Witnesses for this defamation case depict a vivid scene of Joan John and John Bradfeld arguing with one another by the Hythe[1], Colchester’s harbour some distance from the city itself. Joan accused John Bradfeld of being a “strong thief” and “a false extortioner.” The witnesses called to support John Bradfeld’s defamation suit against Joan John for this fairly unspecific insult were consistent in their description of the scene, but varied in what they said about John Bradfeld’s loss of reputation. In fact, the claims about the harm Joan John’s words were said to have caused seems to have escalated with each witness, suggesting perhaps some coaching from Bradfeld’s lawyer, who might have been alarmed by the lack of testimony about that legally central issue. Each of the four witnesses was examined twice, first to support John Bradfeld’s statement of claim and then to respond to Joan John’s counter-claim. Although in the latter case the answers were mostly too vague to determine the questions (“interrogatories”) to which they responded, it appears that an issue latent in their first depositions was brought to the fore: this was evidently a two-way quarrel and John Bradfeld presumably said some insulting things about Joan John, too. Bradfeld’s witnesses, however, predictably insisted that Joan John was more guilty than he was.
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065 86v-89r
Testimony of John Sanderst, 8 Dec. 1491
8 December, A.D. etc. [14]91, by Master John Millet, Commissary, in his dwelling-house, in my, Richard Woode’s, presence.
On behalf of John Bradfeld c. Joan John
John Sanderst, of the parish of St. Leonard in the town of Colchester [Essex], husbandman, where he has lived for twenty years, illiterate, of free condition, forty years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known John Bradfeld for twenty years, and Joan John for sixteen years. To the first, second, and third articles, he says that he believes their contents to be true. To the fourth article, he says that its contents are true. To the fifth article, he says that on the day of St. Matthew the Apostle [21 Sept.], about a week before the feast of St. Michael the Archangel [29 Sept.] last past, in the presence of this witness, John Parson, Thomas Lalleford, John Bawde, and many others, the said Joan, standing in her dwelling-house in the parish of St. Leonard next to the Hythe of the town of Colchester, and the same John Bradfeld, standing in the street, argued with one another, and many words heaped up between them. At last Joan said to John, with a malicious and angry spirit as it appeared to this witness, the following words in English, or ones similar in effect: “Thou art a strong thief and I will prove thee a thief.” And otherwise this witness knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth and seventh articles, he says that their contents are true. To the eight 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 St. Leonard and other neighbouring places.
Testimony of Thomas Lalleford, 8 Dec. 1491
Thomas Lalleford, of the parish of St. Leonard aforesaid, where he has lived for sixteen years, literate, of free condition, sixty-four years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc. on the libel etc., he says that he has known John Bradfeld for thirty-four years and more, and Joan John for eight or nine years. To the first, second, third, and fourth articles, he says that their contents are true. To the fifth article, he says [that] on the day and at the places about which John Sanderst the first witness testified, this witness was present, together with John Snellyng, John Sanderst, and others, when Joan said to John Bradfeld, in a malicious spirit as it appeared to this witness, these words or others similar in effect: “Thou Bradfeld, thou art a strong thief and a false extortioner, and that will I prove.” And otherwise this witness knows nothing about its contents. To the sixth and seventh articles, he says that their contents are true. To the eighth 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. Leonard and other parishes and neighbouring places.
Testimony of John Parson, 8 Dec. 1491
John Parson, of Holy Trinity parish of the town of Colchester, where he has lived continually for seven or eight years, literate, of free condition, thirty-one years old and more as he says. Inducted as a witness etc. on the libel etc., he says that he has known John Bradfeld from the time of this witness’s discretion, and Joan John for five or six years. To the first, second, third, and fourth articles, he says that their contents are true. To the fifth article, he says that on the day and at the place about which the first witness testified, this witness was present together with John Sanderst, Thomas Lalleford, John Bawde, and others, where and when John and Joan argued and quarreled with one another, and that Joan spoke these words to John in English, or others similar in effect: “Thou art a strong thief and an extortioner.” And Joan spoke many other contumelious and injurious words about John, which this witness at present cannot recall. To the sixth, he says that its contents are true, and that he believes that among certain people John has a lesser reputation because of the imposition of this crime, although he does not have a lesser reputation with this witness, who believes him to be a good, true, and just man. To the seventh, he says that its contents are true, because this witness actually saw the citation written against the said Joan. To the eighth article, he says that what he said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the parishes of the Holy Trinity and St. Leonard and other parishes and neighbouring places.
