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 1 Oct. 1300
Court of Elyas Russel, Mayor, Saturday after the Feast of St Michael [29 Sept.] A° 28 Edw. 
Martin le Tauier (fn. 1), Heyne de Holecote, John de Gaiateshal, Roger Taup, John Scot, Alexander le Tauier, Roger le Fraunceys, Roger Martre, Adam Cornys and John Alger were attached to answer the King and the men of the Craft of Skinners (officii Peletrie), for ordaining a new ordinance touching their craft, viz. that whereas of old they took 5s for the thousand of "Grysover" (fn. 2), they now took 6s, and 2s and 3s more than formerly for every thousand of work (operis), to the prejudice and damage of the King, the nobles, and their craft. The defendants pleaded that nowadays more good work was needed for the thousand, and double as much in other skins than formerly, and yet all necessaries for their work were dearer than before. They denied that they made a confederacy by oath or any other bond, and said that those who were willing to pay more were served more quickly, but otherwise they did not take more except on account of the dearness of necessaries; and thereon they put themselves on their country. A jury was summoned for Monday, on which day the parties came to an agreement on terms that for the work of each thousand of "Grysovere" 4s be charged, and 5s 6d for "stranglin" (fn. 3), "polan" (fn. 4), and every other kind of black work (nigri operis), 4s 6d for "Roskyn" (fn. 5), 12d for a hundred "Coninges" (fn. 6) of England, 8d for "Coninges" of Spain, and 7d for "scrimpyn" (fn. 7). The defendants agreed that in case of contravention of this covenant, three men of the Skinners, and one from the Curriers, elected on either side, should affix penalties according to the offence.
Chynus de Burgo was attached to answer Silvester de Morton, weigher of the King's Beam, on a charge of instigating certain unknown persons to assault him, when he took his beam to the house of Walter de Rokesle in Langburn Ward to weigh goods. The defendant denied the offence and said that the plaintiff wanted to set up his beam at a föul door [ad hostium putridum apponere], and a servant of the house prevented him, but this man was not the defendant's servant. Afterwards a jury of the venue of St Mary de Wolenoth found the defendant not guilty, and the plaintiff was amerced for a false claim.
Membr. 1 b 4 Oct. 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 from him £8 16s worth of skins, and promised to give him an acquittance for £8 recovered against the plaintiff in the Sheriff's Court, and pay him the balance of 16s, which he now refused to do. The defendant pleaded that he bought skins to the value of £4 16s, and his wife on her own account bought skins to the value of 7s, and that he was always willing to give him an acquittance for that amount. The plaintiff claimed that this defence was unjust, because he had good and lawful men, John and Gilbert, who were present at the sale; and thereupon by his attorney Terricus de Enefeud he took a corporal oath that he would not produce any others than these, and would not suborn them. Afterwards at a Court held on the morrow of All Souls he appeared with his witnesses, who were sworn and examined by William de Leyre and Nicholas Picot, aldermen, and gave evidence in support of his plea. Judgment that the defendant fulfil the covenant and be amerced. His amercement was condoned because he was poor.
Geoffrey Beble, chaplain, complained to the Mayor and Aldermen that Antony, rector of the Church of Hurtts (fn. 8) in the Archbishopric of Canterbury, who dwelt in his house as a member of his household, had stolen £17 out of his chamber and taken it to the house of Brachius Lumbard of the Society of Puche (fn. 9), to be paid out to him by the Society at Paris, and had received a letter addressed to the Society at Paris. The above Brachius was summoned and admitted the receipt of the money, and said that it had not been paid out in London or Paris, but that he did not know whether it had been paid by the Society elsewhere. As the said Antony was not in Court, and as the Society in Paris had written to the other Societies not to pay the money, and as it was not known whether any other Society had already paid, Brachius was forbidden to pay the money until further orders.
6 Oct. 1300
Thursday the Feast of St Faith
Hugh de Canterbury was attached to answer John de Hattefeud in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that when he went to Smethefeud to buy a palfrey for Sir John de Ingham, Precentor of St Paul's, the defendant and Stephen de Skelton, his domestic (manupastus), and others beat him on the head and wounded him in two places. The defendant pleaded that he was not present on the occasion and had no part in the assault. A jury of Smethefeud was summoned for Wednesday, when the parties came to an agreement on terms that the defendant pay the plaintiff 20s on the morrow. The attachment on the defendant was to remain till he paid, and he put himself in mercy. The amercement was condoned at the instance of Sir John de Cham.
Membr. 2 14 Oct. 1300
Friday the morrow of the Feast of St Edward King (fn. 10)
John Witffihe was summoned to answer Isabella sister of Master John Bushe on a charge of beating her, tearing her clothes, and striking her on the face with a handful of mud (cum taio) in the parish of St Mildred Poultry. A jury was summoned, and it was ordered that no skinner should be included in the panel. Afterwards the parties came to an agreement on terms that the defendant pay the plaintiff 4s, and be in mercy.
21 Oct. 1300
Friday after the Feast of St Luke the Evangelist [18 Oct.]
Walter de Wetersfeud claimed ten sacks of wool which were attached on Ralph de Brakele at the suit of William le Riche, and demanded to be admitted to verify his goods. John de Ware, William's attorney, was asked whether he had anything to say against such admission, and said nothing. Thereupon Walter swore (fn. 11) that the above Ralph, on the day the attachment was made on him, had no wool to the value of 4d of his own, so that if the wool had been lost, he himself would have suffered. Judgment was given that the wool be delivered to the claimant.
