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.
Membr. 1 20 Nov. 1301
Court of John le Blund, Mayor of London, Monday the Feast of St Edmund King at the end of the 29th year of King Edward 
Colard de Wateresseye, Peter de St Trond, Simon Gaste, John Ascelyn, Henry Stable, and Andrew Gerste of the same, John Echelkerke of Thorpmond in Almaine, William de Herkestowe of Lincoln and Mabia (sic) Rouland were attached to answer William de Donecastre in a plea that whereas John, Duke of Brabant, was indebted to the plaintiff in £400 by a letter in which he bound himself and all his subjects and merchants for the payment of that sum, and had not paid it- the defendants by a conspiracy with the merchants of Brabant had avowed as their own property certain sacks, sarplars and pockets of wool, which had been attached as the property of Brabantine merchants, thus defrauding the plaintiff to the value of £100. The defendants pleaded severally; Colard that he was of Dinant and a subject of the Bishop of Liege; Peter, Simon, Andrew, Henry and John that they were of St Trond and subjects of the same Bishop, John Echelkerke that he was of Thorpmond in Germany, William de Herkestowe that he was a subject of the King of England, and Mabel that she was a subject of the King and a freewoman of the City of London; and all declared that the goods were their own, and put themselves on the verdict of merchants, native and foreign, travellers and sailors (passaiores et nautas). Afterwards the defendants were allowed to find mainprise to answer for the goods and produce them on the Quinzime of St Hilary, unless meanwhile they could prove by sealed letters from their several towns that they were not subjects of the Duke of Brabant, and that the aforesaid goods were their own.
24 Nov. 1301
Friday before the Feast of St Katherine [25 Nov.]
Recognizance of John de Red, "sauser" (fn. 1), and Alexander le Coffrer to Luke de Haveryng in 10 marks sterling payable at Easter.
Robert le Gardiner, of co. Lincoln, plaintiff in a plea of trespass, and Stephen de Upton, defendant, came to an agreement on the following terms, viz. that whereas the defendant had entered into a bond of 40s with regard to the trespass, that sum should be condoned for one mark, half of which should be paid at once, and the other half put in respite until it was apparent how Stephen intended to behave towards the plaintiff. The former was in mercy for the trespass, which was pardoned by the Mayor.
Membr. 1 b 13 Dec. 1301
Wednesday the Feast of St Lucia Virgin
Judgment in the action between Stephen de Larder and Thomas Abraham and Richard de Caumpes, Sheriff, was respited for a week through default of Walter de Finchingfeud (fn. 2), one of the examiners.
Thomas, son of Thomas de Oxford, offered himself against Thomas de Suffolk, William de Red and Henry de Bondon. The said Thomas and William pleaded that they were not bound to answer without Henry, who was their co-executor of the will of Thomas de Oxford and was absent. Order was given to distrain him. The executors were directed to bring into court the other children of the testator, Adam, Cecily and Joan.
20 Dec. 1301
Adam, beadle of Alegate Ward, reported to the Mayor and Aldermen on 20 Dec., that on the hue and cry being raised in the Ward the preceding night, he found a certain Robert, son of Robert de Lasshingdon of Gloucester, breaking a window and carrying away a bundle of cloth, as the neighbours testified, and took him to the Tun. The prisoner came before the Mayor the same day, and as he did not appear to be of good fame and could find no pledges, he was delivered to the Sheriffs to be committed to Neuwegate until &c.
12 Jan. 1301-2
Friday after the Feast of the Epiphany [6 Jan.] A° 30 Edw. [1301-2]
13 Dec. 1300.
Court of Luke de Havering, Sheriff of London, Tuesday after the Feast of the Conception B.M. [8 Dec.] A° 29 Edw. 
Robert de Frowyk was summoned to answer Henry de Dunlee in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that the defendant covenanted to buy from him 2 casks of wine for 9 marks, and 20 quarters of oats for £4, and to enter into a statute of the staple of Westminster for the payment, and that the defendant had done neither. The defendant denied the covenant and offered to make his law. He subsequently made a default, but again demanded to be allowed to make his law on the ground that he had waged his law and had afterwards essoined, whereby his default was purged. The plaintiff pleaded that the essoin was not admissible, and the Court, accepting this pleading, gave judgment for the plaintiff, on the ground that after the defendant's default he had been summoned to hear judgment, and though he had afterwards essoined, his essoin ought not to prejudice the plaintiff (fn. 3).
