Court of Common Pleas: the National Archives, Cp40 1399-1500. Originally published by Centre for Metropolitan History, London, 2010.
This free content was born digital. All rights reserved.
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 103
Pleading: Walter Markham, executor of William Faryngdon, states that on 13 June 1417, John Tropynell, legatee of one John Hoton, now deceased, made a bond with him in 500m, payable at Michaelmas then next, but has not paid, to his damage of [omitted]. Bond shown in court, WM stating that it was made at [omitted] (given as Westminster on re-enrolment).
Pleading: [continued at Michaelmas 1420, rot 401] JT states that the force of the bond ought not hold, as by an indenture of which he shows his part in court, sealed by WM and dated 14 June 1417 [recited in full, in English], JT, Thomas Cotyngwyth and Richard Colet, legatees of the late John Hoton, have granted to WM a written obligation of the 'lord of Castellyon' of the sum of 1834 franks, to the profit and use of WM, with the costs and expenses of WM or JT, TC and RC to be recovered, with a transport signed by a notary and sealed with their seals [further terms given]. TC, JT and RC also shall stand surety to the constable of England or his council for the delivery of WM from the constable's prison, and shall make fine with the constable concerning the receipt of 2500m received beforehand by WF, and receive an acquittance for WM. WM grants that if they do this, then the bond in 500m shall be quit. JT states that he, TC and RC offered to fulfil these terms in the parish of All Hallows Bread Street on 15 June 1417, and hand over the obligation of 1834 franks, and always have been prepared ever since, but WM refused to receive it; they offer it in court. They have also stood in the power of the duke of Bedford, constable of England, for delivery of WM from prison, and made fine with the duke and received and acquittance, which they also show in court, prepared to deliver. They have therefore held to the terms of the indenture, and seek judgment.
|Bond||Westminster < Middlesex < England||
(due) 29/09/1417 < Michaelmas
|Service/employment Contract||Westminster < Middlesex < England||(initial) 14/06/1417|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 103d
Pleading: Thomas C. was summoned to respond to Margaret N., executor of the will of parson John B., concerning a plea that he ought to hand over to her and John C., co-executor of MN, 5 silver cups worth 20m. And it is known that JC, one of the plaintiffs in the writ, did not come etc. And it is decided that MN may prosecute the writ without him etc. Hence, MN says that the late parson JB delivered the aforesaid cups to TC for safe keeping, but that TC will not return them. Damages are claimed at £20. MN presents letters testamentary to the court.
|Safe Keeping||St Giles without Cripplegate < Cripplegate Ward < London < England||(initial) 06/07/1419|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 104d
|Sale of Goods||St Mildred Bread Street < Queenhithe Ward < London < England||
(due) 29/09/1416 < Michaelmas
|John Byle (m)||Courser||East Greenwich < Kent < England alias (lately of) London < England||Defendant|
|John Wilde (m)||London < England||Plaintiff|
|Robert Tettebury (m)||Attorney of plaintiff|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 104d
Pleading: William T. claims that justice John P. detains two bonds which WT gave to JP for safe keeping. One of these bonds shows that Thomas R. is held to WT in £20 at certain terms within-written. The other of these bonds shows that WT is held to TR in £20 at certain terms within-written. Damages are claimed at £20.
Pleading: Justice JP says that the two bonds were given to him with the mutual assent of WT and TR, to be returned to one or the other of them only under certain conditions. Justice JP says that he is ignorant as to whether these conditions have been met, on the part of TR, as so seeks that TR come before the court etc. Therefore the decision is that the sheriff of Middlesex make TR come to the court in Trinity term 1420, and day is given between justice JP and WT in the same term etc.
Postea text: postea 1 - the sheriff of Middle returns that TR has nothing in his bailiwick. And upon this it is testified that TR 'has enough' in London. Therefore, order to the sheriff of London to make TR come to this court in Michaelmas term 1420, and day is given between justice JP and WT in the same term etc.
