Sheriffs' Court Roll, 1320
Membrane 20 (transcript pp.75-78)

Sponsor

Centre for Metropolitan History

Publication

Author

Matthew Stevens (editor)

Supporting documents

Citation Show another format:

'Sheriffs' Court Roll, 1320: Membrane 20 (transcript pp.75-78)', London Sheriffs Court Roll 1320. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=119338 Date accessed: 30 August 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Contents

Membrane 20

[m. 20.] Walter of Wisshtone in mercy for not prosecuting his suit v. Andrew of Mockyngge and Christine la Inelere in a plea of detention of chattels. The said Andrew in mercy because he did not come.
Isabella Kippyng in a mercy for not prosecuting her suit v. Walter le Taillor in a plea of trespass. The said Walter in mercy because he did not come.
Henry of Nichole and his pledges in mercy for not prosecuting his suit v. Peter of Haliwelle in a plea of debt.
Thomas le Brewere in mercy for not prosecuting his suit v. Thomas Sheil, baker, in a plea of debt. The same Thomas Sheil in mercy because he did not come.
John le Hore, brewer, in mercy because he did not prosecute his suit v. Thomas Sheil in a plea of debt. The same Thomas in mercy because he did not come.
Nicholas le Chesmongere in mercy because he did not prosecute his suit v. William of Haukedene in a plea of trespass. The same William in mercy because he did not come.
William of Arondel in mercy because he did not prosecute his suit v. Saunz Arnald in a plea of trespass.
misericordie Simon of Norhamptone, 'seynturer', in mercy for not prosecuting his suit v. John Pynnote in a plea of debt. The same John in mercy because he did not come.
Peter of Beuerle, cordwainer, and Aldith his wife, in mercy because he did not prosecute his suit v. William le Ken in a plea of trespass. The same William in mercy because he did not come.
John Bontyng in mercy for not prosecuting his suit v. Peter Bussh in a plea of account.
[The next six pleas were omitted from transcript CLA/025/CT/01/001]
The same Peter is in mercy because he did not come v. the same concerning the same.
Henry Mortelake, one of the executors of the will of Beatrice atte Borgate is in mercy for one default v. Waler le Callerein a plea of debt.
Henry Goce is in mercy for one default v. John of Leuesham in a plea of debt.
William Ficais is in mercy for one default v. Rober Goce and Letice his wife in a plea of trespass.
William le Chaundeler is in mercy because he is not prosecuting his suit v. John le Lung and Joan his wife in a plea of trespass.
The same John and Joan are in mercy because they did not come v. the same concerning the same.
vacat John Bontyng is in mercy because he is not prosecuting his suit v. Peter [blank space].
[p. 76] Reimund of Lymoges in mercy for not prosecuting his suit v. Michael Mynot in a plea of trespass.
The same Michael in mercy because he did not come.
Roger of Lyncolne in mercy for a default v. Richard de la Porte in a plea of trespass.
William Peioun in mercy for not prosecuting his suit v. Paul le Botiller in a plea of account.
The same Paul in mercy because he did not come.
John Russel, verrer, in mercy for a default v. Stephen of Creie in a plea of debt.
Thomas of Walpol in mercy for not prosecuting his suit v. William of Durhem and Maude his wife in a plea of debt.
The same William and Maude in mercy because they did not come.
Gilbert le Rede in mercy for a default v. John Spray in a plea of debt.
William atte Rye in mercy for a default v. John Hamond, cook, in a plea of trespass.
convincatur


misericordia
Richard le Ussher, pl., appears v. William of Norhampton. It is testified in
Court by the serjeant that the def. was summoned to appear to hear judgment concerning his default in the making of his law, but he does
not come. Therefore let him be convicted and amerced.
licencia

