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 30 Nov. 1306
Court of J. le Blound held on Wednesday the Feast of St Andrew the Apostle [30 Nov.] A° 35 Edw. 
John le Flemeng, "verrer" (fn. 1), and William de Chichestre, verrer, who threatened the Beadle and guardians of the peace of Basseshawe Ward and Adam de Ordeby, "brazour" (fn. 2), were attached, and afterwards mainprised by Thomas le Verrer, Nicholas le Verrer, Richard de Sarum, verrer, John Aleyn, William de Seint Need, and Hugh de Tichemersh, mason, for their good behaviour.
Robert de Wych, taverner, and Ellen his wife, Robert, Thomas and John, their men, were attached to answer Henry de Scheleford in a plea of trespass, wherein he complained that they assaulted him and his friends at their tavern, because they offered to pay 3¾d for a gallon and a quart of wine according to the proclamation, and not 4d per gallon as demanded, and also that they imprisoned him till the middle of the night, to his damage £40. A jury was summoned between the parties.
Henry de Scheleford was attached to answer the above Robert on a charge that he and others drank a gallon and a quart of wine and ate a halfpenny loaf and were unwilling to pay for them, and assaulted Robert, his wife and his maidservant, to their damage 100s. Afterwards a jury of the venue round the Church of St Michael at Corn, consisting of Thomas de Kent, saddler, and others, said that the plaintiffs and the defendant assaulted each other, and that the latter took the plaintiff's supertunic off him and threw it down, and kept the plaintiff in his house until William Sallok, the Sheriff's Serjeant, ejected him. They assessed the plaintiff's damages at one mark. Judgment for that amount.
Membr. 1 b 16 Dec. 1306
Friday after the Feast of St Lucia Virgin [13 Dec.]
John Bonde was attached to answer Peter Berneval in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that when an action between them in the Court of William Combe Martin in the Guildhall had come to a jury, the defendant assaulted him, to the hindrance of justice, and to his damage £40. Afterwards a jury of Reginald de Undle and others in full Husting brought in a verdict that both parties abused and insulted each other. Judgment was given for the defendant, and that the plaintiff be amerced.
1 Feb. 1306-7
Wednesday the Vigil of the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.] A° 35 Edw. [1306-7]
Richard Costentyn was attached to answer Peter Berneval on a charge of assaulting him in the Guildhall. A jury round the Guildhall [patria circa Gialdam] was summoned. Afterwards in full Husting came the parties and a jury of Reginald de Undle and others, who said that after the session of the Sheriff's Court the parties abused each other at the door of the Guildhall, and the defendant would have struck the plaintiff, but was prevented, and only touched him with his fingers, to his damage 12d. As it seemed to the Mayor and Aldermen that the damages were too small, they taxed them at half-amark, and inasmuch as the assault took place within the Guildhall, judgment was given that the defendant go to prison till he had satisfied the King for the contempt and the plaintiff for the damages. The half-mark was paid by the hands of Roger le Barber, Serjeant.
A jury of Langebourn was summoned to say whether Gilbert le Marischal and William Amiz had in hand 42s 4d of the tallage of £1048 made to acquit the purprestures and Sheriff's debts, as was charged against them by William de Hikling, clerk, who sued for the Commonalty. Afterwards a jury of William le Fullere and others said that 4s 4d remained in the hands of Gilbert, and that the rest was still owed. Judgment was given that Gilbert pay the 4s 4d, and that he and William be quit of the remainder.
Membr. 2 7 April 1307
Friday after the Feast of St Ambrose, Bishop [4 April]
Peter le Taverner and Richard de Mauncestre complained of error in the Court of Geoffrey de Conduit, Sheriff, in an action of debt brought against them by Peter Bolom. The record was read and confirmed and the Sheriff was ordered to give execution. The record remains in the Bag of Common Pleas among the writs of the thirty-fifth year of King Edward.
