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 40/661, rot. 103
Pleading: William Hayward and his wife Joan Hayward seek from John L., George L., and John Basynges, one messuage, 20 acres of land, and 10 acres of meadow in Easton Neston, Northamptonshire, which Richard B. gave to Adam H., AH's wife Matilda H., their son John Houthon, and the heirs of the body of John Houthon to whom the property should descend. WH says that by the force of this gift AH, MH, and their son John Houthon were seised of the aforesaid messuage, land, and meadow; AH and MH as of free tenement, and John Houthon in his demesne as of fee and right in the form aforesaid, during the reign of Edward III. AH and MH later died, and from John Houthon the aforesaid property ought to descend to John Houthon's daughter Joan Hayward.
Pleading: JL, GL, and John Basynges say that a certain William Houthon, brother the late AH, is the heir of the aforesaid John Houthon, and that by way of a certain document which the defendants present to the court, the same William Houton quitclaimed to a certain John de Bosenho all claim to the aforesaid messuage, land, and meadow which the late John Houthon had in Easton Neston and Hulcote, Northamptonshire, warranting the property against all men etc. JL, GL, and John Basynges say that it is of this same John Bosenho that they have estate in the aforesaid property. The defendants offer to verify this and seek judgment if William Hayward and Joan Hayward continue their action contrary to the writing of the aforesaid William Houthon, heir of John Houthon.
Pleading: William Hayward and Joan Hayward say that the aforesaid document is not of William Houthon's making and seek inquiry upon the country by way of the witnesses named in the writing, namely William A., Ralph P., and Thomas B. The defendants seek likewise. The writing is given to clerk Robert D. for safe keeping. The sheriff of Northamptonshire is ordered to bring the aforesaid witnesses, as well as a jury, to the court at the octave of Michaelmas.
Postea text: Process continued, jury in respite to octave of Trinity 1427, nisi prius they come before the justices of assize at Northampton 19 February 1427. On this day, defendants come by attorney, justices send record that on that day, John Cokayn and James Strangways, justices of assize, defendants came, plaintiffs did not come. They and pledges amerced, defendants sent without day.
|Charter||Easton Neston < Northamptonshire < England||(initial) 03/08/1394|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 107
Pleading: Robert Charryngworth amerced for many defaults. John Olney states that on 16 May 1412, at Westminster, RC, by an indenture, granted to JO an annual rent of 31s 8d, to be taken annually from all RC's lands and tenements in Westminster which were formerly of William Hulle, payable at the four usual terms, namely the Nativity of St John the Baptist, Michaelmas, Christmas and Easter. This was to be taken for the term of JO's life, from those lands regardless of whose hands they came into. Should this rent or any part fall into arrears at any term, JO may make distraint until the debt is satisfied. However, on 11 July 1425, JO entered into a certain tenement of JC, parcel of the said lands, and took certain goods and chattels of JC, namely two mazers bound with silver, two tin basins and 10 silver spoons, by way of distraint, as he was entitled to do, as the annual rent had been in arrears since Michaelmas 1421 and the arrears amounted to £7 8s 4d. However, RC, together with JC, forcibly took the goods back from JO, against the peace and to his damage of £20. He shows in court the part of the agreement sealed with RC's seal, granting the annual rent. JO says that Wednesday next after the quindene of St John the Baptist 1425 (11/07/1425) in a certain tenement of John C. which was a parcel of the aforesaid lands and tenements against which the rents were due, and against which he might make distraint in accordance with the aforesaid indenture, he attempted to make distraint for £7 8s 4d arrears of the aforesaid rent arising from the period Michaelmas 1421 to the aforesaid Wednesday (11/07/1425). JO says that at this time, when he attempted to make distraint by taking certain goods and chattels, RC, together with JC, used force and arms to withdraw (abstulit) the aforesaid goods contrary to the law and custom on England. Damages are claimed at £20. The goods and chattels which JO attempted to distrain were namely: 2 silver bound mazers (duas murras argento legatas); 2 tin/pewter basins (duas pelves stanneas); and 10 silver spoons. JO presents one part of the indenture to the court.
