Calendar
Roll B: 16 December 1298 - 29 September 1299

Sponsor

Centre for Metropolitan History

Publication

Author

A.H. Thomas (editor)

Year published

1924

Pages

21-45

Citation Show another format:

'Calendar: Roll B: 16 December 1298 - 29 September 1299', Calendar of early mayor's court rolls: 1298-1307 (1924), pp. 21-45. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=31968 Date accessed: 29 November 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Contents

Roll B
Membr. 1 16 Dec. 1298 Court of H. le Galeys, Mayor, and Richer the Sheriff on Tuesday before the Feast of St Thomas the Apostle [21 Dec.] A° 27 Edw. [1298] 19 Dec. 1298 Court of the same Mayor on the Friday following Membr. 1 b 23 Dec. 1298 Tuesday before the Nativity of the Lord [25 Dec.] Membr. 2 29 Jan. 1298-9 Thursday before the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Mary [2 Feb.] A° 27 Edw. [1298-9] 31 Jan. 1298-9 Saturday before the above Feast Membr. 2b 5 Feb. 1298-9 Thursday the Feast of St Agatha [5 Feb.] Membr. 3 11 Feb. 1298-9 Wednesday before the Feast of St Valentine [14 Feb.] Membr. 3 b 11 Feb. 1298-9 Wednesday before the Feast of St Valentine [14 Feb.] Membr. 4 25 Feb. 1298-9 Wednesday after the Feast of St Matthew [Query: Mathias, 24 Feb.? ] 28 Feb. 1298-9 Saturday after the above Feast 4 March 1298-9 Ash Wednesday following [4 March] 5 March 1298-9 The morrow of Ash Wednesday [4 March] 7 March 1298-9 Saturday before the First Sunday [in Lent:- 8 March] Membr. 5 7 March 1298-9 Saturday before the Feast of St Gregory [12 March] Membr. 5 b 19 March 1298-9 Thursday before the Feast of St Benedict [21 March] Membr. 6 30 March 1299 Monday after the Feast of the Annunciation B. M. [25 March] A° 27 Edw. [1299] Membr. 6 b 4 July 1299 Saturday before the Feast of the Translation of St Thomas the Martyr [7 July] 9 July 1299 Thursday after the above Feast Membr. 7 10 July 1299 Friday after the above Feast Membr. 7 b 24 July 1299 Court of William de Leyre, locumtenens of the Mayor, Friday before the Feast of St James the Apostle [25 July] Membr. 8 8 Aug. 1299 Saturday before the Feast of St Laurence [10 Aug.] 18 Aug. 1299 Tuesday after the Feast of the Assumption B.M. [15 Aug.] 19 Aug. 1299 Wednesday after the above Feast Membr. 8 b Membr. 9 16 Sept. 1299 Wednesday after the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross [14 Sept.] Membr. 10 16 Sept. 1299 Wednesday after the above Feast 18 Sept. 1299 Friday before the Feast of St Mathias the Apostle Membr. 10 b 22 Sept. 1299 Tuesday before the Feast of St Michael [29 Sept.] Footnotes

Roll B

Membr. 1 16 Dec. 1298

Court of H. le Galeys, Mayor, and Richer the Sheriff (fn. 1) on Tuesday before the Feast of St Thomas the Apostle [21 Dec.] A° 27 Edw. [1298]

Writ, dated at Abbercorn, 15 Aug. 1298, directed to H. le Galeys and the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, stating that the kings "valet," Nicholas de Montpelers, was robbed in Zeland of a ship by men of that country, when the King was in Flanders, and bidding the Mayor and Sheriffs give him redress as best they can.

In accordance with the above, Lambinus Modersone was attached to answer Nicholas de Monte Pessulano in a plea that, when the plaintiff in the Quinzime of St Martin (11 Nov.) A° 26 Edw. [1297] was crossing to Flanders in a ship of Sandwich with goods belonging to the King and to himself, i.e. cloth and other merchandise, the defendant with other malefactors attacked him and took away the ship and the goods in it, against the peace and to his damage 200 marks.

The defendant denied that he was guilty and put himself on a jury of merchants and masters of ships who were accustomed to cross the seas, and the plaintiff did the like. The Serjeant was ordered to summon a good jury for the Friday following. Afterwards at a Court held on Wednesday before the Feast of St Valentine (14 Feb.) the same year [1298-9], the jury brought in a verdict that the defendant was not guilty of the trespass or of the act, or of assenting thereto, or of partnership with those who robbed the plaintiff. Judgment that the latter recover nothing and the defendant go quit.

19 Dec. 1298

Court of the same Mayor on the Friday following

Nicholas de Monte Pessulano and Lambinus Modersone appeared and a jury also. As Nicholas challenged all the jurors in the panel, a day was given till the Octave of St Hillary to hear the verdict. The Sheriff was ordered to bring the body of the above Lambinus on that day to receive the verdict of the jury.

John de Trillawe, parson of the Church of St Dunstan, appeared and on behalf of the executors of the will of Henry Box paid £4 6d, in part payment of £8 12d due on a Recognizance to the Wardens of the Bridge. He demanded on behalf of himself and his co-executors, that the executors of Thomas Cros, who was the other executor of Henry Box, should be distrained for £4 6d in arrears, which they owed to the above Wardens on a Recognizance, as appears in the Pleas held (fn. 1) ....

