16 Nov 1319 – 5 Aug 1328 (nos 252-298)
[m. 33] Fri. 16 Nov. 1319.
252. William de Spersholte, pl., appears against William de Canefelde, def.,
complaining that, whereas he has a stone wall 16 ft. high joining his tenement in the par. of St. Michael Queenhithe to that of the def., who ought
therefore to receive the water draining from his house, the def. fails to do
so for lack of a leaden gutter (guttere plumbei) 14 ft. and more in length,
which he ought to provide. The def., summoned by Robert le Hetherent
[sic] and Henry atte Swan, makes default. Judgment that he make the
gutter in question within 40 days etc.
253. Thomas de Cobham complains that, whereas he has a stone wall 50 ft.
long and 3 ft. wide between his tenement and that of Thomas de Brakkele
in the par. of All Hallows at Hay in Douegate ward, and wished to demolish
and build upon it, the def., by William Pykeman, serjeant of John de
Dallyng, sheriff, on Wed. 26 Sept. 1319, caused the work to be prohibited.
The def. claims that half the wall is his. The pl. says that his beams (trabes)
extend into the midst of the wall, so that they can be clearly seen from the
pl.'s land, and his wall-plate (plata) lies upon it, and his supporting timber
occupies the whole breadth. Judgment after view that he have the whole
wall. Def. in mercy.
254. Memorandum quod anno xiiii° nulle assise de nocumenta presente
fuerunt, quia illo anno sedebant justiciarii itinerantes apud Turrim London'
ad placita corone.
Mon. [? 17 Aug.] (Mon. after the feast of St. Lawrence) 1321. Hamo de
Chiggewell, mayor, and the aldermen, William Prodhomme and Reginald de
255. Thomas de Berkyngge, goldsmith, complains that when he began to
build a house, ready for roofing (ad cooperiendum paratam) on the east
side of the house of Henry atte More, goldsmith, the latter caused William
Prodhomme, sheriff, to prohibit the work. The def. says that the prohibition was justified, because his tenement was formerly held by Ralph de la
More, who enfeoffed his daughter Beatrice with the portion now held by
the pl., on condition that neither she nor her heirs should at any time
obscure the light from two glazed windows on the west side of his house by
building within 10 ft. of it. In support of his claim he produces a deed of
Ralph de la More, granting to John de Pontefract, goldsmith, and Maud
atte More, daughter of the grantor, a portion of his land in Wodestrete in
the par. of St. Michael, situated between the messuage he gave to his
daughter Beatrice on the north and the house (managium) of John le
Blount, goldsmith, on the south, and between the street on the west, and
the land of Peter de Haverhull, clerk, on the east, on the conditions quoted
above. Witnesses: Thomas fitz Thomas, mayor, Thomas de la Forde and
Gregory de Rokeslee, sheriffs, Stephen Bucr', alderman of the ward, (fn. 1) John
de la Blakethorn, Henry de Frowyk, Ralph le Blount and others [1263–4].
The pl. says that his case cannot be prejudiced unless the def. produces the
deed enfeoffing Beatrice; to which the def. replies that Beatrice was enfeoffed on the same conditions as John and Maud, and that the pl. holds
her portion. The parties are given a day on the following Wed. to hear
judgment. After further adjournments the assize comes on Fri. [ ?4 Sep.] and
the parties likewise; and it is adjudged that the pl. continue his building
operations, notwithstanding Henry's defence, and that the def. be in
Fri. 4 Sep. 1321. [Essoin only.]
[Day and feast omitted, 1321–2.] Hamo de Chigewelle, mayor, and the
aldermen. [Essoin only.]
[The same heading repeated.]
256. John de Acre, pl., appears against Nicholas son of Alan de Suttone
called Ballard, def., by William de Reile his attorney, and complains that
the def. refuses to repair the stone wall dividing their tenements, to the
nuisance of the pl. and his household. The def., after essoining himself,
makes default. Judgment that within 40 days etc. he remove the nuisance
and be in mercy.
[m. 33d.] Fri. 4 Sep. .
257. John de Kyngeston and Sabine his wife complain that the cess-pit of
the privy of John Mounde, baker, and Avice his wife, adjoins too closely
their party-wall and rots it; and that the defs. allow the eaves of their house
to remain unroofed (discoopertas), so that the water therefrom falls upon
the wall. Judgment after view that within 40 days etc. the cess-pit be removed
to a proper distance from the pls.' wall, and that the defs.' eaves be repaired
and roofed, and that they receive their water upon their own land.
258. Richard Andreu complains that John de Thunderle has stopped up
(obturavit) (fn. 2) a gutter (gotteram) passing through his tenement, which used
to convey the water from the pl.'s house into the street, in accordance with a
grant made to him by Adam de Thunderle, which he produces. The def.
says that he has only a life interest in the tenement in question, of which the
reversion belongs to Adam, without whom he cannot answer. Given a day
at the quindene, the parties come, and John and Adam unite in declaring
that the gutter was already stopped up when the pl. was enfeoffed, and has
always been so. A jury, summoned for the following Fri. [? 11 Sep.], comes
by Stephen de Preston and others on the panel, and finds that the gutter
was stopped up by the def. Judgment that within 40 days etc. he remove the
Fri. 19 Mar. 1322. Hamo de Chigewelle, mayor, and Robert de Swalclyve,
Simon de Abyndon, John de Prestone, Henry de Secheford, Robert Sely and
Edmund Lambyn, aldermen.