Membr. 3 3 Feb. 1301-2
Court of John le Blund, Mayor, Saturday after the Feast of the Purification [2 Feb.] A° 30 Edw. [1301-2]
William Simond offered himself against Adam de Fulham, junior, in a plea of debt. The latter had requested the aid of clerks, and had essoined "de communi" and "de servicio regis," and now did not come. He was summoned to hear judgment at the next Court.
14 Feb. 1301-2.
Wednesday the Feast of St Valentine [14 Feb.]
Richard le Barber was summoned to answer Robert de Fyngrie in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he had proved a debt of 12s 3d against the defendant in the Soke of the Bishop of London, of which the said Richard had paid 5s, his goods being sequestrated for the remainder by the Bishop's sokereve, and that the defendant broke the sequestration and removed the goods. A jury of the venue of Cornhull Tun was summoned against the next Court.
14 March 1301-2.
Membr. 3 b 16 March 1301-2
Friday after the Feast of St Gregory [12 March]
A jury of the venue of St Leonard of Estchep was summoned to say on oath whether Roger de la Weyg assaulted Sir Bosoo de la Rokele (fn. 4), knight of the Lord King, and tore his clothes on Wednesday before the Feast of St Peter in Cathedra this year against the peace &c.
23 March 1301-2
Friday before the Annunciation B.M. [25 March]
11 May 1302
Friday after the Feast of St John before the Latin Gate [6 May]
John de Crouly claimed from the above Robert £16, by one tally produced in Court, for woad sold and delivered to him. The defendant admitted the purchase, but said that it was on condition that he sold it under the plaintiff's name and not his own, and he put himself on the oath of the plaintiff. The latter appeared before Geoffrey de Norton and William de Leyre, deputies of the Mayor, and swore that the sale was without condition. Judgment was given for the plaintiff and that the defendant be in mercy.
Membr. 4 30 May 1302
On Wednesday the eve of the Ascension, before "dominus" (fn. 5). John le Blunt, Mayor, John de Croy appointed James de Sysouln his attorney to sue execution of a debt of £16 which he had proved against Robert Turk, and to receive the money and give an acquittance in his name.
1 June 1302
Friday, the morrow of the Ascension [31 May]
James de Wadencourt was summoned to answer Robert Turk in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that he had bought a shipload of corn, viz. 300 quarters, at 41 quarters to count as 40, at a certain price from the above James, and that the latter had received from him 20s as earnest-money and God's silver, and ought to have delivered the corn at the hythe of Billingesgate, and had refused to do so. The defendant admitted the covenant and having received 1d as God's silver and 20s as earnest-money, but said that he sold a shipload and not a certain number of quarters, and that he was on his voyage when a sudden storm arose and the sea grew so dangerous that he could not fulfil the contract, nor was he bound to do so, because peril of the sea was excepted in the covenant. The plaintiff denied this exception and offered to make his law on the point. Thereupon the defendant said he had witnesses, Wybert and Adam, as to the exception, and he took an oath that he would not produce any other witnesses than these and would not suborn them. Afterwards at a Court held on Friday before the Feast of Pentecost he produced his witnesses. An agreement was then arrived at by the intervention of friends and by permission of the Court, the terms being that James should pay Robert £4 to cover the 20s earnest-money and all other costs, and be in mercy, while Robert should give him an acquittance as regards the contract.
John Russel, plaintiff, appointed as his attorney Reymund de Margeys or Bernard de Margeys or Bydau Manent against James de Brabazon and his partners of the Society "de la gruntable" of Sene (fn. 6) in a plea of debt.
14 June 1302
Thursday within seven days of Pentecost [10 June] before Geoffrey de Norton, deputy of the Mayor
John de Richemond, servant of Matthew le Peyntour, John de St Omer, servant of William Leschild, sadler, Henry le Heumer, servant of Manekyn le Heumer, Manettus, son of William le Barber, John, son of Nicholas de Cambridge, and Robert Scot, fishmonger, who were captured and put in the Tun, were attached to answer William Mory, Geoffrey de Notingham, Robert Motoun, Henry de Hundesdich, Ralph le Cordwaner, Bartholomew le Botoner, John Baroun, John de Norfolk, and Richard le Barber, beadle of the Ward of Walebrok, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that while they were keeping watch on the night following Tuesday in the week after Pentecost, the defendants in the middle of the night assaulted and beat them. The defendants denied the charge and said that on Wednesday morning, when the light was quite clear, they were going towards Stratford, and in Candelwykstrate they met the Watch and surrendered to them without doing any harm; and they put themselves on a jury, which was summoned for Thursday. John de Richemond was mainprised by Matthew le Peyntour, John de St Omer by William Leschild, sadler, and Henry le Heumer by Peter le Heumer, that no harm would be done to the Watch by them or their following. The son of William le Barber, John, son of Nicholas de Cambridge, and Robert Scot were mainprised to attend the Court and did not come. Accordingly they were attached and their mainpernors were summoned to answer why they had failed to produce them. Afterwards on Thursday a jury of John le Juvene and others from five Wards found on oath that the defendants committed the assault when midnight was striking at St Paul's, and were captured after the hue and cry had been raised by horn and voice, and the neighbouring wards had come to help, and that Manettus wounded William Mori to his damage, one mark, and that previously he and his companions and other unknown persons had filled an empty cask with stones on Monday midnight, and set it rolling through Graschirchestrate to London Bridge to the great terror of the neighbours. Judgment was given that Manettus go to prison till he had paid the mark, and that the others likewise go to prison.