Postea text: postea 2 - to this day come Justice JP, WT, and TR. And the sheriff off London returns that he arrested the same (persons) to be at this day etc., exhibited in the form aforesaid, per Thomas J. and Richard T. And upon this day is given between all parties in Hilary term 1420.
|Safe Keeping||St Andrew Holborn < Middlesex < England||(initial) 06/05/1412|
|John Preston (m)||Justice||London < England||Defendant|
|Richard Tewersley (m)||Official|
|Thomas Jordan (m)||Official|
|Thomas Rooche (m)||Citizen||Vintner||London < England||Other|
|William Trethaek (m)||Plaintiff|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 105
Pleading: John H., Thomas H., John Selman, and John C. claim that Richard W., Richard R., Richard B., Thomas B., and Thomas F. used force and arms to break their close at Rochester, Kent, from which they seized and carried off 100 rabbits worth 40s and goods to the value of £20. The goods taken were namely 40 quarters of wheat, 20 quarters of barley, and 10 quarters of peas. Damages are claimed at 100m.
Pleading: RW, RR, RB, TB, and TF say that they are innocent and put themselves upon the country, and the plaintiffs put themselves likewise. Order to the sheriff of Kent to make a jury come in Trinity term 1420.
Postea text: postea 1 - continuance between the parties as far as the octave of Michaelmas term 1420 unless the case is first heard before justice John P. on 30/07/1420 at the assize of Rochester, Kent.
Postea text: postea 2 - the case is heard before justice John P. and associate justice Thomas G. on 30/07/1420 at the assize of Rochester, Kent. A jury comes and says on oath that RW, RR, RB, TB, and TF did break the aforesaid close and take the aforesaid grain, but that they are guilty of taking only 6 rabbits rather than the 100 of which they were accused. Therefore plaintiffs JH, TH, John Selman, and JC are to recover damages of £13 12d and costs of 20m. The jury say that RW, RR, RB, TB, and TF are innocent of the theft of 94 rabbits, of the 100 rabbits they were accused of taking, and so concerning these JH, TH, John Selman, and JC are in mercy for false claim. The plaintiffs are to recover exactly 39m 7s 8d. The defendants are to be arrested.
Postea text: postea 3 - 03/06/1421 JH, TH, John Selman, and JC acknowledge satisfaction concerning the aforesaid damages. And upon this comes RW, one of the defendants, in the custody of the warden of the Fleet and seeks to make fine with the lord King to be admitted to the peace, so that he might be released from the Fleet. RW makes fine of 10s per the pledges of Richard G. and John D. RW is released from prison.
Postea text: postea 4 - 08/07/1421 defendant TF seeks to make fine with the lord king to be admitted to the peace. Upon this TF makes fine, assessed per the justice at 3s 4d, per the pledges of William B. and Simon C.
Postea text: postea 5 - 08/07/1421 defendants RR and TB seek to make fine with the lord king to be admitted to the peace. Upon this TF makes fine, assessed per the justice at 6s 8d, per the pledges of William R. and Peter M.
Taking of Goods
|Rochester < Kent < England||(initial) 11/01/1420|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 108
|John Coryngham (m)||Parson||Campsall < Yorkshire < England||Defendant|
|John Malverne (m)||Master||Jesmond < Northumberland < England||Plaintiff|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 111
Pleading: Concerning the use of force and arms RG says that he is innocent and puts himself upon the country, and TH puts himself likewise. Concerning the remainder of the supposed trespass, RG says that long before the supposed abduction WC put himself into the apprenticeship of RG, at Gloucester (Gloucestershire), to learn the art of pewter-work for a term which has not yet come to an end. RG says that TH, after WC was placed into apprenticeship with RG and prior to the day of the supposed trespass, came to Gloucester and abducted WC from RG's service, taking him as far as London. RG says that WC was made to be obliged and retained to the service of TH in the fashion of an apprentice (ad deserviend' edem Thome more apprenticii secundum …) according to the custom of the city of London, by the force of which 'retnetion' WC was in the service of TH at London on the day of the supposed abduction. RG says that WC, by right and of his own free will, then left TH and returned to RG, who as WC's master, received WC. All this RG is prepared to verify.
Pleading: TH denies RG's claims and says that he took on WC as an apprentice to the art of pewter-work on 06/08/1415 according to the customs of the city of London, from which service TH claims RG abducted WC on 31/07/1419.
