Calendar of the Plea and Memoranda Rolls of the City of London: Volume 2, 1364-1381. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1929.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
An inquest was taken before the Mayor and Aldermen as to the names of the evildoers who caused the doors and windows of all the tawyers' shops to be closed, and afterwards went in a body to Horssedone (fn. 1) in disturbance of the King's peace. The jurors found that on the day mentioned John Pervyle and John Goudherst, servants of John Creek; John Beket and Nicholas Botyller, servants of William Goldre; William Daly, servant of Robert Waleys; Robert, servant of Andrew Wylly; John de Cornewaylle, John Harpere, John Laurence and Maurice, servants of William Querdelyng; and Thomas Thredere, Thomas Wormele and Salamon Garlek, servants of Walter Garlek, by common assent closed their masters' shops and refused to work, because their masters had been committed to Newgate. They further said that the servants were aided and abetted in their action by the abovementioned masters, but that the servants had no malicious intention of disturbing the public when they went to Horssedoune.
Richard de Merston, serjeant of the Chamber, sequestrated (fn. 2) the doors of the houses, in which the goods and chattels of Roger Fynch were contained, at the suit of William Sterre in an action of debt.
Membr. 11 b
Gilbert Cokcow of Pritelwelle complained to the Mayor and Aldermen that John Bryt, bailiff of Queenhithe, had divers measures called "maundes (fn. 3)" some greater some smaller, by which all mussels coming by ship or boat were measured, and that when the greater measures were used, the owners of the mussels suffered serious loss; on the other hand, when the correct and smaller measures were used, the bailiff exacted a payment beyond the amount due for custom, viz. 3d over and above the 2d custom.
The bailiff, who had been summoned to court, declared that when he was appointed he found divers measures, which had been approved by Stephen Cavendyssh during his mayoralty and had been sealed by the Chamber or the Alderman of the Ward. Certain old measures he had discarded and he had had new ones approved and sealed at the Guildhall. He denied having taken more than the custom.
John Cockow and John Seman, both of Pritelwelle, also complained that the bailiff had taken 2d, of which one penny was custom and the other penny an unjust exaction, and their complaint was supported by the evidence of Walter Ruddok, John de Pritelwelle and John Elys. On 11 Feb. John Dawe of Melton brought a similar complaint. The bailiff was put into the custody of the Sheriff and fifteen of his measures were detained by the Chamberlain. Subsequently all the plaintiffs withdrew from their prosecutions.
Isabel de Chepsted complained that William Dyne, taverner, had beaten and wounded her on 4 April, to her damage 40s. The said William admitted the charge and paid a fine of 20s to the Commonalty for drawing blood. He was mainprised by John Chaucer (fn. 4) and William Shirbourne, vintners, for his appearance in court etc.
Mary Convers was committed to prison at the suit of the Count de Harecourt (fn. 5) for parting with a jewel of the value of 50 marks, which he had pledged with her, and which she in turn had pledged with John Lapy of Florence, who sold it to Bartholomew Fotenaunt. She was mainprised by Richard Bokeler, fourbour (fn. 6), and Stephen Bruyn, tailor, and the jewel together with the sum of £10 was lodged with the Chamberlain until etc.
Salamon Garlek, John Stap, Thomas Thredere, John Laurence, John Moryce, Edmund de Vasconia, Thomas atte Forde, Simon Credel, Thomas Archier, John Duwy, Richard Hoggesdon, William Brounyng, Segelinus van Male, Robert Lacy, John Wenlok, John de Swainlond, John Croos, Richard Ammory, John Albon, Ralph Crouch, William George, Richard Langele, Philip Scryveyn, John Piryfeld, Simon de Assh, John Godherst, Geoffrey Creek, John Beket and Nicholas Botyller, servants of divers tawyers above-mentioned (fn. 7), were bound over to observe the ordinances of their mistery and to obey their masters.
