Lancashire Assize Rolls: 4 John - 13 Edward I. Originally published by Lancashire and Cheshire Record Society, s.l, 1903.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
Assize Roll 1238. Divers Counties.
6 Edward I.
Pleas of Juries and Assizes taken at Lancastre on the morrow of the exaltation of the Holy Cross before John de Reygate and William de Northburgh, Justices assigned, and Ranulph de Dakre and Richard le Botyler, whom they have associated to themselves, in the sixth year of the reign of king edward son of king henry [15 September 1278].
Novel disseisin (fn. 1)—Benedict vicar of Gerstang church v. John le Taylur re a dyke set up in Gerstang.
Nuisance (fn. 1)—William de Dydesbiry v. John de Byrum, Simon de Gousle, Robert son of Sewall, Robert son of Stephen, Richard fiz la vedue and Robert son of Sampson re a dyke set up in Dydesbiry.
Plaintiff alleges that owing to the dyke, whereas he used to drive his oxen, calves, beasts and other cattle, direct from his house to the common pasture in Dydesbiry, he is now obliged to go about a league round. Defendants deny damage, and say that plaintiff has ample access to his pasture, the dyke being ½ league from his house. Verdict, that a quarter of the dyke, 10 perches long, is to the plaintiff's hurt. Judgment, that the said quarter be demolished at defendants' cost; and for defendants as to the rest of the dyke. Damages 2s. C.
Novel disseisin (fn. 1)—Alice who was wife of Master William de Preston v. Nicholas son of Roger de Preston, Roger son of Adam, Robert le Wodeward and John his son re a toft, 9 acres of land and I acre of meadow in Preston.
Nicholas says that he bought the tenement from Alice for 49s. sterling, which he paid to her and to her creditors at her command. Alice admits an agreement between them, but it came to nothing. Verdict, that Alice sold the tenement to the wife of Nicholas. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff poor.
Novel disseisin (fn. 2)—John de Kyrkeby v. Roger de Lancastre, Simon le Taylur and others re a tenement in Kirkeby Irelith.
Novel disseisin (fn. 2)—Isold daughter of Hugh le Forester and Alice her sister v. William de Catherton, Richard his brother and others re a tenement in Elhal.
Novel disseisin (fn. 2)—Alexander le Mey of Barton v. Geoffrey le Byrun and the Abbot of Stanlowe re common of pasture in Barton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 2)—Roger de Sambyry and Agnes his wife v. Robert de Hampton and Margery his wife re common of pasture in Samesbury.
Novel disseisin (fn. 2)—Henry son of Henry de Clayton v. William de Aluetham, John de Chuttesworthe and others re a tenement in Clayton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 2)—Adam de Byry v. Henry de Lascy, Earl of Lincoln, and others re a tenement in Totington.
Novel disseisin (fn. 3)—Juliana daughter of John Gilibrond v. Robert de Hoyland, Jordan Taluate, Richard de Coppedhirst, Richard son of Elyas, Simon le Taylur and John son of Richard de Goldeburne re a messuage, a croft, 7 oxgangs of land, a moiety of the site of a water mill, 2 acres of meadow and 10 acres of wood, in Goldeburn.
Adam (fn. 3) de Herthilliswik, (fn. 4) Adam de Bikerstat, William de Clacton, William de Catherton, Richard de Aula, Alan de Welslet, Richard de Hilton, Geoffrey de Chadirton, Richard de Wirkedlee, William de Hopwode and Adam de Eckelles, fined for a tumult.
Put back to the next coming of the Justices of all Pleas hither unless John de Reigate and William de Northburgh come first to these parts, for lack of jurors; the writ etc., and the jury are ordered to view on Sunday next after the feast of S. Michael [2 October 1278].
Novel disseisin (fn. 3)—William son of William de Ponte v. Adam de Bury, Henry son of Cecily de Hepe, John le Archer, Geoffrey son of Jennet, (fn. 6) Matthew son of Adam de Bury, William son of Richard, Adam son of Gilbert, Roger his brother and William son of Robert Stute re a messuage and 1 oxgang in Bury.
Adam, by William de Radeclyue his bailiff, says that he simply claims his own demesne; for one Roger de Boulton held the tenement as his tenant and wished to alienate it, so Adam seized it into his own hands. Verdict, for plaintiff, with Judgment. Damages 2s. C.