Walter de la Quenhethe was attached to answer Henry Mable in a plea of trespass wherein the latter complained that on the previous Saturday he carried wood to the Quay of Queenhithe and there exposed it for sale, and the defendant attached his boat and wood until he had paid 2s, against the Liberty of his lord the Abbot of Wautham and to his own damage. The defendant admitted attaching the wood because the plaintiff, who was a foreigner, was selling to a certain . . . . le Clovier, but he denied that he received 2s, and said that the boat came into his seisin only because of the wood. A jury of Queenhithe was summoned for Wednesday. The defendant was ordered to take an oath from Hugh le Fraunceys, Henry de Hanewell and the plaintiff that the wood which was attached in their possession belonged either to the Abbot of Waltham or to themselves, and that they were not carriers [traventarii], and the wood would be delivered to them. On Wednesday the plaintiff made default, and he and his pledges were in mercy.
Membr. 2 b 27 Oct. 1300
Thursday the Vigil of the Apostles Simon and Jude [28 Oct.]
The Court of the Weavers (fn. 12) in the action of Eustace, cook of the Earl of Lancaster, plaintiff against Walter Payn, Gilbert Payn and Andrew Payn for debt, was granted with the consent of the parties, and a day was given on Saturday.
3 Nov. 1300
Thursday the morrow of All Souls [2 Nov.] before William de Leyre, deputy of the Mayor
Mainprise of William le Bret of Wyntringham and Dyonisia his wife to render the account which John de Norton and Sibilla his wife demand of them, viz. Thomas de Hales, Robert le Moneour, Geoffrey de Talworth and William le Heymonger.
A jury of the venue of Castle Baynard, consisting of Nicholas de Cambridge and others, brought in a verdict that the house and quay formerly belonging to Nicholas le Moneyer were vacant and unlet from the twelfth to the fourteenth years of King Edward, and this not by default of William le Bret and Dyonisia his wife, as John de Norton and Sibilla his wife assert, and that the house and quay were then let until the latter recovered them by an Assize of Novel Disseysin, and that William and Dyonisia spent 15s 11d on the property, as they say. Judgment to be given on Tuesday.
4 Nov. 1300
Friday after the Feast of All Saints [1 Nov.]
William le Brasur was summoned to answer Thomas de Bray in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that in August at the defendant's request he became mainpernor with him of a certain John Bunting for half of £10 against Agnes Greyland, and that the defendant promised to save him harmless, and afterwards refused to do so. The defendant denied asking or promising anything, and demanded an inquest by the venue of Wollecherchehawe. The plaintiff demanded an inquest by the venue of Vintry. The two juries were summoned for Friday.
Membr. 3 5 Nov. 1300
Saturday after the above Feast
Peter de Coumbe made proof by Edmund de Coumbe, Elyas de Bristoll, Hugh Baudry, Andrew de Rothewell, John de Northfolk and Reginald Auberkyn that the 9 sacks of wool attached at Hardeburg at the suit of Margaret, daughter of John de St Omer, belonged to him and Stephen de Blakeneye his partner, and that no one else had to the value of 4d or more in those sacks. The above Edmund &c. were asked by the Mayor and Aldermen, on behalf of John de Trillowe, Rector of the Church of St Dunstan, Thomasyn Gydechon and John de Northfoulk, executors of John de St Omer, whether the said John had anything in the sacks at the time of the attachment. They answered no.
9 Nov. 1300
Wednesday before the Feast of St Martin [11 Nov.] before William de Leyre and Geoffrey de Norton, deputies of the Mayor
John de Rokeslee, Nicholas de Fonte, and Robert de Blechinglee, were summoned to answer Elyas Russel, who complained that on Monday at Douegate the defendants assaulted his men and overturned his cart laden with Flemish tiles, so that the tiles were broken on the pavement, to his damage 100s. A jury was summoned for Saturday.
Stephen de Coventre was summoned to answer Richer de Refham in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that on Tuesday, when Roysia de Coventre was suing the plaintiff in the Husting for having occupied her seld in Cheap against her will, the defendant abused him in Court, calling him false and perjured and convicted of fraud, in contempt of the King and his Court. The defendant denied having done so and offered to make his law. Afterwards the parties came to an agreement by permission of the Court.
Membr. 3 b 10 Nov. 1300
Thursday before the above Feast
William Koc, and Richard Treuchapeman, "fruters," took an oath to make a just scrutiny of cider-vinegar and sour wine, and concerning all of their trade who engage in saltery, and to do right therein.
12 Nov. 1300
Saturday after the above Feast
William le Ireys and Alice la Converse his wife were summoned to answer Nicholas Pycot in a plea of eloignment of a deed, wherein the latter complained that he entrusted a bond for 17 marks to Walter de Henlee, attorney at the Court of the Steward and Marshall, and that he came on Wednesday to Cornhulle, where he found the deed in the possession of the defendants, who refused to restore it. The defendants said they received the bond as a pledge from the above Walter for a loan of 6s; they offered to restore it to the plaintiff for 3s, if he would promise to help them to recover the debt from Walter when he came into those parts. The plaintiff agreed and judgment was given accordingly.
Membr. 4 19 Nov. 1300
Saturday before the Feast of St Edmund King and Martyr [20 Nov.]
