Calendar of the Plea and Memoranda Rolls of the City of London: Volume 3, 1381-1412. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1932.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
Bond of Thomas Newton, William Swafham, clerk, and Robert Uppegate in 1000 marks to pay 500 marks in several portions at certain days in the church of St Botolph, Aldgate, to dame Margaret, widow of Thomas Graunson, knight, and Roger de Beauchamp, esquire, of co. Bedford. [French]
Memorandum that Thomas Gisors having demanded by bill from John Ware, son and executor of Margery de Croidon (fn. 1), divers charters and muniments relating to the inheritance of Agnes his wife due to her by the will of Richard de Croidon her father, the said John Ware on 15 July 1383 brought into court a charter of Edward III and forty-five other deeds in four boxes and a hamper. Thereupon John Philipot claimed the deeds on the ground that if Agnes died without issue the tenements devised would remain to him for life. The deeds were sealed by John Ware and kept in court. On the death of John Philipot, John and Agnes appeared in court and the deeds were delivered to the latter.
Membr. 14 b
In an action for debt against Gilbert Lyrp, baker, and Alice his wife at the suit of Roger Elys and Alice his wife for the sum of 12s, a foreign attachment was valued and delivered to the plaintiffs, viz. a bed of "blu," 6s 8d, and half a dozen pewter vessels (fn. 2), 4s 7d, under security to answer therefor etc.
The following (fn. 3) were summoned for the election of Nicholas Brembre, knight, mayor, Ao 8 Ric. II (1384). [The occupa tions of the councilmen are added from the list on the cedula.]
Richard Russel, Richard Plot, Thomas Pope, William Potenham, Henry Godyn, John Sevesterre, John Pigeon, William Hide, William Chichely, John Viaunde, Richard Goodchild, Thomas Vynent, Thomas Ottelee, John Wyght, John Salle, Thomas Neel, Simon Wynchecombe, William Waddesworth, Thomas Austyn.
Robert Langeton, John Pynchon, Thomas Birch, Michael Trenthennek, Thomas Hardegray, Gilbert Hoo, John Barri, Richard Smyth, Thomas Leuesham, John Gofaire, John Cook, chandler, John Langhorn, John Claidich, pewterer.
William atte Sele, Thomas Mallyng, Richard Radewell, William Radewell, John Bonet, Walter Hernylle, Thomas Haukere, John Burwell, Henry zevele, Henry Petipas, William Bys, William atte Lee, Richard Blomvile, Richard Grace, Robert Brabason, John Wapelode, Thomas Palmere, John Gatyn, Laurence Glovere, Peter Blak, Nicholas Bonet, Henry Norfolk, Thomas Gandre.
Farringdon Within and Without: Common Council, Nicholas Twyford, knight, goldsmith, John Rote, skinner, John Carbonel, goldsmith, Elias de Weston, butcher, Roger Excestre, saddler, and Simon atte Nax, cutler.
John Longe, senior, Robert Boxford, Walter Zonge, Philip atte Downe, William Lyncoll, John Wakele, Thomas Paunton, Roger Crane, Bartholomew de Castre, Robert Brian, William Pershore, William Thornhill, John Walworth, Adam atte Watre, Robert Lynne, Nicholas Rote, Nicholas Jurdan, Thomas Brompton, Thomas Duke, Thomas Polle, John Wilman, John Kantoys, John Staunton, Richard Storm, John Davy, William Sallowe, Henry Asselyn, Robert atte Shoppe.
Thomas Goodsire, John Roket, John Edrop, John Norfolk, John Andrew, John Mockynig, Henry Brounfeld, John Wydemere, Matthew Passelewe, William Venour; Richard Lytlyngton, Gilbert Merssh, Paul Gisors, Gilbert Bonet.
Thomas Erl, Michael Cornewaille, William Rothewelle, Robert Ivyngho, William Stapulte, John Goldryng, John Sexteyn, John Selverton, Henry Mordon, Roger Parys, John Poynaunt, Henry atte Wode, John Manyngton.
John Colman, son of Reginald Colman late citizen of London, apprentice of Thomas Horsman, vintner, was attached to answer his master for conduct contrary to his indentures of apprenticeship, wherein he covenanted to serve for seven years from 24 June 1384 and to do no damage beyond 12d a year and not to waste his master's goods. And whereas the said master on 15 Sept. the same year in the parish of St Michael Queenhithe delivered to Nicholas Leykman, his apprentice, the sum of 205 marks in gold and sent him to travel with other merchants to Bordeaux in Gascony, to trade therewith to the best of his ability, as apprentices are bound to do according to the custom of the city, at the same time sending the said John with him to learn the business, when the apprentices arrived at Plymouth with the gold, which lay in a locked box in a London ship, of which Lawrence Ches was master, together with other goods of the complainant, the said John went aboard, at a time when the other apprentice was ashore, and broke into the box and carried away the 205 marks, to the complainant's damage £200, whereof he prayed a remedy according to the law merchant and the custom of the city.
The said John, who was present in court, being sworn and examined according to the custom as to the taking away of the money, admitted the greater part but said nothing about the rest, and in answer to matters put to him by the court continually varied his story. Thereupon in order to obtain the truth the two apprentices were examined separately. Both of them swore that the said John had eloigned the money, but the apprentice Nicholas acknowledged having received from John, by the hands of John Mersham, the sum of £40.
A day was given on 1 Feb. that the court might be advised as to giving judgment, and the said John was committed to Ludgate for lack of mainprise, on which day it was considered that the said Thomas recover £100 13s 4d and £10 damages, beyond the £40 already repaid and £20 received from the friends of the said John by reason of the apprenticeship, and for default of payment the said John was committed to prison.
Afterwards on 23 Sept. 1385 the master prayed that the apprentice might be released to him on bail until 28 Sept. as he was so sick that his life was despaired of. The boy was returned to prison on that day, but on 15 Dec. the same year the master again asked that the apprentice might be released on bail until 24 June 1386 for the same reason, which was allowed by the court on condition that he save the sheriffs harmless.
Henry Herbury sued Thomas Blount for the sum of £3 17s 6d due for the making of two gutters on the defendant's house in the parish of St Mildred in the Poultry. Walter Kynton, cutler, agreed on behalf of the defendant to pay whatever the court should adjudge as due from him. Thereupon the sworn masons and carpenters of the city, being ordered to investigate the matter, reported that the duty of making the gutters lay with the defendant. John Dudecote, carpenter, who had provided the timber and nails, swore that his costs amounted to 12s 6d, which the said Walter paid. As regards the rest of the claim it was agreed that he should pay the plaintiff £3 5s on condition that if the plumber, who asked that sum for five weys of lead (pro quinque wagis), would take less, the balance should be repaid to him.
Membr. 16 b
Writ de minis ordering the mayor to put Christian Kyllemere to mainprise for keeping the peace with Hermann Vynthorpe, John Clyppyng, William de Borne, Alevinus de Brake, John de Attenderne, Brounus Decuf, Frowyn de Oppenskede, Henry de Hethe, Frowyn Stupyng, Goscalcus de Broke, Nicholas de Lewere, John Poke, James de St George and Hildebrand Ispelyngrothe (fn. 4). Dated 14 Feb. 1385.
Return to Chancery by the mayor and sheriffs that it had been reported to them by credible persons that the said James used to make lonely journeys to divers parts of France and so had fallen under suspicion of being a spy who carried news of the king's counsels to those parts, and for this reason he had been arrested and detained in the king's gaol of Newgate.