259. The commonalty complain of the obstruction by Walter, parson of
All Hallows de Berkynggecherche, John Priour and Walter le Milward,
parishioners, of the free passage by the gate (portam) near the tenement of
Denise relict of John le Bacheler. The parson and Walter make default, but
John Priour comes and says that the place is dedicated, and he does not
think that it should come within the purview of the assize; but it is adjudged
that the defs., within 40 days etc., remove the obstruction, so that the path
(via) remain common as it used to be.
260. The commonalty complain that Roger, parson of All Hallows de
Garscherche, Arnold le Chaundeler, Robert le Barber, Richard le Cordewaner, Robert de Stratford, Cambin Fulberd, Peter de Herlyng, taverner,
and John Scot have obstructed with a stone wall and a gate a path (via)
near the churchyard of All Hallows, turning south towards the royal
highway. The defs. say that the place is dedicated, and belongs to the
church of All Hallows; but Gregory de Norton, common serjeant, prosecuting for the commonalty, says that there has always been a common
way there for both horsemen and pedestrians, as far as the turning to the
north. The defs., asked if they have anything to add to defer judgment, say
that they blocked up the path because evil-doers used to lurk there by night
to waylay passers-by. Judgment that within 40 days etc. they remove the
261. On Fri. 22 July 1323, William de Dalby complained that the house of
Alan de Asshendon and Margery his wife overhangs his land by 5 ft. and
more so that he cannot build; and that the defs. have two windows only
13 ft. from the ground and unglazed; and that the water from their eaves,
9 ells long, and from two gutters (gutteris), falls upon his land. The def.
says his wife has no interest in the tenement in question, and that, as far as
the overhang (superpendenciam) and the windows and eaves are concerned,
the assize has no competence, because according to the custom of the City,
complaint must be made within a year and a day of the nuisance arising.
As to the gutters, he doubts whether an assize lies, because the pl. holds
the tenement formerly belonging to Robert de Paris, mercer, and he himself that held by Adam de Beverly, 'peleter'; and he produces a deed which
purports to show that Adam covenanted with Robert to make two gutters,
one 11¼ ells in length between their respective kitchens, and another, 3 ells
long between Adam's house and Robert's new chamber, Robert undertaking to receive the water from both and convey it away towards the west.
The pl. argues that the limitation of a year and a day applies only to stone
walls and the like; and, as regards the gutters, he says that Adam de
Beverly never had any interest in the tenement he now holds; and that the
gutters mentioned in the def.'s deed are not those of which he complains.
The case is referred to a jury of the wards of Bassieschaw and Colmanstrete, who find for the pl. Judgment that each of the parties receive and
convey away his own water, and that the def. build a gutter upon his eaves.
The pl. is to be free to build if he so desires, the def.'s eaves having been
[m. 34. No heading.]
262. On Fri. 3 Sep. 1322 John Pycot, son of Nicholas Pycot, pl., appears
against Ralph son of John de Boctone, def., complaining that the def. has a
wall dividing his tenement in the pars, of St. Bartholomew the Less and
St. Michael upon Cornhulle from the pl.'s house, and has allowed the
gutter (guttera) thereon to be broken, and the wall is so damaged (prostratus) by the water that it no longer forms a fence (claustura) between the
adjoining houses. The def. makes default. Judgment that within 40 days etc.
he rebuild the wall and gutter as they used to be.
263. Joce de Spaldinge and Joan his wife complain that Rose relict of
Walter le Hert has built her pig-sty (porcariam) so close to their wall that
it is overborne by the weight. The def. says that it is not the pig-sty that has
caused the collapse of the wall, which was already falling into decay.
Judgment after view that the pls. repair the wall, and that within 40 days
etc. the def. remove the pig-sty 3½ ft. from it, if it is of earth, and 2½ ft. if
it is of stone.
264. Gregory de Norton, common serjeant, on behalf of the commonalty,
pls., appears against Thomas Frembaud and Joan his wife, defs., complaining that the stone wall in front of their house towards the east in the par. of
St. Matthew de Frydaystrate is ruinous, and in danger of collapsing, to the
peril of all living there or passing by. The defs. make default. Judgment that
within 40 days etc. they demolish the wall.
Fri. 1 Oct. 1322. Mayor, and the aldermen.
265. John Preston, corder, pl., appears against Robert de Hereford, def.,
complaining that he cannot build upon his plot of land adjoining the def.'s
house in the par. of All Hallows at Hay, because the def.'s chimney
(chimineus) overhangs it by 8 ins. for a distance of 48 ins. The def. makes
default. Judgment after view that within 40 days etc. he remove the nuisance
so that the pl. can build.
