Calendar of Early Mayor's Court Rolls: 1298-1307. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1924.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
CALENDAR OF THE EARLY MAYOR'S COURT ROLLS OF THE CITY OF LONDON
Membrane 1 22 May 1298
Court of H. le Galeys, Mayor of London, Thursday after the Feast of St Dunstan [19 May] A° 26 Edw. 
John de Holebourne, Walter de Walebroc and Ralph de Dowegate, coopers of London, were attached at the instance of Adam Snow, cooper, to answer the King for contempt, in having sued the said Adam in the Court Christian (fn. 1) before the Official of the Archdeacon of London in a plea of covenant relating to certain ordinances of the Coopers, the cognizance of which pertained to the King, to the King's damage-£100. The defendants appeared and admitted that they had sued Adam on a contract between him and John, a cooper of London deceased, whose executors they were, and this they did in the matter of the execution of John's will, and not in other matters pertaining to the King, and thereon they put themselves on their country (patria) (fn. 2). The Serjeant was ordered to summon a jury for the next Court. Afterwards on Monday the Vigil of the Nativity of St John the Baptist [24 June], the jury brought in a verdict that the defendants impleaded Adam Snow in the Court Christian in a plea pertaining to the King, against his Proclamation, and to the damage of the said Adam half a mark. Judgment that the defendants be committed to prison. Afterwards they came and paid the damages by the hand of Thomas de Wynton, Serjeant, and went quit.
John de Holebourne, Walter the cooper of St Nicholas Lane, William Styward, John le Tanckardmaker, and other coopers were summoned at the instance of Adam Snow, cooper, for contempt of the King and Mayor, in that they made an ordinance that no one should sell a hoop (circulus), formerly sold at ½d and ¾d, for less than 1d, and so concerning other hoops, under a penalty, which ordinance was against the dignity of the Crown and to the grave damage of the Commonalty of the City-£100. The defendants denied that they made this ordinance, and put themselves on their country. Afterwards at a Court held on the Vigil of St John the Baptist [24 June] a jury brought in a verdict that the coopers made the ordinance, required oaths of obedience, and had observed it then for a year and more. Judgment that they be committed to gaol (fn. 3).
6 June 1298
An inquest was held on Friday after the Feast of Holy Trinity [1 June] before John de Storteford, Sheriff of London, by good and lawful men of the Wards of William le Mazerer (fn. 4), Nicholas de Farndon (fn. 5) and Walter de Fynchyngfeld (fn. 6), viz. by Walter de Anbresbury, goldsmith, William Fitz Laurence, Robert de Notingham, John de Croydon, William de Notingham, William de Chigewell, Walter de Frenigham, John de Notingham, William de Asshendon, goldsmith, Henry de Keyle, Nicholas le Brun, Gerard le Peleter, Walter le Gardiner, Robert Gauge, William le Chaundeler, Robert de Donmawe, Richard Daniel, Thomas de Chygewell, William Alysaundre, Gylottus de Clopham, William de la Heylaund, John le Geldere and William de Gloucestre, cobbler, as to the malefactors and disturbers of the peace who came by night to the house of Master Henry de Derby, clerk, in Stanig Lane, and assaulted him and his men. The jury found that Alan, apprentice of Richard de Chigewell, Geoffrey son of Geoffrey Scot, Robert his brother, Thomas de Bromleye, John, apprentice of Geoffrey Scot, Richard de London, and Nicholas, journeyman of Joan de Dyrham, on the 4th June after vespers came with swords, misericords and knives, and attacked Master Henry and wounded his servant John Bryon, breaking his door and threatening him, and that they set a watch upon his house the night after, until they were driven away by good men of the neighbourhood. Being asked where they went afterwards, the jurors answered that they all fled except the above Alan, who was arrested with his misericord in his hand by the neighbours and attached by the Sheriff's clerks, whereupon he and others threatened the lives and limbs of those who had arrested them. Precept was issued to the Sheriffs to attach the other malefactors.
