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 7 Feb. 1298-9
Court of the Chamberlain held on Saturday after the Feast of the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.] A° 27 Edw. [1298-9]
Thomas Brun(i)ng and John Elys were attached to answer the Commonalty in a plea of forestalling, whereof they were deraigned by John of the Chamber, clerk of the Commonalty, to the effect that the defendant Thomas was accustomed to avow the defendant John in buying and forestalling goods from foreigners outside the City, to the damage of the men of their trade. The defendant Thomas pleaded that John became his apprentice for a term of seven years, but only remained for four and three quarters years, when he arranged with him for the remainder of the term on payment of half a mark, and that afterwards John traded with his own property. And since the defendant Thomas admitted the receipt of money and the remission of the remainder of the apprenticeship, together with the avowry of merchandise, a day was given him till the Wednesday following to hear judgment.
John de Totenham, junior, was attached to answer Philip Dode, his apprentice, in a plea of covenant of apprenticeship, wherein the latter complained that he was apprenticed to the defendant by indentures for a term of ten years, and that he was dismissed after six and a half years, to his damage £10. The defendant admitted the covenant, but pleaded that Philip after many offences withdrew from the apprenticeship of his own accord, and that afterwards it was agreed that they should submit to the arbitration of reputable men chosen from either party, and as for himself he was prepared to stand by their award, but Philip refused to do so. The latter pleaded that the defendant was not able to maintain him in his service in a fitting manner and gave him permission to leave, and that he was always prepared to stand by the award, but that the defendant would not; and he demanded an inquest by the country. A jury of St Mary de Conhope was summoned for Wednesday. Afterwards the defendant admitted the covenant, and that Philip had served him well and faithfully, and that he himself had not kept the covenant. Judgment that he be amerced. The parties quitclaimed all actions against each other, after which the defendant paid a fine of 40d for the amercement.
Walter Parrok and John de Eston were attached to answer the Commonalty in a plea of trespass, it being alleged that the defendant Walter was accustomed to avow purchases by the said John from divers foreigners under cover of the freedom of his apprentice (advocare predictum Johannem emere mercandisas diversas a diversis extraneis sub quopertura libertatis sui apprenticii), whereas the defendant John on his own behalf and by purchase had bought from his master the unexpired portion of his apprenticeship; by which avowry the men of the trade had damage £10. The defendants admitted the trading, but Walter pleaded that John had been and was still his apprentice, and traded with his master's goods and not with the goods of foreigners, and he denied that John had bought from him the remainder of his term of apprenticeship. The defendants demanded that inquest be made by the country. And John of the Chamber who sued for the Commonalty did likewise. A jury from Cheap summoned for Wednesday.
11 Feb. 1298-9
Court of the Chamberlain held on Wednesday before the Feast of St Valentine [14 Feb.]
Adam de Wytton was attached to answer Henry de Merlawe in a plea of covenant of apprenticeship, wherein the latter complained that Adam became his apprentice in accordance with the Will of Ralph le Cuteler, and afterwards left his service without leave, to his damage &c. The defendant admitted that his apprenticeship would not be completed till Easter next, but said that the above Ralph, late his master, had released one year of his term, and that he had left Henry's service through fear, but he was prepared to serve the remainder of his term. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant ought not to be allowed to return to his service till he had done satisfaction for his trespasses, because the defendant had married within his term. Adam admitted marrying. A day was given to the parties till next Wednesday to come to an agreement.
A jury from Cheap and of "Cissehers" (fn. 1) brought in a verdict that John de Heston and Walter Parrok did not trade as partners for loss and gain; that Walter released to John the remainder of his apprenticeship; and that the latter did not forestall within the City or without, but that he had certain dealings with citizens and foreigners. Judgment was given that John's goods be taken into the hands of the City until &c., and that Walter be in mercy for avowing the said John and remitting his term.
Membr. 1 b 19 Feb. 1298-9
Court of the Mayor held on Thursday before the Feast of St Peter in Cathedra [22 Feb.] A° 27 Edw. [1298-9]
Adam de Fulham, junior, was attached to answer Nicholas Picot in a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that the defendant, in obedience to a writ of the King's Steward and Marshal (fn. 2), attached Geoffrey le Power at the plaintiff's suit for 17 marks, and that the above Geoffrey admitted the debt, whereupon he was delivered to the defendant to keep him in custody till he satisfied the plaintiff for the debt, and that nevertheless the defendant allowed him to escape, to the plaintiff's damage £20. The defendant defended the words of Court, and admitted the arrest and imprisonment of Geoffrey, but alleged that Sir William de Apperle, acting as deputy of the Steward, sent a billet to him ordering him to send Geoffrey to his household, which billet was shown in Court, and that Master William afterwards sent Geoffrey back, but that the latter did not return to the defendant's custody, which he was prepared to prove. The plaintiff maintained that it was from the defendant's custody that the above Geoffrey escaped. As the plea had its origin in the Court of the Steward and Marshal, a day was given to the parties until the arrival of the King at Westminster.
25 Feb. 1298-9
Wednesday the morrow of St Mathias the Apostle [24 Feb.]
William de la Foreste, smith, was attached to answer the Commonalty by John of the Chamber, who sued for the same, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that, although it was the ancient custom that no one should remain within the City to trade with foreigners unless he was a freeman, nevertheless the defendant stayed ten years, trading like a freeman with foreigners, to the damage of the reputable men of that trade £40. The defendant defended the words of Court and admitted that he was not a freeman, but declared that he did not trade except with freemen, and that he was a handicraftsman (operarius), and not a merchant. The prosecutor alleged that the defendant and his men traded with both foreigners and denizens, even though he was a handicraftsman, and he demanded that inquest be made by lawful men of the craft of smiths, as also did the defendant. A jury summoned against Friday.
5 March 1298-9
Thursday after the Octave of St Mathias the Apostle [24 Feb.]
Richard Horn was attached to acquit the Commonalty against the King for 300 marks, wherein John Horn, his father, was responsible to the Commonalty as regards his Receipt as their Sheriff. The defendant pleaded that he was not his father's executor, had inherited nothing from him, and had none of his goods and chattels, and he demanded an inquest thereon. Good men of the Wards of Bridge and Billingsgate were summoned against the first Monday in Lent.
22 March 1298-9
An inquest was held on Sunday before the Feast of the Annunciation B.M. [25 March] before Mayor and Aldermen, as to what malefactors beat and wounded the men of the household of the Bishop of Durham, by Walter de Herlested, Adam de Arcubus, Symon de Oxon, Richard de Stanford, Geoffrey de Conductu, Alexander de Causton, Andrew Mele, Robert Frer, Gregory Lorimer, Robert de Donmawe, John Scharpe and William le Caundeler, who said on oath that a certain Richard le Lacer, on Wednesday before the Feast of St Peter in Cathedra [22 Feb.] A° 27 Edw. [1298-9], in a certain tavern, procured some of the bishop's men to go to the house of Richard le Cordewaner in Wdestret, where they threatened Richard, and one of them struck him on the head with a stick and threw after him (post ipsum prostravit) a big knife with which he was cutting leather, and not content therewith, entered his house and broke the door of his chamber and beat him, whereupon his wife raised the hue and cry. On this, Henry de Gloucestre and Elias de Suffolk came to the house to stop the affair, and the Bishop's men, letting go the above Richard, and drawing their swords, pursued them as far as the house of Elias. Meanwhile the neighbours, roused by the hue and cry, came to the place to restrain the men from doing further harm, and strangers and unknown persons joined in the fray, so that if the Bishop's men received any hurt there, it was done by unknown persons.
Membr. 2 20 Nov. 1299
Court of Elyas Russel, Mayor, on Friday the Feast of St Edmund, King and Martyr, A° 28 Edw. 
26 Nov. 1299
Thursday after the Feast of St Katherine [25 Nov.]
5 Jan. 1299-1300
Tuesday the Vigil of the Epiphany [6 Jan.] A° 28 Edw. [1299-1300]
Robert Wodhock, poulterer, and Brian the poulterer were attached to answer the Mayor for forestalling poultry in Suthwerk, and all through the year. The defendants admitted the first charge, but denied the second and put themselves on their country. A jury was summoned for Thursday, and the defendants were committed to prison on their confession.
William, rector of the Church of St Margaret Lothebury, was attached for avowing four putrid wolves sent from abroad in a cask. The defendant said that he bought the wolves because of a certain disease called "Le Lou." And as the defendant was examined by the Mayor and Aldermen concerning the disease, and admitted that he was not suffering from it, or knew anybody who was, and that he was not a physician or a surgeon, he was committed to the Sheriffs, for having first of all said falsely that he had the disease, until the truth of the matter could be elicited. The Sheriffs were ordered to summon all the physicians and surgeons of the City for Thursday. On that day the latter came into Court and said that they could not find in any of their medical or surgical writings any disease against which the flesh of wolves could be used. Accordingly the defendant was delivered to the Official (fn. 3).
Membr. 2 b 7 Jan. 1299-1300
Thursday after the above Feast
John de Kent, John de Paris, Agnes Godman, Laurence Schail, Richard le Barber, William Gorre, Peter le Blunt, William Crel, Hugelyn of St Magnus, John de Reigat, Edmund Sket, John Bussard, Nicholas Sket, Robert the cook of Foxle, William de Waledon, John de Mardenheth and many other cooks were attached to answer the Mayor and Commonalty on a charge of forestalling capons, hens, geese and other victuals, before they reached the City and also within the City, before the hour of Prime and before the freemen could buy their necessaries. The defendants denied the charge and put themselves on their country. A jury, summoned from Cornhill (fn. 4) and from each Ward within the Gates and from the suburbs, consisting of William le Lou, Nicholas le Long, John Plot, Nicholas Brun, William Poyntel, Edmund Trentemars, Walter de Bredstrate, Richard Horn and others, brought in a verdict that certain of the cooks were guilty of forestalling poultry, and that the rest bought victuals and poultry outside their doors and elsewhere in the City from persons known and unknown, against the Proclamation. Judgment that each be mainprised by the other until &c.
