ROLL A 15
Membr. 1
27 Nov. 1369
John van Vinia and Henry Broke undertook to save harmless Lord Lespencer and Hugh le Despenser, knight, and
John Chichestre, Mayor, towards Godfrey de Allem, burgess
of Thoroin, as regards a loan of £40, which the said Hugh had
repaid to John Sutherland, the said Godfrey's attorney.
10 Dec. 1369
John Dorme, chaplain, and Robert Mauncer, cutler,
proffered the will of William de Blaikeston, dated Friday
after the Feast of St Gregory [12 March] 1347, proved before
the Official of the Archdeacon of London, as evidence of the
age of Nicholas de Thorpe, spurrier, who acknowledged as
his own a deed (fn. 1) , whereby he granted to the aforesaid Robert
an annual rent of 8 marks, which deed was enrolled in the
Husting of Pleas of Land the same day. They testified that the
said Nicholas was the son of the said William de Blaikeston.
8 Jan. 1370
Nicholas Bocher, bailiff of Southwark, was sworn to arrest (fn. 2)
all malt bought by foreigners in the City of London and taken
to Southwark for conveyance to foreign counties. William
Malton and Henry Weston of the same town undertook to do
the same.
Membr. 1 b
23 Feb. 1370
Alice, wife of John de Horsford, came before John Piel,
Sheriff, in the presence of the Mayor and Aldermen, and
claimed the ownership of the moiety of a ship called "Seyntemariebot de Loundres," which had been arrested by the bailiff
of Billingsgate at the suit of Adam Bury and John Tornegold
as the property of Richard de Kayton, deceased. On her
proving her title, the Court ordered delivery of the moiety to
be made to her.
Membr. 2
16 March 1370
Bartholomew, vicar of St Giles without Cripplegate, and
Martin, rector of St Faith's Church, were mainprised by
Gilbert Prynce, Geoffrey Haveryng, William Lark and
Richard Serne to repay £20 1s 8d—paid to them in their suit
before the Mayor and Aldermen, being the balance claimed
on an exchange made with them by Silvester Nicholas, Lombard, of the Society of Stroci
(fn. 3) —in the event of its being
certified under the seal of the Cardinal of Canterbury or
the Pope's Penitentiary that the money claimed had already
been paid to Vincent de Caldecote, monk, or Friar Thomas
Brumton, the Pope's Penitentiary.
4 May 1370
John Huwet, leche
(fn. 4) , who had been arrested for contempt in
saying that a bushel of corn ought to be sold for 20d, and
would be were it not for the Mayor, put himself on the mercy
of the Mayor and Aldermen, who ordered him to be released.
The same day, John Dale, taverner, dwelling opposite
Poules brewerne
(fn. 5) , was charged with aiding William atte
Wode, who by means of lies, false representations and deceit
(per juncariam, conjecturam & decepcionem) enticed a stranger
into the said John's tavern to play dice in order to cheat him
out of his money. It was alleged that John co-operated by
keeping the door of the tavern closed and preventing the
stranger from leaving, until the latter had been defrauded of
17s 8d. The accused pleaded not guilty and put himself on the
country. Thereupon he was mainprised by John de Croydon,
taverner, and William Stokesby for his appearance quo &
quando.
Membr. 2 b
6 May 1370
Monday the Feast of St John ante Portam Latinam [6 May],
John Helpeston, poulterer, was questioned before the Mayor
and Aldermen as to having charged the Sheriffs' officers with
robbing him of two pigs—which were taken as forfeit because
he had exposed them for sale among the foreign poulterers
contrary to the ordinance of the City. The said John could not
deny the facts and put himself on the mercy of the Mayor,
Aldermen and Sheriffs. He was committed to prison, being
released on the Wednesday.
10 May 1370
Friday after the above Feast, Peter Coly, haberdasher, who
had been arrested for cheating (juncaria, decepdone & falsitate), was mainprised by Gilbert Hattere, plasterer, John
Spaldyng, brewer, and William Mountagu, hackneyman, for
his appearance on the eve of Pentecost.
26 June 1370
Letter of general attorney from John Kempe, Fleming, to
John Beneyt, woolman, and James van den Ackere, citizens
of London.