Pleading: RC does not acknowledge the aforesaid indenture, nor that the tenement involved was a parcel of the lands and tenements aforesaid upon which JO might make distraint, nor that any arrears of rent existed, and says that he is innocent. RC puts himself upon the country, and JO puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of Middlesex to make a jury come in the morrow of the Ascension of the lord 1426 (Later in Easter term 1426).
|Detention of Goods||Westminster < Middlesex < England||(initial) 11/07/1425|
|Annuity||Westminster < Middlesex < England||(initial) 16/05/1412|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 109
Pleading: John H. claims that on 28/12/1425, at London, he delivered to JF a certain chest containing charters, writings, and other muniments which JF now refuses to return. Damages are claimed at £5000.
Pleading: JF presents the aforesaid chest with charters etc. to the court and says that he is ready to deliver it with the court's decision. However, JF says hat the chest was given to him by both JH and a certain Thomas S. with the mutual assent of both parties, only to be returned to one or the other of them under certain conditions. JF says that he is unawares, on the part of TS, if those conditions have been met, and so seeks that TS be warned etc. The decision is that the sheriff of London is to make it known to TS by good and honest men that he is to be at the court in Easter in five weeks (later in Easter term 1426) if he wishes to object etc. Day is given between the parties in the term aforesaid.
Postea text: postea 1 - TS does not come, and the sheriff of London returns that it was made known to TS that eh ought to be to this court etc. by John S. and Richard L. Therefore, the decision is that JH is to have livery of the aforesaid chest with charters etc. Upon this JF delivers the sealed chest to JH in this court and is quit of it.
|Safe Keeping||St Dunstan in the West < Farringdon Ward Without < London < England||(initial) 28/12/1425|
|John Frank (m)||Clerk||London < England||Defendant|
|John Halle (m)||Plaintiff|
|John Selby (m)||Official|
|Richard London (m)||Official|
|Thomas Seyntclere (m)||Esquire||Other|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 111
Pleading: Robert T., John Coo, Walter B., John Cote, William M., and Thomas P., executors of the will of William S., claim that Nicholas B. owes them £30 by way of a bond made between NB and the late WS. Damages are claimed at £20. Bond shown in court as well as letters testamentary. And upon this the executors say that the bond was made at London etc.
Pleading: NB says that the action against him ought not continue because he also made an indenture with the late WS, one part of which NB presents to the court under WS's seal. This indenture says that if he should pay to WS 6 good and sufficient tuns/casks (dolea) of red Gascon wine in the six years then next following the making of the indenture, namely one tun/cask of wine 'or 100s in value of the said tun/cask' each year at the feast of the Purification, then the bond shall be null and void. NB says that he paid the late WS one tun/cask of good and sufficient red Gascon wine each year at Boston, Lincolnshire, in accordance with the indenture, and seeks judgement etc.
Pleading: The executors say that NB did not pay the late WS the 5 tuns/casks of wine due in the last five years of the aforesaid six years. They also say that NB did not pay the late WS a cask/tun of wine in the first year of the aforesaid 6 years, during the life of the late WS, in accordance with the indenture etc.
Pleading: NB says that he paid the late WS a tun/cask of wine during the first year of the aforesaid agreement in accordance with the indenture and puts himself upon the country, and the executors put themselves likewise. Order to the sheriff of Lincolnshire to make a jury come in Trinity term 1426.
Case notes: Further information drawn from CP40/674 rot.119 (Trinity term 1429), this later re-entry is badly damaged and so the only new information is the name of the attorney plaintiff in 1429 (Philip Leweston]
|Bond||St Mary Fenchurch < Langbourn Ward < London < England||
(due) 02/02/1418 < Blessed Virgin Mary, Purification of
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 114
Pleading: Richard Osbarn and John Tanner, executors of the will of Henry Pountfreyt, state that on 29 May 1406, Bernard Saunderton made a bond with HP and John Fynderne, who pre-deceased HP, in £120 to be paid on 19 November 1406 in the parish of All Hallows (Lombard Street) at Gracechurch Street, but has not paid, to their damage of £200. They show the bond in court as well as letters testamentary. And upon this RO and JT say that the bond was made at London etc.
Pleading: BS states that he should not be held to this debt, as on 20 July 1415, by a document which BS shows in court, John Fynderne released him, by name of Bernard Saunturdon, from all actions relating to all manner of debts, accounts and other matters.