6 June 1298
Friday before the Feast of St Barnabas the Apostle [II June]
Richard Horn was summoned by Thomas de Wynthon, the Serjeant of the Mayor, to answer Adam de Harewe in a plea of trespass, but did not appear. He was summoned again before the Mayor and Aldermen on Wednesday, and told the Serjeant that he would not come. He afterwards appeared and defended his contempt against the King and the Mayor and Aldermen, admitting that he had received the summons but that he had refused to come because the Mayor had no cognizance of such trespasses except by default of the Sheriffs. Afterwards on Thursday following, he admitted the contempt and found mainpernors, viz. John de Mockyng and James le Vineter, to submit to the judgment (quod stabit judicio) of the Mayor and Aldermen when summoned (fn. 7).
13 June 1298
Friday after the above Feast
Membr. 1 b
Richard Horn was summoned to answer Adam de Harewe in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the defendant seized his cart, with two quarters of sea-coal in it, and had it driven to the house of Simon de St Martin, as though he were a bailiff, to the damage of the plaintiff and in contempt of the King. This cart, the plaintiff declared, he had himself hired from William le Wallere, servant of Hugh Curteys of Stibbenheth, to carry to his house in Bredstrade two loads of coal which he had bought from Geoffrey le Clerk of Northflete at Retheresgate (fn. 8), and the coal had been measured, and the Coal Meter duly paid. The defendant admitted seizing the coal, but denied that he had committed any trespass in so doing, and he put himself on his country. Afterwards on Saturday, a jury of the venue of Retheresgate brought in a verdict that the two quarters of coal belonged to the defendant, who had bought them from Stephen le Chaundeler at Retheresgate, and that the plaintiff did not buy them from Geoffrey le Clerk, or hire the cart from William Walere (sic), as he averred. Judgment that the defendant go quit and the plaintiff be in mercy for a false claim.
14 June 1298
Saturday after the above Feast
John le Noreys was summoned to answer John de Donestaple and Adam de Halingebury, former Sheriffs of London, in a plea of detinue of 20s in arrears of his farm of the Wardenship of Billingesgate, which he had by lease from them for £20 during their Shrievalty. The defendant acknowledged 14s in arrears, which he promised to pay within the Quinzime (fn. 9). Thereupon the plaintiffs acknowledged satisfaction for the whole farm for the time when he was their bailiff.
18 June 1298
Wednesday after the above Feast
Information having been received that the Cordwainers and Cobblers had been guilty of bad work in mixing cordwain (fn. 10) with bazon (fn. 11), and bazon with cowhide, Thomas de Derby, Robert de Frowyk, Roger de Bristoll, Thomas de Norwych, Thomas de Chygewell, Godwyn le Cordewaner, and John de Lincoln, cordwainer, were sworn to make a scrutiny throughout the City and bring the names of offenders, to gether with fraudulent goods, into Court on the above day. They presented on oath Roger de St Antolin, John de Becles, Thomas de Londoneston, Richard Page, John Dissot, Alan de Cycestre, Robert de Notingham, Ralph de St Edmunds, Stephen de Strode, Henry de Farnham, John de St Albans, John de Paris, Richard de Dounegate, William de Nornt (Northampton?), Roger de Greenwich, Richard de Ely in the Mercery, Adam de Gilingham, Robert de Assh, Roger de Bredstrate, Peter de Sauecompe, William de Norht, Richard de Crepelgate, John de Chobham, Richard de Hereford and Adam de Guillingham as being accustomed to do this fraudulent work, and they produced in Court such work found in their possession. The defendants admitted their offence. Judgment was given that the goods be burnt.