3 July 1370
Arnold Debbe, servant of John Wrytle, hostiller, was committed to prison at the suit of John Plumsted in a plea of
detinue of a gunne
(fn. 6) value 40d, which the said John recovered
against him before the Mayor.
Membr. 3
3 July 1370
William Penne was summoned to answer Robert Charwelton, baker, in a plea of covenant (fn. 7) , wherein the latter complained that in Midlent last year the said William demised to
him for seven years a bakehouse in the parish of St Mildred
Bread Street, at an annual rent of 7 marks, agreeing at the
same time to seal a document to this effect, and to let the
plaintiff know, at the beginning of the seventh year, whether
he might remain in the house beyond the term. Though the
plaintiff had had indentures prepared and had asked the defendant to seal one of them, the latter had refused to do so,
and on the preceding Tuesday had given him notice to quit
at Michaelmas, to his damage £20.
The defendant denied the plaintiff's allegations and offered
to defend himself by his law as a freeman of the City. A day
was given him on the Saturday following, when he failed in
making his law. Judgment was given that the plaintiff enjoy
his term of seven years and that the defendant execute and
seal a demise for the same according to his covenant, and also
be in mercy.
11 July 1370
William Sharpyng, vintner, was summoned to answer
Walter Southous (fn. 8) in a plea of debt of £100 due on a recognisance made in the Chamber of the Guildhall on 7 Feb., the
money being payable at Easter.
The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff ought not to have
any action against him because the recognisance was to be of
no effect if certain conditions were fulfilled, the conditions
being stated in indentures made between the parties on 8 Feb.
He produced the document, the tenor of which was as follows:
The defendant William promised not to hinder, but to
assist, his wife Joan, daughter of Richard de Coutenhale, to
secure a divorce by ecclesiastical law on the ground of his impotency, for the purpose of which he agreed to appear before
a judge in court (fn. 9) and submit to examination (virilia sua
monstrando), so that it might appear whether he was impotent
or not. He promised further that he would not molest his
wife, but allow her to go and come freely, and if it appeared
to her or her counsel that he or his advocate or proctor were
attempting to hinder the divorce, they should be at liberty to
appoint other advocates or attorneys for him. Walter, the
plaintiff, agreed at the same time that if William kept these
conditions, his recognisance in £100 should be cancelled and
of no effect. On the other hand, Walter was also bound to
William by a recognisance of £100, which was to be cancelled
if the said Joan were adjudged by law to be the wife of
William (i.e. if the nullity proceedings failed) and if Walter
thereupon duly paid the whole of the money which had been
promised to him on his marriage with Joan.
The defendant pleaded that he had fulfilled all the conditions of this indenture, and he prayed judgment whether
the plaintiff could maintain his action against him.
The plaintiff thereupon pleaded that the defendant had not
fulfilled the conditions, because on 17 June, when the said
Joan was on her way to consult her counsel (fn. 10) , the defendant
with six others lay in wait for her and assaulted her, so that
she did not dare to go on, and thus the defendant had broken
his agreement, as the plaintiff was prepared to verify. He
prayed judgment and damages.
The defendant denied hindering his wife in the form
alleged and put himself on the country. Accordingly a jury
was summoned for 24 July, and the defendant, for lack of
mainprise, was committed to prison meanwhile.
Membr. 3 b
The same day, Bartholomew Myne, Adam Lovekyn, John
de Crede, Floure Broun and John Outresson, merchants,
brought a bill of complaint against Nicholas Sarduche,
Guydo de Porte, Jacomel Fane, John Putten and other merchants, alleging that they had together freighted a ship in
Flanders, of which John Outresson was master, and that on
the voyage off the coast of Flanders certain goods of the
complainants had been jettisoned owing to stress of weather,
the consent of the merchants being obtained, after which the
ship arrived in safety at Mardryk (fn. 11) in Flanders, whence the
goods were taken by Nicholas and the others to London,
where they lay in their possession. Though the complainants
had frequently demanded their share of the goods thus saved
according to the Law of Oliron (fn. 12) , or that satisfaction should
be made to them, pound for pound, for their loss according to
the same law, nevertheless the said Nicholas and the other
defendants refused. The complainants prayed that the parties
might be summoned and that they might have recovery of
their share. [French]
Precept was issued to John Chamberleyn [Breaks off.]