Nicholas Beaublet, Adam Dalleye, Robert de Dalleie, John de Cherteseie, William le Hernesemaker, William de Chestehonte, Richard Rok, John Hamond and Walter his man, Robert de Cheleshuch, Geoffrey le Meuner, Ralph le Sporier and other spurriers were attached to answer the Mayor and Commonalty at the suit of Hugh Stroby, on a charge of having made an ordinance, confirmed by touching the Gospels, that no one of their trade of spurriers should do any work between sunset and sunrise, in consequence of which they had summoned Richard, the prosecutor's servant, before the Official of the Archdeacon, and charged him with working against the ordinance, and the said Richard, after being three times warned by the Official, had been expelled from the church and excommunicated, until he would swear to keep the ordinance. The prosecutor also alleged that the spurriers had made Clement and Robert le Rouwlmakere swear not to sell any of their goods to him; that they had ordained that no one should take an apprentice for less than 10 years and 40s; and that, if any one was injured by a person outside the trade, the defendant Nicholas promised to do him justice without any other servant of the king; and that no one of that trade would do anything for anyone dwelling within or without the City unless he were sworn to the ordinance [et quod nullus officio predicto aliquid faciet alicui comoranti infra civitatem seu extra nisi fuerit juratus ordinacioni predicte]. The defendants declared that they were not guilty, and put themselves on their country, and the prosecutor likewise. A jury of the venue of Fletebruge was summoned. Afterwards, the parties made agreement on terms that the prosecutor quitclaim all actions, and the confederacy was condoned because nothing of it had yet been put into operation [?-eo quod nondum aliquid ex ea positum erat in factum].
9 Jan. 1299-1300
Saturday after the above Feast
William de Wolcherchehawe, taverner, was attached to answer Sir John Botetourte in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that William beat one of his carters and tore his clothes (fn. 5) [? delaniavit pannos suos] and did other enormities &c. The defendant came and defended the force &c. and put himself on the mercy of the said Sir John, and pledged to him a cask of wine, which cask Sir John gave to the officers (ministris) of the Chamber of the Guildhall.
11 Jan. 1299-1300
Monday before the Feast of St Hilary [13 Jan.]
Membr. 3 14 Jan. 1299-1300
The morrow of St Hilary [13 Jan.]
Walter Payn and John de Canefeld, bailiffs of the Guild of Weavers, and others of the same craft were attached to answer the Mayor and Commonalty at the suit of Henry le Jevene and others of the craft of burellers (fn. 6), in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the weavers, yearly on the day of St Edmund King in their Guild (Gilla) in the Church of St Nicholas Akonn, choose two bailiffs to hold their Courts and to hear and determine pleas of trespass, whereas the bailiffs ought to be under the jurisdiction and power of the Mayor, and be presented to him yearly and be sworn by him, and the Mayor ought to attend their Courts as often as he pleased, and any cloth which was found to be against the Assize should be burnt by the Mayor and not by the bailiffs. Further the burellers complained that the weavers ordained that no one of their craft should weave any cloth from Christmas until the Purification under any circumstances; moreover they had destroyed many hand-looms after the death of workmen, when they ought to have maintained them by right and custom of the trade; and whereas the burellers and others who had cloths to weave were able to have them woven formerly for 16d or 18d, the defendants by an agreement among themselves ordained, first, that none of their craft should weave a cloth for less than 2s, secondly, for less than 2s 6d, and thirdly, for less than 40d; and when a certain Stoldus, a Lombard, who was a freeman, wished to make sale of cloths for the common profit of citizens and foreigners, the defendants would not allow him to do so, until he had promised to pay two marks a year, and nevertheless they charged him 20s for the weaving of each cloth, whereas the price should have been 4s at most; moreover they ordained that if any bureller should injure any of their trade his work should be put in defence, until he had been corrected by them, thus defrauding the Sheriff and the King's farm; further, the weavers put in defence the cloths of the burellers and others at the instance of any of their craft who was plaintiff in any plea, so that he to whom the cloth belonged could not have it, although their bailiffs had no power to make any attachment on persons, who were not of their Guild, without the Sheriffs. All the aforesaid ordinances, the burellers complained, were to the prejudice of the Mayor and Commonalty and Liberty of the City and to their own damage £100.
The defendants denied that their bailiffs were accustomed to be presented to, or sworn and admitted by, the Mayor. Thereupon the plaintiffs alleged that in the time of G. de Rokesle (fn. 7), Thomas Jordan and Reginald le Blount were so presented. The defendants could not deny this, and a day was given them on the Tuesday following to hear judgment thereon, and to answer the other charges. The defendants appeared on the day given and asked for the appointment of twelve men, chosen from each side. This was granted; and the twelve, being sworn and examined by William de Leyre and Thomas Romeyn, aldermen, ordained certain articles (fn. 8) for all time which are enrolled in the Chamber of the Guildhall. The weavers were amerced.
18 Jan. 1299-1300
Monday before the Feast of SS. Fabian and Sebastian [20 Jan.]
Charter of Henry II to the Weavers. [The membrane is incomplete and closes with "contumeliam faciat." See Lib. Cust. (Rolls Series), vol. 1, pp. 33, 418. Cal. of Letter Book D, pp. 221-2. The original Charter is preserved among the Archives of the Weavers' Company.]
Membr. 3 b 19 Jan. 1299-1300
Tuesday before the above Feast
John le Botonner (fn. 9), junior, was summoned to answer John Danesty in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that he was bound to the defendant in a bond of £50 of common money ["sterling" obliterated] payable in portions of 100s, the last term being the Feast of the Nativity last, and that he duly offered to pay before that term the sum of £10. The defendant pleaded that after the above Feast the plaintiff agreed to pay him 100s sterling at Easter, and he, the defendant, agreed to condone the rest until &c. The plaintiff defended (i.e. denied) this agreement, according to the custom of the City, and was ordered to make his law at the Quinzime, on which day he appeared with his law. But as the defendant produced a deed stating that the plaintiff was bound to him in good and lawful sterling according to a contract made prior to a proclamation, which enjoined that all such payments should be made according to the terms of the contract, and the Mayor and Aldermen wished to consult as to whether the money now current could be used in paying, a day was given a week hence to hear judgment. And the £10 proffered by the plaintiff was handed to the Chamberlain to keep. Afterwards a further day was given till the Saturday before Sunday in Midlent.
William de Creye and Isabel his wife and Richard Hutgoh were found guilty by a jury of having assaulted and torn the hoods of William, prior of St Mary Suthwerk, Ralph his Canon, and Walter le Potagier and William de Reygate, who had gone to the tenement of the defendants in Westchepe in order to distrain them for 72s rent in arrears.
Betin de Luca was attached to answer John, servant of Simon de Paris, in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that the defendant sold him cindon (fn. 10) to the value of £14 5s in November, for which he paid 45s, and at Christmas he had offered to pay the rest, but the defendant refused it. The latter pleaded that he ought not to receive the money except in sterling of the King's money, by virtue of the contract between them. The plaintiff replied that he ought to receive the money in crocards according to the King's Proclamation. Subsequently, on Wednesday after the Purification, the defendant agreed to receive two pollards for the penny sterling. On so doing, he went quit and the plaintiff received no damages.
Membr. 4 23 Jan. 1299-1300
Saturday after the Feast of SS. Fabian and Sebastian [20 Jan.] before William de Leyre and William de Beton, aldermen, deputies of the Mayor
Giles le Forner, servant of Roger de Derby, was attached to answer the Mayor in a plea of trespass at the suit of Richard, beadle of Walebrok, who complained that in accordance with an ordinance enjoining that watch should be kept at Christmas (fn. 11), the watchmen of Walebrok (custodes wayte de Walebrok) were on Walebrok, when the defendant Giles, together with Hugh le Forner and Walter le Fannere, came without a light and with edged weapons, and refused to surrender to the Peace and defended themselves, wounding some of the Watch, and then, hiding in the shadows, made their way to the Ryole, so that they could not be found, to the damage of the Watch and in contempt of the City 100s. The defendant pleaded that a certain William had been supping at his master's house, and that by the latter's orders he accompanied him homewards, when they met the Watch on Walebrok, and that as soon as he understood that they were watchmen, he was willing to surrender, but the Watch wanted to kill him, so that if they suffered anything, it was because he defended himself. A jury was summoned and an attachment issued against the above Hugh and Walter. On the Wednesday following, a jury from Walebrok, Douuegate and Cordwanerestrette brought in a verdict of guilty, and the defendants were committed to prison.
5 Feb. 1299-1300
Friday after the Feast of Purification [2 Feb.]
Geoffrey de Somerceste was attached to answer John Crane in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that, whereas it was ordained that two loaves or four might be sold in a fixed place, the defendant carried a loaf of tourte (fn. 12) through the streets, which he would not sell for less than 3d, to the damage of the plaintiff &c. The defendant admitted the manner of sale. Judgment that he be committed to Newegate.
11 Feb. 1299-1300
Thursday before the Feast of St Valentine [14 Feb.]