Membr. 12 b
John Poul of Pistoja, who was attached by his body at the suit of Vannus Cambin, Lombard, in an action of debt, was mainprised by William de Eynesham and Bartholomew Myne for his appearance on Friday after Easter. On 15 July he was committed to prison as his sureties wished to withdraw.
William atte Ram, one of the masters of the tawyers, was mainprised by Stephen Daubeneye and Thomas de Leuesham, pelters, to observe the ordinances of the mistery and to report his servants, if recalcitrant.
Thomas de Athelby undertook to pay the Chamberlain half-a-mark on behalf of William Querdelyng, tawyer, for the latter's first offence against the recent statute (fn. 8), the said William having cut off the heads of beasts when carrying out work for John Devenyssh.
John Beek, who was detained in prison for selling a chape (chapam) (fn. 9) of tyn for 20d on a warranty that it was of silver, paid back the 20d and was released on swearing not to offend again.
Joan Gade came into court and charged William Beneyt, fuller, with having killed their son, and with using threats to her, though he had previously promised to marry her. The said William, being summoned, produced the boy alive in court. The woman then asked that the man should find sureties for keeping the peace, which he did forthwith, viz. Nicholas Potyn and Walter Parker. The man made a similar demand as regards the woman, and as she was unable to find mainpernors she was committed to prison, where she remained till 30 April, when Thomas de Claveryng, saddler, and John Tiryngton, mason, mainprised her.
Matilda Polter, Sarra Corby, Isabel Cartere, Isabel Blontes, Matilda Launder, Joan Stormy, Joan Shepstere and Idonia Passemer were committed to Newgate for an affray in Hoiborn, and to answer a charge of trespass preferred by John Hamond of Acton, Agnes his wife and Thomas his son. The above women were mainprised on 19 May to keep the peace and pay fines.
Membr. 13 b
John de Wallyngford, carpenter, was attached to answer a charge of having removed William Barbour of Hackney, an apprentice, from the service of John de Hakeneye of Crokedelane in Candlewick Street together with certain goods and chattels.
Both parties put themselves on the country, but afterwards, on 15 Jan., prayed licence to concord. Thereupon the de fendant and his wife Matilda, who was formerly the wife of John de Tywe of Hackney, explained to the Mayor and Aldermen that a negotiation (locucio) had taken place between Matilda, when she was trading sole, and the said John de Hakeneye as to putting Richard [sic], son of Bartholomew Barbour, as apprentice to the said John for a term of ten years from Christmas 1358, on the strength of which the said John had prepared and sealed two indentures of apprenticeship and had had them enrolled at the Guildhall without the knowledge of the said Matilda and in deception of the court. The plaintiff admitted the truth of this. The defendants therefore asked that the said Richard might be discharged from his apprenticeship. The indentures were accordingly ordered to be cancelled. John de Hakeneye paid damages to the defendants and was mainprised by Robert atte Noke to come up for judgment.
Thomas Kynggeston, knight, brought a bill of complaint to the effect that Peter Bouche, his vadlet (fn. 10), had in his absence delivered his grey hunter (courcier gresel), value £40, to John Wodebury at Calais, and when he, the complainant, asked the said John in Cheap to restore the horse to him, the defendant promised to do so on payment of 16 marks and reasonable costs, but subsequently refused to give up the horse. [French]
The said John Wodebury, having heard the bill read and being asked how he wished to acquit himself thereof, denied that he had promised to give up the horse on the terms stated and waged his law to that effect. He was mainprised by Richard de Preston and Thomas Brakenberugh to make his law on Monday the Feast of St Dunstan [19 May]. On the day mentioned he made his law in the form in which he had waged it. Judgment that the plaintiff take nothing by his plaint and that the defendant go quit.
Nicholas Picket, merchant of London, recovered against Outrum Cryke of Deft (fn. 11), merchant of Brabant, and his partners the sum of 30s for his expenses in travelling from London to Wales (fn. 12) in accordance with agreements concerning wool and cloth. The money being paid in court, the agreements were cancelled and remained in the file of Adam de Bury, Mayor, for the 39th year of the present reign.
