Roll E
Membr. 1 20 Nov. 1301
Court of John le Blund, Mayor of London, Monday
the Feast of St Edmund King at the end of the 29th
year of King Edward [1301]
Colard de Wateresseye, Peter de St Trond, Simon Gaste,
John Ascelyn, Henry Stable, and Andrew Gerste of the same,
John Echelkerke of Thorpmond in Almaine, William de
Herkestowe of Lincoln and Mabia (sic) Rouland were attached
to answer William de Donecastre in a plea that whereas John,
Duke of Brabant, was indebted to the plaintiff in £400 by a
letter in which he bound himself and all his subjects and
merchants for the payment of that sum, and had not paid it-
the defendants by a conspiracy with the merchants of Brabant
had avowed as their own property certain sacks, sarplars and
pockets of wool, which had been attached as the property of
Brabantine merchants, thus defrauding the plaintiff to the
value of £100. The defendants pleaded severally; Colard
that he was of Dinant and a subject of the Bishop of Liege;
Peter, Simon, Andrew, Henry and John that they were of
St Trond and subjects of the same Bishop, John Echelkerke
that he was of Thorpmond in Germany, William de Herkestowe that he was a subject of the King of England, and
Mabel that she was a subject of the King and a freewoman
of the City of London; and all declared that the goods were
their own, and put themselves on the verdict of merchants,
native and foreign, travellers and sailors (passaiores et nautas).
Afterwards the defendants were allowed to find mainprise to
answer for the goods and produce them on the Quinzime of
St Hilary, unless meanwhile they could prove by sealed letters
from their several towns that they were not subjects of the
Duke of Brabant, and that the aforesaid goods were their own.
24 Nov. 1301
Friday before the Feast of St Katherine [25 Nov.]
Recognizance of John de Red, "sauser" (fn. 1) , and Alexander
le Coffrer to Luke de Haveryng in 10 marks sterling payable
at Easter.
Robert le Gardiner, of co. Lincoln, plaintiff in a plea of
trespass, and Stephen de Upton, defendant, came to an agreement on the following terms, viz. that whereas the defendant
had entered into a bond of 40s with regard to the trespass, that
sum should be condoned for one mark, half of which should
be paid at once, and the other half put in respite until it was
apparent how Stephen intended to behave towards the
plaintiff. The former was in mercy for the trespass, which
was pardoned by the Mayor.
Membr. 1 b 13 Dec. 1301
Wednesday the Feast of St Lucia Virgin
Judgment in the action between Stephen de Larder and
Thomas Abraham and Richard de Caumpes, Sheriff, was
respited for a week through default of Walter de Finchingfeud (fn. 1) , one of the examiners.
Thomas, son of Thomas de Oxford, offered himself against
Thomas de Suffolk, William de Red and Henry de Bondon.
The said Thomas and William pleaded that they were not
bound to answer without Henry, who was their co-executor of
the will of Thomas de Oxford and was absent. Order was given
to distrain him. The executors were directed to bring into
court the other children of the testator, Adam, Cecily and Joan.
20 Dec. 1301
Adam, beadle of Alegate Ward, reported to the Mayor and
Aldermen on 20 Dec., that on the hue and cry being raised
in the Ward the preceding night, he found a certain Robert,
son of Robert de Lasshingdon of Gloucester, breaking a
window and carrying away a bundle of cloth, as the neighbours testified, and took him to the Tun. The prisoner came
before the Mayor the same day, and as he did not appear to
be of good fame and could find no pledges, he was delivered
to the Sheriffs to be committed to Neuwegate until &c.
12 Jan. 1301-2
Friday after the Feast of the Epiphany [6 Jan.] A° 30
Edw. [1301-2]
A jury of Candelwykstrete opposite St Martin's Lane was
summoned for Wednesday to say whether Gilbert Payn
slandered the Mayor.
Membr. 2
[Record and process of an action in the Sheriff's Court,
with "stet Recordum" at foot.]
13 Dec. 1300.
Court of Luke de Havering, Sheriff of London,
Tuesday after the Feast of the Conception B.M.
[8 Dec.] A° 29 Edw. [1300]
Robert de Frowyk was summoned to answer Henry de
Dunlee in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained
that the defendant covenanted to buy from him 2 casks of
wine for 9 marks, and 20 quarters of oats for £4, and to enter
into a statute of the staple of Westminster for the payment,
and that the defendant had done neither. The defendant
denied the covenant and offered to make his law. He subsequently made a default, but again demanded to be allowed to
make his law on the ground that he had waged his law and
had afterwards essoined, whereby his default was purged. The
plaintiff pleaded that the essoin was not admissible, and the
Court, accepting this pleading, gave judgment for the
plaintiff, on the ground that after the defendant's default he
had been summoned to hear judgment, and though he had
afterwards essoined, his essoin ought not to prejudice the
plaintiff (fn. 1) .
Membr. 3 3 Feb. 1301-2
Court of John le Blund, Mayor, Saturday after the
Feast of the Purification [2 Feb.] A° 30 Edw. [1301-2]
William Simond offered himself against Adam de Fulham,
junior, in a plea of debt. The latter had requested the aid of
clerks, and had essoined "de communi" and "de servicio regis,"
and now did not come. He was summoned to hear judgment
at the next Court.
