Chapman v Brindley – Libel & Court Case
Just after sunset on the 26th March 1738 there were a few people around in the centre of Hollinsclough.
There was Francis Chapman, a butcher who also had a shop in Hollinsclough and his wife Grace, about 68 years old, was just outside the shop. Along comes Rachel Brindley a widow aged around 63 or 64, (her maiden name had been Chapman) and her brother John Chapman, about 66, who had a house nearby and sister Zelpha.
There must have been some bad feeling within the Chapman family particularly regarding the shop. In the ensuing scene it becomes obvious that Rachel definitely thinks that Francis has no right to own the shop.
A quarrel broke out between Francis Chapman and Rachel Brindley and her brother John about the possession of the shop. Enter Grace Chapman! At which point personal insults were slung between Grace and Rachel which went on for a good hour, as follows:
Rachel Brindley did say to Grace Chapman “thou art Tom of the Towns Ends whore and Arthur Slacks whore” with other scandalous and defamatory words with an intent to defame her. Unto which Grace Chapman replied “is not Tom of the Towns Ends whore and Arthur Slacks whore as good as Jacob Johnsons whore. “ It later transpired that Jacob Johnson had been “hanged for horse stealing nigh twenty years ago”. (Implication was that Rachel Brindley committed the crime of fornication or adultery)
At which point there was a small gathering of people obviously intending to hear all that was said! Amongst those present were Rachel Redferne, Martha Clows and Samuel Nadin. In the libel case heard the following year, these three people (and John Chapman) were called as witnesses. (It appears that in this case the plaintiff and the defendant were each allowed to call 2 witnesses)
About the witnesses
Rachel Redfern was a local woman aged about 26 years, she was unmarried.
Martha Clows (usually spelt Clowes in parish records) was married to James Clowes – see Longnor Parish Records
Samuel Nadin – had stables just across the street from the Chapman shop. He was about forty years old and had maintained himself for the last seven years by carrying goods on horses
Also
Rachel Brindley may have been the widow of George Brindley buried April 21st 1724. She made buttons and sometimes carried “a pack of buttons and hankerchiefs but had not wandered as a beggar”.
According to our transcriptions Francis Chapman married Grace Naden June 16 1736/38? (Isn’t it always the same, just when you need the accurate detail, it’s impossible to read clearly or it’s missing!) Although we cannot prove that the said Francis and Grace are the two people in this case, the chances that they weren’t beggars belief. Rachel Redferne in her interrogation says that whilst she has known Rachel Brindley since infancy (26 years) she has only known Grace Chapman for about three years. If Grace had come from Hollinsclough or had been married to Francis Chapman for many years, Grace Redferne would undoubtedly have known her.
In 1738 John Chapman was Head Borough and in 1739 Francis Chapman was Head Borough. In 1740 Francis Chapman and John Beswick were warned not to dump “waste garbage and entrails” and “not to let blood from the slaughterhouse run into the brook.” They were later fined 3s 2d each for “permitting blood and Gerbige from out of their house at Holesclough to the constant annoyance of all passing along the road.” (See Manor Court Records also years 1723 & 1725)
The names Chapman and Brindley occur a few years later (1761) when Mary Brindley and her son Chapman are involved in a dispute over property. Whether her son was called Chapman to maintain the family name or because they lived at a property called Chapmans Living I know not. The surname which had occurred since the early 1600’s in Hollinsclough seems to have then died out.
There now follows the transcripts of the Case and Depositions & Interrogations of the witnesses.
The Case
In the Name of God Amen Before the worshipful Richard Rider Esquire Batchelor of Law vicar general in Spirituals and ? principal of the Right Reverend Father in God Richard by divine permission Lord Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, your Surrogate lawfully constituted, or other competent Judge in this behalf, the party of Rachel Brindley Widow against Grace Chapman the wife of Francis Chapman of the parish of Alstonfield in the County of Stafford and Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry and against any other person whatsoever pretending to intervene in the case and so forth.
1. First that all and singular persons whatsoever that shall speak or utter any scandalous defamatory or opprobrious words to the diminution of the good name and credit of any other person are to be admonished and compelled to retract the same and to be canonically punished according to the law and this was and is true & the party proponent lays the same jointly and severally.