Fri. 5 Nov. 1322.
266. Christine Tylly and Henry de Denecombe, pls., appear against
Nicholas de Perndon, def., complaining that whereas an open drain
(rivolus) used to carry off to la More the water from their adjoining houses
and those of other neighbours, the def. has so obstructed it that when it
rains the pls.' garden and the plants growing therein are flooded to a depth
of 1½ ft. The def., summoned by Robert de Dunmowe and Roger de
Wyndesore, makes default, and no one appears for him. Judgment after
view that within 40 days etc. he remove the obstruction so that the water
can be carried off to la More as formerly.
[m. 34d.] Fri. 3 Sep. 1323. Pleas of assize held before N. de Farndone, mayor,
the aldermen and others sworn to the assize, on the scene of the nuisance in
the par. of Hoggenlane in Crepelgate Ward.
267. John Hauteyn, pl., appears against Matthew de Essex, def., who
essoins himself and then makes default. The pl. complains that the water
draining from the def.'s house falls upon his land for a depth of 22 ft.
Judgment after view that within 40 days etc. the def. make a leaden fillet in
the form of a gutter (filettum plumbeum ad modum guttere) along the whole
length of his house to receive his water and convey it on to his land or into
268. The same John, pl., appears against Bartholomew de Hallyngebery,
def., who makes default. The pl. complains that he has infringed the custom
of the City, whereby no windows or other apertures facing a neighbouring
house may be less than 9 ft. [sic] from the ground or the storey to which
they belong (a terra sive a stagio). Judgment after view that within 40 days
etc. the def. block up the windows and apertures complained of.
Fri. 25 May 1324. Homo de Chigewell, mayor, and the aldermen.
269. Thomas Doget complains that when he demolished part of the wall
between his tenement and that of Henry Prodhomme in the par. of St.
Leonard Estchep in order to repair it, placing his new timber where the
old had been, the def. caused the work to be prohibited by Ralph Borgard,
serjeant. Henry says that the assize does not lie, because Thomas was
formerly seised of the tenement which he (Henry) now holds, and Maud
daughter of Christine Sperelyng and Felicia her sister brought an action
de rectis serviciis against him in the Husting, in 19 Edward I [1290–1],
claiming the tenement as gavelet, and because he made default, it was
awarded them as forshard; (fn. 3) and he says that the wall upon which the pl.
claims to build belongs to the said tenement. The pl. says that Edward
son of Martin Sperling gave the messuage in Estchep which he now holds,
lying between the church on the north and the land of Ralph [? Sperling]
on the south, and measuring in front along the street towards the west 15½
ells, and on the side next the church 15¾ ells, and in width in the middle
16½ ells 1 in., on the south 17¾ ells and on the east 16½ ells, to Stephen (—),
a minor and Richard Russel. Afterwards Stephen quitclaimed his rights in
the messuage to Richard, who enfeoffed therewith the prioress of Wyntoneye, who, with the consent of her chapter, enfeoffed John Doget, the pl.'s
father, who, throughout his time, enjoyed the right to affix to the wall in
question the posts upholding his house. The mayor and aldermen, having
viewed the premises, find that the pl. was formerly seised of the wall to a
depth of 6 ins. Judgment that he may place upon it his new posts and
timber up to that width, removing anything that exceeds it. Def. in mercy.
[m. 35. No heading.]
270. Margaret relict of John Vivien complains that Stephen atte Holte has
prohibited, through the sheriff, the building of her house in the par. of St.
Michael upon Cornhulle. The def. says that he purchased a portion of land
for building from Peter de Waltham, including half an old post, with the
right to place his timber thereon, and the pl. now seeks to appropriate parts
of it, measuring in length from the post of the house of Nicholas le
Chaundeler and Alice his wife on the north to a post of his own house on
the south 3⅞ ells, 1 in., and in width ½ ft. and more. The pl. says that the
land in question belongs by right to her, because the old house which she
demolished was built upon it, as can be seen from an old post still standing
there. The mayor and aldermen, having viewed the premises, find that her
claim is correct. Judgment that she have and hold the portion of land in
question and build upon it at will. Def. in mercy for an unjust impediment.
271. The same Margaret complains that Nicholas le Chaundeler and Alice
his wife have a post of their house in the same par. standing partly upon
her land, so that she cannot build. The defs. say that the land where their
house is situated and where the post stands formerly belonged to Peter de
Waltham, who sold it to Stephen atte Holte, who sold it to John de Bekles,
from whom they bought it, and they claim no more than is due to them
according to the metes and bounds in the deed of feoffment. The mayor
and aldermen and others, having viewed the premises, find that the post in
question is too near the pl.'s land and is not straight, but leans over somewhat at the top. It is therefore adjudged that the carpenters sworn to the
assize, together with those of the pl. measure the post by plumb-line to see
how far it is out of alignment (et in summitate eiusdem postis lineam cum
plumbe protendant deorsum), and, according to their findings, cut it back
below or above so that the pl. can build, and the defs. retain what is theirs.