Novel disseisin (fn. 8)—Richard de Muston v. Robert de Grelley and others re a dyke demolished in Denton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 8)—John de Bromhirst v. Robert de Gredleye re common of pasture in Barton belonging to freehold in Bromhirst.
Novel disseisin (fn. 8)—Adam de Hulme v. Robert de Gredleye, Robert de Birkes and others re a tenement in Hulme.
Novel disseisin (fn. 8)—Alice daughter of Robert de Staynyng v. Henry de la Lee re a messuage and 6 acres in Frenkesslee.
Henry says that one Emma daughter of William de Durrem, before Walter de Helyon and his fellow justices last in Eyre in that county, recovered the tenement by writ of Mort d'Ancestor from Robert de Stayning father of Alice. Verdict, that Emma recovered and enfeoffed Henry. Judgment for defendant: plaintiff poor.
Novel disseisin (fn. 8)—Nicholas de Turton and Eve his wife v. Thomas son of Henry and Ammyria his wife and others re obstruction of a way in Turton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 11)—John Byrun and Jennet his wife v. Philip, Abbot of Roche and others re a tenement in Butterworth.
Put back to the next coming etc., unless etc., because Henry de Trafford, Richard de Workedel, (fn. 12) Richard de Urmeston, Robert de Schoresworth, Richard de Boulton, Henry de Tonge, Robert de Barlowe, William de Bradechae, Robert de Rediche, Adam de Werberton, Thomas de Heton, Richard de Redeford and Roger de Boulton, jurors of that Assize, have not made a view ; so they are fined; the writ etc.
William de Dutton, (fn. 13) Serjeant of Blakeburneschyre, fined for contempt.
Novel disseisin (fn. 13)—Henry son of Reginald v. Richard le Botyler re a messuage and 5 roods of land in Wytele.
Amabel says that she has entry through Roger who assigned the manor to her as dower after the death of Elyas her husband, son (fn. 15) of Roger.
Verdict, that Roger disseised Adam of the manor, except Brailesdon and the Milneridyng and the moiety of a water mill on Irewelle. Judgment for Adam, except as above; and, as Roger of his own free will warranted the said manor to Amabel, she is to have of his lands to the same value, and the Sheriff is to put her in seisin in a fitting place without delay. Damages, 40d. C.
Novel disseisin (fn. 13)—Roger de Walleye v. Beatrice de Blakeburne, Adam son of Elyas and others re a tenement in Little Mitton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 13)—John de Euyas and Cecily his wife v. Robert de Holand and Elizabeth his wife re a tenement in Sampnelbiry.
Novel disseisin (fn. 13)—Same v. same re obstruction of 5 ways in Sampnesbiry.
Novel disseisin (fn. 13)—William de Hillepol v. William de la Mare and others.
Novel disseisin (fn. 17)—Emma daughter of Margery de Sonky v. Symon son of Margery de Sonky re a tenement in Sonky.
Novel disseisin (fn. 18)—Emma daughter of Hugh le Norrays v. Hugh le Norrays, Robert de Holand and Roger Thunwich re 2 messuages, 20 acres of arable land and 7 acres of meadow in Blakerod.
Novel disseisin (fn. 19)—Richard son of Robert and Thomas his brother, v. Robert son of Thomas, Warrin son of Matthew, Richard de Lascell and Avice his wife re 3 messuages. 20 acres of land, 12 acres of wood, moor and marsh, (fn. 20) in Holand and Dalton.
The plaintiffs say that Robert their father enfeoffed them by charter which they produce. Verdict, that Robert son of Thomas, father of the plaintiffs, as he dared not for certain reasons remain in the country, surrendered the tenement to the Abbot of Cokersaund, chief lord of the fee, who later enfeoffed Matthew father of Warrin; and Matthew in course of time enfeoffed Richard de Lascell and Avice ; and that in no way could Robert enfeoff his sons so that they could have seisin. Judgment for defendants ; plaintiffs poor.
Plaintiff says that the fence protected his crops from devastation by wild animals and other beasts, and that owing to its demolition his crops are trodden down and destroyed. John says that Hugh wished to set up a fence a long way into the pasture of the vill of Weteley, where never fence had been before, which seeing he pulled it down. Verdict, that John de Knoll pulled down 6 perches wrongfully, and 3 perches, newly set up on John's common, justly. Judgment accordingly, John to repair the 6 perches. Damages 6d. C.