Pleading: The executors state that JF did not make this release to BS, as he claims. Both parties seek enquiry on the country. Sheriff of Buckinghamshire to have jury of Wycombe here in Trinity term 1426. Document to remain in custody of Robert Darcy, chief clerk.
Postea text: postea 2 - both the plaintiffs and defendant come, as well a s a jury. And upon this BS claims that the jury was arraigned by John S., under-sheriff of Buckinghamshire, and that it is bias in favour of the plaintiffs. This claim is found to be true by way of (per) John P. and Nicholas H., two of the jurors empanelled. The sheriff is to find supply jurors (decem tales), and the jury is respited as far the octave of Martinmas (later in Michaelmas term 1426).
|Release (from Debt/obligation)||Wycombe < Buckinghamshire < England||(initial) 20/07/1415|
|Bond||St Peter Cornhill < Cornhill Ward < London < England||
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 115
Term: Easter 1426
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £20
Damages awarded: 5m
Case type: Detention of goods; Real action / rents / damage to real estate; Trespass (chattels)
Pleading: William Baxster claims that Richard Kent, Nicholas Kent, and John Morys, owe him certain draught-animals for services and customs in William Baxster's fee at Heydon, Norfolk, which RK, NK, and JM forcibly refused him when William Baxster sought to impark the said animals in accordance with the law and customs of the realm. William Baxster says that on 7 September 1422, in his fee of 11½ acres of land at Heydon (which a certain Richard Merivale and Richard Osbern hold, and then held, from William Baxster, namely 6 acres for fealty and rent of 15d, 5 acres for fealty and rent of 9d, and half an acre for fealty and rent of 2d, payable to William Baxster and his heirs annually at Michaelmas and Lady Day), William Baxster was owed three horses for fealty and rents from the six years preceding that day; namely one horse for 7s 6d arrears of fealty and rents arising from the annual rent of 15d on the aforesaid 6 acres, one horse for 4s 6d arrears of fealty and rents arising from the annual rent of 9d on the aforesaid 5 acres, and a third horse for 12d arrears of fealty and rents arising from the annual rent of 2d on the aforesaid half acre. William Baxster says that he wished to impark these horses on the aforesaid 7 September 1422, but RK, NK and JM forcibly refused him. Damages claimed at £20.
Pleading: RK, NK, and JM come and defend etc. NK denies the trespass, and puts himself upon the country, and WB puts himself likewise. RK says that at the time of the supposed trespass, RM and RO were seised of the said 11½ acres in their demesne as of fee, and were so seised of those lands long before the day of the supposed trespass. RK says that RM and RO, thus seised, demised this property to him as their tenant at will, by the force of which demise RK had possession of the property at the time of the supposed trespass and so had good licence to resist William Baxster. JM says that at the time of the supposed trespass he was simply acting as the servant of RK, and did not intend any other injury.
Postea text: postea 1 - the sheriff of Norfolk return that the writ reached him too late, and so the case is forwarded as the octave of the nativity of St John the Baptist 1426 (later in trinity term 1426).
Postea text: postea 3 - the case is heard at the assize of Norwich on 21/07/1427 before justices William Babyngton and William Westbury. The jury come and say upon oath that NK is innocent of the aforesaid trespass. However, the jury also says that the place where the trespass took place was indeed within the fee and demesne of William Baxster. Therefore William Baxster is to recover versus RK and JM, damages of 5m. RK and JM are to be arrested, and William Baxster is in mercy for false claim against NK.
Breach of Tenure
|Heydon < Norfolk < England||(initial) 07/09/1422|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 119
Pleading: Roger B. claims that on 29/09/1425 he retained Joan B. to work for him as a spinster for one whole year then next following, but on 05/11/1425 she withdrew into from his service without reasonable cause or good licence and entered into the service of John E. RB requested that JE restore JB to him, but JE instead received JB in contempt of the king and in breach of the statute (of labourers) etc. Damages are claimed at 100s.
