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 2 Dec. 1305
Court of J. le Blound, Mayor, on Thursday after the Feast of St Andrew the Apostle [30 Nov.] A° 34 Edw. 
Geoffrey de Gernemuhe was summoned to answer the Commonalty and Richer de Refham, collector of the Murage of London, in a plea that he render an account of his receipt of murage (fn. 1), issuing from corn within and without Neugate, from 6 Sept. last till the day of St Luke the Evangelist [18 Oct.]-he having received during that time £16 and having paid over only 75s, and refused to pay the remainder. The defendant pleaded that he had paid over to Richer all he had received. The plaintiff answered that some days the defendant had received murage from 240 carts, at other times 220, sometimes more or less, and demanded a jury. A jury of the venue towards Neugate and round St Nicholas at Shambles was summoned. Afterwards, since Geoffrey had acknowledged that he was a receiver of murage, he was ordered to render an account, and Walter de Finchingfeld and Thomas Romeyn were appointed auditors. On an account being made, it was found that Geoffrey had received five marks more than he had paid in to Richer. He was delivered to the Sheriff until &c.
Adam de Fulham, Richard Aleyn, John Aleyn, Walter Pykeman, Thomas de Colingham, Walter Mounde, John de Croydone, Robert Turk, William Cros le Bole, John Lambyn of Colecestre, Adam de Tindale, Walter le Benere, Robert Baudry, William Frere, Pynnefoul, Robert le Portier, Homfrey, journeyman of Adam de Foleham, Robert de Mokkingg, Hugh Frohs, John Pyfre, Roger Bacheler, Richard Brith, John Baldewyne, John de Wodeforth, John de Boys, William le Reve, Walter Miles, Adam Hospinel, Simon Morival, fishmongers of Bridge Street, and Robert de Ely, Richard, journeyman of Walter de Hakeneye, Roger de Bernes, John Pardome, Henry Matefrey, Thomas Matefrey, Stephen le Bakere, William le Lung, Simon his man, William Flinchard, Alan Flinchard, John his man, John Flinchard, Simon Fiz Robert, Matthew de Ely, Alan, journeyman of Geoffrey Scot, junior, William Monamy, Robert Scot, William his brother, John de Tornham, Simon de Tornham, John de Guldeford, John de Stratford, Henry de Fingrie, William Pardome, and Adam de Ely, fishmongers of Old Fish Street, were summoned to answer the Mayor and Commonalty and John de Ely, who prosecuted for the King, on a charge of forestalling fish coming to the City by land and water against the Statute of their aforesaid trade, to the damage of the King, the magnates of England, the whole commonalty of London, and the people resorting to the city. The defendants pleaded not guilty and demanded to acquit themselves by their law. The prosecutors pleaded that as the offence was against the King &c. they could not so acquit themselves. The defendants were ordered to inform the Court whether they wished to acquit themselves in any other way, whereupon they demanded a jury. Subsequently the cases were dealt with by three juries of William de Lutone, John Dode, Richard le Barbere of Bredstrete and others, who found the majority of the defendants not guilty. William Cros le Bole, Robert Turk and Henry Graspeys were found guilty of buying a boatload of fish and each selling to the other, thus enhancing the price. Robert Baudry was found guilty of hiding his own fish to the scarcity and damage of the people, and adjudged to prison &c.; Adam de Fulham was found guilty of taking more lampreys and fish for the King's use than he delivered to the King, thus making a profit.
10 Dec. 1305
Friday after the Feast of St Nicholas [6 Dec.]
William Passemer was summoned to answer Peter de Neuport in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that when he wanted to repair his houses in the parish of St Andrew Holebourne and to roof them, by hanging his ladder on the house, the defendant drove away the tiler by force and arms, and would not allow the tiling to proceed for 2½ years, whereby the timber and walls were rotted. Afterwards an agreement was made by permission of Court, on terms that the plaintiff quitclaim all actions, and the defendant pay an amercement of 20d through the Mayor, which amercement was afterward paid to the Chamberlain, R. Poterel.
Membr. 1 b 15 Dec. 1305
Wednesday after the above Feast
Peter Adrian was attached to answer the Master of the Hospital of St Giles without London in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that when he went to Peter's house in Sopereslane and took a pledge of a piece of wax weighing 20 lbs, for 16s arrears due on an annual rent of 8s, the defendant took the wax away from him, against the peace and to his damage 100s. The defendant pleaded that the house in which the plaintiff made the distraint was not held from the plaintiff, and the annual rent of 8s was not chargeable upon it. A jury of the venue was summoned.
William de Londoneston, who was attached to answer William de Lyndesseye in a plea of trespass, came and said that he was discharged without a day before Sir Roger de Hegham, the King's Justice. The plaintiff could not deny it, and the defendant went thence without a day.
A jury of butchers was summoned for Friday to say whether Godfrey le Webbe bought 500 sheep at Thotenham (fn. 2) on their way to London, as Richer de Refham alleged.