William de Essex, draper, complained to the Mayor and Aldermen of a certain cloth of Blankett, purchased from Custance Juwel, which was so defective that he could not offer it for sale, and he desired that the good men appointed to survey defects of this kind might view the cloth and decide with whom the fault lay. Accordingly the cloth was viewed and the fault was adjudged to lie with Geoffrey de Wockyng, the fuller, who was thereupon condemned to pay the complainant £7 and take over the cloth.
Simon de Lincoln, pelter, was committed to Newgate for bribing John de Rothewell, tawyer, to hand over to him divers pieces of greywerk (fn. 15), left with the said John for the purpose of tawing, for which he substituted inferior goods of no value, to the defrauding and impoverishment of the Skinners. On 18 July he was released by the Mayor, at the instance of the Skinners, on promising to conduct himself better in future. Meanwhile the aforesaid John, who had been attached for his share in the fraud, fled to sanctuary in the church of St Martin le Grand.
John, Count de Harcourt (fn. 16), came into court to prove that a certain gold nouche set with stones, found in the custody of Gillemyh de Nerny, Lombard, who said he bought it from John Lapy of Florence for 20 marks, was his own property. He declared that the said jewel was eloigned by Mariota Convers, who admitted in court that it belonged to the Count. As the Count had originally pledged the jewel for £12, he paid that sum to Gillemyn to have it back, and Mariota was adjudged to pay Gillemyn 7 marks (for the loss of his bargain), for which she gave pledges of equal value.
Robert de Appelby, the King's Serjeant-at-arms, came into court and certified that he had sold to Richard de Prestone (fn. 17) of London a moiety of a ship called "le Thomas de Caleys"
Nicholas Bethewar, pelter, recovered against Bartholomew Mestwhale, weaver, the sum of 4s 6d for faulty weaving of a cloth, as certified in court by the four masters elected to survey defects of cloth.
Membr. 14 b
Writ, dated at Westminster 9 May 1365, to the Mayor and Sheriffs as custodes pacis in the City of London, enjoining them to take mainprise for the good behaviour of Giles Pikeman, John Waldeshef and Robert Turk towards John, son of Nicholas Horn, fishmonger, which John was plaintiff in divers actions against the said Giles, John and Robert.
Thomas Sherman and John le Soutere, boteres (fn. 18), were committed to prison for casting mud and rushes into the Thames. The same day they were released on mainprise of Robert Treweman and Walter de Lodeneye to appear in court when required and to make their contribution (ponere contribudonem), like other sellers of rushes (huxsteres cirporum), towards cleansing the river from rubbish.
Alice de Perers (fn. 19) came in person and sued Richard de Kent, stockfishmonger, for the return of 200 marks which she had lent to him on Monday after the Feast of the Annunciation B.M. [25 March] in the parish of St Mary Montenaut, to be repaid at Pentecost. The defendant admitted the debt and was committed to prison until etc. Afterwards on 10 July the above Alice consented to his release.
Adam Carlhill, draper, Harvey Lyndraper of Candlewick Street, John Stoket, fuller, Richard Berkamsted, fuller, John Gyle, weaver, and Richard Alsted, weaver, elected to present defects in the fulling, weaving and measuring of cloths, came before the Mayor and Aldermen and testified that three cloths, viz. two plunkets and one blanket belonging to Dunstan Harcherigge, draper, had been damaged to the extent of 20s when fulled by William Motishunte, and also that the cloths had shrunk four ells, at 4s 6d the ell, which loss they put down to Robert Vynour from whom the cloths were bought. Judgments for those amounts were given against the said William and Robert.
John de Melbourne, spicer, was summoned to answer the King and William de Wyndesore (fn. 20), knight, for refusing to pay a sum of money in which he and Robert le Parker had bound themselves as sureties for Roger de Chestrefeld. The plaintiff alleged that he, the plaintiff, had drawn money from the King's Treasury to provide men-at-arms and archers for the war against the rebels in Ireland and had retained the services of the said Roger de Chestrefeld and three archers, whose wages he had paid on condition of their finding sureties that they would accompany the plaintiff to Ireland. Roger and the archers had neither gone to Ireland nor sent substitutes, and accordingly he claimed the penalties in the bond from the said John, who was one of the sureties.
