gentleman who is the victim of a too implicit confidence. In this case, the complainant, John Auger, states that he, " of the grett confydence and trust that he bare to one Anne Kent, syngle-woman, entendyng by the mediacion of her friends to have married the said Anne," and upon a full communication and agreement between himself and the friends of the said Anne that a marriage should take place beween them, "sufferid the same Anne to come and resort and abide in his house; after remaining in which for the space of a month and more, she departed therefrom without the knowledge of the plaintiff, taking with her " dyvers evydences, mynyments, and chartres concernyng the seid house, and also dyvers juells of the value of iiijli, of which, "although oftyntymes requyred " by the plaintiff, she refuses to make restitution; wherefore he prays a writ commanding her to appear on a certain day before the King in his Chancery, etc. Here the parties to the suit appear to have discounted the actual marriage by setting up an experimental household immediately after the conclusion of the marriage contract. Apparently some " incompatibility of temper," or perhaps the innate fickleness of the " said Anne," induced her to bring the experiment to an abrupt conclusion; in carrying her resolution into effect, however, she commit ted the mistake of endeavoring to indemnify herself for the error into which she had fallen, or perhaps to vent her displeasure on her quasi-husband, by carrying off with her all the valuables she could lay her hands on. This the quasi-husband appears to have strongly objected to, although he does not make any sentimental grievance of her property, was evidently prepared to consider himself well rid of his bargain.
The complaint of "Maister Walter Leinster, Doctour of Phisik," which follows, dis closes a very curious story, and affords a striking example of pertinacity in following up an absconding suitor. The primary motive, however, in this as in the preceding instances, seems to have been merely the recovery of moneys actually expended, although the lady's distress of mind and the consequent injury to her health form a moderate item in the schedule of expenses incurred by the unlucky doctor.
In his bill of complaint, addressed to " The right reverend fader in God the Archbussop of York and Chancellor of England," the worthy doctor alleges that " one Maister Richard Narborough, Doctor of Law Sivile, in the moneth of May in the IX. yere of the reigne of the Kyng oure Soveraigne Lord (Edward IV.), att Cambrigge in the countie of Cambrigge, in the presens of your said oratour " affianced one Lucy Brampton, the daughter-in-lawe of the said plaintiff, to have her to wife, and the said Lucy
affianced the said Richard to have him to
her husband; immediately after which affiance, the said Richard informed the plaintiff and the said Lucy that he would " depart over the see unto Padowe, there to applie his stodye for the space of ij yeres," at the end of which time he promised to return to England, and to " espouse the said Lucy according to the law of Holy Chirche," at the same time especially desiring the plaintiff to maintain the said Lucy and a maid-servant to attend upon her, providing them with meat, drink, clothing, and all things necessary, until his return from beyond the sea, when he promised faithfully to repay to the plaintiff all the costs and charges which he had incurred in that behalf; to which the plaintiff agreed, " giffying full trust and confidence to the promises of the said Maister
Richard." The latter, however, departed to
"Padowe," and there and in other places desertion, and, so long as he recovered his absented himself from England for the space of ten years, "to the full grete hurt and hevynes " both of the plaintiff and the said Lucy, who, together with her maid, was provided by the plaintiff during the whole of that time with meat, drink, clothing, and all other necessaries. After the expiration of the ten years, " Maister Richard " returned