Membr. 17 b
In an action for debt against John Waltham, skinner, at the suit of Hermann van Datel, merchant of Almaine, for the sum of £21 due on a bond, a foreign attachment was valued by oath of William Wiltshyre and Edward Caumber, skinners, and delivered to the plaintiff under security to answer therefor etc., as follows: 22 tymber (fn. 5) of herwerk (fn. 6), at 8s 4d the tymber, total 13 marks 10s; 2 furs of cristigray (fn. 7), 32s; one fur of stranglyng (fn. 8), 6s; and half a fur of ruskyns (fn. 9), 2s.
Candlewick Street, William Horston, draper, William Giles, butcher, Roger Mordon, skinner, William Spaldyng, tailor, vice John Walcote, draper, John Brownesbury, butcher, James Snow, draper, William Ivory, butcher.
Farringdon, Thomas Panton, goldsmith, William Lyncolle, saddler, John Hill, mercer, John Dorsete, butcher, William Pershore, chaloner, vice Nicholas Twyford, goldsmith, John Rote, skinner, John Carbonel, goldsmith, Elias de Weston, butcher, Roger Excestre, saddler.
Simon Wynchecoumbe, late one of the sheriffs of London, brought a bill of complaint against Thomas Beton, baker, who had received from him the office of janitor of his compter (fn. 10) in Walbrook on 28 Sept. 1383 and had undertaken to guard all prisoners until Michaelmas following, saving the said Simon harmless, as appeared by his deed. Nevertheless a certain Simon Stacy, shipman, who had been arrested on 11 Jan. 1384 at the suit of John Brencheley, esquire, on a writ of justicies for detinue of chattels to the value of £200, escaped on 9 Feb. 1384. Thereupon John Brencheley sued the plaintiff by bill in the parliament (fn. 11) held at Salisbury after Easter, the bill being endorsed and sent to Chancery, whence a writ was issued summoning the plaintiff to answer John Brencheley there. Finally an award (fn. 12) was given that Simon Stacy had been delivered from prison without due process of law and the plaintiff was condemned in £200, for which John Brenchele was suing execution. Although the plaintiff had required the defendant to save him harmless, he had refused, to the plaintiff's damage £1000. [French]
The parties appeared on 24 July, when the plaintiff produced an agreement dated 28 Sept. 1383, whereby John Knesworth, John Bally, clerk, William Averey, clerk, Edmund Fraunceys, Bartholomew Berford, John Gravesende, Stephen Maynard, John Cook, corsour, Thomas Beton, baker, William Fader, carpenter, John Staunton, brewer, Robert Brampton, saddler, and John Groos, baker, received the office of janitor of the compter in Walbrook and custody of the prison for a year from Michaelmas 1383, covenanting to answer therefor and to save the sheriff harmless under penalty of the goods of each and all of them.
The defendant, after the bill and deed had been read, pleaded that in the record of Chancery between John Brenchelay and Simon Wynchecoumbe, the latter acknowledged that he had Simon Stacy in his custody at the time when John Brenchelay delivered to him the writ of justicies, and as the said John did not produce pledges for prosecution or begin or demand that process be made, the said Simon and his colleague John More had liberated Simon Stacy on 26 Jan. 1384, and between the reception of the writ and that date there had. been several Sheriffs' Courts. Further the defendant pleaded that after the 26 Jan., when, as the sheriff admitted in Chancery, the prisoner had been liberated, the latter had not been arrested or detained in his compter on account of any action of the said John Brenchelay. And accordingly, since the plaintiff and his colleague had voluntarily released Simon Stacy, the defendant prayed judgment whether the plaintiff could maintain his action against him contrary to the record in Chancery, of which the tenor was as follows:
Membr. 18 b
Writ reciting that John de Brencheleye had complained by a petition exhibited in the last parliament, that whereas Simon Stacy had been arrested by virtue of a writ of justicies and John de Brencheleye had subsequently gone abroad in the company of John, duke of Lancaster, a precept had been issued to the sheriffs to keep the said Simon in custody till a certain day, but the sheriff, Simon de Wynchecoumbe, by arrangement with the said Simon Stacy, had delivered him from prison long before the day mentioned in the precept, and that in cunning excuse for thus liberating him, he had procured a writ in Chancery demanding the cause of the arrest of the said Simon, and that consequent upon the return of the writ, which was to the effect that the said Simon was detained in prison at the suit of Hugh de Brencheleye, a precept had been issued from Chancery ordering the delivery of the said Simon if he were detained for no other reason—although the said Simon had already been liberated—wherefore the said John de Brencheleye prayed the king in parliament for a remedy. Accordingly the sheriffs are now ordered to warn Simon de Wynchecoumble to appear in Chancery on the Thursday following to answer for his contempt and deceit and to show cause why he should not make satisfaction to John de Brencheleye to the value of the goods and chattels claimed. Dated at Westminster 8 Oct. 1384.
In obedience to the writ Simon de Wynchecoumbe appeared in Chancery and declared that there was no custom in the city with regard to a writ of justicies other than the common law. He pleaded that on 1 Jan. 1384 a plea of detinue of chattels had been affirmed at the suit of Hugh de Brencheleye, whereby Simon Stacy had been taken and detained in Newgate, that afterwards a writ of justicies on behalf of John de Brencheleye had been delivered to the sheriffs, upon which writ no pledges for prosecution were ever offered on the part of the plaintiff nor any process made or demanded, and that on 4 Jan. the king sent his writ under the privy seal directing that, whereas John de Brencheleye was departing for Calais to join the duke of Lancaster on the king's business, the sheriffs keep Simon Stacy under arrest until Easter or until John de Brencheleye returned, if this were consonant with the laws and customs of the city. Afterwards on 8 Jan. the king sent a writ of certiorari demanding the cause of the taking and detaining of Simon Stacy, to which it was returned that he was kept in prison at the suit of Hugh de Brencheleye, esquire. Thereupon friends of Simon Stacy moved the sheriff for his delivery, asserting that his detaining in prison was against the law, because John de Brencheleye did not find pledges for prosecution on the writ nor begin or continue process as he ought, nor did Hugh de Brencheleye prosecute his plaint after the above return. Accordingly the sheriffs, after, taking the opinion of wise and discreet men of the city as to whether Simon Stacy could be legally detained, released him on 26 Jan., before which day and after the receipt of the writ of justicies divers Sheriffs' Courts had been held (at which process could have been made). Afterwards on 2 Feb. the king sent a writ ordering the release of Simon Stacy because divers men had mainprised him in Chancery; without that (fn. 13) Simon Stacy had been arrested for any other cause than here stated or that Simon de Wynchecoumbe had procured the writ of certiorari.
John de Brencheleye, while protesting that he did not acknowledge that no pledges for prosecution had been offered or process made, said that whereas Simon de Wynchecoumbe had admitted that the justicies had been received long before the precept (to detain Simon Stacy until Easter) and whereas it was clear from the return to the certiorari that the said Simon was detained in prison at the suit of both the said John de Brencheleye and Hugh de Brencheleye (fn. 14), and thus his arrest and detaining ought to be understood as haying legally taken place at the suit of John de Brencheleye, he prayed judgment as to whether Simon de Wynchecoumbe ought to be admitted to verify his statement that Simon Stacy had been detained at the suit of Hugh alone.
