testimony of Sir Thomas Gilderson
|#178: Richard Chevircourt, Margery Philippis c.  Robert Dow  - Response of Third Party, 1490-10-26|
|source||London Metropolitan Archives, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, 76v-77r|
|summary||Testifies that around 24 June 1490 Richard Chevircourt and Margery Philippis told him, as chaplain of the parish of Basildon, that they had contracted marriage and that Henry Detyly and John Rawlyns also heard them say this. Testifies that although he had heard that Robert Dow (Daw) had previously contracted marriage with Philippis, when this witness issued banns between her and Chevircourt, Dow did not object. Testifies that upon receiving the letters to solemnize the marriage between Chevircourt and Philippis, and after hearing that Dow had received a cow from Philippis`s mother, which he guessed was the price for his keeping quiet, he questioned Dow regarding his alleged contract with Philippis. Dow admitted that they had contracted and that he was willing to affirm this before a judge. Accordingly, this witness cited Dow to appear in the church of St. Paul on the Friday following regarding this. Testifies that he refrained from solemnizing Chevircourt and Philippis` marriage and was absent from the ceremony.|
|placenames||Essex - Basildon Essex - Laindon|
|english translation||latin text|
|Faith term, in the year 90. |
On behalf of Richard Chevircourt and Margery Phillips c. Robert Dow alias Daw.
26 October, before the lord Official, in his house of residence, in my, Richard Spencer`s, presence.
Sir Thomas Gilderson, chaplain of Basildon, parish of Laindon, London, where he has lived for half a year, of free condition, fifty-one years old as he says. He says that he has known Richard Chevircourt and Margery Philipps for half a year and more, and Robert Dow for three or four years. To the first article, he says that around the feast of the nativity of St. John the Baptist last past, Richard and Margery admitted that they had contracted marriage together, with no other parties present, Henry Detyly and John Rawlyns witnessing this admission. And otherwise he has nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the second and third articles, he says that their contents are true. To the fourth article, he says that around the feast of St. John, this witness publicly in the church of Basildon issued banns between Richard and Margery. Robert Daw had previously, as he had heard, contracted with this woman; although he knew about the issuing of the banns, as this witness told him about it, he said nothing against the issuing of the banns. Afterwards, letters were presented to this witness to solemnize marriage between them, and, having heard that Robert had previously received a certain cow from Margery`s mother, and guessing that because of having received this cow Robert was keeping quiet, this witness called the said Robert before him and examined him about whether he had contracted with the said Margery. He said yes, and that he would affirm it before a judge. Then this witness cited him by authority of the said letters to appear in the church of St. Paul on the Friday following so that he might speak to his reclamation against the banns. And he says that because Robert asserted to him that he had contracted marriage with Margery, this witness refrained from and was absent from the solemnization of marriage between Margery and the said Richard. And otherwise he has nothing to depose about its contents. To the fifth article, he says that the things he has said above are true, and he has nothing to depose concerning the fame.
|Termino Fidis, Anno lxxxx. |
Ex parte Ricardi Chevircourt et Margerie Philippis contra Robertum Dow alias Daw
xxvito octobris, coram domino officiali, in domo residencie sue in presencia mei Ricardi Spencer.
Dominus Thomas Gilderson, capellanus de Batleston , parrochia de Layndon London, ubi moram traxit per dimidium anni, libere condicionis, li annorum etatis ut dicit et cetera. Dicit quod Ricardum Chevircourt et Margeriam Philippis per dimidium anni et amplius, Robertum Dow per iii vel iiiior annos bene novit ut dicit. Ad primum articulum, dicit quod circiter [festum] nativitatis sancti Johannis Baptiste ultimum preteritum, dicti Ricardus et Margeria fatebantur se matrimonium adinvicem contraxisse in se, nullis aliis presentibus, presentibus in recognicione huiusmodi Henrico Detyly et Johanne Ra[wlyns]. Et aliter nescit deponere de contentis in eodem. Ad ii et iii articulos, dicit quod continent in se veritatem. Ad iiiitum articulum, dicit quod circiter festum sancti Johannis ultimum, iste juratus publice in ecclesia de Batelston edidit banna matrimonialia inter dictum Ricardum et Margeriam, et Robertus Daw qui prius ut audivit dici contraxit cum dicta muliere sciens de huiusmmodi bannorum edicione ex relacione istius jurati nichil dixit contra edicionem bannorum. Et postea presentata isti jurato litera ad solemnisacionem matrimonii inter eosdem, et iste juratus, audiens quod ipse Robertus prius recepit quandam vaccam a matre dicte Margerie, estimans que quod occasione huiusmodi vacce collationis tacuisset, vocavit coram eo dictum Robertum et eum examinavit [fol. 77r] an contraxit cum dicta Margeria, qui dixit quod sic, et quod hoc affirmaret coram judice. Et tunc iste juratus citavit eundem auctoritate dictarum literarum ad comparendum in ecclesia sancti Pauli die veneris extunc sequenti causam reclamacionis sue dicturum. Et dicit quod pro eo quod ipse Robertus asseruit se contraxisse matrimonium cum dicta Margeria, iste juratus supersedebat et a solemnisacione matrimonii inter eandem Margeriam et dictum Ricardum abfuit, et aliter nescit deponere de contentis in eodem. Ad vtum articulum, dicit quod superius per eum dicta sunt vera, de fama nescit deponere ut dicit.
| Basildon, Essex.|
 Laindon, Essex.
 24 June.