Roll I
Membr. 1 30 Nov. 1306
Court of J. le Blound held on Wednesday the Feast of
St Andrew the Apostle [30 Nov.] A° 35 Edw. [1306]
John le Flemeng, "verrer" (fn. 1) , and William de Chichestre,
verrer, who threatened the Beadle and guardians of the peace
of Basseshawe Ward and Adam de Ordeby, "brazour" (fn. 2) , were
attached, and afterwards mainprised by Thomas le Verrer,
Nicholas le Verrer, Richard de Sarum, verrer, John Aleyn,
William de Seint Need, and Hugh de Tichemersh, mason,
for their good behaviour.
Robert de Wych, taverner, and Ellen his wife, Robert,
Thomas and John, their men, were attached to answer Henry
de Scheleford in a plea of trespass, wherein he complained
that they assaulted him and his friends at their tavern,
because they offered to pay 3¾d for a gallon and a quart of
wine according to the proclamation, and not 4d per gallon
as demanded, and also that they imprisoned him till the
middle of the night, to his damage £40. A jury was summoned
between the parties.
Henry de Scheleford was attached to answer the above
Robert on a charge that he and others drank a gallon and a
quart of wine and ate a halfpenny loaf and were unwilling to pay
for them, and assaulted Robert, his wife and his maidservant,
to their damage 100s. Afterwards a jury of the venue round
the Church of St Michael at Corn, consisting of Thomas de
Kent, saddler, and others, said that the plaintiffs and the
defendant assaulted each other, and that the latter took the
plaintiff's supertunic off him and threw it down, and kept the
plaintiff in his house until William Sallok, the Sheriff's
Serjeant, ejected him. They assessed the plaintiff's damages
at one mark. Judgment for that amount.
Membr. 1 b 16 Dec. 1306
Friday after the Feast of St Lucia Virgin [13 Dec.]
John Bonde was attached to answer Peter Berneval in a
plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that when an
action between them in the Court of William Combe Martin
in the Guildhall had come to a jury, the defendant assaulted
him, to the hindrance of justice, and to his damage £40. Afterwards a jury of Reginald de Undle and others in full Husting
brought in a verdict that both parties abused and insulted
each other. Judgment was given for the defendant, and that
the plaintiff be amerced.
1 Feb. 1306-7
Wednesday the Vigil of the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.]
A° 35 Edw. [1306-7]
Richard Costentyn was attached to answer Peter Berneval
on a charge of assaulting him in the Guildhall. A jury round
the Guildhall [patria circa Gialdam] was summoned. Afterwards in full Husting came the parties and a jury of Reginald
de Undle and others, who said that after the session of the
Sheriff's Court the parties abused each other at the door of the
Guildhall, and the defendant would have struck the plaintiff,
but was prevented, and only touched him with his fingers,
to his damage 12d. As it seemed to the Mayor and Aldermen
that the damages were too small, they taxed them at half-amark, and inasmuch as the assault took place within the
Guildhall, judgment was given that the defendant go to prison
till he had satisfied the King for the contempt and the
plaintiff for the damages. The half-mark was paid by the
hands of Roger le Barber, Serjeant.
A jury of Langebourn was summoned to say whether
Gilbert le Marischal and William Amiz had in hand 42s 4d
of the tallage of £1048 made to acquit the purprestures and
Sheriff's debts, as was charged against them by William de
Hikling, clerk, who sued for the Commonalty. Afterwards
a jury of William le Fullere and others said that 4s 4d remained in the hands of Gilbert, and that the rest was still
owed. Judgment was given that Gilbert pay the 4s 4d, and
that he and William be quit of the remainder.
Membr. 2 7 April 1307
Friday after the Feast of St Ambrose, Bishop [4 April]
Peter le Taverner and Richard de Mauncestre complained
of error in the Court of Geoffrey de Conduit, Sheriff, in an
action of debt brought against them by Peter Bolom. The
record was read and confirmed and the Sheriff was ordered
to give execution. The record remains in the Bag of Common
Pleas among the writs of the thirty-fifth year of King Edward.
