In July 1487, John Brocher sued a young Essex widow, Joan Cardif alias Peryn, to enforce a marriage contract he claimed they had made the previous April. The witnesses – who included Cardif’s own mother and stepfather, both of whom testified against her – said that they had heard the couple exchange vows of marriage. Cardif’s stepfather gave interesting testimony about the delicate financial discussions that preceded the agreement to marriage. John Monk, a local yeoman and evidently of somewhat higher social station than the others, deposed about presiding over an exchange of vows between them. Though Cardif made her promise to marry conditional on her mother’s consent, her mother herself testified that she heard the two repeat their vows in her presence and gladly gave her consent. Banns were issued but evidently Cardif refused to proceed. Her side of the story is absent here. Both the testimony (which clearly supports her having made a binding vow of marriage) and the social pressure even her own family put upon her likely meant that Joan Cardif lost the case and had to marry John Brocher.
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065 22r-24r
Testimony of John Miller, Witness for Plaintiff, 1487-07-04
On behalf of John Brocher c. Joan Cardif alias Peryn
4 July, in the home of the lord Official
John Miller of Enfield, where he has lived for fifty years, weaver, illiterate, of free condition, seventy years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known John Brocher for twenty years and Joan Cardif for four years. To the first and second articles, he says that on the Tuesday before last Easter [10 April], this witness, at John Brocher’s desire and request, went to Joan’s house at Walthamstow. On John’s behalf, this witness gave Joan certain fish, which John sent there through this witness to be prepared for a dinner for him, Joan, and other people coming with him. Joan, having received the fish happily, approached this witness, who was then in the stable, and consulted him about whether John would be a husband for her. He answered her that if she could find it in her heart to love him as her husband, John would be hers forever. Discussing the substance of John’s goods and debts, this witness telling her that the debts held by his creditors did not exceed forty shillings, Joan asked this witness to pay forty shillings to his creditors out of her money (which at that time was in this witness’s hands), so that John Brocher would not have to sell his grain or his chattels. And then came John Brocher, Thomas Lee, and John Monk, and after they had dined in the house, that is in the hall of the house, John Monk asked Joan whether she was free from all contracts of marriage and whether she could find it in her heart to love John as her husband. She answered yes, by her faith. John Monk said further in English, “Joan, how seeist thou, wilt thou have this man,” pointing to John, “to thy husband?” Joan responded, “Yea, by my faith.” Then the aforesaid John, at the instruction of John Monk, said to Joan, holding her by the right hand, “I John take thee Joan for my wedded wife, by my faith and my troth.” Joan immediately responded to him, “I will have you to my wedded husbond, by my feith, but I will not plight you faith and troth till after Easter, that I cover [it] before my mother.” Afterward John, on that same day, gave to Joan a girdle decorated with silver, as this witness heard from Joan. And on that same day they agreed that on the Wednesday of Easter week they would meet in this witness’s dwelling-house in Enfield. When that Wednesday came, John and Joan having come together in that house before this witness and his wife, the aforesaid John asked the aforesaid Joan whether she wished to make permanent the words concerning marriage that she had spoken previously at her own house in Walthamstow. She responded yes, by her faith, and that she wished to have [him] as her husband. Then John gave to her a certain kerchief which she gratefully accepted from him, kissing him and tying the kerchief around her neck. This witness’s wife, Joan’s mother, said to Joan, “On that condition, I give you God’s blessing and mine together.” This witness deposes these things from his own sight and hearing, as he says. To the third article, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing regarding its contents. But he says that after the contract, the aforenamed John sent to Joan eight parcels of his chattels, which she possesses in the present, as he believes. To the fourth article, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing concerning its contents. To the fifth and sixth articles, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate in the aforesaid parishes of Enfield and Walthamstow that the aforesaid John Brocher and Joan contracted marriage together. To the first interrogatory, he says that it was about two p.m. To the second and third interrogatories, he says as he said above. And he says that the aforesaid John asked this witness to be his friend and to offer his good will for taking Joan as his wife, and this witness conceded to him that he wished him well in this matter, but that he would not make other solicitations towards Joan except as he deposed above as he says, and that he had not received nor hopes to receive anything for his testimony as he says. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that he does not love one party more than the other and he wishes that Joan would have John as her husband because she gave her faith in this matter, as he says. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that he has received and will receive nothing for his testimony in this matter and to its other contents he responds negatively. To the sixth interrogatory, he says that the fame is the common voice of the people, and it began to circulate amongst the greater part of his neighbours immediately after the contract as he deposed above, and it took its origin from the issuing of the banns. And otherwise he knows nothing regarding its contents. To the seventh interrogatory, he says as he said above and otherwise he has nothing to depose regarding its contents.
[1] 10 Apr. 1487.