The defendant admitted that he had been a surety and put himself on the mercy of the King and the plaintiff. He was committed to prison until he reimbursed the plaintiff for his outlay and paid a fine to the King.
John Wynselowe, hostytter (fn. 21), and Alice his wife, executrix of the will of Henry Sket, were committed to prison till they paid the sum of £24 due to Joan and Anne, the testator's daughters. Afterwards they were mainprised by William. Whetele, cordwainer.
Margaret la Garnystere brought an action of trespass against Agnes, widow of Thomas Bagge of Southampton, for detaining Marion, the plaintiff's servant, who had been lent to her at Midlent [23 March] this year to work at embroidery until Easter day [13 April], the plaintiff at the same time borrowing half-a-mark to be repaid at Easter.
The defendant pleaded that the servant was lent to her for a whole year and was now at Southampton, but that she was willing to produce her in court. A day was given her to do so, and the girl was brought up. The defendant then declared that she was prepared to give her up if the plaintiff would make her law to the effect that she only lent her until Easter. Thereupon the plaintiff made her law and recovered her servant, after which she paid to the defendant the half-mark owed to her.
Membr. 15 b
The defendant admitted having hired a horse, but not of the value named, which horse had been warranted sound and capable of work, but when it had been ridden as far as Shyngledewelle (fn. 22) by a woman who was an invalid, it could go no farther owing to divers diseases from which it suffered, and being left in charge of a certain John Thoplech the animal died of an accidental disease (morbo casuali) (fn. 23). The defendant had in consequence been forced to hire another horse to Canterbury and further horses from Canterbury to London at a cost of 10s, besides having to pay 4d for damage done to a wall by the sick horse. He prayed judgment whether under the circumstances the plaintiff could have any action against him.
The plaintiff replied that the horse had died, not from any accidental disease, but because it had been ridden too hard and too fast, and he offered to verify his pleading in any way the Court should direct. The defendant offered to do the same.
Thereupon the Mayor, with the consent of the parties, sent one of his serjeants to Sir Peter de Lacy, clerk of the Prince of Wales and Aquitaine, who lived in the neighbourhood where the horse died, to obtain a certificate under the seals of the good men of the township of Shyngledewelle as to the real cause of the animal's death. In course of time Sir Peter sent a certificate (French) under the seals of twenty-four good and lawful men of the township, viz. Richard de Ifeld, John Walkelate, Henry Joskyn, John Sartre, John Grower, John Toplych, John Wynnegold and others, to the effect that on Whit Monday the defendant left a horse—a hackney redschetelhered and bauscyn (fn. 24)—at the house of John Walkelate, and afterwards delivered it to John Thoplich to keep until his return from Canterbury, but that the horse died the same day suddenly and without any external sign of an evil blow or sickness upon him (saunz ascune playe mal ou maladie qe homme poet veer de hors sur le dit hakeneye). The certificate having been read in court, the defendant appeared by his attorney Ralph de Tendryngg, but the plaintiff did not come to prosecute his plaint. Judgment was given that the plaintiff and his pledges be in mercy and that the defendant go thence without a day. Note that the certificate remains among the Memoranda of Adam de Bury, Mayor.
William Baldewyne, tanner, entered into a bond of £100 to the Commonalty that he would not in future rear (nutriat) pigs in the City (fn. 25). He also paid a fine of 20s and was given a week in which to remove his pigs from the City.
John Welued, clerk, was committed to Newgate for an affray made against the clerks of the Bishop of London within the boundaries (limistes) of St Paul's and the Bishop's Palace. He was mainprised by John Whyte to keep the peace.