Novel disseisin (fn. 23)—Margery late wife of Robert le Feure v. Geoffrey Birun and the Abbot of Stanlowe re common of pasture in Swynton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 23)—John de Workedesley v. the Abbot of Stanlowe and Geoffrey Birun re common of pasture in Swynton, belonging to his freehold in Workedesle.
Novel disseisin (fn. 23)—Richard son of Robert de Turton v. Robert son of Henry de Turton and Alice his wife re a messuage and 12 acres in Heton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 23)—Almarica daughter of Siward de Mortown v. William son of William de Hil re a messuage and 3 acres in Acton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 26)—Alice de Heckeles v. Henry de Strafford and Henry son of Hamo re common of pasture in 2 acres of moor and pasture in Cliffton.
Henry de Strafford says that Alice has no separate freehold in that vill in right of which she could claim common, and that he as lord of the vill approved part of the common under the Statute of Merton. Verdict, that Alice has a separate tenement with adequate common, but that Henry has enclosed about one acre so that Alice has not free entry and exit, as she is obliged to drive her cattle about a furlong [quarentenam] round. Judgment, Alice to recover free entry and exit only. Damages for the same 12d.
Novel disseisin (fn. 27)—Ellen daughter of Hugh de Cliffton v. Henry de Trafford and others re tenement in Cliffton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 28)—William de Dydesbyrry, v. John de Birun, Simon de Gousle, Robert son of Sewall, Robert son of Stephen, Richard fiz la vedue and Robert son of Sampson re common of pasture in 11 acres of wood pasture in Didesbyry.
John and Simon say that they are lords of the vill of Dydesbyry and plaintiff is Simon's tenant, and they plead the Statute of Merton. William says he holds nothing under John and the Statute does not apply as John and Simon are not sharers in right of blood, and the enclosure is at the edge of the vill and he has not free entry and exit. Verdict, that John and Simon are joint lords and William has ample common and the Statute holds good. Judgment for defendants.
Novel disseisin (fn. 28)—Alice daughter of Adam de Blakeburne v. John de Halghton, Ellen his wife, Katerine, Matilda and Jennet his daughters and Gilbert le Garzun Johan re 6 acres in Halghton.
Verdict, that John enfeoffed Alice and put her in seisin subject to the condition that the tenement should revert to John if at a fixed term he should give to Alice a mantle and a cloak [supertunicam] and 12s. at stated terms. John failed to keep the covenant so Alice took part of the tenement and allotted part to others, and afterwards John did not allow her to make use of it. Judgment for plaintiff, and as the Jury find that John and the others disseised her after the King's Statute, so all to custody and damages doubled. Later, fine ½ mark, surety Adam de Houcton. Damages 2s. C.
Novel disseisin (fn. 28)—John de Ursewyk v. William de Clagheton, (fn. 29) Alice late wife of Henry de Croft, Peter de Kellett, Robert del Crag, (fn. 30) John del Crag and Thomas son of Michael re common of pasture in 10 acres of pasture, anciently wood, in Overkellet.
Alice says that all she holds in Overkellet is in dower of the heritage of Roger son of Henry de Croft, a minor, and that she, in his name, with William and one Ralph de Daker chief lords of that vill approved waste under the Statute of Merton, etc. John says that the said common lies among the plough lands of the vill below Akergarth, where no waste is, and the Statute should not extend to such places. Defendants say that even if the Statute does not apply no injury is done, for the custom clearly is that joint owners of vills may break up and approve parts of the pasture adjacent to their arable land, as this is. Verdict for plaintiff, with Judgment. Damages 2s.
Novel disseisin (fn. 31)—Adam de Byri v. Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, Alexander de Elton and Richard his son re 20 acres in one place, 2 acres of arable land in another and 60 acres of moor and wood, in Byry.
It is shown to the Justices (fn. 32) that Adam de Oustwyk, under bailiff of Orm de Kellet, has remitted the King's fines contrary to his oath: so fined, and amerced to the value of 40s.
Novel disseisin (fn. 33)—Matilda who was wife of Ralph Godard and Richard son of Ralph v. Hugh Godard and Robert le Mouner re common of pasture in 1 acre in Estcherinok.
Same v. John Aylsi and Henry Ashoks (fn. 34) re common of pasture in 4 acres of wood in Estcherinok.
Same (fn. 35) v. Hugh Godard, John Aylsy and Richard son of Adam Esthesrette re common of pasture in 10 acres of moor in Estcherinok.