Pleading: RG says that TH discharged WC from his (TH's) service at Gloucester on 20/08/1415, on which same day WC placed himself into the apprenticeship of RG to learn the art of pewter-work. RG says that WC remained in his own service from the aforesaid 20/08/1415 until he was abducted by TH and taken to London etc.
Pleading: RG says that TH has not denied that WC was discharged from TH's service on 20/08/1415, nor that WC backed RG's apprentice etc. and so seeks judgement, saying that this ought to preclude TH's action. And because the court has not yet been advised concerning its judgement to be rendered upon that plea, day is given between the parties in Trinity term 1420 to hear judgement.
|Abduction||All Hallows Bread Street < Bread Street Ward < London < England||(initial) 31/07/1419|
|Service/employment Contract||All Hallows Bread Street < Bread Street Ward < London < England||(initial) 06/08/1415|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 124
Pleading: ED says that she was never executor of the will of the late RD nor did she make administration of his goods. ED also says that she has no knowledge that the aforementioned bond was made by the late RD. And, ED says that where TB drew his writ of the sheriff of London claiming to be owed the aforesaid debt on the aforesaid bond as if it were made in London, the late RD did not make that or any other writ in London or the liberty of London and seeks that TB be examined.
Pleading: TB says on oath that it is well and true that the late RD did not make the aforesaid bond in either the city or liberty of London, but that the bond does not say where it was made. TB says that he understood that his writ had been drawn-up legitimately (traxit ligitime) by the sheriffs of London, in which city he was residing at the time of the making of the original writ.
(due) 04/06/1419 < Pentecost
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 125d
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 133
Pleading: Richard F. and his wife Elizabeth F., executors of the will of William Barry, are in mercy for many defaults. Robert Barry claims that RF and his wife EF, executors of the late William Barry, ought give to him chattels to the value of £10 and a certain chest containing charters and other muniments, which RF and EF unjustly detain. Concerning the chattels, Robert Barry says that on 20/09/1415 he delivered to EF for safe keeping, whilst EF was a woman alone, one silver and gilt cup, one silver baselard (dagger), and one lead-vessel ('plumbum') worth £10, which she will not return. Concerning the chest with charters and muniments, Robert Barry says that he and the late William Barry were jointly seised of diverse lands and tenements in Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 'in his demesne', namely William Barry as of fee and Robert Barry as of free tenement. Robert Barry says that he gave the aforesaid chest containing charters, writings, and muniments pertaining to these lands in Berkhamsted, for the common usage of both William Barry and Robert Barry, to William Barry for safe keeping on 24/09/1414 at Berkhamsted. William Barry then later appointed EF his executor and died, whence the said chest with charters etc. passed into the hands of EF on 20/09/1415 at Berkhamsted. Damages are claimed at £100. The charters and muniments within the chest were namely: one charter by which Michael, earl Suffolk, Robert Bolton, parson John Ingrith, and Roger Bygge, granted to Robert Barry and William Barry all lands and tenements with their rents, reliefs, heriots, escheats, services, courts, wardships, marriage-dues, and other rights and pertinences which William S. and his son Robert held in the parish of St Peter and St Mary of Berkhamsted and in the hamlet of Berkhamsted to be held by Robert Barry and William Barry in perpetuity; a charter by which Thomas B. granted to John P. and John Jerveys one messuage, 14 acres of land, and 4 acres of wood in Berkhamsted; a charter by which chaplain William Bartlot granted to John M. the same messuage, 14 acres of land and 4 acres of wood in Berkhamsted; a charter by which JM granted to Alice M. the same messuage, 14 acres of land, and 4 acres of wood in Berkhamsted; a charter by which AM granted messuage 14 acres of land and 4 acres of wood to the aforesaid late Earl MD, John Ingrith, Robert Bolton, and Roger Bygg to have and to hold in perpetuity; a charter by which the aforesaid late Earl MD, John Ingrith, Robert Bolton, and Roger Bygg demised to a certain Agnes L. wife of John L. the same messuage, 14 acres of land and 4 acres of wood for the term of her life, in exchange for 3s 4d rents payable at Easter and Michaelmas in equal portions; a charter by which the aforesaid late Earl MD, John Ingrith, Robert Bolton, and Roger Bygg gave and granted to Robert Barry and WB the aforesaid 3s 4d annual rent plus reversion, to themselves and their heirs, of the aforesaid lands after the death of AL; a charter by which William E. granted to Robert Barry and WB a certain annual rent of 5s from one messuage with appurtenances in Berkhamsted; a charter by which Thomas A., John W., Richard Y., and John C. granted to Robert Barry and WB one messuage with appurtenances in Berkhamsted; a writing (scriptis) by which JP and John Jerveys quitclaimed to JM all right and claim they had the aforesaid messuage, 14 acres of land, and 4 acres of wood contained in the aforesaid charter of the aforesaid Thomas Moreton [probably an error for either Thomas Bertlot or John Moreton as no prev. mention of a Thomas Moreton!]; a writing by which Henry C. quitclaimed to JM all right and claim he had 'to that aforesaid tenement with appurtenances; and lastly one writing by which William (Barry) afterwards ('predictus pro Willelmo post…' - unclear interlineation) remised, released, and quitclaimed to Robert Barry all right and claim to all the aforesaid tenements, on the pretext of which release Robert Barry alone was seised of all the aforesaid tenements in his demesne as of fee.