21 June 1302
Thursday before the Feast of St John the Baptist [24 June]
William Cros was summoned to answer Gilbert de Schorne in a plea that he pay him £20, and deliver a bond for 20 marks, which had been entrusted to him by the hands of Geoffrey de Norton, Alderman of the Ward, on condition that if a Fine could not be levied in the Husting concerning certain houses demised to the plaintiff by Henry Cros and Joan his wife, the said £20 and the bond should be returned to him. The defendant denied the claim, and said that the £20 was paid as a debt owed to him by Henry Cros, in connection with which debt he had the houses from Henry Cros for a term of three years. The plaintiff then vouched to witness Edmund and Walter, who were present, and took an oath that he, would not produce any other than these witnesses or suborn them. Afterwards the witnesses gave evidence on oath, and judgment was given for the plaintiff.
A jury of the venue of Briggestrat came by John de Sutton and others in the panel, who said on oath that John Orpedeman did not lay violent hands on the Master of the Hospital of St Giles without London nor deny a distraint to him in the presence of Thomas Kent, Serjeant of the Mayor, as alleged, except in order to save the fish lying on his table from being thrown down into the mud, and for no other reason. The said John and the Master had a day to hear judgment.
Membr. 4 b
A jury of the venue of Bredstrate and Cordwanerstrate, which was summoned to say on oath whether Roger de York, cordwainer, assaulted Richard Leving, beadle of the Ward of Bredstrate, to his damage 100s, came on Wednesday before the Feast of St Bartholomew the Apostle (fn. 7) [24 Aug.] by Richard le Chaundeler and others, and said that the defendant maliciously threw down the said Richard, so that he fell against the pavement and broke his head, to his damage half a mark. The defendant subsequently was distrained by 22 pairs of shoes, valued by oath of Thomas de Aldewych, Thomas de Douegate and Richard de London, cordwainers, at 8s to pay the half mark damages, and as he did not come to acquit the pledges taken, the shoes were delivered to the plaintiff, who returned 1s 4d surplus to be repaid to the defendant.
10 July 1302
Tuesday after the Feast of the Translation of St Thomas the Martyr [7 July]
A jury of the venue around the house of Symon Bolimer of Castle Baynard was summoned to say on oath whether Symon broke a sequestration made on him by the Sheriff, for 20s owed by him on a tallage of 18d in the pound. Afterwards the said Symon paid the 20s, and proceedings were stayed.
12 July 1302
Thursday after the above Feast
28 July 1302
Saturday after the Feast of St James the Apostle [25 July]
The Sheriff was ordered to bring into Court, Roger de Springwell, "toundur" (fn. 8), and William Cros, fishmonger, executors of the will of John de Middelburgh, mercer, to do and receive what law (jus) shall dictate at the next Court.
John de Pountoyse was summoned to answer Reginald de Frowyk in a plea of trespass wherein, the latter complained that he had leased to the defendant a house outside Alderichesgate from Michaelmas 1300 for one year, for 40s, and the defendant held it till Easter 1302, and had damaged the locks, timber and other fixtures to the extent of 100s. The defendant craved a loveday. Subsequently the parties came to an agreement by permission of the Court.
28 Oct. 1300
Court of Richard de Campes, Sheriff of London, on Friday before the Feast of All Saints [1 Nov.] A° 28 Edw. 
Stephen de Larder was attached to answer Thomas Abraham in a plea of detinue of a goshawk (ostorium), which the latter alleged that he handed over to the custody of Stephen in Midlent until Michaelmas following, the value being £10, and that Stephen acknowledged receipt, but now unjustly detained it, to his damage 100s. The defendant denied that he had received the goshawk or acknowledged receipt, and offered to prove it by his law according to the custom of the City. The plaintiff declared that he could produce John and John as fit and lawful witnesses, who were present at the acknowledgment. A day was given to produce them at the Quinzime.