Membr. 4
20 Jan. 1370
Writ of Certiorari demanding information as to a complaint
received by the King from John Baumburgh, clerk, who declared that a serjeant-at-mace of the City, moved by the said
John's enemies, had arrested him in the parish of St Mary
Magdalene in Castle Baynard Ward and had imprisoned him
in a dreadful prison called "Julianesboure" in Newgate for
eleven weeks without any legal process, and that another
serjeant-at-mace had put him in fetters (in ceppis poni fecit),
and caused him to be made sport of and tortured (ludificari &
torqueri) for five weeks, during which time none of his friends
dared to have speech with him for fear of those who had
procured his imprisonment, all of which was to his grave
damage and against the King's peace and the law and custom
of the realm. The Mayor and Sheriffs are commanded to hold
an inquest by means of the good and lawful men of the above
Ward and Farringdon Ward, and if necessary, of the officers
of the gaol, and to return the finding to Chancery. Dated at
Westminster 20 Jan. Ao 43 Edw. III [1369-70].
18 June 1370
An inquest was held pursuant to the above writ on Tuesday
after the Feast of St Botolph [17 June] by oath of John
Queldrik and others, who said that the said John Baumburgh
had committed many grave and enormous trespasses against
Philippa, late Queen of England, and had used many insulting
expressions concerning her, for which cause she sent letters
to Adam de Bury, late Mayor, to attach the said John and
keep him in Newgate till further instructions, and that he was
accordingly committed to prison in the 39th year of the
King's reign, not owing to any action of his enemies, and
there kept for six weeks in safe custody, but without hardship or damage to him. They found that no serjeantat-mace caused him to be made sport of or tortured as
alleged.
Membr. 4 b
6 Aug. 1370
Robert de Watlyngton, attorney, produced a writ of protection, dated 3 July, in favour of Thomas, son of Hugh le
Blount, knight, who was about to go overseas with Thomas
Baunfeld on the King's service in the company of Robert de
Knolles, knight.
31 Aug. 1370
Mark Ingeland, attorney of Henry Feld of Lübeck, acknowledged that he had received from Adam de Aylesham,
servant of John Waryn of Lynne, the sum of £70 14d for
freightage of salt on board the said Henry's ship "le Seinte
Marie Cog" of Lubyk del Bay to be carried to Bristol; and
thereupon the said Mark delivered up a bipartite indenture
of freightage to be cancelled, at the same time giving a general
acquittance to the said Adam.
8 Oct. 1370
William the Meire, Fleming, was committed to prison for
50s fines due from him for trespasses against the ordinances
of the mistery of Weavers. Afterwards on 12 Oct. he paid 20s
and was released, the remainder being pardoned.
Membr. 5
12 Oct. 1370
John Pounsor of the town of Bregerak (fn. 13) brought a bill of
complaint setting forth that when he was at Seint Maloo de
lile (fn. 14) in Brittany, intending to bring his merchandise to
England, the men of the town espied him as he was leaving
and caused him to be captured with his goods and carried off
to prison in Normandy, doing him damage to the amount of
500 motons dor in addition to personal injury, and afterwards
took from him 12 tuns of wine in Brittany to his great impoverishment, all of which was testified by letters patent under
the seal of the Duke of Brittany and could be proved by the
evidence of the treasurer of Brittany, who was at present in
London. The complainant further declared in his bill that
there was a servant of the robbers, by name John Cook, then
in Newgate, and that there were goods of the robbers in
London, and he prayed that restitution might be made to him
from those goods. [French]
The letters patent mentioned above were to the following
effect: John, Duke of Brittany and Count of Montfort, informs all stewards, mayors, subordinates (seotigenz), bailiffs,
and keepers of the entrances of towns and ports of his friends
and allies that John de Pusor, who had sojourned and traded
in the Duchy for four years past, had complained of being
robbed in Brittany by men of Normandy and imprisoned outside
the Duchy to his damage 500 motons dor
(fn. 15) , although the
Duke had proclaimed in his towns and ports that all merchants
might trade in the Duchy safely under his protection. Further,
Bartholomew le Geneste had freighted the ship "Notre
Dame" of Port Oriot in the Duchy, of which Colyn Herve was
master, with 29 tuns of wine, of which 12 belonged to the
complainant, to be unloaded at the port of Roche Derian (fn. 16) .