14 Feb. 1301-2.
Wednesday the Feast of St Valentine [14 Feb.]
Richard le Barber was summoned to answer Robert de
Fyngrie in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained
that he had proved a debt of 12s 3d against the defendant
in the Soke of the Bishop of London, of which the said
Richard had paid 5s, his goods being sequestrated for the
remainder by the Bishop's sokereve, and that the defendant
broke the sequestration and removed the goods. A jury of
the venue of Cornhull Tun was summoned against the next
Court.
14 March 1301-2.
Recognizance of Richard le Barber to Robert de Fingrie
in 4s payable at the Quinzime.
Membr. 3 b 16 March 1301-2
Friday after the Feast of St Gregory [12 March]
A jury of the venue of St Leonard of Estchep was summoned to say on oath whether Roger de la Weyg assaulted
Sir Bosoo de la Rokele (fn. 1) , knight of the Lord King, and tore
his clothes on Wednesday before the Feast of St Peter in
Cathedra this year against the peace &c.
23 March 1301-2
Friday before the Annunciation B.M. [25 March]
Jakemin de Sessoln, attorney of John de Croily, offered
himself against Robert Thurk in a plea of debt. Order was
given to distrain the latter.
11 May 1302
Friday after the Feast of St John before the Latin Gate
[6 May]
Robert Turk was amerced because he had no warrant for
his essoin "de servicio regis."
John de Crouly claimed from the above Robert £16, by
one tally produced in Court, for woad sold and delivered to
him. The defendant admitted the purchase, but said that it
was on condition that he sold it under the plaintiff's name
and not his own, and he put himself on the oath of the
plaintiff. The latter appeared before Geoffrey de Norton
and William de Leyre, deputies of the Mayor, and swore that
the sale was without condition. Judgment was given for the
plaintiff and that the defendant be in mercy.
Membr. 4 30 May 1302
On Wednesday the eve of the Ascension, before "dominus" (fn. 1) .
John le Blunt, Mayor, John de Croy appointed James de
Sysouln his attorney to sue execution of a debt of £16 which
he had proved against Robert Turk, and to receive the money
and give an acquittance in his name.
1 June 1302
Friday, the morrow of the Ascension [31 May]
James de Wadencourt was summoned to answer Robert
Turk in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that
he had bought a shipload of corn, viz. 300 quarters, at
41 quarters to count as 40, at a certain price from the above
James, and that the latter had received from him 20s as
earnest-money and God's silver, and ought to have delivered
the corn at the hythe of Billingesgate, and had refused to do
so. The defendant admitted the covenant and having received 1d as God's silver and 20s as earnest-money, but said
that he sold a shipload and not a certain number of quarters,
and that he was on his voyage when a sudden storm arose
and the sea grew so dangerous that he could not fulfil the
contract, nor was he bound to do so, because peril of the sea
was excepted in the covenant. The plaintiff denied this exception and offered to make his law on the point. Thereupon
the defendant said he had witnesses, Wybert and Adam, as to
the exception, and he took an oath that he would not produce
any other witnesses than these and would not suborn them.
Afterwards at a Court held on Friday before the Feast of
Pentecost he produced his witnesses. An agreement was then
arrived at by the intervention of friends and by permission
of the Court, the terms being that James should pay Robert
£4 to cover the 20s earnest-money and all other costs, and
be in mercy, while Robert should give him an acquittance as
regards the contract.
John Russel, plaintiff, appointed as his attorney Reymund
de Margeys or Bernard de Margeys or Bydau Manent against
James de Brabazon and his partners of the Society "de la
gruntable" of Sene (fn. 1) in a plea of debt.
14 June 1302
Thursday within seven days of Pentecost [10 June]
before Geoffrey de Norton, deputy of the Mayor
John de Richemond, servant of Matthew le Peyntour, John
de St Omer, servant of William Leschild, sadler, Henry le
Heumer, servant of Manekyn le Heumer, Manettus, son of
William le Barber, John, son of Nicholas de Cambridge, and
Robert Scot, fishmonger, who were captured and put in the
Tun, were attached to answer William Mory, Geoffrey de
Notingham, Robert Motoun, Henry de Hundesdich, Ralph
le Cordwaner, Bartholomew le Botoner, John Baroun, John
de Norfolk, and Richard le Barber, beadle of the Ward of
Walebrok, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained
that while they were keeping watch on the night following
Tuesday in the week after Pentecost, the defendants in the
middle of the night assaulted and beat them. The defendants
denied the charge and said that on Wednesday morning, when
the light was quite clear, they were going towards Stratford,
and in Candelwykstrate they met the Watch and surrendered
to them without doing any harm; and they put themselves
on a jury, which was summoned for Thursday. John de
Richemond was mainprised by Matthew le Peyntour, John
de St Omer by William Leschild, sadler, and Henry le
Heumer by Peter le Heumer, that no harm would be done
to the Watch by them or their following. The son of William
le Barber, John, son of Nicholas de Cambridge, and Robert
Scot were mainprised to attend the Court and did not come.