Hugh, for himself and the others, his tenants, says that he is chief lord of Estchernok and Matilda and Richard are his tenants, and that he approved waste under the Statute of Merton. Plaintiffs say they hold half a carucate of land and have not enough common for an oxgang. Verdict in the first and last three cases for defendants, with Judgment; in the 2nd case for plaintiff against Adam only as to 4 out of the 8 acres, with Judgment, damages 8s.; in the 3rd case for plaintiff as to 20 out of the 40 acres, with Judgment, damages 11d. Plaintiffs fined as to the several other false claims; but excused, being poor.
Novel disseisin (fn. 36)—Adam son of John de Blakeburne v. Beatrix de Blakeburne, John son of Roger and Hugh le Charpunter re common of pasture in Wysewall, viz. in one place 4 perches long by one perch wide, and in another place 3 perches long by one perch wide.
Beatrix says that on her own ground adjacent to her messuage, on the plots in question, she erected two cottages as easements for cattle as she had right by the custom of the country, as her neighbours have done. Adam says that Beatrix is not a joint owner of the vill, all she owns being by purchase, and she erected the cottages on his common, and if Beatrix could thus build and rent [arrentare] he might be deprived of all his common in her land—and he asks that the assize may be taken under the common law of the land, and not by custom. Verdict that defendants did no injury, as the cottages are built on her own land and arable land near the vill; the custom of the country is that any villagers may approve their arable land near their messuages and the vills where they dwell for the purpose of building such cottages. Judgment for defendants. Adam poor.
Novel disseisin (fn. 37)—William de Hillepol v. William de la Mare and others re a tenement in Longeton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 38)—Adam de Hocgton v. Peter de Burnhull and others re a tenement in Hoghton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 39)—Adam Muton v. William Muton, Roger de Chippenley and Richard son of Hugh de Ribbecestre re 3½ acres of land in assart and 8 acres of moor and wood in Ribbecestre.
Richard says that he holds by William's gift, and that Adam was once so seised and wished to sell to Roger; Roger preferred to be enfeoffed by William rather than by Adam, so Adam of his free will surrendered to William, who enfeoffed Roger; in course of time Richard talked to Roger about buying the land, and Roger surrendered it to William as before, being chief lord, and William enfeoffed Richard. Adam says that he left the country to look for work and was disseised in his absence.
Verdict, that William enfeoffed Adam, who afterwards left the country and stayed elsewhere in service. In course of time William heard that Adam was dead, so took possession of the tenement and ejected Adam's servant and afterwards enfeoffed Roger, and then Richard; and Adam never surrendered. William, being asked if he will warrant the tenement to Richard, has a day fixed before the Justices in Eyre, when next they come. Judgment for plaintiff against William only. Damages ½ mark; C. Adam is poor.
Novel disseisin (fn. 40)—Margery who was wife of Hugh le Norreys of Haugh v. Hugh son of Alan le Norreys, Henry his brother and Robert de Hoiland re a third part of 30 acres of wood in Blakerode.
Robert says that Margery was never seised, as she holds 2 oxgangs for the third part of the said wood belonging to her as dower. Margery says that the bailiff of the Lord Edmund endowed her with a third of the wood, and she was seised long before Robert owned land in the vill. Verdict, that Margery holds 2 oxgangs in dower, besides part of the ground of the said wood, except however in the said wood pannage, bees and birds (erased). (fn. 41) Judgment for defendants.
Nuisance (fn. 40)—Richard de Urmeston v. Jordan de Hilton, and William son of William son of Valentine de Flixton re a dyke set up in Urmeston.
Plaintiff says that the dyke interferes with his access to his common, which is now not so convenient. Defendants say the dyke is in Flixton, and plaintiff consented to it. Verdict, that the dyke is in Urmeston and interferes etc. Judgment for plaintiff. The dyke to be demolished at the cost of Jordan and William. Damages 12d.
Mort d'Ancestor (fn. 42)—Hugh son of Alan le Norreys, in right of Hugh le Norreys, his uncle, v. Alan son of Hugh le Norreys (as to 26 acres of land, 13 acres of wood, 2 acres of meadow, 2 acres of pasture), Robert le Norreys (as to 29 acres of land, 12 acres of meadow, 1½ acres of wood), Cecily daughter of Hugh le Norreys (as to 21 acres of land, 3 acres of meadow, 10 acres of wood) and Hugh son of Haymo le Waleys (fn. 44) (as to 11 acres of land, 2½ acres of meadow, 4 acres of wood) re 87 acres of land, 19½ acres of meadow, 28½ acres of wood and 2 acres of pasture etc. in Blakerode.
