Item 5, single membrane (20 June) (Rejoinder of Digges and Gape)
The
Reioynder of Iohn Digges
and Iohn Gape
Defendantes to the Replicacion
of Edward Bowes Esquier
Complaynaunte
The said Defendantes Do reioyne mayneteyne and averr the said answere and euery matter and thinge therein conteyned to be good iust and true in such manner and forme as they are therein truly alledged and that the same is very certeyne and sufficient in the Lawe to be replied vnto And further say that the said replicacion of the said Complaynaunte is very incerteyne and insufficient in the lawe to be reioyned vnto Yet nevertheles thadvantage of exception to thinsufficiency thereof to theis Defendantes at all times hereafter saved then theis Defendantes for further Reioynder Doe reioyne & saye as in the said answere they haue said That the said Iohn Napton by his Indentur bearinge the date mencioned in the said answere did graunte assigne ouer to theis Defendantes all his estate interest & terme of yeres in the premisses and that by force thereof the said Defendantes did enter in to the said premisses and were thereof Lawfully possessed as in the said answere is alledged and not by vnlawfull corrupte Chevizaunce excessive vsury or fraude as the Complaynaunte in his said replicacion vntruly hath alledged And further theis Defendantes saie that the said Complaynaunte and the said Glover mencioned in the said Replicacion have vsed extraordynary delayes in theire pleadinges and that the said Complaynaunte Doth certeynly knowe the true and Iust title of the said Defendantes and yet notwithstandinge seketh to make voide the same by Synister and harde Dealinge as in the said answere of the said Defendantes is alledged Without yat that the said demise and graunte made to the said Defendantes by the said Iohn Napton was made vppon ane vnlawfull corrupt Cheviezaunce to deceyve the said morgan Pope as in the said bill and Replicacion is verry vntruly alledged And with that that the said Iohn Napton did alienate assigne and set ouer the premisses with thappurtenances before the lawfull conveyaunce as afore said made to theis defendantes as is likewise in the said bill and Replicacion of the said Complaynaunte vntruly alledged/ And without that that there is any other matter etc./ (signed) Cowper
°xxo Die Iunij Anno Regine
Elizabethae xxvjto°
Record title: Court of Requests: Edward Bowes v. John Digges and John
Gape
Repository:
TNA
Shelfmark: REQ 2/177/35
Repository location: Kew
In this case of 1584, Edward Bowes launched a countersuit against John Digges and John Gape in the court of Requests regarding who was the rightful lessee of the Bear Garden on the Barge, Bell and Cock property. Edward Wistowe, after leasing the property from William Payne in 1572–3, had in 1578 assigned it to grocer John Napton. Napton, in serious financial difficulties, in March 1578-9 assigned it to his creditors Digges and Gape, and then in December 1579 to another creditor, the goldsmith Morgan Pope. Pope and Edward Bowes (a brother of Ralph Bowes, then Master of Bears) and William Glover began games there. Digges and Gape then brought suits against Bowes and Glover, possibly initially in the Southwark Assizes and in the King's Bench. From there the case was taken to the court of Requests. It seems the court's decision was in favour of Pope and Bowes, or there was a settlement, as between 1585–90 Pope retained control of the Bear Garden.
See also Letter from Sir Francis Walsingham to the Lords of the Privy Council, and Court of Requests: Order in the case of Bowes v. Digges and Gape.
Not much is known of Digges and Gape. John Digges seems likely to have been the illegitimate son of Edmund Tilney (1536–1610), master of the Revels, 1579–1610. He was a merchant taylor and an employee of the Revels Office from 1579 until 1585, though somewhat dodgy in character; see further William Streitberger, The Masters of the Revels and Elizabeth I's Court Theatre (Oxford, 2016), 148–9.
1584; English and Latin; 8 items;
unnumbered; tied with string at the top left corner:
Item 1: 26
June 1584; paper; 17 leaves, written on one side only; approximately
345mm x 265mm, except for f [14] a torn fragment 272mm x 185mm;
unnumbered; some fraying to edges; no decoration; no endorsement.
Depositions on behalf of Edward Bowes, each leaf signed at the foot by
the deponent in question or on his behalf.
Item 2: undated;
parchment; single membrane, written one side only; 575mm x 575mm; good
condition; no endorsement. Interrogatories on behalf of Edward Bowes.
Item 3: 22 June 1584; paper; 345mm x 255m; 8 leaves; written on
one side only; unnumbered; good condition; no decoration; paper tie in
top left corner. Depositions on behalf of John Digges and John Gape,
each leaf signed by deponent or on his behalf.
Item 4: undated;
parchment; single membrane; 400mm x 285mm; hole (40mm x 50mm) at the
foot but no loss of text; no decoration; no endorsement. Interrogatories
on the behalf of John Digges and John Gape.
Item 5: 20 June 1584;
parchment; single membrane; 128mm x 435mm; good condition; no
decoration; no endorsement. Rejoinder of John Digges and John Gape.
Item 6: 6 May 1584; vellum; single membrane; 330mm x 450mm; good
condition; no decoration; no endorsement. Replication of Edward Bowes.
Item 7: 11 February 1583/4; vellum; single membrane; 340mm x 485mm
(text area: 250mm x 455mm); no decoration; good condition; no
endorsement. Answer of John Digges and John Gape.
Item 8: 30
January 1583/4; parchment; single membrane; 360mm x 600mm; no
decoration; generally good condition, 2 small holes but no loss of text;
endorsed: 'Edwardus Bowes Esq versus Iohannem
Gape et | Iohannem Digges defendentes,' left
hand side: 'xxxo die Ianuarij Anno |
Regni Regine Elizabethe Etc xxvito | fuit Breve de Privato
Sigillo directum parti
defendentis ad | comparendum
Immediate sub pena C li. Etc | Vocetur
per municionem,' followed by signatures,
'Thomas Se<..>on' and the
second illegible. Bill of Complaint.