|Service/employment Contract||Westminster < Middlesex < England||
(due) 29/09/1426 < Michaelmas
|Joan Baldok (f)||Servant||London < England||Defendant|
|John Edrych (m)||Husbandman||London < England||Defendant|
|Roger Baldok (m)||Plaintiff|
|un-named (m)||Attorney of defendant|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 119d
Pleading: Thomas E. and Isabel E. claims that William Ryng has not rendered reasonable account concerning the time when he acted as IE's receiver. TE and IE say that William Ryng was set forth as the receiver of IE whilst she was a woman alone, from 01/09/1420 until Easter then next following (23/03/1421), during which time William Ryng received on behalf of IE: 28s 10d by the hands of 'chaplain Thomas B. at Kingston upon Hull', Yorkshire; 26s 8d by the hands of 'William Robynson of Kkingston upon Hull'; 26s 8d by the hands of Matilda the wife of William Rose; and 26s 8d by the hands of Simon S. William Ryng was requested to render reasonable account concerning these monies both before and after IE's marriage to TE, but has failed to do so. Damages are claimed at 20m.
Pleading: TE and IE say that William Ryng did not have an accounting with IE whilst he was a single woman in the form aforesaid and seek inquiry upon the country, and William Ryng seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in trinity term 1426. Pledges are named for the defendant.
|Service/employment Contract||Kingston upon Hull < Yorkshire < England||
(due) 23/03/1421 < Easter
|Accounting||St Helen Bishopsgate < Bishopsgate Ward < London < England|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 124d
Pleading: Richard M. claims that Christina B. used force and arms to break his house at Chitterne, Wiltshire, where she seized and carried off goods and chattels to the value of £20. The goods taken were namely: 6 gold rings; 2 gold necklaces; one silver-bound girdle; 12 silver spoons; and one silver mixing-bowl (crateram). Damages are claimed at £100.
Pleading: CB says that she is, and was on the day of the making of the original writ, covered (subject to the coverture) of her man (husband) Peter G. at Dursley, Gloucestershire. CB says that she is prepared to verify this and seeks judgement on the writ.
Pleading: RM says that on the day of the making of the original writ, namely [left blank] CB was a single woman and seeks inquiry upon the country, and CB seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Gloucestershire to make a jury come in Trinity term 1426. Pledges are named for the defendant.
Taking of Goods
|Chitterne < Wiltshire < England||(initial) 12/01/1424|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 126d
Pleading: William L. claims that on 13/03/1423 Robert W. used force and arms to break his house in the parish of St Mary le Strand, Middlesex, from which he seized and carried off goods and chattels to the value of £20. The goods and chattels taken were namely: one mazer; one mixing-bowl (craterem); 6 silver spoons; one entire bed; one cover (coopertorium); 2 sheets with testers; 6 cushions; 2 copper/brass jars; one basin (pelvem) with one laver; and 5 books. Damages are claimed at £30.
Pleading: RW says that he is innocent and puts himself upon the country, and WL puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of Middlesex to make a jury come in Easter term in 5 weeks (later in Easter term 1426).
Taking of Goods
|St Mary le Strand < Middlesex < England||(initial) 13/03/1423|
|Robert Wade (m)||Gentleman||London < England||Defendant|
|William Leche (m)||Plaintiff|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 130d
Pleading: Thomas Chaumberleyn seeks from Thomas Boteler and his wife Matilda the manor of Crafton, Buckinghamshire, which Richard Sakeville gave to his niece, Albreda Priour, and the heirs of her body. TC says that after the death of Albreda and John, her son and heir, the manor ought to have descended to him, as son and heir of John.
Pleading: TB and MB say that they are not able to render the aforesaid manor to TC because they do not hold it as of their free tenement, nor did they on the day of TC's original writ. They seek judgment on the writ.
Pleading: TC says that on the day of the making of his original writ, namely 25 January 1424, TB and MB were tenants of this manor as of free tenement. Enquiry by country, jury here at octave of Michaelmas.
|Location of Property||Crafton < Buckinghamshire < England|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 136
Pleading: JS says that JE and RG ought not maintain their case against him because after the making of the aforesaid bond he and the plaintiffs made an indenture, which JS presents to the court, sealed by JE and RG. This indenture contains the condition that the aforesaid bond was to be null and void if JS should deliver to JE and/or RG, at Bruges in Flanders, by the date given in the bond (01/05/1425): 9 pieces of worsted each containing in length 10 yards of 'Chapmannesware', each piece being worth 35s; and also 6 cloths of worsted each containing in length 6 yards of 'Chapmannesware, each cloth being worth 15s. JS says that prior to the due-date of the bond, at Norwich, he delivered all of the aforesaid cloth to RG and seeks judgement.