? 12 April 1307
Wednesday after (fn. 3) the Feast of St Leo, Pope [19 April]
A jury of the venue of the Ward of Nicholas de Farndon round the Church of St Michael at Corn and Ludgate was summoned to say whether John Bogeys insulted and cursed the Mayor, Aldermen and collectors of the Twentieth. Afterwards a jury of John Huberd and others said that the defendant did not curse the Mayor and Aldermen, but used abusive words to the collectors, and the collectors did the same to him. Judgment for the defendant.
27 April 1307
Thursday after the Feast of St Mark the Evangelist [25 April]
Walter. . . .and John, his servant, were summoned to answer Thomas Scott, groom of the Prince, on a charge that when he wanted to relieve himself in.... Lane, they assaulted him and struck him with a knife, to his damage 100s. The defendants pleaded that they told the plaintiff that it would be more decent to go to the common privies of the City to relieve himself, whereupon the plaintiff wanted to kill Walter, and he in fear of his life defended himself, and that he did the plaintiff no other damage. A jury was summoned, but afterwards the plaintiff did not prosecute. He was amerced.
Membr. 2 b 8 May 1307
Monday after the Feast of St John before the Latin Gate [May 6]
The same Stephen was attached to answer Nicholas de Farndon, Alderman, and Andrew Mel and his fellows, collectors of the Twentieth in the Ward of Nicholas, for failing to pay his contribution to the Twentieth, and breaking the sequestration made upon him and carrying away the seques trated goods. Stephen pleaded that at the time of the sequestration he was in Norfolk, and the sequestration was not broken by him or with his knowledge. A jury of the venue of Paternosterstrete was summoned. And as Stephen acknowledged that in his absence his wife unknowingly broke the sequestration, it was ordered that she be attached against Wednesday. Afterwards a jury of John de Writele and others said that Stephen's wife broke the sequestration. Judgment was given that she go to prison &c. She was delivered to the Sheriff through William de Londoneston.
Walter de Dunstaple, called "de Templo," was attached to answer Roger de Brunne in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he found two men quarrelling at the Conduit, and was attempting to separate them and compose the quarrel, when the defendant assaulted him. The defendant pleaded that he found Walter and the others quarrelling, and went to stop the dispute, and that he did him no harm. Afterwards a jury of the venue said that when the plaintiff was stopping the dispute, the defendant took him maliciously by the hood, and kept him until he was delivered by the guardians of the peace. Judgment that Walter go to prison until &c.
24 May 1307
Wednesday after the Feast of Holy Trinity [21 May]
William de Conduit, taverner, essoined against William de Beauchaump, John Mautravers, knight, Hugh his groom, and Philip atte Beche, by W. de Reyle; Adam atte Bowe essoined against the same by the same. And the defendants came and said that the essoins were faulty, as the plaintiffs prosecuted jointly and essoined separately. Judgment was given that William and Adam gain nothing by their plea and be in mercy for a false claim, and that William, John, Hugh and Philip go quit.
Membr. 3 6 March 1306-7
Monday before the Feast of St Gregory, Pope [12 March] A° 35 Edw. [1306-7] in full Husting of Pleas of Land
Simon Bolet, Sheriff of London, was summoned to answer Nicholas le Pesshoner in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that when he, as free of the City, bought from a certain merchant 301 fresh congers for 6 marks, immediately satisfying the merchant for the same, the defendant came and took the congers and detained them, to his damage £20. The defendant pleaded that John de Moking, William Lambyn, Richard Horn, Robert Turk and many other fishmongers of Bridge Street and Old Fish Street gave him to understand that the plaintiff bought the congers from a foreign merchant by night on the Thames, thus forestalling them against the regulations and the Liberties of the City, and accordingly he took the fish justly as a forfeiture. The plaintiff answered that the ship which brought the congers lay at the quay bound with a cable, and that the merchant exposed the fish for sale for a night and a day, and that John and the other fishmongers several times affeered them and sorted them in the casks (in tendlos (fn. 4) sorciebantur (fn. 5) ), and he, the plaintiff, afterwards bought them from the merchant legitimately by day, the ship being tied up by the cable at the proper place, and that he granted a share of them to the others. He demanded a jury. The defendants repeated that the plaintiff bought the fish by night in the middle of the river, at an unlawful place, and the ship was not then tied up by a cable. A jury of the venue round "Fihswarf" was summoned. After several adjournments, owing to the fact that the Mayor could not attend, that the jurors made default and the plaintiff challenged some of them, a jury of John de Wymondham and others gave a verdict that the ship was tied up by the cable to the quay for three tides before Nicholas affeered the conger, and that Nicholas at vespers caused the master of the ship to move her from the quay, and then bought the fish at the Chapel of St Thomas on the Bridge, paying God's penny there (fn. 6). A day was given to hear judgment on the Wednesday.