They likewise presented that John de . . . . removed his work and would not allow them to execute their office at his house, that Daniel Chyltren and John de Renham broke the sequestration which they placed on three of their chests full of such work, that Thomas le Coffer would not allow them to view his work, and that Thomas de Lodelawe broke the sequestration which Thomas Juvenal, the Mayor's Serjeant, placed on a certain chest, denied them a view of his work and carried it away forcibly. The defendant Daniel pleaded that the seals of the sequestration fell off his chests without his touching them, and that he opened a chest and took away a pair of boots (heuses). He was ordered to be kept in custody. The defendant Thomas said he did not know that Thomas de Derby and the others had orders to view. He was ordered to receive judgment on his confession. He also pleaded that when the Serjeant told him of their commission, he submitted, and removed nothing from his house afterwards, and he put himself on his country. Thomas de Lodelawe admitted that he was not a freeman, but denied the other offence and put himself on his country. John de Notingham did likewise. Afterwards a jury found Thomas le Coffer and the others not guilty, and they were acquitted. Precept was issued to the Sheriff to bring Thomas de Lodelawe to hear judgment on his confession that he was a foreigner engaged in buying and selling.
Membr. 2 19 June 1298
Thursday before the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist [24 June]
Richard de Hacumby was attached to answer the Lady Blaunche, Queen of Navarre, executrix of the will of her husband Lord Edmund, brother of the present King, in a plea that he render account of the time he was her late husband's Receiver. She complained by her attorney John de Dyicton that the defendant received on several occasions the sum of £1500 and bound himself to render an account thereof, and that on Friday seven days after Pentecost in the new Abbey of St Clare near London he undertook to give an account, but afterwards refused to do so, to her damage £100. The defendant denied that he was receiver of any of the moneys of Lord Edmund for which he ought to render account to the plaintiff, or that he undertook to do so before anyone acting on her behalf, and he put himself on his country. A jury of the venue of Allegate was summoned against the next Court
20 June 1298
Friday before the above Feast
Geoffrey de Staunton was attached to answer Adam de Rokesle, Alderman, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he came upon the defendant in Thames Street by the door of John de Storteford, Sheriff, fighting with a drawn sword against certain unknown persons, and as an official of the peace (tanquam minister pacis), he commanded him to surrender to the King's Peace, whereupon the defendant took him by the throat and tore his clothes and did other enormities in contempt of the King and the whole City. The defendant admitted the offence. Judgment was given that on the morrow he should come from the place of the offence to Guildhall, with bare head and feet, and clothed only in his tunic, in charge of two Serjeants, carrying in his hand an axe (fn. 12), and in the presence of the Mayor and Aldermen, hold up the axe with the hand which he had laid on the alderman, in order to expiate his offence to the alderman as a Justice and Guardian of the vill (fn. 13) (tamquam Justic0 & Custodi ville), or else receive judgment according to the custom of the City in such cases. On the morrow the defendant did as enjoined, and the plaintiff condoned the offence so far as he was concerned. The defendant was amerced for his contempt against the King, his pledges being John le Clerk, Coroner of the City of London, and Eustace Malebranche.
23 June 1298
Monday the Vigil of St John the Baptist [24 June]
Richard de Hacumby offered himself against the executors of Lord Edmund, brother of the King, plaintiffs in a plea of account, and they did not prosecute. He goes quit and the executors and their pledges are in mercy.
Membr. 2 b
John Peyure (fn. 14), who was confined in the prison of Crepelgate at the suit of Thomas Box for a debt of £18 due on a Statute, came before the Mayor and Aldermen and said he had paid the amount and had acquittances from the above Thomas. The latter was ordered to show cause why the petitioner should not be released, and did not come. Precept was given to the Sheriff to release him under security for his appearance when necessary, and the security was reported as follows:- Robert de Beregholte, Ralph le Marun, William May, "peleter" (fn. 15), Peter Berneval, Simon de Warewyk and others.
