The London Eyre of 1276. Originally published by London Record Society, London, 1976.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying and sponsored by London Record Society. All rights reserved.
470. [m. 17] (fn. 3) The king has sent to Master Roger de Seyton and his fellow justices his writ in these words: 'Edward [I] to Master Roger de Seyton and his fellow justices; whereas Maud Attelowe has long been engaged in a suit by our writ against Isabel Harang in the husting before the mayor and sheriffs of London concerning one messuage with appurtenances in the suburb of London; the action has been too long delayed because Isabel vouched to warranty a boy who was under age; since we have summoned the eyre at the Tower on the morrow of the Purification [3 Feb.], and have ordered the mayor and sheriffs to produce the record and proceedings of the action with the original writ and all other relevant documents on a set day and to fix the same day for the parties to appear before you in the action so that there should be a just process; we order you to bring to a conclusion the record and proceedings of the action received from the mayor and sheriffs and carefully inspected by them; at Winchester, 25 January 4 Edward I .'
Thereupon the mayor and citizens come and say that they are not bound to answer before the justices in eyre at the Tower of London about any tenement which is within the liberty of the City unless the party impleaded vouches to warranty someone living outside the City. They say also that they can make no record while the justices are sitting at the Tower. Because it is found by inspection of the rolls of the last eyre that the mayor and citizens gave a like answer in a similar case, Maud is told to return to the husting after the eyre.
471. The jury upon which John de Elylaund plaintiff and Master Nicholas Curteney have put themselves find as follows: a quarrel broke out between John and Nicholas on Friday after the Purification [7 Feb.], after the summons of the eyre, in Smythfeld market, and Nicholas took out his knife intending to strike John in the throat; John interposed his hand and Nicholas wounded him in the hand with the knife. Therefore it is adjudged that Nicholas be taken into custody for a trespass committed after the summons of the eyre and against the peace; he is to satisfy John for his damages which are assessed at 5s. Afterwards Nicholas comes and makes fine of *2 marks on the pledges of Hugh de Kendale and William de Birley. [cf. 488, 706]
472. Eleanor queen of England, the king's mother, vouched to warranty by the Friars of the Penitence of Jesus Christ, appoints in her place Nicholas son of Henry against John Duraunt on a plea of land. [cf. 485, 514]
473. The king has ordered Master Roger de Seyton (fn. 5) to enquire by a jury whether the loss of an ear by John son of William de Bosco citizen of London happened by accident through the bite of a horse in his father's stable which took his right ear completely away from his head, or by his own fault; and to send to the inquisition to him. The inquisition was held by Walter Box, Robert Otes, Peter Miles, Richard de Habindon, John Seyer, Simon de Gandauo, Robert de Rokeslee, Robert Hayron, Peter Cosin, Robert de Mars, Walter la Forde, John de la Wyllesende; they say on their oath that the loss of John's ear was an accident and not his fault. So let the inquisition be sent to the king with the writ patent.
474. William Boxe of London was summoned to answer Christine widow of Robert le Carpenter on a plea that he render her 56s. which he owes her and unjustly withholds. She claims that she sold William six quarters of wheat for 56s. in 54 Henry III [1269–70], to be paid at the following Christmas and complains that William withholds the money and refuses to render it to her, whence she says she has suffered damage and loss to the value of 50s. She brings suit and likewise produces the tally for the debt. William comes and denies force. He acknowledges the tally and agrees that he received the wheat for the said price, but says that at the time he took the wheat he was the king's purveyor and took it for the king's use and gave it up to the king's wardrobe. He had the wheat and the price enrolled on the roll of the wardrobe and he himself has so far received nothing. He puts himself upon the record of the rolls of the wardrobe. He seeks a day to certify the justices thereon and is given Wednesday in the second week of Lent [4 Mar. 1276].
475. Robert de Araz and Stephen de Munden have acknowledged that they owe the king 4 marks which they will pay in fifteen days from Easter [19 Apr. 1276]. If they do not do so, they grant that the sheriffs are to levy it from their lands and chattels. (London recognicio.)
476. 'Edward by the grace of God; at the instance of Robert [Kilwardby] archbishop of Canterbury we have pardoned Master Thomas de Pyvelesdon all displeasure and rancour conceived against him by reason of the trespasses allegedly committed against us at the time of the late disturbances and have admitted him to our grace and peace on condition that henceforth he conduct himself well and faithfully towards us and our heirs; at Westminster, 5 June 3 Edward I .' (Carta magistri Thome de Pevelesdon.) (fn. 5)
477. Alice widow of Gilbert de Preston sued the prior of Holy Trinity in the husting for the third part of one messuage and one curtilage with appurtenances in London as her dower. The prior came to the husting and vouched to warranty Laurence de Preston who is not of the liberty of the City, but lives in Northamptonshire. So the plea was respited according to the custom of the City. The prior comes now and vouches Laurence to warranty; he is to have him before the justices at Westminster in fifteen days from Easter [19 Apr. 1276] with the aid of the court because he is a stranger. Let him be summoned in Northamptonshire.
478. Gilbert de Oxford and his wife Alice sued Stephen le Saltere and his wife Felice in the husting for one messuage with appurtenances in London as Alice's dower. Stephen and Felice appeared in the husting and vouched to warranty Henry son of Peter Everard of Cippenham, who is not of the liberty of the City, but lives outside in Buckinghamshire, so that the plea was respited according to the custom of the City. Stephen and Felice come now and vouch Henry to warranty; they are to have him before the justices at Westminster in fifteen days from Easter [19 Apr. 1276] with the aid of the court. Let him be summoned in Buckinghamshire.