Fri. 22 July 1323. [Essoins only.]
Fri. 5 Aug. 1323.
272. The abbot and convent of Waldene complain that Thomas de
Brackele and Alice his wife have demolished half the stone wall, about
40 ft. long, which is common to their tenements. The defs. claim that they
were entitled to do so, because their half of the wall was not built upon, or
occupied by the pls.' timber. The pls. argue that their action is contrary to
the custom of the City, since it was taken without their consent, and add
that about 92 years before, Andrew Bokerel being then mayor [1231–7], a
covenant was made between the abbot and convent for the time being and
John de Coudres, then tenant of the def.'s tenement, in which he quitclaimed to them the corbels which he had upon the rabbet (rebattum) of the
stone wall between their tenements in the par. of St. Botolph without
Aldresgate and all his rights in the same wall, saving only the rabbet aforesaid; and they proffer the relevant indenture. Judgment after view that,
since the defs. have manifestly infringed the custom of the City by demolishing part of a wall held in common without the consent of their parceners,
they rebuild it within 40 days etc.
Afterwards, at the Husting of Common Pleas held on Mon. 6 June 1328,
the pls. come by Henry Wrenge, their attorney, and complain that judgment has not been executed. After inspection of the rolls of assize for
1323–4 it is agreed by the mayor and aldermen that the parties be warned
to appear on the following Fri. [10 June] at the place where judgment was
given. On that day Hamo de Chigwell, mayor, Gregory de Norton,
recorder, Anketin de Gisors, Reginald de Conduit, John [de Preston] and
Henry de Combemartyn, Henry de Seccheford, John de Causton and
John de Pulteneye, aldermen, come, and the sheriffs testify that the defs.
have been summoned by Geoffrey de Heston and Richard in the Lane, but
they make default. Judgment that without delay the sheriffs cause the wall
to be rebuilt at the expense of the defs., who are in mercy. [m. 35d. Blank.]
[m. 36] Fri. 24 May 1325. Hamo de Chigewell, mayor, John de Caustone
and Benedict de Fulsham, sheriff's, and the aldermen.
273. Hugh de Waltham and Juliana his wife, pls., appear against Robert
Mustrel of Tonebregge, def.; but it is said that the def. was not in town at
the time of the summons or later. His tenants are ordered to warn him to
appear at the quindene.
274. The same Hugh appears also against Adam de Rothyng, carpenter;
but his tenants and neighbours testify likewise that he was not in the City
at the time of the summons or later. They are ordered to warn him to
appear at the quindene.
275. A day at the quindene is given to the same Hugh, pl., and Thomas de
la Marche, and to John de Wymondham and Joan his wife and Adam de
Rothyng concerning the reception of water and the view from the defs.'
houses upon the pl.'s land.
276. John de Gisors complains that the earthen wall between his land and
that of the prior of Holy Trinity in the par. of St. Mary atte Naxe is so
decayed and broken that it no longer serves as a fence between them; and
the def.'s tenants and others enter his garden and do much damage there.
He asks that the wall, which stands wholly upon his land, be removed and
rebuilt in accordance with the assize. The def., by Reginald Woleward his
attorney, says that the wall is common to the parties and ought to be
repaired at their common charges. After careful inspection of the site at
both ends and in the middle, and of the metes and bounds of the tenements next the street of St. Mary atte Naxe, together with the paling
(palicio) of the def. which adjoins the western end of the wall, it is adjudged
that within 40 days etc. the wall be removed and rebuilt, the parties either
each contributing 2 ft. of land and sharing the cost of building, or one of
them providing 4 ft. of land and the other bearing the entire expense. The
same arrangement to hold if, instead of an earthen wall, they prefer a paling
or some similar form of enclosure. Otherwise the sheriffs are to act at the
expense of the defaulting party, and fine him 40s.
Fri. 14 June 1325. Homo de Chigewell, mayor, John de Causton and Benedict
de Fulsham, sheriffs, Nicholas de Farndon, John Prior, Richard de Hakeneye,
Anketin de Gisors, John Cotun, John Poyntel, Hamo Godchep, Richard
Costantyn and Henry de Sescheford, aldermen, and others.
277. Hugh de Waltham and Juliana his wife, pls., appear against Robert
Mustrel of Tonebregg, def., who makes default. They complain that the
cess-pit of his privy and a pit called 'swelugh' receiving the water from his
cistern and from a well not walled in stone adjoin their land too closely.
On viewing the premises the mayor and aldermen find that the cess-pit and
the 'swelugh' receiving the water from the well and from a great vessel
called a 'Thityngtunne', are not walled in stone, and are too near the pls.'
foundations. Judgment that within 40 days etc. the defs. remove them to a
distance of 2½ ft. at least or 3½ ft. if they are not walled in stone. [Cf. 273.]