Pleading: RF and EF say that they do not detain the aforesaid chattels and offer their law, which they make. Hence concerning the aforesaid chattels Robert Barry is in mercy for false claim and EF with RF are without day. Concerning the supposed detention of the aforesaid chest with charters, writings, and other muniments RR and EF seek licence to imparl as far as Trinity term 1420.
Pleading: [Further information drawn from CP40/435 rot.435 (Trinity 1420)] RF and EF defend (concerning the detention of the aforesaid chest with charters etc.), and say that the land which Robert Barry and William Barry held jointly, was released to Robert Barry and enfeoffed to William Barry out of good faith. They say that William Barry afterwards expressed his will and intention to enter the aforesaid land with EF, so that it would be held by William Barry and his heirs in perpetuity and by EF for the term of her life. William Berry and EF them entered the land in this fashion, and Robert Barry later confirmed this with a charter that EF and RF present to the court. This charter, given by Robert Barry at Berkhamsted on 01/10/1414, 'enfeoffed and confirmed to William Barry and EF who was the wife of Roger Bygge' all the above said properties in Berkhamsted with their appurtenances etc. which Robert Barry and William Barry once held jointly, and thus William Barry was seised as of fee and EF as of free tenement. William Barry then later dies seised of the property in this manner, and the force of the confirmation still continues and she has a right to the chest with charters etc.
Pleading: Robert Barry says that at the time of the aforesaid confirmation William Barry and EF 'had nothing' in the aforesaid tenement etc. and hence he ought to have (be admitted to) the aforesaid chest with charters.
Pleading: RF and EF say that at the time of the making of the aforesaid confirmation William Barry and EF were seised of the aforesaid tenement and put themselves upon the country, and Robert Barry puts himself upon the country. Order to the sheriff of Hertfordshire to make a jury come in Michaelmas term 1420.
|Safe Keeping||Berkhamsted < Hertfordshire < England||(initial) 20/09/1415|
|Charter||Berkhamsted < Hertfordshire < England||(initial) 01/10/1414|
|Safe Keeping||Berkhamsted < Hertfordshire < England||(initial) 24/09/1414|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 134
Pleading: John C. (brother of William Caldwell) and Thomas N., executors of the will of the late parson William Caldwell, claim that parson William W. owes them £40 per a bond made between the late parson William Caldwell and WW. Damages are claimed at £60. Bond shown in court as well as letters testamentary.