Roger de Rokesle, senior, was attached to answer Thomas de Frowyk and Alice his wife for entering the house of Alice at Ebbegate with eighteen other men, when she was living apart from her husband (duni a viro fuit soluta), assaulting her and ejecting her into the street, where she raised the hue and cry, breaking open her cupboards, "forcers" (fn. 3) and coffers and taking away gold and silver jewels to the value of 20 marks, to her damage £40. The defendant was mainprised by Peter Berneval and Richard de Brompfeld. Afterwards the parties made agreement on terms that the plaintiffs pardon the offence and the defendant pay 46s 8d, which was done. The defendant was amerced.
Martin de Ambresbury, late Sheriff of London, was attached to answer Gilbert le Mareschal in a plea that he pay him 12 marks, because the defendant and Robert Dobes (fn. 4), during their Shrievalty, allowed Richard Gentilcors to go at liberty, although he had been delivered to them by the Stewards and Marshals to keep in custody until he had paid the plaintiff 12 marks, acknowledged by him as due to the plaintiff. Martin pleaded that he never received the body of Richard as the plaintiff alleged.
Simon del Eldestrete, Golding de Crepelgate, John de Bumstede, Osebert Wildegos, Geoffrey Giffard, Robert le Holer, William Maners of Hundsdich, Richard le Wilde, John de Badbourham, Robert Dosing and his wife, Holilde and Felice their daughters, Richard Priour, John son of John de Alegate, Mabel de Pelham atte Nax, John atte Barre, Alexander of ye helde, John Botis, John de Canterbiry, Alice de Haliwelle, Robert Wedhok, John de Redbourne, John Burel, Roger le Longe, John Seward and Adam Russel, poulterers, were attached to answer the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty, on a charge that they bought and forestalled by day and night all kinds of poultry both coming to the City and within the City, to the grave damage of all the people of the City and those resorting there, unjustly and against the ordinances and statutes of the City. The defendants demanded a jury. A jury of the Poultry and Cornhill was summoned for Wednesday. The defendants mainprised each other for their appearance to hear the verdict &c.
Membr. 2 16 Dec. 1305
Thursday after the Feast of St Lucia Virgin [13 Dec.] before J. de Wengrave
Roger de Sprengwelle and William Cros Muriele, executors of the will of John de Midelborou, were attached to answer the Mayor and Commonalty as regards the wardship of Juliana and Alice, daughters of John de Midelborou, which wardship was devised to them by John, as it is said. Roger appeared, and was ordered to bring the will and the children on the morrow. Order was given to distrain William for his appearance.
17 Dec. 1305
Friday after the above Feast
Roger de Sprengwell and William Cros Muriele, executors of the will of John de Midelborou, were attached to answer the Mayor and Commonalty as regards the wardship of Juliana and Alice &c. and to render account of the goods devised to them. The defendants admitted the wardship of the children and £90 of goods. John de Wengrave, Richer de Refham, Simon de Paris and Nicholas Pycot were appointed auditors for an account. After making default, the defendants appeared and said they were unwilling to show the will or render an account. They were delivered to the Sheriff (fn. 5) until they should be willing.
20 Dec. 1305
Monday, the Vigil of St Thomas the Apostle [21 Dec.]
John, son of Henry le Bole, was attached to answer Reginald de Thunderle, Sheriff of London, in a plea that whereas the Sheriff wished to attach a certain man in the house of John de Romeneye, the defendant warned him, so that the attachment could not be made, and he (the man?) thrust out the Sheriff and abused him. A jury of Billingesgate was summoned. Afterwards the plaintiff made default, and the defendant went without a day.
Geoffrey de Horsham, butcher, who was attached to answer Richard le Baumere (fn. 6) of Kynemeretone in a plea of trespass, did not come. He and his pledges were in mercy. And as it was testified that he had no lands, tenements or goods by which he might be distrained, order was given to attach him by his body against Wednesday.
10 Jan. 1305-6
Monday after the Epiphany [6 Jan.] A° 34 Edw. [1305-6]
Robert Turk, Geoffrey de Lyre, John de Fulham, Edmund Lambyn and Robert de Mokking were summoned to answer Richard de Farmberwe on a charge that they took his fish and held it in forfeit until he paid a fine, to his damage 20s. The defendants said they were sworn before the Sheriffs and bailiffs of the City to take the paniers of all people coming to the City, which they found to be less than a bushel and of worse quality below than above, in order that the fish might be forfeited to the King and his bailiffs (fn. 7).
The Sheriff was ordered to take security from John de Ely to appear before the Mayor on Wednesday after the Feast of St Hilary, to hear the verdict of the jury as to whether he received divers moneys from divers persons for the suit which he prosecuted on behalf of the King. Afterwards a jury of Alexander Pik and others said that John de Ely received from William Pykeman 40s, and from William Flinchard 10s, for wrongfully withdrawing his prosecution against them. Judgment that he go to prison until &c.
Schedule. Mainprise for John de Ely taken by William de Carletone at the Exchequer, at the Purification of the Blessed Mary [2 Feb.] A° 35 Edw. [1305-6]-John de Radewell, William de Esthalle, Edmund, Keeper of the Gaol of Flete, William de Bretevill of co. Kent, Peter Chyld and Robert Dyvelyn.