Martin de Dulingham, William de Horsham, John Dachet, Luke de Ware, John le King, Boidinus de Grene, and William Fatting were summoned before the Mayor and Aldermen to inform them of certain persons who, after the Proclamation, had refused money, and they declared on oath that they knew no such persons.
Adam Brun, John de Sabrichesworth and Thomas Brun swore that Adam Russel, Geoffrey Geffard, William Haber, hostermongere (fn. 13), Robert le Rede, Henry Pride, Simon Mamyware, Alice Hardeye, Gilbert Hunger, William son of Robert le Taillour, William Curteys, Walter Sopere, Richard Love and his servant had not observed the Proclamation.
13 Feb. 1299-1300
Saturday before the Feast of St "Walentine" [14 Feb.]
Ralph le Mason was attached to answer the Mayor for contempt at the suit of Adam de Derlington on behalf of the King and the Commonalty, who complained that in accordance with an ordinance requiring two collectors to be appointed for each Ward, he himself was chosen for Cordwanerstrete, and a certain John Partriche paid the defendant (the other collector') 21s pollard, for which the defendant had John's pledges, but the defendant refused to return the pledges unless John paid double, and when the plaintiff ordered him to return them on behalf of the King, the defendant followed him into the street and threatened him, and said "Jeo ay chie a vous & au Ray ausi." The defendant denied that he was guilty and put himself on his country, and on Adam Mulgas, Gerdo le Armerer, John Swyrel and John Parti who were present (fn. 14). And the plaintiff did likewise. A jury together with the above were summoned against Wednesday.
John le Fundour, dwelling in St Lawrence Lane, was attached to answer Nicholas, carter of Sir John Botetourte, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the defendant took his cart and loaded dung into it against his will. The defendant said he bargained with Nicholas to carry a load of dung for a farthing. The plaintiff denied this, and being ordered to make his law did so at once. The defendant was committed to prison.
Membr. 4 b 23 Feb. 1299-1300
Tuesday the morrow of St Peter in Cathedra [22 Feb.]
Walter atte Belhous, William atte Belhous, Robert le Barber dwelling at Ewelleshalle, John de Lewes, Gilbert le Gras, John his son, Roger le Mortimer, William Ballard atte Hole, Peter de Sheperton, John Brun and the wife of Thomas the pelterer, Stephen de Haddeham, William de Goryngg, Margery de Frydaiestrate, Mariot, who dwells in the house of William de Harwe, and William de Hendone were attached to answer for forestalling all kinds of grain and exposing it, together with putrid grain, on the pavement, for sale by the bushel, through their men and women servants; and for buying their own grain from their own servants in deception of the people. The defendants denied that they were guilty and put themselves on their country. A jury of Richard de Hockeleye and others brought in a verdict of guilty, and the defendants were committed to prison till the next Parliament.
John le Chaundeler dwelling near the house of Peter de Bolyngtone, William le Hay of Wodestrate, Richard atte Rothe, William de Manhale, Stephen le Oynter, John de Lyndeseye, Walter de Waldegrave dwelling at the Stockes, Henry le Chaundeler, beadle of John Wade, John de Dunninghurst and other chandlers were attached to answer the King and the Mayor for selling the pound of tallow candles dearer after Christmas, in contempt of the King's Proclamation. The defendants admitted that they sold the pound at 4d before, and 5d after Christmas. They were committed to the Sheriff to take good security for their appearance at the next Parliament.
Roger de Acton dwelling at Clerkenwell, William his brother, dwelling without Altresgate, Geoffrey de Heston and James de Bury of the same place, Ralph le Frensche dwelling at Red Cross, Richard de Bernham dwelling without Crepelgate, Thomas Chese dwelling at Cherringe, John Fithele, Symon Fairman, dwelling without the Bar of Holleburne, and John Fairman, Henry Poer and William Eyrot of the same place, and other curriers were attached to answer the King and the Mayor for selling their leather dearer after the Proclamation about Pollards and Crocards, with the result that the cordwainers sold their shoes dearer. The defendants said that they did not sell their leather dearer after the Proclamation, but that the dearness was due to foreigners, for none of them had any hides at Christmas, and all the hides they worked afterwards had been bought from foreigners at double the price; and they asked for an inquest by the country. A jury was summoned against Thursday.
Membr. 5 17 Feb. 1299-1300
Wednesday after the Feast of St Valentine [14 Feb.]
John de Hadham, tanner, Geoffrey de Chelcheithe, John de Hormed, Ralph de Chelcheithe, Simon atte Spalebrige, Stephen de Hadham, Richard de Hadham, Richard le Hosker (fn. 15), Roger de Eddelmeton, William Balsham, Robert de Sellingdon, Philip de Hundesdiche, Gervasius his brother, John le Lunge, William, son of Geoffrey de Hundesdiche, Robert le Prest, Walter de Daginhale, Baudewin le Tannour, Richard le Bruys, Adam Baudri, Richard le Lung and John Baudri, tanners, were attached to answer the Mayor and Aldermen for selling more dearly after the Proclamation than before, and for concealing their goods and removing them from the City, and refusing payment in pollards. The defendants put themselves on their country. Afterwards, a jury of Nicholas le Brun and others brought in a verdict that certain of the defendants were not guilty, and that the rest sold more dearly for pollards than for sterling, but did not remove their goods or refuse money.
John Tilli, Walter de Bedefunte, William called le King, John Talifer, Hugh le Kisser (fn. 16), John de Sancto Salvatore, Adam de Hakeneye, Richard le Kisser, William Fleye, Robert Tilli, John Elys, Geoffrey Canoun, Thomas Bruing, Walter de Chabenham, Senn le Kisser and John de Bedefunte, kissers, were attached on a similar charge. A jury of William de Red and others brought in a verdict that some of the defendants were not guilty, and that the others had sold dearer for the pollard than the sterling, but had not concealed their goods or carried them out of the City to sell them dearer, with the exception of Walter de Bedefunte who had hidden his goods; and that John Tilli went out of the City and met carts bringing hides to Religious Houses and elsewhere and bought the hides against his oath as a freeman and sold them in the City. Judgment that John and Walter be committed to prison, and that the other guilty defendants be taken into custody to appear before the King (coram Rege) at the next Parliament.
26 Feb. 1299-1300
On Friday after the Feast of St Peter in Cathedra [22 Feb.] a jury of William de Red and others brought in a verdict that Walter Chese, William son of Clement, and Henry Puer, curriers, were not guilty of selling dearer after the Proclamation, but that Walter de Acton and William his brother concealed their goods and would not expose them for sale except in samples [nisi per particulas], and would not sell them except for sterling; that John le Fraunceys would not sell his goods at all; and that the other curriers sold dearer for pollards than sterling. Judgment that the Sheriffs take security from Walter de Acton and the rest to appear before the King and his Council at the next Parliament.
Membr. 5 b
Eva la Callestere was attached to answer John Fuatard in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that, when he went, by the Mayor's command, with Thomas Sely, Alderman, into the Ward of Nicholas de Farndon to seize false grain measures, the defendant assaulted him and bit his finger, in contempt of the King and to his damage 100s. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff entered her house against her will, for she did not know that he was a bailiff, and wanted to lie with her, and if he received any damage, it was owing to his own assault, and she demanded an inquest thereon. A jury of Geoffrey de Finchinfeud and others found her guilty of the assault and taxed damages at 12d, and she was committed to prison.
Martin de Dullingham, butcher, was attached to answer Roger Heved in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that, when he went with Roger, Clerk of the King's Wardrobe, to demand from the defendant a tally which he had lent him, the defendant assaulted him. The latter pleaded that the plaintiff assaulted him first. A jury of the venue of the Stockes found him guilty and assessed damages at half a mark, and the clerk's damages at 2s.
John de Wyncestre, cordwainer, William de Pelham, Thomas de Derby, Robert de Frowyk, John de Laufer, Stephen de Hollecote, John de Batricheseye, Henry Fitz William, Geoffrey Bonmarche, Adam de Starteford, John de Gildeford, Robert de Totenham, William atte Roche, Reginald de Essex, Hankok le Cordewaner, William de Westminstre, John de Wincestre junior, Philip de Luddelowe, Simon de Kendale, John de Tissindon, John de Redinge, John Scot, William de Sinngham, William Stanes, Hugh Stot, Andrew de Lughteburgh, Simon de Norton, John de Soham, Henry de Stanford, Walter de Norhamton, Robert de Webbele, William de Redinge, Hugh de Esseburne, Roger de Bristow, William de Norhamton, Thomas le Cofferer, William de Treinlingham, John de Renham, William de Castle Barnard, Peter de Sauescomb, Henry de Bury, Thomas Hasserwit, John de Ware, Thomas de Norwich, John de Lincoln, John de Chalham, Thomas de Luddelow, Alan de Reding, William Wastell, Robert de Pampesworth, Robert de Norhamton, Simon de Coundon, William de Sutton, John Wastell, Thomas de Norwich, Richard Springefeld and Daniel de Chiltren, were attached to answer the Mayor and Aldermen for selling dearer after the Proclamation, concealing their goods, refusing money &c. A jury of John de Coffrerer and others brought in a verdict of not guilty, and said that if prices were higher in their trade (cordwainery) it was due to the tanners, curriers and kissers.