Accordingly they were attached and their mainpernors were
summoned to answer why they had failed to produce them.
Afterwards on Thursday a jury of John le Juvene and others
from five Wards found on oath that the defendants committed the assault when midnight was striking at St Paul's,
and were captured after the hue and cry had been raised by
horn and voice, and the neighbouring wards had come to
help, and that Manettus wounded William Mori to his
damage, one mark, and that previously he and his companions and other unknown persons had filled an empty
cask with stones on Monday midnight, and set it rolling
through Graschirchestrate to London Bridge to the great
terror of the neighbours. Judgment was given that Manettus
go to prison till he had paid the mark, and that the others
likewise go to prison.
21 June 1302
Thursday before the Feast of St John the Baptist
[24 June]
William Cros was summoned to answer Gilbert de Schorne
in a plea that he pay him £20, and deliver a bond for 20 marks,
which had been entrusted to him by the hands of Geoffrey de
Norton, Alderman of the Ward, on condition that if a Fine
could not be levied in the Husting concerning certain houses
demised to the plaintiff by Henry Cros and Joan his wife,
the said £20 and the bond should be returned to him. The
defendant denied the claim, and said that the £20 was paid
as a debt owed to him by Henry Cros, in connection with
which debt he had the houses from Henry Cros for a term of
three years. The plaintiff then vouched to witness Edmund
and Walter, who were present, and took an oath that he, would
not produce any other than these witnesses or suborn them.
Afterwards the witnesses gave evidence on oath, and judgment was given for the plaintiff.
A jury of the venue of Briggestrat came by John de Sutton
and others in the panel, who said on oath that John Orpedeman did not lay violent hands on the Master of the Hospital
of St Giles without London nor deny a distraint to him in
the presence of Thomas Kent, Serjeant of the Mayor, as
alleged, except in order to save the fish lying on his table from
being thrown down into the mud, and for no other reason.
The said John and the Master had a day to hear judgment.
Membr. 4 b
A jury of the venue of Bredstrate and Cordwanerstrate,
which was summoned to say on oath whether Roger de York,
cordwainer, assaulted Richard Leving, beadle of the Ward of
Bredstrate, to his damage 100s, came on Wednesday before
the Feast of St Bartholomew the Apostle (fn. 1) [24 Aug.] by Richard
le Chaundeler and others, and said that the defendant
maliciously threw down the said Richard, so that he fell
against the pavement and broke his head, to his damage
half a mark. The defendant subsequently was distrained by
22 pairs of shoes, valued by oath of Thomas de Aldewych,
Thomas de Douegate and Richard de London, cordwainers,
at 8s to pay the half mark damages, and as he did not come
to acquit the pledges taken, the shoes were delivered to the
plaintiff, who returned 1s 4d surplus to be repaid to the
defendant.
10 July 1302
Tuesday after the Feast of the Translation of St
Thomas the Martyr [7 July]
A jury of the venue around the house of Symon Bolimer
of Castle Baynard was summoned to say on oath whether
Symon broke a sequestration made on him by the Sheriff,
for 20s owed by him on a tallage of 18d in the pound.
Afterwards the said Symon paid the 20s, and proceedings
were stayed.
12 July 1302
Thursday after the above Feast
Brother Thomas, Bishop of Rochester, appointed Richard
Gladewyne his attorney against Robert Turk in a plea of debt.
Robert de Maundevile appointed Robert le Blunt his
attorney against John Joce in a plea of debt, before the Mayor
on Friday the Feast of St Margaret [20 July]. And the plea
is in the Sheriff's Court.
28 July 1302
Saturday after the Feast of St James the Apostle
[25 July]
The Sheriff was ordered to bring into Court, Roger de
Springwell, "toundur" (fn. 2) , and William Cros, fishmonger,
executors of the will of John de Middelburgh, mercer, to
do and receive what law (jus) shall dictate at the next Court.
John de Pountoyse was summoned to answer Reginald de
Frowyk in a plea of trespass wherein, the latter complained that
he had leased to the defendant a house outside Alderichesgate from Michaelmas 1300 for one year, for 40s, and the
defendant held it till Easter 1302, and had damaged the locks,
timber and other fixtures to the extent of 100s. The defendant craved a loveday. Subsequently the parties came to
an agreement by permission of the Court.
Membr. 5.
[Record and process of an action in the Sheriff's Court,
endorsed "Recordum affirmatur."]
28 Oct. 1300
Court of Richard de Campes, Sheriff of London, on
Friday before the Feast of All Saints [1 Nov.] A° 28
Edw. [1300]
Stephen de Larder was attached to answer Thomas
Abraham in a plea of detinue of a goshawk (ostorium), which
the latter alleged that he handed over to the custody of
Stephen in Midlent until Michaelmas following, the value
being £10, and that Stephen acknowledged receipt, but now
unjustly detained it, to his damage 100s. The defendant denied
that he had received the goshawk or acknowledged receipt,
and offered to prove it by his law according to the custom
of the City. The plaintiff declared that he could produce
John and John as fit and lawful witnesses, who were present
at the acknowledgment. A day was given to produce them
at the Quinzime.