Testimony of Thomas Lee, Witness for Plaintiff, 1487-07-04
Thomas Lee of Enfield, where he has lived for twenty-six years, smith, illiterate, of free condition, seventy years old or thereabouts, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known John Brocher for twenty years, Joan Peryn he first saw and knew on the Tuesday after Palm Sunday [10 April]. To the first and second articles of the libel, he says that on the Tuesday immediately after Palm Sunday he was present in the hall of the dwelling-house of Joan Peryn at Walthamstow, together with Joan, John Brocher, John Monk, Richard Brocher, and John Miller, where and when after the meal and around two p.m. as he recalls, the aforesaid John Monk asked Joan whether she was a woman free and clear from any contract of marriage, and whether she could find it in her heart to have the same John as her husband. And she answered yes, by her faith, adding that since the death of her previous husband she had never seen a man whom she could love and have as her husband except John Brocher. And similarly he asked the same John if he would have Joan as his wife and he said yes. And then John, taking Joan by her right hand, following the instruction of John Monk, first said to her thus, “I John take thee Joan to my wedded wife, thee to love and keep, and as a man ought to love his wife, and thereto I plight thee my troth.” And immediately Joan similarly at the instruction of John Monk said to John Brocher, “I Joan take thee John to my wedded husband, thee to love and to keep as a woman ought to do her husband, and therto I plight the my faith.” And John Monk said that she should say, “thereto I plight the my faith and troth,” and Joan replied immediately to him thus, “I will not plight him my faith and troth till I cover it before my mother.” This witness deposes these things from his own sight and hearing, as he says. To the third article, he says that he knows nothing regarding its contents, except from what he has heard from others. To the fourth article, he says that he knows nothing concerning its contents. To the fifth article, he says that since the feast of Easter John and Joan were said, held, and reputed as husband and wife in the parishes of Enfield and Walthamstow, and that banns were issued between them in the church of Enfield in the hearing of this witness. To the sixth article, he says that what he said above is true and public voice and fame concerning it circulated and circulates in the parish and other neighbouring places. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. And otherwise he knows nothing concerning its contents. To the second and third interogatories, he says as he said above as he heard others say, and he [believes] that the previous witness was a solicitor for marriage between the parties. And to its other contents he responds negatively. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that he equally loves the parties and wishes them to be joined in marriage. And he responds negatively to its other contents. To the fifth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the sixth interrogatory, he says that from the time of the issuing of the banns between John and Joan, public voice and fame circulated concerning those things that he has deposed above amongst the greater part of his neighbours, and the fame is the common voice of the people, as he says. And otherwise he knows nothing regarding its contents. To the seventh interrogatory, he says the he knows nothing concerning its contents.
Testimony of John Monk, Witness for Plaintiff, 1487-07-04
John Monk of the parish of Enfield aforesaid, where he has lived for twenty-four years, literate, yeoman, forty years old and more, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc. concerning the libel etc., he says that he has known John Brocher for thirty years, and he first saw and knew Joan Peryn on the Tuesday about which he will depose below. To the first and second articles of the libel, he agrees with Thomas Lee examined above, with this added, that John and Joan contracted in the manner and form aforesaid at the instruction of this witness, and that Joan first began to speak the marriage words following his instructions, and this excepted, that he says that the contract between them as he recalls was begun and made around twelve noon of that day. To the third article, he says that he knows nothing concerning its contents. To the fourth article, he says that since the feast of Easter Joan acknowledged that she contracted marriage with John in the presence of this witness in the dwelling-house of Richard Styward[1] outside Bishopsgate [London], but said that at the time of this contract she did not think in her heart the words her mouth spoke. To the fifth article of the libel, she says that its contents are true from his knowledge, as he says. To the sixth article, he says that what he said above is true and public voice and fame in the parish of Enfield circulates and circulated concerning it. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second and third interrogatories, he says as he said above. And he responds negatively to its other contents. To the fourth, he says that he stood as godfather to John’s daughter, and he equally loves each party, and he does not want her to win this cause because of the danger for her soul, but he desires that justice be done between them, as he says. To the fifth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the sixth interrogatory, he agrees with Thomas Lee examined above. To the seventh interrogatory, he says that he knows nothing concerning its contents.
[1] Styward was involved in a marriage case himself the following year, a separation on the basis of cruelty.
Testimony of Katherine Miller, Witness for Plaintiff, 1487-07-04
Katherine Miller, wife of John Miller, of the aforesaid parish of Enfield, where she has lived for almost four years, of free condition, fifty-three years old, as she says. Inducted as a witness etc., she says that she has known John Brocher for four years, and Joan Peryn, her daughter, from the time of Joan’s birth. To the first and second articles of the libel, she says that she heard from her husband and from others that John and Joan had contracted marriage between them in Joan’s house during Lent last past. And she says that on the Wednesday in the last Easter Week [18 Apr.] the aforesaid John and Joan were present in the dwelling-house of her husband at Enfield when John Brocher, in the presence of this witness and her husband, asked Joan whether she wished to make permanent by matrimonial words what she had previously promised before John Miller and others at Walthamstow. Joan responded thus, “Yea, by my faith and my troth,” and then John gave her a certain kerchief which she took and put around her neck. This witness, joyful about this matter, gave Joan her blessing. To the third article, she knows nothing concerning its contents other than what she deposed above. To the fourth article, she knows nothing concerning its contents. To the fifth article, she says that what she said above is true and she says that especially in the parish of Enfield John and Joan are thus said and reputed just as is contained in the article, according to her knowledge, as she says. To the sixth article, she says that what she deposed above is true and public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it since the feast of Easter. To the first interrogatory, she says as she said above. To the second and third interrogatories, she says as she said above, and then that when Joan praised John and consulted the witness whether she should have him as her husband, this witness said that John was an honest man and suitable for her, but she did not make any other solicitations or efforts, as she says. And to its other contents she responds negatively. To the fourth interrogatory, she says that she loves well both parties and would love Joan better if Joan would keep her faith and accept John as her husband. And she does not want Joan to have victory in this case because she believes in her conscience that then she would lose her soul. To the fifth interrogatory, she responds negatively to all its contents. To the sixth interrogatory, she says that the fame is the common voice of the people and that it began to circulate from the feast of Easter or at most the time of the issuing of banns between them among the greater part of the neighbours and inhabitants of the parish, and otherwise she knows nothing concerning its contents. To the seventh interrogatory, she says that she knows nothing concerning its contents.
Consistory 
One thought on “John Brocher c. Joan Cardif alias Peryn”