Nicholas Sarduche, Lombard, John Donat, Bartholomew Myne and Francis Barthelmeu undertook to produce Thomas Serlandi, merchant of Lucca, in court within two months to render account to Andrew Pentatore, merchant of Lucca, for 30,000 scudi of Flanders, each surety being bound in £1000 to render account himself, in the event of the said Thomas not appearing or dying in the meantime (vel ab hac luce decedere). Afterwards on 10 Sept. Gelinus Moriconi, Lombard, took the place of the above Nicholas as surety.
Membr 16 b
Memorandum that John de Seylyngham, who married the widow of John le Chaundeler, was ordered to appear on Monday after the octave of St Michael [29 Sept.] to account for the sum of £300 formerly belonging to the deceased, and to find security for the latter's children. He was mainprised in the meantime by John de Barton, vintner, and Henry de Sutton, coroner.
Henry Sturry, baker, bakes bread in the county of Middlesex, because he is unwilling to be of the Halimote (fn. 26) of the Bakers in the City of London; and he makes false and underweight bread. He was therefore committed to Newgate until etc. Afterwards, 26 Aug., Richard Andrew, brewer, Thomas de Kent, fishmonger, William Aylmar, weaver, and Roger atte More, brewer, entered into a bond to pay to the Commonalty the sum of £10, if the said Henry were in future discovered selling false bread or sending bread which was not sealed (fn. 27) to the City for sale.
William Aunger of Iseldon was attached to answer the King and John de Briklesworth, Common Serjeant of the City, who prosecuted for the King and the Commonalty, on a charge of having come to the common cornmarket held on the pavement within Newgate, and there given 12d for a bushel of corn when the price was commonly 10½d, for the purpose of creating a shortage of corn. The defendant pleaded not guilty and put himself on the verdict of a jury, which found him not guilty. He was acquitted.
William Strete of Southall was charged with conspiring with the above William Aunger to enhance the price of corn, but as he was a man of good fame and well vouched by reputable men in the City and Middlesex, he was merely examined. It was found as the result of questioning that neither he nor William had any knowledge of each other. Accordingly the defendant was mainprised by Simon de Benyngton and Hugh de Horewode for his good behaviour and was further sworn to give information of any dishonesty or collusion to raise the price of corn, which he might discover.
Edmund Lord of Candlewickstreet Ward brought a bill of complaint against John Fraunceys, cordwainer, of Clement's Lane, whom he charged with having drawn a knife called a "broche" against the plaintiff's wife, Joan, and with having beaten her so. as to cause a miscarriage, the cause of the quarrel being that Joan had demanded payment of 18½d from Emma, the defendant's wife, who also had attempted to assault her, and had used villainous language to her (despisa & aresona la dite Johane vileynement). [French]
The defendant appeared by attachment and admitted the assault and drawing the knife (for which he paid a fine of half-a-mark to the Chamber) but denied having caused the miscarriage, and on this charge he put himself on the country; and the plaintiff did likewise. The jury found him guilty of the matters which he had confessed, but not guilty of causing the miscarriage, so far as they could ascertain among themselves. He was accordingly set free.
Thomas de Helles, squire of the Earl of Mar, was mainprised by Robert de Witton, draper, and John de Tilneye to produce a certain book by the Feast of All Saints, on account of which William Stole was claiming 20s.
Nicholas Cook of Bury, girdler, recovered in court his servant, John de Reygate, who had left his service without permission, as the bailiffs and good men of Bury testified by certificate. And because the said John refused to serve him, he was committed to Newgate, as well as for a debt of 60s due on a bond. The bond was cancelled. Afterwards on 28 Jan. 1367 the plaintiff agreed that John de Reygate should be liberated from Newgate.
The above Nicholas charged Ralph Fyffede, girdler, with taking away his servant, John de Reygate, contrary to the statute. The defendant denied the charge and put himself on his country, whereupon the plaintiff declared that if the plaintiff was willing to swear, he would allow him to clear himself with the third hand (fn. 28). Accordingly on 25 Sept. the defendant made his law that he did not entice the said John from his master's service. He was acquitted and the plaintiff was in mercy for a false plaint.