Adam de Fulham, senior, John le Benere, William Jurdan, Stephen Pykeman, Turgis Pykeman, William Pykeman, Robert Pykeman, John de Mockingge, William Sorweles, Salmon Borghard, Richard de Haddle, Robert de Folleham, John de Folham, John de Stebenhethe, Robert Sterre, John Bacheler, John Baldewene, Alan Aunore, Richard Pykeman, Robert Yvri, Thomas de Collingham, William Haunsard, William Rymond, William Greylaund, William Amys, Richard Horn, John de Colesdon, William Cros, Henry Cros, Stephen Lambin, Robert de Mockingge, Richard Swote, Walter Ragen, Giles Jurdon, Edmund Lambyn, Robert le Benere, Richard Aleyn, John Frochs, Geoffrey de Lyre, John Allyn, Robert Baudry, Symon Lambyn, John Moldefrey, Walter de Hakeneye, Richard Matefrey, John de Stratford, Richard Lichitfot, Peter de Bolinton, Adam de Ely, Bartholomew de Romberwe, Richard de Bernes, William de Barton, William Albyn, John de Tornham, Adam le Bakere, James Flinchard, William Flinchard and William Gubbe were attached to answer the Mayor and Aldermen for selling dearer after the Proclamation &c. A jury of Walter le Fullere and others brought in a verdict that the defendant Adam and the other fishmongers were not guilty.
Roger le Lenerd, John Gubbe, Walter Gubbe, John Scot (fn. 17), Robert le Wolf, Robert Turck, John Elys, James le Reve, John de Romeneye (fn. 18), Adam Lutekyn (fn. 18), Adam Ballard (fn. 18), Richard le Barber, John de Ware, John de Brompton, Gilbert le Fevere of Fridaystrate, John de Coventre (fn. 18), John Makery, Richard de Watherby (fn. 18), Alan Wade of Quenehythe, John de Crepelgate, near Quenhithe, Robert Brangwayn at Castle Baynard, Geoffrey de Yarmouth (fn. 18), Henry de Bellehous, Laurence de Quenehithe, Richard Poterel (fn. 18) son of Richard Poterel, Geoffrey Godale at Flete, Henry de Cherringge, Thomas de Wrotham, Thomas de Leycestre, John de Stratford, William Gubbe, Thomas le Maderman, Geoffrey le Nayler of Sevethenelane, William le Brasour of Wolchurchehawe, John de Haveryngge (fn. 18), Stephen le Naylere, Adam Trug (fn. 18), John Page and Robert Atteloke were acquitted of a similar charge.
John Poyntel (fn. 19), Roger Poyntel (fn. 19), Peter de Helding, Stephen Dorgod, Thomas, brother of Roger Pointel, Raude de Borham, Robert de Bray, John Geryn, William Godale, William de Horsham (fn. 20), Gilbert de Bray, William Noger, John de Befald, Walter de Borham (fn. 20) and Richard atte Gate were likewise acquitted.
John Gilberd, John called le Longe, James de Bredstrate, Henry le Vocy, Yvo Balle, Robert le Longe, and Laurence le Saltmetere were attached to answer the Mayor and Aldermen for entering the boats of foreigners bringing salt, oysters and mussels, and taking a wage of 2d a day with expenses to sell the above goods at a higher price, to their own advantage, but to the damage of the City, since no foreigner can sell his goods retail either by himself or by another. A jury of Robert de Chalfhunte and others found the first three defendants not guilty, and said that the rest entered the boats of freemen, by their orders, and enabled foreigners to obtain part of their goods, selling them at a higher price than their employers would be able to charge if they were present (intrant batellos liberorum hominum facientes forenses habere partem de bonis illis vendentes bona predicta carius quam domini facerent si presentes essent). Judgment that Gilberd and the others go quit, and that Henry le Vocy &c. be mainprised to come up for judgment. Afterwards their offence was pardoned on condition that they did not occupy themselves with that trade any more.
18 March 1299-1300
Friday the Feast of the Translation of St Edmund King (fn. 21) before William de Leyre
John de Ware, "batour" (fn. 22), Alan Sprot, William de Berhamstead, Adam Attecherch, Ralph le Batour, Nicholas Sprot, John Baroun, Hugh le Batour, John Fraunk, William Atteweld, William de Langele, John de London, William Smart, Thomas Ailmer, Adam de Munden, William Sprot, Robert de Hadham, Geoffrey Sewhat, William le Batour and Walter le Delvere were attached to answer the Mayor and Aldermen, for selling dearer after the Proclamation, refusing pollards, selling more for four sterling than for seven pollards doubled (quam pro septem pollardis dupplicatis), and further with making a confederacy and appointing Geoffrey Suat (sic) their bailiff and Walter le Delvere their beadle. The defendants admitted selling dearer, and pleaded that the pound of metal which they bought at 2d before Christmas cost 4d or 5d since, and they demanded a jury. The Court remitted the jury because of the coming time (Easter) and allowed them to choose four men from each mistery (ministerium) to regulate prices according to the true value of the goods, viz. from the craft of Girdlers (fn. 23):-Adam Trug, Walter de Norwich, John le Chamberleyn, and Ralph de Brawhing, and from the craft of Batours:-John de Ware, Alan Sproth, John de London, and Adam de Munden, who later came to an agreement that the pound of copper, which used to be sold for 8d, should be sold for 7½d during the time that pollards were current, and that what was sold for 7d should be sold for 6½d, and they were ordered to announce this to both crafts.
Membr. 6 b
Richard de Stevenath, Richard Otgo, Richard Fatting, Simon Tripasy, Thomas Dosswell, Boidinus de Grene, Henry Palet, Maurice "ad aquam," Nicholas Sniggel, Roger le Wynour, Maykin de Kent, and other butchers, were summoned for selling dearer after the Proclamation &c. The jury was remitted because of the imminence of the Passion, and the butchers were warned to behave well in their sales, and to give such proper measure to their neighbours that it should not be necessary to summon them again.
Ralph Sporon was summoned to answer Robert le Boteler for detinue of a silver cup, with silver foot and covercle, value 5 marks, entrusted to the defendant to be remade at a cost of 40s. The latter admitted receiving the cup, and said that he delivered it to a certain Thomas de Linch, a journeyman (vassel'), to work on it. Thomas de Lynch appeared and said that the defendant agreed to give him two marks sterling for the work, which he had not paid. The defendant denied making this agreement with the journeyman and was ordered to make his law on the Quinzime, but meanwhile Ralph and Thomas agreed out of Court that the latter should receive 40s pollard for the work, which were deposited with the Chamberlain, and that he should condone to the defendant the making of his law. Both were amerced.
19 March 1299-1300
Saturday the morrow of the above Feast
Recognizance (gongnovit se teneri (fn. 24)) by Ralph de Honilane, alderman, to John de Petresdon of a debt of 40s payable on the morrow.
Katherine de Lincoln was summoned to answer William de Mount Seins in a plea that she return to him an iron horsecuirass, and a pair of plates covered with cloth of gold and samite (fn. 25), which he pledged to her for 35s for cloth bought from Peter de Armenters, one of her household. The defendant said that the pledges were delivered to her servant, Peter de Armenters, and she demanded that he be summoned to answer with her. On the Tuesday following, the above Peter produced a deed to the effect that Sir William granted to Katherine that she might sell the pledges after Easter, paying to him any surplus over the 35s. The plaintiff admitted that this was the deed of a certain William de Monsens. The defendant further said that the pledges were sold for 22s 1d only. Thereupon the plaintiff offered to accept this statement if Peter would swear it with his single hand (fn. 26). The latter did so and was acquitted, and Sir William was in mercy.
Thomas le Chaundeler was summoned to answer the Mayor and Aldermen in a plea that, whereas Matthew le Caundeler and his fellows were chosen to keep the Assize of Candles when Parliament was sitting, a certain Robert, servant of Sir John de Droknesford, wanted to buy a pound of candles for 3d, and the defendant refused the money; thereupon Robert had complained to Matthew, and the latter, in accordance with the ordinance made by the men of that craft, had caused the candles to be delivered to the servant for the above price, and afterwards the defendant had abused Matthew and struck him as he was standing in his shop. The defendant denied the offence, and a jury of Candelwykestrate was summoned for Tuesday, on which day the parties made agreement on terms that the defendant pledge five casks of wine, to be forfeited if he were convicted in the future of any trespass against Matthew. He was mainprised by Richard Fiz, ceynturer, and John le Chaundeler of Ismongerelane to come up for judgment quo et quando &c. for his trespass against the officers of the craft, and the Mayor and Aldermen.
Richard Davy, baker, was attached to answer the Mayor and Aldermen on a charge that, whereas on Friday the Feast of the Translation of St Edward, he was dragged on the hurdle because his bread was false, when he arrived home and descended from the hurdle and entered his house, he took a bone and threw it at the tabor-player and broke his tabor through the middle. Peter de Berneval undertook to produce him before the Mayor on the Tuesday, on which day the defendant did not come. Peter was summoned to hear judgment for failing to produce him, and order was given to distrain the defendant.
28 March 1300
Monday after the Feast of the Annunciation B.M. [25 March] A° 28 Edw. 
John le Poer appeared before the Mayor, and with the third hand (fn. 27) verified a foal (unum equum fanum) value 1 mark, as his property. This animal, being in the seisin of Peter de Annardestoun, knight, had been arrested as an attachment in a plea of the Forest in Parliament. It was now delivered to the above John.
29 March 1300
Tuesday after the above Feast
Sir Eustace Delehak claimed from John de Stanes two silver gilt cups, which had been put in his hands as security for a debt of 5 marks 10s 8d due to John de Dorking for a doublet (pro una duploid') and gambeson. The latter acknowledged receipt of the money, but as the plaintiff did not prosecute his plea, the defendant went quit. He was amerced for previous defaults, and the plaintiff for non-appearance.