Whereupon the pleadings having been heard, and it being understood that the Sheriffs' Courts were held on no fixed days but at the discretion of the sheriffs (fn. 15), and that no notice had been given to John de Brencheleye of the holding of any court, and the sheriff did not claim to have summoned him to any court, in consequence of which judgment might have been given against him for failure to attend, and without such judgment the other party, being attached to answer, ought not legally to have been acquitted, and also on the ground that Simon de Wynchecoumbe could not be admitted to verify that Simon Stacy had been arrested for some other reason than that stated on his own return to the writ, and further because it did not appear that there was any great need (fn. 16) for prosecutions on writs of justicies to be affirmed by pledges, for these and other reasons it seemed to the court that Simon de Wynchecoumbe had not said anything to clear himself. Accordingly it was considered that John de Brencheleye recover against him chattels to the value of £200, that being the amount claimed against Simon Stacy, and that the question of damages and the punishment of Simon de Wynchecoumbe for his deceit be left for further consideration (fn. 17).
Writ of mittimus, dated 3 May 1385, to the Mayor and Aldermen that the tenor of the proceedings in Chancery had been sent to them in order that they might proceed in the action of Simon de Wynchecoumbe against John Knesworth, Thomas Beton, baker, and others.
The plaintiff, Simon Wynchecoumbe, did not acknowledge the allegation of the defendant but said that Simon Stacy escaped and was delivered from prison without his assent and by default of the defendant, who was his servant and gaoler, and that the defendant ought not to be excused on the ground of allegations made against the plaintiff, because, although the defaults and actions of a sheriff's servant were the defaults of the sheriff as regards other parties, the servant was bound to answer the sheriff as between themselves. And whereas he said in Chancery that Simon Stacy was delivered (by the advice of wise and discreet men etc.), the truth was that he escaped by default of the defendant, and the wise and discreet men were the defendant and the others mentioned in the agreement. Accordingly, since the defendant did not deny that Simon Stacy did, in fact, escape, he prayed judgment.
The defendant denied that he advised the sheriff to liberate Simon Stacy, and he was prepared to verify his denial, if he could make it the issue of the action. Moreover he was willing to verify that Simon Stacy who was delivered on 26 Jan. was not arrested and detained in the compter after that date, and as regards any escape before that date he had no need to answer.
After further pleadings and adjournments, on 27 Feb. 1386 the parties appeared, when it seemed to the court that the defendant was bound to save the plaintiff harmless notwithstanding any answer the latter was alleged to have made, in case of any escape of the said Simon Stacy, and that the defendant did not keep his covenant. Therefore it was considered that the plaintiff recover against him the sum of £200 which John de Brencheley had recovered against the plaintiff in Chancery, and that the defendant be committed to prison, while the question of damages be left for further consideration.
Afterwards the king sent three writs, primum, sicut alias and sicut pluries, demanding the record and process of the above action to be returned to Chancery, and the Mayor and Aldermen returned the sicut alias with a roll attached thereto, containing the record and process.
Membr. 19 b
Note that Thomas Beton afterwards prosecuted a writ of error before Robert Bealknap and his fellow-justices at St Martin le Grand, and on 6 Feb. 1388 Simon Wynchecoumbe reported that Thomas Beton had discontinued his action and was still at large, wherefore he prayed that he be arrested and again committed to prison, which was done.
The defendant, while not acknowledging the date of the covenant or anything in it, pleaded that at the time when it was drawn up, he was a prisoner of the said sheriff in his compter in Walbrook and that under duress of imprisonment he was forced to make and seal the covenant. The plaintiff said that at the time mentioned the defendant was sui juris and at large. On this issue a jury found for the defendant. Therefore it was considered that the said Simon Wynchecombe take nothing by his bill but be in mercy.
Membr. 20 b
Writ, dated 12 June 1385, to the mayor, directing that if William Coudeberk and Simon Brame of Ghent, who were before the king's council on matters concerning their town, should be willing to put on record before the mayor that William Matys (whom the mayor had lately arrested with his goods as an enemy of the king belonging to Bruges) was a native of Ghent and a loyal friend of Ghent, then the mayor was to deliver him and his goods from arrest and allow him to go where he would.
Return to the above in a cedula attached to the writ: The mayor had summoned William Coudeberk and Simon Brame, who testified as abovesaid, but did not know whether the goods arrested with William Matys were his own or not. Thereupon the mayor had summoned William Matys, who swore that all the goods were his own and none belonged to the king's enemies of Bruges. But previous to the receipt of the king's writs, Richard Odyham, Matthew Passelewe and John Sutton, citizens of London, had come and complained that the goods in question belonged not only to the said William but also to Wltre Gaffulkyn, one of the king's enemies of Bruges, the two being partners (intermercatores) in the goods, and that certain of the king's enemies belonging both to Bruges and Sluys, in time of truce between the king and France, had taken and carried away divers goods belonging to the complainants from a ship sailing from Zeeland to London at a place called "Vergat (fn. 18)," contrary to the truce, viz. three bales of battery belonging to Richard of the value of £63, a hundred bales of roche alum belonging to Matthew of the value of £140 and a bale of Cyprus cotton belonging to John of the value of £8, wherefore they prayed that the goods of the said William Matys might be arrested, as being the goods both of William Matys and Wltre Gaffulkyn, and that the portion belonging to the latter be delivered to them as a reprisal in part satisfaction for their own goods. It was for this reason that the mayor had arrested the goods, which he could not disarrest till he had further command from the king, but he had liberated the said William Matys in obedience to the writ.
Thomas Wilyngham, leatherseller, was mainprised by Edmund Haringeye, John Swanton, William Belhomme and Richard Storteford to be obedient to the mayor and other officers of the city, to take no part in any congregation or covin which might lead to the harm of the people, and to keep the peace, under penalty of £100.
Richard Odyham, chamberlain of the city, brought a bill relating that the late John de Heylesdon, mercer, had left by will to his two orphan daughters the sum of £400, and whereas this money had not been paid to them, the petitioner by virtue of his office had on 13 Oct. 1384 arrested the sum of £178 16s ½d in the hands of Robert Harengeye, mercer, who owed that amount to the executors of the will in payment for 42 hundreds and 32½ ells of Westvale large (fn. 19) at 50s the hundred, total £105 13s 6½d, and 48 hundreds and 90 ells of Pitlyng large (fn. 20) at 30s the hundred, (fn. 21) total £73 2s 6d, which he had bought from them on 15 Aug. 1384, payment being due on 24 June 1385. The chamberlain prayed that the said Robert be summoned to find sufficient security for paying the money into the Chamber to the use of the orphans. [French]
The said Robert, appearing on summons on 16 June, acknowledged buying the cloth and said that the price was payable by certain portions, the first being due on 24 June. He entered into a recognisance for payment, and for greater security John Fressh became surety for him in all his goods and chattels. Afterwards full payment was made, £138 16s ½d being received by John Chircheman (fn. 22) and £40 by Thomas Rolf, skinner, on the said John's behalf.
And whereas the testator directed that if one of his daughters died under age £100 of her share should be paid to her sister, and since the said Margaret so died, John Gournay who had married Alice the other sister came before the Mayor and Aldermen on 27 Nov. 1392 and acknowledged receipt of £300 from John Chircheman.
Bond of Peter Gracian, merchant of Lucca, to James Dyne of Florence in £410 due on 1 April following, to pay that sum in the manner and form contained in an indenture enrolled in Guildhall, between Nicholas Brembre, knight, and the said Peter and Luke Bragadyn. Dated 29 July 1385.