Defendants say that Hugh enfeoffed them at a certain feast of Holy Trinity and put them in full seisin, in which they continued during the life time of Hugh until the feast of S. Laurence next following. Verdict, that Hugh enfeoffed defendants and did not die seised. Judgment for defendants.
Novel disseisin (fn. 45)—Roger de Farneworth, clerk v. Adam son of John de Magna Lever re common of pasture in 500 acres of wood, moor and marsh, in Farneworth.
Adam says that plaintiff is in seisin and can use the common if he chooses; that he distrained on the said pasture for 16 pence due from plaintiff for a tenement he holds of Adam. Roger says that he holds nothing of Adam but he holds a tenement of John de Lever father of Adam, who is still alive, and pays rent of 16 pence to him, not to Adam. Verdict for plaintiff, with Judgment. Damages, 40d.
Novel disseisin (fn. 46)—Richard son of Henry son of Ralph v. William le Boteler, Henry le Chappeleyn, Robert Stel, William le Messer and Richard son of Bene re 2 messuages in Werinton.
Richard (fn. 47) de Molineus, bailiff of William his lord, says, as to one messuage, that he claims nothing except custody in right of one Simon son of William (sic) son of Ralph elder brother of the said Richard, without whom he cannot bring that tenement into judgment, as he is not named in the writ. As to the other messuage, one Emery le Boteler, father of William, died seised thereof and William was then under age in custody of the Earl of Derby; and while he was thus in custody the Earl's bailiff handed over the messuage to Henry son of Ralph, plaintiff's father, who held it at will while William was in the Earl's custody. When his lord came of age he allowed Henry to hold the said messuage at will, on whose death he seized it into his own hands as being held by a tenant at will: and one Robert [blank], as bailiff for the other defendants, denies injury.
Verdict for plaintiff against all but William le Boteler as to the first messuage, with Judgment. As to the second messuage, that Henry was never seised except as tenant at will, so for defendants, with Judgment. Plaintiff poor.
Novel disseisin (fn. 48)—William de Maghall v. Gilbert de Halsale and others re tenement in Maghall.
Nuisance (fn. 49)—Robert de Hoyland and Alina his wife v. Roger Collan of Slene, Juliana his wife, William de Catherton, Laderena his wife, Adam fiz Gille, John son of Roger de Heysam, Ralph son of Peter de Lancastre, Michael Ferweton, Adam de Brancebrek, (fn. 50) Roger Delan, Richard son of Robert (fn. 51) de Thornholm and Adam Pacok re a fence demolished in Ellal.
Put back to the next etc. unless etc., for lack of jurors, for that the parties have brought so many calumnies against the jurors. (fn. 52) The writ etc.
Novel disseisin (fn. 49)—Roger de Slene and Juliana his wife v. Robert de Hoyland and Alina his wife re common of pasture in Ellale.
Novel disseisin (fn. 48)—John de Bromhyhurst v. Alexander le Mey re common of pasture in Barton.
Certification (fn. 53)—Ralph son of Adam de Thornnedel v. Robert de Braddel re tenement in Thornedleye.
The Sheriff was ordered to bring hither this day the 12 jurors of the Assize of Novel disseisin taken and held before John de Reygate and William Northburg, Justices assigned at Lancastre, between the above parties, to certify them upon certain articles touching that Assize. John and the Prior come and 10 jurors only of the former Assize, and it is certified that 2 are in Wales. And John, being asked on what articles he asks that the Justices be made more sure, says that at the former trial about the said acre (which he held by sure feoffment of John de Orrul), the jurors found that he was never seised, in that he had not then his charter by which the jury could certify his seisin; and he asks that the jury should deal with their first verdict. The jury, being examined on this, say as before that John was never in seisin. Judgment for defendant, and John to take nothing by his Certification but is fined for false claim.
Mort d'Ancestor (fn. 56)—Thomas son of Hugh de Dalton, in right of his father v. Benedict Gernet re 8 acres in Dalton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 56)—Ellen daughter of Ralph de Egergard v. Richard Bastard and Adam son of Richard Osebern re a tenement in Lathum.