23 Nov. 1300
Wednesday after the Feast of St Edmund King [20 Nov.]
Stephen de Larder essoined against Thomas Abraham for
hearing his suit (de secta
(fn. 1)
sua audienda), by William de
Reyle. A day was given to him, through his essoiner, for
Friday before the Feast of St Nicholas [Dec. 6], on which
day the parties appeared. Thomas Abraham then offered
himself against the defendant and demanded that his witnesses be examined. John, the first witness, being sworn and
examined in the presence of the Sheriff and Walter de
Fynchyngfeld and Henry de Gloucestre, aldermen, testified
that on Wednesday before the Feast of All Saints (Nov. 1)
he was present when the defendant acknowledged the receipt
of a goshawk (Anglica lingua unum Goshauek), i.e. between
the hours of Prime and Tierce in the porch (in atrio) of
the Guildhall between two doors, in the presence of John,
the other witness, and others. John, the second witness,
agreed with the above evidence, except that the defendant
only acknowledged the receipt of a hawk (Anglica lingua
simpliciter unum hauek). A day was given for the next Court
that the Sheriff might consult with the Mayor and Aldermen.
Afterwards at the Court held on Wednesday after the Feast
of St Gregory Pope [12 March] the parties came and demanded judgment. Whereupon judgment was given for the
plaintiff for the goshawk (fn. 1) or its value, and that the defendant
be in mercy.
Membr. 6
[Record and process of an action in the Sheriff's Court.]
4 May 1302
Court of Peter de Bosenho, Friday before Hokeday
[6 May] A° 30 Edw. [1302]
Reimund de Sordes of Bayonne was attached to answer
John de St Pierre of the same in a plea of detinue of three
deeds, wherein the latter alleged that on 26 May, 1301, he
pledged to the defendant three deeds, sealed with the seal
of the Earl of Lincoln, containing £300, for £701 5s small
Tournois (fn. 2) , due from him to Reimund at the fair of Bruges
in the following month, which money the plaintiff paid by
the hands of Ralph de Brakkelee, merchant, but though the
said Ralph demanded the deeds in return, the defendant
detained them to his damage £100. The defendant declared
that he was not bound to return the deeds till the money was
paid, and produced a bond under the seal of the plaintiff to
that effect. The plaintiff did not deny this bond, but repeated
that he had paid his debt through Ralph de Brakkelee at the
Fair of Turruk, and that the defendant had pretended that the
deeds were in Bruges and had promised to restore them, but
had not done so. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had
no acquittance for the money, and that therefore the deeds
remained with him according to the terms of the bond, and
asked for judgment whether the plaintiff could recover on
his bare word (simplici verbo suo). The plaintiff offered to
verify the payment. Afterwards at a Court held on Thursday
before the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist
[June 24] the parties appeared, and the plaintiff again offered
to verify the payment and the detinue, by merchants and
other good and lawful men, natives and foreigners. Judgment
was given that as the plaintiff could not produce an acquittance and admitted the bond, which was not cancelled, he
should recover nothing, and be in mercy for a false claim.
In dorso. John de Seint Pere did not prosecute (fn. 1) , and was
plaintiff. Therefore he and his pledges are in mercy.
Membr. 7 3 Aug. 1302
Court of John le Blound, Mayor of London, Friday
after the Feast of St Peter ad Vincula [1 Aug.] A° 30
Edw. [1302]
John Aldebrandyn of the Society "Claren de Pistorye" (fn. 2)
acknowledged himself bound to Sir William Howard in an
alms dish and a cup with foot and covercle of silver weighing
25 marks, to be returned on the morrow of the Exaltation of
the Holy Cross (14 Sept.) on payment of 20 marks, the
amount for which they were pledged.
22 Aug. 1302
Wednesday before the Feast of St Bartholomew [24 Aug.]
Reymund de Sordes (fn. 3) , defendant, offered himself against
John de St Peter, plaintiff, in a plea of error made in the Court
of Peter de Bosenho, Sheriff, in an action of detinue of three
deeds. The above John had essoined twice and did not
appear now to prosecute his plaint. He was amerced, and
the defendant went thence without a day. Execution of the
judgment was ordered and the box of deeds was delivered
to the defendant.
28 Aug. 1302
On Tuesday after the Feast of St Bartholomew the Apostle
[24 Aug.] John, son of Geoffrey de Cavedihs, came before the
Mayor and admitted that he opened with his foot the door
of a certain sealed chamber (fn. 1) . He was committed to prison.
A jury was summoned from the venue of St Laurence and
Cheap to declare on oath whether John le Botoner broke the
sequestration made on him for the Queen's Gold, and counselled the neighbours and prevented them from paying more
than the half of what was demanded from them, and thus
hindered and delayed payment to the Queen.
Membr. 7 b 12 Sept. 1302
Wednesday after the Feast of the Nativity B.M.