21 June 1298
Hospites Flandr' & Braund'
Saturday before the above Feast
The Commonalty of London complained of Alan de Newebery that he, as a lodging-house keeper, and Keeper of the Seld of Winchester and weigher of merchandise, acted as a broker and weighed the goods of foreigners and citizens both within and without the City, whereas no one ought so to weigh except the sworn weigher of the King, and was guilty of forestalling. They also complained that Mabel Rolaund, John le Haut, Everard de Wylnotht, Margaret Skof, William Marysone, Rabot de Warloys, Walter Coosyn and John Symbelpany were foreign (fn. 16) lodging-house keepers and allowed foreign merchants to trade with other foreign merchants in their houses in all kinds of merchandise, which the defendants sent out of the City secretly by night, so that the King lost his customs; and whereas foreign merchants on departure left with them their unsold goods, which ought to remain bound up until their return, the defendants sold those goods for the benefit of the merchants both to citizens and foreigners, against the Liberty of the City; and further the defendants acted as brokers both for their own goods as well as for the goods of foreign merchants, and thus obtained the profits which the sworn brokers of the City ought to receive; they also avowed foreign goods, which was against their oath if they were freemen, and they sold their goods retail by small weights and measures both to foreigners and citizens. The defendants Alan de Newebery, William Marysone, Rabot de Warloys and Walter Coosyn pleaded that they were citizens and had done nothing which was not lawful for citizens to do. The others admitted that they were foreign lodging-house keepers; John Haut and John Shymbelpany confessed that they were not sworn brokers; Margaret Skof admitted that she allowed foreigners to sell wine in small measures in her house, and she and Shymbelpany also admitted selling the goods of foreign merchants after their departure and after quarantine to any one who would buy. But all the foreigners pleaded that they did not know that these things were forbidden in the City, and they denied committing the other trespasses alleged against them, and put themselves on their country. Afterwards a jury brought in a verdict that Alan de Newebery weighed wool and other goods of foreigners and citizens at Westminster with the King's Trone both during and outside the Fairs against his oath, that he was a broker between foreigners and retained a small profit therefrom, thus defrauding the Sheriff of his customs, that he forestalled goods whereby trade was disturbed and could not come to the City, that he gave lodging to foreign merchants and allowed them to trade with each other in his house and avowed their goods as his own, and that at the Winchester Seld he acted as a broker between foreigners and avowed as his own the kind of foreign goods they use at the Winchester Seld. They found the other defendants guilty of selling cloth in cords and sending it over the water by night, whereby the Sheriffs were defrauded of their customs, and of the other offences with which they were charged.
Lumbard' & Provincial'
The Commonalty complained that Francis Rotelouth, Colouth Ballard, Tote de Mounteclare, Reymund de la Browe, James Betely and William Pynnett were also guilty of the above offences. The defendant Francis admitted selling retail, and Friscote (fn. 17) admitted that he had received foreigners, but all denied the other offences. A jury brought in a verdict that Francis and Colouth were guilty, that Totte de Monte Claro and James Betely were foreign lodging-house keepers, but at present did not sell retail, and that Reymund de la Browe and William Pynnett were not lodging-house keepers but lived at the house of Thomas Godard, and did no trade now because of the war, though four years ago, when they were lodging with William Servatt, they dealt with foreigners in their lodgings.
The Commonalty complained that John le Rous, Henry Coupman, Teostardus le Estreys, Ecbryth de Werle, Ralph de Atterderne, Henry Hoppe, Hardmot, and Hyldebraund, merchants of Almaine, received foreigners and traded with them, and although they were free of customs for goods coming from their own parts in Almaine (fn. 18), they had become wholesale merchants (grossores) in "aver de poys," drapers and woolmen, and had meddled with merchandise belonging to those trades, without paying custom, and thus the Sheriffs were defrauded of their customs. The defendants claimed freedom from tolls on all goods of this kind, whencesoever they came. A day was given them to argue their claim, and a jury was summoned on the other charges against them.
Ralph de Abbehale, draper of London, was attached to answer John de Boclaund, knight, in a plea of trespass wherein the latter complained that having bought cloth to the value of 63s 4d from the defendant, he gave him certain pledges for payment, viz. one gilded "coylter" (fn. 19), three garments (garnamenta), one hood of medley, two supertunics furred with bys (fn. 20), one coat and one hood furred with miniver (fn. 21), six ells and a quarter of medley cloth, and one serge, value £10, and the defendant had neither delivered the cloth nor returned the pledges. The latter admitted the sale and pledges, but pleaded an agreement that if the purchase price was not paid on a certain date he should retain the pledges, and he produced an unsealed deed to that effect. The plaintiff denied any such agreement and declared that the deed was not of his making, whereupon the defendant offered to produce at his own risk witnesses, who were present in Tamys Strete at the handing over of the pledges. A day was given on the morrow.