Membr. 1 b

An Inquest, ex officio without writ, consisting of Adam Braz and others on the panel, was held at the Priory of St Bartholomew Westsmethfeld, before H. le Galeys and the Sheriffs of the City and Middlesex, on Friday before the Feast of St Andrew the Apostle [30 Nov.], to return a verdict as to the malefactors who dragged John de Stonham, a servant of the Earl of Lincoln, from the door of Clerekenwell, imprisoned him and did other enormities to him to his damage and in contempt of the said Earl. They gave a verdict that on the Friday evening before Michaelmas, John de Stonham and William de Dodington, servants of the above Earl, entered the house of John le Keu in Westsmethfeld to drink, and a certain Stephen, servant of Brother William de Ringeland, drank with them in turns, and words having arisen between them, Stephen struck John on the jaw with his hand, whereupon John le Keu turned them out of the house. Immediately Stephen followed John de Stonham with two knives in his hands to kill him, and seeing this, William knocked him down opposite the house of Richard ate Hole, while John fled towards the monastery church. Nevertheless Stephen pursued John to a bridge called Kaytifbreg, so that John in fear of his life drew a knife and struck Stephen in the left side, while they were in the kennel, and then fled into the church. Afterwards Stephen with a certain Walter de la . . . . and other unknown persons of the household of the Hospital of Clerekenwell followed John to the High Altar in the church, dragged him out and took him to the house of Stephen de Weresdal, chief tithingman (fn. 1) (decennarius), to keep him till the morrow; and since Stephen was in danger of death from the blow, the tithingman asked Brother William de Ringeland to lend him the shackles of the Hospital to keep John safely. The jurors also said that these people put John de Stonham's feet higher than his head. Next day Roger de Appelby, Undersheriff of Middlesex, came and carried him off to Neugate, as Stephen's life was despaired off, until he could have sure information on the point from the physicians (medici). He remained in prison for three days, and was afterwards mainprised to stand his trial against anyone who should accuse him.

Whereas Matilda, wife of Robert le Barber of Garscherch, who is in the service of Sir H. le Despenser, Forest Justiciar for this side of Trent, brought a petition to the said Sir Hugh at his last coming to London, in which she alleged that Saer le Barber had said that Sir Hugh was unworthy of praise (esse benedictus) and that it was a great wonder that he had not lost his hood (?; quin ipse non amissiset capitum suum) in Gant in going into Flanders, and other enormities in contempt of the said Hugh, and also that he kept more robbers with him than any man in England-the above Hugh le Despenser summoned the Mayor and ordered him on the King's behalf to cause the said Saer le Barber to be attached by his body, and to send him to Neugate, in order that he might appear before him to answer for the trespass.

23 Dec. 1298

Tuesday before the Nativity of the Lord [25 Dec.]

Whereas it had been presented before Adam de Halling (beri), Alderman of the Ward of Allgate, in his Wardmote, that Roger le Rous makes a great roistering (rigolagiam) with unknown minstrels, tabor-players and trumpeters to the grave damage and tumult of the whole neighbourhood and against the prohibition; and that Peter Portehors is a receiver by night of unknown depraved men and prostitutes; and that in the Rent of Ralph le Chapeleyn there is a low haunt of prostitutes and depraved men who go about the City by night; and that Alice la Clerekes harboured Robert le Ceinturer after she had forsworn the Ward, against the prohibition of the Alderman; and that Adam le Botoner is a receiver of evildoers-the above persons were summoned before the Mayor to answer &c. Roger, Peter, Adam and Ralph pleaded not guilty and put themselves on their country. Afterwards a jury brought in a verdict of not guilty for Roger, Peter and Adam, but said that Ralph knowingly harboured loose women against repeated warnings by his Alderman. He was put in mercy. Alice, who did not appear, was ordered to be attached.

Membr. 2 29 Jan. 1298-9

Thursday before the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Mary [2 Feb.] A° 27 Edw. [1298-9]

Fulk de St Edmunds was summoned to answer Friscus de Monte Claro and Tottus his brother, merchants of Lucca, and John le Grant of London, in a plea of debt of 50 marks, due for a horse which the defendants bought, together with Hugh Bardolf and John le Brettoun late Warden of London, the amount being payable on Jan. 5 1294, as appeared by a deed in which Hugh, John and Fulk were severally responsible for payment. The defendant appeared by his attorney, Walter Woleward, and admited the deed and his seal. Judgment that he be in mercy and satisfy the plaintiffs at the Quinzime. The defendant appeared in Court on the Monday following and paid the plaintiffs 30 marks, for which he received an acquittance, the remaining 20 marks being respited till the Vigil of Easter. Afterwards the deed was delivered to him in the presence of the Mayor, G. de Northon, R. de Refham, Th. Sely and others.

Roger de Len, taverner, was attached to answer William de Leyre in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the defendant had abused him as he was walking harmlessly along Tamys Street, and had charged him with having procured the publication of an Assize of Wine by the Mayor and Aldermen against the common good, in which Assize the price of better wine was fixed at 1½d the gallon. The defendant denied the offence and put himself on his country and was mainprised by John Vigerous and Geoffrey de Conductu. Afterwards he admitted the trespass and pledged to the Mayor and the plaintiff two casks of wine. As he could not find pledges for the same he was committed to prison until &c.

31 Jan. 1298-9

Saturday before the above Feast

Richard de Pelham was charged by the Mayor and Aldermen that, being a freeman sworn to maintain the freedom, he associated himself with a certain William de Wilton, a foreigner, and bought merchandise with him at Bristol, which ought to have been dealt with to the advantage of the merchants of the Liberty, but after William had bought the goods at Bristol with his own and Richard's money, the latter met them at Brainford, and forestalled and avowed them as his own, whereby the Sheriffs were defrauded. The defendant denied that he did as alleged at Bristol and Brainford and demanded an inquest thereon. A jury of men of his trade of the venue of Bridge, who were not connected with him by affinity, was summoned and brought in a verdict of not guilty. The defendant was acquitted and was told that he might use the freedom as before.

Membr. 2b

Walter de Maydenestan, carpenter, was charged by the Mayor and Aldermen with gathering together a parliament of carpenters at Milehende, where they bound themselves by a corporal oath not to observe a certain ordinance (fn. 1) or provision made by the Mayor and Aldermen touching their craft and their daily wages, which was enrolled in the "paper" of the Guildhall. The defendant admitted that he was at Milehende, but said that he never held a parliament there, or took an oath or made any one else take one against the ordinances, and he demanded an inquest. A jury was summoned.

5 Feb. 1298-9

Thursday the Feast of St Agatha [5 Feb.]

Robert le Treyere was summoned to answer for certain trespasses against the City whereof he was deraigned by the Mayor and Aldermen, to wit, that as Warden of the Thames at Billingsgate, to which various goods came by water, which ought to be dealt with to the profit of the City, and other goods by land and water, which ought not to be allowed to go outside the City, the defendant allowed divers goods to go abroad, such as corn, bacon and other victuals. The defendant admitted that he allowed goods to go by the hands of foreigners over the sea, but pleaded that he never knew of the prohibition. Afterwards he made a full acknowledgment. A day was given till the next Court to hear judgment.

