\"arrow\"testimony of Christopher Rotherey  p-link

#54: Thomas Byrch  c.  Elizabeth Barker  - Witness for Plaintiff, 1487-11-22
sourceLondon Metropolitan Archives, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, 39r
summaryTestifies that he had William Story arrested because John Barker, Elizabeth Barker`s father, gave him a letter of attorney to arrest Story on account of money he had stolen from John Barker. Testifies that he would have arrested Story even if his marriage with Elizabeth Barker had been solemnized and that he acted, therefore, with no regards to the marriage suit and court citation.
subjectsIntimidation to influence suit in church court 
placenames(no locations)
english translation latin text
Responses personally made by Christopher Rotherey, 22 November

Christopher Rotherey sworn etc. concerning the interrogatories etc. To the first, he admits all its contents. To the second, he believes that Elizabeth was cited by the apparitor of that Court. To the third interrogatory, he says that he knows nothing concerning its contents, nor concerning any part of it. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that John Barker, the father of Elizabeth Barker, made for this witness a certain letter of attorney to arrest and attach William Story [1] because William had taken from him some of his money against his will, and by virtue of this this witness had him arrested. He did not do this because of the citation or the suit, and he would have made this arrest against William Florey [1] even if marriage had been openly solemnized between this witness and the foresaid Elizabeth, as he says, and he says that he had these letters of attorney before any such case was begun at the Consistory between the aforesaid parties. To the fifth interrogatory, he denies all its contents as far as it concerns himself.
Responsiones personaliter facte per Christoferum Rotherey xxii die Novembris

Christoferus Rotherey juratus et cetera super interrogatoriis et cetera. Ad primum, fatetur singula contenta in eodem. Ad secundum interrogatorium, credit quod citata fuit dicta Elisabeth per apparitorem dicte Curie. Ad iii interrogatorium, dicit quod nescit deponere de contentis in eodem, nec de aliqua parte eiusdem. Ad iiiitum interrogatorium, dicit quod Johannes Berker pater naturalis Elisabeth Berker fecit huic jurato quandam litteram attornati ad arrestandum et attachandum prefatum Willelmum Story eo quod idem Willelmus abstulit pecunias suas nonnullas contra voluntate eiusdem, virtute cuius iste juratus arrestari fecit eundem et hoc non fecit occasione citacionis vel litispendencium et huiusmodi arrestacionem fecisset contra prefatum Willelmum Florey si patenter solemnisatum fuisset et esset matrimonium inter istum juratum et prefatam Elisabeth ut dicit et dicit quod habuit huiusmodi litteras attornati ante causam talem inceptam in Consistorio London inter partes predictas. Ad vtum interrogatorium, negat singula contenta in eodem quatenus concernunt personam suam.
[1] Although at one point the name appears as Story, and the other as Florey, it appears to be the same man.