Membr. 3 b 5 July 1298
Saturday after the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul [29 June]
Membr. 4 12 July 1298
Saturday before the Feast of St Margaret [13 July]
Alan de Newebery appeared for judgment on the verdict of a jury against him (fn. 24). He was deprived of the freedom, but subsequently was readmitted on paying 60s fine to the Commonalty, on condition that if he were convicted again he should lose the freedom for ever.
Mabel Rolaund was amerced for harbouring foreigners &c., and John Haut, Margaret Scof and John Shybelpani were also amerced, and forbidden to act in future as unsworn brokers between foreigners, under penalty of forfeiture of all their goods.
The same day William Marysone and Walter Coosyn were deprived of the freedom, and subsequently readmitted on payment of 40s and 26s 8d respectively. Colouthe Ballard, Reymund de la Browe and Walter Pynett, foreigners, were amerced.
Membr. 4 b 14 July 1298
Robert Jordan was attached to answer William de Alegate in a plea of trespass wherein the latter complained that when, as an official of the City, he summoned the good and lawful men of his bailiwick of Portsokne Ward to attend the Court of Common Pleas (fn. 25) at Guildhall, the defendant assaulted him, though he was doing what his Alderman commanded, and wounded him with a knife in the left side of his back to the depth of four inches-to his damage 100s. The defendant pleaded that he came quietly into the street within Allegate, when the plaintiff abused him and took him by the throat, and if the plaintiff suffered any harm, it was own fault; and he put himself on his country. A "good" jury was summoned for Wednesday.
On that day the parties came to an agreement by permission of the Court on terms that the defendant pay the plaintiff 20s and be amerced, and the plaintiff quitclaim all future actions. As regards the contempt against the King, the defendant was mainprised by his brother Jordan de Alegate and Philip Somer to come before the Mayor next day.
Margery, widow of Richard le Fethermongere and Nicholas Hauteyn, executor of his will, came to an agreement with John de Oxonford, who complained that they had sued him in the Court Christian before the Official, in spite of the fact that the Mayor had sent his Serjeant, John de Wynthon, to forbid Master Stephen the Official to deal with the case. The plaintiff quitclaimed the trespass and the Court condoned the amercements.
17 July 1298
Thursday before the Feast of St Margaret (fn. 26)
The Commonalty brought a plaint against Estmer le Bouler of Candelwykstrate that he had bought and sold with foreigners, harboured foreigners, and avowed their goods, against his oath as a freeman. The defendant admitted buying three bales from foreigners to the use of some merchants of Bristol, because he understood that they were free of customs. He was fined half-a-mark on condition of his future good conduct. He denied the charge of harbouring and avowry, and put himself on a jury, which found him not guilty.
Aveswote was attached to answer the Commonalty on charges of being a foreign lodging-house keeper, buying Ryns wine from foreigners and selling it retail to foreigners and citizens, and allowing foreigners in her house to deal in ginger, woad, cloth and other merchandise, which they sent over the water by night, thus defrauding the Sheriffs of their customs. The defendant admitting buying and selling the wine, but pleaded a licence from Sir Ralph de Sandwych, then Warden of London, and Elyas Russel, then Sheriff (fn. 27), who gave her leave to do so because there was no Assize of such wine at the time. She denied harbouring foreigners except her brother and the son of her uncle, or that she allowed buying and selling in her house. A jury of the venue of Ebbegate brought in a verdict that she had bought and sold wines, as she admitted, and that she harboured many more foreigners than her brother and her uncle's son, but whether they were kinsmen the jurors did not know; and also that she sold foreign woad retail to foreigners in her house. She was mainprised by Thomas Juvenal and John de Wengrave to come up for judgment on Wednesday. As the jurors afterwards repudiated their first verdict that she sold woad retail, and acquitted her of this charge, judgment was given that all the jurors be amerced for a false verdict, viz. William de Paris and his fellows as appears on the panel.