Pleading: JE and RG say that JS did not deliver to RG pieces of cloth of the length and value specified in the indenture and seek inquiry upon the country, and JS seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff (of Norwich) to make a jury come in Trinity term 1426. pledges are named for the defendant.
|Bond||Norwich < Norfolk < England||
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 153
Pleading: Thomas A. claims that John T. owes him 50s per a bond. Damages are claimed at 100s. Bond shown in court. And, TA says that the bond was made at London in the parish of St Mary Woolnoth, ward of [omitted].
Pleading: AT says that JT was a free man at the time of the bond's making and seeks inquiry upon the country, and JT seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Leicestershire to make a jury come in Trinity term 1426.
|Bond||St Mary Woolnoth < London < England||
(due) < Christmas
|Imprisonment||Lutterworth < Leicestershire < England||(initial) 24/10/1416|
|John Tripp (m)||Chapman||Lutterworth < Leicestershire < England||Defendant|
|Thomas Austyn (m)||Citizen||Mercer||London < England||Plaintiff|
|Thomas Byfeld (m)||Attorney of defendant|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 302
Pleading: Adam O., master of St Anthony's hospital, London, claims that on 3 February 1426, at Fishlake in Yorkshire, Robert Turnour, vicar of Fishlake, forcibly took and carried away 40s in cash belonging to AO, and assaulted his servant John Pees, so that he was deprived of his service from the day of the trespass until the day of his original writ, namely 20 March 1426. Damages claimed at £40.
Pleading: [continued at Trinity 1426, rot 105] RT denies force and arms and acting against the peace, and the whole trespass except the assault. Parties on country. Concerning the assault on JP, RT says that on the Sunday of the supposed trespass JP entered the church of Fishlake and ascended the pulpit of the church during the high mass, wishing to preach the gospels without the licence of the ordinary. Therefore, at the time of the supposed trespass, RT took JP by his clothes and dragged him from the pulpit, this being the alleged assault.
Pleading: AO, not acknowledging anything said by RT and protesting that JP, as proctor of the hospital of St Anthony and servant of AO, had the licence of the hospital to preach in the church, states that after the celebration of high mass RT called JP to a certain private place in the same church and assaulted him there, this being the assault of which he complains.
Taking of Goods
|Fishlake < Yorkshire < England||(initial) 03/02/1426|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 302d
Pleading: Richard O. claims that Thomas V. owes him 40s as determined by a reckoning of the account between them before auditors Richard B. and John S., concerning the time when TV acted as RO's receiver. Damages are claimed at 100s.
Pleading: [Further information drawn from CP40/663 rot.109d - Michaelmas 1426] Protesting that RB and JS were never auditors of account assigned by RO, TV says that he never had any such accounting before the aforesaid auditors and puts himself upon the country, and RO puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of Worcestershire to make a jury come in Hilary term 1427.
Postea text: postea 3 - the case is heard at assize Worcester on 28/02/1427 before justices John Hals and Thomas Rolf. Defendant TV does not come and so the jury is taken against him in default. The jury says on oath that an accounting was had between TV and RO, just as RO claimed. RO is to recover the debt plus 20s in damages. And upon this RC seeks that the justices increase his award to cover his costs surrounding the suit. The justices award RO an additional 6s 8d. Therefore RO is to recover the 40s debt plus 20s damages and 6s 8d for costs.
|Accounting||Worcester < Worcestershire < England||(initial) 30/04/1425|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 303
Pleading: Alexander R. and his wife Joan R. claim that on 27/06/1412 at Westminster, Middlesex, William W. used force and arms to seize and carry off goods and chattels of the aforesaid JR to the value of £40, whilst she was a single woman. The goods and chattels taken were namely: 7 covers (coopertoria) of tapis-work; a certain blue covering; one violet outer-garment with rabbit fur (unam togam violet cum cuniculus furratam); one striped outer-garment with white lamb's fur; one fur of marten ('foin'); 2 copper/brass plates; one 10 gallon copper/brass jar; one 3 gallon copper/brass chafer; and two large, round basins of copper/brass. Damages are claimed at £60.