Mort d'Ancestor (fn. 56)—Robert son of Warin de Burschou and Agnes his wife v. Richard son of Peter and Roger son of Robert re 8 acres in Skelmarisdale.
Novel disseisin (fn. 56)—Alice who was wife of Robert de Tyncler v. Master Richard de Marclane re a third part of 4 tofts in Wygan.
Defendant absent; sureties, Adam Becke and Benedict de Markelan, and the Assize proceeds by default. The jury say they have not made a view of the tofts; so the Assize to stand over till the next coming etc., and meanwhile the jury to make view, and the writ etc.
Novel disseisin (fn. 57)—John son of Roger de Leuer v. John son of Emma re a tenement in Farnewrth.
Novel disseisin (fn. 57)—Robert son of Robert de Netelham v. Adam de Prestewyk and others re a tenement in Prestewyk.
Novel disseisin (fn. 57)—Roger de Farneworth, clerk, v. John de Leure, Adam his son and others re common of pasture in Farneworth.
Novel disseisin (fn. 58)—William son of John de Quyke v. Robert son of William de Bolde, Adam son of Christian, Alan son of Richard, Adam Chippe, Richard Erne, Richard son of Henry, William his son and Richard Mannyng re a messuage, 8 acres of land and 2 acres of meadow, in Bolde.
Novel disseisin (Jury of 24) (fn. 59)—Baldwyn du Lee v. Adam de Hogton, John his son, Henry Gunnesone, and Adam son of Henry de Weleton re common of pasture in Allerton belonging to plaintiff s freehold in Weleton.
The jury of 24, to convict the jury of 12, come: 11 jurors of the first jury come, one is dead. Plaintiff alleges that the jury before Guyschard de Charrun and William de Northburg, Justices assigned at Wytenton, made a false oath in that they said that Adam and the others did not disseise him, whereas he stood in good and peaceable seisin of the said 3 acres of moor and pasture until etc. Adam for himself and Walter de Mireshou, as bailiff for the other defendants, say that the Assize at Wytenton was not in article and form as Baldwin complains, moreover it was under certain agreements made of old between the lords of Allerton and Welleton; and he asks Judgment on account of the variation of the complaint which agrees not with the verdict. The jury of 24 confirm the verdict as good and legal in every way: Judgment for defendants. Baldwin to custody, but pardoned, being poor.
Mort d'Ancestor (fn. 60)—Muriel de Cnolal, Margery wife of Roger son of Richard de Blakeburn, Richard son of Robert de Hepei, William son of Henry Teg and John son of Walter de Aykysco, in right of Mabel de Cnolal, sister of Muriel and Margery and aunt of Richard, William and John v. Richard le Boteler re 1½ acre in Chorley.
Novel disseisin (fn. 60)—William Pottere v. Robert son of Adam de Hoyland, Alina his wife, Thurstan de Elhale and Adam le Neyr re common of pasture in 200 acres in a wood in Elhale.
Robert says that one Henry de Elhale held of him, and that he distrained for homage and other service in arrear for that pasture, and that all he claims therein is lordship; and plaintiff says that Henry his lord, who is mesne between him and Robert, often offered to Robert his homage for the said pasture publicly in the County Court of Lancastre, but he refused to take his homage; and Robert caused so many and such destructions to be done that William cannot use his common and must recover possession by the King's writ.
Verdict, that Robert often distrained William in the said common for the homage of the said Henry, who frequently was ready in the presence of neighbours to do homage to Robert, who would not receive it; at length William, led by so many distraints, sued Robert in the County Court of Lancastre for taking and detaining cattle, which taking Robert pleaded to be just and good, being on his own severalty, to wit on part of the common put in view; and the jury say that, owing to these distraints, William could not enjoy his common, and that defendants disseised him. Judgment for plaintiff. Damages 4s. C.
Novel disseisin (fn. 61)—Henry Latheman v. Robert son of Emma and others re common of pasture in Waleton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 62)— Roger de Farnwrth Clerk v. Richard de Reddford, Richard le Cheff of Farnewrth, Adam son of John de Magna Leuere, Adam son of Eve de Presthall, Henry son of Beatrix, Henry de Blyndeshull and Matthew son of Syward de Farnewrth re common of pasture in 5 acres of moor and heath in one place and 50 acres of wood pasture in another place, in Farnewrth.