481. Thomas de Clare has acknowledged that he has given to Stephen de Cornhull all that messuage which he had in the parish of St. Mary Bothaw by his charter in these words: 'We Thomas de Clare knight have given to Stephen de Cornhull citizen and draper of London all that messuage with all buildings, rents, liberties and appurtenances in the parish of St. Mary Bothawe which we had of the grant of Edmund of Almain (Alemanni), earl of Cornwall, our brother, to have and hold by him and his heirs or anyone to whom he shall give, bequeath, sell or assign it in perpetuity, rendering yearly at Michaelmas one penny and the service due to the chief lords of the fee; and we undertake to warrant the same to him, his heirs and assigns against all men in perpetuity. Witnesses: Gregory de Rokesle then mayor of the city of London and alderman of the ward [of Dowgate], Ralph le Blund and John Horn then sheriffs of London, Richard de Affron, Henry de Cokington, Nicholas Cyphywast, knights, Henry le Waleys, John Adrian, William de Durham, Nicholas de Winchester, Reginald de Suffolk, Philip le Tayllour, Richard de Wilehale, Henry de Hereford, William de Rokeslee, Peter Cosin, Simon de Gaunt, William de Bosco, Anketin de Botevil, Robert de Linton, William Bigod clerk, and others [1275–6]. (London. Cart a Stephani de Cornhell per Thomam de [Clare] militem.)
482. [m. 17d] Joan widow of John son of Saer sued Henry le Waleys in the husting for the third part of a messuage with appurtenances in London as her dower. Henry appeared in the husting and vouched to warranty Thomas de Warpenbur' who is not of the liberty of the City, but lives outside in Warwickshire. So the plea was respited according to the custom of the City. Henry comes now and vouches Thomas to warranty. They are to have him here on Monday in the third week of Lent [9 Mar. 1276] with the aid of the court. Let him be summoned in Warwickshire.
483. Henry de Shobyr was summoned to answer Roger de Tovy on a plea that according to the custom of the City he do all the services due from his free tenement in London which he holds of Roger, as in arrears of rent and other things; he complains that whereas Henry holds of him a messuage with appurtenances in the City by the service of 2 marks a year for every service, and Roger was seised of the service by Henry's hand until ten years ago, Henry has refused to do him the service. Wherefore he says that for default of service the messuage should be gavelet; he also says that he has suffered loss and damage to the value of £20 and brings suit. Henry comes and denies force and injury; he acknowledges that he holds the messuage from Roger for the said service, but he says that he is not in arrears and he is prepared to prove this as the court shall adjudge. Thereupon the mayor and citizens of London come and say that this plea of customs and services should not be pleaded or terminated here or anywhere but in the husting. Because Henry freely answered the writ, the mayor and citizens agree that the plea should proceed here, saving [their right]. So the sheriff is ordered to produce on the morrow twelve [men]. Afterwards the parties agreed as appears on the following roll. [cf. 480, 489]
484. Clarice widow of John de Lynde claims against the master of the house of St. Thomas of Acon her reasonable dower due to her from the free tenement which belonged to her husband in London, from which she has nothing. Thereupon the mayor and bailiffs come and say that this writ of dower should not be pleaded here unless it had previously been initiated in the husting and then the plea had been respited until the eyre of the justices because the tenant had vouched to warranty someone who was not of the liberty of the City. They ask that the plea should not proceed here and they proffer a royal writ in these words: 'Edward to his justices in eyre at the Tower of London; after consultation and discussion of the content of your letters to us concerning ambiguities relating to customs and liberties of the City of London during the present eyre; we order you to allow the citizens to enjoy the rights granted by the charter of our father Henry when he admitted them to his grace and favour and renounced the anger conceived against them at the time of the disturbance in the realm; to allow them to enjoy the liberties and customs contained in that charter; to deal with them favourably and with justice and to be guided by Ralph de Hengham (fn. 12) whom we send to you with fuller instructions on these matters, and to proceed according to his counsel; at Poulton, 14 February 4 Edward I '. Thereupon Ralph de Hengham comes and says that it was ordained before the king and the whole council that the citizens should have the liberties contained in the charter, and should neither plead nor be impleaded concerning tenures and tenements belonging to them within the City in this eyre by any writ unless the writ had been initiated in the husting and then transferred here because the tenant vouched to warranty someone who was not of the liberty of the City; and that the action should proceed in this eyre as was the custom in other eyres. So Clarice is told to go to the husting and sue there. [cf. 720]
Nota 101. Consuetudo recordata quod justiciarii non debent tenere placita terra coram eis in itinere. (fn. 13) Breve regis directum justiciariis ut cives possint gaudere libertatibus suis [cf. 524 no. 101].
485. John Duraunt sued the prior of the Friars of the Penitence of Jesus Christ of London in the husting for two messuages with appurtenances in London as his right by writ of right patent. The prior appeared in the husting and vouched to warranty Eleanor the queen-mother, who is not of the liberty of the City, but lives outside in Surrey, so that the plea was respited according to the custom of the City because she was a stranger. The prior comes and vouches Eleanor to warranty, to have her here on Monday in the third week of Lent [9 Mar. 1276] with the aid of the court. Let her be summoned in Surrey. [cf. 472, 514]
486. Roger de Hampton clerk has acknowledged that he owes Ellis Tolosan clerk one surcoat worth 1 mark, payable to Ellis at Easter next. If he does not do so, he grants that the sheriffs of London are to levy it from his lands and chattels. (London'. Recognicio.)