Pleading: WW says that he is innocent of coming with force and arms to take the aforesaid goods and puts himself upon the country, and AR with JR put themselves likewise. He also says that the goods named were not of the value claimed in the writ. Further, WW says that prior to the day of the supposed trespass JR, as a single woman, was indebted to him in 11m for red and sweet wines which she had bought from him; and so on the day of the supposed trespass JR delivered the aforesaid goods to WW in part-payment of the aforesaid 11m.
Pleading: WW again says that JR delivered the goods to him and puts himself upon the country, and AR with JR put themselves likewise. Order to the sheriff of Middlesex to make a jury come in Trinity term 1426.
|Taking of Goods||Westminster < Middlesex < England||(initial) 27/06/1412|
|Alexander Rayle (m)||Plaintiff|
|Joan Rayle (f)||Plaintiff|
|John Kemp (m)||Attorney of defendant|
|Robert Tettebury (m)||Attorney of plaintiff|
|William Walshale (m)||Draper||London < England||Defendant|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 306d
Pleading: William H. claims that John F. owes him £10 as determined by a reckoning of the account between them before auditors William N. and William M., concerning the time which JF acted as WH's receiver of monies. Damages are claimed at £20.
|Accounting||St Bride Fleet Street < Farringdon Ward Without < London < England||(initial) 31/05/1425|
|John Fereby (m)||Esquire||St Pauls Cray < Kent < England||Defendant|
|John Gilmelynggey (m)||Attorney of plaintiff|
|William Hodenet (m)||Clerk||Plaintiff|
|William Martyn (m)||Auditor|
|William Nicoll (m)||Auditor|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 326
Pleading: John S. and Roger H. claim that John M., together with Elizabeth C., William J., Matilda J., Thomas H., and Thomas S. used force and arms to break their close at Twickenham, Middlesex. Damages are claimed at £20.
Pleading: JM says that he is innocent of the use of force and arms and puts himself upon the country, and JS with RH put themselves likewise. Concerning the supposed breaking of JS and RH's close, JM says that a certain Roger C. was lately seized of 1 messuage, 30 acres of land, and 6 acres of pasture in Twickenham, of which the aforesaid close is a part. JM says that RC died seised of this property in his demesne as of fee and of tail, at which time the property descended to his daughter and heir EC (as above), who entered the property and was seised of it in her demesne as of fee until what time as a certain William S., falsely contending that the property was his on the pretext of a certain charter by which he supposed that the late RC had given the aforesaid land to he and his heirs in perpetuity where in fact RC had given him nothing, unlawfully entered upon the possession of EC and enfeoffed the aforesaid property to the JS, RH, and a certain George S. On the pretext of this enfeoffment JS and RH entered into the tenement of EC, upon the possession of which JS and RH the aforesaid trespass is supposed to have taken place. JM says that he is the servant of EC and was the servant of EC at the time of the supposed trespass, whence he helped EC re-enter the aforesaid property as she had good licence to do.
Pleading: JS and RH say that it is true that RC was seised of the aforesaid property in his demesne etc., but that RC did in fact dive the property WS and his heirs in perpetuity, and that WS was seised of in in his demesne etc. Seised of the aforesaid tenement, WS gave it to JS, RH, and their heirs in perpetuity, by the force of which gift they were seised of the property in their demesne and as of fee at the time of the trespass.
Pleading: JM reiterates his claim that RC died seised of the aforesaid property and puts himself upon the country, and JS with RH put themselves likewise. Order to the sheriff of Middlesex to make a jury come on the morrow of the ascension of the lord 1426.
Postea text: postea 2 - A jury comes and says on oath that RC did not die seised of the aforesaid property in his demesne. JS and RH are to receive damages of 13s 4d plus costs of 26s 8d as set by the jury. Also, JS and RH are to receive an additional 13s 4d for costs, awarded by the justices at the request of JS and RH. JM is to be arrested etc. However, execution of the aforesaid judgement is to be delayed until such time as a plea between JS and RH on the one part, and EC with WI and MI on the other part, has been terminated.
|House-breaking||Twickenham < Middlesex < England||(initial) 03/01/1425|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 327
Pleading: Richard B. and John L. claim that Richard D. the son and heir of William D. owes them 50m per a bond. RB and JL claim that on 27/01//1419 a bond for 50m was made between RD on the one part and RB, JL, and a certain late William S. on the other part. RB and JL say that this bond has gone unpaid and claim damages of £100. Bond shown in court.