Membr. 3 11 Feb. 1298-9

Wednesday before the Feast of St Valentine [14 Feb.]

Writ, dated at Loweder 9 July A° 26 Edw. (1298) to Henry le Galeys, mayor, reciting a Recognizance of £32 by Ralph Hardel to Reymund de Nevile and Arnald de Squinetta, and ordering the Mayor to liberate the above Ralph from Newgate if it appeared from an acquittance produced by him, which was to be examined in the presence of Ralph de Sandwich and John de Bauquell, that he had paid the amount due.

The above Reymund, Arnald and Ralph were summoned before the Mayor, when Ralph asked for a respite on the ground that he could not at the moment produce his acquittances, which were in the custody of Sir Hugh de Hengham, clerk. A day was given and he was remanded to prison. The other parties appointed as their attorney Oto, a merchant of Toulouse.

Afterwards Ralph showed three acquittances making mention of £7 10s, whereof one was a Release and Quitclaim of all actions relating to the whole of the above debt, and he demanded that these acquittances be allowed to him and that he be delivered from prison. Oto, as attorney of the other parties, said that he did not know whether the acquittances were the deed of Reymund and Arnald, who were now abroad, and he asked that the documents be kept in custody till their return. Ralph offered to verify the acquittances; but as the Court held that no verification could take place in the absence of Reymund and Arnald, he willingly granted that the deeds remain in the custody of the Mayor till their return. Meanwhile his delivery from prison was allowed on condition of his finding mainpernors to answer for the debt if necessary.

Writ, dated at Ely 16 Jan. A° 27 Edw. [1298-9] to H. le Galeys, mayor, reciting a complaint of Richard de Wyt that he had entered into a Recognizance of £22 to Ralph Abbehal, payable at Michaelmas 1298, before the above Mayor and John de Bauquell the clerk deputed to receive Recognizances, and though he had paid the debt and received an acquittance, the above Ralph had procured his imprisonment in Newgate. The Mayor is ordered to hear the parties and inspect the acquittance, and if it appeared that the complainant had paid the sum due in accordance with the Statute (fn. 1) , and was imprisoned for no other cause, the Mayor is to deliver him from prison.

In accordance with the above, the parties were summoned, when the complainant produced a tally under the seal of Ralph concerning £20 2s, which he demanded should be allowed. Ralph acknowledged the tally, but said that he gave it to the plaintiff, blank and sealed, under condition that Richard and his servant Reginald should meet to make account and that the tally should be marked for sums received, but that he never received more than 42s of the above debt. He called to witness Reginald, who was not present in Court.

Afterwards the latter appeared on summons, and said that he never received more than 42s on his master's behalf, and that he and the plaintiff accounted together at Croyndon and agreed about everything as regards 42s, which they placed on the tally, but that he had never marked the tally for any other moneys beyond the 42s, and that the said tally (for £20 2s) was not the deed of his master.

Membr. 3 b 11 Feb. 1298-9

Wednesday before the Feast of St Valentine [14 Feb.]

Jordan de Wytzand, broker, was attached to answer the Commonalty of London in a plea that, whereas the said Jordan was a sworn broker for ships only, he acted as a common broker in all kinds of merchandise against the custom, forestalled merchandise and procured it for others not of the Liberty, thus buying against his oath, to the damage of the City. The said Jordan defended &c. and said he was not guilty thereof, and put himself on his country. A jury of Walter le Fuller and others, as appears by the Panel, brought in a verdict of guilty, and said that he had done this all the time he had been in the City, and that he was not fit to remain in the City as a broker, because in the late war between the kings of France and England he informed the King's enemies abroad of English news (rumores Anglicos); and that he was an associate of Frenchmen at that time and more favourable to them than to Englishmen. Judgment that he abjure the City, that he engage in no trade (officium) in the same henceforth, and that he do not remain in the City more than one night, except by special permission of the Commonalty, under penalty of imprisonment.

John Gumbard was summoned to answer John de Worcestre and Gunora his wife in a plea of trespass, wherein they complained that he impleaded them in the Court Christian in lay pleas, against a prohibition (fn. 1) of the King directed to him and against a precept of the Mayor communicated by his Serjeant, in contempt &c. The defendant denied that he impleaded them as alleged, and waged his law. He was ordered to come with his law on the Quinzime. Pledges:- Robert de Keleshull and Walter Portehors.

Afterwards on Thursday after the Feast of St Peter in Cathedra [22 Feb.] the said John Gumbard made his law. Judgment that he go quit, and that the plaintiff be in mercy for a false claim.

Membr. 4 25 Feb. 1298-9

Wednesday after the Feast of St Matthew [Query: Mathias, 24 Feb.? ]

John Gumbard was attached to answer the King and the Mayor, on the grievous complaint of John de Worcestre and Gunora his wife, for having impleaded the latter in a lay plea before the Court Christian and for having sued against them a sentence of excommunication. The defendant pleaded not guilty and put himself on his country. A jury was summoned from the venue of Billingesgate.

28 Feb. 1298-9

Saturday after the above Feast

Peregrine de Orte, John de Ramus, John de Sataly and Ernald de Sere were attached to answer the King and John Juvenal, Serjeant (fn. 1) , in a plea that whereas the plaintiff John, by precept of the Mayor and Sheriffs, had attached Bernard du Pyn for breaking a sequestration made upon him in an action of trespass, in which Peter Adrian was plaintiff, the defendants rescued him and assaulted the Serjeant. The defendants pleaded not guilty and put themselves on their country. A jury was summoned and they were accepted as pledges for each other to hear the verdict. Afterwards a jury from Bredstrate brought in a verdict that the defendants rescued the above Bernard, but did no other harm to the Serjeant. Judgment that they be committed to prison until &c.

4 March 1298-9

Ash Wednesday following [4 March]

The action (loquela) between Robert le Bedel, plaintiff, and Martin de Dollingham in a plea of debt was removed into the Court of Richard de Refham, Sheriff, as pertaining to the Shrievalty. A day given by the Sheriff on the Quinzime.