Because Isabel, wife of Nicholas de Tenete, bought hens and capons coming towards the City, a jury of the venue of Bridge was summoned to say whether she was a common forestaller of victuals for the profit of her husband. The jury of William le Chapeller and others said that she went to meet poultry at Suthwirk and bought it before it could come to the City. She was committed to prison, and was mainprised by Robert de Rye, John le Chapeler, Stephen le Taverner and William le Chapeler. Afterwards she paid 40d fine to Richard Poterel, Chamberlain.
Membr. 2 b
A jury of the venue of Fletestrete was summoned to say whether Richard le Barber of Fletestrete raised the hue and cry, after knocking down Brother Peter, the Renter of the Hospital of St Katherine, in the presence of Joce the bailiff, who was sent with the Brother by the Mayor in order to keep the peace. Afterwards a jury of Richard Leueson and others said that the defendant did no harm to the plaintiff, but as he did not know him, he raised the hue and cry over him. Judgment for the defendant.
This day it was ordered by the Mayor and Aldermen that the fishmongers of Bridge Street and Old Fish Street should allow the free fishmongers of the City standing at the Stalls, to deal with them and to obtain their share of the wares bought, as was right and just and as the liberty of the City required (fn. 8).
5 Feb. 1305-6
Saturday after the Feast of the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.]
John Orpedman, guardian of Henry and Hugh, the children being under age of Thomas Orpedman, offered himself against Margery Cros, Thomas Cros and William Lambyn, executors of the will of Thomas Cros, in a plea that they pay to the said orphans, chattels to the value of £50. Thomas and William came, but not Margery. Order was given to distrain her against the next Court.
Master Geoffrey Hengeham, clerk, was attached to answer Richard Hauteyn for impleading the latter against the Mayor's prohibition in a matter of chattels and debts before the Official of the Archdeacon of London and his Commissary. The defendant denied the charge and demanded to acquit himself by his law. He was mainprised by William de Norhampton and Thomas de Salloppia to make his law on Friday. Afterwards the plaintiff made default and did not prosecute his plea. Judgment for the defendant.
Thomas le Kyng, butcher, was attached to answer John le Messer (fn. 9) of the Prioress of Clerkenwell in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that when he had to impound 20 sheep found in his mistress's corn and pasture, the defendants and others rescued them and beat him, to his damage 40s. The defendant denied the charge and was adjudged to make his law. Afterwards on Saturday before the Feast of St Peter in Cathedra [22 Feb.] the defendant made his law and was acquitted. The plaintiff was amerced.
Roger de Rokeslee was attached to answer William Lambyn and Edmund Lambyn, executors of the will of Robert Lambyn, and the Mayor and Aldermen, to whom belongs the custody of orphans under age, in a plea of account, wherein they complained that Roger received £40 sterling devised to Alice and John, children of Robert Lambyn, and £62 of the issues of their rents. The defendant came and said that Alice was of full age and had her rent and received it, and that John had no rent, and he refused to render account. And since Roger did not deny receipt of £40, but tacitly admitted it, as well as the receipt of the rent of Alice before she was of age, as was charged against him, he was delivered to the Sheriff, William Cosyn, until &c.
Membr. 3 9 Feb. 1305-6
Wednesday the Octave of the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.]
Thomas Cros, Margery Cros, and William Lambyn, executors of the will of Thomas Cros, were summoned to answer Hugh and Henry, sons of Thomas Orpedman, deceased, in a plea that they pay them £38, also 20 marks, being the third part of the value of a ship, and 40s in gold, which the late Thomas Cros received by legacy from Thomas Orpedman for the use of the latter's children. The defendant William pleaded that he never administered his father's will, and Thomas and Margery said that a certain Edward de Wycumbe was their co-executor, and his executor was a certain John de Essex, without whom they were not bound to answer. The latter appeared on summons and said that he never administered Edward de Wycumbe's goods, and so was not bound to answer. Thomas and Margery Cros said that it was unjust to demand the money from them, because the children remained in the custody of their mother Custance, together with their goods, and she delivered to Thomas de Kent £40 of their property, and they demanded a jury on that point. The children answered that the goods were in the custody of Thomas Cros, senior, on the day of his death, and afterwards came into the hands of the defendants Thomas and Margery, his executors, and they were ready to prove by a jury that Thomas and Margery had never paid them. Afterwards the parties came to an agreement by permission of the Court on terms that the defendants pay the plaintiffs £40, from which the defendants claimed an allowance for the sustenance of the plaintiffs during four and a half years. Subsequently on Monday after the Feast of St Barnabas [11 June] the same year, the Mayor and Aldermen gave judgment that the children were then of full age to receive their goods, and ordered that the defendants be distrained by all their goods to pay them the said £40.
11 Feb. 1305
Friday after the Octave of the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.]