Pleading: [further information drawn from CP40/662 rot.330] RD says that RB and JL ought not maintain their suit because also on 27/11/1419 a certain indenture was made between the late WS and RD himself, at Brent Eleigh, Suffolk. RD presents this indenture to the court under the seal of WS. By this indenture the late WS obliged himself to be held to John W. and Richard O. in £80, payable to JW and RC in the form following, namely: during the whole of the life of lord Thomas M. dean of St Paul's, 5m annually, at the feasts of the Pentecost and Martinmas in equal portions, the first payment being due in the Pentecost next following; and after the death of TM £10 annually at the aforesaid feasts in equal portions, until the full £80 should be paid. And also with RD, by way of 3 bonds, obliged himself to WS, RB, and JL in a total of £100 - these bonds being 50m each, under the condition that if he should discharge, acquit, and indemnify WS, his heirs, and executors from the aforesaid £80 that the three 50m bonds totalling £100 ought to be null and void. RD says that he paid JW and RO the aforesaid 5m per annum during the life of TM and £10 per year after the death of TM, to a total of £80, namely at Lavenham, Suffolk. RD further says that that the 50m on which this present suit has been brought against him is one of the three, aforesaid 50m bonds that ought now be null and void as per the terms of the indenture. RD seeks judgement.
Pleading: RD says that his pleading is sufficient in law, and that RB and JL have not denied the material he has presented. RD seeks judgement and that the action of RB and JL be precluded. And because the justice wishes to be advised before making a judgement further day is given between the parties in Michaelmas term 1426.
|Bond||Brent Eleigh < Suffolk < England||(initial) 27/11/1419|
|Bond||St Bride Fleet Street < Farringdon Ward Without < London < England||
(due) 25/12/1419 < Christmas
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 339d
Pleading: William Cavndysh and William T. claim that Richard B., administrator of the goods and chattels of John C. (died intestate), owes them £40 by way of a bond made on 30/12/1419 in the London church of St Mary le Bow, Cheap Ward, between the late JC on the one part and William Cavndysh with WT on the other part. William Cavndysh and WT say that the late JC did not pay this bond, nor has RB since being named JC's administrator by archbishop Henry C. in the parish and ward aforesaid. Damages are claimed at £40. Bond shown to the court.
Pleading: [further information drawn from CP40/665 rot.332d.] RB says that William Cavndysh and WT ought not maintain their suit against him because he made full administration of the goods and chattels which were of the late JC at the time of JC's death, and had noting of the late JC in his hands at the time of the making of the plaintiffs' original writ.
Pleading: William Cavndysh and WT say that at the time they made their original writ, on 12/06/1424, RB was in possession of diverse un-administered goods and chattels of the late JC sufficient to cover the debt; namely at London in the parish of St Mary le Bow, Cheap Ward. William Cavndysh and WT seek inquiry upon the country, and RB seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in Trinity term 1427.
Postea text: postea 5 - RB does not come to defend and so a jury is to be taken against him in default. A jury is to be made to come in the quindene of St John the Baptist 1428 unless the case is first heard before chief justice William B. at the assize of St Martin le Grand on 02/07/1428.
Postea text: postea 6 - The case is heard before chief justice William B. and associate justice John D. at the assize of St Martin le Grand on 02/07/1428. A jury comes and says on oath that upon the making of the original writ of William Cavendysh and WT on 12/06/1424 RB was in possession of un-administered goods of the late JC sufficient to cover the aforesaid debt. William Cavendysh and WT are to recover the aforesaid debt from the goods and chattels of the late JC and in the hands of RB, plus damages of 100s and 100s costs from the lands and chattels of RB.
|Bond||St Mary le Bow < Cheap Ward < London < England||
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 347d
Pleading: John S. is in mercy for many defaults. Richard R. claims that JS unjustly detains two bonds which were given to him for safe keeping. RR says that one of these bonds shows that RR himself is held to Henry C. in £40, payable at certain terms contained therein. The other bond shows that the same HC is held to RR in £40 payable a certain terms contained therein. Damages are claimed at 100m.