[8 Sept.], for foreigners
James le Reve (fn. 2) offered himself against Peter de Bosenho,
Sheriff, and Nigel le Brun, executor of the will of Robert de
Bree, in a plea of error, wherein he complained that the
above Peter did him injury in a plea of account in which
the above Nigel was plaintiff and he was defendant-by
giving judgment that there should be auditors of his
account. The Sheriff produced his record, in which it
appeared that Nigel appointed Geoffrey de Morton or
Richard Gladewyne and William de Reylee or one of them
his attorney. The above James pleaded that he initiated the
plea of error, and claimed that the attorneys appointed by
Nigel in the Sheriff's Court, as appeared by the Sheriff's
record, should not be admitted for the defence here, and
therefore claimed judgment by default. Richard Gladewyne
pleaded that the defendant could not make default, as he had
appointed him, Richard, as his attorney till the case was
ended; also that the plaintiff charged error against the Sheriff
and could show no error in the record. He demanded that
the judgment be confirmed and execution thereof allowed.
A day was given till the next Court.
Precept was given that John de Sutton and other jurors of
Bridge Ward appear this day and assess damages sustained
when John Orpedman laid hands on the Master of the
Hospital of St Giles without London and denied him a
pledge. The Serjeant reported that summons had been made.
As Robert de Mokking, John Freschfihs, John Baldewin and
Elias Pykeman did not come, order was given to distrain
them against next Tuesday.
John de Shaftisbiri, Brian de Mendham and other jurors
of Langebourn Ward said on oath that Margery, relict of
John de Twyford, clerk, and Henry de Schenefeld, goldsmith, executors of the will of the above John, came on
Monday night after the Feast of the Nativity B.M. [8 Sept.]
to the house which the above John rented from Brachius
Lumbard in Langeborne Ward, and opened the door and
took away a feather bed, two sheets, two coverlets and two
andirons, value 8s, against the peace and the prohibition of
Sir John le Blunt, then Mayor. Margery and Henry were
summoned for Saturday to answer thereon.
17 Sept. 1302
Monday after the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy
Cross [14 Sept.]
James le Reve, plaintiff, offered himself against Nigel le
Brun, executor of the will of Robert de Bree, and Peter de
Bosenho, Sheriff of London, in a plea of error made in a
plea of account between the above Nigel, as plaintiff, and
himself, and demanded judgment by default. Richard
Gladewyne and Geoffrey de Morton denied the default. The
plaintiff declared the error to consist in the fact that the Sheriff
adjudicated auditors of the account, whereas he was not bound
to render account of the £74, which he received from Robert
de Bree to trade therewith to their common profit, because he
was robbed of those goods with others of his own on the coast
of Brittany; and he alleged other errors in the record. The
Sheriff asked for a day to take counsel till the morrow, which
was granted to him.
A jury of St Lawrence Lane in Cheap Ward was summoned
to declare whether Philip le Viroler broke the sequestration
on him for 16s, Queen's Gold, and whether he refused to
allow Thomas de Kent, Serjeant, to make the sequestration
on him.
[Record and process of an action in the Sheriff's Court.]
Membr. 8 27 Aug. 1302
Court of Peter de Bosenho, Sheriff, Monday after the
Feast of St Bartholomew [24 Aug.] A° 30 Edw. [1302]
James le Reve of London was summoned to answer Nigel
le Brun, executor of Robert de Bree of Dublin, merchant,
in a plea that he render a reasonable account of moneys
accruing to their common profit, in that the above Robert
on Palm Sunday 1290 handed to him £100 to trade therewith
in Ireland for two years, and the defendant had rendered no
account. The latter admitted the receipt of £74, with which
he bought goods, and said he was three times robbed on the
coast of Brittany in 1290, and was imprisoned for twelve
weeks, and demanded judgment whether he ought to render
account. Nigel demanded judgment on his recognizance, and
pleaded that the defendant should be forced to give an account
on his receipt, and said that the defendant, at the time alleged,
was in Ireland for a whole year trading and could not be
robbed in Brittany, and this he was prepared to prove by the
evidence of English and Irish merchants and of the Commonalties of Dublin and "Crakfergus," as well as by the
Rolls of the King's Customs of Wools and Hides in that
province. James repeated that he was robbed and was ready
to prove it by sailors and merchants trading in that country.
As regards the £30, he said he never received more than £74,
and was ready to defend it by his law. Nigel pleaded that
the defendant ought not to be admitted to his law, since actions
of account ought to be settled by a jury (fn. 1) , but in any case he
was ready to answer him. A day was given till the next Court.On Tuesday after the above feast the defendant appeared
by his attorney, Richard Scot. On Thursday the Court,
wishing for consultation, fixed the next hearing on Friday
before the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Mary [8 Sept.];
on which day the Court, on the ground that the defendant
acknowledged receipt of the £74 and showed no acquittance
for that sum, gave judgment that he should render an account,
and appointed Paul le Botiler and John Tilli as auditors, to
hear the account in the Guildhall on the Sunday. The
defendant was mainprised by John le Benere. A day was
given till the next Court in order that the Court might be
advised as to whether the defendant should make his law
about the £30, or the matter be inquired into by a jury.