Gilbert le Barber confessed that he bought 5 casks of wine for the use of a foreigner against his oath as a freeman, i.e. from Simon de Salerne, a foreigner, to the use of Juliana de Carlisle, a foreigner, receiving 2s from the latter for brokerage. The Sheriff was ordered to bring him to the next Husteng, where judgment was given that he be deprived of the freedom.

Afterwards he was readmitted on a fine of 20s to the Commonalty, by mainprise of R. de Monte Pessulano for the payment thereof on the morrow.

5 March 1298-9

The morrow of Ash Wednesday [4 March]

Bernard du Pyn was attached to answer the King and John Juvenal in a plea that, whereas the above John, by precept of the Mayor and Sheriffs, sequestrated certain of his goods in a room in the house of William le Surrygien (fn. 1) and sealed them as an attachment, the defendant broke the seal and carried away the goods in contempt &c. Peregrine de Orde, John de Rames, John de Sataly, and Arnald de Sere were attached to answer a charge that they ordered him to do so and consented thereto. All defendants pleaded not guilty and put themselves on their country. Afterwards at a Court held on the above date, a jury brought in a verdict against them. Judgment that they be committed to prison, except the defendant Bernard, who was under age.

7 March 1298-9

Saturday before the First Sunday [in Lent:- 8 March]

Thomas Juvenal and Alice his wife essoined (fn. 2) against Robert de Aldresgate, fishmonger, and Juliana his wife in a plea of trespass by R. de Leycestre.

John le Gros, clerk, was attached to answer Francis de Vilers, knight, in a plea that, whereas the plaintiff was lodging, by precept of the Sheriff, in the house of a certain Agnes de la Cornere in Bredstrate until the King's arrival and until the King could provide for his lodging elsewhere, the defendant drew his sword against him, arrested his horses in the said house and would not let him take them away, and wounded his squire John in the face with a misericord in contempt of the plaintiff and to his damage 100s. The defendant pleaded not guilty and put himself on his country.

Afterwards, on the same day, a jury of Bredstrate brought in a verdict that the defendant was not guilty and did not prevent the plaintiff from taking away his horses. Being asked who prevented him, they answered that the men of Sir Walter de Beauchamp, Steward of the King, whose horses were stabled in that inn, would not allow any stranger's horse to enter. Judgment that the defendant go quit, and the plaintiff be in mercy for a false claim.

John le Leche, "mouner" (fn. 1) , was attached to answer John le Wayer in a plea that, whereas the plaintiff was a servant of the King appointed by the Mayor to take the King's customs for the pesage (fn. 2) of corn on London Bridge, the defendant on Monday last came on to the Bridge leading a quarter of wheat belonging to a certain Henry le Cupere, baker, and as the said Henry was in arrears for the pesage of 4 quarters of wheat, which amounted to 4½d, the plaintiff attempted to distrain the miller's horse, but the defendant would not allow him, and removed the horse and the custom due, and took him by the throat and snatched his cap, and drew his knife against him, in contempt of the King and the Mayor and to his damage 100s. The defendant admitted that he came with a quarter of wheat, but denied resisting the distraint, and said that Henry le Cupere did not owe more than ½d for pesage, which he was only bound to pay at the end of the week according to agreement; and as regards the other charges he pleaded not guilty and put himself on his country.

Afterwards on the same day a jury brought in a verdict that the plaintiff attached the wheat for the arrears of pesage, and that when he would have attached the miller's horse also, the defendant took the plaintiff's cap and wanted to blind him with it, whereupon the plaintiff struck him in the face with his hand, and they both drew their knives, but that the defendant did not strike the other or take away either the custom or the horse; the latter escaped by himself and ran to his stable while they were engaged in the mêlée. Judgment [breaks off].

Membr. 5 7 March 1298-9

Saturday before the Feast of St Gregory [12 March]

Elyas de Bristoll was summoned to answer the King and the Commonalty of London in a plea that whereas no freeman could lawfully avow contracts between foreigners or buy for foreigners, whereby the King lost his forfeitures, nevertheless the defendant avowed 24 sacks of wool which the Society of the Bardi (fn. 1) bought from a certain John de Lodelawe, a foreigner, in fraud and deceit of the Liberty, and to the damage of the citizens. The defendant said that he himself bought the wool from the above John and sold it to the Society, but that at the time of the first purchase he did not know the second purchasers, and thereon he puts himself on his country (fn. 2) . Afterwards at a Court, held on the Monday following, a jury brought in a verdict that the defendant bought the wool for the Society's use and at their risk and that he received nothing from the Society except brokerage. A day was given to the defendant to hear judgment and the same day given to the merchants. Afterwards, on the Tuesday following, the Court considering that the contract of sale and purchase was the fraud and deception of the defendant alone, and not the fault of the merchants, the attachment made upon the latter was delivered to them, and judgment was given that the defendant be deprived of the freedom.

Subsequently, at the instance of common friends, the defendant was readmitted to the freedom and sworn, on payment of 10 marks of silver to the Commonalty.