misericordia
John Spray, pl., appears v. Gilbert le Ride and Juliana his wife in a plea of debt. The said Gilbert and Juliana ask licence to withdraw from their plaint [sic]. They put themselves in mercy.
patria David Scot, pl., appears v. Stephen Vyncent in a plea of trespass. The said Stephen had a day to appear and hear the verdict of the jury, but he does not come. Therefore let the inquest be taken. Respite because the jurors do [not] come.
Thomas Orpedeman, pl., appears v. John le Tapicer in a plea of debt. The said John had a day to make his law, but does not come. Therefore let him be summoned to hear judgment concerning his default.
xiiij d.
summoniciones
William le Despenser, pl., appears v. John of Fifede in a plea of debt. The said John had a day to make his law, but does not come. Therefore let him be summoned etc.
xviij d. Henry of Bifold, pl., appears v. William le Copour in a plea of debt. The same William had a day to make his law, and does not come. Therefore etc.
proxima
nihil separetur
attachiamentum
Burgea, relict of Richard of Harle, executrix of the will of the said Richard, better attached v. Agnes of Wenlok, executrix of the will of Walter of Wenlok, and Thomas, parson of St. Mary of Wolcherchehawe, her co-executor, in a plea of debt. Robert of Harle, kt., co-executor of the said Burgea, appears by his attorney.
Pledges taken from Robert atte Hegge at the suit of Robert of Belyngge, valued by oath of Thomas le Noble and Thomas Maynard: viz. two brass pots, two blankets, and one cooking-pot, worth 6s. 6d. Robert atte Hegge is ordered to acquit them within the quindene, otherwise-
[p. 77] -etc.
vadia capta et
appreciate
Pledges taken from John of Lodelawe, valued by the oath of William of Grobbestret, cordwainer, and Thomas of Hakeneie, cordwainer, at the suit
of [blank]: 2 pairs of boots of [blank], worth 16d; a pair of leather boots, worth 12d; 3½ dozen pairs of shoes of leather and basan, worth 5s.; and one piece of cloth, eleven ells long, worth 8d an ell, valued by Walter of Donsterre, tailor, and John of Hendon. John is ordered to acquit the said pledges etc.
[m. 20d.]


[At the foot of the dorse of the membrane appears the continuation of the above entries:]
Pledges taken from John of Donle at the suit of Thomas of Enefeld in respect of a certain recognizance, valued by Simon of Norhampton and Thomas of Doule viz:- 210 lbs of almonds, worth 25s ½d the 100 lbs, 2lbs of [blank space] worth 11s. 9½d; 5 quarters and 12 lbs of rice, worth 9s. 1d; 105 lbs of [blank space] worth 26s. 3d; half a hundred weight and 15 lbs of verdigris, worth 35s. 2½d; 1 quarter and 14½ lbs of cotton thread, worth 23s ½d.; 8lbs of cloves and a quarter of the same, worth 21s. 3¾d. Total: £7. 11. 8¾. The said John is ordered to acquit the said pledges within the quindene, otherwise etc.
[At the top of the membrane appear the following entries:]
William atte Waye was attached to answer Thomas atte Tye and Alice his wife in a plea of debt. The pls. complain that whereas the said William on Sunday before the feast of St. Katherine, 12 Edward II [19th Nov. 1318], promised to give the said Thomas and Alice 100s. in aid of the marriage of the said Alice, whenever it should take place, he afterwards refused payment. The def. says that he is not bound to answer because the case, as involving a matrimonial question, belongs to the Courts Christian. Adjourned because the court desires to be better advised in the matter.
John Russel, 'verrer', was summoned to answer Stephen Craye, citizen and stockfishmonger in a plea of debt. The pl. complains that on Wednesday before the feast of St. Hilary, 11 Edward II [11th January, 1318], the def. received
from him in London £12.0.0, repayable at Pentecost next following, as appears by a bond sealed with the def.'s seal and produced by the pl. in court. At the date specified the def. did not pay and he still refuses payment. The def. says that the pl. has no action against him, because the day after the making of the said bond, he remitted to him all actions by reason of debts or any other matters from the beginning of the world until Friday the feast of the Decollation of St. John the Baptist , 14 Edward II [29th August, 1320], in the presence of Hamo of Chigewelle, mayor and Andrew Horn, chamberlain, for a recognizance of £4.10.0 which he made to the said Stephen before them. He is ordered to produce the record, and does so at a subsequent court. Therefore it is adjudged that the pl. take nothing etc.
William atte Waye wages his law against Thomas atte Taye and-
[p. 78] -Alice his wife concerning the charge that on Monday after the feast of St. Katherine, 12 Edward II [27th November, 1318], he assaulted the said Alice with force and arms on London Bridge and took from her a robe of 'bluet' worth 15s. Afterwards the def. came and made his law, wherefore it was adjudged that the pls. take nothing etc. and that the def. be quit.