2. Also that notwithstanding the premises the said Grace Chapman the wife of Francis Chapman in the months of February and March in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and thirty eight last past, in the months of March, April, May and June in this present year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and thirty nine in all, some or one of the said months within the parish of Alstonfield in the County of Stafford aforesaid or some other parish or place near thereto, but particularly on the twenty sixth day of March last in the open street near to the House or Shop door of the said Francis Chapman situate at Hollins Clough in the parish of Alstonfield aforesaid the said Grace Chapman did wickedly and maliciously utter and declare very scandalous, malicious and defamatory words to or of the said Rachel Brindley then of an unblemished reputation and Character very much to the diminution of the good name, Credit and Reputation of the said Rachel Brindley then of an unblemished reputation and Character and particularly the words following or words to that effect, (to wit) the said Grace Chapman to or of the said Rachel Brindley the party agent in this Cause, said that the said Rachel Brindley was a Whore, with other scandalous and defamatory words with an intent to defame her the said Rachel Brindley, which said words she the said Grace Chapman spoke several times at least once before diverse credible witnesses and as above:
3. Also that the credit and good name of the said Rachel Brindley is by the speaking uttering and publishing of the said defamatory words aforesaid by the said Grace Chapman very much lessened and injured as above.
4. Also that the said Rachel Brindley was before the speaking and publishing of the defamatory words was aforesaid be the said Grace Chapman a person of good Name, Credit and Reputation and commonly accounted reputed and taken to be as above.
5. Also that the said Grace Chapman by speaking uttering and publishing the defamatory words did mean or express that the said Rachel Brindley was a whore and had committed the crime of Adultery or Fornication with some man as above.
6. Also that the said Grace Chapman was and is of the parish of Alstonfield within the County of Stafford and Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry as before.
7. Also that all and singular the premises aforesaid were and are true and so forth.
Depositions & Interrogations
Deposition - Grace Redferne & Martha Clows
The depositions of the witnesses produced upon a libel given in and admitted on the part and behalf of Grace Chapman wife of Francis Chapman against Rachel Brindley of the parish of Alstonfield in the County of Stafford and Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry Widow follow to wit.
Grace Redferne of the said parish of Alstonfield Spinster about twenty six years of age a witness produced upon the said libel examined the eighth day of October 1739.
To the first and second articles of the said libel the Deponent and Martha Clows her fellow witness were present and in company with at the shop door of the said Francis Chapman situate near to the house of John Chapman in the said parish of Alstonfield with the said Grace Chapman and Rachel Brindley and several others when there happened a quarrel between the said Francis Chapman and the said Rachel Brindley and her brother John Chapman about the possession of the said shop and that amongst several defamatory words that passed between the said parties in this cause the said Rachel Brindley the Defendant did say to the said Grace Chapman the plaintiff thou art Tom of the Towns Ends whore and Arthur Slacks whore unto which the said Grace Chapman replied is not Tom of the Towns Ends whore and Arthur Slacks whore as good as Jacob Johnsons whore. The Deponent saith that at the speaking of the said defamatory words she and her said fellow witness were distant about five or six yards from the said defendant and she believes her said fellow witness Martha Clows heard the same spoke at the same time the said deponent did x and further cannot depose?
To the third fourth and fifth articles of the said libel she says that the good name and character of the said plaintiff is lessened in the neighbourhood by the speaking of the said words and she is believed by some persons to have been guilty of fornication or adultery and by others not to have been guilty of the said crimes and before she was a person of a good character in her neighbourhood and further cannot depose?
To the sixth article of the said libel she saith that the said Rachel Brindley is an inhabitant within the parish of Alstonfield aforesaid and thereby subject to this jurisdiction of this court and further cannot depose?
Signed Grace Redferne her mark
reported 8th October 1739
Note: two amendments made from Thomas to Tom written in another hand. Written in this other hand 3 times are the words ‘and further cannot depose?’’
Interrogation of Grace Redferne & Martha Clows
The same person examined the same day upon the interrogation
To the first interrogation…? answered that she knows the nature of an oath and will declare the truth and nothing but the truth. That she lives in the parish of Alstonfield hath known Grace Chapman one of the parties in this cause about three years and Rachel Brindley from her …? infancy and that she cannot remember what discourse? passed between the said plaintiff and defendant immediately before or after the said defamatory words for that? they scolded one another she believes a full hour and further cannot answer.
To the second interrogation she answers that the said defamatory words were spoke by the said Miscreant? of the Prod..? on Monday the twenty sixth day of March last just after sunset at the door of the shop of Francis Chapman situate in the said parish of Alstonfield in the presence of the Pac.. ? cause the said Francis Chapman, John Chapman, Zelpha Chapman and several other girls and she was then about five yards from the said miscreant? when she spoke the said defamed words to the said plaintiffs face who was then either at the said shop door or nigh it and further cannot answer.