Membr. 21 b
The following merchants of the Hanse of Almaine (fn. 23) came before the Mayor and Aldermen in the Chamber of the Guildhall: Henry Judex, Hermann Vyntthorp, John Clippyng, Alfunus Brake, Henry Wykethe, Henry de Heythe, Frowyn Stopyng, Andrew Kelmere, John Sachell, Hermann Datell, John Affelyng, John de Holthowse, "Autresward Magist' del Nave (fn. 24)," who mainprised each other, under penalty of forfeiture of life and all their goods and chattels, not to leave the city without special permission of the mayor, and further that they would help by letters and all other means possible to secure the liberation of divers English merchants arrested with their goods in Prussia (Pruys).
Conrad Honterholp, Ellrand Yspelynthrode, Nicholas Lure, Tydemann van de Walde, Arnald Wandeler, John de Attenderne, Brunferner, John van Aake, Stradeo Platoun and Colardus le Cherpetire, merchants of the Hanse, were similarly sworn.
John de Northwych, fletcher, was mainprised by William Waxwell and Saykyn Perkesdale, fletchers, under penalty of £40, to keep the peace and obey the officers of the city and the masters of his mistery, and to make good bolts (petiliones) and arrows.
Covenant, whereby Luke Bragadyn granted to Nicholas Brembre, knight, and Peter Gracyan, that he would not bring any action against the latter or cause him to be arrested within the term of seven years, unless the said Nicholas acknowledged that he had received satisfaction of his own claims against the said Peter. The other parties agreed that before 1 Aug. the said Peter should render account before arbitrators to the said Luke, and that the amount of any debt should be clearly stated, so that the said Luke might demand payment either after seven years, or before, if the said Nicholas had received satisfaction. Dated 1 April. [French]
Memorandum that Thomas Newton, William Swafham, clerk, and Robert Uppegate deposited in the hands of the chamberlain the sum of 100 marks in a sealed bag, that amount being due on 24 June to Margaret, widow of Thomas de Graunson, knight, and Roger Beauchamp, esquire, of co. Beds, but unclaimed by them.
Membr. 22 b
Richard Glemesford, merchant and fellmonger of London, demanded an account from William Upton his apprentice by a bill directed, according to custom, to the Mayor and Aldermen, in which he complained that on 26 Oct. 1384 at Middelburgh, a merchant town in Zeeland, the said William received by the hands of Thomas Stokton the sum of £40 in gold to trade therewith on behalf of the plaintiff and had refused to render account thereof, to the plaintiff's damage 100s. [French]
The defendant, who had been committed to Ludgate prison for lack of mainprise, was brought into court and admitted receipt of the money. Thereupon the court assigned John Reche, Thomas Brawhyng and John Swanton as auditors, and Wednesday 22 March was appointed for hearing the account. On that day the defendant said that he bought from Rubryst van Coloyne 3100 calabers (fn. 25) at a price of £20 7s 8d g', one tymbre (fn. 26) and a half of bevres for 51s g', 21 oteres from Hugh van Bruge for 21s g', 3 furrours (fn. 27) of lamb for 21s g', one pilche (fn. 28) bevere for 33s 4d g' and a barrel for the calabers for 18 g'. He also paid 4 g' for carriage to the ship, 16 g' for toll, 12 g' for skutage (fn. 29) and 40 g' for a sword, and he had in gold and silver the sum of £3 17s 10d. The above goods and money amounted to £30 (fn. 30), which he had delivered to his master. He asked that the sum of 26s 8d should be allowed for his board during the four weeks he was at Middelburgh.
The plaintiff prayed judgment on the ground that the defendant had only answered for £31 6s 8d, and asked that the balance of £8 13s 4d should be charged against the defendant. The auditors agreed and on 12 July brought their record of the account into court. It was considered that the defendant pay the balance, and as he was unable to do so, he was committed to Ludgate until etc.
Marriage settlement, in the form of a bond and defeasance, between Walter Doget, vintner, Nicholas Brembre, knight, and Henry Vannere, vintner, in order to purchase lands and tenements to the value of £300 for the benefit of John Doget, son of the above Walter, and Idonea his wife, daughter of John Birlyngham and Margaret his wife, which Margaret had married John Philipot as her second husband. Of the £300, the sum of £100 had been left to Idonea by her father, £100 had been contributed as a free gift by her stepfather John Philipot and the remaining £100 was to be supplied by Walter Doget, the father of the bridegroom. In case the latter died, Idonea was to maintain any children of the marriage till they came of age, were married or were otherwise provided for. [Latin and French]
Nicholas Brembre having died, Henry Vannere came into court and asked that the bond be cancelled, since Walter Doget and the above-mentioned Idonea had gone the way of all flesh (viam universe carnis sunt ingressi).
Memorandum that Thomas Cheyne, esquire, before setting out on a pilgrimage to Rome, delivered to Nicholas Luke of Florence, Lombard, a small sealed box, called a "trussyngcoffre," containing divers goods and jewels, and afterwards died on the journey. The box was claimed by John Cheyne, knight, his executor, and was delivered to him by the said Nicholas Luke, under surety of William Wadesworth; grocer, to save him harmless against any future claim.
Letters patent, dated 16 March 1383, reciting that on 3 Aug. 1382 (fn. 31) the king had granted to John Clanvou, knight, Nicholas Sharnesfeld, knight, William More, citizen and vintner, Paul Gysors, William Fettyngdon, chaplain, and John Boudiche, chaplain, a messuage with a wharf and other appurtenances in Wyndegoslane (fn. 32) in Dowgate, of an annual value of 8 marks and formerly held from the king by Richard Lyons, which messuage had escheated to the king because Richard Lyons was a bastard and died without an heir, as appeared by inquisitions made before William Walleworth, late mayor and the king's escheator in the city, whereof the tenor was returned to Chancery. The king now, with the assent of William More, who had lately paid the king 203 marks for the messuage, and with the assent of the said John, Nicholas, Paul and William, John Boudiche having died, and also because they had returned the letters patent to Chancery for cancellation, grants the messuage and wharf to his beloved servant, John Sliegh (fn. 33), and his heirs, the said John Sliegh having repaid the said 203 marks to William More.
Membr. 23 b
Writ of protection, dated 28 Nov. 1385, in favour of Elias Thorpe, citizen and merchant of London, who was then about to cross the sea on the king's service in the company of John de Drayton, knight, captain of the castle of Guynes (fn. 34), for the defence of the same.
By virtue of the above the said Elias was on 18 Jan. 1386 dismissed without a day in suits of debt and account brought against him by John atte Hulle of Sabrichesworth (fn. 35).
Nicholas Pays, joiner, being deprived of his natural senses, so that he knew not either how to govern himself or to guard and manage his goods according to reason, was entrusted by the Mayor and Aldermen to Peter Feriby, who had married the daughter of the said Nicholas, in order that he might be supported from the possessions which God had given him, in a manner agreeable to his rank and in accordance with good faith and reason. Accordingly his goods were delivered to the said Peter for so long as his sickness should continue, on condition that the said Peter provide him with food, clothing, bed, shoes and all other necessaries, and render a yearly account before auditors appointed by the Mayor and Aldermen. It was further agreed that if the said Nicholas should die without regaining his senses, and if a will now produced in court, which was said to have been made while he was still compos mentis, were proved by law to be valid, then the remainder of his goods should be distributed by the terms of the will, but otherwise they should be expended by the Mayor and Aldermen for the good of his soul and other works of charity, provided always that if by the mercy of God he recovered from his languor, his goods and chattels should be restored to his own disposition. For the fulfilment of the above conditions the said Peter entered into a bond of all his possessions, and for greater security Henry Grenecobbe, dyer, Thomas Haukere, ironmonger, and Gilbert Asshurst, woodmonger, entered into like bonds. John Pays, brother of the said Nicholas, Thomas Fraunkeleyn, chandler, and John Waryner, neighbours of the said Peter, were appointed to see that the said Nicholas was well provided for and to warn the mayor of any default.