Precept was issued to Henry de Fingrie, one of the Sheriffs, to produce the record of the judgment given in his Court between Ranulph Balle and Isabella his wife, plaintiffs, and Peter de Monte Pessulano and Agnes his wife, defendants, for a debt of £8. The record being produced, no error was found. Judgment that the Sheriff make execution, and that Peter and Agnes, who had complained of error, be in mercy.
The Prior of the New Hospital of the Blessed Mary without Bissopesgate offered himself against John Heyrun in a plea of trespass. The latter to be distrained.
The above Prior was summoned to answer Thomas Godard in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that the Prior's predecessor, Roger, in March 1296 had leased to him for life two shops in Sopereslane at 104s annual rent, and as regards one shop the present Prior refused to fulfil the covenant. The defendant admitted the covenant and said that a certain John Heyron was occupying the shop, so that he could not obtain seisin until &c.
26 Nov. 1300
Saturday after the Feast of St Katherine [25 Nov.] A° 29 Edw. 
John Heyrun, junior, was summoned to answer the above Prior in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he let to the defendant a shop in Sopereslane from Easter 1298 till the following Easter, and the defendant refused to surrender the shop on expiry of his term. The defendant said the shop was his own free tenement, and that the Prior on the day of his plaint had only a rent issuing from it; and he demanded judgment whether he need answer for his free tenement in this Court. Judgment was respited till Saturday.
Membr. 4 b 1 Dec. 1300
Thursday after the Feast of St Andrew [30 Nov.]
Precept was given to John de Armenters, one of the Sheriffs, to produce the record of the judgment in his Court in an action by writ between Elyas Corbel (fn. 13), who claimed 84 marks, and Robert Hardel, defendant, as regards which the above Elyas complained that error had been made. The record being produced, it was found that there was no error in the matter of two acquittances for £35 in the name of Elyas, and one acquittance of £4 10s in the name of Garsyas de Marsolano, servant and attorney of Elyas, or as regards four and a half marks allowed to Robert for gauging. Judgment therein was confirmed. Precept was issued to summon Robert's witnesses, Geoffrey and Walter, for the next Court concerning the sum of 20½ marks. Afterwards it was found that there was no error in this particular also. Judgment that Elyas be in mercy.
9 Dec. 1300
Friday after the Feast of the Conception of the Blessed Mary [8 Dec.]
Adam de Hallingbiry (fn. 14) was summoned to answer Peter de Hungrie in a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that in Adam's Court he obtained judgment for 100s against William de Kelvedene and John Spendelove, who had wounded him so that his life was despaired of, and that subsequently the defendant and his bailiffs had refused to execute the judgment. The defendant pleaded that he was a layman and asked for the help of his clerks, Richard de Wymburne and Peter the clerk, which was allowed to him at his own risk. Afterwards on 19 Dec. the defendant denied that he attached the above William and John, at the plaintiff's suit, or that he had seisin of their bodies, on account of which he would be responsible for any money, and he demanded to make his law. A day was given him on Monday after the Feast of St Hilary.
Matthew le Chaundeler was summoned to answer William La Postle in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he hired a house from the said Maykin (fn. 15) in Candelwikstrat &c. The defendant demanded judgment, on the ground that his name was Matthew, and the plaintiff had previously made his allegations against him in that name, and now under the name of Maykin, as to whether he need answer under the latter name. As this was found to be the case, judgment was given that the plaintiff recover nothing and be in mercy, and that the defendant go thence without a day.
John le Benere acknowledged receipt from John le Fraunceys, "peleter" (fn. 16), of £8 due on a Recognizance made in the Court of Richard le Botoner, Sheriff of London.
Membr. 5 25 June 1300
[Record and process of an action in the Sheriff's Court.]
Court of John Darmenters, Sheriff of London, on Saturday the morrow of St John the Baptist [24 June] A° 28 Edw. 
Robert Hardel (fn. 17) was summoned to answer Elyas Corbel in a plea of debt of 84 marks, due on a purchase of wines made at St Botolph's Fair by the defendant and Ernald Barage from the plaintiff and Guy Barlack, for the payment of which a Recognizance was made. The defendant produced acquittances for two sums of £20 and £15, and a letter from Garsyas de Marsolano, servant and attorney of the plaintiff, to whom he had paid £4 10s. He pleaded that he also paid 20½ marks to the plaintiff at the house of John the clerk of Vintry, for which he ought to have received an acquittance, and with regard to which an action was now pending between them. He claimed an allowance of 4½ marks for gauging the wine, as the casks were not of the right size, and demanded judgment as to whether he owed anything further. The plaintiff admitted receipt of the £35, but denied that Garsyas de Marsolano was his attorney. A jury of Vintry was sumnoned on these points. As regards the gauging, he pleaded that the Recognizance was final and the allowance for gauging, if any, ought to have been made beforehand. On this matter the parties put themselves on the arbitration of wine-merchants, citizens and foreign, viz. Reginald le Barber, William de Beverley, Matthew de Wodeham, Richard Hardel, Henry de St Osith, Alan de Suffolk, William Trent, Gerard Orgoyl, Reymund Margyz, George de Acre, Vitalus Manent and Bartholomew de Rivers, who awarded, according to the Law Merchant hitherto observed among them, that the gauging should be allowed to the defendant. Judgment was given that 4½ marks be allowed for the gauging of 59 sextars of wine which were deficient. Afterwards at a Court held on Tuesday the Vigil of the Apostles Peter and Paul, the plaintiff was adjudged to give an acquittance for the 20½ marks. Meanwhile a jury of Reginald le Barber and others brought in a verdict that the above-mentioned Garsyas de Marsolano was the assignee of the plaintiff, and that he gave an acquittance for £4 10s, though they did not know whether at the time he produced the bond. Judgment was given that the defendant be quit of the debt, and the plaintiff be in mercy for a false claim.