487. Deodatus the queen's servant (fn. 16) complains of Geoffrey de Rothingg and Robert de Esture that on Saturday before the feast of St. Margaret 47 Henry III [14 July 1263] they came with force and arms to Deodatus' house in London where the queen had in store cloths and gold, cloths of silk and Flemish cloths of various colours, silver flagons, gold and silver cups, silver dishes, rubies, emeralds and other precious stones, and many other jewels, to the value of £600; they took and carried off these cloths, stones and jewels against the peace, whence Deodatus says that he has suffered loss and damage to the value etc. and now he brings suit. Geoffrey and Robert come and deny force and injury. They deny that they went to Deodatus' house and took away the goods as he accuses them. They put themselves upon the verdict of the mayor and aldermen who say in the faith in which they are bound to the king that they never went to Deodatus' house or took away the goods. Therefore it is adjudged that Geoffrey and Robert be quit and Deodatus in *mercy. [cf. 707]
488. Master Nicholas de Curtenay complains of John de Elilaund that one Friday this year at Smethefeud fair he sold him a blind horse, which he declared was able to see well; afterwards it was agreed between them that Nicholas should keep the horse in his house for the whole night and if he was not pleased with it he would then give it back. On the following day Nicholas returned the horse to John, but he refused to take it back, whence Nicholas says that he has suffered loss and damage to the value of 100s. and he brings suit. John comes and denies force and injury. He acknowledges that he sold Nicholas the horse, but says that it was not completely blind, and only had defective vision (defectum visus); it was agreed between them that Nicholas should keep the horse for the whole night and, if he was not pleased with it, he would send it back the following day. He says that Nicholas did not send the horse back on that day, but he kept it for a month and then brought it back at the end of the month. He is prepared to prove this as the court adjudges. Nicholas says that proof of this covenant and likewise of the offer of the horse on the following day belongs elsewhere according to the custom of the City. He produces two witnesses who were present when he returned the horse to John on the day after the said Friday, viz. John de Ba . . . chaplain and Edmund Joun. Thereupon the mayor and aldermen are asked whether according to the custom of the City John should clear himself by jury or twelve-handed, or Nicholas by two witnesses; they say in the faith in which they are bound to the king that in covenants and debts of this kind contracted in the City the demandant is nearer to prove his word (propinquior ad probandum dictum suum) and assertion by two witnesses than the defendant to defend himself by jury or by law. John says that although according to the custom of the City Nicholas should verify and prove his word by witnesses, the witnesses produced are not suitable or acceptable because one of them is a clerk and it is the custom of the City that no clerk should be received to make any proof or deraignment unless to produce a will (nisi ad testamentum perhibendum). Because the mayor and barons put on record and bear witness to this and likewise because since he formerly produced unsuitable witnesses to offer proof and cannot change them or produce others in their place, it is adjudged that John be without day and Nicholas in *mercy for a false claim. [cf. 471, 708]
489. (London) Memorandum of a covenant made on the day of St. Peter's Chair 4 Edward I [22 Feb. 1276] at the Tower of London before Master Roger de Seyton and his colleagues between Roger de Thovy plaintiff and Henry de Schobir' deforciant for rightful services, which Roger demands from Henry for the free tenement which he holds of him in London: namely 20 marks of silver as arrears of an annual rent of 2 marks from one messuage with appurtenances which Henry holds of him in the parish of St. Augustine in the soke of Thovy. Henry acknowledges that he owes the annual rent of 2 marks payable at two terms of the year, half at Easter and the other half at the quindene of Michaelmas next, 5 marks, and at the octave of Hilary 5 marks, and at the quindene of Easter 5 marks. (fn. 19) Henry grants for himself and his heirs that unless the money is paid at the prescribed terms the sheriffs of London and Surrey are to levy the rent from his lands and chattels and give them without delay to Roger or his heirs. Further he grants for himself and his heirs that if they are in default of payment at any of the terms, Roger and his heirs are to be allowed to enter the tenement and hold it peacefully without regard to the claim of Henry or his heirs in perpetuity. Henry also grants for himself and his heirs in perpetuity that if they or others shall default in the payment of the annual rent of 2 marks at any term and this is proved by the testimony of two neighbours from the soke or ward in which the tenement is situated together with that of Roger or his bailiff or attorney in the next husting after the expiry of the term, then the tenement with appurtenances shall be forfeit without further delay and without other burden of proof to Roger and his heirs as shortforth (fn. 20) to hold peacefully in his demesne quit of the claim of Henry and his heirs in perpetuity. Be it known that it will not be permitted for Henry or his heirs or assigns to lay waste or destroy the houses built on the tenement so that the annual rent cannot be levied and paid in full and so that the tenement with buildings cannot remain intact for Roger or his heirs if by chance it should be forfeit as was stated. In addition Henry grants under the said penalty that his wife Alice should appear in the next husting after Easter and there according to the custom of the City renounce any right in the tenement by reason of heredity or other feoffment hitherto contracted as is more fully contained in a deed drawn up between them. (Concordia irrotulata.) [cf. 480, 483]
490. [m. 18] William Heyron has acknowledged that he owes Master Roger de Seyton £28 of which he is to pay half at Whitsun and the other half at Martinmas. If he does not do so, he grants that the sheriff is to obtain satisfaction from his lands and chattels. (Northumbria. Ebor'. Recognicio.)
491. Robert le Ringerer complains of Martin le Criour and Walter Hervy that on Walter's orders Martin went to his house at Flete, entered it by force, and took and carried off his goods and chattels, namely a brooch (firmaculum) and about 300 rings of latten. Afterwards Martin made him renounce his office before Walter, whence he says that he has suffered loss and damage to the value of £40 and he brings suit. Walter and Martin come and deny force and injury. Walter acknowledges that he sent Martin to Robert's house, but says that at the time he was mayor of the City and certain goldsmiths of London had complained that Robert made brooches and rings of latten and set in them precious stones, such as sapphires and other stones, which is against the law and custom of the City and the defence of the realm; because of this he made Robert appear before him and the aldermen in la Gildhall and there by judgment of the court he made him swear that he would not put precious stones in such brooches and rings. He puts himself upon the mayor and aldermen who in the faith in which they are bound to the king testify to this. So Walter is without day and Robert is in *mercy.
492. Memorandum of a covenant made in 4 Edward I [1275–6] between Agnes daughter of Thomas son of William on the one part and William de Burinton clerk on the other; William grants for himself and his heirs that if Agnes shall pay him 90 marks at the octave of St. John the Baptist next, then she shall have restored to her the manor of Thrafferston with which she enfeoffed him, entirely quit of William and his heirs or assigns in perpetuity. If Agnes shall default in the payment of the money on the said day and place [sic], then the enfeoffment shall stand ratified in perpetuity and William shall be obliged to pay Agnes 60 marks immediately without fraud or deceit. If Agnes shall make payment in the said form, then William is to procure the annulment of all enrolments on the rolls of the justices of the Bench concerning the feoffment. (Scriptum. q'... Northumbria.) [cf. 497]
493. Henry le Waleys complains of John de St. Helens that when Henry had a ship in the harbour of Waymue in Dorset with a cargo of hides in the custody of his yeoman (valettus) Geoffrey, to the value of 410 marks, John went there with other men unknown on Monday before Ascension 51 Henry III [23 May 1267] with force and arms and took and carried off the goods that were in Geoffrey's custody against the peace; whence he says he has suffered loss and damage to the value of £300 and brings suit.