Appended: writ de computo inter mercatores, witness the
King at Westminster 18 July A° 30 Edw. [1302]. Endorsed
"Datus est dies partibus in quindena Pasche proxime sequenti."
[Record and process of an action in the Sheriff's Court.]
Membr. 9 5 April 1302
Court of Robert le Caller, Thursday after Midlent
[1 April] A° 30 Edw. [1302]
Bartholomew Bynau was attached to answer Walter le
Bokeler in a plea of detinue of a horse value 40s, which he
had hired to take him from London to York for 7s, on
condition that the horse be returned within a month. The
defendant said that he hired the horse, which was only worth
a mark, to take him to the King in Scotland, and that the
plaintiff sent his servant John to look after the horse, which
fell sick on the way, and that he returned it to the servant
within the month to take it back to his master. The plaintiff
replied that he was ready to prove that the horse was worth
more than a mark; and the servant John, who joined himself
with his master in the plea, denied that it was returned to
him. The defendant said that he had witnesses, Fortanus
and Bernard, who were present, and craved leave to produce
them in accordance with the custom of the City. Having
taken an oath not to produce witnesses other than the above,
he demanded a day. Thereupon the servant John said that he
was himself a foreigner, and that when a suit concerning
foreigners was called, the party producing witnesses should
produce them at once in Court, and as the witnesses were
not there, he demanded judgment. The defendant pleaded
that he had been summoned to answer the above Walter, who
was a freeman, and that John had only joined his master to
support him, and he said further that if he lost the case, the
plaintiff would retain the whole profits (fn. 1) of the action; and he
demanded judgment.
After two adjournments, the defendant made default, and
did not produce his witnesses; whereupon on 12 May, judgment was given against him. As the value of the horse was
at issue between the parties, a jury was summoned to inquire
as to the value of the horse and assess damages. On 19 June
a jury of the Conduit and Bredstrate brought in a verdict
that the horse was worth two marks on the day it was hired,
and they assessed the damages, by reason of the detinue of
the horse from the Feast of the Purification [25 March] till
the present day, at 23s 2d, or 2d a day. Judgment was given
accordingly, and that the defendant be kept in custody till
he paid or found security for payment, since he was a foreigner
and had no goods in the bailiwick.
Note. Bartholomew did not prosecute (his plaint of error).
The defendant went thence without a day (fn. 2) .
Membr. 10
[Record and process of an action in the Sheriff's Court
endorsed "Recordum istud infirmatur."]
Court of Peter de Bosenho on Friday after the Feast
of St Faith [6 Oct.] (fn. 3)
John le Barber essoined against John de Laufare, cordwainer, in a plea of trespass, by Stephen de Wetherfeld.
On 11 Oct. judgment in the above case was respited till
the next Court from lack of jurors. On 20 Oct. John de
Laufare, the defendant, essoined, and again on 25 Oct. On
27 Oct. a jury of the venue of Wodestrate between John le
Barber, plaintiff, and John de Laufare, defendant, gave a
verdict for the plaintiff with 40s damages. Judgment for that
amount and that the defendant be committed to prison.
[Note by the writer of the Mayor's Court Roll]:-They
claim error, first, because the Sheriff did not send the original
plea; secondly, because he makes mention of judgment being
put in respite, whereas no judgment appears in the record;
thirdly, because the defendant essoined twice "de communi"
without an intervening appearance; fourthly, because judgment was given for 40s damages, and that the defendant's
body be committed to prison, without the principal plea
preceding.
[The above mentioned original or principal plea subsequently produced and sewn on the foot of the membrane]:-
Court of Richard de Campes, Sheriff, on Wednesday before
the Feast of St Michael [29 Sept.]. John de Laufare, cordwainer, was attached to answer John le Barber on a charge
of assaulting him in Wodestrate. The defendant pleaded that
the plaintiff assaulted him first in his house, and that any
damage he received was on this account. A jury was summoned against the next Court.
Membr. 11 19 Sept. 1302
Court of John le Blund, Mayor of London, Wednesday
after the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross
[14 Sept.] A° 30 Edw. [1302]
Bartholomew Bynaw (fn. 1) , who complained of error in the
Court of Robert le Callere, Sheriff of London, in an action
between himself and Walter le Boceler, had this day and did
not come. Judgment that he and his pledges be in mercy,
and that Walter go thence without a day. The Sheriff was
ordered to make execution.
James le Reve (fn. 2) , plaintiff, offered himself against Peter de
Bosenho, Sheriff of London, and Nigel le Brun, executor of
the will of Robert de Bree, in a plea of error made in the
Sheriff's Court in an action of account wherein the plaintiff
was defendant. The plaintiff said that the error consisted in
the fact that he was ordered to render account before auditors,
and that the Court took no notice of his offer to prove that
he had lost the money on the coast of Brittany by the evidence
of sailors and merchants trading there. The present defendants pleaded that the plaintiff should be precluded from
this verification, on the ground that they were ready to prove
that the plaintiff could not have been robbed as alleged, since
he was in Ireland, and they claimed judgment because he
had admitted receipt of the money and had produced no
acquittance. The Court decided that as neither party had
evidence to support their allegations, a day should be given
in the Quinzime of Easter for them to produce their evidence,
and that meanwhile execution of the judgment given in the
Sheriff's Court should be stayed.
