ROLL A 30
Divers men committed to prison in the time
of Adam Bamme, mayor
Membr. 1
22 Sept. 1390
Richard Langele, tymbermonger, for a debt of £13 which
he acknowledged as due to John Frankeleyn, draper.
4 Nov. 1390
Robert Tethyngman, apprentice of Richard Ledyerd,
tailor, for refusing to serve his master.
20 Jan. 1391
John Sewale for a debt of £42 10s due to Bartholomew
Bosano, Lombard.
15 Dec. 1390
John Heysterre and John Norwych at the suit of the said
Bartholomew for £55, and 20s damages taxed by a jury.
Membr. 1 b
17 Nov. 1390
John Walpole, tailor, was mainprised by William Kirkeby
and nine others to keep the peace with the officers of the city
under penalty of £100.
20 April 1391
Peter Brake and John Kent, Flemings, were mainprised
by John Bryan, junior, and Thomas Rose for their appearance
in court.
Membr. 2
5 July 1390
Margaret, widow and executrix of Roger de Beauchamp,
knight, and Thomas Olyver, chaplain, her co-executor,
brought an action against Thomas Newenton and Robert
Upgate, executors of John Philippot, knight, for detinue of
the sum of £80, which they alleged had been entrusted on
4 Nov. 1374 to John Philippot by Robert Wytherley, master
of the college of St Lawrence Pulteney, on behalf of Roger
de Beauchamp. In proof, they cited a deed of John Philippot,
acknowledging receipt of the above amount.
The defendants, while protesting that they did not admit
any of the facts alleged, pleaded that John Philippot had
subsequently acted as executor of Roger de Beauchamp and
had duly administered his goods and chattels to a value
exceeding £80, and offered to verify their pleading.
The plaintiffs in turn did not admit the truth of the
defendants' plea and prayed judgment on the ground that
the defendants had put in no defence to their action. They
were not bound, they said, by the law of the land, to answer
the plea made by the defendants.
The defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs had not denied
the truth of the matters advanced by them, which were a
sufficient defence in law, and accordingly they prayed judgment that the plaintiffs be excluded from their action.
The court, after consultation, gave judgment on 14 Nov.
for the defendants.
Membr. 2 b
29 Nov. 1390
Appointment by Adam de Foxleye, rector of St Andrew
in Holbourne, of John Bygonet and Roger Hillom to let to
lease and receive the rents from houses and tenements left
by Avice, widow of William Edyman (fn. 1) , for the support of a
priest to say masses for the souls of those mentioned in her
will, in accordance with the wishes of the testator, who
directed that after the death of her executors, two of the better
men of the parish should be chosen by the rector to receive
the houses and rents for the said purpose. Dated in the said
parish 3 June 1390.
25 Nov. 1390
Writ directed to the Mayor and Aldermen reciting a complaint of Francis de Conago of Milan, merchant, that Philip
de Matuleano of Boloigne de Grace had impleaded him by
bill in the Chamber of the Guildhall, in order to make him
contributory to divers expenses incurred by Hugelin Gerard
of Bologna, and although the complainant offered to answer
the said Philip by competent counsel, the Mayor and Aldermen would not admit him to make this kind of answer. The
king commands the Mayor and Aldermen to admit the said
Francis to make his answer with competent counsel, or in
person if he preferred, and to do justice in the matter.
Dated at Westminster 25 Nov. 1390.
Return to the above that the Mayor and Aldermen for the
time being had been accustomed, time out of mind, to hold
and terminate plaints and pleas merchant brought before
them in the Chamber of the Guildhall, as well by bill exhibited as without, where both parties were merchants, and
on such bills and plaints to summon and" do justice to such
merchants, foreign and native, whether dwelling in the city
or resorting to it, who made complaint to the Mayor and
Aldermen concerning mercantile matters and their merchandise, by the law merchant used within the city from of
old, and further to examine such merchants of either party
when they were present upon the matters and grievances
specified in such bills and plaints. Moreover the Mayor and
Aldermen and their predecessors had been accustomed, from
a time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, to take the oaths of such merchants and to examine
them and put questions to them and to use other means of
eliciting the truth, and then to terminate and bring to a final
decision such bills and plaints pending before them according
to their discretion and the truth discovered by examination,
without any counsel or any other form of plea. This was the
reason why the Mayor and Aldermen did not admit Francis
de Conago to make his answer with his counsel on the matter
specified in the writ, but caused him to answer by the law
merchant by way of examination and other methods according
to the ancient custom of the city, because he and his adversary
were both merchants resident in the city and the matter of
the bill exhibited entirely concerned merchandise.