23 Nov. 1300
Wednesday after the Feast of St Edmund King [20 Nov.]
Stephen de Larder essoined against Thomas Abraham for hearing his suit (de secta (fn. 9) sua audienda), by William de Reyle. A day was given to him, through his essoiner, for Friday before the Feast of St Nicholas [Dec. 6], on which day the parties appeared. Thomas Abraham then offered himself against the defendant and demanded that his witnesses be examined. John, the first witness, being sworn and examined in the presence of the Sheriff and Walter de Fynchyngfeld and Henry de Gloucestre, aldermen, testified that on Wednesday before the Feast of All Saints (Nov. 1) he was present when the defendant acknowledged the receipt of a goshawk (Anglica lingua unum Goshauek), i.e. between the hours of Prime and Tierce in the porch (in atrio) of the Guildhall between two doors, in the presence of John, the other witness, and others. John, the second witness, agreed with the above evidence, except that the defendant only acknowledged the receipt of a hawk (Anglica lingua simpliciter unum hauek). A day was given for the next Court that the Sheriff might consult with the Mayor and Aldermen. Afterwards at the Court held on Wednesday after the Feast of St Gregory Pope [12 March] the parties came and demanded judgment. Whereupon judgment was given for the plaintiff for the goshawk (fn. 10) or its value, and that the defendant be in mercy.
4 May 1302
Court of Peter de Bosenho, Friday before Hokeday [6 May] A° 30 Edw. 
Reimund de Sordes of Bayonne was attached to answer John de St Pierre of the same in a plea of detinue of three deeds, wherein the latter alleged that on 26 May, 1301, he pledged to the defendant three deeds, sealed with the seal of the Earl of Lincoln, containing £300, for £701 5s small Tournois (fn. 11), due from him to Reimund at the fair of Bruges in the following month, which money the plaintiff paid by the hands of Ralph de Brakkelee, merchant, but though the said Ralph demanded the deeds in return, the defendant detained them to his damage £100. The defendant declared that he was not bound to return the deeds till the money was paid, and produced a bond under the seal of the plaintiff to that effect. The plaintiff did not deny this bond, but repeated that he had paid his debt through Ralph de Brakkelee at the Fair of Turruk, and that the defendant had pretended that the deeds were in Bruges and had promised to restore them, but had not done so. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had no acquittance for the money, and that therefore the deeds remained with him according to the terms of the bond, and asked for judgment whether the plaintiff could recover on his bare word (simplici verbo suo). The plaintiff offered to verify the payment. Afterwards at a Court held on Thursday before the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist [June 24] the parties appeared, and the plaintiff again offered to verify the payment and the detinue, by merchants and other good and lawful men, natives and foreigners. Judgment was given that as the plaintiff could not produce an acquittance and admitted the bond, which was not cancelled, he should recover nothing, and be in mercy for a false claim.
In dorso. John de Seint Pere did not prosecute (fn. 12), and was plaintiff. Therefore he and his pledges are in mercy.
Membr. 7 3 Aug. 1302
Court of John le Blound, Mayor of London, Friday after the Feast of St Peter ad Vincula [1 Aug.] A° 30 Edw. 
John Aldebrandyn of the Society "Claren de Pistorye" (fn. 13) acknowledged himself bound to Sir William Howard in an alms dish and a cup with foot and covercle of silver weighing 25 marks, to be returned on the morrow of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (14 Sept.) on payment of 20 marks, the amount for which they were pledged.
22 Aug. 1302
Wednesday before the Feast of St Bartholomew [24 Aug.]
Reymund de Sordes (fn. 14), defendant, offered himself against John de St Peter, plaintiff, in a plea of error made in the Court of Peter de Bosenho, Sheriff, in an action of detinue of three deeds. The above John had essoined twice and did not appear now to prosecute his plaint. He was amerced, and the defendant went thence without a day. Execution of the judgment was ordered and the box of deeds was delivered to the defendant.
28 Aug. 1302
On Tuesday after the Feast of St Bartholomew the Apostle [24 Aug.] John, son of Geoffrey de Cavedihs, came before the Mayor and admitted that he opened with his foot the door of a certain sealed chamber (fn. 15). He was committed to prison.
A jury was summoned from the venue of St Laurence and Cheap to declare on oath whether John le Botoner broke the sequestration made on him for the Queen's Gold, and counselled the neighbours and prevented them from paying more than the half of what was demanded from them, and thus hindered and delayed payment to the Queen.