Pleading: [counterplea drawn from CP40/638 rot.416.] Parson WW says that the action against him ought not continue. He says that after the making of the aforesaid bond, parson William Caldwell made an indenture (same day and place) between parson William Caldwell himself on one part, and parson WW with a certain Walter S. on the other part. Parson WW offers this indenture to the court. The indenture, given by the late parson William Caldwell, demised at farm to parson WW and WS, the rectory of the church St Martin in North Perrott (Somerset) with all its buildings, lands, fruits, rents, tithes, oblations, profits, and produce (comoditatbus) for six years commencing Michaelmas 1417 (29/09/1417). In exchange parson William Caldwell was to receive, at London, 12m annually, paid in equal portions at the terms of Christmas, Easter, the Nativity of St John the Baptist, and Michaelmas. During this time parson WW and WS were to maintain and sustain all the rectory's buildings etc. at their own expense, and the late parson William Caldwell retained the right, should the rent fall more than one month in arrears, to enter the aforesaid property and make distraint. Parson WW and WS also warranted that if they did not hold to the indenture, they would pay the late parson William Caldwell £40 in the Easter then next following according to the aforesaid bond. Lastly, should parson WW and WS hold to all of the terms aforesaid, and if within the term of the farm parson William Caldwell should die and parson WW should not have claimed any reparation in whatever way ('reperacionem quoquomodo') then the £40 bond should be null and void. Parson WW says that the £40 bond on which he is presently being sued is the same £40 bond mentioned in the indenture, and that parson William Caldwell died in the feast of the purification of St Mary 1419 (02/02/1419), prior to which date he and WS made all required payments to parson William Caldwell according to the terms of the indenture, namely at North Parrott (Somerset). WW also says that after the death of parson William Caldwell he did not claim any reparation ('reperacionem') concerning the aforesaid rectory.
Pleading: Executors TN and JC say that neither parson W nor WS paid the late WC some (aliquos) of the aforesaid monies prior to parson William Caldwell's death. TN and JC say that parson WW and WS did not pay the late parson William Caldwell the 40s payment due in the nativity of St John the Baptist 1418 (24/06/1418).
Pleading: Parson WW says that he and the aforesaid WS did make the 40s payment which was due in the nativity of St john the Baptist 1418 and puts himself upon the country, and TN with JC put themselves likewise. Order to the sheriff of Somerset to make a jury come in Michaelmas term 1420.
Postea text: postea 3 - the case is first heard at the assize of Yeovil, Somerset, on 13/03/1421, before justices William Cheyne and John Martyn. Some of the jurors empanelled come, and some do not. Jurors appearing are: John M., Richard S., Peter D., William M., William F., John S., Robert B., John N., Peter J., Edward B. Hence the jury is placed in respite as far as the octave of Trinity term (1421), and the sheriff of Somerset is to find more jurors 'decem tales' etc.
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 215
Pleading: John F. and John T. claim that John E. owes them £10 per a bond. Damages are claimed at £10. Bond shown in court. Notes that the bond does not say where it was made, but JF and TF say it was made at London etc.
Pleading: JE says that the action against him ought not continue, because since the making of the aforesaid bond JT issued him a release on 01/11/1417 acknowledging that JF and JT have been satisfied concerning the aforesaid £10. Noted that the release does not say where it was made, but JE says it was made at Arundel, Sussex.
Pleading: JE says that JT was a free man at the time of the release's making and puts himself upon the country, and JT with JF put themselves likewise. Order to the sheriff of Sussex to make a jury come in Trinity term 1420. Pledges are named for the defendant.
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 243
Pleading: Parson Nicholas C. claims that William H. owes him 25m per a £10 bond and a 10m bond. Damages are claimed at £10. Bonds shown in court. Noted that the bonds do not say where they were made, but NC says they were made at London [parish and ward left blank].
Pleading: NC says that WH was a free man at the time of the bonds' making and seeks inquiry upon the country, and WH seeks likewise. Order tot the sheriff of Berkshire to make a jury come in Trinity term 1420. Pledges are named for the defendant.
|Imprisonment||Wantage < Berkshire < England||(initial) 16/11/1417|
|Bond||London < England||
(due) 29/09/1418 < Michaelmas
|Bond||London < England||
(due) 15/05/1418 < Pentecost
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 253
Pleading: Richard T. and John T. claim that John G. owes them £40 as the unpaid residue of a £66 13s 4d bond which was made between RT, JT, and a certain late John H. on the one part, and JG on the other part. RT and JT say that the terms of the bond stipulated that JG was to pay them (and/or the late JH) £8 6s 8d at Easter 1408 (15/04/1408) and £8 6s 8d at Michaelmas 1418 (29/09/1408), followed by similar payments at Easter and Michaelmas of each year following until the debt should be paid in full. Damages are claimed at £40. Noted that the bond does not say where it was made, but RT and JT say it was made at London etc.
|Bond||St Sepulchre without Newgate < Farringdon Ward Within < London < England||
(due) < Michaelmas
(due) < Easter
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 253d
Pleading: Richard W. (alias Richard B.), administrator of the goods and chattels of Walter P., claims that John S. owes him £25 as determined by a reckoning of the account between JS and the late WP before auditor John T. Damages are claimed at £20. RW shows the court letters of administration concerning the late WP.