Nicholas Tounman, Thomas de Cantebrigge, Robert Cardemakere and John de Wermenstre were committed to Newgate for breaking the pavement of the King's highway without Newgate. Thereupon came the Friars Minors, who said that these persons were their servants and that they took up the pavement to mend the channel of their conduit, in accordance with a royal charter empowering them to examine the course of their water whenever necessary. The Friars asked that their servants might be released on mainprise; and David Husk, William Joye, plomer, Robert Cardemakere and Peter Colbrond were accepted by the court as sureties for their appearance. The Friars were also ordered to submit their charter to the court.
Membr. 17 b
Names of those who were put in the Tun (fn. 29) between 12 Sept. and 15 Oct., for being nightwalkers and persons of bad character, and were released next day on mainprise, among whom were Hankyn Taverner; William Cornewaille, tailor (mainprised by John Chauucer and Philip Herlawe); John, servant of Ralph Gubbe, stockfishmonger; John Wygeton, tailor; John Sewale and Robert Ivet, corsours (fn. 30); John Roche and James atte Leghe, tailors; Nicholas Colon (mainprised by Nicholas Pays, joygnour, and John Roket, cooper); Hanekyn Yongehere; Herman van Soust; Hankyn van Akene, tailor; John Wylkyn, schoutman (fn. 31); Alexander Whappelode and Alice Middeherst; John de York, cordwainer, and Matilda Say.
Memorandum that on 26 Aug. Thomas le Northerne, vintner, certified before the Mayor and Aldermen that he had sold to Richard de Preston and John Maykyn a ship formerly called "la Marye de Boloygne," but at the time of the sale known as "Notre Dame de Londres," and that he had received the purchase money.
Richard Aleyn, pinner, brought a bill complaining that, whereas he held a shop and other tenements in the parish of St. Bride in Fleet Street on a lease from John Hauberger for the lifetime of Edward Borward, the lessor undertaking to keep the premises in repair, a portion of the premises had been allowed to fall down since the death of the lessor, and the executors had refused to make it good. [French]
The Court thereupon ordered Thomas de St Albans, serjeant of the Chamber, to summon Thomas Wynter and Eustachia his wife, executrix of John Hauberger, to answer the plaintiff in a plea of covenant. The defendants appeared and pleaded that they had fully administered the goods of the testator and that at the time of the levying of the plaint they had no goods and chattels of the deceased in their hands, which they offered to verify etc. The plaintiff answered that they had enough at that time to carry out the repairs and offered to verify it by a jury. On this issue, a jury found for the defendants, and judgment was given that they go quit.
Membr. 18 b
Robert Leddrede was attached to answer the King in a plea of contempt etc. wherein John Chamberleyn, who sued for the King, complained that the defendant received 26s 8d from John de Wodele, a prisoner indicted of divers felonies, by the hands of Adam Farnham, which sum was in part payment of 40s promised by the prisoner to the defendant for embracing (fn. 32) a jury of the venue of Holborn to acquit him— contrary to the Statute against embracers (embraciatores). The defendant pleaded that he received the money from the said Adam as a loan, which he was ready to verify. A jury of the venue of Newgate was summoned and the defendant was mainprised by Richard Clerk and Richard de Wytton. The jury found that the money was received for the purpose of embracery and not as a loan. [Breaks off.]