Membr. 7 b 12 Sept. 1302
Wednesday after the Feast of the Nativity B.M. [8 Sept.], for foreigners
James le Reve (fn. 16) offered himself against Peter de Bosenho, Sheriff, and Nigel le Brun, executor of the will of Robert de Bree, in a plea of error, wherein he complained that the above Peter did him injury in a plea of account in which the above Nigel was plaintiff and he was defendant-by giving judgment that there should be auditors of his account. The Sheriff produced his record, in which it appeared that Nigel appointed Geoffrey de Morton or Richard Gladewyne and William de Reylee or one of them his attorney. The above James pleaded that he initiated the plea of error, and claimed that the attorneys appointed by Nigel in the Sheriff's Court, as appeared by the Sheriff's record, should not be admitted for the defence here, and therefore claimed judgment by default. Richard Gladewyne pleaded that the defendant could not make default, as he had appointed him, Richard, as his attorney till the case was ended; also that the plaintiff charged error against the Sheriff and could show no error in the record. He demanded that the judgment be confirmed and execution thereof allowed. A day was given till the next Court.
Precept was given that John de Sutton and other jurors of Bridge Ward appear this day and assess damages sustained when John Orpedman laid hands on the Master of the Hospital of St Giles without London and denied him a pledge. The Serjeant reported that summons had been made. As Robert de Mokking, John Freschfihs, John Baldewin and Elias Pykeman did not come, order was given to distrain them against next Tuesday.
John de Shaftisbiri, Brian de Mendham and other jurors of Langebourn Ward said on oath that Margery, relict of John de Twyford, clerk, and Henry de Schenefeld, goldsmith, executors of the will of the above John, came on Monday night after the Feast of the Nativity B.M. [8 Sept.] to the house which the above John rented from Brachius Lumbard in Langeborne Ward, and opened the door and took away a feather bed, two sheets, two coverlets and two andirons, value 8s, against the peace and the prohibition of Sir John le Blunt, then Mayor. Margery and Henry were summoned for Saturday to answer thereon.
17 Sept. 1302
Monday after the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross [14 Sept.]
James le Reve, plaintiff, offered himself against Nigel le Brun, executor of the will of Robert de Bree, and Peter de Bosenho, Sheriff of London, in a plea of error made in a plea of account between the above Nigel, as plaintiff, and himself, and demanded judgment by default. Richard Gladewyne and Geoffrey de Morton denied the default. The plaintiff declared the error to consist in the fact that the Sheriff adjudicated auditors of the account, whereas he was not bound to render account of the £74, which he received from Robert de Bree to trade therewith to their common profit, because he was robbed of those goods with others of his own on the coast of Brittany; and he alleged other errors in the record. The Sheriff asked for a day to take counsel till the morrow, which was granted to him.
A jury of St Lawrence Lane in Cheap Ward was summoned to declare whether Philip le Viroler broke the sequestration on him for 16s, Queen's Gold, and whether he refused to allow Thomas de Kent, Serjeant, to make the sequestration on him.
Membr. 8 27 Aug. 1302
Court of Peter de Bosenho, Sheriff, Monday after the Feast of St Bartholomew [24 Aug.] A° 30 Edw. 
James le Reve of London was summoned to answer Nigel le Brun, executor of Robert de Bree of Dublin, merchant, in a plea that he render a reasonable account of moneys accruing to their common profit, in that the above Robert on Palm Sunday 1290 handed to him £100 to trade therewith in Ireland for two years, and the defendant had rendered no account. The latter admitted the receipt of £74, with which he bought goods, and said he was three times robbed on the coast of Brittany in 1290, and was imprisoned for twelve weeks, and demanded judgment whether he ought to render account. Nigel demanded judgment on his recognizance, and pleaded that the defendant should be forced to give an account on his receipt, and said that the defendant, at the time alleged, was in Ireland for a whole year trading and could not be robbed in Brittany, and this he was prepared to prove by the evidence of English and Irish merchants and of the Commonalties of Dublin and "Crakfergus," as well as by the Rolls of the King's Customs of Wools and Hides in that province. James repeated that he was robbed and was ready to prove it by sailors and merchants trading in that country. As regards the £30, he said he never received more than £74, and was ready to defend it by his law. Nigel pleaded that the defendant ought not to be admitted to his law, since actions of account ought to be settled by a jury (fn. 17), but in any case he was ready to answer him. A day was given till the next Court.On Tuesday after the above feast the defendant appeared by his attorney, Richard Scot. On Thursday the Court, wishing for consultation, fixed the next hearing on Friday before the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Mary [8 Sept.]; on which day the Court, on the ground that the defendant acknowledged receipt of the £74 and showed no acquittance for that sum, gave judgment that he should render an account, and appointed Paul le Botiler and John Tilli as auditors, to hear the account in the Guildhall on the Sunday. The defendant was mainprised by John le Benere. A day was given till the next Court in order that the Court might be advised as to whether the defendant should make his law about the £30, or the matter be inquired into by a jury.