16 Feb. 1391
Letter of attorney from Lodewicus Burnel, merchant of
Lucca, to Naufreus Johannis, merchant of Lucca. Dated
13 Feb. 1391.
Membr. 3
5 Dec. 1390
Richard Moris, hostiler, and John his servant were summoned, by virtue of a bill exhibited before the Mayor and
Aldermen in the Chamber of the Guildhall, to answer John
Prene, clerk, who complained that, whereas throughout
England it was the custom for innkeepers, keeping common
hostelries, and their servants to guard the goods and chattels
which guests had in their chambers within the inns, he came
and lodged with the said Richard in his inn in the parish of
St Benet in Castle Baynard Ward with his horse and other
things, viz. a trunk (mala) and two small boxes, and the innkeeper assigned him a room in the inn, in which he placed
his things, and afterwards on 24 Nov. the plaintiff went on
business of the University of Oxford to Westminster, and
while he was away, evil men broke through the wall of his
room and carried away the boxes, in which were 100s in
silver coin and a bond of 100s made by a certain John Hore,
and this came about by lack of good custody on the part of
the innkeeper and his servants, to the plaintiff's damage £10,
whereof he prayed a remedy.
The defendant, while protesting that he did not acknowledge that the plaintiff brought any boxes or that the goods
were in the boxes or of the value alleged or that they were
carried away, pleaded that long before the plaintiff entered
the room or placed anything in it, he hired, by his servant
John Shilyngton, a certain apartment (mansionem) from the
defendant, viz. a hall, chamber, buttery and kitchen, at 6s 8d
a week, on condition that neither the defendant nor his
servants were to have anything to do with the said dwelling,
or with the plaintiff or his servants, or with any goods brought
in by them, and that the plaintiff was to buy his own victuals
and other necessaries wherever he wished without interference by the defendant or his servants during his tenure
of the apartment. By virtue of these conditions the plaintiff
occupied the apartment until the day when the goods were
alleged to have been carried away and long afterwards, during
which time he bought his own necessaries outside the defendant's inn and the defendant and his servants did not
interfere, nor did the defendant have any horse in his inn
or buy any food for the plaintiff, nor did the plaintiff in any
manner lodge with him, nor did any goods of the plaintiff
come in any way into his custody, as he was prepared to
verify, without that etc. He demanded judgment whether
the plaintiff could impute any default of custody to him, and
whether the plaintiff ought to have any ground of action
against him for the loss of his goods.
The plaintiff did not admit the truth of these allegations
and pleaded that the defendant was a common innkeeper,
that the house which he, the plaintiff, occupied was a common
hostelry and a part of the common inn kept by the defendant,
and that the room in which the goods were placed was parcel
of the hostelry and within it, and since the defendant did not
deny that the goods were actually stolen, and since further
every common innkeeper was bound by the law and custom
of the realm to guard his inn, he claimed that he was under
no necessity to answer the allegations put forward by the
defendant [breaks off].
2 Sept. 1391
Letter of attorney from John Donat, citizen and apothecary,
to Guynus Bartholomei, merchant of Siena.
Membr. 3 b
7 Sept. 1390
Geoffrey Grigge, taverner, was summoned to answer
Nicholas Benyngton, mercer, for arrears of rent due on two
houses, the one called "le Bole on the Hope" and the other
"le Caban," both being in the parish of All Hallows in
Honeylane. The defendant pleaded that a certain John Oxenford had leased the former house to a certain John Blaunche
for 60 years, who assigned the lease to the plaintiff who again
assigned it to the defendant, whose wife Agnes had paid the
arrears. As regards le Caban, he said it was part and parcel
of the other house and was included in the lease. The plaintiff
answered that not John Oxenford but Robert Turk, knight,
had made the original lease. He denied that the two houses
were conveyed by the same lease or that the arrears had been
paid. A jury of Richard Brendewode and others found for
him with separate damages on his two bills, of 20s and 6s 8d.