John de Elsingham, Andrew de Stibbenheth, Nicholas de Totenham, John ate Holte, Laurence de Wymbysh, Michael de Wymbysh, John May, Milo le Fevre, John le Simple, Roger de Wodestrate, John de Guyppewyco (fn. 1) , Richard de Chigewell, John de Sholane, William de Sholane, Robert de Sholane, Robert de Sandwich and Stephen de Holte were attached to answer the City and the Commonalty of London in a plea that, whereas according to the custom of the realm of England no Parliament (parlaymentum) can take place relating to the aforesaid kingdom without the King and his Council, nevertheless the said John &c., privily by the imposition of a corporal oath, taken by all, made a parliament and confederacy in contempt of the King and to the harm of the City; and the confederacy was such that if any one offended against any citizen, the others would support him, and that no one was allowed to work with others than themselves, and for this purpose they had a casket (pixis) for their contributions, which casket was seen in Court; and also that they impleaded persons who had offended them before the Ecclesiastical Courts in lay pleas, and made several other provisions against the Liberty of the City; and that they drew up a charter for the confederacy, which was in the custody of John de Elsingham, in contempt &c. and to the damage of the city £100. The defendant John acknowledged that he had the charter and craved permission to bring it into Court. Afterwards he said he could not find it. Since he had contradicted his admission, judgment was given that he be taken into custody. Precept was given to the Sheriff to bring him to Court on Thursday with the charter. Afterwards, at a Court held on Saturday the defendant John came, but produced no charter. Thereupon the Court ordered that a jury be summoned to say whether the said John had maliciously eloigned it. The other defendants then defended, and admitted that they made unanimously an ordinance to the effect that none should work at night on account of the unhealthiness of coal (propter putridinem carbonis marine), and damage to their neighbours; that their doors should be closed all the year at the first stroke of Curfew at St Martins le Grand, and that none of their households should wander through the streets against the Proclamation; and that they made the casket so that each master of the trade of smiths could put a farthing a week therein to maintain a wax-taper [cirgeam] to the honour of the Blessed Mary and St Laudus, and also for the relief of any of the trade who should fall into poverty. And as regards the trespass they put themselves on their country. A jury was summoned for the Wednesday following. Afterwards, at a Court held on Saturday before the Feast of the Annunciation B.M. [25 March], the jury brought in a verdict that the said John and the others were not guilty of the trespass, and that the said John did not have any charter in his custody contrary to the City. As it seemed to the Court that the acknowledgments made were not prejudicial to the King or the Liberty, judgment was given that the defendants go quit.

Membr. 5 b

Frissottus de Monte Claro granted an acquittance, on behalf of himself and his brother Tottus, to Fulk de St Edmunds, Sir John le Bretun and Sir Hugh Bardolf, the latter having paid them fifty marks of silver due on the purchase of a horse.

William de Storteford, charged with resisting a sequestration upon his goods for a debt to Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, incurred by him during his Shrievalty, put himself on the favour of the Mayor and pledged himself in five casks of wine, to be taken at the Mayor's pleasure.

Further writ dated at Bernes 22 Feb. 1298-9 on behalf of Ralph Hardel, who complained that he had been kept in prison for a debt of £32 due to Reymund de Nevill and Arnald de Skynat, though he had paid the money and received acquittances.

Return; to the effect that Ralph had produced his acquittances, which were deposited in court until the above Reymund and Arnald returned from abroad. He remained in prison, because he could not find mainpernors to answer for the debt if necessary.

19 March 1298-9

Thursday before the Feast of St Benedict [21 March]

John Andreu was attached to answer the Mayor and Commonalty and Walter le Hethereve, bailiff of Queenhithe, in a plea that, whereas it was unlawful for a foreigner to make any contract of merchandise with another foreigner, nevertheless the defendant sold a fish called "moscles" by retail to a certain William Purchaz, a foreigner, at Queenhithe, and would not allow the above Walter to attach his ship and goods for the offence, but drew his knife upon him in contempt &c. and to his damage £20. The defendant admitted the sale of fish, and said that he hired the above William to sell the fish because he did not understand the selling of fish himself, and thus his fish was sold to divers persons, but William bought none of it by retail; and thereon he put himself on his country. Precept was given to summon a jury and to attach the ship and goods meanwhile.

Afterwards, at a Court held on Saturday, the defendant admitted the offence. Judgment that his ship and goods be forfeited to the King, and that the bailiff retain them in his custody till the defendant satisfy the Sheriff for the forfeiture.

William de Broughton, skinner, was summoned to answer William de Leyre (fn. 1) on a charge that, when the defendant was distrained by John Juvenal, Serjeant of the Chamber, for 2 marks which he promised (tendebat) to the Commonalty for the purchase of the freedom, he came to the plaintiff's house and used opprobrious words to him, declaring that the distraint was unjust and that William was plotting to drive him and others from the Liberty of the City. The defendant denied the charge and put himself on his country.

Membr. 6 30 March 1299

Monday after the Feast of the Annunciation B. M. [25 March] A° 27 Edw. [1299]

Stephen de Uptone was attached to answer the King and Thomas Sely, Sheriff of London, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that, having been ordered by Sir Walter de Beauchamp, the Steward of the King's Household, to bring the defendant to Westminster to answer Julia, relict of Henry Box, in a plea of trespass, he sent his clerk, John de Fridaiestrate, to the defendant's house to carry out the order, but the latter closed his doors and gate against him, and also against the plaintiff himself and his clerks and Serjeants, so that the King's commands could not be fulfilled. The defendant admitted that John the clerk came to his house, but said he was in bed because it was late at night, and that he did nothing to hinder them from executing their orders. He demanded that inquest be made by a jury of the venue. A jury was summoned for Wednesday.

Writ dated at Westminster 28 March A° 27 Edw. [1299] to the Mayor and Sheriffs, to the effect that Richard de Burdegale, whom R., bishop of London, claimed as a clerk by letters patent, had been taken and detained in Newgate for a Recognizance of debt to Andrew Payne, although by the Statute (fn. 1) relating to Recognizances of debts to merchants, it had been laid down that clerks should not be so taken and imprisoned. They are to deliver him without delay.

Afterwards the Mayor sent this Original Writ to the Sheriff, Thomas Sely, by Philip de Mardel, for execution thereof, which writ remains with the Sheriff as his warrant.

Membr. 6 b 4 July 1299

Saturday before the Feast of the Translation of St Thomas the Martyr [7 July]

Thomas Sely, Sheriff, was summoned to answer Sabina Malemeins in a plea of trespass, wherein she complained that he came to her house in the parish of Holy Trinity the Less, and unjustly distrained and sequestrated all her goods, and sealed the doors of her chamber, in-connection with a claim of 40s by William Overton, though she did not owe that sum; and that he dragged her out of bed and did other enormities. The defendant pleaded that he went to the house of Michael de Carlisle, Sabina's husband, in obedience to a writ from the Exchequer, in order to distrain him for 40s, in which he had been condemned before the Barons of the Exchequer in an action of trespass at the suit of William Overton, and that he (the defendant) made no other distraint upon her, than this upon her husband, and he demanded a jury. The plaintiff answered that the above Michael was not her husband and had no goods in her house on which the Sheriff could distrain for 40s, nor even to the value of 2s; and thereon she put herself on her country. Afterwards a jury found a verdict for her on these issues. Judgment that the distraint be delivered to her, and the defendant be in mercy.