Pleading: JS says that the action against him ought not continue and that he is not aware of any such accounting. JS says that RW did not assign the aforesaid JT as auditor to hold an accounting with him and puts himself upon the country, and RW puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff to make a jury come in Trinity term 1420.
|Accounting||St Christopher le Stocks < Cornhill Ward < London < England||(initial) 27/09/1419|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 308d
Postea text: The decision [same day as pleadings] is that WS and JS are to recover the aforesaid debt plus damages of 4m. TF is in mercy. And upon this WS and JS acknowledge satisfaction concerning 50m of the aforesaid 100m debt. Therefore TF is quit concerning 50m. WS and JS have granted that execution concerning the remaining 50m and damages may be delayed as far as Michaelmas term 1420.
|Bond||St Dunstan in the West < Farringdon Ward Without < London < England||
(due) 01/11/1416 < All Saints
|John Skrene (m)||Plaintiff|
|Thomas Feriby (m)||Clerk||Willingale < Essex < England||Defendant|
|William Skrene snr (m)||Plaintiff|
|William Walden (m)||Attorney of plaintiff|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 317
Pleading: William Sevenok amerced for many defaults. William Haute and his wife Margaret Haute claim that William S. render to them William Bryan, son and heir of John Bryan, custody of whom pertains to them since JB held his land of Margaret Haute by military service. WH and MH state that the late JB held from MH a messuage and half a virgate of land with appurtenances in Turville, Buckinghamshire, by homage, fealty, and scutage of 2s, and by service of one pound of cumin, payable to MH annually at Easter. JB died in homage to MH, and so she and WH ought to have custody of JB's son and heir, William Bryan, but WS has deforced them of this wardship, to their damage of £200.
Pleading: [continued at Trinity 1420, rot 320.] WS, protesting that the property was not held of WH and MH in the right of MH by military service, nor that JB died in homage to MH as claimed, states that the plaintiffs ought not have their action as in the city of London, there is a custom from time immemorial that if a free man or woman of the city should die and leave property to a minor, that the heir and their property shall be put into the care of the mayor, aldermen, chamberlain, citizens and community of the city until such time as the heir should come of age [extensive details given]. WS states that a certain Joan Fastolf, free woman of the city of London, died holding nothing of the king in chief, and her three London messuages (lying in the parishes of St Stephen Coleman Street, Coleman Street ward, St Lawrence Jewry, Cheap ward, and St Mary Bothaw, Walbrook ward) descended from her to John Bryan, and from John Bryan to (the minor) William Bryan, as kinsman and heir of the late Joan Fastolf. However, on 10 January 1418, because William Bryan was a minor, he and his property were taken into the wardship of the mayor, aldermen, and chamberlain of the city of London, namely mayor Richard Merlaw, chamberlain John Hille, and the various aldermen [named], according to the customs of the city. Hence WS states that he has custody of William Bryan as one of the aldermen of London.
Pleading: WH and MH, not acknowledging anything said by WS, state that they do not by law have to reply to the plea of WS, as WS has not answered the substance of their writ and plea. They therefore seek judgment, custody of WB, and damages.
Pleading: William Sevenok says that, since WH and MH have not denied the substance of his plea, which he is prepared to verify, but which MH and WH have refused to admit, he seeks judgement. Since the court wishes to be advised, day is given between the parties at the octave of Michaelmas 1420.
|Location of Property||Turville < Buckinghamshire < England|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 318d
Pleading: Elizabeth D., widow of William Deveros, claims that Joan H., widow of Richard H., has deforced her of a third part of 11m rents with appurtenances in Hayton, Shropshire, which she should have as dower.