Adam son of Eve says that Richard de Reddford and Richard le Cheff were chief lords of Farnwrth, and when they approved their waste they gave him as his contingent share the said 5 acres. And Richard and Richard say that they approved under the Statute of Merton as chief lords, and that Roger holds in fee and has ample common. Roger says he holds only 6 acres in Farnewrth of the father of the said Adam (fn. 63) (sic) de Reddford, and many tenements in the said vill he holds by mesne of the fee of Robert de Grelley, and the Statute should not apply.
Verdict, that Roger holds in fee of Robert de Grelley the greater part of what he holds in the said vill; and of one John (sic) father of Richard who is still alive, he holds only 6 acres, and of Richard nothing. Judgment for plaintiff. Damages 2s. C.
Novel disseisin (fn. 64)—German de Neuham v. the Abbot of Stanlowe and Geoffrey Byrrun re common of pasture in 60 acres of moor in Barton.
Defendants, by Robert de Schoreswrth their bailiff, say that a year ago and more German brought an Assize of Novel disseisin against them for the same common and the verdict was in their favour, and they ask whether the case should be heard again. German says that the Abbot, at Cliderhowe, retained by Assize taken there 30 acres of pasture which he has not now put in view and that an Assize has never passed for the common now claimed. Verdict, that the common now put in view is the same as that which was decided at Cliderhow. Judgment for defendants.
Novel disseisin (fn. 65)—Richard le Norreys v. Richard Trauers, Henry his son and others re common of pasture in Quystan.
Novel disseisin (fn. 65)—Henry son of William de Leuere v. William son of John and Adam his brother re a fence demolished in Leure.
Novel disseisin (fn. 65)—Roger de Bradehurst v. Robert de Knol and others re common of pasture in Rowynton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 66)—Richard son of Alan de Birchensagh v. Alan de Byrcheneshaghe and Henry his son re half an oxgang in Turton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 67)—Richard de Urmeston v. William de Flixton and others re a tenement in Urmeston.
Plaintiff did not prosecute; sureties, John de Schorreswrth and Elias (erased) William (fn. 68) son of Thomas de Hurmiston.
Novel disseisin (fn. 67)—William de Heton, Robert de Schoreswrthe, and Cecily his wife v. John Birun and others re a dyke set up in Heton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 66)—John Haydock v. Adam de Hindelegh, Isabel his wife, Thomas de Hindelegh, (fn. 70) Jennet his wife, Roger del Tvysse and Robert de Parys re common of pasture in 4 acres of moor and 30 acres of wood in Culchik.
Roger del Twysse says that he holds 10 acres of wood by lease from one Richard de Kilchild chief lord of Culchilk who approved them, but who is not named in the writ, so he asks Judgment. Robert says that one Henry de Parys his son is in seisin of the said 4 acres of moor, who is not named in the writ, etc. Adam, Isabel, Thomas and Jennet say that the grandfather of the said Adam (fn. 71) approved and assarted 2 acres of the said 20, and as to the other 18 that they and the said Richard are chief lords and joint owners of the vill of Culchik and plaintiff holds of them in fee, and they plead the Statute of Merton. Verdict for defendants. Judgment accordingly.
Novel disseisin (fn. 72)—Richard son of Roger de Worcotesleye v. Richard son of Geoffrey de Worcotesleye, Agnes late wife of Geoffrey de Worcotesleye, John le Forester, Richard de les Bothes, Richard Morsel, Robert le Uncuthemon, William de Boudon, Roger le Tayllur, Simon del Schath, (fn. 73) Henry le Tinkeler, William Walewerk, (fn. 74) John Schreg, (fn. 75) Henry Palet, John Malumton, Thomas son of Agnes and Richard son of Rik re common of pasture in 80 acres of arable land and 28 acres of wood in Worcotesleye, wherein he has common all the year.
Richard son of Geoffrey, as to the 80 acres, says that plaintiff is in seisin if he likes; as to the wood, plaintiff has only put in view 80 acres; he is chief lord of Wrketesle, plaintiff is his tenant and has pasture enough, and he pleads the Statute of Merton. Plaintiff says that Statute should not harm him, for one Richard de Workedeley, ancestor of that Richard, granted to Roger de Workedel his father a certain piece of land in Workedel with free common and easements in all woods, waters, plains and all other places except a place called Mokenes, of which he says that though he may be defendant's tenant, the latter can make no approvements to deprive him of his common under his ancestor's charter; and he produces a charter attesting the said gift: moreover he sued Geoffrey de Wrcotel father of Richard before Roger de Thurkelby and his fellow Justices last in Eyre in that County, for his common of pasture in that vill, and Geoffrey pleaded the Statute of Merton, against which he set his charter now produced by which his father was enfeoffed of a tenement in the said vill with free common and easements in all woods, etc.; and the Court adjudged that neither Richard ancestor of Richard nor his heirs could make approvement without the consent of him the said Richard son of Roger, against the form and tenor of his charter.