William de Lyndesseye complained that he had brought pledges before William de Londoneston, Undersheriff, for prosecuting an action relating to certain goods, value £20, which his wife Alice had eloigned into the houses of William de Wynchelsee, and the Undersheriff had put these goods under a sequestration, but afterwards he had delayed the action for three months, by which time a divorce (divorcium) (fn. 10) between himself and Alice had been celebrated in the face of the Church (celebratum in facie ecclesie], and then the Undersheriff had delivered the goods to Alice, to the plaintiff's damage £30. The defendant denied having done so and put himself on his country. A jury of the venue round Colmanstrete brought in a verdict that the Undersheriff never received the plaint, nor did he attach or deliver the goods. Judgment was given accordingly.
18 Feb. 1305-6
Friday before the Feast of St Peter in Cathedra [22 Feb.]
Robert Dru, butcher, was attached to answer William Andreu of Bernflete in a plea that he pay him 7s 6d arrears due on a sale of 60 lambs at 6¼d each. The defendant admitted the purchase, and that so far he had only paid 5d for each lamb. And because the Statute of the City (fn. 11) directs that a butcher should pay for the animals he buys before he kills them, and the defendant had not so paid, judgment was given that he go to prison till he should pay &c.
A jury of Henry le Brewere and others say that William Passemer did not find fault with his fellow jurors in the inquest made about the robbery at the Carmelite Friars, to the persons who were indicted, as he was accused of doing by Hugh le Armurer and others. He was acquitted.
John, son of Luke de Ware, was summoned to answer Elyas de Salle in a plea of account, wherein the latter complained that the above John as his apprentice received goods to the value of £10, to render account thereof, but wasted them and fled into hiding. The defendant denied receipt of the goods and put himself on his country. Afterwards a jury of the venue round St Michael at Corn, consisting of Andrew Mel and others, said that John accompanied Elyas to the Fair of St Botulph, and Elyas sent him to his wife, who delivered to him goods which were in his shop, and that John traded with them well for fifteen days, and afterwards fell ill, whereupon Elyas on his return from the Fair had him taken to his father's house; for these goods he ought to render account, but the jury did not know the value of them. Judgment was given that he render an account, and William de Leyre and Walter de Finchinfeld were appointed auditors. The defendant was mainprised by his father Luke de Ware. Afterwards the parties accounted, and it was found by a jury of Robert le Convers and others, taken before the auditors, that John remained indebted to Elyas in 40s. Judgment that he go to prison until &c.
Membr. 3 b 24 Feb. 1305-6
Thursday the Feast of St Matthias the Apostle
Nicholas le Keu of Fridaystrete was attached to answer Simon Guth, John de Guldeford, William de Bidik, William de Helmeton and the other pepperers of Soperuslane in a plea of trespass, wherein they complained that he, by his journeyman who was at Sandwych, made an agreement with William Motoun and Robert Noldin, burgesses of Sandwich, that they should buy almonds, figs and raisins at Sandwich, and he would pay them for the goods, thus forestalling and enhancing these goods to the damage of the merchants and the whole City. The defendant pleaded that he bought from William Motoun two baskets (? buillones) (fn. 12) of almonds faithfully and without fraud or forestalling, and offered to make proof as the Court should direct. A day was given that the Court might be certified. Afterwards the parties made agreement by permission of Court.
Nicholas, Edward, William, and Thomas, sons of Hamo le Paumere, deceased, came by John de Paris, "corder" (fn. 13), and Thomas le Paumer, executors of Hamo's will, and demanded against Nicholas le Lung, William de Caustone, Geoffrey de Langele and Laurence, son of Nicholas le Lung, executors of the will of Edith la Paumere, £200 which Edith gave to them during her lifetime, and prayed that the money be put into safe custody for their benefit, inasmuch as the Mayor and Aldermen are guardians of the orphans of the City. The defendant pleaded that neither the Mayor and Aldermen nor any other persons had any standing in that matter, because the above Edith gave to the six children £200 on condition that if any of them died before he came of age (cetera desunt).
2 March 1305-6
Court of J. le Blound held by J. de Wengrave, W. de Leyre and the other Aldermen on Wednesday after the Feast of St Mathias the Apostle [24 Feb.]
A jury of Henry de Harewe and others said that William de Hoggenortone threw down John de Lincoln, so that he fell in the mud and turned over three times before he could rise, and that the defendant also took John's sword and wanted to strike him with it, raising a tumult in which the neighbours joined. Judgment that he go to prison &c.
A jury of Robert Sterre and others said that Thomas le Tapicer is good and loyal, and that Thomas de Blendesowe goes to the tavern at night, gets drunk and is quarrelsome, and is a nuisance to the neighbours. Judgment that the latter do not remain in the Ward. Afterwards he was mainprised by Adam de Rokesle for his good behaviour.
5 March 1305-6
Saturday after the Octave of St Matthias the Apostle
Geoffrey de Gernemue was attached to answer Geoffrey de Garscherche in a plea that, being the plaintiff's receiver of moneys coming from the King's Custom on corn entering the City during two years, he refused to render account. The defendant admitted receiving the Custom for 12d salary, and said he rendered account every Saturday and paid over all moneys received. A jury was summoned, but the plaintiff made default. Judgment for the defendant.