[Record and process of an action in the Sheriff's Court.]
Membr. 6 9 June 1300
Court of John de Armenters, Sheriff of London, on Thursday after the Feast of the Holy Trinity [5 June] A° 28 Edw. 
Proceedings in a plea of covenant, wherein Robert Hardel complained that Elyas Corbel refused to give him an acquittance for a payment of 20½ marks. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had made no mention in his count of any debt owed to him, but merely of a sum of 20½ marks, and he demanded judgment whether he need answer such a plaint. The plaintiff said he made mention in his count of a covenant broken, and as the defendant was not willing to answer the plaint according to the "words of Court," he claimed judgment as in an undefended action. At a later Court the plaintiff was ordered to say to what debt the 20½ marks belonged, and did so, whereupon the defendant was directed to answer further. The latter then denied that he received the money or agreed to give an acquittance. To this the plaintiff replied that he had witnesses, Geoffrey and William, who were present, and he demanded that they be examined. After an adjournment owing to lack of Aldermen, the above witnesses were examined separately in the presence of William de Betoyne and Thomas Romayn, aldermen, and agreed in support of the plaintiff's pleading. Judgment was given that the plaintiff receive an acquittance, and that the defendant receive the money from John the clerk, Coroner, to whom he had entrusted it, and be in mercy.
Membr. 7 10 Dec. 1300
Court of Elyas Russel, Mayor, on Saturday after the Feast of the Conception B.M. [8 Dec.]
Thomas le Keu, Henry atte Mersshe, Thomas Crudde, Walter de Brompleye, Symon de Hereford, Robert le Gurdelere, Richard de Rocheford, and Thomas le Fox, Master Cornmeters at Queenhithe, and Thomas le Ram, John Sket, Nicholas le Couk, William le Fiz Saundre, Walter de Paris, Henry atte Mershe, Robert le Clerk, Robert Mikelman, Walter le Milneward, John le Smyth, Symon de Sabrichteworth, Richard Scheyl, Geoffrey Hodle, William de Tolyngdone, Richard le Brewere, William de Heytfeld, Robert Gous, Roger Crisp, Symon de Laitone, Geoffrey le Keu, William de Herppinge, David Caperiche and Walter Nekkeles, servants of the above Masters, were attached to answer Roger le Palmere and his friends, corndealers, in a plea of trespass, wherein the corndealers complained that, whereas according to ancient custom in London and the Suburbs, the bakers and brewers should pay for the metage, carriage and porterage to their houses of all corn bought at Queenhithe as follows:-from Queenhithe through all streets and alleys to Westchep, the Church of St Anthony, Horshobrigg and Wolsiesgate in the Ropery, ¾d; beyond to Flete Bridge, Neugate, Crepelgate, to the opposite side of Berchenereslane on Cornhulle, Estchep and Billingesgate, 1d; and from Queenhithe as far as the Barres of the Suburbs, 1¼d- the Masters did not faithfully measure the corn according to their oath, or treat the people as of old, and the servants charged more than they did formerly for carriage and porterage against their oath. The defendants denied that they were guilty and put themselves on their country.
12 Dec. 1300
Monday after the Feast of St Nicholas [6 Dec.]
A jury of John de Stratford and others (fn. 18) brought in a verdict that the Master Cornmeters were not guilty, and they were acquitted. They said further that for the meting, carriage and porterage of corn no more ought to be taken for the quarter than as mentioned above, and that the servants demanded and took more, especially for carrying to the Ryole. Their offence was condoned, but they were warned not to repeat it under penalty of abjuring their craft.
14 Dec. 1300
Wednesday after the Feast of St Lucia [13 Dec.]
Alan le Pestur was summoned to answer Peter de Durdrich in a plea of debt of £14 due on a sale of handmills, value £18 as they lay in a heap, at 29s the last, with the condition that if there were more or less lasts than computed, the buyer should pay more or less, whereof the defendant had paid £4 and refused to pay the balance. The defendant admitted the purchase, but said it was agreed that the money should be paid if the handmills were satisfactory, which they were not. A jury of Billingesgate was summoned against the next Court.
Membr. 7 b 16 Dec. 1300
Friday after the above Feast
Ralph Hardel was summoned to answer Henry le Galeys, who complained that the defendant took away the gutter between their houses which had received the water from the plaintiff's roof for 20 years and more. A jury from Vintry was summoned for Monday.
19 Dec. 1300
Monday before the Feast of St Thomas the Apostle [21 Dec.]
John Heyron, junior, was attached to answer Peter Adrian in a plea that he render account for the time when he was the plaintiff's receiver and traded for their common profit, from Michaelmas 1296 to Michaelmas 1300, during which time he received £66 from the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that he received £12 10s wherewith to trade abroad, solely to the profit and at the risk of the plaintiff, and these goods, together with his own, were lost at sea. He demanded judgment as to whether he was responsible, and offered to make his law that he received nothing further than the above sum. The plaintiff claimed that he ought not to be admitted to his law as this was a plea of account (fn. 19), which he wished to be settled by the judgment of the Court or by a jury, and a law was not a just method in that plea, and he demanded judgment as in an undefended action. Afterwards at a Court held on 27 Jan. the parties appeared, and the defendant pleaded that the cognizance of the action belonged to the Husting (fn. 20) and not to that Court. A day was given for the next Husting of Common Pleas.