John in the Lane was summoned to answer Brother John de Shorisdich of the Order of Friars Preachers in a plea that whereas the Friar bought from the defendant at Smethefeud a bay horse for 60s, which the defendant asserted to be healthy and sound in its limbs, nevertheless the said horse when it came into the Friar's possession and before that time was maimed in the shoulders (maynatus in chapulis). The defendant said that he did not warrant the horse (ecum) and he was prepared to prove &c. He was ordered to make his law on the Wednesday, but appeared without it; whereupon the Friar claimed judgment as in an undefended action. The defendant pleaded that he had not offered to make his law, but the Friar had done so. On Thursday judgment was given that the plaintiff recover the 60s with 40d expenses of the horse, and that the defendant have his horse back and be in mercy.
4 April 1300
Monday after the Octave of the above Feast
Ralph de Petypount was summoned to answer Thomas de Canvyle in a plea that he detained 5s, which the plaintiff's servant handed to him under the plaintiff's seal to carry to a certain Peter of St Lawrence Lane. The defendant acknowledged receiving the money, but only as money owed to himself for work done; but he offered to repay it, if the plaintiff would swear with his single hand that the money was intended for Peter. When the plaintiff offered to do so, the defendant condoned the oath. Judgment for the plaintiff and that the defendant be in mercy.
Membr. 7 b 20 April 1300
Wednesday after Quasimodo [17 April]
Richard de Wellaund having complained of error in the record of a plea of debt by royal writ between himself and Walter de Mouncy in the Court of John de Armenters, Sheriff, the latter was ordered to produce the record and to summon the above Walter. On Tuesday after the Feast of St Mark the Evangelist [25 April] the plaintiff appeared, but the Sheriff reported that Walter could not be found in his bailiwick. John de Armenters produced the Record as follows.
Court of John de Armenters, Sheriff of London, held for foreigners on Tuesday before Easter [10 April] A° 28 Edw. . Walter de Munsy, knight, was attached by writ to answer Richard de Weylond, knight, in a plea of debt of 40 marks wherein the latter complained that he went with the army to Scotland in the 26th year of King Edward (fn. 28) as a follower of the defendant, and lost three horses value 80 marks, and that they made an account together about Christmas 1298 at Pulham, co. Norfolk, when the defendant entered into a bond to pay him 40 marks for the loss of the horses, which bond he had subsequently acknowledged in London before trustworthy persons, yet nevertheless he had failed to pay the money. The defendant pleaded that the bond was a foreign one, that the horses were not "merchandisable" (fn. 29), that he and the plaintiff were both foreigners, and that the latter had his remedy at Common Law, since he, the defendant, had sufficient property in the kingdom for the purpose of distraint and attachment; and he asked the Court to consider whether they would take cognizance of the action. The Court informed him that he might answer further if it was of any advantage to him. The defendant then inspected the deed, and after comparing the seals and examining it, denied that it was his own, and demanded an inquest by the venue of Pulham, where the deed was alleged to have been drawn up. And the plaintiff Richard answered nothing against this. Accordingly on the ground that the contract was a foreign one, that the action was not "merchandisable," and that the Court could not call in a jury of the venue, the plaintiff was advised to seek his remedy at Common Law. Afterwards the plaintiff wanted the defendant to swear that the writing was not his deed, and demanded that it should be enrolled.
Membr. 8 20 April 1300
Wednesday after Quasimodo [17 April]
Thomas de Wandelesworth, Robert de Eltham, Walter de Wymbeldon, William de Roudon, William le Fraunceys, Adam le Pestour, John Fuatard, John de Bedeford and John Grigori were attached to answer Reginald the Chaplain, Stephen le Fannere (fn. 30), Isabella his wife and Felicia their daughter in a plea of trespass, wherein they complained that on Sunday after Easter, when the plaintiff Reginald with his clerk was in the plaintiff Stephen's house, the defendants broke in the door, assaulted Reginald, and tried to get money from him, and when they could not, handed him over to the Beadle of Billingesgate Ward, and then returned and beat the plaintiffs Isabella and Felicia. The defendants said they were appointed to the Watch that night, and on a rumour that Reginald was with Isabella as her paramour, they knocked at the door, which was opened to them, and asked Reginald what he was doing there at that time of night, but they did nothing further; and thereon they put themselves on their country. A jury of Billingesgate and the two neighbouring Wards was summoned.
23 April 1300
Saturday next to (ad) the Feast of St Mark the Evangelist [25 April]
Robert le Treyere and Alan Wade were summoned to answer the Mayor and Aldermen on a charge of avowing the goods of Walter de Andewyle of Amiens and Ralph de Dovre, to the damage of those of Amyens, Nele and Corbie belonging to the Hanse, by concealing the King's customs. The defendants denied the avowry; but Alan said that the previous year he had sent 14 casks of woad overseas to the North to the above Ralph that he might sell them on his behalf, and that he owed £10, but that he had not avowed Ralph's goods, and he demanded an inquest thereon. The defendant Robert said that he had received from the above Walter Andevyne of Amyas (sic) 120 quarters of wheat, of which 60 remained to be sold, but said he received no other goods from Walter, nor any goods at all except for sale in the name of the said Walter; and he likewise demanded an inquest thereon. He was forbidden to pay Walter anything for the 60 quarters until the Court had come to an understanding (posuerunt rationem cum) with the men of Amiens (fn. 31); and a jury was summoned for Monday. On that day, before William de Leyre and Geoffrey de Norton, deputies of the Mayor, a jury of John de Waus and others said that they could not among themselves find out whether Alan was guilty. He was acquitted. Adam de Ely was charged the same day with avowing the goods of Mauncel, a burgess of Amiens, and put himself on his country. On Friday a jury of Robert Sutel and others brought in a verdict that the above Robert le Treyere received and warehoused 120 quarters of wheat and sold it in his own name and kept the money by him, and that the above Adam avowed the woad of Maunsel of Amiens. Robert and Adam were committed to prison.
26 April 1300
Tuesday after the above Feast
John de Kirketon, John Bolychromp called "Byndere," Richard de Kirketon and Robert de Staunford, brokers of carts, were charged that they met foreign carters five leagues outside the City, and warned them that if they went to the City the carts would be seized by the King's officials, and then, after hiring the carts for a mark or 16s, they afterwards let them out to freemen and foreigners for two marks or 30s, in contempt of the King and to the damage of the citizens 100s. Robert admitted the offence and the other three were found guilty by a jury of William de Helweton and others. They were committed to prison.
Thomas de Rederesgate, keeper of the Quay of St Botolph's by Billingesgate, was found guilty by a jury of John de Wodeforde and others and committed to prison, for housing wood belonging to foreigners of Greenwich and other places, and avowing it and selling it retail.
11 May 1300
Wednesday after the Feast of St John before the Latin Gate [6 May]
Robert le Breton, who was attached in the house of John de Armenters, Sheriff, by a servant of Sir William de Middilton, clerk of the Household of the King's son, was found guilty by a jury of Henry le Pottere and others, of taking carts with the goods and ale of their owners, and making the latter pay him a fine for delivery, on the pretence that he was a member of the Prince's Household.
Membr. 8 b
William Sciphupe was attached to answer Walter Heyne, clerk to the King's son, for being possessed of a silver knife belonging to the Prince. The defendant admitted receiving the knife from John Gamel for 14s which the latter owed him for carrying the King's wines at Fulham, and said that he afterwards pledged it for 8s to William, servant of William Wigerus. The said servant admitted the receipt and said that he pledged it five years ago to a taverner of Sutwerk, who was now dead, and that he could not get the knife. Judgment that the plaintiff recover the knife or its value against William Sciphupe, and that the latter pay the plaintiff 8s, and recover the knife against the servant; and as the servant could neither produce the knife or find security for producing it, he was committed to prison until &c.
William de Insula was summoned to answer Reginald Denmars that whereas no toll should be taken except by the Sheriffs, nevertheless when the plaintiff came to the defendant's house to buy merchandise, the latter arrested the merchandise bought, and demanded from him for each dozen pennyworths a farthing more. The defendant was first ordered to make his law on the Quinzime; but as he would not allow the goods to be delivered by Thomas Juvenall, the Mayor's Serjeant, a jury was summoned for Monday.
18 June 1300
Saturday the morrow of St Botulph [17 June]
John de la Roche, Alan de Cressi, Geoffrey de Cressi, and John de Cressy of Pountif (fn. 32), foreign weavers, were attached to answer Silvester de Morton and others of the Guild of Weavers, for exercising that craft against the Charter of Henry III to the Weavers of London, in which it was laid down that no weaver should remain in the City or in Suthwerk to weave or make cloth unless he belonged to the Guild, under penalty of £10 forfeiture to the King. The defendants asked to hear the Charter read, and pleaded that they were not versed (nec se cognoscunt in consuetudinibus) in the customs of the City and the laws of the realm. As regards the penalty nothing at present. They were told not to meddle in that craft without the consent of the Weavers, to whom a charter had been granted, under penalty &c.
20 June 1300
Henry de Farinham appeared to answer a complaint of Ralph de Arras. He was forbidden by the Mayor to lease out (ne aliquam shopam locet) any shop of any freeman of London. Whereupon he said that he had a free tenement in a certain shop at St Botolphs (fn. 33) which the plaintiff claimed to be his for a term of years. The latter was directed to prosecute his claim before the Wardens of the Fair of St Botolph's in London, who would report their finding to the Mayor and Aldermen.
Ralph le Mortemer was attached to answer John Tilli in a plea of debt of 16s 8d, borrowed by him at Baldhok A° 25 Edw. [1296-7], and repayable on his next arrival in London. The defendant denied the loan, and was ordered to make his law on the spot as a foreigner, which he did with the seventh hand (fn. 34). He was acquitted and the plaintiff was in mercy for a false claim.