John de Lincoln, late Sheriff of London, was summoned to answer John le Botoner on a complaint that he took six pieces of sendal (fn. 14), value 6 marks, to the plaintiff's damage &c. The defendant admitted taking the sendal as a distress in connection with the forfeiture of two tuns of new wine, which the plaintiff had harboured among his old wines against the ordinances of the City. The plaintiff said he had paid 20s for the forfeiture, to which the defendant replied that he had produced no proof of the payment. Afterwards the latter admitted receiving 20s, but only in part payment of the forfeiture, and demanded a jury on that issue. A jury of Queenhithe of the Parish of Holy Trinity the Less was summoned.
10 March 1305-6
Thursday before the Feast of St Gregory [12 March]
John de Lincoln was summoned to answer Reginald de Walsingham who complained that Peter Ogger of Bourths, who owed him 19s 6d for board, pledged to him a horse, which the Sheriff had taken to the Guildhall by his clerk Richard and his son Reymund for valuation, after which the Sheriff had taken the animal to his own house and detained it. The defendant said he was always willing to restore the horse to the plaintiff. As the defendant's attorney did not deny this, judgment was given that the plaintiff receive his horse and be in mercy for a false claim.
Thomas de Wrotham was summoned to answer Stephen le Bakere, fishmonger, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the defendant caused him to be imprisoned for a month and two days, by maliciously suing him as his bailiff on a writ of monstravit, and that afterwards a jury acquitted him. The defendant, on the ground of the plaintiff's allegation that he was acquitted and the defendant amerced, demanded judgment as to whether he ought to be twice punished for one offence.
Membr. 4 b 17 March 1305-6
Thursday after the above Feast
William le Plater complained that William Cosyn, Sheriff, who had attached, by his Serjeant William Sallok, the goods of Sir John de Engayn to the value of £7, viz. a palfrey, value 100s, and a robe, value 40s, at the plaintiff's suit against Sir John for a debt of 5 marks 6s 4d, afterwards delivered the attachment without the plaintiff's consent and to his damage. As the defendant said that he could not answer without the Serjeant, who was mentioned in the petition, he was ordered to bring him on Saturday.
13 April 1306
Wednesday after the Octave of Easter [3 April]
Reginald de Thunderle, Sheriff of London, was summoned to answer Richard Priour, Osebert le Poleter, John de Bumpstede, Richard le Wilde, Golding le Poleter, Margaret la Buttermonggere, John de Alegate, Alice de Dunstaple, John de Wautham, Alice de Haliwelle and Felicia, daughter of Hughelyng, poulterers, in a plea of trespass wherein they complained that he took from them 51 pigeons, 7 hens, 6 capons, 8 pullets, and two and a half hundred of eggs and 5 cheeses. The defendant said that he took the above goods lawfully as forfeitures to the Sheriff, because the plaintiffs were common forestallers who forestalled poultry both in the lodgings of poulterers and by meeting foreigners coming to the City. Afterwards a jury of Cornhull gave a verdict for the defendant. Judgment was given that the plaintiffs be committed to prison (fn. 15) until &c. and that the poultry be forfeited to the Sheriff.
Anianius de Peyssoun had a day on Thursday after the Feast of the Invention of the Holy Cross [3 May] to give evidence that Ralph de Honilane was debtor on a Statute Merchant, and did not come. He was summoned for the morrow.
Membr. 4 c
17 Nov. 1305
Court of Reginald de Thunderle, Sheriff, Wednesday before the Feast of St Edmund King [20 Nov.] A° 33 Edw. 
Michael de Pistorie was attached to answer John de Eton in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that a certain Mone le Lumbard came to his house and bought from him a "morel" (fn. 16) horse for £10 for the use of the defendant, and afterwards the latter came and was satisfied with the horse, but not with the price, whereupon they settled on a price of 12 marks, but the defendant had not paid this sum and so had hindered the plaintiff from selling the horse, which he might often have done for a higher price. The defendant denied the whole transaction and offered to make his law. The plaintiff said that he had two witnesses, who were present, and could be produced to prove that the defendant agreed to pay the same day. Afterwards the plaintiff produced his witnesses, and the defendant did not show any cause why they should not be examined. The first witness, Salamon, being sworn and examined before the Sheriff and Richer de Refham, Alderman, said that the defendant came to Marcellus de Novo Mercato (fn. 17) at Wollechirchagwe and met John de Etone, with whom he made a bargain about the horse that he would pay twelve marks before sunset, and in order to clinch it, he took a penny from the lining of his shirt [de birra camisie sue] and gave it to the plaintiff. In answer to questions, he said this was immediately after noon struck, and that the defendant was wearing a green supertunic, and that Bartholomew de Redyngg and others were present. Bartholomew gave similar evidence. Judgment was given for the plaintiff with damages, which damages were afterwards taxed both by the Court and a jury at 8 marks.