Membr. 8 17 Jan. 1300-1
Tuesday after the Feast of St Hilary [13 Jan.] A° 29 Edw. [1300-1]
Alan le Pestur and Peter de Durdrich came to an agreement out of Court. Both were amerced.
Coppe Cotenne appointed Ralph de Algate, clerk, his attorney to receive £47 15s due to his partner Stoldus (fn. 21) from the Sheriff of London for the ferm and issues of the bailiwick of London and the county of Middlesex, as appears more fully among the names of Arogaññ contained in a certain Dividend of the King's Wardrobe.
26 Jan. 1300-1
Thursday after the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul [25 Jan.]
William le Mariner was summoned to answer Tedmarc, merchant of Almaine, in a plea of debt of 100s for merchandise sold to a certain Simon, servant and attorney of the defendant, for the use of the defendant. The latter denied that Simon was his servant on the date mentioned, or that he received the profit of the goods, and offered to wage his law. He came with his law on the morrow. The plaintiff condoned it, and put himself in mercy.
27 Jan. 1300-1
Friday after the above Feast.
A jury of Roger de Evere and others found Thomas Abraham, ironmonger, guilty of going to Southwark to meet merchants and smiths coming from the dales (de Wallibus (fn. 22) ) to London with horsehoes, nails and other merchandise belonging to the trade of ironmongers, and of forestalling those goods, and also of avowing foreigners' goods. Judgment respited till the next Husting.
4 Feb. 1300-1
Saturday after the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.]
Geoffrey de Canefeud and Roger de Wandlesworth, weavers, were attached to answer Henry le Juven, "burler" (fn. 23), in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he delivered two cloths to the defendants to repair and weave the same between the Epiphany [6 Jan.] and the Purification [2 Feb.], and although there was an ordinance that men of that craft should work during that time, as at other times of the year, they refused to do so. The defendants denied that they ceased work maliciously and put themselves on their country. Segin the Weaver, Richard Salman, John Broud and Robert Moriz, weavers, who were likewise sued by Richard de Wrotham, William de Uggele, burler, Robert de Freston and Walter de Hallingbiry, respectively, also put themselves on their country.
Membr. 8 b
Recognizance by Thomas de Brumleye of London to Walter de Hakeneye and Adam Simond, citizens, of a debt of £100 due at Michaelmas 1299.
Walter de Hackeneye produced the above Recognizance before the Mayor. Luke de Haveringe, one of the Sheriffs, through William de Londenston, his clerk, was ordered to attach the debtor, and returned that he could not be found in his bailiwick. Richard de Caumpes, his fellow-Sheriff, was then ordered to hold an inquest as to the lands and tenements of the debtor on the day of the Recognizance and return the finding under the seals of the jurors, which was done as follows:-the jurors, Nicholas de Cantebrig, Laurence Smith, Geoffrey Scot, William Smith, Stephen Bernard, John Fairhod, Henry de Somersete, John de Stratteford, William de Heston, William Brett, goldsmith, Peter de Boligton and Elyas Everard returned that the debtor had in fee and inheritance in the City of London at the date of the Recognizance:-one house in Distavelane of an annual value 40s; two shops with a solar 36s, one house with two shops 33s 4d, and two other shops in Old Fish Street 28s; total annual value, when they were let, £10 14s 4d, charged with 40s rent to the lords of the fees and 5 marks for the keep of a chaplain, leaving a nett annual value of 107s 8d. The documents having been examined, the Sheriff was directed to give seisin to the creditor as a free tenement till his claim was satisfied, which delivery of seisin was performed by Richard de Crofton, the Sheriff's clerk. Afterwards at a Court held on Saturday after the Octave of Easter, Walter de Hackeneye was summoned to show cause why the execution of the Recognizance should not take place.
8 Feb. 1300-1
Wednesday after the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.]
Henry le Juven, "burler," and the other burellers offered themselves against Richard Salamon and the other weavers. A jury of Matthew le Chaundeler and others said by their faith to the King that the weavers ceased work by their own malice and fraud to the damage of the burellers, 18s 11d, in the following amounts:-Henry le Juven, 5s 6d; Richard de Wrotham, 6s 3d; William de Uggele, 2s 6d; Robert de Freston, 2s; Walter de Hallingbiry, 2s 8d. Judgment for those damages.
11 Feb. 1300-1
Saturday before the Feast of St "Walentine" [14 Feb.]
John le Fraunceys, peleter, acknowledged himself bound to Richard Sprot in 21s payable at Easter. The money was stopped in John's hands, in order that it might be paid into the Chamber, since the said Richard owed them that amount for his freedom.
16 Feb. 1300-1
Thursday after Ash Wednesday [15 Feb.]
Nine silver spoons, weighing 8s 6d, and one mantle of "Bluett" (fn. 24) furred with "bisses" (fn. 25), attached from Robert de Rokesle in lieu of 20s, which was his portion towards raising the sum of £1048 due to the King for divers debts of the City, were delivered to the Chamberlain of the Guildhall, Nicholas Picot, and valued at 4s for the mantle and 8s for the spoons by the oath of good and lawful men. Paul le Botiller made the delivery to the Sheriff.
Membr. 9 4 July 1301
Pleas before Elyas Russel, Mayor, on Tuesday after the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul (fn. 26) [29 June] A° 29 Edw. 