? 12 April 1307
Wednesday after (fn. 1) the Feast of St Leo, Pope [19 April]
A jury of the venue of the Ward of Nicholas de Farndon
round the Church of St Michael at Corn and Ludgate was
summoned to say whether John Bogeys insulted and cursed
the Mayor, Aldermen and collectors of the Twentieth. Afterwards a jury of John Huberd and others said that the defendant did not curse the Mayor and Aldermen, but used abusive
words to the collectors, and the collectors did the same to
him. Judgment for the defendant.
27 April 1307
Thursday after the Feast of St Mark the Evangelist
[25 April]
Walter. . . .and John, his servant, were summoned to answer
Thomas Scott, groom of the Prince, on a charge that when
he wanted to relieve himself in.... Lane, they assaulted him
and struck him with a knife, to his damage 100s. The defendants pleaded that they told the plaintiff that it would be
more decent to go to the common privies of the City to
relieve himself, whereupon the plaintiff wanted to kill Walter,
and he in fear of his life defended himself, and that he did
the plaintiff no other damage. A jury was summoned, but
afterwards the plaintiff did not prosecute. He was amerced.
Membr. 2 b 8 May 1307
Monday after the Feast of St John before the Latin
Gate [May 6]
Stephen de Uptone was in mercy for his many defaults.
The same Stephen was attached to answer Nicholas de
Farndon, Alderman, and Andrew Mel and his fellows, collectors of the Twentieth in the Ward of Nicholas, for failing
to pay his contribution to the Twentieth, and breaking the
sequestration made upon him and carrying away the seques
trated goods. Stephen pleaded that at the time of the
sequestration he was in Norfolk, and the sequestration was
not broken by him or with his knowledge. A jury of the
venue of Paternosterstrete was summoned. And as Stephen
acknowledged that in his absence his wife unknowingly broke
the sequestration, it was ordered that she be attached against
Wednesday. Afterwards a jury of John de Writele and others
said that Stephen's wife broke the sequestration. Judgment
was given that she go to prison &c. She was delivered to the
Sheriff through William de Londoneston.
Walter de Dunstaple, called "de Templo," was attached to
answer Roger de Brunne in a plea of trespass, wherein the
latter complained that he found two men quarrelling at the
Conduit, and was attempting to separate them and compose
the quarrel, when the defendant assaulted him. The defendant pleaded that he found Walter and the others quarrelling,
and went to stop the dispute, and that he did him no harm.
Afterwards a jury of the venue said that when the plaintiff
was stopping the dispute, the defendant took him maliciously
by the hood, and kept him until he was delivered by the
guardians of the peace. Judgment that Walter go to prison
until &c.
24 May 1307
Wednesday after the Feast of Holy Trinity [21 May]
William de Conduit, taverner, essoined against William de
Beauchaump, John Mautravers, knight, Hugh his groom,
and Philip atte Beche, by W. de Reyle; Adam atte Bowe
essoined against the same by the same. And the defendants
came and said that the essoins were faulty, as the plaintiffs
prosecuted jointly and essoined separately. Judgment was
given that William and Adam gain nothing by their plea and
be in mercy for a false claim, and that William, John, Hugh
and Philip go quit.
Membr. 3 6 March 1306-7
Monday before the Feast of St Gregory, Pope [12 March]
A° 35 Edw. [1306-7] in full Husting of Pleas of Land
Simon Bolet, Sheriff of London, was summoned to answer
Nicholas le Pesshoner in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter
complained that when he, as free of the City, bought from a
certain merchant 301 fresh congers for 6 marks, immediately
satisfying the merchant for the same, the defendant came and
took the congers and detained them, to his damage £20. The
defendant pleaded that John de Moking, William Lambyn,
Richard Horn, Robert Turk and many other fishmongers of
Bridge Street and Old Fish Street gave him to understand
that the plaintiff bought the congers from a foreign merchant
by night on the Thames, thus forestalling them against the
regulations and the Liberties of the City, and accordingly he
took the fish justly as a forfeiture. The plaintiff answered
that the ship which brought the congers lay at the quay
bound with a cable, and that the merchant exposed the fish
for sale for a night and a day, and that John and the other
fishmongers several times affeered them and sorted them in
the casks (in tendlos
(fn. 1) sorciebantur (fn. 2) ), and he, the plaintiff,
afterwards bought them from the merchant legitimately by
day, the ship being tied up by the cable at the proper place,
and that he granted a share of them to the others. He demanded a jury. The defendants repeated that the plaintiff
bought the fish by night in the middle of the river, at an
unlawful place, and the ship was not then tied up by a cable.