John comes and says that at the time when this trespass was supposed to have been committed he was of the household of Gilbert earl of Gloucester and Hertford and in his friendship; the earl was then in the City of London and King Henry pardoned him all trespasses by him and his wherever committed. (fn. 24) So he says he is not bound to answer here and if that does not suffice he will answer more fully. Afterwards on that day John comes and says that he went to the earl who at the time was in Wales and that the earl did not have with him the instruments and writings concerning the pardon which protected him and allowed benefit to the earl and his following. He denies force and injury. He denies that he ever carried off the goods and chattels on the said date as alleged and puts himself upon the jury of the place where the trespass was said to have been committed. Henry [does] likewise. So the sheriff of Dorset is ordered to produce before the justices at St. Martin le Grand London on the morrow of the Ascension [15 May 1276] twelve [men]. Afterwards on that day the jury were respited until the octave of Michaelmas at Westminster for default of the jury because no one came. So the sheriff is to have the bodies at the same term, and also as many from the town of Waymue and the neighbourhood of the town. (fn. 25)
They are given a day on Monday in the third week of Lent [1 Mar. 1277] and Robert de Bryton of Buckinghamshire and Walter de Hocking of Essex are pledged (fn. 26) to have John here at the said term; and he appoints Ellis le Taylour his attorney. (fn. 27)
494. An assize comes in the husting to declare whether Henry Attelethe, father of Amice wife of Henry le Sawyere, was seised in his demesne as of fee of a messuage with appurtenances in London on the day on which [he died] and whether Amice is the next heir. The messuage is held by Thomas le Porer who previously appeared in the husting and vouched to warranty Reginald de Rothinges who is not of the liberty of the City but a stranger, so that the plea was respited according to the custom of the City. Thomas comes and the parties are agreed. The agreement is that Thomas acknowledges that the messuage belongs to Amice and he has restored it to her. So let her have seisin. And for this Henry and Amice give Thomas a silver mark.
495. John de Cameys and his wife Margery (Margeria) by Margery's attorney complain of Robert del Ostre and his wife Rose that whereas they hold of them one messuage with appurtenances in London in the ward of Walter le Poter [Cornhill ward] by the service of rendering John and Margery (Margarie) 4 marks yearly and providing them with free hospitality in the house whenever they were in London; John de Gatesdene, (fn. 30) Margery's father, whose heir she is, was seised of this service and hospitality as of fee and right for the whole of his life and after his death John and Margery were in peaceful seisin until after the summons of the eyre, Robert and Rose prevented them from enjoying the hospitality as previously; whence he says he has suffered loss and damage to the value of £10 and he brings suit. Robert and Rose come and deny force and injury. They acknowledge that they hold the messuage of John and Margery for the service of 4 marks and that they were given hospitality there, as were other strangers, by their generosity (pro suo dando), not by fee and right but by Robert and Rose's own free will. They put themselves upon the ward and John and Margery [do] likewise. The jury say on the oath that they made to the king and in the faith in which they are bound to him that John de Gatesdene, father of Margery, whose heir she is, enfeoffed William de Wateford of the messuage by the service of 4 marks yearly and providing suitable hospitality for himself, his heirs and his free household whenever it happened that they came to the town. He was seised of this for all his life and after his death Hawise de Nevill his widow was in seisin and after her death John and Margery until Robert and Rose refused them hospitality. So it is adjudged that John and Margery recover their right to hospitality and Robert and Rose are in *mercy. Afterwards John and Margery come and complain that they are unable to receive hospitality as was adjudged. Thereupon Robert and Rose come and proffer a charter of gift and the granting of hospitality, as appears on the following roll. [cf. 501, 719]
496. Miles le Coureur complains of Henry de Coventre that while sheriff of the City he maliciously accused him of homicide and imprisoned him in Newgate taking from him two pieces of leather (coreor) worth 5s. and a brass pot worth 2s.; he kept him in prison until by judgment of the court and the verdict of a jury he was acquitted of the death; whence he says that he has suffered damage and loss to the value of 100s. and he brings suit. Henry comes and denies force and injury. He acknowledges that Miles was arrested and imprisoned but says this was on the indictment of the neighbourhood and because Miles made an agreement (finem) with a certain William then keeper of the prison under Henry, for 4s. to have 'suete de prison' (fn. 32) and Miles pledged the brass pot for the 4s.; Henry denies taking the other chattels. He puts himself upon the nearest wards who say in the faith in which they are bound to the king that Henry did take the chattels and Miles after he was released from prison by judgment of the court did claim the chattels from Henry, who until now has refused to return them to him. Because Henry admits that William his underbailiff took the 4s. from Miles for 'suete de prison' which is against the law and custom of the realm and the City, it is adjudged that Miles should recover the chattels. Henry is to be committed to *gaol and is ordered to give satisfaction to Miles for his damages which are assessed at [blank]. [cf. 249]
497. William de Burinton acknowledges that he owes Agnes daughter of Thomas £20 which he is to pay her at Easter this year. If he does not do so, he grants that the sheriff is to levy it from his lands and chattels. Afterwards Agnes comes and acknowledges that William has given her satisfaction for the money. (Northumbria. Recognicio.) [cf. 492]
498. Margery de Canterbury wife of Master William de Werblynton acknowledges that she received from Roger de Nasinger a chest with all its contents which William before his journey to the Roman curia had given into Roger's custody, as is contained more fully in a document drawn up between them. She is given a day on Monday in the third week of Lent [9 Mar. 1276] and Robert de Bryton of Buckinghamshire and Walter de Hocking of Essex (fn. 33) are pledged to have John [sic] here at the same time.