On Thursday after the Feast of St Gregory [12 March] A° 34 Edw. [1305-6] the parties and the Sheriff came before the Mayor and Aldermen, who inspected the record, in which they found no error, and confirmed the judgment, except that they mitigated the damages by 40s.
4 March 1305-6
Court of Reginald de Thunderle, Friday after the Octave of St Mathias the Apostle [24 Feb.] A° 34 Edw. [1305-6]
Richard de Fersdene and John de Ely were summoned to answer John Jacob, master of the "Edmund" of Brithlingeseye, in a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that they freighted his ship at Bordeaux with 68 casks and 3 pipes of wine, of which Richard loaded 58 casks and 3 pipes, at 21 to the 20, and the three pipes makeweight (de avantagio), at 10s the cask to London, the freight amounting thus to £27 10s, and John loaded 10 casks at 100s freight; and that this money should have been paid twenty-one days after the cargo had been disembarked, in proof of which he produced the charter. The defendants admitted freighting the wine according to the charter, but pleaded that they were not bound to answer the plaintiff, because the charter contained a proviso that he should take the wine to London to be disembarked, and he anchored at Sandwich and there left the ship, whereby it fell into danger, and the men of Sandwich and Mergate received 13 casks of wine for salvaging it by his default, and the bailiff of Sandwich one cask, and the master himself received four casks in part payment of his freight at Sandwich; and after the wines had thus been salvaged, they hired another master and mariners at Sandwich to take the ship to London at a cost of £11. They demanded judgment whether they were bound to answer the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded that being tossed about by contrary winds and tempest he anchored in the port of Wynchelse in order to save the men and cargo, and being unfamiliar with the course from thence to London, he and the merchants in the ship, to wit, Emeric Salmer and Walter and Gerard Pedyn, hired a certain Simon Carnon, their lodesman (fn. 18), to take the ship to the Thames at the expense and responsibility of the merchants, according to the custom of sailors (fn. 19), and that Simon took the ship to a port of safety before Sandwich; and since he, the master, was entirely lacking in money and victuals, and anticipated that they could not set sail on account of the uncertainty of the weather, he set out for his home in order to find money and victuals (fn. 20), giving orders to all in the ship that they were not to depart before his return. But the merchants in the ship, Walter and Gerard, together with Simon their lodesman, taking no notice of his orders, continued their journey, whereby they ran into danger, so that if the merchants suffered any damage or expenses, it could not be imputed to the plaintiff and did not arise from any default of his. To this the defendants answered that Emeric was not in the ship, and that Walter and Gerard were under age, and were not merchants, nor were they acting for the merchants in the ship. The plaintiff pleaded that they were merchants, and that they and the lodesman took the ship out of port against his orders, and he offered to prove this by a jury of merchants and mariners. Afterwards on Wednesday before the Feast of St Gregory, Pope [12 March], came the parties and a jury, which the defendants challenged without giving any ground for their challenge. And as the plaintiff was a foreigner, four good and lawful men were chosen and sworn to examine the challenge, to wit:-Adam Wade, John de Parys, "corder," John Paul and John de Rokesle, who said upon oath that Alexander Pyk, Thomas Cros, Adam Lutekyn and Adam Ballard were not of the affinity of the plaintiff; after which they and the others were sworn in the panel which is annexed to this record. The jury gave a verdict that Walter and Gerard were merchants and regarded as merchants in the ship, and that they, together with their lodesman, set sail from Sandwich against the master's orders, so that if the defendants sustained any loss, it was not to be imputed to the master, according to the law and custom of mariners. Judgment that the plaintiff recover the sums claimed, and the defendants be in mercy for unjust detinue.
Membr. 6 9 June 1306
Thomas, Rector of the Church of St Mary Wollechirchehawe, Guy le Clerk, and Richard le Coffrer, executors of the will of Thomas le Fleming, were summoned to answer Ralph de Wottone in a plea that they return to him one "gambeson" (fn. 21), one "aketoun," one "corset" (fn. 22) and one "banere," pledged with them for a loan of 13 marks, for which the plaintiff had paid 2 marks and a gambeson, value £10. Guy appeared and said he could not answer without his co-executors. Order was given to distrain them against the next Court.
16 June 1306
Thursday after the above Feast
A jury of Robert de Norhampton and others said that Richard le Barber of Cornhill bought timber coming to Cheap, before it was on sale, and put the timber in foreign carts so that the buyers were deceived, and that he had done this at Chinggeston (fn. 23) and Souwer (fn. 24) and elsewhere, and that he forestalled all things relating to his trade. Judgment that he go to prison, and only be liberated by special precept of the Mayor. Afterwards he was released on mainprise for his appearance on Monday to hear judgment.
Membr. 6 b 13 Aug. 1306
Saturday after the Feast of St Lawrence [10 Aug.]