Membr. 9 5 April 1302
Court of Robert le Caller, Thursday after Midlent [1 April] A° 30 Edw. 
Bartholomew Bynau was attached to answer Walter le Bokeler in a plea of detinue of a horse value 40s, which he had hired to take him from London to York for 7s, on condition that the horse be returned within a month. The defendant said that he hired the horse, which was only worth a mark, to take him to the King in Scotland, and that the plaintiff sent his servant John to look after the horse, which fell sick on the way, and that he returned it to the servant within the month to take it back to his master. The plaintiff replied that he was ready to prove that the horse was worth more than a mark; and the servant John, who joined himself with his master in the plea, denied that it was returned to him. The defendant said that he had witnesses, Fortanus and Bernard, who were present, and craved leave to produce them in accordance with the custom of the City. Having taken an oath not to produce witnesses other than the above, he demanded a day. Thereupon the servant John said that he was himself a foreigner, and that when a suit concerning foreigners was called, the party producing witnesses should produce them at once in Court, and as the witnesses were not there, he demanded judgment. The defendant pleaded that he had been summoned to answer the above Walter, who was a freeman, and that John had only joined his master to support him, and he said further that if he lost the case, the plaintiff would retain the whole profits (fn. 18) of the action; and he demanded judgment.
After two adjournments, the defendant made default, and did not produce his witnesses; whereupon on 12 May, judgment was given against him. As the value of the horse was at issue between the parties, a jury was summoned to inquire as to the value of the horse and assess damages. On 19 June a jury of the Conduit and Bredstrate brought in a verdict that the horse was worth two marks on the day it was hired, and they assessed the damages, by reason of the detinue of the horse from the Feast of the Purification [25 March] till the present day, at 23s 2d, or 2d a day. Judgment was given accordingly, and that the defendant be kept in custody till he paid or found security for payment, since he was a foreigner and had no goods in the bailiwick.
Note. Bartholomew did not prosecute (his plaint of error). The defendant went thence without a day (fn. 19).
Court of Peter de Bosenho on Friday after the Feast of St Faith [6 Oct.] (fn. 20)
On 11 Oct. judgment in the above case was respited till the next Court from lack of jurors. On 20 Oct. John de Laufare, the defendant, essoined, and again on 25 Oct. On 27 Oct. a jury of the venue of Wodestrate between John le Barber, plaintiff, and John de Laufare, defendant, gave a verdict for the plaintiff with 40s damages. Judgment for that amount and that the defendant be committed to prison.
[Note by the writer of the Mayor's Court Roll]:-They claim error, first, because the Sheriff did not send the original plea; secondly, because he makes mention of judgment being put in respite, whereas no judgment appears in the record; thirdly, because the defendant essoined twice "de communi" without an intervening appearance; fourthly, because judgment was given for 40s damages, and that the defendant's body be committed to prison, without the principal plea preceding.
[The above mentioned original or principal plea subsequently produced and sewn on the foot of the membrane]:- Court of Richard de Campes, Sheriff, on Wednesday before the Feast of St Michael [29 Sept.]. John de Laufare, cordwainer, was attached to answer John le Barber on a charge of assaulting him in Wodestrate. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff assaulted him first in his house, and that any damage he received was on this account. A jury was summoned against the next Court.
Membr. 11 19 Sept. 1302
Court of John le Blund, Mayor of London, Wednesday after the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross [14 Sept.] A° 30 Edw. 
Bartholomew Bynaw (fn. 21), who complained of error in the Court of Robert le Callere, Sheriff of London, in an action between himself and Walter le Boceler, had this day and did not come. Judgment that he and his pledges be in mercy, and that Walter go thence without a day. The Sheriff was ordered to make execution.
James le Reve (fn. 22), plaintiff, offered himself against Peter de Bosenho, Sheriff of London, and Nigel le Brun, executor of the will of Robert de Bree, in a plea of error made in the Sheriff's Court in an action of account wherein the plaintiff was defendant. The plaintiff said that the error consisted in the fact that he was ordered to render account before auditors, and that the Court took no notice of his offer to prove that he had lost the money on the coast of Brittany by the evidence of sailors and merchants trading there. The present defendants pleaded that the plaintiff should be precluded from this verification, on the ground that they were ready to prove that the plaintiff could not have been robbed as alleged, since he was in Ireland, and they claimed judgment because he had admitted receipt of the money and had produced no acquittance. The Court decided that as neither party had evidence to support their allegations, a day should be given in the Quinzime of Easter for them to produce their evidence, and that meanwhile execution of the judgment given in the Sheriff's Court should be stayed.