Judgment accordingly.
Membr. 4
8 Feb. 1391
Since in these days the scarcity of wheat and especially
of corn has been greatly increased and since the Most High
of His abundant grace has permitted a great part of the wheat,
coming from distant foreign parts for the sustenance and aid
of His common people, to be brought to the city of London,
so that scarcity has in great part been diminished there and
wheat is more plentiful and sold at a less price than in other
cities and districts of England, Adam Bamme, the Mayor,
and the Aldermen (fn. 2) , noting that under God's providence there
was a plenitude of wheat in the city, and being desirous, in
their careful foresight for the common weal, to provide against
any scarcity which might arise in the city in the coming
summer, caused the good men of the city to be summoned
for common counsel in the Chamber of the Guildhall on
8 Feb. 1391, when it was agreed and ordained that £400 of
the goods of orphans in the custody of Richard Odyham,
chamberlain, should be delivered to Adam Bamme for buying
wheat therewith in case the commonalty of the city should
have need of it, and since this money belonged to the orphans
and had been entrusted to the chamberlain, the said Adam,
under the style of "Adam Bamme, citizen and goldsmith,"
entered into a recognisance to repay the above sum to the
chamberlain at Michaelmas following, as appears in Letter
Book H, fo. 258, under the condition that if meanwhile any
orphan claimed delivery of his goods, and the Mayor and
Aldermen ordered payment, the said Adam should satisfy the
orphan for the sum due to him and acquit the chamberlain
and his successors and the commonalty thereof; and if no
orphans so claimed, the said Adam should repay the whole
amount as abovesaid, it being always understood that if any
loss or damage occurred in the buying of the wheat, it should
fall upon the commonalty of the city, and be charged upon
the profits of the Chamber.
16 Feb. 1391
William Bretford brought a bill complaining that William
Goryngg, citizen and weigher of lead of London, on 12 Nov.
1390 under colour of his office had arrested a wooden balance
and certain leaden weights weighing 8 cwt. i qr., of the
value of 100s, claiming them as forfeit, against right and
reason, and to the plaintiff's damage 40s. He prayed the
Mayor and Aldermen to have the balance and weights
brought into court, so that they might discuss whether they
were forfeitable or not. [French]
The defendant appeared on summons on 18 Feb. and
pleaded that the plaintiff had no ground of action against
him, because from time immemorial all balances, used by
persons weighing lead between merchant and merchant,
which were not sealed with the seal of the city, were forfeitable to the use of the sheriffs and went towards the payment
of the king's farm. Further the present sheriffs had committed the weighing of lead to the defendant in virtue of
their office. The plaintiff having weighed lead with balance
and weights which were not sealed, the sheriffs had arrested
them as forfeitable and sold them to the defendant, who was
in possession of them for that reason; without that (fn. 3) he
was an official of the sheriffs or by colour of his office had
arrested them, as the plaintiff supposed by his bill.
The plaintiff repeated that the defendant had arrested the
balance and weights of his own ill-will, and on this he put
himself on the country, and the defendant did likewise.
A jury of the venue of St Dunstan in the East, viz. Walter
Coupere and his fellows, said on oath that the defendant
arrested the balance of his own ill-will, to the plaintiff's
damage 10 marks. Therefore it was considered that the plaintiff recover etc.
23 Aug. 1391
Grant from Hugh Fastolf, citizen of London, to John
Hadley, William Cressewyk, citizens of London, Robert
Houtoft, Geoffrey Somerton, James Billingford and Sir
Nicholas, perpetual chaplain of la Charnell in Great Jernemuthe (Yarmouth), of all his goods and chattels. Dated at
London 21 Aug. 1391.
Membr. 4 b
19 Nov. 1390
Action of account by the abbot of Rewley near Oxford
against Hugh Talbot, tailor, with regard to moneys received
by the latter to trade therewith by the hands of William
Wynferthyng, William Isbrond, Thomasina Hukstere, Hans
Clokkemaker and other tenants of the abbot in London
[breaks off].