31 Aug. 1306
Wednesday after the Feast of the Decollation of St John the Baptist [29 Aug.] before John de Wengrave, deputy of the Mayor
John de Coppedok, Geoffrey Giffard, John Brid, John de Rodbourne, and Hamo atte Barre, poulterers, were attached to answer the Commonalty, for buying poultry within the City to sell it outside, as though they were freemen, thus producing a scarcity of poultry to the damage of the citizens. The defendants pleaded that they bought poultry in the markets of Kyngeston, Berkingg, St Albans and other places far and near, paying custom there, and brought it to the City and sold it there to the profit of the City, and that they paid the bailiffs murage and other customs; and they demanded a jury. Afterwards John de Redbourne (sic) and Hamo atte Barre paid a fine to the Commonalty to have the freedom, and went quit. A jury of John Burel and others gave a verdict in accordance with the defendants'. pleading. They were mainprised by John de Sabrichesworth, John atte Barre, John Burel and Roger Prior, poulterers, to hear judgment on Saturday. Afterwards the defendants made satisfaction to the Commonalty and were admitted and sworn to the freedom of the City.
Maud Fattyng was summoned to answer Warin Page, her apprentice, for unjust dismissal. She pleaded that the plaintiff beat her, her daughter, and her household, despised his food, tore his linen clothes, and lent the money, which she had entrusted to him to trade therewith, to others against her will to the amount of 69s 4d, and also she had paid for him 13s for a mayhem (fn. 25) done by him on Alice Martyn, and accordingly she had dismissed him till he should pay the above debts. The plaintiff denied these charges and demanded a jury. After wards a jury of John le Loung and others said that the plaintiff did not beat the defendant, despise his food, or tear his clothes. A day was given to hear judgment. Afterwards the parties made agreement by permission of Court on terms that Maud quitclaim all actions against the plaintiff, for which the plaintiff pay her 102s 8d. Maud was in mercy, which was condoned for 2s 8d, which she paid to Richard Poterel the Chamberlain.
2 Sept. 1306
Friday after the Feast of the Decollation of St John the Baptist [29 Aug.]
John de Bluntesham, taverner, was attached to answer William de Wynchelse and his fellows, collectors of the present tallage in the Ward of Cheap, in a plea of trespass, wherein they complained that when they demanded from Richard de Bluntesham, brother and landlord of the defendant, 2s, being his assessment, the defendant violently abused and cursed them, to their damage 100s. The defendant denied that he abused or cursed them, but acknowledged saying, "let those who thus assessed him be cursed and hanged by the devil." And since he cursed the collectors in the presence of the Mayor, judgment was given that he go to prison until &c. Afterwards he was mainprised by Salamon le Cotiller and William de Lauvare to come to the next Court and pay a fine.
John le Spencer, spicer, was attached to answer William de Prestone in a plea of fraud, wherein the latter complained that the defendant bought from him a cask of wine for 36s 8d, and asked him either to come or send some one with him to fetch the money. The plaintiff thereupon sent his servant William, and the defendant had the wine carried to Bredstrate and caused it to be. . . .there, and told the servant to follow him, which the latter did through various streets until they came to London Bridge, when the defendant told the servant to wait for him while he went into the privy there. The servant did so, but the defendant left the privy by another entrance.... [remainder of the membrane mutilated].
Membr. 7 5 Sept. 1306
Monday before the Feast of the Nativity B.M. [8 Sept.]
Alan le Baker, who was attached to answer the Mayor and Commonalty for breaking the sequestration made on him for his share of the tallage levied for the gift to the Prince of Wales, came and said that Thomas Juvenal gave him permission to break the sequestration in order to pay the collectors of Cheap Ward 2 marks. He admitted that he still owed 2s 8d, and he abused the collectors in the presence of the Mayor and Court. Judgment that he go to prison until &c. Afterwards he was mainprised by Walter de Bardeneye, William de Laufare, Adam de Auntioche and John de Lincoln, cordwainer, to appear on the morrow to pay a fine.
Nicholas de Herdewyk was attached to answer Thomas le Parmenter of Baudak in a plea of detinue of chattels, wherein the latter complained that when he deposited five sacks of wool in the house of Peter de Coumbe towards the Tower, the defendant had them removed to an unknown place, took away the plaintiff's seal and put another on, and afterwards delivered to him three sacks, but retained two, to his damage £10. The defendant pleaded that the detinue was just, because the plaintiff had pledged the sacks to him for £10 in which he, the defendant, had stood surety for him, i.e. for the sum of 13 marks in which the plaintiff had been convicted by the Justices of Traylebaston in an action of trespass against him at the suit of Walter le Parmenter, and for an amercement of 2 marks. He said further that the plaintiff, on delivery of the three sacks, begged him in the presence of the Sheriff and others to retain the two sacks till the plaintiff had paid the £10. The plaintiff denied this, and demanded to acquit himself by his law. The defendant said that this was an unjust defence (fn. 26), because he could produce witnesses, Peter and William. After taking an oath that he would not produce others than those named, and that he would not suborn them nor cause them to speak anything but the truth; he produced Peter de Cornwall, and caused the other witness
William to be essoined by John de Ware. The plaintiff demanded judgment against him as to whether an essoin lay, on the ground that the defendant was a foreigner, and according to the custom and law of the City, he ought to have his suit ready in Court. The defendant pleaded that after he had one witness ready in Court, according to the custom and law of the City, the other could be essoined. A day was given to hear judgment at the next Court. After three postponements that the Court might be certified, judgment was given for the plaintiff, on the ground that according to the laws and custom of the City an essoin did not lie.