A jury of the venue round "Fihswarf" was summoned. After
several adjournments, owing to the fact that the Mayor could
not attend, that the jurors made default and the plaintiff
challenged some of them, a jury of John de Wymondham and
others gave a verdict that the ship was tied up by the cable
to the quay for three tides before Nicholas affeered the
conger, and that Nicholas at vespers caused the master of the
ship to move her from the quay, and then bought the fish at
the Chapel of St Thomas on the Bridge, paying God's penny
there (fn. 3) . A day was given to hear judgment on the Wednesday.
Afterwards an adjournment was made, and the jury was
summoned to certify the Court as regards damages. They
taxed damages at one mark. And as it seemed to the Court
that too small damages were taxed, a day was given to hear
judgment, in order that meanwhile the Court might be
certified. Finally, on the ground that the ship lay at the
quay for three tides with the congers exposed for sale before
Nicholas bought them, and therefore the congers were not
liable to forfeiture, and as they were detained for a long time
and cost six marks, judgment was given that the plaintiff
recover against Simon the price of the congers and 4 marks
for his expenses and damages.
Membr. 4 26 May 1307
Friday after the Feast of Holy Trinity [21 May]
Simon de Rokesle and John de Fincham, goldsmiths, mainprised Roger Seyer, goldsmith, to restore to the Chaplain of
the Abbess of Ancerwyk four cups of mazer, value 2 marks,
when they were repaired, as agreed between the Chaplain and
Roger.
16 June 1307
Friday after the Feast of St Barnabas the Apostle
[11 June]
Adam de Ely was mainprised by Walter de Hakeneye and
William Flinchard to hear judgment concerning putrid fish
sold to Robert le Benere of the Stalls. The above Adam
testified that Robert was accustomed to buy putrid fish and
sell it again.
Richard de Braye of Bredstrete admitted that he cursed
Robert de Gloucestre and Simon de Rokesle, collectors of
the Twentieth in Bredstrate Ward, by calling a curse on those
who assessed him. Judgment was given that he go to prison
until &c.
Membr. 4 b 23 June 1307
Robert Box was attached to answer Hugh de Wautham,
the Sheriff's clerk, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter
complained that when he went by order of the Court, together
with the Chamberlain's clerk and Serjeant, to the corner of
St Antonin's churchyard, in order to deliver to Peter Andreu
and his partners, merchants of Montpelers, seisin of half the
lands and tenements of the defendant in payment of the sum
of £48 due to them on a bond, the defendant made a premeditated attack on him, and threatened that if he entered
any of the houses he would lose his head, to his damage
100s. A jury was summoned against Wednesday.
Writ of attorney to the effect that Nigel le Brun, executor
of the will of Robert de Bree, being in Ireland, had appointed
Richard de Mortone and William FitzHugh his attorneys for
a year or until his return. Witness the King at Lanercost,
1 March A° 35 Edw. [1306-7].
Membr. 5 28 June 1307
Wednesday the Vigil of the Apostles Peter and Paul
[29 June]
The jury between Hugh de Wautham, plaintiff, and Robert
Box, "peverer" (fn. 1) , defendant, respited.
William de Kent, tailor, and Richard Levesone, executor
of the will of Walter le Sergaunt of St Paul's, were summoned
to answer Nicholas le Archer for detinue of certain deeds
which the plaintiff entrusted to the testator. The defendants
said they had a co-executor, Henry de Neubiry, taverner,
without whom they could not answer, and they demanded
judgment thereon. Order was given to summon the above
Henry.
