f. 265r
Ad secundum articulum dicit quod refert se ad
Leges articulatas.
Ad tertium articulum dicit et deponit that in the
Lent last past, this examinate, Iohan Ienninges
and the defendant Iohan Pynner coming from
hereford all together homewardes, and having
conference aboutes diuers matters, w assoone
and especially touching the plaintiffe Sible
Smithe, the said Iohan Pynner demaunded of
this examinate whether the said Sible Smith
were deliuered of a Child at Biford at this examinates
fathers howse, and this examinate denied the same
wherevppon the said Sible Iohan \pynner/ answered
that she wold iustifie the same, and \she the said Iohan/ said \furth[e]r/
that it was Sible Smithe that was deliuered
of a Boye at Biford, which wordes were
spoken vnto his in the presence of Iohan
Ienninges and this examinate betweene dynders
mill and Vpton being within the parishe of
homlacy as she taketh it Et aliter nescit
deponere.
4. Ad quartum dicit eundem esse verum.
5 Ad quintum dicit quod refert se ad predepositam.
6 Ad sextum dicit that the articulate Sible
Smith is putto expences and chardges
in this matter by reason of the speaking
of the said wordes, and in her opinion
the goode name and fame of the said
Sible by these meanes is impaired and
hurte Et aliter nescit deponere.
Ad vltimum dicit predeposita sua fuisse et esse
vera etc.
To the second article she says that she refers it to the aforesaid.
To the third article she says and deposes that in the Lent last past, this examinate, Joan Jennings, and the defendant, Joan Pynner, coming from Hereford all together homewards, and having conference about diverse matters, and especially touching the plaintiff, Sybil Smith, the said Joan Pynner demanded of this examinate whether the said Sybil Smith was delivered of a child at Byford at this examinate’s father’s house. And this examinate denied the same whereupon the said Joan Pynner answered that she would justify the same, and she, the said Joan [Pynner], said further that it was Sybil Smith that was delivered of a boy at Byford, which words were spoken in the presence of Joan Jennings and this examinate between Dynder’s mill and Upton being within the parish of Holme Lacy as she takes it. And otherwise she knows nothing to depose.
To the fourth she says it is true.
To the fifth she says that she refers to the deposition that she made.
To the sixth she says that the articulate, Sybil Smith, is put to expenses and charges in this matter by reason of the speaking of the said words, and in her opinion the good name and fame of the said Sybil by these means is impaired and hurt. And otherwise she knows nothing to depose.
To the last she says her depositions made above were and are true etc.