Afterwards oh 8 Feb. 1386 the sum of £92 4s was delivered to the said Peter by Richard Odyham, chamberlain, and on 11 Aug. a further sum of £11. On 18 Aug. the sum of £10 lent by Nicholas to the late king was paid out, and on 24 Dec. the chamberlain delivered two pieces of silver and a broken piece of silver valued at 40s and two mazers valued at 13s 4d.
Membr. 24 b
Memorandum that on 2 Nov. 1385 William Bonhostel, Gascon, borrowed from Mark Ernele, grocer, in his house in the parish of St Antholin, the sum of £12 in silver, for which he gave as pledge 5 silver buckles plated with gold (firmacula argentea foris platata cum platis de auro) weighing 14 oz., which he asserted to be of pure gold—a statement which was believed by the said Mark and several others, including goldsmiths. Afterwards, however, John Botisham, goldsmith, and other masters of the Goldsmiths, perceiving that the buckles were merely plated with gold in deception of the people, arrested them in the hands of the said Mark, supposing them to be forfeitable. The sheriffs likewise claimed them as forfeit by reason of their office. Accordingly the buckles were handed over by the mayor under his seal to John Fressh, alderman, to be kept until the Mayor and Aldermen had decided to whom they ought to be delivered. Afterwards on 25 Feb. 1386 the buckles were broken and found to be as alleged. And because the said Mark did not offer the buckles for sale or suspect that there was any deceit, but as soon as he learnt of it, caused the said William to be arrested and confined in Newgate, he was held to be innocent of any deception, and it was considered by the court and the sheriffs that the buckles should be returned to him in part satisfaction of his debt. On 13 April they were valued by John Forster, Robert Wadevyll and Michael Brusshele, goldsmiths, as follows: the gold, weighing 4 oz. 9 dwt. at 15s the oz., £3 6s 9d; and the silver, weighing 9 oz. i dwt. at 2s 2d the oz., 19s 7d; total, £4 6s 4d.
Memorandum that the mayor and good men of Dancastre (fn. 36) sent a letter under their common seal reciting that Richard Lewer of their town had consigned 22 sarplers of wool to his servant John Caldham at Middelburgh to trade therewith, which John sold the wool to John Olneye of London and afterwards died. They were informed that John Olneye had in his hands a certain sum of money arising from the sale of the wool and divers bonds, viz. two bonds of John Kymbel of London to John Caldham and John Olneye for £80, of which £20 was still in arrears, a bond of James Fane, Lombard, to the same John and John for £60, of which £10 was in arrears, and another bond of John Wodecok and Robert Dane to John Olneye in 200 marks to save him harmless as against the executors of John Caldham by reason of certain sums received for a portion of the wool by the said Richard and his wife Katherine. Now whereas the said Richard was dead, they prayed that the said arrears and the bonds might be delivered to Thomas atte Wode and the aforesaid Katherine, now his wife, executrix of Richard's will. Dated at Doncaster 28 Feb. 1386.
The same day another letter was received from Alexander, archbishop of York, certifying that Katherine, widow of Richard Lewer, was named as executrix in his will and that administration had been granted to her. Dated at his manor by Westminster 7 March 1386.
John Olneye willingly appeared in court and produced the following documents: (1) a bond of John Kimbel of London to John Caldam of Pickering and John Olnay of London in £176, by reason of a loan, payable to them or bearer at Christmas 1383, the bond being defeasible if £28 were paid within 20 days of Christmas and £60 at the Easter following. (2) Another bond from the same to the same for £25 payable on 3 May 1384. (3) A bond from Robert Dane and John Wodecok, mercers of London, in 200 marks to secure the payment of 100 marks to the same at Michaelmas 1384.
The two bonds relating to John Kymbel, together with a letter touching a debt of James Fane, were delivered to Thomas atte Wode and the said Katherine. The bond of Robert Dane and John Wodecok was returned to them. Memorandum that Thomas and Katherine admitted having received £80 from John Olneye, who undertook to pay a further sum of £25.
Writ, dated at Westminster 26 Feb. 1386, to Nicholas. Brembre, mayor, reciting that he had been ordered to deliver certain goods of William Matys of Ghent from arrest, and asking whether this had been done, what the goods were, and their value.
Endorsed that the execution of the writ was contained in a schedule annexed, wherein it was stated that the goods, arrested at the suit of Richard Odyham, Matthew Passelewe and John Button, still lay under arrest, since no one had demanded their delivery, that they consisted of divers cloths, and that they had been valued by the oath of Richard Hay, fuller, and eleven others as follows: 29 dozens of russet, at 16s the dozen, £23 4s; 5 dozens of black russet at 22s the dozen, £5 10s; 10 yards of semdrin (fn. 37) at 2s the yard, 20s; 4 yards black russet at 18d the yard, 6s; 3 yards of white russet at 20d the yard, 5s; one dozen of vyolet, 22s; 31 dozens of kersey, at 3s 6d a dozen (fn. 38), £6 19s 6d; total £38 6s 6d.
Membr. 25 b
The defendant pleaded that he and the plaintiff were summoned to meet William de Burgh, knight, the umpire, at the church of St Martin le Grand on 8 Feb. 1386, on which day the umpire refused to give any award. He prayed judgment whether the plaintiff could have execution of the bond against him.
The plaintiff answered that the parties met on 3 Feb., when the umpire was not sufficiently informed to make an award, whereupon they asked him to continue the matter and agreed to meet on the Monday following, or at a later date, if he were prevented from coming. The umpire was unable to come owing to the king's business and summoned them for the next Wednesday at the third hour after noon, when he awarded that the defendant should deliver to the plaintiff 15 bales of cordewan (fn. 39) and 10 oxhides sewn (decem coria bovina suta), which John Flete, late bailiff of Southampton, had delivered to the plaintiff to carry to London, and which the defendant had arrested in Holebourne. Nevertheless the defendant had refused to fulfil the award.
The defendant pleaded that the umpire on 8 Feb. had asked leave to consider the matter till the next day, and on that day in the parish of St Alban Wood Street in the presence of Geoffrey Clerk and others he refused to arbitrate. And on this pleading the defendant put himself on the country. And the plaintiff did likewise.
Letter from the king of Castille and Leon (fn. 40), duke of Lancaster, to Sir Nicholas Brembre, mayor of London.
The mayor will remember that the duke has spoken to him before now on behalf of John Norhampton, John More and Richard Northbury, against whom the mayor's wishes and purposes were unreasonable and outrageous. His redoubtable lordship the king had granted to the duke, on his departure, his special favour, to wit, that these men should have their charters of pardon on condition that they did not approach nearer to the city of London than 40 leagues, but which he had bought from them on 15 Aug. 1384, payment being due on 24 June 1385. The chamberlain prayed that the said Robert be summoned to find sufficient security for paying the money into the Chamber to the use of the orphans. [French]
The said Robert, appearing on summons on 16 June, acknowledged buying the cloth and said that the price was payable by certain portions, the first being due on 24 June. He entered into a recognisance for payment, and for greater security John Fressh became surety for him in all his goods and chattels. Afterwards full payment was made, £138 16s ½d being received by John Chircheman (fn. 41) and £40 by Thomas Rolf, skinner, on the said John's behalf.