Three dishes and one cup taken from Bartholomew Bynau for 49s 10d, which Walter le Bokeler was awarded against him in the Court of Robert le Callere, were valued by oath of Michael de Wymbourne and John de Lutegreshale, goldsmiths, at 48s 2d, and they weighed 50s 8d. A day was given to the said Bartholomew to satisfy the plaintiff within eight days, otherwise the pledges would be sold.
5 Oct. 1302
Friday after the Feast of St Michael [29 Sept.]
Richard de Bolingtone and Alice his wife, Emma her sister, and Geoffrey, clerk of the Church of St Nicholas Coldabbey, were summoned to answer a charge of assaulting Agnes de Norhamptone in the highway by the Gate of St Augustine. Subsequently the parties came to an agreement, and the amercement was condoned because they were poor.
Membr. 11 b 25 Oct. 1302
Thursday before the Feast of the Apostles Simon and Jude [28 Oct.] A° 30 Edw. 
William de Bray was summoned to answer Thomas Abraham in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that though he was a citizen and had not offended against the above William, the defendant caused him to.be attached on Wednesday the Feast of the Assumption [15 Aug.] at Luton Fair, by the goods which he had taken there for trading, and had kept these goods for three days, till the plaintiff answered him before the bailiffs of the town of Luton in a plea of trespass, and that by means of a jury procured by the defendant and of his affinity, damages of 20s were awarded against the plaintiff, for which his goods were still under arrest; and afterwards the defendant caused his goods, which were going to London, to be attached in St Albans by the bailiffs of the Abbot, to the value of £8, on Monday after the Feast of the Assumption, which goods still remained attached, in prejudice of the Liberty of the City of London and to his damage £20. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had assaulted him on the above Wednesday [15 Aug.] at Luton and for this reason he had had his goods attached, and also that he had assaulted him on Tuesday [14 Aug.], the eve of the Assumption, after dinner at Luton Fair, within the authority and Liberty of the Abbot of St Albans, and that therefore he had caused him to be attached in the town of St Albans within the same Liberty, as was lawful to him, and he demanded judgment. The plaintiff also demanded judgment on the confession of the defendant, and said that even if he had offended against the defendant, which he had not, the latter had done prejudice to the Liberty of London in causing him to appear before other judges than those of the Liberty of London, and outside the walls, and in having him attached at St Albans on the Monday for an alleged offence on the Tuesday preceding. A day was given at the next Husting to hear judgment. Afterwards at a Court held on Monday after the Feast of St Edmund [16 Nov.], the above Thomas offered himself against the above William, who did not come. Order was given to distrain him.
26 Oct. 1302
Friday before the Feast of the Apostles Simon and Jude [28 Oct.] before William de Leyre
Roger de Shorne was summoned to answer William le Poleter in a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that by request of the above Roger he lent to the latter's son Robert £9 18s 5½d at Nogente in Artoys, and afterwards came to Roger's house in London and showed him Robert's bond, whereupon Roger paid him 24s pollard for 12s sterling and promised to pay the rest within the Quinzime, thus becoming debtor for his son; but though the plaintiff gave him the bond, the defendant had subsequently refused payment. The defendant denied that he had asked the plaintiff to lend the money to his son or that he had assumed his son's debt. The plaintiff produced witnesses, Nicholas and John, of whom the former said that he was present when the plaintiff lent the money at Paris and Nogente, that Robert gave a bond at Paris, and that he was present when Roger, in his house opposite "les Escanz" (fn. 23), thanked William for the loan, and paid 24s pollard; the parties, he said, were sitting in Roger's hall on a bench facing the road and drinking, and Roger's wife was present. The second witness, John, agreed with the above, except that he said the bond was given at Nogente. A day was given to hear judgment on Wednesday, unless the parties were able to agree meanwhile.
7 Nov. 1302
Wednesday after the Feast of All Saints [1 Nov.] A° 30 Edw. 
Thomas Abram was summoned to answer William de Braye in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the defendant had him attached by his horse in the town of Luton to answer him in a plea of trespass, in prejudice of his freedom of London. The defendant denied it, and had a day at the Quinzime to make his law, when judgment was given against the plaintiff on his making default.
Membr. 12 17 Nov. 1302
Saturday after the Feast of St Martin [11 Nov.]