An inquest was taken before Elias Russel, Mayor, on 23 June, 1300, by the oath of William Peter, Robert Joye and others from the Wards of Porthesocne and Alegate, who presented that Ralph the Chaplain, dwelling in the rent of Gilbert de la Marche, was a receiver of thieves and prostitutes by night, that Walter le Coupper was a night-walker who made disturbances in various inns in the Ward, and that a certain chaplain in Belleryteryslane in the rent of Matthew le Caundeler did the same, to the terror of the neighbourhood. Order was given to arrest them.
Membr. 9 30 May 1300
Plea of Reymund de Margoys held before Elyas Russel, Mayor, John de Armenters and Henry de Fingrie, Sheriffs (fn. 35), on Monday in the Feast of Pentecost [29 May] A° 28 Edw. in obedience to a Writ of 10 March, in which the Mayor and Sheriffs were bidden to give Reimund de Margoys, merchant of Bordeaux, execution of a Recognizance made before Henry le Galeys, Mayor, and John de Baukwell, whereby William le Splenere was bound to the above Reymund in a debt of £12.
Precept was issued to enquire what lands and tenements the above William had at the date of the Recognizance. A jury of twelve men of the City returned that he had in fee on Nov 23, 1286, a messuage and five shops, now in the tenure of Adam de Hallingbury, of 100s annual value, of which he paid 20s yearly to the New Temple, 20s to the Hospital of St John, 10s to the Bishop of Ely and 10s for repairs, thus leaving a net annual value of 40s. Thereupon the plaintiff demanded execution. As it was found that the above Adam now held the tenements in fee, he was summoned to appear before the Mayor the next day to show cause why execution should not be made. He appeared and resisted it, on the ground that the above-mentioned William le Splenere held the tenements from the Master of the Knights of the Temple and the Prior of St John of Jerusalem by the above services, as from the chief lords of the fee, and on default of those services the Master and Prior had sued out a Writ of Customs and Services and demanded the tenements as "Gavelet" (fn. 36), as they could not be distrained upon, and had finally recovered them as a "Schertford"; wherefore Adam claimed that by the custom of the City, the tenements could not be burdened any further for rent or any other service belonging to the time when the above William had them in demise from the chief lords. The Mayor and Sheriffs gave a day in order to consult the Rolls of Common Pleas, when it was found that the Master and Prior had sued out a Writ of Customs and Services against Beatrice, widow of William le Splenere, and had recovered the tenements against her as a Gavelet on the death of her husband. Accordingly a jury of the four neighbouring Wards was ordered to give a verdict as to whether the tenements ought to be burdened further by reason of any debt of the said William, under whose authority (sub cuius virga) she had entered into possession; and also whether the tenement was still in the hands of the said Beatrice, or of the Master and Prior, or of the present tenant through the Master and Prior who recovered it, whereby the tenement would be exonerated of all debts; and a day was given to the Wednesday following. On that day Adam de Hallingbery appeared and the plaintiff Reimund made default. Judgment was given that the former go quit and that the latter be in mercy.
Membr. 10 2 July 1300
Saturday after the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul [29 June] A° 28 Edw. 
William May, clerk, was ordered to bring into Court on Monday, Jaketta (fn. 37), a minor and daughter of his sister, and to appear himself to answer the Mayor and Aldermen in charges against him. Walter de Dyry and Alice his wife were also warned to produce the will of Michael de Provincia (fn. 38).
A day was given to Richer de Refham and Gibert le Abrokur to make an account of the King's moneys, received by the said Wybert (sic), and not paid to Richer during the time when the latter was Sheriff.
5 July 1300
Tuesday after the above Feast
John le Benere was summoned to answer John le Fraunceys in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that the defendant bought fur from him to the value of £8 16s, and undertook to pay him that amount, and acquit him of a Recognizance, neither of which he had done. The defendant pleaded that he bought fur to the value of £5 8s. At this point came John de Armenters and demanded his Court, which was granted to him, and the parties were told to go into the Sheriff's Court.
William May was summoned to answer Walter Diri and Alice his wife concerning Jakemina, daughter of Michael de Pountif, then in the defendant's wardship. The plaintiffs alleged that, though the wardship of minors ought not to be in the hands of a kinsman to whom her inheritance could descend (fn. 39), the defendant was the heir of Jakemina; and accordingly they demanded that the wardship be transferred to themselves, in accordance with the will of the above Michael which they produced in Court. The defendant answered that Jakemina was in the wardship of her aunt, the Prioress of Kelingburne, and that the plaintiff Alice ought not to have the wardship, because the girl's inheritance was derived from her mother, and that her father left her nothing, and could not devise her wardship, since her inheritance lay within the Liberty of the City. As it was found that the above Michael by his will left the girl nothing, judgment was given that the wardship remain with the Prioress.
John de Ely was summoned to answer Michael de Wonburn in a plea of debt of £9 due on a Recognizance to Henry de Winchester, knight, of whose will the plaintiff was executor. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was not an executor. Thereupon the latter produced the will, with a clause to the effect that the testator committed to his executors the distribution of the residue of his goods for the good of his soul, in accordance with the instructions of the Lady Idonea his wife and Brother Simon his son. On the back of the will was an endorsement showing that it was proved before the Official of London in 1299 as the nuncupative or last will of the deceased, but whereas the testator appointed Edmund Paske and Hugh Petipas his executors, the Official had appointed Lady Idonea in place of Edmund, who refused administration, and Michael de Wonburn in place of Hugh, who was suspected of "notorious delapidation." The defendant pleaded that he need not answer the plaintiff as executor, and that it was not a true will, since the seal of the Diocese was not appended nor that of the testator, and that the plaintiff was not an executor, except as a deputy, and then only under the supervision of Brother Simon, who was not present, and the plaintiff had produced no authorisation from him for recovering the debt. After adjournments that the Mayor might take advice, the parties appeared, and the defendant now pleaded that the plaintiff could not have a better ground of action than the testator, if he were alive, and that during the Shrievalty of Thomas Romayn and William de Leyre (1290-1), he (the defendant) had been imprisoned in Newgate at the suit of the testator on the above Recognizance, and had been delivered from prison by him, a compromise having been made by an indenture which he produced in Court. This indenture was a covenant (French) to the effect that if the defendant did not pay Sir Henry de Winchester £9 by Christmas 1291, for which he had pledged his houses and appurtenances, then the houses should belong to the said Sir Henry, who should be recouped for his expenses, and the Recognizance should stand; but if the money were paid, the houses should return to the defendant and he should receive an acquittance. The defendant now pleaded that he had already been imprisoned on the Recognizance and delivered by the testator, and he demanded judgment whether he could be imprisoned again on the same Recognizance or be molested for the said debt. The plaintiff answered that he still had the Recognizance, which had neither been disallowed nor cancelled, that he had the same ground of action as the testator, and that the defendant had produced no acquittance; on which grounds he claimed judgment. As the Mayor wished advice as to the force of the Recognizance, and the defendant had not his counsel ready, a day was given till Monday the morrow of All Souls (fn. 40).
Membr. 10 b 11 July 1300
Monday after the Translation of St Thomas the Martyr [7 July]
Walter de Frogwell, beadle of the Ward of Cordwanerstret, plaintiff in a plea of trespass, and William son of Richard de Mountpelers, Michael Pickard, John Silly and his servant Michael, defendants, came to an agreement by permission of the Court on terms that the defendants buy the plaintiff a gown, value half-a-mark, and the plaintiff be in mercy. The amercement was condoned because he was a "bailiff."
Walter the bailiff of Queenhithe was summoned to answer Salemann Michel, Robert the baker, and Salemann Fyges, boatmen of Serre (fn. 41), in a plea that, contrary to immemorial custom, he took from them a basin of salt as custom, to the prejudice of their liberties; and further on Thursday last, when they wanted to leave the Quay, having sold their goods, he arrested their boats. The defendant justified the arrest as having been made at the suit of Roger le Palmere and Roger de la Vyne; and as regards the salt, he claimed that he and his predecessors, acting on behalf of the Sheriffs, had always been seised of a basin of salt, and he demanded that inquest be made by the country. The plaintiffs answered that a basin of salt was due for wharfage only, and not for custom, and they never paid any custom on salt except 2d the sieve (siva). They claimed also that they could go by water to Westminster and beyond, on this side of the Bridge, to sell their wares without leave of any one; and they demanded an inquest thereon. The defendant pleaded that they could not sell their wares this side of the Bridge, except only in the Port of Queenhithe. The jury was respited till the coming of the Mayor, and the basin was delivered to the bailiff under mainprise of John de Brenkele and Robert de Gloucester.