To the third interrogation she answers that there had been a dispute about the possession of the shop of the said Francis Chapman between the said Francis Chapman and his wife the said Grace, Rachel Brindley and her brother John and sister Zelpha before the said words to each other before and did after speaking of the said defamatory words and further cannot answer.
Grace Redferne her mark
Reported 8th October 1739
Depositions of John Chapman
The depositions of the witnesses produced upon a libel given in and admitted on the part and behalf of Rachel Brindley Widow against Grace Chapman wife of Francis Chapman of the parish of Alstonfield in the County of Stafford and Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry follow to wit.
John Chapman of the parish of Alstonfield aforesaid husbandman about sixty six years of age a witness produced upon the said libel examined the twenty seventh day of the month of August in the year of our lord 1739.
To the first and second articles of the said libel the deponent saith that on the twenty sixth day of March last past he the Deponent being present with and in company of the said Rachel Brindley Widow the plaintiff the said Grace Chapman the Defendant Francis Chapman husband of the said Grace Chapman and several other neighbours in the street at the end of the Deponents house situate in Alstonfield aforesaid heard the said Grace Chapman the Defendant say the defamatory words following to and of the said Rachel Brindley the said plaintiff who were talking together to wit thou art a Whore and that upon the said Rachel Brindleys asking the said Grace Chapman whose whore she was the said Grace Chapman immediately answered thou art Jacob Johnsons whore the Deponent says also that Samuel Nadin his fellow witness rents a stables which is situate on the other side of the street and upon hearing some defamatory words pass between the said plaintiff and the defendant came out thereof and stood in the said street about ten yards distant from the said Grace Chapman when she spoke the said defamatory words and the Deponent believes heard the same spoke by the said defendant to and of the said plaintiff several times. The deponent says also that he is certain the said Defendant spoke the said defamatory word to and of the said plaintiff because they two had been talking together in a loud manner which made the said Samuel Nadin and several other persons come towards them to hear what was then said and done and further cannot depose.
To the third and fourth articles of the said libel the Deponent says that by reason of the speaking of the said defamatory words the said Rachel Brindleys character and good name is lessened and defamed who before was reputed a person of good name and reputation and that she is now sixty three or four years of age and that the person whose whore the said Grace Chapman said the said Rachel Brindley was was hanged for horse stealing nigh twenty years ago and that she meant thereby that the said Rachel Brindley had committed the crime of fornication or adultery and further cannot depose.
To the fourth and fifth articles of the said libel the Deponent saith that the said Grace Chapman is wife of Francis Chapman a parishioner of the said parish of Alstonfield and thereby subject to the jurisdiction of this court and further referring himself to the laws and to the pleadings in this cause.
Signed by R Rider and John Chapman (Note signatures, not marks)
Reported 27 August 1739
Interrogation of John Chapman
The same person examined the same day upon the interrogation
(The following is difficult to read!)
In the first interrogation the ? answers that the producent? whilst living carried several Manchester Goods in a pack and she sometimes went along with him but since his death she the said producent? has staid at home and made buttons which the ? believes is about twelve years since. The ? says that the producent …… about as a Beggar ……………………….. but on the contrary hath paid Land Tax to wit four shillings and H…. yearly to the King and two shillings yearly to the poor and last year paid three shillings fourpence to the poor and further cannot answer.
To the second interrogation the ? answers that he hath maintained himself for seven years last part by managing a farm that he and his brother who is partner with him paid last year to the King fifty shillings to the poor fifty shillings and several church levies which amounted to nigh seven shillings and to almost five shillings to the Constable that he weed? the S..? about six weeks ago and that he owes nothing and has his farm stocked with all sorts of cattel as are usually kept in the country of his own and further cannot answer.
To the third Interrogation the ? answers that at the time the quarrel happened between the said plaintiff and defendant the said plaintiff did ? ? go to Tom at the Towns End unto which the defendant replied am I his whore unto which the said plaintiff said I don’t say so but he says that he kissed you and further cannot answer.
To the fourth interrogation the ‘ answers that the words the said grace Chapman spoke as aforesaid were Thou art a whore Thou art Jacob Johnsons whore that however heard that the said producent? was suspected to be guilty of adultery or fornication with the said Jacob Johnson and that she is an elderly woman about sixty three or four years of age.
To the fifth interrogation ? answers that the said Grace Chapman was in the street when she spoke the said defamatory words about three or four yards distant from the said Rachel Brindley which words now spoke after sun sett as the ? believes about eight of the clock and further cannot answer.
To the sixth interrogation he is not examined by the order of the miscreant.