19 July 1298
Saturday before the Feast of St Mary Magdalene [22 July]
Membr. 5 b 23 July 1298
Wednesday after the above Feast
Thomas Box and John Peper (fn. 28) came to an agreement on terms that the latter bind himself to pay 100s in satisfaction of all claims against him, and that the former undertake to acquit the Sheriff for delivering the above John from Newegate.
John de Trillawe, parson of St Dunstan, Thomas de Asshewell of St Anthony, and Roger de Appelby, deputed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to execute the will of Henry Box, and William Lambyn, Edward de Wycumbe, parson of St Botulph, Margery widow of Thomas Cros, and Thomas Cros her son, who were executors of Thomas Cros senior, an executor of Henry Box, were attached to answer John Beauflour in a plea of debt wherein he claimed from them £8 12d, for 1200 boards for the King's galley at 18s the hundred, a perch (una pertica) value 2s, and 30 boards value 15s, for which the late Henry Box had paid 54s, leaving the total above claimed in arrears. The defendants pleaded that they were not bound to answer because the plaintiff had produced no tally in Court. The plaintiff then offered to verify his claim by his corporal oath (fn. 29) at the discretion of the Court, and to this the defendants agreed. On the day given the plaintiff made his law successfully to the effect that on the day of his death Henry Box owed the plaintiff £8 12d, not one penny of which had been paid. Judgment was given that the plaintiff recover the amount from Henry's goods and chattels. Afterwards on his own behalf and that of the executors, the plaintiff presented the money to the purposes of London Bridge, and also, as a mark of charity, entered into a recognizance to pay the sum of 40s to the same.
30 July 1298
Wednesday after the Feast of St James the Apostle [25 July]
Cristina de Gravesende was attached to answer Richard le Peleter in a plea of trespass, wherein he complained that when he went with another of the Mayor's Serjeants to summon the defendant and other common prostitutes living in the City to appear before the Mayor and Aldermen at the Guildhall, she and other unknown persons assaulted him and struck him on the lip. The defendant denied the charge and put herself on her country. Afterwards a jury of Garscherch brought in a verdict that the defendant did not beat the plaintiff, but was a party to an attack made on him by a certain Robert de Bonevil her paramour (specialis). Judgment for 40d damages taxed by the jury, and that Cristina be taken into custody till the damages be paid. A precept to take the above Robert was issued.
Membr. 6 9 Aug. 1298
Saturday the Vigil of St Laurence [10 Aug.]
Geoffrey de Taleworth was attached to answer John de Northon in a plea of trespass wherein the latter complained that the defendant attacked and beat him in the presence of the Mayor and Aldermen, when he was attending Guildhall, on business relating to certain trespasses done against him, in order to receive the judgment of right adjudged to him. The defendant denied that he was guilty of the trespass. A jury was summoned forthwith of good and discreet men then present, and came on the same day, consisting of William de Trimilingham, Roger de Wytham and others on the panel, who gave a verdict that the defendant was guilty. Judgment that he be committed to prison and pay the plaintiff 5s damages taxed by the jury. The defendant paid this sum on the Monday, and on Thursday half a mark for the trespass done against the King.
Richard de Laufare and Isabella his wife, executors of the will of Edith de Warners, brought a plaint against John de Storteford, Sheriff, of an error in the latter's Court with regard to the process and giving of judgment in an action between the plaintiffs and Henry Fitz Ancher, who was sued for 40 quarters of corn and 16 quarters of oats in arrear of an annual rent due to the plaintiffs. The Sheriff was summoned to appear on the morrow with the record and process to answer the plaintiffs in the plea of error, together with the above Henry Fitz Ancher.
11 Aug. 1298
Monday the morrow of the above Feast
The above Richard was attached to answer Stephen de Coventre in a plea of trespass wherein the latter complained that as he was walking peacefully in Chepe on Friday before the Feast of St Margaret [13 July], the defendant assaulted him. The latter denied the assault and said that if the plaintiff received any harm it was due to his own insults, and he demanded an inquest thereon.