Michael de Wynborn (fn. 27), executor of the will of Henry de Wynton, knight, deceased, was summoned to answer John de Ely in a plea that whereas the plaintiff was bound to the above Henry in a statute of £9, and having failed to pay was committed to prison in the shrievalty of Thomas Romeyn and William de Leyre, A° 19 Edw., being subsequently liberated in accordance with an agreement made between them, nevertheless the defendant had caused him to be committed to prison again for the same debt. The defendant pleaded that he had been appointed executor and administrator by the Official of the Archdeacon of London, in place of Edmund Pask, and having found the Recognizance among the papers of the deceased, he had sued the plaintiff on it, and as the latter had not produced any acquittance he demanded judgment. The plaintiff then said that the above Henry had entered into possession of tenements belonging to the plaintiff, and he produced the agreement above mentioned. By this deed Henry de Wyncestre (sic), knight, had consented that if the money was paid by Christmas 1291, the Recognizance should be cancelled and certain houses pledged to him should be returned, but if not, the houses should remain his property. The agreement (French) was dated at London, 24 Aug. 1291, and witnessed by Sir Rauf de Sandwich, then Warden of London, Thomas Romeyn and Willyem de Leyre, Sheriffs, Willyem de Bettoyn, alderman, Richard de Hakene and Aleyn le Chandeler. The plaintiff pleaded that by this agreement the Recognizance lost its effect, and he demanded judgment as to whether he could be imprisoned or troubled further about the debt. The defendant said that, as the Recognizance remained uncancelled with the above Henry, and the plaintiff had not produced any acquittance, he demanded judgment on that ground (precise). The Court gave judgment that the plaintiff be quit of the Recognizance, and that the defendant be amerced.
Membr. 10 3 March 1300-1
Friday after the Feast of St Mathias the Apostle [24 Feb.] A° 29 Edw. [1300-1]
Peter de Leycestre, plaintiff in a plea of debt, offered himself against James de Brabazuns and Castellus his partner, merchants of the Society of Bonseingyurs (fn. 28), who had this day by their essoin and did not come. Order was given to distrain them.
6 March 1300-1
On Monday before the Feast of St Gregory Pope [12 March] Edmund the tailor, Martin de Dullingham, Robert le Blund and Roger le Rous complained to the Mayor and Aldermen that Roger de Waltham had threatened them in life and limb, which threats they proved by William de Caxtone and Ralph de Thakstede. The Sheriff was ordered to take the body of the above Roger into his custody till he should find security for keeping the peace.
20 March 1300-1
Monday before the Feast of the Annunciation B.M. [25 March]
An inquest to discover what malefactors and disturbers of the peace had beaten, wounded and ill-treated the men of Sir J. de Brytannia (fn. 29), was taken before Geoffrey de Norton, deputy of the Mayor, by the oath of William Passemer, Hugh le Armurer, Reginald le Feyver, Roger le Coteler, William le Barber, John Garlaund, Stephen le Corriour, Reginald Germin, Roger de Paris, Adam de Whiteby, John Sterre, William le Spicer and Adam le Couper, who said that on Thursday last about midnight two men, Credo and Falwey, went with other unknown persons to a brothel close to the house of Nicholas le Lockyer in Fletestrate, and there among themselves raised the hue and cry, whereupon a certain Adam le Coteler came to the door of the brothel and on behalf of the King ordered Credo and Falwey and the others to do no harm to anyone. The latter came out and with drawn swords pursued Adam to his house, and broke the door of his hall and entered. Adam resisted them and then took refuge in his solar, closing the door on himself, but Credo and the others broke down that door also. Seeing that he was likely to be killed, Adam climbed out of the window and so escaped. When the others found that he was gone, they returned to Adam's chamber and pursued his servants, and wounded and ill-treated them in the curtilage of a neighbour's house. The jurors further said that Credo and the others had received no harm from Adam or his servants or neighbours so far as they could discover, but the same day they were embroiled with the Bishop of Durham's men outside the Bar of the Temple, and if they came by any harm they received it there.
22 March 1300-1
Wednesday before the above Feast
The record and process of an action in the Sheriff's Court (fn. 30) between Peter de Munkuc and Geoffrey Segyn was examined on the complaint of Peter, and was confirmed. Judgment was given that Geoffrey recover the £10 awarded to him in the Sheriff's Court.
Membr. 10 b 23 March 1300-1
Thursday before the above Feast
Simon le Coteler and Katherine his wife were summoned to answer William Jordan and John le Benere, Wardens of London Bridge, in a plea of trespass wherein the latter complained that the defendants had been found guilty, by a jury, on a charge of abetting their sons John and William in ill-treating the neighbours, and had come before the Mayor's deputies on 5 Aug. last year, and had promised not to harbour or maintain their sons in future under penalty of forfeiting to the Bridge their house on the Bridge, and that nevertheless they had received and maintained their sons in assaulting the neighbours, and in threatening them that they would light such a fire that it would be seen by all the dwellers in London-to the grave damage and terror of these neighbours. The defendants pleaded not guilty. A jury was summoned for the next Court after Hokeday (fn. 31).
15 April 1301
Saturday after the Octave of Easter [2 April] A° 29 Edw. 
Dignus Reyneri, Lombard, and Thomas Gydechoun (fn. 32) of Lucca came and acknowledged that they had received from Sir Eymer de Valence one silver cup with a gold foot and covercle weighing 12 marks, one silver basin weighing 4 marks, and four gold rings set with sapphires and one with topaz, which were to be returned to Sir Eymer on Saturday before Pentecost. Cancelled because Sir Eymer acknowledged receipt.