9 July 1299

Thursday after the above Feast

Hanekin Yacopp brought a plaint against Thomas Sely, Sheriff, to the effect that the latter distrained him by 25 pounds of copper. Afterwards he abandoned his plaint, saying that he had previously sold the copper to a certain Thomas de Doddeford. He was in mercy for withdrawing from his plea.

Thomas de Doddele (sic) was summoned to answer the King and the Commonalty of London in a plea that, whereas by the custom of London no freeman was allowed to avow contracts by foreigners or buy for the use of foreigners, whereby the king lost his forfeitures, nevertheless the defendant bought 25 pounds of copper from a certain Hanekin le Rede for the use of Robert Craumpe, a foreigner of Coventry, thus acting as an unsworn broker, and that he avowed the goods to be his own, whereby the sheriffs were defrauded of their customs. The defendant acknowledged that he bought the copper, but declared that it was for his own use and that he was not a broker, and that he did not know of any other merchant as a purchaser for the copper at the time he bought it; and thereon he put himself on his country. Afterwards, on the Monday following, a jury brought in a verdict that the defendant was not a broker, and that he bought the copper from Henekin le Rede for the use of Robert Craumpe, and that at the time of the purchase he knew the latter as his prospective buyer. Judgment that he be deprived of the freedom (fn. 1) , and be precluded from trading within the same, under penalty of forfeiting all his goods as a foreigner.

Membr. 7 10 July 1299

Friday after the above Feast

Geoffrey David, butcher, was attached to answer the King and the Mayor in a plea that, whereas a common tallage of 2000 marks was granted to the King for renewing the Liberties of the City, and Richer de Refham, Sheriff, by precept of the Mayor and in the person of Hugh de Waltham (fn. 2) , his sworn clerk, entered the defendant's house in the Parish of St Leonard, together with the Collectors of Bridge Ward, to sequestrate his goods and chattels in order to levy therefrom his portion, being a fourth, for the use of the King, the defendant would not allow the clerk and the collectors to carry out their duty, but refused the money, and broke the sequestration, which was placed on his chattels by the clerk in the presence of the collectors, and abused them. The defendant denied the charge and put himself on his country. He was committed to the Sheriff to produce him at the next Court to hear the verdict.

Letters Patent (French) from H. le Galeys, Mayor of London, to John de Claus of the Honour of Seguis, to the effect that he had received in London from Bernard de la Gane, burgess of Leyburn (fn. 3) , by the hand of John des Claus of the Honour of Segur (sic), the sum of £17 in part payment of a debt of 250 tuns of wine, in which Bernard was indebted to him by his bond. In default of payment of the wine in time of peace before the war, he had caused the aforesaid £17 to be arrested, wherefore he quitclaims this amount to Bernard and his heirs. Dated at London 27 Aug. 1298. Witnesses:-Bernard Johann de la Rue Maior dakes (fn. 1) , Peres Normand, Peres Simon, Renaud le Barber, Elys Gerard, Robert de Cornedale, clerk, and others.

Membr. 7 b 24 July 1299

Court of William de Leyre, locumtenens of the Mayor, Friday before the Feast of St James the Apostle [25 July]

Henry Hoppe was attached to answer the King in a plea that, whereas according to the custom of the City merchandise coming from overseas to London, to be sold there to the profit of the citizens, ought not to be opened until it had arrived there, nevertheless the defendant, by his servant, met merchandise at Grenewych and took 25 pieces of wax from a ship of William le Mariner, and had them secretly carried away against the King's Proclamation and to the prejudice of the Liberties of the City, whereby the Sheriffs were defrauded of their customs; and also, together with the wax, he opened and carried away several bundles and false money (fn. 2) , before they had arrived at the quay, and this he did in the absence of the Sheriff. The defendant admitted that he carried away the wax. Judgment that it be forfeited to the Sheriff. But as regards the money, he denied that he took it, and put himself on his country. A jury of sailors, travellers and good men of the venue of Billingesgate was summoned, and the defendant was mainprised on good security to hear the verdict. Afterwards, the jury returned a verdict that the defendant and his men had no money in the ship and carried none away. Judgment that he go quit.

Richard de Swerre was attached to answer a similar charge of removing six pieces of wax. He denied that they were unloaded by him, or by his means, or that he had any money in the ship, but he did not deny that the pieces were carried into his house, though without his knowledge. A jury of Thames Street was summoned for Wednesday.

Adam le Palmer, a freeman, was attached to answer a charge of avowing certain battery (bateriam) viz., a pan, a brass pot and other merchandise, value £8, for the use of a foreigner of Almaine. He admitted the offence; but as witness was borne by good and lawful men that he did not know the custom of the Liberty, his amercement was remitted. The battery was forfeited to the Sheriffs, who were asked by the Court to mitigate the forfeiture, which they afterwards did, at the instance of G. de Northon, to the extent of 40s.

Edmund le Coteler was attached to answer William Mokelyn and Roger de Derby in a plea that, whereas they had been ordered by the Mayor and Aldermen to guard the streets of their Ward against ordure, nevertheless the defendant late on Wednesday night relieved himself in the street, and when they went to take amends of him, he drew his knife on them, against the peace and despite the Proclamation. The defendant denied the charge and put himself on his country. Afterwards the defendant made default, and the jury gave a verdict of guilty in his absence. Judgment that he be in mercy. Being asked whether he drew his knife, the jury answered that he did not. Judgment that the plaintiffs be in mercy for a false charge.

Membr. 8 8 Aug. 1299

Saturday before the Feast of St Laurence [10 Aug.]

Walter Bareth was summoned to answer William le Pavour in a plea that, an agreement having been made between them that Walter should tile William's houses in Westsmethfield at a daily wage, and remain in his service till the work was done, nevertheless the defendant withdrew from his work, from Thursday the day of the agreement till the Tuesday following; and whereas the plaintiff needed journeymen tilers, defendant went about in Westsmethfield and elsewhere preventing workmen from entering his employment, by slandering him and saying that he would never pay his workmen any equivalent for their labour (quod nunquam aliquod servicium aliquibus operariis suis redderet pro suo labore)-to the damage of the plaintiff 100s. The defendant denied the trespass and put himself on his country. Afterwards, a jury brought in a verdict that the defendant left the service of the plaintiff contrary to the agreement, and that he prevented others from serving him, but they had no means of knowing whether he was in the habit of doing this. They taxed damages at 10s. Judgment that the plaintiff recover his damages and the defendant be kept in custody, till he find security for paying the damages and the amercement.