Afterwards a jury of Chepe brought in a verdict that the defendant was sitting quietly on a seat in the shop of Ralph Godchep, when the plaintiff came in and would have beaten him, if a rescue had not been made by Geoffrey le Clerk and Richard Beaufiz, so that if the plaintiff received any hurt, it was his own fault. Judgment against the plaintiff, who was put in mercy for his false plaint.
The Commonalty complained of John le Launterner and Alice his wife in a plea of trespass, to the effect that the defendants dwelt in the city as foreigners and bought and sold merchandise, viz. lanterns, glass cups and mirrors, both to foreigners and citizens, to the damage of the City &c. 100s. The defendants admitted that they were foreigners, but denied such selling, and put themselves on a jury of the venue of St Augustine, where they dwelt. Afterwards on Wednesday the jury gave a verdict that the defendants were foreigners, and that they came into the City with their merchandise, which they offered for sale to the citizens, paying custom to the King according to the usage of the City, and that they offered both to foreigners and citizens what remained of their goods. Being asked if they thereby deprived the King of customs, the jury answered "No." Judgment was respited.
Membr. 6 b 12 Aug. 1298
Tuesday before the Assumption of the Blessed Mary [15 Aug.]
John de Holebourne, cooper, and other coopers paid fines, varying from 5s to 6d for trespass against the King (fn. 30).
Richard Horn came and pledged to the Mayor and Aldermen 20 casks of wine for a trespass done against them. Afterwards the latter, by special favour, condoned ten of the above twenty casks under the following arrangement:-that of the ten casks nine should be payable if the above Richard be convicted in future of ill-behaviour against the Mayor and Aldermen. He was fined 40s for his trespass against the King, to be paid on the following Thursday.
13 Aug. 1298
Wednesday before the above Feast
Mabel, relict of John de Lodelawe, demanded against John Gamel a debt of £163 4s. She had already prosecuted before the Mayor and Aldermen an attachment of 30 sacks of wool, belonging to the defendant, and sealed with his seal, which were found in the City of London in the hand and seisin of Robert Poleyn, the journeyman and trader of the defendant (fn. 31), and had given the Sheriff security that she would prosecute her claim. Thereupon the Mayor had ordered the Sheriff to attach all wool and other merchandise belonging to the defendant in whosesoever hands they might be, in accordance with the custom of the City, and to report thereon to the Court. This was done, and on the above date Robert Poleyn appeared and claimed the wool, on the ground that he had bought it from the defendant at Shrewsbury and had paid for it, and that it was thus his own, and he said further that the defendant, on the day of the plaint being levied in the Mayor's Court and the attachment made, had no property in the wool, and if it had been lost by land or sea, he alone would have suffered, and he offered to make whatever proof was required of him as a foreigner. The plaintiff pleaded that this testimony ought not to be accepted, because the defendant had caused the wool to be taken from Shrewsbury to London at his own expense, under his own seal and at his own risk in the custody of Robert, who was his journeyman and trader, and she demanded judgment whether Robert could make a just claim to the wool. The latter said that the wool had been carried to London at his (Robert's) expense and risk. Judgment was given that Robert make his proof, himself the third hand. He appeared on the day assigned and failed in his "law," admitting that he had only paid for £10 worth of the wool, and was under bond to John for the rest, and he altered his claim accordingly. The Sheriff was ordered to hold the attachment of the 30 sacks until the defendant, John Gamel, should be willing to submit himself to justice to answer the plaintiff for the above debt.
Membr. 7 16 Oct. 1298
Thursday before the Feast of St Luke [18 Oct.]
John de Sabriteswrth, "poleter," complained that Richer de Refham, Sheriff, in the market against Cordewanerestrate (fn. 32) took from him and unjustly detained four geese. The Sheriff defended the seizure on the ground that the plaintiff had bought the geese in order to sell them to the regrators against the proclamation of the City. The plaintiff denied that he bought them for this purpose. Judgment was given that he wage his law (fn. 33) for the Quinzime. Memorandum that the plaintiff was also adjudged to make his law for contempt alleged against him by the Sheriff. He was afterwards pardoned by the Mayor.
