Catalogue description Palatinate of Chester: Exchequer of Chester: Pleadings (Paper)

This series consists of paper pleadings relating to equity proceedings in the Exchequer Court of the Palatinate of Chester from 1559 to 1762. For many suits, interrogatories and depositions are also present.

Although this series mainly contains pleadings and related documents it should be noted that some pieces may contain other items, for example one piece contains a draft inquisition post mortem seemingly unrelated to the accompanying pleadings as well as a bundle of draft decrees and orders. Another piece contains a list of obligations from the Chester circuit of the Court of Great Sessions for the only session held between 1643 and 1647; that of February 1643/[4].

The last three pieces in the series, contain a wide variety of records which are unsorted and in many cases undated. Many of these are pleadings and related documents which properly form part of this series. However, there is also a large amount of miscellaneous material including what appear to be private and business papers of attorneys. Some material does not seem to relate to the Chester Exchequer at all. One interesting item noticed is a copy of a speech made to the House of Commons by Sir John Culpepper on the 9 November 1640.

Like other equity courts the Chester Exchequer broadly followed the procedures of the royal Chancery at Westminster. Suits before the court were initiated by a complaint in the form of a written petition, from one party (plaintiff) alleging some wrongful action on the part of another party (defendant). The petition, known as a bill, was usually addressed, in the name of the complainant, to the Chamberlain of the Palatinate of Chester.

Bills followed a general form. They began with a supplication as in the following example: "Hunblie complayneth vnto your good Lordship yor poore orator ..." Then came the presentation of the details of the complaint itself. Finally, the plaintiff usually sought from the court a writ requiring the defendant to appear personally before the court and make an answer to the accusations in the bill. In disputes over sums of money a statement of the exact amount claimed by the plaintiff was added at the end of the formal section of many bills.

The defendant's answer was basically a denial of the allegations presented in the bill followed by the establishment of his version of the dispute. Defendants were required to swear to the veracity of their answers in court. A note, recording the date when this took place, was often made on the top left hand margin of the first page of the answer. Such notes were often in Latin and signed by the court officer before whom the oath was made, often the deputy clerk or the baron.

On some occasions the defendant could reply to a bill without submitting an answer to the court. Instead the reply was made by way of a demurrer, a plea or a disclaimer. A demurrer challenged the jurisdiction of the court to properly hear the case or argued that the plaintiff's bill was technically insufficient and therefore that the defendant was not required to make further answer.

A plea raised an objection based on a point of law which was not apparent from the contents of the bill itself but which nevertheless, if established by the court, made an answer to the bill unnecessary. A disclaimer was a statement by the defendant denying any right or interest to the thing demanded in the plaintiff's bill. These forms of reply are not common in the early years, but become more so from the seventeenth century, and they are found in this series.

In reply to the defendant's answer the plaintiff normally filed a replication. These were usually formulaic in nature and contained little material of consequence. They were short, general denials of the defendant's answer, coupled with an assertion of the validity of the plaintiff's original complaint, the substance of which was often restated. It was possible for the defendant to respond to a replication with a rejoinder, which was a formal restatement of the defendant's case. Such action was rare. However, there are a small number of rejoinders in this series.

The court determined these disputes on the basis of evidence brought before it in the form of written depositions. These were answers, given by witnesses and sometimes the parties themselves, to a series of questions known as interrogatories, prepared by each party in the dispute. In other equity courts interrogatories and their accompanying depositions were not usually filed with the pleadings. However, this series contains many of these records.

The bill seems to have been used by the court to record the early stages in the progress of each suit. Thus they were usually annotated directly below the text of the petition with the date they were received. This was often accompanied by a note, in English or more usually Latin, recording the awarding of a subpoena against the defendant with the day when he or she had to appear in court. Early in the court's life the defendant was required to present his answer at this time and the accompanying answers, which were dated when submitted to the court, reveal that this usually occurred. By the end of Elizabeth I's reign the defendant was required only to appear by the day specified in the subpoena.

This was increasingly done on his behalf by his attorney. Appearances, either in person or by attorney, were recorded on the bill and a new day was set for the return to the court of the defendant's answer. Once again, the annotations on the answers returned to the court show that this deadline was generally adhered to. During the Commonwealth period these various annotations were made in English as they were after 1733 when English became the official language of the courts (although as late as the 1740s some Latin still appears).

The bill was also used to record other court directives or statements. A bill from 1599/[1600] was annotated with a record of the issue of a subpoena returnable on the 8 March. When the defendant did not appear a second note was made on the bill awarding an attachment [or order holding him in contempt] against him. By the middle of the seventeenth century it was common for bills to carry affidavits verifying the delivery of court orders (process) to the defendant by either the plaintiff or increasingly, paid messengers.

A bill from 1642 was annotated "Harpur pro q in forma pauperis." This recorded the fact that Mr Harpur, an attorney of that period, was to act on behalf of the plaintiff who was able to sue as a pauper and receive legal services at the court's expense. By the late seventeenth century many plaintiffs swore a statement before the court requesting that a bond be required of the defendant to enforce his obedience to any subsequent court orders. Such statements were recorded on the bill.