And whereas the testator directed that if one of his daughters died under age £100 of her share should be paid to her sister, and since the said Margaret so died, John Gournay who had married Alice the other sister came before the Mayor and Aldermen on 27 Nov. 1392 and acknowledged receipt of £300 from John Chircheman.
Bond of Peter Gracian, merchant of Lucca, to James Dyne of Florence in £410 due on 1 April following, to pay that sum in the manner and form contained in an indenture enrolled in Guildhall, between Nicholas Brembre, knight, and the said Peter and Luke Bragadyn. Dated 29 July 1385.
Membr. 21 b
The following merchants of the Hanse of Almaine (fn. 42) came before the Mayor and Aldermen in the Chamber of the Guildhall: Henry Judex, Hermann Vyntthorp, John Clippyng, Alfunus Brake, Henry Wykethe, Henry de Heythe, Frowyn Stopyng, Andrew Kelmere, John Sachell, Hermann Datell, John Affelyng, John de Holthowse, "Autresward Magist' Spain as soon as the king's grant has been put into effect, for which reason the mayor has no need to make any such suggestion against him. Moreover the duke has now sent to the king to ask his favour for the wife and children of the said John, that they may receive the wife's inheritance. The duke prays the mayor to cease from his opposition and his hindrance of the pardon, even as the mayor would wish that the duke should act towards him, for in the same manner as the mayor shall prove deserving towards the duke, so the duke will behave to the best of his power towards the mayor. Wherefore he begs the mayor to take the matter to heart and may God keep him. Given under the duke's signet at Plympton the 12th day of May. [French]
Membr. 26 b
Reply from the Aldermen and Commonalty (fn. 43) of the city of London. They recommend themselves to the best of their knowledge and power to his most redoubtable and puissant lordship the duke. They have understood the contents of the letters sent to Sir Nicholas Brembre, mayor, which they recite. In this matter it seems to them that the duke is not duly informed and that untrue suggestions have been made to him against the mayor. Whereas the duke ascribes the above-mentioned actions to the mayor and no one else, they assure his highness that in truth the steps taken to limit the pardon after the duke's departure were not only the action and motion of the mayor but the action and motion of all of them, undertaken for the benefit and peace of the city, and that they had made strong representations to him as their mayor, because at present it seemed to them that the coming of the above-mentioned persons or any of them, and especially of John Norhampton, so near to the city as the duke wished, as appeared by his letters, would be a great cause of unrest to the city and the occasion of great tribulation and discontent within the city, to the subversion of the same, and thus would prove very displeasing to his lordship the king and to the duke himself and to the whole kingdom, which thing they hoped their honoured lord would in no wise desire; and accordingly the mayor, by reason of his office, and they themselves, for their common good and the ease and quietness of the people and in order to prevent any such danger arising in despite of the king and themselves, had agreed that the mayor should move in the matter, and if the duke had remained longer in the country, they would have approached his lordship concerning the same, and especially because the king had previously granted to the commonalty of the city by his letters patent, for greater assurance of peace and quietness, that none of the aforementioned persons should approach nearer to the city than 100 leagues within the boundaries of England, wherefore they hoped that the duke, after good consideration, would hold the mayor and themselves as excused on this point. Furthermore, at the instance of the mayor and aldermen, and in order to give pleasure to the king and the duke, they had by common assent agreed to remit 20 leagues of the 100 leagues aforesaid. They begged his lordship to give no credence to any suggestions made against their request or against themselves or the city until he had received full information therein and considered their answer to the same. They had entire trust in the duke that he was more anxious for their peace and good than to aid and sustain persons who for so long, both in the time of the late king, the duke's father, whom God assoil, and in the time of the present king, had been regarded as rioters, brawlers, disturbers of the peace, initiators and maintainers of common quarrels and riots in the city, and as such notified and published as well in places of record as in the said city, being men engaged to the utmost of their power in oppressing the people and subverting the city, and as such arrested and imprisoned by just commandment of the king and of his noble council and by the mayor and officers of the city, and for such causes, and others more heinous, duly attainted in the time of the present king both on their own confession and in other ways. They prayed that God of his benign grace would give to his redoubtable and puissant lordship a good and long life and good success to him and all his friends and helpers and victory over all his enemies. Written at London under the common seal of the said city the 23rd day of May. From the duke's servants, the Aldermen and Commonalty of the city of London. [French]
Reply from Sir Nicholas Brembre in identical terms. As regards the matter touching the inheritance of John Norhampton's wife and children, he had never urged reasons to the contrary. He concludes his letter "le vostre si vous plest Nichol Brembre." [French]
Adam Bamme, late one of the sheriffs of London, was summoned to answer Simon Aylsham, mercer, in a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that on 24 Nov. 1382 in the Sheriffs' Court he sued Nicholas Rudere of Bruges, attorney of Peter Clerk, merchant of Bruges, to render account of £1000. As the said Nicholas was not a freeman and had no goods in the city, he was taken on a capias and brought to Adam's compter in Milk Street, whence he escaped on the Wednesday following. And accordingly, since in such a case the sheriff was bound by the use and custom of the city to satisfy the plaintiff for the sum in virtue of which the imprisonment took place, action accrued to the plaintiff for that amount.
The defendant, while protesting that he did not acknowledge the date or the amount or that the custom was as large as was alleged, pleaded that the said Nicholas was attached previous to 30 Nov., that process was continued till a court held on 3 Dec., when friends informed John Norhampton, then mayor, that the said Nicholas was a foreigner and had been long in prison, and prayed the mayor to order the defendant, as sheriff, to deliver him according to custom. Thereupon the mayor, in Simon's presence, had ordered him to send for Nicholas the same day and told Simon to attend the Sheriffs' Court to prosecute his claim if he so wished. The latter made default, whereupon judgment was given that he and his pledges be in mercy and that Nicholas go quit. Moreover, adjournments in the Sheriffs' Court were not to a fixed day, but from one court to another; without that (fn. 44) Nicholas left the prison before Simon failed to prosecute. Accordingly he prayed judgment whether Simon had any action against him.
The plaintiff said that Adam's plea was double: first that, as courts were adjourned from one court to another, no fixed day could be given him, and secondly, that the mayor had ordered him to hear the plea the very same day, and so no fixed day could be given. He asked to be exonerated from one of these pleas.
The said Adam answered that he had alleged all these matters merely to explain how the plaintiff had not prosecuted his claim according to law, which was sufficient to excuse himself. He prayed judgment.
The action was adjourned for the information of the court until 14 Sept., when the plaintiff, while not admitting the defendant's allegations about the mayor's precept, pleaded that adjournments in the Sheriffs' Court were not as alleged, but that the sheriffs, on taking office, arranged to hold their courts alternately, one taking Wednesday and Friday and the other Thursday and Saturday, such days being called "juridici (fn. 45)," and the defendant, as sheriff, had the two latter days; further that according to custom neither need hold more courts than twice a week, except by consent of the parties or for the delivery of foreigners, this kind of court being called a "foreign" court, and that in such foreign courts no free man ought to be compelled to prosecute his claim of debt or account, except by consent of the parties (fn. 46), or unless a day's notice had been given in a case where a plaintiff, having a dies juridicus next after the common adjournments, had no counsel then present. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant's juridical days were Thursday and Saturday and that on Saturday 29 Nov. the parties appeared in his court, but as there was no opportunity of discussing the case a day was given for Thursday following, yet nevertheless on the Wednesday at 11 o'clock before noon the said Adam suddenly required the plaintiff, without his counsel and without warning, to prosecute his plea, to which, in the presence of Sir William Walworth and other aldermen, he answered that he need not prosecute because the day had not been assigned to him, and his counsel was not present, and he was not warned to plead in a "foreign" court, and he requested the said Adam to defer any steps as to liberating the said Nicholas Until the next day, which had been assigned to him. And accordingly, since the delivering of the said Nicholas was without warrant and unjust, he prayed damages against the said Adam.