7 Nov. 1298
Friday before the Feast of St Martin [11 Nov.]
Roger de Bosco, beadle of Nicholas of Farndon without, John de Burgo, beadle of the same Nicholas of Farndon within, John beadle of William le Mazerer, and John le Clerk of Bredstrate appeared before the Mayor and were sworn to answer separately by what warrant they summoned the honest men of their Wards to the Church of the Brothers of the Sack (fn. 34) on the morrow of All Souls, and whether they themselves were there. The above Roger said that he was present, and at the instance of certain neighbours unnamed he had summoned Robert de Romeseye, John Gerlaund, Benedict le Sporier and William Ediman, but did not know the occasion thereof, except that the said men of the Ward drew up a petition to the Mayor concerning themselves. John de Burgo admitted that he was present and at the instance of Roger Hosebond and Roger de Asshendon he had summoned several brewers of his Ward but did not know the occasion thereof. John the beadle of William le Mazerer admitted the same, and said that the summons was at the instance of Peter de Hungrie. John le Clerk said that at the instance of John de Burgo he had summoned several holders of brew-houses viz. Nicholas le Convers, Richard le Barber, William le Fruter and Stephen de Haregwe. Richard le Barber of Douuegate did not appear and was summoned for Wednesday after the Feast of St Martin. The same day was given to the others.
14 Nov. 1298
Friday after the above Feast
Gocelin le Serjant and Thomas ate Welle, Serjeants of Richer de Refham, Sheriff, were summoned to answer Peter de Ratlesdene, baker, in a plea of trespass wherein he complained that the defendants came to his house near Allegate and, on behalf of the Sheriff, attached his paste (pastum), which was worked and ready for baking, and carried it away from his house against his will, the value thereof being 10s for four quarters of corn. The defendants admitted going to the plaintiff's house, but denied that they arrested or attached his bread to hinder his profiting thereby. Richer the Sheriff also appeared and said that by virtue of his office he sent his Serjeants, on the ground that the plaintiff sold to regrators, to carry the bread to the Guyhald to be weighed and judged by the Aldermen as to whether it was of good weight, and that he did not take it or carry it away (so as to deprive him of it). The plaintiff pleaded that he did not sell his bread to regrators, except as other bakers did, and put himself on his country. Richer and the Serjeants did the same.
Afterwards an agreement was made, on terms that Peter released and quitclaimed all actions against the defendants and Richer, receiving 10s payable within the Quinzime. The defendants were amerced by the Court.
Membr. 7 b 26 Nov. 1298
Wednesday before the Feast of St Andrew the Apostle [30 Nov.] A° 27 Edw. 
William de Hereford, armourer, was attached to answer Thomas Romeyn and Juliana his wife in a plea of trespass, wherein they complained that the defendant came to Thomas's house in the Parish of St Mary Aldremarycherche at Vespers and used abusive words against Juliana, calling her false and double-tongued. When she ordered him to leave the house, he refused and took her by the bosom and shouted for the master (post dominum suum). Thereupon Thomas left his chamber and demanded the defendant's name and attached him for breaking the peace, and on this William violently ejected him and used opprobrious words. The latter now defended the force and tort, but subsequently admitted the accusation and put himself on the mercy of the Court. Damages were taxed by a jury at 20 marks. Judgment was given for that amount and the defendant was committed to prison. Afterwards he found pledges for keeping the peace viz. John de Basing, John de Hereford, Manekin le Armurer, Roger Brune, Adam le . . . ., Laurence Flambard, Peter de Waltham, John le Blound son of Walter, Adam le Fourbeur, William Bray, John de Rippelawe, Walter Hauteyn of Lincoln, Richard de Meldebourne, William de Gaytone and Richard Hautein, for the payment of the 20 marks damages in case of a second offence.