Pleading: JS presents the bonds to the court and says that he is ready to deliver them with the court's decision. However, JS says that the bonds were given to him with the mutual assent of RR and HC, only to be returned to RR or HC under certain conditions. JS says that he is ignorant, on the part of HC, as to whether these conditions have been met. JS requests that HC be warned etc. Therefore the decision is that the sheriff the sheriff of Buckinghamshire is to make it known to HC by good and honest men that he is to come to this court in Trinity term 1426 if he wishes to object to the bonds' delivery etc. Day is given to the parties in the same term etc.
Postea text: postea 1 - JS and RR come to the court and the sheriff of Buckinghamshire returns that HC has nothing in his bailiwick. Upon this it is testified that HC has estate in Oxfordshire, and so order to the sheriff of Oxfordshire to make it known to HC by good and honest men that he is to come to this court in Michaelmas term 1426 if he wished to object etc.
|Safe Keeping||Newport Pagnell < Buckinghamshire < England||(initial) 02/08/1423|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 379
Pleading: John K. claims that on 03/08/1425 at Southwark, Surrey, Roger B. and Robert H. used force and arms to take ('rapuerunt') JK's wife Elizabeth, abduct her, and take certain goods and chattels which they detain (value not given), contrary to the statute (not specified). The goods and chattels taken were namely: 4 gowns; two silver bound girdles of silk; one gold ring; one rosary; 8 pair of sheets; 6 pair of blankets; 8 bed covers; 4 mattresses; and other household utensils. Damages are claimed at 100m.
Breach of Statute
Taking of Goods
|Southwark < Surrey < England||(initial) 03/08/1425|
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 385
Pleading: William M. claims that John T. owes him 50s per a bond, made at London on 06/06/1424 and payable to WM in payments of: 20s in Michaelmas 1424 (29/09/1424); 13s 4d in Christmas 1424 (25/12/1424); and 16s 8d in the feast of the annunciation of St Mary 1425 (25/03/1425). Damages are claimed at 100s. Bond shown in court.
Pleading: WM says that JT was a free man at the time of the bond's making and seeks inquiry upon the country, and JT seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Buckinghamshire to make a jury come in trinity term 1426. And upon this WM puts in his place versus JT, a certain (attorney) Nicholas C.
|Bond||St Pancras Soper Lane < Cheap Ward < London < England||
(due) 29/09/1424 < Michaelmas
(due) 25/12/1424 < Christmas
(due) 25/03/1425 < Blessed Virgin Mary, Annunciation of
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/661, rot. 386
Pleading: John Stratton and William T., executors of the will of John Sutton, together with John O. and his wife Alice O., the same Alice being an executor and former wife of the late John Sutton, claim that Robert F. unjustly detains a certain acquittance/ release. The plaintiffs say that on 07/04/1419 executors John Stratton, WT, and Alice O. (whilst a single woman) delivered to RF a certain writing showing that Simon S. and his wife Margaret S., herself being the daughter of the late John Sutton, acknowledged that they had received £40 from John Stratton, WT, and AO as much in full payment and satisfaction of Margaret as in full satisfaction of John Sutton's sons, Robert (S.) and Henry (S.), in whatever manner contingently (qualitercumque contingenter extunc) from then in the future by the death of the same Robert (S.) and Henry (S.) or either of them [i.e. SS and SM shall have no right to sue the executors no matter what should happen to RS and HS], quitclaiming all actions and demands against the aforesaid executors etc. The plaintiffs say that they have often requested that RF return this release, both before and after AO's marriage to JO but that RF has refused. Damages are claimed at £40.
Pleading: RF presents the release to the court and says that it was given to him with the unanimous assent of SS and the aforesaid executors John Strattion, WT, and AO to be returned to SS of the executors under certain conditions. RF says that he is unaware, on the part of SS, as to whether these conditions have been met, and so seeks that SS be warned etc. Therefore the decision is that the sheriff of London is to make it know to SS by good and honest men that he is come to this court in (term left blank) if he wishes to object to the release's delivery etc. Day is given to the plaintiffs and defendant in the same term.
|Safe Keeping||London < England||(initial) 07/04/1419|