Afterwards an adjournment was made, and the jury was summoned to certify the Court as regards damages. They taxed damages at one mark. And as it seemed to the Court that too small damages were taxed, a day was given to hear judgment, in order that meanwhile the Court might be certified. Finally, on the ground that the ship lay at the quay for three tides with the congers exposed for sale before Nicholas bought them, and therefore the congers were not liable to forfeiture, and as they were detained for a long time and cost six marks, judgment was given that the plaintiff recover against Simon the price of the congers and 4 marks for his expenses and damages.
Membr. 4 26 May 1307
Friday after the Feast of Holy Trinity [21 May]
Simon de Rokesle and John de Fincham, goldsmiths, mainprised Roger Seyer, goldsmith, to restore to the Chaplain of the Abbess of Ancerwyk four cups of mazer, value 2 marks, when they were repaired, as agreed between the Chaplain and Roger.
16 June 1307
Friday after the Feast of St Barnabas the Apostle [11 June]
Adam de Ely was mainprised by Walter de Hakeneye and William Flinchard to hear judgment concerning putrid fish sold to Robert le Benere of the Stalls. The above Adam testified that Robert was accustomed to buy putrid fish and sell it again.
Richard de Braye of Bredstrete admitted that he cursed Robert de Gloucestre and Simon de Rokesle, collectors of the Twentieth in Bredstrate Ward, by calling a curse on those who assessed him. Judgment was given that he go to prison until &c.
Membr. 4 b 23 June 1307
Robert Box was attached to answer Hugh de Wautham, the Sheriff's clerk, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that when he went by order of the Court, together with the Chamberlain's clerk and Serjeant, to the corner of St Antonin's churchyard, in order to deliver to Peter Andreu and his partners, merchants of Montpelers, seisin of half the lands and tenements of the defendant in payment of the sum of £48 due to them on a bond, the defendant made a premeditated attack on him, and threatened that if he entered any of the houses he would lose his head, to his damage 100s. A jury was summoned against Wednesday.
Writ of attorney to the effect that Nigel le Brun, executor of the will of Robert de Bree, being in Ireland, had appointed Richard de Mortone and William FitzHugh his attorneys for a year or until his return. Witness the King at Lanercost, 1 March A° 35 Edw. [1306-7].
Membr. 5 28 June 1307
Wednesday the Vigil of the Apostles Peter and Paul [29 June]
The jury between Hugh de Wautham, plaintiff, and Robert Box, "peverer" (fn. 7), defendant, respited.
William de Kent, tailor, and Richard Levesone, executor of the will of Walter le Sergaunt of St Paul's, were summoned to answer Nicholas le Archer for detinue of certain deeds which the plaintiff entrusted to the testator. The defendants said they had a co-executor, Henry de Neubiry, taverner, without whom they could not answer, and they demanded judgment thereon. Order was given to summon the above Henry.