20 April 1301
Thursday before the Feast of St George [23 April]
An inquest came by William le Chaundeler and others in a panel, and said on their oath that William and Roger le Mirurers had prosecuted Cristine la Milnward in the Court Christian after the prohibition of the Mayor and bailiffs. Judgment that they be committed to prison until &c.
2 May 1301
Tuesday before the Feast of the Invention of the Holy Cross [3 May]
A jury of the venue of Ismongerlane was summoned to say on oath whether Gilbert de Sewar broke into a cupboard filled with the goods of John de Bittrele, the keys of which were under the King's sequestration, and whether John Stangne and Bartholomew le Chalaundrer, executors of the will of John de Bitterle (sic), carried away goods to the value of £100 as alleged by John de Combes, who prosecuted for the King. The defendants were mainprised by Thomas de Chykewell, "lorriner," John de Gay, John Michel, William Alisaundre, Henry de Gildeford, clerk, and Roger de Leycestre. They were found not guilty.
Membr. 11 5 May 1301
Friday after the above Feast
Robert de Uptone entered into a Recognizance to pay a debt of 20s to Katherine la Fraunceyse of the Ryole on the Quinzime. The said Katherine gave the money for the making of the Conduit.
10 May 1301
Wednesday before the Ascension [11 May]
James de Berners was attached to answer Richard de Gloucestre on a charge that he met the latter's servant William riding on his corn in St Christopher's Street, and had upset him and the corn by the door of St Christopher's Church, beating him and pursuing him to the plaintiff's house, where he assaulted another servant Walter de Whyteney, to the plaintiff's damage by lack of his men's services, £100. The defendant's attorney denied the trespass. Subsequently, 2 June, the plaintiff made default and the defendant was acquitted.
18 May 1301
Thursday before the Feast of St Dunstan [19 May]
Thomas Romayn and Simon Godard swore that the goods and chattels attached on William de Hebuthon for payment of £6 18s, which the latter owed to "John the Gote" and his partners on a Recognizance made in the Guildhall at Easter, were their own property, and that William had no interest in them at the time of the attachment.
Membr. 11 b
Robert de Roquesle was summoned to answer Roger le Ferun in a plea of detinue of a horse, wherein he complained that the defendant came to his house in the parish of St Michael, Cornhill, and took away his bay horse, value 10 marks, to his damage 100s. A day was given to the defendant to make his law on the Quinzime.
9 June 1301
Friday before the Feast of St Barnabas, [11 June]
Henry de Bustre was attached at the suit of William de Donecastre, as being a burgess of the Duchy of Brabant, on the ground that the Duke was indebted to the plaintiff in divers sums of money, as appears by the King's writ remaining with the Sheriff. A jury of Robert Hardel and others brought in a verdict that the defendant was not a burgess of the Duke, and had no goods and chattels in the Duchy. He was acquitted.
Godfrey de Alemain was acquitted of the like charge.
19 June 1301
Monday after the Feast of St Botulph [17 June]
Thomas de Donecastre (fn. 33) was attached to answer Ralph Pekoc, who sued for the City, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he had made an inspection of the Common Moor outside Bishopsgate with his servants William Pointel, Richard de Hattefeld, Roger Sueting and Thomas Bruming in a boat belonging to William Pointel, and had found part of the meadow cut and the grass carried away. On tracing the grass to the close of the defendant, they had questioned him on this trespass done to the City, whereupon with his servants Ralph, Alexander, Robert le Gardiner and Roger le Messager, the defendant had assaulted him and taken the boat away. The defendant denied the trespass and declared that the boat was his own property, and put himself on his country. Afterwards on Monday after the Nativity of St John the Baptist [24 June] he came and restored the boat and submitted to the judgment of the Court. He was committed to prison until &c.
Membr. 12 20 June 1301
Tuesday after the above Feast
William de Dalby, attorney of Peter de Leycestre, acknowledged receipt of 300 marks sterling from James le Brabazun of Scene and his partners (fn. 34). The latter went quit.
A jury of the venue of St Lawrence Lane in Jewry was summoned against the next Court to say on oath whether Walter de St Omer unbound a certain bundle of mercery from foreign parts, in the house of John le Botoner, junior, and sold the goods against the prohibition of Richard de Caumpes, Sheriff, without paying toll, as the Sheriff avers, or whether the said John le Botoner paid a fine of 12d for customs for the bundle, saving to the Sheriff the customs on saffron and silk, if any were found in the bundle, whereas none were found, as the defendants say. Afterwards the parties came to an agreement by permission of the Court, and the penalty was condoned.
27 June 1301
Tuesday after the Feast of St John the Baptist [24 June]
Roger le Ferun offered himself against Robert de Roquesle in a plea of debt, the latter having a day on Monday to make his law, which he had waged against the plaintiff concerning the detinue of a horse, value 10 marks. And as he did not come, he was ordered to appear on this day to hear judgment, when he again made default. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for 10 marks, and that the defendant be amerced.
6 July 1301
Thursday before the Translation of St Thomas [7 July]
Alexander de Scaylesworth of Northampton was attached by 10 casks of wine, because the Bailiffs of Northampton had arrested the goods and chattels, value 20s, of Richard Poterel, junior, of London, as a forfeit, which goods Richard had bought in Northampton market. The defendant found pledges, Walter de la Legh and Walter le Fuller, to restore Richard's goods within eight days, and to satisfy the City for the contempt and trespass. Afterwards he came and satisfied the plaintiff (fn. 35).