499. Richard de Ashwy complains of Henry le Waleys, Henry his son, Joan daughter of William de Haddestok, John the Clerk, Michael de St. Albans and Nicholas Bate that whereas he was seised of 20s. rent with appurtenances in the parish of St. Michael Bassinghawe after the death of Hawise, who held it for life by the gift of her mother Joan, whose heir he is, and he has for a long time had peaceful possession of it, Henry and the others unjustly ejected him after the summons of the eyre. Henry and all the others come and Henry son of Henry, and Joan answer for themselves and the others. They say that Richard was never seised of the rent and therefore could not be disseised and they ask for an enquiry. [m. 18d] Richard says that the rent was the right and perquisite of his mother Joan whose heir he is, grandmother of Henry and Joan, daughter of William, and in her last will and testament she devised it to Hawise her daughter, a nun of Berking, aunt of Henry and Joan, to hold for life, with remainder to her son Thomas, Hawise's brother, and on his death to Avice, his sister, with reversion on the deaths of Thomas and Avice to Joan and her heirs. He says that after the death of Hawise he entered on the rent as son and next heir of Joan because Hawise outlived both Thomas and Avice and he was in peaceful seisin, receiving 5s. for one term and the same rent from the tenants at the Nativity of St. John the Baptist 3 Edward I  until Henry and Joan unjustly ejected him after the summons of the eyre. Henry and Joan say that Richard was never seised of the rent, but they acknowledge that it was the right and perquisite of Joan and she devised it for life to Hawise, with reversion to her son Thomas, on condition that if Thomas should die before Avice it should remain to Avice without reversion to Joan's heirs. Thomas did outlive Avice, and since according to the will the rent should not revert to the heirs of Joan but should remain with the next heirs of Thomas because Avice died in his lifetime, they immediately entered on the rent on the death of Hawise as the next heirs of Thomas and they are in seisin thereof, without Richard having anything there except only by his intrusion which he made there when distraining for the rent of 5s. while Hawise was still alive. He [i.e. Henry] seeks judgment whether he [i.e. Richard] is able to claim a jury or sue in the same. On inspection of the will it is clearly established that Joan devised the rent to Hawise for her lifetime, on condition that on her death it remain to Thomas and on his death to Avice and if Avice outlived Thomas on such terms that it should not revert to Joan's heirs on the deaths of Thomas and Avice; Henry and Joan immediately after Hawise's death entered on the rent and it is quite clear that they are the rightful and next heirs of Thomas and Avice and Richard can claim nothing under the will from the rent by any reversion as the heir of Joan and he never had any interest in the rent except only that he took the 5s. while Hawise was still alive. So it is adjudged that Richard receive nothing, but is in *mercy for a false claim. [cf. 709]
500. Hugh de Gloucestre complains of Walter son of Ellen de Flete, John le Taverner, and John de Brokesburne that on Friday in the first week of Lent this year [28 Feb. 1276] after the summons [of the eyre] they and others seized him at Fletebrugg in the ward of Anketin de Auverne [Farringdon ward] after curfew and struck him with iron staves, swords and axes, wounding and ill-treating him, so that he barely escaped with his life, against the peace, whence he says that he has suffered loss and damage to the value of £10 and he brings suit. Walter, John and John come and deny force and injury. They deny that they ever beat Hugh on that day or committed any trespass against him, as he alleges, and put themselves upon the ward. Hugh [does] likewise. The jury say on the oath that they made to the king and in the faith in which they are bound to him that Walter and the others never beat Hugh or committed any offence against him. So it is adjudged that Walter and the others be without day and Hugh in *mercy. [cf. 710]
501. 'I, John de Gatesdene have granted to William de Wateford draper of London and his wife Rose the whole of the capital messuage with appurtenances which I had in London in the parish of St. Michael Cornhull between the tenement which William de Westden holds from me in fee on the north, and the tenant of Geoffrey de Trye on the south, and extending in length from the king's highway to the land of Peter son of Alan on the west; viz. whatever I had there in lands and buildings of wood and stone in length and breadth and in all things without diminution, for William and Rose to have and to hold to them and their heirs, of me and my wife Hawise and my heirs and assigns in fee in perpetuity, rendering therefor yearly 4 silver marks at the four terms of the year; and performing the service due to the chief lords of the fee. I and my wife Hawise and our heirs will defend and acquit the house (managium) with all appurtenances to William, Rose and their heirs against all men in perpetuity reserving to ourselves and our household free hospitality whenever we visit London.' John and William have confirmed this chirograph with their seals that the gift should remain ratified in perpetuity.
Because on inspection of the charter John saved and reserved for himself and his heirs and his household adequate hospitality whenever he came to London, and because the king's marshals, whenever they grant hospitality, assign a hall, sufficient rooms, a pantry, buttery, stable and kitchen and all other necessary rooms, it is adjudged that John de Cameys and his wife Margery, heirs of John de Gatesdene, have in the messuage a hall, a room and such other accommodation in the easements of the house as shall be necessary. [cf. 495]
502. An assize comes in the husting to declare whether Thomas son of Adam de Basinges, uncle of Henry, son of Henry le Waleys and of Joan daughter of William de Hadestok, was seised in his demesne as of fee of 2 marks rent with appurtenances in the parish of St. Andrew Holeburne on the day on which he died and whether [Henry and Joan are the next heirs]. This rent is held by Richard de Stanes goldsmith who previously came to the husting and vouched to warranty Ralph de Pelham parson of the church of St. Michael in Bassieshawe who is not of the liberty of the City, but a stranger, so that the plea was respited until the coming of the justices. Ralph comes and freely warrants Richard. He says that Henry and Joan can claim no right in the tenements by hereditary descent from Thomas because Thomas in his will proved and enrolled in the husting (fn. 39) according to the custom of the City bequeathed them to Ralph, so he seeks judgment. Henry and Joan say that Thomas could not bequeath the rent to anyone because his father Adam bequeathed it to Thomas to hold of himself and the heirs of his body and he died without issue. They say that through their guardians they sued in the husting and produced there Adam's charter of feoffment and that by judgment of the husting the will was annulled in this respect, so the rent cannot and should not remain with Ralph. Ralph cannot deny this. Therefore it is adjudged that Henry and Joan recover seisin and Ralph is in *mercy. [cf. 517]
503. A jury comes to declare whether one messuage with appurtenances in the parish of the church of St. Michael Paternosterchirch is free alms belonging to the church, of which Bartholomew is parson, or the lay fee of Roger le Mareshall, (fn. 41) Walter le Engleys and John de Chesthunte. Roger and the others come and say that they are not bound to answer on this writ because pleas of this kind should not be terminated (fn. 42) here unless they were initiated in the husting. Because on inspection of the rolls of the preceding eyre it is found that such pleas were not previously heard before the justices, it is adjudged that Roger and the others be without day.