Adjourned (fn. 76) to the next coming of the Justices in Eyre to these parts, unless John de Reygate and William de Northburg first etc., and meanwhile the rolls to be searched.
Novel disseisin (fn. 72)—Richard de Bikerstath v. Richard de la Croyz re common of pasture in 60 acres of land, in open time, and 6 acres of wood, all the year, in Lathom.
Novel disseisin (fn. 77)—Robert de Hoyland and Elizabeth his wife v. John de Euyas and Cecily his wife re obstruction of two ways in Samlisbury.
Novel disseisin (fn. 77)—Ralph de Mitton v. Robert de Winkedley re a tenement in Acton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 77)—Richard le Norreys v. Richard Trauers and others re a tenement in Wystane.
Novel disseisin (fn. 77)—Nicholaa de Haselwell v. Robert de Hoyland and others re a tenement in Speck.
Mort d'Ancestor (fn. 77)—William son of Nicholas Bussell v. William Bussell and Adam Bussell son of Nicholas re an acre of meadow and an acre of meadow (sic) in Euketon.
Novel disseisin (fn. 77)—Adam son of William de Bulling v. Henry de Huyton and others re a dyke demolished in Bulling.
Novel disseisin (fn. 77)—Adam son of Stephen de Parva Mitton v. John de Punchardon and others re a tenement in Little Mitton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 77)—Adam son of Stephen de Parva Mitton v. Beatrix de Blakeburne and others re a fence demolished in Little Mitton.
Novel disseisin (fn. 77)—Alan le Norreys and Margery his wife v. Robert de Hoyland, Peter de Burnhill, Adam de Biker- stat, Madoc de Acton, Simon de Bikerstat, Robert de Wlston, William de Rayneford, John de Ditlon, (fn. 78) William de Ayntre, Henry son of James de Pemberton, Richard son of Richard de Urmeston and Alexander Astleghe re 4½ acres in Speck.
Novel disseisin (fn. 79)—Roger de Mulyneus v. Robert de Hoyland, Adam de Bickerestat, Simon de Bickerstan, Henry de Pemberton, Maddoc de Acton, Richard de Westleye, William de Rayneford, Henry de Tyldesleye, Alexander de Astleye, John de Dytlon, (fn. 80) Robert de Lauton, William de Ayntre, Peter de Burnhill and Geoffrey de Wryttington re 3 acres in Spek.
Robert de Hoyland says that Thurstan de Hoyland his father at the Assizes last held by John de Reygate and William de Northburg at Lancaster as Justices assigned sued William de Molyneus, Roger de Molineaus (erased), Patrick de Haselwelle, Nicholaa his daughter, and those same Roger de Molyneus, Alan le Norreys and Margery his wife, and one Henry son of Colla, by writ of Novel disseisin for disseising him of his freehold in Hale, 100 acres; and William, Roger, Adam and one Roger de Caldry attorney for the others, had pleaded that the tenement was in Spek not in Hale: and the Jury found that 20 acres were in Hale and that William disseised Thurstan of the same, and Thurstan recovered the 20 acres. And William de Molyneus brought an attainder against the jurors for a false verdict, that the said 20 acres were in Hale, which attainder is impending here before the said John and William, and is adjourned to the next coming etc. And he asks Judgment whether while that is impending he ought to answer the present action, and he says that the tenement now in dispute is part of the 20 acres which Thurstan his father recovered.
Alan, Margery and Roger, say they are different persons to William de Mulineus, and that William was not seised of the tenements they now sue for when Thurstan sued him, so that he could lose them in anyway; and they ask that their case may not be retarded by the said attainder which in nowise touches them. And the said Alan, Margery and Roger being asked if they were willing that it be verified by the assize which they have brought whether the tenements they seek be within the 20 acres which were adjudged to Thurstan as being in Hale, or not, they say no, but precisely ask judgment. And because the Justices wish to be made certain on that case the matter is adjourned to the coming of the Justices of all Pleas in that County, unless etc.