Henry Dymnel was attached to answer the King and Robert Raven in a plea of contempt and trespass, wherein the said Robert, who sued for the King and himself, charged the defendant with three acts of embracery, contrary to what was ordained by the common council (commune consilium) of the Realm: firstly, that in the 37th year of King Edward III in the parish of St Sepulchre without Newgate he took £10 from John Ismongere by the hands of William Colyn to procure and maintain an Assize of Freshforce against the King; secondly, that in the same year he took 4 marks from Thomas Whitechirche, cordwainer, to embrace and procure a jury to give a verdict for the said Thomas against Gilbert le Clerk in a plea begun by a writ de mahemio (fn. 33); and thirdly, that he took 20s from Alice de Stanton by the hands of William de Harewedon to embrace and maintain a jury to give a verdict for the said Alice against Robert de Combe in a plea of dower in the Husting. Both parties submitted the matter to a jury, which found, as regards the first charge, that the accused did not receive the money as alleged. He was acquitted thereof. As regards the second charge, the jury found that he received the money for the purpose named, but that no inquest was held, the parties having come to terms meanwhile, and that moreover he received the money before the Statute. As regards the third charge, it was true that he received the money after the Statute, but it was in a plea moved before the Statute. The case was adjourned that the Court might consult as to judgment, and the defendant was mainprised by John de Worstede, mercer, and Elyas de Thorpe, skinner, to come up etc. Afterwards on Monday in the quindene of Easter the said Henry Dymenel paid John de Cauntbrigge 50s in court for the aforesaid contempt by judgment of the Court.
Nicholas Bethewar, skinner, was committed to prison for opprobrious words spoken to the Mayor in court; and John Brugge, his servant, was fined 40d payable to the Commonalty and 40d payable to the mistery of Skinners for beating skins in the highway contrary to the ordinance of the said mistery. Both persons were also sentenced to four days imprisonment, as more fully appears in the said ordinance.
William de Whetele, cordwainer, was summoned to answer John de Wynselowe and Alice his wife, executrix of Henry Sket, cordwainer, in a plea that he render them an account of 70 dozens of white prepared leather (sexaginta & decem duodena de albo aluto) (fn. 34), value £40, and thirteen quaternions of black prepared leather (undecim & duo quaterna de nigro aluto), value 30s, and other hides of black oxhide and cowhide fully prepared for making boots and shoes, value £30, all of which he had received from her, when she was sole, to trade therewith on her behalf, and to render account to her, which he now refused to do.
The defendant pleaded that he never received any hides on such terms, but that immediately after the death of the abovementioned Henry Sket, he purchased from the widow, the plaintiff Alice, oxhide and cowhide to the value of £29, which sum he paid in cash except £9 8s 11d, for which he gave a tally. Subsequently he paid that sum, by the plaintiffs' instructions, to a certain John Canoun, who was a creditor of the late Henry Sket, and the tally was thereupon cancelled. Both parties put themselves on the country, but the plaintiffs afterwards withdrew from their action. Judgment that they and their pledges be in mercy and that the defendant go thence without a day.
John de Storteford, baker, was attached to answer a charge of trespass, to wit, that he had broken the doors and entered by force and arms into the house of Nicholas Mate, messager (fn. 35) of the Earl of Warwick, against the King's peace, and carried away two quarters of wheat, value 14s 4d (fn. 36). Both parties put themselves on the verdict of a jury, which found the defendant guilty and assessed damages at 30s. The defendant was committed to prison till he paid that amount. On 25 Nov. John de Donmowe, baker, undertook to pay part of the damages, and the prisoner was released.
Membr. 19 b
John atte Ree and Robert de Berkyng, beadle, entered into a bond with the Commonalty in £40 that the said John would cease to play with false dice and that he would inform the Mayor and officers of the City if he found others using them.
Gosselin Coyere of Brussels was attached to answer John Cook in a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that the defendant had refused to pay him £40, being the balance of £80 due for wool bought by him in London. The defendant acknowledged non-payment, but pleaded that owing to bad packing (paccura) the wool was found by the brokers and merchants to be defective when it arrived in Brussels, and accordingly he had retained the money until the judges and merchants of Brussels should decide whether the plaintiff ought to make good the wool or not. He declared further that the plaintiff had come to him and agreed that he should retain the £40 if the judges at Brussels decided in his favour, and that the judges had so decided. He prayed judgment whether, under the circumstances, the plaintiff ought to have any action against him.
The plaintiff replied that he had made no such agreement with the defendant and that he had never submitted himself to the discretion of the judges of Brussels. He offered to make his law on this point, which was allowed him (fn. 37). Thereupon he made his law immediately. Judgment was given that he recover the sum claimed and that the defendant be committed to Newgate until etc.