Testimony of John Bawde, 8 Dec. 1491
John Bawde, of the parish of St. Leonard in the town of Colchester, dyer, where he has lived from the time of his infancy, literate,[2] of free condition, thirty years old or thereabouts, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc. on the libel etc., he says that he has known John Bradfeld from the time of his discretion, and Joan John for twelve years. To the first, second, third, and fourth articles, he says that he believes their contents to be true. To the fifth article, he says that on the day of St. Matthew the Apostle [21 Sept.] last past, Joan John, standing in her dwelling-house, with a malicious spirit against John Bradfeld as it appeared to this witness, burst forth in these words in English, or others similar in effect, that is: “Thou art a strong thief and that will I prove,” and many other injurious and disparaging words that at present do not come to this witness’s mind. There were present then and there and hearing, this witness, John Sanderst, Thomas Lalleford, John Parson, and others whom at present this witness does not recall. To the sixth, he says that with certain good and serious men among John’s neighbours and this witness himself, John’s good fame and opinion have fallen, and John was and will be of less repute with this witness because of the imposition of this crime until John undergoes compurgation to show himself innocent of the crime imputed to him. And he says that John has sustained and still sustains many labours, expenses, and vexations because of the imposition of this crime. To the seventh, he says that its contents are true, because this witness is produced as a witness in this case. To the eighth article, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate concerning it among John’s neighbours.
Testimony of John Sanderst, 8 Dec. 1491
John Sanderst, examined on the interrogatories, says to the first interrogatory what he testified in his examination. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the third interrogatory, he says that if it were in his power to confer victory, he would confer it to the one having right and not otherwise. To the fourth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the fifth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the sixth, he says as he said in the examination. And he says that he believes in his conscience that Joan is more guilty because she spoke those abusive words. To the seventh, he says he was asked to come and give testimony of the truth and at John Bradfeld’s expense.
Testimony of Thomas Lalleford, 8 Dec. 1491
Thomas Lalleford, questioned on the first interrogatory, says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the third interrogatory, he says that he would confer victory if it were in his power to confer to the one who deserved victory. To the fourth and fifth interrogatories, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the sixth, he says as he said above in his examination. And he says that he believes in his conscience that Joan, in speaking those words, is more guilty. To the seventh interrogatory, he says that he was asked by John Bradfeld to come and give testimony of the truth in this case, at John’s expense.
Testimony of John Parson, 8 Dec. 1491
John Parson etc. on the interrogatories etc. To the first, this witness having been told the danger of perjury etc., he says as he said above in his examination. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the third interrogatory, he says that if it were in his power that he would confer victory on John Bradfeld, because he believes John favours justice. To the fourth and fifth interrogatories, he responds negatively to all their contents. To the sixth interrogatory, he says as he testified above in his deposition, and he says that Joan is more worthy of guilt because she spoke those defamatory words. To the seventh, he says that he was requested and asked by John to come and give testimony of the truth, at John’s expense.
Testimony of John Bawde, 8 Dec. 1491
John Bawde etc. on the interrogatories, etc. To the first interrogatory, this witness having been told the danger of perjury etc., he says as he said above in his examination. To the second interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the third interrogatory, he says that he would confer victory on the party having right if it were in his power to confer. To the fourth and fifth interrogatories, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the sixth, he agrees with John Parson examined above. To the seventh, he says that he has come to give testimony of the truth in this case at the request and entreaty of John, and at John’s expense.
[1] See Janet Cooper et al., eds., ‘Medieval Colchester: Growth of the town’, A History of the County of Essex: Volume 9: The Borough of Colchester (1994), at British History Online.
[2] “il-” deleted at the beginning of this word.
Consistory 