504. William de Reygate complains of Reginald Sone and his wife Edith that they have unjustly intruded upon a messuage in the parish of St. Albans. He complains that whereas he was in seisin of it by the demise of the abbot of St. Albans, Reginald and Edith have unjustly ejected him after the summons of the eyre. Reginald and Edith come and say that William never was in seisin of it as of a free tenement so that he could be disseised thereof. They say that the abbot enfeoffed Richard la Persone, formerly husband of Edith, and Edith herself of the messuage to hold during the whole lives of Richard and Edith and on Richard's death William intruded upon the messuage and ejected Edith, so that she at once went to the abbot and made complaint (cantum fecit) to him; the abbot sent some of his men to London and restored Edith to possession and ejected William, wherefor they deny disseisin or injury and put themselves upon the ward of Henry de Frowik [Cripplegate ward]. The ward comes and testifies to this. So it is adjudged that Reginald and Edith be without day and William in *mercy for a false claim. [cf. 711]
505. Henry de Greneford of Garschurstrate was attached to answer Denise la Vileyn on a plea that whereas she had demised him all her land with the houses built upon it which she had in Distaflane in the parish of St. Nicholas Coldhabbeye London for himself and his heirs to have in perpetuity, and Henry and his heirs were to provide for Denise all her necessities in food and clothing for her lifetime and on her death to bury her body honourably at their expense in the priory of the nuns of Clerkewelle; three and a half years ago Henry withdrew the necessities and refused to provide them, as had been agreed between them, whence she says that she has suffered loss and damage to the value of 10 marks. Henry comes and the parties are agreed. The agreement is that Henry shall give to Denise every year for the rest of her life 24s. for the said necessities, of which he shall render 6s. at Easter this year, 6s. at the feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, 6s. at Michaelmas next and 6s. at Christmas. If he does not do so, he grants that the sheriff shall levy the sum from his lands. In addition he shall give her 40s. of which he shall pay 20s. at once and the rest at the quindene of Easter this year. And thereon he finds these pledges [blank].
506. It is found by the verdict of the wards of Simon de Haddestok and Henry de Coventre [Queenhithe and Vintry wards] upon which Roger de Leges plaintiff and Hugh le Taverner have put themselves, that Hugh never beat, wounded or maltreated Roger or committed any trespass against him or caused him any trouble or damage, as Roger alleged of Hugh. So it is adjudged that Hugh be without day and Roger in *mercy for a false claim.
507. Walter de Shelf hangre (fn. 42) sheriff is in *mercy for contempt. (? 100s.) [cf. 712]
[m. 19] Civil pleas (extra coronam) continued
508. William de St. Denis 'armorer' of London complains of Walter Hervy that when William was at peace in his house in the parish of St. Pancras on Saturday after the close of Easter 51 Henry III [30 Apr. 1267] Walter, then bailiff of the City of London, went to his house and took a hauberk, a horsetrapper (coopertorium) of iron mail of Chaumbliz, a (? lance head) (fn. 47) of iron, an iron corset (corsetum), a steel hat (capellum acerenum) and a basnet (basinum) covered with white leather, worth 14 marks; he carried the goods off and kept them against the peace, whence he says that he has suffered loss and damage to the value of 100s. and brings suit. Peter le Furbur complains that on the same day Walter took an iron hat of his worth 15s. and carried it off against the peace to his loss 40s. Walter comes and acknowledges that he took the armour belonging to William and Peter on the order of John de la Lynde as his underbailiff (sub-ballivus). He says that John while he was constable of the Tower and bailiff of the City of London and the City was in the hand of the king, ordered him to take the armour to go out against some thieves whose evil intentions he feared. He says he did not take them for his own use nor did he convert them to it. He puts himself upon the ward of Cheap and William and Peter [do] likewise. The ward comes and says in the faith in which they are bound to the king that Walter did not take the armour for his own use. So it is adjudged that Walter be without day and William and Peter in *mercy for a false claim. [cf. 713]
509. Ralph le Buryler complains of Henry de Coventre that whereas a certain Nicholas de Saumford carried off his goods in silver, money, silver cups and other valuables to the value of 30 marks and was afterwards arrested by Henry, then sheriff of London, and imprisoned in Henry's house; when Ralph came to the house and sought to have speech with Nicholas and to have restored to him the goods and chattels taken, Henry refused to allow him to talk with Nicholas and permitted Nicholas to go away against the peace, whence he says that he has suffered loss and damage to the value etc. Henry comes and acknowledges that Nicholas was arrested by him and imprisoned in his house, but he says that Ralph never came to him to ask for the goods nor to have speech with Nicholas while he was in his custody, but the goods of which he complains remained in his possession. He puts himself upon the verdict of the mayor and aldermen, and Ralph likewise. They come and say on the oath which they made to the king and in the faith in which they are bound to him that Ralph never went to Henry to recover any goods or to have speech with Nicholas while he was in his custody and that no goods belonging to Ralph remained in his possession, so it is adjudged that Henry be without day and Ralph in *mercy for a false claim.
510. Felice Ferebraz presented herself on the fourth day against Robert de Gotele on a plea of detinue of charters, whereon she impleads him without a writ. He does not come. The sheriff of London was ordered to attach him to be present on this day, but did nothing, and reported that he did not have lands or tenements in the City by which he could be distrained or attached. It is testified that he had sufficient lands in Kent by which he could be attached. So the sheriff of Kent is ordered to distrain him, and to have his body in fifteen days from Easter [19 Apr. 1276] at Westminster in the Bench.
511. James de Montibus and Cecily widow of Jollan de Durham complain of Walter de Frowik that on Monday before the feast of St. Matthew the Apostle 48 Henry III [18 Feb. 1264] he and others came with force and arms to the manor of Suthhale in Great Dunmawe in Essex and seized and abducted her son Jollan, who was in her wardship until he came of age, and took and carried off a gold brooch worth 40s., a silk girdle worth 20s., eighteen silver spoons worth 18s., a horse worth 40s., six gold rings worth 20s. and 40s. in money belonging to Cecily and committed other outrages against the peace, whence they say they have suffered loss and damage to the value of £100 and they bring suit. Walter comes and denies force and injury. He denies that he ever seized Jollan from her wardship on that day or took away any goods or did any wrong to her, as she alleges of him. He puts himself upon the jury of the county of Essex where the trespass is said to have occurred and James and Cecily [do] likewise. So the sheriff of Essex is ordered to produce before the justices at Westminster in the Bench in fifteen days from Easter [19 Apr. 1276] twelve [men]. Let us proceed in the said form etc.