To the seventh interrogation the ? answers that he is brother to the said producent that he came with her to Lichfield to assist her in this affair but hath not lent her money to carry on the same
To the eighth interrogation the ? answers that the said quarrel did begin about a shop that the said defendants husband had in possession that belongs to the ? farm and that there was to have been a trial at last Staffs assize about it but the said defendants husband did not appear or present his action and further cannot answer.
Signed by R Rider and John Chapman
Reported 27 August 1739
Deposition of Samuel Nadin
Samuel Nadin of the parish of Alstonfield in the county of Staffs carrier about forty years of age having known the plaintiff Rachel Brindley widow from his infancy and the defendant Grace Chapman wife of Francis Chapman of Alstonfield aforesaid butcher several years, a witness produced upon a libel given in and admitted on the part and on behalf of the said Rachel Brindley against the said Grace Chapman & examined the twenty seventh day of August in the year of our Lord 1739.
To the first and second articles of the said libel the deponent saith that on the twenty sixth day of march last past in the evening the deponent having brought his horses to his stable situate near to the house of John Chapman brother to the said Rachel Brindley in Alstonfield parish aforesaid, heard the said Rachel Brindley and Grace Chapman scolding and talking very loud, and then heard the said Grace Chapman say several times to the said Rachel Brindley, thou art a whore, Thou art Jacob Johnsons whore. The deponent saith also that John Chapman his fellow witness was then present and Rich Chapman his brother, and several other neighbours, and heard the defamatory words spoke by the said defendant to and of the said plaintiff when the deponent heard them. The deponent saith also that Grace Chapman mentioned in the said libel and Grace Chapman mentioned in his deposition is one and the same person and not divers? and referring himself to the laws and pleadings in this cause he knows not further to depose.
To the third and fourth articles of the said libel the deponent saith that the said Rachel Brindley before the speaking of the said defamatory words was a person of good character and he supposeth that the said defamatory words have made her uneasy but that he cannot say how much the defamatory words have lessened her character in the neighbourhood.
To the fifth and sixth articles of the said libel the deponent saith that the said defendant by speaking the said defamatory words did mean that the said plaintiff had been guilty of the c rime of fornication and adultery and that the said Grace Chapman is now wife of Francis Chapman of the parish of Alstonfield aforesaid and thereby subject to the jurisdiction of this court and further cannot depose.
Signed by R Rider and Samuel Nadin
Reported 27 August 1739
Interrogation of Samuel Nadin
The same person examined the same day upon the interrogation
To the first interrogation the ? answers that the producent makes buttons and so has done for all the time of his memory and sometimes carried a pack of buttons and hankerchiefs but not wandered as a beggar. That he never heard she owed parish pay or anything of that nature and believes she pays taxes to King Church and Poor but what in particular he knows not and further cannot answer.
To the second article the ? answers that he hath maintained himself for seven years last past by carrying goods on horses doth not pay anything to the King Church or Poor now but formerly did, never owed the S.. and cannot tell what he is worth if his debts should be paid out of his efforts.
To the third interrogation the ?> answers that at the quarrel interrogate the said Rachel Brindley did bid? the said Grace Chapman go to Tom at the Town’s Ends and but? the ? cannot remember that she then called her a whore that Grace Redfern Martha Clowes John Chapman and the ? and others whom he has forgot now then present and further cannot answer.
To the fourth interrogation the ? answers that when the said defendant spoke the defamatory words aforesaid to and of the said plaintif she said
Thou art a whore, Thou art Jacob Johnsons whore that he never heard that the plaintiff was ever supported of being guilty of adultery or fornication and that she is an elderly woman but how old he cannot tell and further cannot answer.
To the fifth interrogation the ? answers that the miscreant when she spoke the defamatory words was in the street very nigh to the producent and that she spoke the same a little before it was dark on the said day but what hour he cannot say and that there was no partition between the said plaintiff and defendant when the said words were spoke and further cannot answer.
To the sixth interrogation the ? answers that the miscreant and her husband are persons of a good character and reputation and good fortune and live in a handsome manner pay taxes and other dutys and she is esteemed a virtuous woman that there is a dispute between the said John Chapman and the miscreants husband about a shop but he cannot tell whether the said John Chapman is the promoter of this cause or not. The ? doth not believe that the character of the producent is lessened by the said defamatory words or that the neighbours believe her to be a whore and further cannot answer.
To the seventh and eighth interrogation he is not examined by the order of the miscreant.
Signed R Rider and Samuel Nadin
Reported 27 August 1739