Three dishes and one cup taken from Bartholomew Bynau
for 49s 10d, which Walter le Bokeler was awarded against him
in the Court of Robert le Callere, were valued by oath of
Michael de Wymbourne and John de Lutegreshale, goldsmiths, at 48s 2d, and they weighed 50s 8d. A day was
given to the said Bartholomew to satisfy the plaintiff within
eight days, otherwise the pledges would be sold.
5 Oct. 1302
Friday after the Feast of St Michael [29 Sept.]
Richard de Bolingtone and Alice his wife, Emma her sister,
and Geoffrey, clerk of the Church of St Nicholas Coldabbey,
were summoned to answer a charge of assaulting Agnes de
Norhamptone in the highway by the Gate of St Augustine.
Subsequently the parties came to an agreement, and the
amercement was condoned because they were poor.
Membr. 11 b 25 Oct. 1302
Thursday before the Feast of the Apostles Simon and
Jude [28 Oct.] A° 30 Edw. [1302]
William de Bray was summoned to answer Thomas
Abraham in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained
that though he was a citizen and had not offended against
the above William, the defendant caused him to.be attached on
Wednesday the Feast of the Assumption [15 Aug.] at Luton
Fair, by the goods which he had taken there for trading,
and had kept these goods for three days, till the plaintiff
answered him before the bailiffs of the town of Luton in a
plea of trespass, and that by means of a jury procured by
the defendant and of his affinity, damages of 20s were
awarded against the plaintiff, for which his goods were still
under arrest; and afterwards the defendant caused his goods,
which were going to London, to be attached in St Albans by
the bailiffs of the Abbot, to the value of £8, on Monday after
the Feast of the Assumption, which goods still remained
attached, in prejudice of the Liberty of the City of London
and to his damage £20. The defendant pleaded that the
plaintiff had assaulted him on the above Wednesday [15 Aug.]
at Luton and for this reason he had had his goods attached,
and also that he had assaulted him on Tuesday [14 Aug.], the
eve of the Assumption, after dinner at Luton Fair, within the
authority and Liberty of the Abbot of St Albans, and that
therefore he had caused him to be attached in the town of
St Albans within the same Liberty, as was lawful to him,
and he demanded judgment. The plaintiff also demanded
judgment on the confession of the defendant, and said that
even if he had offended against the defendant, which he had
not, the latter had done prejudice to the Liberty of London
in causing him to appear before other judges than those of
the Liberty of London, and outside the walls, and in having
him attached at St Albans on the Monday for an alleged
offence on the Tuesday preceding. A day was given at the
next Husting to hear judgment. Afterwards at a Court held
on Monday after the Feast of St Edmund [16 Nov.], the
above Thomas offered himself against the above William,
who did not come. Order was given to distrain him.
26 Oct. 1302
Friday before the Feast of the Apostles Simon and Jude
[28 Oct.] before William de Leyre
Thomas Abraham essoins against William de Bray by
Robert de St Gervas.
Roger de Shorne was summoned to answer William le
Poleter in a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that
by request of the above Roger he lent to the latter's son
Robert £9 18s 5½d at Nogente in Artoys, and afterwards came
to Roger's house in London and showed him Robert's bond,
whereupon Roger paid him 24s pollard for 12s sterling and
promised to pay the rest within the Quinzime, thus becoming debtor for his son; but though the plaintiff gave him
the bond, the defendant had subsequently refused payment.
The defendant denied that he had asked the plaintiff to lend
the money to his son or that he had assumed his son's debt.
The plaintiff produced witnesses, Nicholas and John, of whom
the former said that he was present when the plaintiff lent the
money at Paris and Nogente, that Robert gave a bond at
Paris, and that he was present when Roger, in his house
opposite "les Escanz" (fn. 1) , thanked William for the loan, and
paid 24s pollard; the parties, he said, were sitting in Roger's
hall on a bench facing the road and drinking, and Roger's
wife was present. The second witness, John, agreed with the
above, except that he said the bond was given at Nogente.
A day was given to hear judgment on Wednesday, unless the
parties were able to agree meanwhile.
7 Nov. 1302
Wednesday after the Feast of All Saints [1 Nov.]
A° 30 Edw. [1302]
Thomas Abram was summoned to answer William de
Braye in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained
that the defendant had him attached by his horse in the town
of Luton to answer him in a plea of trespass, in prejudice of his freedom of London. The defendant denied it,
and had a day at the Quinzime to make his law, when judgment was given against the plaintiff on his making default.
Membr. 12 17 Nov. 1302
Saturday after the Feast of St Martin [11 Nov.]