18 Aug. 1299

Tuesday after the Feast of the Assumption B.M. [15 Aug.]

John le Paumer was summoned to answer Richer de Refham, Sheriff, in a plea that, whereas the defendant and his Society of Bermen (fn. 1) (Barmannorum) in the City were sworn not to carry any wine, by land or water, for the use of citizens or others, without the Sheriff's mark, nor lead nor cause it to be led, whereby the Sheriff might be defrauded of his customs, nevertheless he caused four casks of wine belonging to Ralph le Mazun of Westminster to be carried from the City to Westminster without the Sheriff's mark, thus defrauding the latter of his customs in contempt of the King &c. The defendant acknowledged the trespass. Judgment that he remain in custody of the Sheriff till he satisfy the King and the Court for his offence.

19 Aug. 1299

Wednesday after the above Feast

Adam de Shepeye, merchant of Coventre, complained of Thomas Sely, Sheriff of London, that whereas he came to London on Sunday [16 Aug.] after the Feast of the Assumption B.M. with his woolfells, the defendant on the Tuesday following [18 Aug.] unjustly distrained upon them to his damage of their value. The defendant claimed that the distraint was just, and said that after the plaintiff had unbound the skins at the house which formerly belonged to Geoffrey de Cavendyssh in the street of St Lawrence Jewry, and had offered them for sale to certain merchants of the City, he afterwards refused to sell them and had them bound up again, intending to send them overseas for sale, to the prejudice of the Liberty. The plaintiff denied that he unbound the skins for sale, and said that Richer de Refham, one of the Sheriffs, had them unbound by his clerk, David, in order to make a scrutiny for false and counterfeit money, as ordered by the King throughout the ports, and that he never intended to send the skins abroad; and he demands that inquest be made. Afterwards, at a Court held on Thursday (fn. 1) , the defendant remitted his action against the plaintiff (i.e. the distraint). Judgment that Adam recover his woolfells, and Thomas be in mercy for his false distraint.

Richard le Barber of Fletestrete was charged by the Mayor and Aldermen with allowing four casks of wine belonging to Ralph le Mazun of Westminster to pass through Ludgate without the Sheriff's mark, in prejudice of the Liberty, and contrary to the oath which he had sworn in the presence of the Mayor and Sheriffs. He acknowledged the trespass. Judgment that he be kept in custody till he had made due satisfaction to the Mayor and Sheriffs, according to the custom.

Membr. 8 b

Writ dated at Canterbury 17 July A° 27 Edw. [1299] to the Mayor and Sheriffs, ordering them to inquire by the oath of good and lawful men as to the malefactors who beat and wounded Walter de Berton at London, and to return the finding under the seals of themselves and the jurors.

Inquest taken on Tuesday after the Feast of St James the Apostle [25 July] A° 27 Edw. [1299] by oath of Adam Bernard, John de Folleham, Jordan le Ceynturer, Robert de Doddeford, Laurence le Coteler, Gilbert le Barber, John le Barber, William le Clerc, William de Sandwich, Richard Syward, Thomas le Poleter and Saer le Barber, who said that a certain William ate Wode committed the assault. Sealed as directed.

Writ dated at Kenyton 7 Aug. A° 27 Edw. [1299] to the Mayor and Sheriffs reciting that King Henry, the king's father, by his letters patent at the instance of Richard, King of the Romans (fn. 1) , had granted to the merchants of Almaine, who had a house in the City commonly called "Gyhalde Teutonicorum," that he would maintain them in the liberties and free customs which they had enjoyed under his predecessors; and this grant the present king had inspected and reissued under his letters patent. Nevertheless the citizens had not allowed those rights. Wherefore they are commanded to permit the merchants to enjoy their liberties, or else appear coram nobis to explain their disobedience.

Return; that the citizens had not interfered with the liberties of the merchants of the Guild and of the Hanse of Almaine, and as regards their complaints, these merchants when summoned had no charge to make against any one.

Membr. 9 16 Sept. 1299

Wednesday after the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross [14 Sept.]

Further writ, dated at Canterbury 11 July 1299, on behalf of Ralph Hardel, who complained that he was kept in prison for a debt of £32 to Remund de Nevile and Arnald de Squinat, though he had paid the debt and had acquittances.

Proceedings in Court by virtue of the above writ. The above Arnald denied that the acquittances were his deed and claimed a jury of merchants, both citizens and foreigners. Subsequently the parties submitted to the arbitration of John le Clerk, Coroner of the City, Robert Hardel, Geoffrey de Brakele and Reginald le Barber of Vintry, with power to add Richer de Refham, Sheriff, in case of disagreement. They awarded that Ralph pay Remund and Arnald 10 marks in full settlement.

Membr. 10 16 Sept. 1299

Wednesday after the above Feast

Michael de Wymbyssh, smith, was summoned to answer the King, the Mayor, and Richard de Chigewell in a plea that, by means of Stephen del Holt, he caused the said Richard to be impleaded in the Court Christian &c. Afterwards the parties came to an agreement, on terms that if either were in future convicted of trespass against the other, he should pay one mark to the fabric of the new Chapel at Guildhall.

18 Sept. 1299

Friday before the Feast of St Mathias (fn. 1) the Apostle

Gregory le Botoner, defendant, essoined against Jordan le Seler in a plea of trespass by David de Candelwykstrate. The essoin does not lie, as Gregory was afterwards seen in Court.

Gregory Botoner was attached to answer Jordan le Seler in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the defendant used opprobrious words to him at his house in Wodestrate, and then followed him to the Saddlery (fn. 2) , and there beat and wounded him to his damage £20. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had previously assaulted him, by striking him on the head and right arm, in his own house in Wodestrate at vespers, to his damage 20 marks, and that if the plaintiff suffered anything, it was owing to his own assault. A jury of Chepe and Wodestrate, together with reputable and lawful men living nearby in the Ward (fn. 3) of W. le Mazener, was summoned for Tuesday.