Membr. 11 21 July 1300
Thursday after the Feast of St Margaret [20 July]
The Prior of Holy Trinity was summoned to answer the Mayor and Aldermen in a plea that, whereas it had been found by a jury of the Ward of Bradestrete and the three neighbouring Wards (fn. 42) that from time immemorial the Priors had been charged with the duty of building, covering and repairing a bridge by the Wall, where the Walebrok enters into Bradestret Ward, by virtue of holding the advowson of All Hallows on the Wall and certain rents near this bridge, and that likewise the Prior had a right of way for carts bringing wood and other necessaries from his manors- nevertheless the said bridge was so ruinous that no one on horse or foot could cross it without danger, owing to the default of the Prior in repairing it. The Prior appeared and pleaded that he was not bound to repair the bridge, and produced a Charter of King Henry (fn. 43), great-grandfather of the present King, granting that the Priors should be quit of such repairs, and he said further that he had no tenements or rents near the bridge, except the Church of All Hallows, which he held to his own uses, and the advowson of it, which he and his predecessors held before and since the granting of the above charter. Ralph Pecok, appearing for the Commonalty of the City, alleged that the Prior and his predecessors had always repaired the bridge when necessary since the granting of the charter, and accordingly he claimed that the Prior should not be quit of the duty by his charter. The latter said that this answer should not be allowed to nullify his charter, because in the Statute de Waranto it was enacted that when any one claimed a liberty by charter, he should be judged by the tenor of the charter, and accordingly he demanded judgment. He said further that in the Statute of Westminster it was enacted that no one should be distrained for repairing bridges save those anciently accustomed to do it, and since his charter showed an ancient acquittance from so doing, he claimed judgment as to whether he ought to be distrained. To this Ralph Pecok answered that the Statute de quo Waranto only applied to liberties issuing from lords, and not to liberties of this kind, i.e. concerning the making of bridges, parks, and ponds, and he likewise demanded judgment.
23 July 1300
Saturday the morrow of St Mary Magdalene [22 July]
Alice la Blund offered herself against Walter de Flete. The Court of the Dean and Chapter of St Paul's was allowed to Richard Gladewyn, "sokenreve," and the parties were given a day to appear in that Court.
Membr. 11 b 27 July 1300
Wednesday after the Feast of St James the Apostle [25 July]
Peter the Surgeon acknowledged himself bound to Ralph de Mortimer, by Richard atte Hill his attorney, in the sum of 20s, payable at certain terms, the said Ralph undertaking to give Peter a letter of acquittance. This Recognizance arose out of a covenant between them with regard to the effecting of a cure. Both were amerced for coming to an agreement out of Court. A precept was issued to summon all the surgeons of the City for Friday, that an enquiry might be made as to whether the above Peter was fitted (abilis) to enjoy the profession of a surgeon.
29 July 1300
Friday after the above Feast before William de Leyre, the Mayor's deputy
Thomas Beauflur proved by the evidence of John de Buttertone and Jordon, a mariner, that at Calays on the 3rd Feb. John de Cesterton threatened to do him personal hurt and to burn his houses. The latter was attached, and mainprised by William Canoun, John de la Barre, John Harwe, clerk, Walter de Wenlok, Thomas de Salop, and Richard le Barber of Douegate.
Thomas de Frowyk, Roger de Frowyk and William Beynin were summoned to answer Agnes, widow of Reginald Frowyk, in a plea that they produce her late husband's will (fn. 44) which, she alleged, they had kept in their possession unproved. The defendants Roger and William pleaded that after the will had been proved before the Official of the Archdeacon of London, it was left in the possession of the defendant Thomas. The latter said that he entrusted it to the mother of the deceased, Isabella Frowyk, of whom he and Walter de Finchingfeud, alderman, were executors. Subsequently he produced the will, which was returned to him, to be brought into Court quo et quando.
John de Douwegate was mainprised to restore to the above Agnes five deeds needed by her in connection with her property outside the City of London, held by her in the name of her son Henry, because the lord of the fee was distraining her for services not due from that land.
Membr. 12 30 July 1300
Saturday after the Feast of St James the Apostle [25 July] before William de Leyre and Walter de Finchingfeud, deputies of the Mayor
Stephen de Colegate was summoned to answer Henry le Galeys in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he entrusted the defendant with lead for covering his Chapel, and the defendant substituted inferior lead, at halfa-mark the wey (pondus), and covered the Chapel with it. A jury from the venue of Candelwykstrate and of men of the defendant's craft was summoned. A jury of Vintry was also summoned to deal with a charge against Ralph Hardel of carrying away lead, value 20s, from the plaintiff's house in the parish of St Martin Vintry.
9 Aug. 1300
Richard le Keu, fishmonger, was summoned to answer Henry his apprentice for breach of covenant, in driving the plaintiff out of his house and service, though the latter had served him faithfully. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had left his service of his own free will, by going to a certain woman night and day with his master's possessions, for which he had rendered no account. A jury from this side of the Stocks was summoned for Wednesday.
16 Aug. 1300
Tuesday the morrow of the Assumption B.M. [15 Aug.]
Adam de Hidecroun and Richard le Gayoler of Newgate were attached to answer Geoffrey de la March in a plea of trespass, wherein he complained that after he had brought water in a "tyne" (fn. 45) from Ludegate for the use of his master Richard de Gloucestre, the defendant Adam took the water and filled his own pot with it, and when the plaintiff cursed (blasfemavit) about it, the defendant took the plaintiff's stick, and hit him on the head with it and upset the tyne. The defendants denied the assault. A jury of Ludegate was summoned, and the above Adam was mainprised for hearing the verdict by John Huberd, "flecher" (fn. 46), and John le Brun. Subsequently the parties came to an agreement on terms that the defendants pay the plaintiff 2s and put themselves in mercy. Richard's amercement was condoned by W. de Leyre.
John atte Selde (de Senda), William Kinesman, Thomas Wastel and John de Talworth were found not guilty of going out of the City to forestall wood and charcoal, by a jury of Vintry, Queenhithe and Castle Baynhard. Richard le Keu, Richard Baudechun, William Baudechun, William de Chalfhunt, Robert Orpedeman, James le Swayn, Robert le Clovier, Thomas le Norreys and Thomas le Rutur, being found guilty, were adjudged to lose their freedom, and to pay toll to the Sheriff in future as foreigners.
Membr. 12 b 17 Aug. 1300
Wednesday after the above Feast before W. de Leyre
Bernard Johan was attached to answer John de Cornibia in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he owed the defendant £80 on a bond payable at certain terms, on security of his goods which might be distrained and retained by the Steward and Marshall, the Barons of the Exchequer, the Justices of the Bench, the Mayor and Sheriffs &c., and that he had repaid £13 11s, when the defendant, four days before the Feast of St Mary Magdalene, without informing the Mayor and bailiffs that payment was in arrears, and although the plaintiff was a freeman of the City and had enough property in London whereby he might have been forced to come to Court, followed him on his journey to the Fair of Thoraud, and at Caleys had him arrested and imprisoned by the bailiffs of that town for five days, until William de Brouthton of London paid him £16 18s on the plaintiff's behalf. On the Friday following the parties came to an agreement by permission of the Court on terms that the plaintiff withdraw his action, and the defendant enter into a Recognizance to pay him or John de Brouthton the sum of £11 on the Feast of St Bartholomew next (24 Aug.) under mainprise of John de Dowegate. The plaintiff put himself in mercy, which was condoned by William de Leyre.
27 Aug. 1300
Saturday after the Feast of St Bartholomew [24 Aug.]
Robert Derman was summoned to answer Ralph Ratspray on a charge of avowing and "covering" the merchandise of a certain Andrew de Berkyng. A jury of Bisopesgate, Stockes, Eschep, and St Nicholas Shambles was summoned for Wednesday.
John of the Seld was summoned to answer John de Armenters, Sheriff, for avowing two casks of wine which he bought from Peter de Pyne, a foreigner, for the use of Julian de Cardoyl, a foreigner. The defendant pleaded that the wine was bought for his own use, and that Julian had no interest in it on the day of the arrest. A jury of Vintry consisting of Thomas Drinkwater and others brought in a verdict that John knew that Julian would buy his wine before he purchased it himself. Judgment that he be deprived of the freedom.
Membr. 13 3 Sept. 1300
Membr. 14 3 Sept. 1300
Saturday before the Feast of the Nativity B.M. [8 Sept.] before W. de Leyre and Walter de Finchingfeud, the Mayor's deputies
Simon de Paris was summoned to answer William Belebuch, "cossur" (fn. 47), in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that the defendant bought from him at Smethefeud a bay horse, in exchange for another horse and four marks, to be paid if both were satisfied with the horses; and that the defendant rode the plaintiff's horse outside the Bar at Smethfeud and returned with it immediately, so that the plaintiff could not examine the defendant's horse (fn. 48), and thus the defendant unjustly detained the plaintiff's horse, to his damage &c. The defendant pleaded that the bargain was without condition. Thereupon the plaintiff offered to acquit him of his plea if he would swear that the bargain was unconditional. On the defendant's agreeing to do so, the plaintiff asked leave of the Court to come to terms, which was granted. An agreement was then made that the plaintiff should have his horse back again if he paid six marks to the defendant before Monday night. The plaintiff put himself in mercy, which was condoned by William de Leyre.
13 Sept. 1300
Tuesday before the Exaltation of the Holy Cross [14 Sept.]
William de Donecastre appointed Thomas Juvenal his attorney to sue, attach and distrain, at the suit of the Sheriff, the merchants of Brabant, in order to recover 22 marks and 35 sacks of wool, value 420 marks, which John, Duke of Brabant, had lately caused to be taken from the said William at Andewerpe by arrest.