This ship had been intercepted on 23 May at the port of
Blanc in the Duchy and carried into Normandy by an armed
barge of St Maloo de lile, in which were Guillaume Mortfonace, Perotyn Lambert, Estive Lambert and several other
burgesses of St Malo, in contempt of the Duke and to the
damage of the merchants. The Duke, understanding that the
said robbers had goods in divers countries, prays that, these
goods may be seized and handed over to the bearer of these
letters in compensation for his loss. Dated at Auray under
the Duke's own seal, 14 June 1370. [French]
The complainant then informed the Court that the aforesaid John Cook was servant of the said Perotyn Lambert and
had divers goods of his master in London and Weymouth
from which restitution could be made, and he prayed that
John Cook might be summoned and examined on the
premisses.
John Spencer, mercer, likewise brought a bill of complaint
to the effect that he had for a long time, by means of letters
from the King and the Prince, been making suit to the Duke
and his Council for restitution of certain goods, gold, silver
and other merchandise, of which he had been robbed in the
port of St Malo by men of that town on 22 May 1369, and
also of 426 lampreys of Nantes, value 400 francs, of which he
had been robbed by the same persons in the first week of Lent
last past. The Duke had sent letters to the burgesses and
Chapter (chapistre) of St Malo, who had rebelliously refused
to obey him, whereupon the Duke had ordered Sir Thomas
de Melbourne, Jankyn Fitz Nichol and Geffrey Stucle to
inform the King and his Council that he wished them to
arrest all the goods of that town, wherever they found them,
until restitution had been made. On this the Chancellor had
told the complainant to go and spy out such goods and, if he
found them, to sue for a remedy at law. Accordingly he
prayed the Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen to give him compensation on the bodies and goods of the rebellious townsmen
which had been arrested in London. [French]
The complainant prayed for compensation from the aforesaid John Cook. A day was given to the parties on 14 Oct.,
when John Cook appeared. The complainant John Pounsor
then declared that a certain Perotin Boneyde and others of
St Malo had taken and imprisoned him, and that Perotin
Lambert on 23 May had taken from him 12 casks of wine,
value 140 marks, and had done him damage to the amount of
500 floreni de motons, and further that John Cook, servant of
Perotin Lambert had 500 gold florins called francs, which he
delivered to John Credy, Lombard, for a bill of exchange,
payable at Bruges in Flanders, and also 12 casks and one pipe of
wine at Weymouth. John Spencer declared to the same effect.
The defendant John Cook pleaded that he was not concerned in the allegations contained in the two bills of complaint, that he was not the servant of Perotin Lambert, nor
had bought any letter of exchange, but that he was the servant
of a certain Guillaume Lavocat of St Malo, whose goods he
had in charge, as he was prepared to verify in any way the
Court should direct.
Membr. 5 b
The two complainants repeated their allegations and prayed
that Credy might be summoned, to which the Court assented,
giving the parties a day on 21 Oct. On that day the defendant
confessed that he was the servant of Perotin Lambert and had
charge of his goods. When he was asked why he had testified
falsely, he replied that every servant ought to safeguard his
master's goods so far as he was able. John Credy, Lombard,
then produced 460 florins, which were deposited in court.
As the Court desired information as to whether this money
belonged to the King or ought to be handed over to the complainants, an adjournment for a week was ordered, and the
latter were advised to sue the matter in the King's Council.
It should be noted that Thomas de Melbourne, Treasurer
of the Duke of Brittany, and John Fitz Nichol, Admiral of
Brittany, told the Recorder that the complainants were robbed
by men of St Malo, and that the Duke wanted them to be
compensated from the goods of the offenders, but that the
whole town was not hostile to the King; on the other hand,
Geoffrey Stucle said that the whole town was hostile.
Afterwards on 3 Dec., on a command of the King delivered
by the Chancellor by word of mouth, the Court handed over
the prisoner, John Cook, and the 460 florins to the two complainants.