278. [m. 36d.] The same Hugh complains that his paling of wattle and
daub (palicium de ligno et daubicio) is on the verge of ruin, and broken
down in divers places because of the earth thrown up against it by Thomas
de la Marche, whose land it adjoins; and he asks that it be replaced by a
suitable fence (claustura) in accordance with the custom of the City. The
def. agrees to abide by the judgment of the mayor and aldermen and others
sworn to the assize, who, after viewing the premises, adjudge that within
40 days either both parties provide 1½ ft. of land and share the cost of
building thereon a stone wall, or the one provide 3 ft. of land and the other
bear the whole cost of building: under a penalty of 40s. to be levied from
the land and chattels of the defaulter by the sheriffs, who, in addition, are
to cause the work to be done at his expense. [Cf. 275.]
Fri. 19 July 1325. Mayor, sheriffs, and the aldermen.
279. The same Hugh complains that Katherine relict of Adam de Rothyng
has likewise piled earth up against the wattle and daub paling (palicium
de ligne et daubicio), 40 ft. long between their tenements so that it is on the
verge of ruin, and it is further broken down in many places by the water
falling from a worthless tree (arbore nugario) belonging to her. He declares
his readiness to build a new wall of stone, earth or wattle and daub, in
accordance with the assize. The def. says she holds her tenement jointly
with Joan, daughter of Clement le Settere, without whom she cannot
answer. Joan comes, and together they affirm that they cannot afford to
build a wall. Asked whether they can show any cause why they should not
be compelled to do so, they say no. Judgment that, in accordance with the
custom of the City, they provide within 40 days etc. 3 ft. of land upon which
the pl. can build.
Mandate of the mayor and aldermen to the sheriffs ordering them to
inspect the tenor of the above judgment, and cause it to be put in execution
without delay, 18 Apr. 1326.
[m. 37] Fri. 6 Dec. 1325. Hamo de Chigewell, mayor, John Cotun and
Gilbert de Mordon, sheriffs, Robert de Swaleclive, John Hauteyn, Roger le
Palmere and others, aldermen.
280. William de Stanford essoins himself against John de Hemenhale by
281. John de Hemenhale complains that the earthen wall between his land
and that of John de Havering in the par. of St. Ethelburga within Bisshopesgate, which stands wholly on his land, is ruinous and broken down, so that
men and dogs, pigs and other animals can come in and out freely; and he
asks that the wall be rebuilt in accordance with the assize. The def. comes
and the parties agree together, the pl. undertaking to build the wall at his
own expense, and the def. to provide the land. The work is to be done
within 40 days when the weather is suitable. At present it cannot be done
because of wintry conditions. [m. 37d. Blank.]
[m. 38] Note that the two following membranes were found among the
memoranda of John de Burton, clerk of the Chamber, after his death, and
record the proceedings between William de Burgh, pl., and John de
Refham, def.,  in an assize of nuisance; and between the same
William and Richer de Refham  in a like plea.
[m. 38d.] Mon. 5 May 1326. Husting of Pleas of Land, the following pleas
of assize of nuisance were sought:
282. William de Burgh v. Richer de Refham concerning a tenement in the
par. of St. Mary de Colchurche. Parties summoned for the following Fri.
283. The same v. John son of Richer concerning a tenement in the same par.
Parties summoned for the same day. [Continued below.]
William de Burgh appoints John de Staynton his attorney in both pleas.
Fri. 9 May 1326. [Essoins and adjournment only.]
Fri. 23 May 1326. Mayor, and the aldermen.
282 cont. William de Burgh, clerk, complains that Richer de Refham unjustly claims half his stone wall, which is wholly occupied and covered by
his timber. The def. says he has a deed proving his right and asks for time
to produce it. A day is given to the parties at the quindene. [Continued
Fri. 6 and 27 June 1326. Mayor, and the aldermen. [No entry.]
[m. 39. No heading.]
283 cont. William de Burgo complains that whereas he is the sole possessor
of a stone wall in the par. of St. Mary de Colechirche in Chepe, adjoining
the tenement of John de Refham on the west side, and extending from the
street in front to the tenement of John de Preston at the back, and carrying
the potts (postes) and puncheons (punchones) supporting the wall-plate
(pannam), joists (gistas) and timber of his house, the def. has of a sudden
inserted his posts, puncheons, joists and summers (someria) into the same
wall, and attached them to the pl.'s posts and puncheons; and has placed
a summer 2 ft. long and 8 ins. wide in front of his house, next the
street, on the east side of the pl.'s tenement under the lower storey of his
solars, to carry his party-walls (parietes), gable (gabulam) and joists; and
when, because of the ruin caused thereby to his house the pl. sought to
rebuild it, the def. had the work prohibited by Gilbert de Mordon, sheriff.