26 July 1307
Wednesday the morrow of St James the Apostle [25 July]
by J. de Wengrave, deputy of the Mayor, and other
Aldermen
John Deveneys was attached to answer John de Frysingfeld,
knight, in a plea that the defendant, being the plaintiff's
servant, and receiving his clothing in pay, at the plaintiff's
request A° 23 Edw. [1294-5], had to obtain credit for him
for carrying out certain duties ordered by the King, and that
he did so obtain £19 16s from certain creditors, and together
with the plaintiff entered into an obligation to pay those
creditors. Afterwards, when the plaintiff was setting out for
Ireland on the King's service, he, at the defendant's request,
bound himself to the latter by a Statute of £40, on condition
that the defendant would not demand more from him than
the above sum of £19 16s and any damages the defendant
might sustain owing to the non-payment of that sum at the
proper dates. And although the defendant received from the
plaintiff in Ireland A° 24 Edw. [1296] the sum of £9, and 9
marks on two other occasions for satisfying the creditors, he
had not paid the creditors, but kept the money, and had sued
the plaintiff on the Statute and obtained seisin of a manor
belonging to the plaintiff of an annual value of £26, by an
extent of £14, and had kept it for five years, to his damage
100 marks. The defendant pleaded that he did not belong
to the plaintiff's household, and that he never bound himself
with the plaintiff to pay any creditor, except a sum of 9½ marks
to Fulc de St Edmunds, which he had paid and for which
he now had the obligation, and that as regards the rest of
the money in the Statute of £40, that concerned the defendant's own property which he had delivered to the plaintiff
in the form of money, victuals, hay and corn. The plaintiff
replied that as regards the £40 in the Statute, he had not
received from the defendant more than the £19 16s originally
borrowed, and he offered to verify it by a jury. The defendant
pleaded that the Statute was a judgment in itself and ought
not to be annulled by a jury, and that he could not be ejected
from his free tenement to which he had entry by judgment,
and he demanded judgment on the ground that the plaintiff
had not produced any special deed exonerating him from the
£40. Afterwards the plaintiff failed to prosecute his suit.
Judgment was given that he and his pledges be amerced, and
that the defendant go thence without a day.
Membr. 5 b
William de Conele was attached to answer John de Trumpeshale in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained
that he and the defendant were partners trading with the
goods of the children of William de Herforth, deceased, and
that on Sunday before the Feast of St James the Apostle
last [25 July] they began to render account before Thomas
Romeyn and their other auditors, and on account of noon
supervening, the closing of the account was adjourned till
the next morning, when the above William refused to
come, maliciously retaining the paper of memoranda of the
accounts; and when the plaintiff went to him at the Coldhakber (fn. 1) in the parish of All Hallows at Hay, and was asking
him in a friendly way about his absence in the morning, &c.,
the defendant and his servant assaulted him, to his damage
£20. The defendant pleaded that the paper was in the hands
of Thomas de Norhampton, as common friend, by mutual consent, and that John received no harm from him. Afterwards
a jury of John de Paris, "corder," and others said that the
defendant assaulted the plaintiff, to his damage 40s. The defendant was distrained to come on Saturday to hear judgment.
2 Aug. 1307
Wednesday the morrow of St Peter ad Vincula [1 Aug.]
A jury of the venue of Cornhull was summoned to say
whether Thomas de Flete, pheliper (fn. 2) , derided the Mayor,
Aldermen and guardians of the peace, when they were riding
by, by neighing like a horse, and using other abusive words, in
contempt of the Mayor and Aldermen, as was charged against
him.
Membr. 6
[Record and Process of an action in the Sheriff's Court,
endorsed "istud Recordum affirmatur."]
21 April 1307
Court of Simon Belet, Sheriff of London, on Friday before
the Feast of St George [23 April] A° 25 Edw. [1307]
John de Kent, tailor, was attached to answer John, servant
of Richard le Barber, in a plea of trespass; pledges of prosecution, Richard de Kelleneden and John Sayer. The
plaintiff charged the defendant with an assault. A jury of
the venue, consisting of Henry de Somersete and others, gave
a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages ½ mark. Judgment
accordingly. The defendant found pledges for the ½ mark,
Hugh Absolon and Thomas le Barber.
Membr. 7
[Record and Process of an action in the Sheriff's Court
endorsed "Recordum placiti inter Petrum le Taverner &
Ricardum de Mauncestre...."]
Peter Bolom, merchant, was attached against Richard de
Mauncestre and Peter le Taverner of Garscherch in a plea
of covenant. Pledges of prosecution, John Laurenz and
Simon the tailor of Garschirche.
21 April 1305
The plaintiffs essoined by Walter de Ebbegate. Subsequently the parties appeared, and the plaintiffs complained
that they bought from the defendant 12 casks of wine for
£24, paying £6 down, and finding security for the payment
of the remainder; and at that time the wine was so dense and
impure that it could not be recognised by sight or taste, but
the defendant promised that it was good, and of good proof
and short assize, and that it would draw well to the end.