Membr. 7 b 9 Sept. 1306
Friday the morrow of the Nativity B.M. [8 Sept.]
Stephen le Barber of London was attached to answer Robert le Barber of Graschirche and Maud his wife, in a plea of trespass, wherein they complained that Stephen came to their house with a woman and asked to see the solar and to drink there, and when Maud heard them making a noise she ascended to the solar and found Stephen pulling on his breeches, and he struck her on the head with a quart pot and kicked her, to her damage £20. The defendant pleaded that he went only to drink and buy wine, and that the plaintiff assaulted him first. Afterwards a jury of Grascherche, consisting of William Wastel and others, found for the plaintiff, with damages 10 marks. Judgment was given for that amount, and that the defendant go to prison.
10 Sept. 1306
Saturday after the above Feast
Robert le Barbur of Graschirch and Maud, his wife, were summoned to answer Stephen le Barbur in a plea of trespass, wherein he complained that when he went to Robert's house to drink, Maud and her maidservant assaulted him, and tore out his eye (oculum suum eruerunt) while he was in the custody of Thomas Juvenal the bailiff. A jury of the venue, consisting of John Laurens and others, found for the defendants. Judgment accordingly.
12 Sept. 1306
Monday after the above Feast before John de Wengrave, deputy of the Mayor
The jury between Joan, relict of John de Armenters, and the Mayor and Aldermen, who sued on behalf of John's orphans, came in the persons of Richard de Wandelesford and others, and said that Joan had no goods belonging to John de Armenters, except what he devised to her and what was delivered to her by the executors. Judgment that her goods, which were sequestrated, be delivered to her.
Membr. 8 19 Sept. 1306
Monday after the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross [14 Sept.]
John de Troys was attached to answer Gocelin the Serjeant on a charge of assaulting the latter in Grascherche Street and tearing his hood. The defendant admitted the charge, and prayed leave to make agreement. This was granted, on terms that Gocelin pardon the trespass and John pay him a tun of wine to be taken at his will. A day was given to hear judgment.
6 Oct. 1306
Thursday after the Feast of St Michael [29 Sept.]
Robert de Armenters, John Tedmar, Peter de Armenters and John de Northampton, chaplain, executors of the will of John de Armenters, were attached to answer Henry Scof in a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that the late John de Armenters by his son John and Peter de Armenters, his merchants, bought cloth from him at the Fair of Westminster to the value of £50, A° 26 Edw. [1297-8], for which payment was to be made, half at Christmas and the rest at the Purification, and that £22 was paid, leaving a debt of £28. The defendants denied the transaction, and demanded a jury. Afterwards a jury of William de Parys, draper, and others said that the plaintiff sold £50 worth of drapery to John, son of John de Armenters, and Peter de Armenters, and that the latter paid £22 by an agreement under their names, but that the cloth never came into the hands or to the profit of John de Armenters, senior. Judgment was given for the executors, Robert, John and John. Peter de Armenters did not appear.
15 Oct. 1306
Saturday after the Feast of St Edward [13 Oct.]
Robert de Berkyng, goldsmith, was summoned to answer William de Helmeton for having sued the latter in the King's Court, and there charged the plaintiff with prosecuting a sentence of excommunication against him (fn. 27) contrary to the King's prohibition. The plaintiff pleaded that such an action in the King's Court was against the Liberties of the City. The defendant admitted having sued the plaintiff, and said it was lawful to do so. The Mayor and Aldermen forbade the defendant to prosecute his plea any further in the King's Court, as such action was against the Liberties of the City.
Membr. 8 b 21 Oct. 1306
Friday after the Feast of St Luke the Evangelist [18 Oct.]
A jury of the venue of Cornell and round the House of the Friars Minors was summoned for the morrow to say on oath whether John de Offington, mason, threatened the King's masons and carpenters, who were brought to London by Master Walter de Herford, mason, for the Queen's work, telling them that if they accepted less wages than the other masons of the City, they would be beaten; in consequence of which the Queen's work was unfinished.
22 Oct. 1306
Saturday after the above Feast
William de Leycestre, "fevere" (fn. 28), was found guilty of striking Stephen le Barber over the left eye, by a jury of All Hallows, Garscherche, and St Bennets, which assessed damages at 1 mark.
12 Nov. 1306
Court of J. le Blound, Mayor, on Saturday after the Feast of St Martin [11 Nov.]
Thomas Brok and Robert Pickard were attached to answer Nicholas de Cantebrig and his fellows, who were impanelled as a jury between Matthew de Essex and Baudewyn le Chaucer, for having said that the plaintiffs spoke falsely in the inquest and were perjured, to the damage of the latter 40s. A jury of Westchep and Cordwanerstret was summoned. Afterwards the parties came to an agreement without permission of the Court. They were amerced, but their amercement was condoned by the Mayor.