1309. Jan. 26.
Langley. |
To the burgomasters (burgimagistris), échevins (scabini), and consules
of the town of Bruges. Whereas the king lately requested them to restore
to Richard de Emeldon, burgess and merchant of Newcastle on Tyne, 27
sacks of wool and 130 great gold florins (florenos), which were saved by
his servants from the fire that happened in the house in that town where
the wool and money was stored, which the said burgomasters, échevins,
and consules afterwards arrested, and to inquire concerning part of the wool
that was taken away and concealed at the time of the fire by certain persons
of that town, and to do justice to the said Richard herein according to the
law merchant; and they subsequently replied by letter that, immediately
after the fire, a tearful complaint and horrible outcry was made before them
by the widow, children, and friends of Peter called 'Zwim,' their townsman, that he and his female servant and all his moveable goods had
perished in the fire, together with his house, which was reputed to be one
of the best in the town, and that the fire did not arise from a fire of his
but from one made elsewhere in the house by order of Robert de Emeldon,
an English merchant, and through his drunkenness, negligence, and crime,
and the said Robert having, as they allege, hired the house of the said
Peter on condition that if the said Peter incurred any damage by fire or
otherwise through the fault of the said Robert, he should be bound to
make good such loss, wherefore the widow, children, and friends of the
said Peter caused all the said Robert's undestroyed goods to be arrested,
and they demanded that amends should be made for the death of the
said Peter, and that the damages should be made good; and that the
said burgomasters, échevins, and consules thereupon sequestrated the said
goods, and that they found by inquiry that the fire arose from negligence
and crime of the said Robert, he having hired the house from the said
Peter under the conditions above stated; and likewise, that when the said
Richard brought the king's said letters to them and sought to have his
goods restored to him, it was objected before them by the other side that
the goods were not his but belonged to the said Robert, because he had
occupied and possessed them and had brought them to the port; which
matter they have ordered to remain in its former state until the king
should be fully informed thereof, as appears by their letters; because it
now appears to the king by the testimony of merchants and others and by
the inspection of the rolls of the custom on wool leaving his kingdom that
all the wool that the said Robert had in that house at the time of the fire
was the goods of the aforesaid Richard, the said Robert having no part in
them; and the king learns for certain from Englishmen and merchants of
other parts frequently making long sojourns in that town and having
knowledge of the liberties and customs of the same, and also from certain
men of the same, that, according to the liberties and customs thereof, no
one can forfeit another person's goods, and that the inquisition aforesaid
ought not to injure the said Richard because he was absent when it was
made, as clearly appears from their letters; it being manifest that all the
wool and other goods that the said Robert had in his custody in the said
house and those that were saved from the fire ought to be rightfully restored to the said Richard as very lord of the same, the king therefore
requests them, putting aside frivolous excuses, to restore without delay the
wool and all the other goods saved from the fire, in whose hands soever
they may be, to the said Richard without any diminution. It is not just
nor consonant with equity that anyone should be punished for the deed of
another whereof he was ignorant and did not make profit (commodum).
They are to so carry themselves in this matter that the said merchant do
not come to the king with renewed complaint for want of justice, whereby
it would behove him to provide him with a remedy elsewhere. |
