where has thou done my child,” to whom William answered, “Go look [for] him,” and she said to him, “What said Awsten’s wife to thee in thy garden, thou wretched man.” And otherwise nothing comes to this witness’s mind to testify regarding its contents. To the sixth position, she denies its contents. To the seventh position, she says that she believes what is believed, denies what is denied, and the rest she denies.
Testimony of Sir John Smyth, 27 Oct. 1492
On behalf of William Pepard against Alice Mayte, 27 October A.D. 1492, before Master Hugh Payntwyn, Official in his dwelling house, in the presence of Master Richard Spencer.
Sir John Smyth of the parish of St. Lawrence in Old Jewry, city of London, where he has lived for four years, and before that time in the town of Walden,[1] London diocese, for twelve years and more, literate, of free condition, thirty-five years old as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known William Pepard for four years and Alice Mayte for the same time. To the fifth article, he says that on a certain day around three months ago, which day this witness cannot otherwise specify, he heard Alice Mayte, enraged by anger as it appeared to this witness, saying to William Pepard these words in English or others similar in effect, “Where hast thou do my child, hast thou slain him and murdered him?” And otherwise he has nothing to testify regarding its contents. And he says that these words were spoken in the public road next to the church of St. Lawrence in the Jewry. Asked who was present, he says that he does not know to testify. To the sixth article, he says that he has nothing to testify regarding its contents. To the seventh article, he says that what he said above is true and concerning fame he has nothing to depose.
Testimony of John Roo, 27 Oct. 1492
John Roo of the parish of St. Laurence in Old Jewry, London, where he has lived for five years, literate, of free condition, twenty years old as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known William Pepard for five years and Alice Mayte he first saw on the day about which he will testify below. To the first, second, third, and fourth articles, he says that their contents are true.[2] To the fifth article, he says that on a certain day between the last feasts of the nativity of St. John the Baptist and St. Thomas the Martyr, which day this witness cannot specify, this witness was present in the dwelling house of William Pepard, Sir John Smyth at that time standing and leaning against the wall of the cemetery of the church of St. Laurence, close enough to Pepard’s house that he could hear the words written below, where and when Alice said to William in English these words or others of similar effect, “Where hast thou do my child, thou hast slain him or maimed him, or beaten him away.” And she spoke other words which do not come to the witness’s mind. Immediately then Alice said to William Pepard, “Thou art a whoremonger,” etc. The wall was about eight feet away from the house, and William Tebett stood also in his house also about seven feet away from the wall. To the sixth article, he has nothing to testify about its contents. To the seventh article, he says that what he said above is true and that he has nothing to testify about fame. And this witness stood at the stall of Tebett’s house, and the woman at the stall of Pepard’s house, and the two houses are next to one another. To the fifth article of the libel, he says that on a certain day between the last feasts of the nativity of St. John the Baptist[3] and St. Thomas the Martyr,[4] which day this witness cannot otherwise specify, this witness, standing at the stall of William Tebett’s house across from the church of St. Laurence in the Jewry, heard Alice Mayte standing at William Pepard’s stall and railing at William, who was in his house, saying to him with a malicious and angry spirit, as it appeared to this witness, these words in English or others similar in effect, “Where has thou done my child, thou hast slain him or maimed him or beaten him away,” and immediately afterwards she added and said to William, “Thou art a whoremonger.” These things this witness testified from his own sight and hearing. Questioned who was present there at the time with him, hearing the aforesaid, he says that William Tebett, who was in his workshop, and Sir John Smyth who stood leaning against the cemetery wall of the aforesaid church, not any farther distant than eight feet from the place where Alice stood, so that it was and is very likely that they heard the aforesaid words. To the sixth article, he says that he has nothing to testify regarding its contents. To the seventh article, he says that what he said above is true, and concerning fame he has nothing to testify. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above, and he says that he does not favour one party more than the other, and he responds negatively to its other contents. To the second interrogatory, he answers negatively to all its contents. To the third interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he has nothing to testify regarding its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he did not testify regarding fame, and thus he has nothing to testify regarding its contents.
Testimony of William Tebett, 4 Nov. 1492
4 November, in the cemetery called the Pardon Church-hawe, before Master Peyntwyn, Official of the Consistory, in the presence of Richard Crome.
William Tebett of the parish of St. Lawrence in Old Jewry, London, where he has lived for fifteen years and more, illiterate, of free condition, fifty-six years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known William[5] Pepard for fifteen years and Alice Mayte for five or six years. To the first, second, third, and fourth articles of the libel, he says that their contents are true. To the fifth article, he says that around the last feast of the nativity of St. John the Baptist, which day this witness cannot specify, this witness was present in his own house, together with Sir John Smyth who was standing at that time near the wall of the cemetery of St. Lawrence, and John Roo who was standing near William’s house, when Alice, standing at William’s threshold, with a malicious and angry spirit as it appeared to this witness, said these words in English to William, or others similar in effect, “Where has thou do my child, thou has murdered him or slain him, thou shalt bring him forth.” William responded to her, “Go look where he is, for I have him not.” And otherwise he has nothing to testify regarding its contents. To the sixth article, he says that has nothing to testify regarding its contents. To the seventh article, he says that what he testified above is true, and otherwise concerning fame he has nothing to testify. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above, and he says that he does not favour one party more than the other, and to its other contents he responds negatively. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the third interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he has nothing to testify regarding its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he did not testify regarding fame, and thus he has nothing to testify regarding its contents.
[1] Likely Saffron Walden, Essex.
[2] Following this is written what appears to be a draft, with many insertions, deletions, etc., written by one hand and corrected by another (the latter of which appears to be Richard Spencer’s hand; the former is presumably that of Richard Crome). The draft (indicated here as deleted text) is then re-organized and rewritten on the following folio in the hand of Richard Spencer.
[3] 24 Jun.
[4] Presumably the translation of St. Thomas of Canterbury, 7 July (his primary feast day is 29 Dec.).
[5] MS: Thomas, pres. in error for William.
Consistory 