John de Brekesheved, servant of Terricus le Vileyn, was attached to answer Adam de Berlee in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the defendant assaulted him on two separate occasions. The defendant put himself on a jury. The plaintiff said that the custom of the City in pleas of trespass was for a man to acquit himself by his law (fn. 24), and he was willing to allow the defendant his law. The latter refused, because he admitted that he laid hands on him and pushed him away. Judgment was respited till Wednesday, and the defendant was delivered to the Sheriff for his appearance on that day.
Peter Maupyn came before John le Blunt, Mayor of London, and acknowledged that he owed to Sir Eble Mounz, knight, £6 14s 8d, that sum being due to Sir William de Mounz or his attorney on the Octave of St Andrew [30 Nov.].
11 Dec. 1302
Tuesday before the Feast of St Lucia Virgin [13 Dec.] A° 31 Edw. 
A jury of the venue of Manionelane was summoned for Friday to say whether the house of William de Basinge was burnt on Monday after Michaelmas, by fire issuing from the house of Maud le Lou, due to carelessness on her part, as the above William alleged.
John de Laufare offered himself against John le Barber, in a plea of error made in the Court of Peter de Bosenho, then Sheriff, in an action of trespass (fn. 25), in which John le Barber was plaintiff. The Sheriff sent his record, and an error was found therein. The judgment of the Sheriff's Court was annulled, and the present plaintiff went thence without a day.
15 Dec. 1302
Saturday after the Feast of St Lucia Virgin [13 Dec.]
The same Paul was attached to answer Robert de Alegate in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that Paul, who was a freeman like himself, caused his goods to be attached by the bailiffs of Luton at Luton Fair, in prejudice of the Liberty of London. The defendant denied that he caused the goods of Robert to be attached, but instead those of a certain Robert Rose, "poter," who owed him £20, which he was prepared to prove. Thereupon Robert said that a certain Thomas Rose was his journeyman (fn. 26), and had charge of his goods which were attached, and this he was willing to prove, and to prove the custom of the City. A day was given on Tuesday.
Afterwards on Tuesday the plaintiff demanded permission to verify his plea. The defendant said the plaintiff could not be admitted to his law, as the question was reserved for a jury at the last court, and he called the Mayor's record to witness. Afterwards a jury of Gilbert le Mareschal and others said on oath that the goods, on which the attachment was made, belonged to Robert de Alegate. Judgment was given that Paul make delivery of the goods, and be at the next Husting to hear judgment concerning this attachment made against the Liberty of the City, and concerning the damages of Robert, which were taxed at 20s.
Membr. 12 b
Alan de Maldon was summoned to answer Egbrith de Werpe of Almaine in a plea of error made in the Court of Symon de Paris, Sheriff of London, in an action of debt in which Alan was plaintiff (fn. 27). The above Egbrith complained that the error made was in the process, and that whereas "Detard," Alderman of the free merchants of the Hanse of Almaine, came and demanded his Court concerning the above Egbrith as a free man of the Hanse, which Court he claimed to have by Charters from the Kings of England as well as by Charters of the City of London, the above Sheriff, not challenging that claim, nevertheless unjustly proceeded with the plea. He said further that the Sheriff condemned him in £33 11s 2d, whereas the plaintiff claimed £34 13s, and failed to prove the whole of that amount. Moreover the witnesses were insufficient, since they could not say out of what contract the debt of £33 11s 2d had its origin, as they ought to have done. Thus the error consisted in saying that a faulty proof was good, and in proceeding to judgment. Afterwards at a Court held on Friday after the Purification [2 Feb.] a day was given to the parties to hear judgment at the next Husting.
20 Dec. 1302
Thursday the Vigil of St Thomas the Apostle [21 Dec.]
Master Geoffrey de Hengham was attached to answer Richard Hauteyn for prosecuting pleas against him in the Court Christian at Norwich as regards goods and chattels which did not concern a will or matrimony, but related to tithes from lands which were not in the plaintiff's possession -and this he had done, in spite of the fact that he had acknowledged before the Mayor that he had no ground for such actions except as a means of vexation, and the Mayor, in accordance with the ancient Liberties of the City, had inhibited him from bringing such actions to impoverish the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that he had no need to answer this charge, as the plaintiff had already sued him in the Mayor's Court, and he had been acquitted, to which he called the Mayor's record as witness. Moreover he pleaded that this present action was pending in the Sheriff's Court, and demanded judgment as to whether he need answer it now. The plaintiff denied that the defendant had been acquitted, and as regards his assertion that the case was pending in the Sheriff's Court, pleaded that this "excepcio" was a dilatory one, and that his first answer to the action should be dealt with first. Accordingly he demanded judgment whether he was bound to answer this dilatory exception. A day was given to hear judgment at the next Court.