Further, the def. has four leaden pipes draining from the roof (de summitate) of his house into the pl.'s leaden gutter (gutteram plumbeam), which
is frequently flooded by his rainwater. The def. comes in person and says
that the assize does not lie, because the pl.'s tenement was formerly held
by Isabel de St. Albans between whom and his feoffor, Richer de Refham,
an assize of nuisance was held in 1290–1 before Henry le Galeys, mayor;
when it was adjudged by the assize and agreed by the parties that Richer
and all his successors in the tenement should hold it exactly as it is now as
regards the wall and timber of the pl. and the pipes and gutters, and he
vouches the record to warranty. A day is given to the parties in the Husting
on the following Mon. but the def. makes default. After viewing the
premises the mayor and aldermen find that the pl.'s allegations are correct.
Judgment that all the nuisances complained of be removed within 40 days
etc. so that the pl. be no longer impeded in his building. [See also 284,
282 cont. William de Burgo complains that whereas he has a house in the
same par. adjoining that of Richer de Refham, kt., on the west side, and
built upon his stone wall carrying his wall-plate (pannam), joists (gistas)
and timber, and measuring in length from the street on the south to the
tenement of Katherine de Staunford on the north 78 ft., and in width 4 ft.,
and was compelled to rebuild it, because the roof of his house was ruinous
and was adjudged by the mayor and aldermen to be a danger to passersby and residents, the def. caused the work to be prohibited by Gilbert de
Mordon, sheriff. Richer comes in person and says that the wall claimed by
the pl. as his is common to the parties, as is expressly contained in his
charter of feoffment, which he undertakes to produce. A day is given to the
parties at the quindene, and the proceedings are afterwards adjourned
until Fri. 28 June. The pl. comes, and the def. appears by his attorney,
Reginald Wolleward, who produces no deed or other evidence in support
of Richer's claim; and because it is manifest to the mayor and aldermen
that the wall in question is wholly occupied by the pl.'s timber, it is adjudged that he have and hold the same as his free tenement and build upon
it at his pleasure. Def. in mercy for a false defence. [See also 285.]
[m. 39d. Entries under 5 and 9 May 1326 as on m. 38d.; m. 40 Entries as on
m. 39d. and under 23 May 1326 as on m. 39 and under 10 June 1328 as on
284. Mandate to the sheriffs on behalf of the king by the mayor and aldermen, after reciting the findings in the plea of assize of nuisance between
William de Burgo and John de Refham  and the judgment pronounced
[m. 40d.]; and the report of Reginald de Conduit and Hugh de Garton,
aldermen, who had been present at the view, that no action had been taken
in pursuance, to go in person to the tenement and without delay cause the
nuisance complained of to be removed at the expense of the def., and to
levy from his goods and chattels, lands and tenements to their own use the
285. The like in the case of William de Burgo v. Richer de Refham .
286. Afterwards, on Tues. 11 Aug. 1327, John de Refham appeared before
Richard de Beton, mayor, and the aldermen, complaining that William
had made a purpresture on his tenement after the judgment given in the
recent assize . The sheriffs were accordingly ordered to prohibit
William from further action, and to summon him to appear on the site on
the following Fri. [14 Aug.]. The proceedings were adjourned until the
following Mon. [17 Aug.] because of the absence of the mayor. The assize
then came by Hamo de Chigwell, locum-tenens of the mayor, John
Poyntel, John de Grantham, Reginald de Conduit, Hamo Godchep,
Anketin de Gisors, Richard de Hakeneye, John de Preston, John de
Causton, John de Oxford and Henry de Sescheford, aldermen, and Richard
de Rothing, sheriff, and the record and process of the assize were read
before them and confirmed by them; but because John declared that
William had since taken possession of a strip of land 2½ ft. wide which had
belonged to his father and feoffor, Richer, and to his feoffor before him for
many years past, it was adjudged that this remain as his defence, and that
William seek an assize if he so desire.
287. Afterwards, in a congregation of the mayor and aldermen at Guildhall on Mon. 17 Aug. 1327, William de Burgh seeks an assize against John
son of Richer de Refham concerning his tenement in the par. of St. Mary
de Colcherch. Thomas de Morle, clerk of Richard de Rothing, sheriff,
returns that the def. has been summoned by John de Redign [sic] and John
Bray for the following Fri. [21 Aug.]. On that day the assize comes by
Hamo, locum-tenens of the mayor, Reginald de Conduit, Anketin de
Gisors, Richard de Hakeneye, Richard Costentyn, John de Oxford, John
Poyntel, Hamo Godchep and Hugh de Garton, aldermen, and William
complains that, in spite of the previous judgment in his favour, the def. has
again prohibited him from building. The def. says that his action is justifield, because the pl. has, since the previous assize, made a purpresture of
2½ ft. on his land, cutting down and carrying away part of a shop which has
stood there for 22 years and more, and of which the def. and his father
have been continuously seised. The locum-tenens of the mayor and the
aldermen, having viewed the site of the alleged purpresture, find that while
William has built foundations and a wall there, there is no building of the
def. now standing on which they can base a judgment. It is therefore
adjudged that the def., if he so desire, seek a remedy by another process of
law, and that the pl. be not hindered from completing his building
[m. 41] Fri. 3 June (tercio die Junii) 1328. Hamo de Chigwelle, mayor, Henry
Darci, sheriff, Nicholas de Farndon, Anketin Gisors, Reginald de Conduit,
Gregory de Norton, John de Grantham, Richard Costantyn, John Poyntel,
Richard de Hakeneye and others.