The defendant pleaded in answer that the court and the authority of the sheriffs were whole and not divided, that according to the custom of the city they could hold personal actions daily and often did so, especially where a foreign merchant was defendant, and that the mayors of London had always had the power, when an impleaded person complained of any delay or wrong in the Sheriffs' Court, to order the sheriffs in the presence of the parties to hold a court the same day, terminate the plea and deliver the parties notwithstanding any common adjournment in the Sheriffs' Court. Moreover the plaintiff, who was present in Guildhall, did not come before him or any of his officers to say that he had no counsel present or make any excuse at all, but clearly did not prosecute his claim, though he was frequently exacted, all of which the defendant was ready to verify by his record or in such manner as the court should direct. Wherefore he prayed judgment whether the plaintiff could assign any injury to him personally or ought to have his action against him.
The plaintiff said that the defendant did not deny his allegation, and as regards his making no excuse about his counsel, he said that he warned the defendant thereof in the Guildhall in the presence of the Mayor and Aldermen, which the defendant had not denied, wherefore he prayed judgment.
Richard Gromet, Roger Sket, John Gyot, Arnaud Wrighte, Simon Edelonde, John Pottere, John Soudere, Adam Pottere, Robert Wyse, Thomas Helond, Roger Goudyng and Roger Gromet, fishermen of the country eastwards of London Bridge, were sworn before the Mayor and Aldermen to inform them how and by whom the fish in the Thames were so destroyed that hardly a seasonable fish could be found in it, what the nets in use were and how wide was the mesh, and whether it would be more profitable for the common people that the mesh of the nets for smelts and gojons should be of the assize of one inch, or an inch and a half, and for how long they ought to use such nets for such fish.
The fishermen said on oath that destruction was mainly done by treinkes (fn. 47) and weres, and by hebbyngnettes (fn. 48) put in fletes (fn. 49) and shores (fn. 50) in the water and in the bruche (fn. 51) towards Berkyng, and of these treinkes, one each was owned by John Taillour of Wolwych, John Swyft, John Erhithe, Smalbourne, Robert Tripecok of Plumsted, Richard Wayn, John London of Erhithe, John Colyn, John Baterell, Philip Erhithe, Thomas Geffray of Hamme, John Shipman and William Danyel, and there were several others whose names they did not know. They said also that Salomon Prat of Popeler, John Brewere of Hamme, Thomas Wrighte, Daniel de Brambelegh, Walter Taillour, John Thressher of Popeler, John Shipman of Hamme, John Galyon of Wolwyche and John Godesone had each of them weres, and there were several others whose names they did not know. Further, the fish usually entered at the breche on the land of the abbot of Stratford and the abbess of Berkyng in order to feed on the land there and to be more at ease and more swef (fn. 52) than in the current of the Thames, and there they stayed till the tide ebbed and they could not pass back to the river but betook themselves to the ditches which remained full of water, which ditches the abbot and abbess hired out to people who put weres and other engyns in them, against the assize, whereby all fish, great and small, being unable to pass, were destroyed, and thus the abbot and abbess were the principal maintainers of the destruction of fish. They said further that nets of an inch in the mesh were always, time out of mind, used for smelts and gojons, and the fishing began fifteen days before Candlemas (2 Feb.) and lasted till the feast of our Lady in Lent (25 March). During this period they held that it would be best for the people to fish with nets of narrow mesh, since smelts and gojons could not be taken with larger mesh. No fisherman ought to draw any net called a "draghenet (fn. 53)" to land during this season between the Tower and London Bridge, and no one ought to fish at any season of the year, except in the time of smelts, with a mesh less than two inches. The fishermen also said that samoun and sturgon were utterly destroyed by weres and treinkes, and that there was another kind of net called "forstate (fn. 54) " with which a man could fish all the year, of which the mesh should be two inches of assize and no narrower. [French]
John Heldere, Thomas Fynch, John Spray, Peter Colman, John Couche, Robert Pulter, John Gybon, John Never, Laurence Sprillyng, William Grene, Richard West and William Neve, fishermen of the west of London Bridge, sworn the same day, said that between the Purification (2 Feb.) and the feast of our Lady in Lent (25 March) it had always been usual to fish with a smeltnet, having a mesh of an inch, for smelts and gudgeons, without dragging these nets anywhere to land near London, but fishing only in the middle of the stream, and hitherto they had had leave to fish with such nets fourteen days before the Purification, if the season required it, i.e. in swef and mol (fn. 55) times when the scoue (fn. 56) of smelt and gudgeons drew closer to the land, which it did not do in cold and hard times. Also they said they had been used to fish with nets of a two-inch mesh all through the year except nine days before and nine days after the feast of St Mark (25 April), which was the spawning season for roach, that no nets ought to be drawn to land anywhere near London in any season of the year unless the meshes were two inches wide, and that salmon ought (not?) to be taken between the feast of the Nativity of our Lady (8 Sept.) and the feast of St Martin (11 Nov.) because at this time it was kiper (fn. 57), out of season and of no value. They had been used to take lampreies throughout the year except in May, which was their season of spawning. Lamprons (fn. 58) could be taken at any time except between Hokkeday (Tuesday after Easterday) and the Feast of St Lawrence (10 Aug.), which was their season of spawning. Also they said that many people had recently made weres called "routes (fn. 59) " near Braynford (fn. 60) and Istelworth, whereby small fish were destroyed, that there were other weirs which stopped the common course of the water, so that no vessel could pass without great trouble, and that at the Westwere at Braynford and at Brainte great destruction of fish was done by engyns called "wilwes (fn. 61)." [French]
Thereupon it was agreed by the Mayor and Aldermen that, whereas divers persons fish with smeltnets of one-inch mesh after the season above-mentioned in open destruction of fish large and small, in future anyone wishing to fish with such nets should find sufficient security among the good men of London that within eight days after the said feast of our Lady they would bring their nets to the Guildhall to remain there for the ensuing year under safe custody, permission being given to their owners to come to the Guildhall to see that their nets were well kept, and at a reasonable time to be limited by the Mayor and Aldermen before the feast of the Purification they should have delivery of their nets to mend and repair them and to fish with them during the said season and no longer. Further, each fisherman should swear to do this loyally and not to fish with any net or engine contrary to the ordinance in destruction of fish, and if any one be found fishing with such net after the feast of our Lady in Lent, the nets should be burnt and the owner put to such penance, at the discretion of the Mayor and Aldermen, as befitted one who destroyed the common food.
William Pyg of Westhamme was mainprised by Elias Braybrok and William Pycot not to put any net called "treinke" in the Thames except during the time and season when, by ancient custom, such nets were used.