Thereupon the plaintiffs agreed that it should remain in the
defendant's custody for a week, after which they met in
London. The defendant then agreed that the plaintiffs should
take the wine at his risk, declaring that the wine was good
and merchantable, and that otherwise he would make the
wine good and indemnify them in full against any loss. On
this agreement the plaintiffs received the wine and kept it
for a fortnight, when it was found to be putrid and corrupt,
whereupon they went to the defendant and asked him to
take it back or make it good, according to the agreement,
which he refused to do. Afterwards the wine was found by
the City's Scrutineers to be putrid, so that the casks were
broken and the wine condemned, and again the defendant
refused to make good the loss. The defendant pleaded that
no answer need be given to the plaint. He admitted the sale,
but said that the plaintiffs did not pay the residue of £18
at the stated time, and that he had sued them for that amount
in the Court of Geoffrey de Conduit, then Sheriff. The
plaintiffs had tried to exclude him from his action by saying
that he sold them the wine under pledge, and that it was
found to be other than stated, and they had claimed judgment
on that issue. But this exception had not been allowed by
the Court, which gave judgment in his favour; and this judgment had been confirmed in the Mayor's Court. He now demanded judgment whether he need answer as to the covenant.
The plaintiffs replied that the defendant admitted the sale,
and the payment of £6, and the time of the sale, and that
he recovered the remainder of the purchase price, and they
pleaded that they made the covenant with him eight days and
more after the sale. They said also that the present action was
a plea of account in which they were movers, and that a plea of
account had to be finished otherwise than a plea of debt. They
offered to prove the covenant in any way that the Court
might direct, and to prove that it was subsequent to the sale,
and as the defendant had put in no answer to that statement,
they demanded judgment as in an undefended action.
After several adjournments for consultation, the Court had
the record inspected, and because it was found that the
defendant had received payment, that the covenant was of
later date than the sale, and that the wine was found to be
unsound, and as the defendant made no answer to this, judgment was given for the plaintiffs as in an undefended action.
[Record and Process of an action in the Sheriff's Court
endorsed "Recordum placiti inter Walterum de Merlawe
et Thomam Pourte."]
Membr. 8
Court of Simon Bolet held on.... (fn. 1)
after the Feast of
All Hallows [1 Nov.]
Henry de Merlawe complained that Thomas Pourte sold
him a messuage in the Parish of St Dunstan by the Tower,
on payment of 2 marks yearly to the defendant during the
latter's lifetime, and that he paid the defendant the God's penny
and 20s earnest money, but the defendant refused to fulfil
the sale and agreement. The defendant denied the plaint,
and offered to defend himself by his law. The plaintiff said
that Henry unjustly defended, since he had two good and
lawful men, John and William, who were present when the
covenant was made and when the God's penny and 20s were
paid. He was sworn to produce them at the Quinzime.
Afterwards the parties came, and John, the first witness, being
sworn and examined in the presence of Salamon le Cotiler
and Nicholas Picot, Aldermen, said he was present in the
tavern of Peter le Taverner of Grascherch at Vesper hour
with William, his fellow-witness, and David, the Sheriff's
clerk, and others, when the covenant was made, and that the
defendant made this covenant with the plaintiff because the
latter had betrothed himself to his daughter, and he said the
messuage would be safer in the hands of Henry and his
daughter than in any other's. William gave the same evidence
in the same words. Judgment that the plaintiff recover the
20s and his damages. A day was given to the defendant to
pay the 20s, and also damages if he thought fit. As the
defendant did not pay either, the plaintiff came and demanded that the damages be taxed by the Court, and the
defendant came by his attorney to hear the taxing. The
record and process were then read and recited and understood
by Thomas Romayn, Richer de Refham, Richard de Gloucestre, Salamon le Cotiler, Nicholas Picot, Aldermen, Ralph
de Alegate, William de Grafton, Reginald de Oundle, Andrew
de Staunford, John de Waltham, Richard Gladewyne, John
le Botoner, Roger le Viroler, Ralph Rattespray and others in
Court, and the damages were taxed, including the 20s and
God's penny, altogether at 100s. Judgment was given for
the plaintiff for this sum, and that the defendant be in mercy.