288. Hamo de Chigwell complains that the fence (claustura) between his
plot of land in the par. of St. Peter the Less by St. Paul's Wharf in Castle
Baynard ward, and that of Joce de Spaldyng and Joan his wife and
Benedict Reyner and [blank] his wife which adjoins it in length between
his house on the north and the Thames on the south, is ruinous and in
great part broken down, to his damage and that of his tenants. Judgment
that if the parties agree to rebuild in stone, either each shall provide 1½ ft.
of his land and pay half the cost of building, or one shall provide 3 ft. of his
land and the other meet the entire charges; the wall in either case to be
partible between them.
Fri. 10 June 1328. H. de Chigwell, mayor, Henry Darci, sheriff, Gregory de
Norton, Anketin Gisors, Reginald de Conduit, John de Preston, Henry
Combemartyn, Henry de Seccheford, John de Causton and John de Pulteneye,
289. Benedict Shorn is summoned to answer Robert le Treyere in a plea of
nuisance. The pl. appears and says that William de Canefeld came before
the chamberlain of Guildhall on Thurs. 18 July 1325 and acknowledged
himself bound to him in 20 marks, payable at a fixed term, but failed
to pay at the appointed time. An extent of his land and rents having
been made by the chamberlain, it was found that he held a quit-rent
of 40s. payable from a shop in les Stokkes in the par. of St. Mary de
Wolcherchehawe, and half of this was delivered to Robert to hold as his
free tenement in settlement of the debt; but the def. has stopped up the
entrance of the shop so that the pl. cannot enter to distrain for the rent.
The def. comes and acknowledges his offence. Judgment that he open the
entrance under the penalty etc. Otherwise etc.
290. William Noyl complains that Geoffrey le Boteler, draper, has built a
stone wall 4½ ells long and ½ ft. wide upon his land in the par. of St. Mary
de Bothawe. The def. claims that the wall stands on his own land, and not
on that of the pl., and puts himself upon the assize. The mayor and aldermen, after viewing the premises, find that his claim is correct. Judgment
that the pl. take nothing for his plaint, but be in mercy. Def. sine die. He is
to be free to continue building, any impediment being removed.
291. The same Geoffrey complains that the water from the same William's
gutter (gutteram) in the same par. falls upon his land. The mayor and aldermen find by view that this is so and the def. does not deny it. Judgment
that within 40 days etc. he receive the water upon his own land.
Mandate of the mayor to the sheriffs, dated in the Chamber of Guildhall,
3 Aug. 1328, reciting the above judgment and the failure of the def. to act
upon it, and ordering them to put it into execution at the def.'s charges.
Fri. 17 June 1328. Hamo de Chigwell, mayor, Henry Darcy, sheriff, Nicholas
de Farndon, Gregory de Norton, Anketin de Gisors, Reginald de Conduit,
John de Preston, Henry de Combemartyn, John de Causton and John Poyntel,
292. The commonalty complain by Reginald Wolleward, their attorney,
that whereas the rainwater descending from the fields behind the hospital
of St. Mary without Bisshopesgate on the east side used to flow through a
ditch (fossatum) in the midst of the royal highway outside Bisshopesgate
in the par. of St. Botolph to the tenement of Thomas de Blakeneye, draper,
called 'le Breggehous', and thence along his wall at the north and beneath
the tenement of the New Hospital to la Moore, whence it was carried by the
Walbroke into the Thames, the said Thomas has obstructed the flow to the
prejudice of the citizens. The sheriff, by John de Hardyngham, his clerk,
testifies that the def. was summoned by Simon le Barbier and John le
Peyntour, but he makes default. Judgment after view that he remove the
obstruction within 40 days etc. and do not again impede the flow of water.
Mandate of the mayor to the sheriffs in the Husting of Common Pleas,
Mon. 24 Oct. 1328, reciting the above judgment, and the failure of the def.
to execute it; and ordering them, on behalf of the king, to put it into effect
without delay, reporting on the action taken and returning the present bill
in full Husting on Mon. 7 Nov.
[m. 41d.] Fri. 1 July 1328. Mayor, Richard de Betoyn, Benedict de Fulsham,
Gregory de Norton, Thomas de Leyre, John de Causton and John de Coton.