Membr. 28 b
Ralph Tot, John Roger, Gilbert Peny, William Smalbourne, Thomas Frost, Adam Clement and John Normanton of Wolwych came before the Mayor and Aldermen in the Inner Chamber of the Guildhall and were charged with having assaulted John Salisbury, surveyor of the Thames, who had been appointed to take, remove and destroy all nets and engines whereby fry were destroyed, by shooting arrows at him, and further, with having put weres and other engines of too narrow mesh in the water, contrary to the ancient ordinances of the king and of the city. The defendants admitted the charge and put themselves on the favour of the Mayor and Aldermen, who granted, on account of their humility, that they should be bound over under mainprise. Thereupon they were mainprised by John Horn and others that none of them would interfere in future with John Salisbury or any other officer of the city in the discharge of his duty, nor place too narrow weirs, treinkes or other engines in the water, that they would assist and comfort the officers in their work, and that they would hinder and bring to the notice of the mayor all persons so offending, unless they were able to castigate and punish them themselves. They were also sworn not to do any harm to the men of Stebbenhithe (fn. 62) or their goods except by due process of law, under penalty of £100.
The said John Horn agreed and promised in good faith to produce, on their return, John Erhithe and John Godessone, who had been charged with the same offences, and were then at sea with the Admiral on the king's service.
Reciprocal quitclaims between Margery, widow of John Ittelcote, draper, on the one part, and Thomas de Baketon, archdeacon of London, and Denis de Lopham, clerk, attorneys of Master Richard de Drayton, on the other.
Adam Botoner of Coventry, by John Kesteven and John Trumpton his attorneys, brought a bill before the Mayor and Aldermen in the Chamber, complaining that John Dilcok, son of the complainant's wife Margaret and her former husband Henry Dilcok, had been bound apprentice to John More and had served five years of his term, during which time his master had not enrolled him, nor given him any instruction during the last year and a half, nor handed him over to any one else of the same trade to learn the trade, nor provided him with food and clothing, as he was bound to do. He prayed that the said John might be released from his apprenticeship.
The court, while agreeing that John More (fn. 63) neither could nor ought to come to the city, nevertheless desired, on the ground of equity (fn. 64), to know whether he had anything to say to the contrary, and accordingly they warned his wife Alice to report the matter to her husband and to appear on 8 June to inform them whether her husband had any objections to offer. The said Alice did not appear nor did any one else come on behalf of John More. Accordingly, since he was reported to be fully informed of the matter and gave no reasons to the contrary, and because he had not enrolled his apprentice within the first year of his term according to custom, as appeared by a scrutiny of the books of the Chamber of Guildhall, nor had he instructed him etc., and further because he had himself been ousted from the freedom of the city by the king's justices sitting at the Tower for certain felonies and treasons confessed by him, and thus was unable to exercise his trade, it was considered, according to custom in the like case, that the said John Dilcok should be exonerated from his apprenticeship and should serve whom he would notwithstanding his indentures, and that his mainpernors in the indentures, namely, the said Adam and Richard Dodenhale, should be released from their mainprise.
Memorandum that Hugh Richardesson of Southampton, who was warden and governor (custos et gubernator) of a balinger (fn. 65) called "le Marie de Excestre," was attached in the Sheriffs' Court to answer Philip Travers of Calais, attorney of John Bedon, scutifer (fn. 66) of Calais, for the profits of the balinger, which belonged to John Bedon. The action having been removed to the Mayor's Court, the parties put themselves on the arbitration of Richard de Preston and Richard Toky, good men of the city. On 4 July 1386 the latter reported that John Bedon owed Hugh the sum of £6 for the expenses of the balinger and was claiming from him an account of the sum of 40 frankes, which Hugh had received for a prisoner of Calais, and of a further sum of 10 marks which had been entrusted to him, and also of moneys received for freights from Middelburgh to London. This account Hugh could not give in the absence of John Bedon. They awarded that Hugh should enter into security to go to Calais as soon as possible to render an account to John Bedon, and that the £6 should be paid to him.
Membr. 29 b
Baltazar Oubryak, Lombard, was mainprised by Gautron de Bardes, Peter Mark, Nicholas Luk and Bernard Anton, Lombards, for his appearance before the Mayor and Aldermen whenever summoned, under penalty of £1000.
Precept was issued to summon John Bradele, leatherseller, as executor of Thomas Willyngham, who had married Alice, widow of Richard Gerveys, woolmonger, to bring into court the sum of 10 marks arid a moiety of the goods and chattels of the said Richard Gerveys, these being the inheritance of Richard Gerveys' son George. John Bradele appeared on 12 April and asked for an adjournment to take advice, and a day was given him for 28 June. Appearing on that date he pleaded that none of the goods of the late Thomas Willyngham had come into his hands at the time the precept was issued or afterwards. A jury from the venue of Dowgate brought in a verdict for him on this issue. It was considered that the said John go quit and that the said George be not amerced for a false claim because he was an orphan.
Names (fn. 67) of the Common Council of the ninth year of Richard II.
Oath of the Common Council (fn. 68); and penalty for absence without good cause, 40d. [French]
Joan Thurkull was summoned to answer Robert Fraunkeleyn, dyer, in a plea that whereas he let to her a tenement in the parish of St James Garlickhithe for a year from Easter 1385 at a rent of 40s, payable quarterly, to be held afterwards at will and given up on reasonable notice, and at the end of the year he gave her a quarter's notice, nevertheless she refused to quit, to his damage 40s.
The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff agreed, in the presence of a certain Robert Kent, who was acting for him, to let the tenement to her for thirty years at 40s a year, and that she gave him a God's penny (fn. 69) as earnest of the covenant, and that on Shrove Tuesday (14 Feb.) 1385, as the tenement was empty, he allowed her to occupy it for a year without rent, after which he again recognised the covenant. She prayed that, in accordance with the custom of the city, the said Robert Kent, who acted as broker, should be examined on oath. The plaintiff agreed.
Robert Kent, being summoned, appeared the same day and said on oath that it had been agreed that the defendant should have the tenement for thirty years, if she wished, and that the plaintiff would not expel her or raise the rent. Accordingly it was considered by the court that the defendant hold the tenement for thirty years, if she wished, and if she died, it should return to the plaintiff, and that the latter be not amerced because he came the first day. But as the plaintiff had slandered her, calling her a prostitute, he was committed to prison. Next day the plaintiff, together with Richard Bruer, John Grenefeld, goldsmith, and William Sherman, who had also slandered and threatened her, were mainprised for their good behaviour, and the plaintiff's servant, John Wakefeld, was likewise bound over under surety of his master.
Memorandum that at Middelburgh in Zeeland, James Neurent, attorney of John Hoo of London, borrowed £60 from William Wodehill, servant of Robert Sutton, merchant of London, and bound himself for repayment by an obligation, dated 17 Dec. 1385, to the said William and a certain Thomas Maperley. The said William having died, Walter Dautrey, claiming to represent Robert Sutton, came to John Hoo and gave him the first letter of payment according to the law merchant and showed him the second letter of payment and the obligation and asked for payment. John Hoo was willing to pay, but the above-mentioned Thomas Maperley put in a claim. The court summoned both parties, and on Thomas Maperley's making default, it was considered that John Hoo should pay the money direct to Robert Sutton on condition that he warranted him against any other claimant.
Membr. 30 b
Deed witnessing that John Shepeye, barber, who had taken Thomas, son of Hugh le Peyntour of Durham, as his apprentice for seven years by indentures dated 2 April, had now sold to Thomas Canoun, marberer, all his rights to the apprentice and the remainder of the term of apprenticeship (fn. 70), with the consent of the said apprentice, who appended his seal to the document. Dated 27 July 1386.