17 Sept. 1300
Saturday after the above Feast
Eustachius le Mercer was attached to answer that, whereas it had been ordained by the King and his Council that all bundles of goods coming from overseas should remain unopened until they were examined by the Sheriffs or other good and lawful men elected and sworn to that office, nevertheless the defendant went to the house of Brachius Gerard in his absence and, saying that he was a bailiff, had a bale of goods opened. The defendant admitted that he went with John, servant of Roger de Parys, to the above house, but said that he had nothing to do with the opening of any bale, and he demanded an inquest thereon. A jury from Langeburn Ward, consisting of John de Shaftesbiry and others, gave a verdict that the defendant went to the house in the presence of Gydotty Gy, partner of Brachius, and found a bale bound up, and asked if it contained goods for sale and if it could be opened, and the said Guy (sic) assented. Thereupon the defendant and another person opened the bale, and finding nothing that they wanted, went away, and the said Guy offered them money for the custom, and asked if they were Customs Officers, to which they answered no, they were only merchants. The jury could not find that false money or anything else contrary to the Proclamation was in the bale, nor that Eustace came there as a bailiff, but only as a broker. Judgment was given that he go quit, and that Guy find security to come before the Mayor and Aldermen on Thursday; viz. Brachius Gerard and Ralph de Alegate. The Sheriff was ordered to bring the Officers of the Scrutiny (custodes dicti scrutinii) the same day.
Richard Tripaty and Laurence de Shirebourne were attached to answer a charge of having used insulting language to Roger de Lenne, servant of John atte Gate, before dusk in Thames Street in the parish of Allhallows the Great in the Hay, and that afterwards they entered the house of William Marisone, and asked William's wife to open the door of a room, in which they wished to indulge in bucklerplay (fn. 49) [ad bucularium ludere], and when she refused, they drew their swords and attacked her, and when, owing to the tumult, Richard le Barber, beadle of the Ward, came with his rod to keep the peace, they assaulted and beat him also. The defendants denied that they did any harm to the woman or the beadle, and the defendant Richard said that they found the beadle and the servant Richard fighting, and that the latter struck the beadle on the breast, but that neither he nor the other defendant did anything. A jury of Douegate was summoned, and Laurence was mainprised by Richard the Tailor of Langeburne Ward and Henry le Sauser, and Richard Tripaty by . . . . Thorp, John le Botoner, junior, and John Cendal, mercer.
William le Bracur and Thomas le Keu were summoned to answer the Mayor and Aldermen, on the complaint of persons living in Thames Street belonging to the craft of woodmongers (buscariorum), for buying and selling their goods at markets and fairs and in the City, though they were not freemen. The defendants denied that they were foreigners and called to warrant the Paper of the Chamber of Guildhall. The Chamberlain was ordered to search the Paper and report on Thursday.
Membr. 14 b 27 Sept. 1300
Tuesday before the Feast of St Michael [29 Sept.]
Stephen de Flete, Gerard de Hopstathe, Peter de Aske, John Teste, Gilbert Flemingg, John Fernus and Thomas de Dichefeld were summoned to answer Peter de Blakeneye, John de Dorking, John Beauflur and John Bussard in a complaint that John, Duke of Brabant, had taken part of the plaintiff's goods when they were exposed for sale in the Duchy of Brabant, for which reason the Sheriff had been ordered to attach the goods of all Brabantine merchants until the Duke made restitution, and that the defendants were under the dominion of the Duke. The defendants denied this, and said that they belonged to the City of Malynges and held of the Bishop of Leges, and that the Bishop held of the Church of St Lambert and had nothing to do with the Count of Brabant; and they demanded an inquest by foreign merchants who knew the said country. On Wednesday a jury of Theotard le Estreys, John de Eldchirk, Eylbrich, Henry Colle of Collon, Godelin de Colon, Tykimann the goldsmith, James Fisshe, Albridus de Dynaunt, Lambert Maulechyn, Peter de St Vincent, John Saunterre, Baldewyn Chapun and Guy de Goly found a verdict for the defendants. Order was given to return their distraints, and the plaintiffs were told to sue distraints on men belonging to the Duke's dominions.
Thomas de Donecastre, Canon of the Church of Bedlehem, was attached to answer a charge of having sued a certain Richard de Keles, apprentice of William de York, for assault before the Official of the Archdeacon of London, against the King's prohibition of the citing of laymen in the Ecclesiastical Courts in matters belonging to the Crown. The defendant admitted having sued Richard as alleged, but only as allowed by ecclesiastical law. The plaintiff Richard pleaded that the defendant was suing him maliciously in order to extort money, and as the defendant had tacitly agreed that he acted against the King's prohibition, since he had neither denied it or confessed it, he demanded judgment as in an undefended action. As the Mayor wanted further information, a day was given that an inquest might be made by a jury of the venue.
The same day Robert, called "de Tylemount," produced Letters Patent (French) of Sir Arnald, Count de Los, to the effect that the above Robins (sic) was one of his servants and merchants, and that the horses in the possession of Robert and his servants belonged to and were under the protection of the said Arnald, who prayed that no harm be done to the said Robert. Dated A.D. 1291. As it appeared by this letter and the evidence of Peter de Edelmeton and other credible persons that the above Robert did not belong to the dominions of the Duke of Brabant, the attachment made upon him was returned to him.
William de Storteford was summoned to answer Geoffrey le Hurer, who complained that on Tuesday before Lent 1298 he went by the defendant's orders with Sir Geoffrey de Norton and William de Londonstone to the Earl of Cornwall, who was then staying at Asherugge, in order to prevail upon the latter to deliver an arrest which he had made at Henley on some citizens of London, in reprisal for a trespass done by the Sheriffs against his own men. The Earl had consented, and the plaintiff waited four days after the others had departed for the Earl's letter of delivery, and then coming home in great haste broke the shin of his horse, and accordingly he demanded from the defendant either the value of the horse, or a new one, which the defendant refused. The defendant pleaded that he could only be liable for the horse in three cases viz. if the plaintiff had gone to military service and remained from the beginning till the end of the war; or went by night under his orders at excessive speed; or went by day under his orders and was attacked by robbers and his horse was stolen; and he demanded judgment as to whether he was liable under any of these cases. A day was given till Monday after the Feast of St Michael.
Roll D. membr. 1 3 Oct. 1300
On which day the parties came, and the plaintiff demanded judgment on the ground that the defendant tacitly admitted that he was the defendant's servent and went by his command. The defendant pleaded that he was at liberty to affirm or deny it, since it was not part of the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff then said that if the defendant denied it he was prepared to make it the issue. Whereupon the defendant denied that the plaintiff went in his service, and said he went in the service of good men of the City whose goods were attached at Henley; and thereon the parties put themselves on their country. A jury was summoned for Thursday, on which day the parties came to an agreement by permission of the Court, on terms that the defendant pay two marks and put himself in mercy. On the morrow the plaintiff appeared before Nicholas Picot, John de Donestaple, and Simon de Parys and acknowledged satisfaction.
Membr. 15 20 Dec. 1299
Court of the Soke of the Prior of St Bartholomew, London, held in Honilane on Sunday before the Nativity of the Lord [25 Dec.] A° 28 Edw. 
17 Jan. 1299-1300
Sunday after the Feast of St Hilary [13 Jan.] adjourned till the next Sunday
24 Jan. 1299-1300
Sunday after (? before) the Conversion of St Paul [25 Jan.]
Geoffrey de Trotter and William de Tolyndon offered themselves against Adam Brace in a plea of detinue of chattels, wherein they complained that they took four quarters of barley, value 29s 4d, to Adam's house, in mistake for the house of a certain Ramessey, and that Adam detained them. The latter defended, and demanded judgment as to whether he was bound to answer them, since they produced no cause of action, or any tally, by which they could bind him to answer them. The plaintiffs demanded judgment as in an undefended action, because they had said in their count that the grain arrived at his house and was received by him and his household, and he had not denied it. A day given till the Octave.
31 Jan. 1299-1300
Sunday before the Feast of the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.]
Geoffrey le Trotter and William de Tolyndon offered themselves against Adam Brace in a plea of detinue of chattels, and again demanded judgment as in an undefended action. And because the Court held that they had alleged a sufficient ground of action, i.e. ignorance, judgment was given that the defendant answer further. Afterwards the defendant admitted that he had received three quarters, for which he acknowledged that he owed the plaintiffs at the rate of half a mark the quarter, but he pleaded that he did not receive the fourth quarter; and thereon he put himself on his country. The plaintiffs demanded judgment, because the defendant proffered another answer than what the Court could receive, and they pleaded further that the defendant did not owe the value alleged, but 7s 4d, the price at which the quarter was then being sold. A day was given till the Octave.
7 Feb. 1299-1300
Sunday after the above Feast
14 Feb. 1299-1300
Sunday the Feast of St Valentine
Membr. 15 b 17 Feb. 1299-1300
Court of Henry de Fingrie, Sheriff of London, Wednesday after the above Feast
2 March 1299-1300
Wednesday after the Feast of St Mathias the Apostle [24 Feb.]
Geoffrey le Trottere and William de Tolindone offered themselves against Adam Braz in a plea of detinue of four quarters of barley, value 29s 4d, as appears in the Record of the pleas of the Court of the Prior of St Bartholomew sent to this Court. The defendant pleaded that he need not answer concerning four quarters, as he only received three, and these of the value of 20s, at half-a-mark the quarter, for which he was willing to give satisfaction. The plaintiffs declared that they carried four quarters, at 7s 4d the quarter, to Adam's house, and this they offered to prove as the Court should direct: The defendant agreed that the plaintiffs should swear, touching the holy Gospels, and if they did so, he would give satisfaction for the four quarters. The plaintiffs then took the oath, and judgment was given that they recover the barley, or its value, and that the defendant be in mercy.
Roll D. membr. 2 14 Oct. 1300
Court of Elyas Russel, Mayor of London, Friday the morrow of St Edward King (fn. 50)
Adam Braz complained of error of judgment in a plea which was in the Court of Henry de Fingrie without writ &c. on account of which the Sheriff was ordered to bring his record on Wednesday last. The Sheriff produced the record, in which no error was found. Precept was issued to execute the judgment, and the above Adam was in mercy.