[Nota] 119. Placitum de transgressione facta in comitatu Essex placitum in itinere London' et partes postquam se posuerunt in inquisicionem adiornate fuerunt in banco ad quindenam Pasche [cf. 524 no. 119].
512. The same James and Cecily complained of Nicholas de Winton' concerning the above trespass  and now do not proceed against him. So they and their pledges to prosecute are in *mercy, viz. Richard le Woder and Roger le Corder. [cf. 714]
514. John Duraunt claimed in the husting against the prior of the Friars of the Penitence of Jesus Christ of London as his right by writ of right patent two messuages with appurtenances in London, of which he was seised in fee and right in time of peace during the reign of King Henry, by taking all the profits therefrom and that such is his right he has offered to prove. The prior previously came to the husting and vouched to warranty Eleanor the queen mother, who is not of the liberty [of the City], so that the plea (loquela) was respited until the coming of the justices. Eleanor comes by her attorney and warrants the prior. She denies the right and seisin of John and everything. She puts herself upon an inquest of the country (inquisicionem patrie) and asks that a recognition be made according to the custom of the City as to whether she or John has the greater right in those tenements. The mayor and aldermen put on record that according to the custom of the City when anyone is impleaded by writ of right concerning a tenement in the City and puts himself upon an inquest of the country concerning his right, twenty-four men should be chosen from the neighbourhood, twelve from the ward where the tenement is situated and twelve from the two adjoining wards, six from one and six from the other. They are to be chosen at once and are to come on Wednesday. The mayor and aldermen, asked whether the jurors in this case should be sworn or not, say that in cases of gaining or losing land as in cases of homicide [the jurors] are bound to swear to tell the truth. The jurors say on their oath that Eleanor has a greater right in those tenements than John. So it is adjudged that the prior should hold the tenements in peace, quit of John and of his heirs in perpetuity. Eleanor is without day and John in *mercy for a false claim. [cf. 472, 485, 715]
[Nota] 120. De placito placitato coram justiciariis itinerantibus apud Turrim racione forinseci vocati ad warrantum in hustengo. Et qualiter inquisicio debet eligi et si illi de inquisicione debeant iurare nec ne [cf. 524 no. 120].
Pleas of Monday in the thrid week of Lent [9 Mar. 1276]
515. Henry le Waleys presented himself on the fourth day against Thomas de Wapenbir' on a plea that he warrant him a third part of one messuage with appurtenances in London which Joan widow of John son of Saer claims as dower against him, whereof Henry vouched Thomas to warranty against her. He does not come. The sheriff of Warwickshire was ordered to summon him but did nothing and did not send a writ. So he, William Hamelyn, (fn. 45) is in mercy. So as previously the sheriff is ordered to summon him to appear in fifteen days from Easter at Westminster in the Bench. The same day has been given to Joan to appear in the Bench. [cf. 482, 513]
516. William Doget and his wife Isabel came before the justices here and claimed an assessment of the damages that they suffered at the time of the intrusion of Martin Horn upon a messuage with appurtenances in London, as was found by an assize held between them. Martin comes and says that the damages should not be assessed because the [plea of] intrusion was not taken according to the law and custom of the City because it was taken by Walter Hervy, then chamberlain, without the sheriff being present. Because William and Isabel acknowledge that the [plea] was taken without the sheriff and on inspection of the rolls of the last eyre it is found that assizes of this kind concerning intrusion should be taken before one sheriff at least if the other cannot be present, and before the alderman of the place where the intrusion took place, (fn. 54) it is adjudged that there be nothing for the damages and that Martin recover his seisin.
517. [m. 19d] Richard de Ashwy executor of the will of Thomas son of Adam de Basing was attached to answer Henry le Waleys and William de Hadestok, citizens of London, guardians of Thomas' lands and heirs, on a plea that he return to them charters concerning rents of 116s. 4d. due to the heirs, which he has withheld from them to the great damage and disinheritance of the heirs. Richard comes and acknowledges that he has four of Thomas' charters, one of which he at once returns to them, but he says they should not have the others as they make mention of 3½ marks rent which Thomas bequeathed to him in his last will and of which he was seised until Henry ejected him. The guardians say that the rent was the right of Adam de Basing, Thomas' father, who bequeathed it to Thomas to hold for himself and the heirs of his body only. Because Thomas died without issue, the guardians in the name of the heirs, went to the husting where Richard with his co-executors and others to whom Thomas had bequeathed other rents wanted to prove Thomas' will, and opposed probate. Because of this objection on good grounds (certis racionibus) the will was annulled by judgment of the husting. (fn. 54) So he seeks judgment whether Richard can justly claim to retain the charters. Thereupon the mayor and aldermen come and put on record that the will was annulled before them; it is the custom of the City that if anyone shall have bequeathed (legaverit) land or rent and the will is afterwards annulled by judgment in the husting, nothing more can accrue to the legatee from such a legacy, nor need the heir of the testator proceed against the legatee in the husting to recover seisin by a judgment; on the contrary, the heir can lawfully put himself in the seisin of that legatee (in seisinam ipsius legati); just as it is not necessary when a will has been confirmed and proved in the husting for the legatee to sue the heirs of the testator if they were in seisin. Richard acknowledges that the rent at one time was Adam's and was bequeathed by Thomas to Richard and that afterwards the will was annulled in the husting. He cannot deny that the custom of the City is as stated. So it is adjudged that Richard return the charters to the guardians to be kept with the other charters in wardship until the heirs come of age. And Richard is in *mercy because he did not return them sooner. [cf. 502, 716]
518. Robert de Rokesle gives *½ mark for licence to agree with Thomas de Basing (fn. 58) on a plea of trespass by the pledge of Thomas. [cf. 717]
Civil pleas continued Seyton (fn. 57)
519. William de Hadestok and his wife Joan complain of James de Montibus that on Friday after the feast of St. Mary Magdalene 53 Henry III [26 July 1269] he went to their house in London in the ward of Simon de Hadestok [Queenhithe ward], broke down the door and entered; he broke Joan's finger and committed other outrages against her against the peace, whence they say that they have suffered loss and damage to the value of £100 and they bring suit. James comes and denies force and injury. He acknowledges that he went there with Stephen de Edesworth, constable of the Tower of London, whom the king had ordered by writ to deliver to James, Bartholomew son and heir of Jollan de Durham who should have been in his wardship. He says that he did not go with any other purpose to their house or commit any trespass against them and puts himself upon the ward and that of Henry de Coventre [Vintry ward] as those nearest. William and Joan [do] likewise. The wards come and say in the faith in which they are bound to the king that James with many others came with force and arms with a king's bailiff to Joan's house before William married her and that after he had entered the house, he closed the door and tore her dress down to the navel, threw her to the ground and raped her, breaking her finger. So it is adjudged that James be committed to gaol until he has satisfied William and Joan for their damages, which are assessed at 100s. by the wards. [cf. 511, 718]
520. Henry de Frowik presented himself on the fourth day against Maud (fn. 62) widow of Luke de Badencurt on a plea of trespass whereon he impleads her without a writ. She has not come, and has made many defaults. So the sheriff of Essex is ordered to distrain her by all her lands. And he is to have her body before the justices on the morrow of the Ascension [15 May 1276] at St. Martin le Grand London.