26 July 1307
Wednesday the morrow of St James the Apostle [25 July] by J. de Wengrave, deputy of the Mayor, and other Aldermen
John Deveneys was attached to answer John de Frysingfeld, knight, in a plea that the defendant, being the plaintiff's servant, and receiving his clothing in pay, at the plaintiff's request A° 23 Edw. [1294-5], had to obtain credit for him for carrying out certain duties ordered by the King, and that he did so obtain £19 16s from certain creditors, and together with the plaintiff entered into an obligation to pay those creditors. Afterwards, when the plaintiff was setting out for Ireland on the King's service, he, at the defendant's request, bound himself to the latter by a Statute of £40, on condition that the defendant would not demand more from him than the above sum of £19 16s and any damages the defendant might sustain owing to the non-payment of that sum at the proper dates. And although the defendant received from the plaintiff in Ireland A° 24 Edw.  the sum of £9, and 9 marks on two other occasions for satisfying the creditors, he had not paid the creditors, but kept the money, and had sued the plaintiff on the Statute and obtained seisin of a manor belonging to the plaintiff of an annual value of £26, by an extent of £14, and had kept it for five years, to his damage 100 marks. The defendant pleaded that he did not belong to the plaintiff's household, and that he never bound himself with the plaintiff to pay any creditor, except a sum of 9½ marks to Fulc de St Edmunds, which he had paid and for which he now had the obligation, and that as regards the rest of the money in the Statute of £40, that concerned the defendant's own property which he had delivered to the plaintiff in the form of money, victuals, hay and corn. The plaintiff replied that as regards the £40 in the Statute, he had not received from the defendant more than the £19 16s originally borrowed, and he offered to verify it by a jury. The defendant pleaded that the Statute was a judgment in itself and ought not to be annulled by a jury, and that he could not be ejected from his free tenement to which he had entry by judgment, and he demanded judgment on the ground that the plaintiff had not produced any special deed exonerating him from the £40. Afterwards the plaintiff failed to prosecute his suit. Judgment was given that he and his pledges be amerced, and that the defendant go thence without a day.
Membr. 5 b
William de Conele was attached to answer John de Trumpeshale in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he and the defendant were partners trading with the goods of the children of William de Herforth, deceased, and that on Sunday before the Feast of St James the Apostle last [25 July] they began to render account before Thomas Romeyn and their other auditors, and on account of noon supervening, the closing of the account was adjourned till the next morning, when the above William refused to come, maliciously retaining the paper of memoranda of the accounts; and when the plaintiff went to him at the Coldhakber (fn. 8) in the parish of All Hallows at Hay, and was asking him in a friendly way about his absence in the morning, &c., the defendant and his servant assaulted him, to his damage £20. The defendant pleaded that the paper was in the hands of Thomas de Norhampton, as common friend, by mutual consent, and that John received no harm from him. Afterwards a jury of John de Paris, "corder," and others said that the defendant assaulted the plaintiff, to his damage 40s. The defendant was distrained to come on Saturday to hear judgment.
2 Aug. 1307
Wednesday the morrow of St Peter ad Vincula [1 Aug.]
A jury of the venue of Cornhull was summoned to say whether Thomas de Flete, pheliper (fn. 9), derided the Mayor, Aldermen and guardians of the peace, when they were riding by, by neighing like a horse, and using other abusive words, in contempt of the Mayor and Aldermen, as was charged against him.
21 April 1307
Court of Simon Belet, Sheriff of London, on Friday before the Feast of St George [23 April] A° 25 Edw. 
John de Kent, tailor, was attached to answer John, servant of Richard le Barber, in a plea of trespass; pledges of prosecution, Richard de Kelleneden and John Sayer. The plaintiff charged the defendant with an assault. A jury of the venue, consisting of Henry de Somersete and others, gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages ½ mark. Judgment accordingly. The defendant found pledges for the ½ mark, Hugh Absolon and Thomas le Barber.