John de Brekesheved, servant of Terricus le Vileyn, was
attached to answer Adam de Berlee in a plea of trespass,
wherein the latter complained that the defendant assaulted
him on two separate occasions. The defendant put himself
on a jury. The plaintiff said that the custom of the City in
pleas of trespass was for a man to acquit himself by his law (fn. 1) ,
and he was willing to allow the defendant his law. The
latter refused, because he admitted that he laid hands on him
and pushed him away. Judgment was respited till Wednesday,
and the defendant was delivered to the Sheriff for his appearance on that day.
Peter Maupyn came before John le Blunt, Mayor of
London, and acknowledged that he owed to Sir Eble Mounz,
knight, £6 14s 8d, that sum being due to Sir William de
Mounz or his attorney on the Octave of St Andrew [30 Nov.].
11 Dec. 1302
Tuesday before the Feast of St Lucia Virgin [13 Dec.]
A° 31 Edw. [1302]
A jury of the venue of Manionelane was summoned for
Friday to say whether the house of William de Basinge was
burnt on Monday after Michaelmas, by fire issuing from the
house of Maud le Lou, due to carelessness on her part, as
the above William alleged.
John de Laufare offered himself against John le Barber,
in a plea of error made in the Court of Peter de Bosenho,
then Sheriff, in an action of trespass (fn. 2) , in which John le
Barber was plaintiff. The Sheriff sent his record, and an
error was found therein. The judgment of the Sheriff's
Court was annulled, and the present plaintiff went thence
without a day.
Henry de Mora waged his law to John de Laufare, clerk,
on the charge that he assaulted the latter. He is to make his
law on Thursday next.
15 Dec. 1302
Saturday after the Feast of St Lucia Virgin [13 Dec.]
Paul le Potter was in mercy for default against Robert de
Alegate.
The same Paul was attached to answer Robert de Alegate
in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that Paul,
who was a freeman like himself, caused his goods to be
attached by the bailiffs of Luton at Luton Fair, in prejudice
of the Liberty of London. The defendant denied that he
caused the goods of Robert to be attached, but instead those
of a certain Robert Rose, "poter," who owed him £20, which
he was prepared to prove. Thereupon Robert said that a
certain Thomas Rose was his journeyman (fn. 1) , and had charge of
his goods which were attached, and this he was willing to
prove, and to prove the custom of the City. A day was given
on Tuesday.
Afterwards on Tuesday the plaintiff demanded permission
to verify his plea. The defendant said the plaintiff could not
be admitted to his law, as the question was reserved for a
jury at the last court, and he called the Mayor's record to
witness. Afterwards a jury of Gilbert le Mareschal and
others said on oath that the goods, on which the attachment
was made, belonged to Robert de Alegate. Judgment was
given that Paul make delivery of the goods, and be at the
next Husting to hear judgment concerning this attachment
made against the Liberty of the City, and concerning the
damages of Robert, which were taxed at 20s.
Membr. 12 b
Alan de Maldon was summoned to answer Egbrith de
Werpe of Almaine in a plea of error made in the Court of
Symon de Paris, Sheriff of London, in an action of debt in
which Alan was plaintiff (fn. 2) . The above Egbrith complained
that the error made was in the process, and that whereas
"Detard," Alderman of the free merchants of the Hanse of
Almaine, came and demanded his Court concerning the above
Egbrith as a free man of the Hanse, which Court he claimed
to have by Charters from the Kings of England as well as
by Charters of the City of London, the above Sheriff, not
challenging that claim, nevertheless unjustly proceeded with
the plea. He said further that the Sheriff condemned him
in £33 11s 2d, whereas the plaintiff claimed £34 13s, and
failed to prove the whole of that amount. Moreover the
witnesses were insufficient, since they could not say out of
what contract the debt of £33 11s 2d had its origin, as they
ought to have done. Thus the error consisted in saying that
a faulty proof was good, and in proceeding to judgment.
Afterwards at a Court held on Friday after the Purification
[2 Feb.] a day was given to the parties to hear judgment at
the next Husting.
20 Dec. 1302
Thursday the Vigil of St Thomas the Apostle [21 Dec.]
Master Geoffrey de Hengham was attached to answer
Richard Hauteyn for prosecuting pleas against him in the
Court Christian at Norwich as regards goods and chattels
which did not concern a will or matrimony, but related to
tithes from lands which were not in the plaintiff's possession
-and this he had done, in spite of the fact that he had acknowledged before the Mayor that he had no ground for such
actions except as a means of vexation, and the Mayor, in
accordance with the ancient Liberties of the City, had
inhibited him from bringing such actions to impoverish the
plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that he had no need to
answer this charge, as the plaintiff had already sued him in
the Mayor's Court, and he had been acquitted, to which he
called the Mayor's record as witness. Moreover he pleaded
that this present action was pending in the Sheriff's Court,
and demanded judgment as to whether he need answer it
now. The plaintiff denied that the defendant had been acquitted, and as regards his assertion that the case was pending
in the Sheriff's Court, pleaded that this "excepcio" was a
dilatory one, and that his first answer to the action should be
dealt with first. Accordingly he demanded judgment whether
he was bound to answer this dilatory exception. A day was
given to hear judgment at the next Court.