521. The king has sent this writ to the justices of the eyre: 'John Maunsel, treasurer of York, formerly clerk of King Henry our father and of ourselves, had in his possession in the priory of Holy Trinity London many papal privileges and other instruments and writings touching us both in his wardrobe (garderoba) above the Walebrok, viz. in the house of Luke de Luca and his associates, among their private papers (arcana sua) and other things which they kept there at the time of the disturbances and which were dispersed by the hand of various men from the City and others; we therefore firmly enjoin you to make enquiry by the oath of good and lawful men from the aldermanries of the City by whom the truth may better be known in the presence of the treasurer (thesaurarii) of London and Reginald the Barber, formerly a member of John's household, into whose hands the aforesaid privileges and instruments concerning us came, and to induce them freely to restore them to us; we grant a full pardon and firm peace to all those who wish to confess and make amends for their trespass in taking possession of and carrying away the documents; at Kynesmeresford 10 February 4 Edward I .' Four men from each aldermanry come and say in the faith in which they are bound to the king that Richard le Teyere clerk, Philip de Hastede, Edmund de Exeport with others broke open that wardrobe in Walebrok and a part of the things therein came into the hands of Thomas son of Thomas and the rest were given into the keeping of Robert de Mounpellers by Reginald le Barbur, then of John's household, by chirograph. After the death of John Maunsel, Robert handed over the goods entrusted to him by the chirograph intact to John's executor, a Friar Minor of Deulacres, who disposed of them at his discretion. After the death of Thomas son of Thomas, Hugh le Bygot came and took the goods which Thomas had in his possession, carried them off and did with them as he would. They say also that Simon son of Simon de Montefort, Grimbald Pauncefot and many others whose names are unknown, went to the priory of Holy Trinity and broke open a chest belonging to John with his secret instruments and documents and other things deposited in it. Simon took home with him only a psalter found in the chest; the rest of the contents was left to be kept in that chest under his seal. Afterwards Grimbald caused the chest with its contents to be conveyed from the priory in a long cart to the bishop of Durham's house, and he took things from it and disposed at will of the contents, and shortly afterwards he sent the chest to Richard Avel's house, and left it there without lock or seal against Richard's will. There it remained for about a quarter of a year and then Ralph Perot went to Richard's house and carried it off with everything in it, saying that he would admit readily doing so if anyone accused Richard; but what became of the chest subsequently or where it is now they do not know. Afterwards a certain John le Coffrer comes and says that he has two coffers which belonged to John Maunsell on the pledge of Hugh le Bygot and which the same Hugh gave him to be repaired.
522. Henry le Waleys and William de Durham agree that Gregory de Rokeslee mayor, John Adrian, Thomas de Basing and John Horn, aldermen, are to arrange and dispose among themselves how William is to make satisfaction to Henry for the timber of a room belonging to Thomas de Basing which has been demolished and what ought to go to him as guardian of Thomas' heirs; and likewise how William is to make him satisfaction for his prison at the time that he was sheriff of Middlesex under Henry, whereof he [William] took the perquisites and has not yet answered for them to him; provided always that power and jurisdiction on the making of this ordinance shall remain with the justices. (Assensus ? quorundam.)
523. The king has sent this writ to the justices: Amice daughter of Richard de Chelmereford lately impleaded on a royal writ of right Ralph Crepyn in the husting (fn. 64) of London for two messuages with appurtenances in London and Amice and Ralph put themselves upon an inquest to be held in the husting; because those by whom the inquest was made were not well enough examined, Amice was ordered by judgment of the husting to withdraw without day, to her grave loss and manifest disinheritance; therefore the king has recently commanded the justices to call the parties before them and examine this business further and to do full and speedy justice. Subsequently on Monday after the quindene of Trinity [22 June] in the husting before the justices the mayor and aldermen put on record that Amice previously sued Ralph in the husting for the two messuages by a writ of right which she claimed as her right of seisin of her property (ut ius suum de seisina sua propria) from the time of King Henry III; so Ralph came in the husting and denied Amice's right and seisin as of fee and right and put himself upon a jury of the vill (ville) [to declare] whether he or Amice had the greater right in the messuages. An inquest was made by a jury of twenty-four according to the custom of the City, who said on their oath that Ralph had the greater right, so that it was then adjudged that he should hold in peace and Amice take nothing by her writ, but be in mercy for a false claim. Now Amice and Ralph come and now Amice complains that the jury consisted of only eleven men instead of the twenty-four required by the custom and law of the City. Because the mayor and aldermen put on record that the jury consisted of twenty-four according to the custom of the City it is adjudged that Ralph be without day.