21 April 1305
The plaintiffs essoined by Walter de Ebbegate. Subsequently the parties appeared, and the plaintiffs complained that they bought from the defendant 12 casks of wine for £24, paying £6 down, and finding security for the payment of the remainder; and at that time the wine was so dense and impure that it could not be recognised by sight or taste, but the defendant promised that it was good, and of good proof and short assize, and that it would draw well to the end. Thereupon the plaintiffs agreed that it should remain in the defendant's custody for a week, after which they met in London. The defendant then agreed that the plaintiffs should take the wine at his risk, declaring that the wine was good and merchantable, and that otherwise he would make the wine good and indemnify them in full against any loss. On this agreement the plaintiffs received the wine and kept it for a fortnight, when it was found to be putrid and corrupt, whereupon they went to the defendant and asked him to take it back or make it good, according to the agreement, which he refused to do. Afterwards the wine was found by the City's Scrutineers to be putrid, so that the casks were broken and the wine condemned, and again the defendant refused to make good the loss. The defendant pleaded that no answer need be given to the plaint. He admitted the sale, but said that the plaintiffs did not pay the residue of £18 at the stated time, and that he had sued them for that amount in the Court of Geoffrey de Conduit, then Sheriff. The plaintiffs had tried to exclude him from his action by saying that he sold them the wine under pledge, and that it was found to be other than stated, and they had claimed judgment on that issue. But this exception had not been allowed by the Court, which gave judgment in his favour; and this judgment had been confirmed in the Mayor's Court. He now demanded judgment whether he need answer as to the covenant.
The plaintiffs replied that the defendant admitted the sale, and the payment of £6, and the time of the sale, and that he recovered the remainder of the purchase price, and they pleaded that they made the covenant with him eight days and more after the sale. They said also that the present action was a plea of account in which they were movers, and that a plea of account had to be finished otherwise than a plea of debt. They offered to prove the covenant in any way that the Court might direct, and to prove that it was subsequent to the sale, and as the defendant had put in no answer to that statement, they demanded judgment as in an undefended action.
After several adjournments for consultation, the Court had the record inspected, and because it was found that the defendant had received payment, that the covenant was of later date than the sale, and that the wine was found to be unsound, and as the defendant made no answer to this, judgment was given for the plaintiffs as in an undefended action.
Court of Simon Bolet held on.... (fn. 10) after the Feast of All Hallows [1 Nov.]
Henry de Merlawe complained that Thomas Pourte sold him a messuage in the Parish of St Dunstan by the Tower, on payment of 2 marks yearly to the defendant during the latter's lifetime, and that he paid the defendant the God's penny and 20s earnest money, but the defendant refused to fulfil the sale and agreement. The defendant denied the plaint, and offered to defend himself by his law. The plaintiff said that Henry unjustly defended, since he had two good and lawful men, John and William, who were present when the covenant was made and when the God's penny and 20s were paid. He was sworn to produce them at the Quinzime. Afterwards the parties came, and John, the first witness, being sworn and examined in the presence of Salamon le Cotiler and Nicholas Picot, Aldermen, said he was present in the tavern of Peter le Taverner of Grascherch at Vesper hour with William, his fellow-witness, and David, the Sheriff's clerk, and others, when the covenant was made, and that the defendant made this covenant with the plaintiff because the latter had betrothed himself to his daughter, and he said the messuage would be safer in the hands of Henry and his daughter than in any other's. William gave the same evidence in the same words. Judgment that the plaintiff recover the 20s and his damages. A day was given to the defendant to pay the 20s, and also damages if he thought fit. As the defendant did not pay either, the plaintiff came and demanded that the damages be taxed by the Court, and the defendant came by his attorney to hear the taxing. The record and process were then read and recited and understood by Thomas Romayn, Richer de Refham, Richard de Gloucestre, Salamon le Cotiler, Nicholas Picot, Aldermen, Ralph de Alegate, William de Grafton, Reginald de Oundle, Andrew de Staunford, John de Waltham, Richard Gladewyne, John le Botoner, Roger le Viroler, Ralph Rattespray and others in Court, and the damages were taxed, including the 20s and God's penny, altogether at 100s. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for this sum, and that the defendant be in mercy.