Richard de Berdefeld, parson of the Church of St Mary Wollecherchehawe, was committed to prison for refusing to find sureties that he would not prosecute plaints overseas at Avignon in matters affecting the King's power and dignity.
John de Oxenford, piebaker, was attached to answer William de Dewesbury, tailor, in a plea of trespass wherein the latter complained that the defendant had unlawfully ejected (fn. 38) him from a shop in the parish of St Michael atte Corne, which shop the plaintiff held by sublease from Elias Devenysshe, who held it for a term of ten years from John de Kenyngton, clerk.
The defendant pleaded that the shop had been sublet without the consent of the landlord, and that the first lease falling in, owing to the rent being in arrears, the landlord had reentered and had then granted the property in fee to the defendant and his assigns.
The issue as to arrears was submitted to a jury, which found that no rent was in arrears and that the plaintiff suffered damage by ejection to the value of 6s 8d. Judgment was given that the plaintiff should have his term in the shop and recover his damages. The defendant paid in court.
Richard de Berdefeld, parson of the Church of St Mary Wolcherchehawe, was attached to answer John Coursy of Newenton, chaplain, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that on 12 June the defendant assaulted him in the Rectory with a sword.
The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was. his servant, occupying a room in the Rectory, and had assaulted him in the hall in the middle of the night, whereupon he had ordered the plaintiff either to go to his room or to leave the hall, and on the latter refusing and assaulting him again he had drawn his sword to defend himself. Both parties put themselves on the country, which found the defendant guilty and assessed the damages at 12d. Judgment was given for that amount, which was paid in court. In addition, the defendant was committed to Newgate till he paid the Commonalty a fine of halfa-mark for drawing his sword.
Membr. 21 b
John de Cauntebrigg, the City Chamberlain, showed to the Mayor and Aldermen that whereas for a long time there had been a bitter feeling between Richard de Berdefeld, parson of St Mary Wollecherchehawe, and John de Ikelyngham, John Lovekyn, junior, and other parishioners of the same church, they had agreed on 17 March 1363 to submit to the arbitration of the Mayor and Aldermen assembled in the church, as a result of which they had consented to forget all their differences against each other up to that day, and each party had bound itself to pay the sum of £10 to the Chamber of Guildhall and a like sum to the parish, if it were convicted of raising an unreasonable quarrel in the future; the said agreement being placed on record. The Chamberlain, who was told to offer some specific reason why the aforesaid parson should incur the penalty of £10 to the City, proceeded to show that on the Feast of the Assumption [15 Aug.] the aforesaid John de Ikelyngham, John Lovekyn and other parishioners were in the belfry seeing what repairs were necessary, when the said Richard entered the belfry by force and arms and assaulted them, thus rendering himself liable to the penalty. Accordingly the parson was summoned to show cause against paying the fine. After some delay he made his defence to the effect that, as to his going vi et armis and against the King's peace on the occasion mentioned, he was not guilty, and thereon he put himself on the country. He added that John de Ikelyngham and the others had taken four of his torches and carried them lighted into the top of the belfry and were wasting the wax when he appeared on the scene and politely (corde benignissimo) asked them to extinguish the torches, whereupon the said John and the others set upon him with knives and took him by the throat, and in self-defence he shook them off his neck, so that if they received any hurt it was due to their own assault. He prayed judgment as to whether there was any wrong (aliqua injuria) in that. Both parties put themselves on the country, which found the parson guilty of committing a trespass by his own malice, and the Court gave judgment that the Chamberlain recover from him the sum of £10 to the use of the Commonalty and that he be committed to prison until he pay.
Membr. 22 b
John Wynselowe was committed to prison for the sum of £10—part of £24 bequeathed by Henry Sket to his daughters Amice and Joan, which money had come into the hands of the said John. For the balance of £14 he deposited pledges in the Chamber of the Guildhall until etc.