Membr. 12 b 18 July 1301
Tuesday before the Feast of St Margaret Virgin [20 July]
Walter Bullok, taverner, acknowledged that he owed to Peter de Paris, Spicer of our Lady the Queen, 20s payable on the Quinzime.
An inquest was taken before Elyas Russel, Mayor of London, on the above day by John de Cheswyk and other jurors of Langborne Ward, Candelwykstrate and Cornhull, as appears on the panel, with regard to the malefactors and disturbers of the King's peace &c. They said on oath that when Philip de Spine and his companions of the Society of Spine (fn. 36) on Saturday at the hour of vespers were sitting at supper in their lodging (hospitium), talking together about the war between the Kings of France and England, magnifying and praising the King of France and his baronage, and vituperating and despising the King of England, and calling him a wretched and captive King who had lost so much, vilely and miserably, in the war-on account of this abuse and contempt continually repeated against the King of England by Philip and his companions, a certain John le Lung, their servant, an Englishman, began to murmur and contradict them. Thereupon the said Philip, moved by anger, struck him with his fist, and when the servant fled from their further malice and harm, they pursued him with drawn swords and misericords as far as St Edmund's Church, and would have slain him in the church, if the neighbours had not arrived on hearing his shouts, and questioned Philip and his companions as to why they made so great an uproar, terrifying the neighbours and the whole neighbourhood. Philip and the others, in reply, cursed them and called them "Englishoundes," and turning back home, threw down stones outside their house and made a stronghold against the bailiffs of the City, until the Mayor arrived. The jurors also said that Philip and his companions of the above Society, Pouch Lumbard and the members of his Society (fn. 37), John of the Society of the Friscobaldi (fn. 38), Theobald Courter, Cose Lumbard (fn. 39) with his two sons and his Society, Bonaventure and Bynde, dwelling at the house of James de Cene on Cornhull, Rogaz, servant of Burgensis Fulbard of Florence, and Simonetus de Sercle of the Society "Sercle noyr" (fn. 40), were accustomed to raise uproars in the City of London by night and day to the terror of the whole neighbourhood and the disturbance of the King's peace, by abusing and afterwards beating, ill-treating, wounding and maiming anyone who withstood them or reproved them for their evil words and deeds. The jurors said further that the above Philip and all the others of the various Societies were accustomed to drag the wives, daughters and servants of good men of the City, and other girls passing by, into their lodgings and to violate them against their will, and if the women had any men in their company, they would detain the latter in their yard and beat them, until they had accomplished their purpose on the women thus violently dragged into their lodgings; and all this against the peace and to the damage and scandal of many women, and in contempt of the English.
[Record and Process of an action in the Sheriff's Court, endorsed "Recordum istud affirmatur" (fn. 41).]
17 June 1300
Court of Henry de Fingrie, Sheriff of London, on Friday before the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist [24 June] A° 28 Edw. 
Peter de Moncuk was attached to answer Geoffrey Sigyn in a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that the defendant, on the eve of St Michael last, promised to pay him £20 on behalf of Gaillard de Gassak, being empowered by the latter to receive that sum in payment of a debt incurred by the King, and though the defendant received £10, he had not paid the plaintiff anything. The defendant defended the words of Court, and while admitting that he had received £10 of the King's debt, denied the promise to pay the plaintiff, and offered to make his law on this point. The plaintiff said that he defended unjustly, since he had witnesses Vitalus and John, who were present when the promise was made, and whom he asked leave to produce on the spot (fn. 42), as both parties were foreigners. Their examination was postponed for lack of aldermen till the next Court. The defendant then objected to John on the ground that as plaintiff in the Court of John Darmenters in a similar case concerning a debt of Gaillard, in which the present defendant was defendant, John had called Geoffrey Sigyn as witness, and it would be a hardship and against law that two plaintiffs should thus call each other alternately to witness. To this the plaintiff replied that John was a fit witness, because he had never suffered judgment for perjury or been excommunicated or put in the pillory, and therefore he claimed judgment. After several respites the Court gave judgment on 9 Sept. for the plaintiff for £10, on the ground that the witness could not be rejected in this case, and that the "exception" raised by the defendant was inadmissible.
[Record and Process of an Action in the Sheriff's Court, endorsed "judicium istud affirmatur."]
6 July 1300
Court of Henry de Fingrie, Sheriff of London, on Wednesday before the Feast of the Translation of St Thomas the Martyr [7 July] A° 28 Edw. 
Peter de Monte Pessulano and Agnes his wife were summoned to answer Ranulph Balle and Isabella his wife in a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that Agnes bought from Isabella 20 quarters of barley at 7s 4d the quarter and 4 quarters of oats at 3s 4d the quarter, amounting to £8 silver, which she had not paid. The defendants denied the sale and receipt, whereupon the plaintiffs offered to produce witnesses, Robert and Roger. A day till the Quinzime was given them to do so. The witnesses, being sworn and examined in the presence of Salamon le Cotiller and Simon de Paris, aldermen, gave evidence that Peter and Agnes received the grain from Isabella in their house on Cornhull between prime and nones, they themselves and other persons unknown being present. A day was given for hearing judgment, and as the defendants made default and produced no warrant for their essoin "de servicio regis," judgment was given for the plaintiffs.