A jury of the venue of Wodestrate was also summoned in an action for assault brought by the above Gregory against Alexander de Chigewell and Michael his brother.

Membr. 10 b 22 Sept. 1299

Tuesday before the Feast of St Michael [29 Sept.]

Ralph FitzPeter was summoned to answer William de Leyre in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the defendant came to his house in Colmanestrate to distrain for a certain rent which he was unjustly demanding, whereupon the plaintiff, as soon as he knew of it, had the distraint delivered by giving pledge and security to the Sheriff in the "Husteng," and the further consideration of the matter had been adjourned to the next Husting. Nevertheless the defendant, while the plea was still pending, had again distrained the plaintiff's tenants in the tenement, and although the plaintiff then obtained from the Mayor a prohibition against further distraint, the defendant had distrained him grievously for the third time in contempt of the Mayor. The defendant admitted that he had distrained the plaintiff for a certain rent charged on the tenement-as was lawful to him, but denied that he did so after the Mayor's prohibition. A jury from Colmanstrate was summoned for the Saturday following.

Footnotes

1 The Sheriffs had no official standing in the Mayor's Court except as servants of the Court; their presence on this and other occasions was due to the fact that the writ was addressed to them as well as to the Mayor.
1 25 July, 1298. Cf. p. 13.
1 Probably head of the Chief Pledges of the Ward. The system of Frankpledge, whereby groups of ten or twelve men were compulsory sureties of each other is frequently mentioned in the City Records: Iter Roll AA, membr. 2 b, 3 b, A.D. 1233 and 1241; Lib. Alb. 1, pp. 99, 315, 332.
1 Temp. Gregory de Rokesle, Mayor. Cf. Lib. Cust. 1, p. 99; Letter Book A, fo. 88 b.
1 A Statute Merchant was a bond of record. The Statute of Acton Burnel, 11 Edw., enacts that the merchant was to cause his debtor to come before the Mayor of London, etc., to acknowledge the debt due and the day of payment. This Recognizance was entered on the Rolls of Recognizances. The clerk then made out a Bill Obligatory, on which the debtor's seal was affixed as well as the King's Seal, which was in the custody of the Mayor.
1 This was an Original Writ obtainable from the Chancery. Registrum Omnium Brevium, A.D. 1634, p. 34.
1 Serjeant of the Chamber, cf. p. 35.
1 Surgeon.
2 "Signifies an excuse for him that is summoned to appear and answer to an action, by reason of sickness or infirmity or other just cause of absence." Sickness was the common essoin. Other causes were: absence overseas or in the Holy Land, sickness whereby a man was bedridden, the King's service, constraint of enemies, falling among thieves, floods, the breaking down of bridges, etc. Jacob's Law Dictionary. An immense amount of definition took place as regards essoins, and constituted "the bulkiest chapter of our old law, the chapter on essoins." Pollock and Maitland, Hist. Eng. Law, 11, pp. 562-3. Essoins in borough courts are illustrated in Borough Customs by Mary Bateson (Selden Society), vol. 1. Special London rules on the subject are to be found in Lib. Alb. (Rolls Series), 1, pp. 63, 64, 67, 77, 202, 471, and will be noted in the index to the present Calendar.
1 Miller.
2 Pesage was a custom for the weighing of corn and other commodities. The whole question of the City's right to exact this custom by its Sheriffs was discussed at the session of the Itinerant Justices at the Tower in A. D. 1321. Lib. Cust. 1, pp. 326-333, 380.
1 Italian merchants of Florence.
2 The defendant was charged with acting as an unlicensed broker between foreigners. He pleaded that two genuine sales took place, but the jury did not take this view. A long succession of ordinances was passed to prevent foreign merchants dealing with each other, selling retail, and remaining in the City more than a month. Additional MS. 14,252, Brit. Mus. fo. 123; Lib. Cust. 1, pp. 68-71; Lib. Alb. 1, pp. 492, 493; and the Letter Books passim.
1 Ipswich.
1 Alderman of Castle Baynard Ward.
1 The Statute of Acton Burnel, 11 Edw. I.
1 Here libertas denotes both the freedom, and the Liberties or boundaries of the City.
2 Appointed Town Clerk before A. D. 1311. To his industry the City owes most of the information copied into the early Custumals.
3 Libourne, in Gascony.
1 Cf. Letter Book B, fo. 99, "de vico Maiori." "dakes." of Arques or Aix? Bernard Johan was a Gascon. Cf. Cal. Close Rolls, 1296-1302, pp. 552-3.
2 The Statutum de Falsa Moneta took the form of a writ dated 15 May, 1299, addressed to the various Sheriffs, forbidding the importation of base coin, and prescribing the penalty of death. See Cal. of Letter Book C, Introd. p. xiii; Statutes at Large, 1, 145.
1 Porters, carriers.
1 This case is an illustration of that speedy justice for foreigners which the Mayor's Court was intended to supply. The offence took place on Tuesday, the case was argued on Wednesday, and judgment was given on Thursday.
1 Cal. of Letter Book C, p. 41. Printed in Rymer's Foedera, vol. 1, part ii, p. 588. The Teutonic merchants or merchants of Almaine are said to have coalesced with the Colognese merchants towards the close of the thirteenth century. Riley, Lib. Alb. 1, p. xlii, tells us that both had Guildhalls near Dowgate Dock. But though we read of the Guildhall of the Colognese, and the Guildhall of the Teutonics in separate passages, no document appears to mention them both in juxtaposition. See Harbin, Dictionary of London, under "Steelyard," where a list of authorities is given. Mr C. L. Kingsford in his edition of Stow's Survey, 11, pp. 278, 319, considers that the house of the Colognese merchants was "probably identical with the Gildehalda Teutonicorum." But see Placita de Quo Warranto, pp. 455, 468, where the Teutonic and Colognese merchants make mention of their Guildhalls.
1 Query: St Matthew, i.e. 21 September?
2 The quarter of the City occupied by the saddlers in Westcheap near St Vedast Church. R. R. Sharpe, Calendar of Wills enrolled in the Court of Husting, 1, p. 49.
3 Aldersgate. Cf. Cal. of Letter Book A, p. 209; C, p. 12.