Pleading: JH says that ED ought not have the aforesaid rents as part of her dower because long before ED's marriage to the late William Deveros, a certain late William De La Hay granted the aforesaid rents to William Deveros and his first wife Matilda D. JH says that this grant was made to William Deveros and Matilda D. to have and to hold of them and the legitimate heirs of their body. Further JH says that WD and Matilda D. hade a legitimate daughter and heir, namely Margaret D., to whom the aforesaid rents descended upon the death of Matilda D. JH says that she 'had' the aforesaid rents from Margaret D. and seeks judgement.
Pleading: ED says that William Deveros was seised of the aforesaid rents after his marriage to ED and thus can be placed in dowry. ED denies that William De le Hay granted the said rents to Matilda D., William Deveros, and their corporal heirs.
Pleading: JH reiterates her claim that William De le Hay granted the said rents to Matilda D., William Deveros, and their corporal heirs. JH places herself upon the country, and ED places herself likewise. Order to the sheriff of Shropshire to make a jury come in Trinity term 1420.
|Location of Property||Hayton < Shropshire < England|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 374
Pleading: John R. claims that Richard B. owes him 16m arising from an unpaid annual rent of 4m. JR says that on 24/06/1415 he demised to RB one messuage in Tewkesbury, Glouester, to be held from JR 'at will in exchange for 4m paid annually at the terms of Michaelmas, Christmas, Easter, and the Nativity of St John the Baptist. JR says that RB has failed to pay this rent for the three years following aforesaid 24/06/1415, though RB has occupied the property, leading to a debt of 12m (note that this amount differs from the 16m requested above!). Damages are claimed at 20m.
|John Russell (m)||Ironmonger||London < England||Plaintiff|
|Richard Brasier (m)||Brazier||Tewkesbury < Gloucestershire < England||Defendant|
|un-named (m)||Attorney of defendant|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 378d
Pleading: William Spenser comes before the bench on the morrow of Ascension this term and presents a bill to the justices in these terms [recited in full, in French]. WS claims that Thomas Kirkeby, clerk of this court, owes him 20s on a bond made in the great hall of the palace of Westminster on 10 February 1420, and payable at Easter then next. Damages claimed at 40s. Pledges to prosecute named. Bond shown to the court.
Pleading: TK asks that the bill and bond be read to the court. These are heard and understood, and TK then states that the bond is not of his making. Parties on country, sheriff of Middlesex to have jury here at quindene of Trinity 1420. The bond is given to clerk John H. for safe keeping.
|Bond||Westminster < Middlesex < England||
(due) 07/04/1420 < Easter
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 432d
Pleading: Alice S., who was the wife of John S., claims that Simon S., John T., and Robert M. used force and arms to seize and carry off her goods at Bermondsey, Surrey, to the value of £40. The goods taken were namely, two casks of woad and one pipe of soap ('smigmatis). Damages are claimed at £50.
|Taking of Goods||Bermondsey < Surrey < England||(initial) 21/04/1419|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/637, rot. 434
Pleading: William de la Pole, son of Thomas de la Pole, citing the terms of the statute of 38 Edward III against corrupt jurors and embracery [Stat. Realm, 38 Edw. III, Stat 1, c.12], states that in the reign of Henry IV he was involved in a trespass case against one John Cok, whereby JC had entered into the manor of Newbiggin 'Neubyggyng' in Warwickshire, which Robert, former abbot of Rocester in Dovedale, had demised to Wiliam, and removed goods and chattels to the value of £40. William says that he procured an original writ on this trespass, taking it before the late Henry IV, returnable at the octave of Trinity 1404 at Westminster. Process then continued and an inquisition was to be held before Robert Tirwhit, JCP, on the morrow of St Nicholas (7 December) 1411 [sic; recte 1412?] in Coventry, by virtue of a writ of nisi prius returnable at the octave of Hilary 1413 [sic]. However, William states that on 28 October 1412, at Westminster, TG received various sums of money, namely £14 13s 4d, for the embracery of the inquest. Damages claimed at £100.
|Breach of Statute||Westminster < Middlesex < England||(initial) 28/10/1412|
|Location of Property||Newbiggin < Warwickshire < England|