293. The prior of Austin Friars complains that the earthen wall of the
garden (ortum) of William le Mareschal and Margaret his wife, belonging
to certain sheds (domunculas) of theirs in the par. of All Hallows bi the
Walle, and extending in width from their house on the north to the prior's
garden (gardinum) on the south for 6 ells, and in length from the tenement
of [blank] on the east to the south end of the priory garden on the west for
14¼ ells, is so ruinous and broken down in divers places that dogs, pigs,
cocks and hens as well as men, women and children are able to enter the
prior's garden and do damage there. John le Ry, sheriff's serjeant, reports
that the defs. have been summoned by William Vauntage, 'gerdeler', and
Warin de Hodesdon, but they make default. The mayor and aldermen find,
on viewing the premises, that the allegations of the pl. are correct; and
since decorum particularly requires that the enclosure between religious
and others should be strong and well founded, it is adjudged that the
parties combine to build a stone wall, either each contributing 1½ ft. of
land and sharing the cost of building, or one providing 3 ft. of land and the
other building the wall at his own charges. The same to be done within
40 days; otherwise the sheriffs are to act at the expense of the defaulter and
fine him 40s.
Fri. 15 July 1328. Mayor, John Hauteyn, sheriff, Nicholas de Farndon,
Reginald de Conduit, John de Grantham, John Poyntel, John de Preston,
Thomas de Leyre, Benedict de Fulsham, John Priour and Gregory de Norton,
294. Richard de Rothyng and Joan his wife, pls., appear by William de
Grenstede, their attorney, against John de Cherleton, kt, def., concerning
a tenement in the par. of St. Sepulchre without Neugate, but the def.'s
tenants and neighbours come and say that he was not in town at the time
of the summons. They are ordered to warn him to appear at the quindene,
and the same day is given to the pl.
295. Reginald de Thorp complains that when he sought to repair and
heighten his house next that of John le Bokbyndere in the par. of St.
Brigid beyond Flete Bridge, John had the work prohibited. The def. comes
and says that the pl., in building, occupied a strip of his land, 5⅓ ells long
and ½ ft. wide, and removed his posts and puncheons (punchones). The
mayor and aldermen, on viewing the premises, find that the wall and
foundation belong for the greater part to the pl., and it is adjudged that he
have and hold as much as is his, as indicated by the old post on the north
side of his house, and his joists above, so that his house may be raised and
propped up (suppodatur) and stand straight by plumb-line (per lineam et
plumbum); and that the def. have what is indicated by his old timber.
Another wall, common to the parties, is ruinous and overhangs the pl.'s
land. Judgment that it be repaired at their common charges, since its
condition does not appear to be the fault of the def.
Fri. 22 July 1328. Mayor, Henry Darci, sheriff, Nicholas de Farndon,
Gregory de Norton, Thomas de Leyre, Anketin de Gisors, John Hauteyn,
John de Causton, John Poyntel.
296. The abbess of St. Clare without Alegate essoins herself against James
Beauflour by Nicholas de Cranle.
297. William Sprot complains that the cess-pit of Adam and William, sons
of Geoffrey Merre is too near his tenement, and is so full of sewage that it
overflows and penetrates his stone wall, and enters his house and collects
there, causing a great stench. The defs. make default. The mayor and
aldermen and other members of the assize find that the pl.'s allegations are
correct. Judgment that within 40 days etc. the defs. wall the cess-pit with
stone and remove it 2½ ft. from the pl.'s wall.
[m. 42] Fri. 5 Aug. 1328. Hamo de Chiggewell, mayor, Gregory de Norton,
John de Preston, Nicholas de Farndon, John de Grantham, Henry de Secheford, Richard Costantyn and John Poyntel, aldermen and Henry Darcy,
298. Roger de Depham and Margaret his wife complain that, whereas they
hold a plot of land in the par. of St. Michael de Crokedelane called 'le
Tythyngwowes' (fn. 4) as Margaret's dower, received from her late husband,
James Folk, and it was enclosed, at his own expense, by Fulk de St.
Edmunds, James's father, with a stone wall measuring, between the land
formerly belonging to Robert le Lung and afterwards to John de Harewe on
the south and the churchyard of St. Michael's on the north, 128 ft. in
length and 2 ft. in thickness, and in height beneath the ridge-tile (?)
(cresta) on the east side next 'Tyghtyngwowes' 6 ft., and on the west side
next the churchyard 8 ft., the rector and parishioners for the time being
providing the land so that the wall is common to the parties, and neither
can lawfully make any alteration to it without the consent of the other:
Ralph, parson of St. Michael's, Walter de Moredon, John Lovekyn,
Robert de Braye, William atte Lanende, Richard Gubbe, John Gubbe,
Peter de Ware and Henry de Braughyng, parishioners, eight days since
demolished 78 ft. of it and began to demolish the rest to the damage of the
pls. and of John son of Fulk to whom the reversion belongs. The parson
and John Lovekyn, Robert de Bray, Peter de Ware and many other
parishioners come and say that the assize does not lie, because the wall was
built by the rector and parishioners for the time being, and is wholly
theirs; but asked whether they can produce any evidence in support of
their claim they say no, and put themselves upon the view of the assize.
The mayor and aldermen find that the wall stands wholly upon the land of
the churchyard, and was built by Fulk, predecessor of the above-named
John, and is thus common to the parties. Judgment that within 40 days etc.
the defs. restore it to the condition in which it was before they demolished it.