Membr. 5
20 Nov. 1390
John Holmton of Sleaford, merchant, brought a petition
claiming from John Walworth, vintner, the sum of £120, which
the complainant's attorney overseas, John Feryour, had lent to
John Walworth's apprentice and attorney, Richard Edmund,
at Middelburgh two years before for the purchase of wines,
under condition that the money should be repaid in England.
He prayed that John Walworth and his apprentice be examined
in court according to the law merchant, in order that a reasonable end might be made to the matter. [French]
John Walworth having denied on 1 Dec. that the loan had
been made for his use, the parties agreed to put themselves
on an examination of the apprentice, Richard Edmund, and
to accept his testimony. The said Richard on 7 Jan., having
sworn to tell the truth without concealment, favour or fear,
said that his master had in his keeping certain charters and
muniments relating to his (Richard's) lands and tenements,
and being afraid that his master might treat him unjustly in
the future, he had borrowed the money in dispute for his
own use and profit, and that none of it ever accrued to the
use and profit of his master, as by the petition of John
Holmton was supposed.
9 May 1391
Acquittance from Alice, widow of William Ancroft,
mercer, to William Hyde, grocer, John Pountefreit, saddler,
Robert Sewale, fishmonger, and John Drew, executors of
her late husband's will, for the sum of 500 marks, being her
third part of her husband's goods and chattels coming to her
as dower and purparty, and for the clothes belonging to her
chamber (fn. 4) , to wit, linen and wool for the beds and all the
clothing for her body, as appeared more fully in her husband's
will. Given under her seal 1 May 1391. [French]
Acquittance [Latin] to the same effect, to which, as her
seal was unknown to many, Mary, abbess of the Minoresses
of St Clare without Aldgate, had added the common seal of
the convent.
A further acquittance by the abbess on behalf of the convent and their consoror, Alice, widow of William Ancroft.
Dated 2 May 1391.
6 Sept. 1391
Report of Simon Hoke and Henry Godard, the sworn
masons, and Richard Bornham and Walter Wiltshire, the
sworn carpenters of the city, with regard to a stone building
called the "Fermory
(fn. 5) " at Austin Friars. They found that one
gable-crest (fn. 6) had fallen and another was in danger of falling,
owing to bad work on the part of Richard Salyng, mason,
whom they charged with the renewal thereof at his own cost
and expense. [French]
Membr. 5 b
19 June 1391
Robert Bardolf, knight, and Amicia his wife demand an
Assize of Nuisance against William Bealhome, leatherseller,
touching their free tenement in the parish of All Hallows
on the Wall.
Report of the four sworn masters of the Masons and
Carpenters as to a stone wall of Robert Lyndeseye's tenement
at the Tabard in Wood Street in the parish of St Alban.
[French]
Membr. 6
8 May 1391
Writ of certiorari demanding the tenor of a letter under
the signet from the king to John Norhampton, late mayor,
ordering him to arrest Hugelin Gerard, Lombard, with all
the goods and chattels, papers and letters found in his
lodging, and to deliver him to Sir Thomas Murreux, late
constable of the Tower. Dated at Westminster 8 May 1391.
Return giving a letter under the signet dated at the king's
manor of Shene on 29 Jan. (fn. 7) , ordering that Ogolyne Gerard
be delivered to Thomas Morrieux, constable of the Tower,
and his papers be sent to the continuel conseil in London.
[French]
2 Aug. 1391
Appointment of Thomas Davy, John Hunte, Thomas
Lamport and William Harper, wardens of the mistery of
Goldsmiths, William Louthe, John Lyncoln, Stephen de
Thorpe and John de Luton, goldsmiths, as arbitrators in an
action between Henry Bamme, plaintiff, and Hervy Rokhawe, defendant, with regard to lands in Fulham, Braynford
and Illyng (fn. 8) .
Membr. 6 b
6 Aug. 1391
John Fraunceys, one of the sheriffs, brought a bill of complaint setting forth that a certain John Gentyll had been
condemned in the court of his predecessor, John Loveye, and
in his own court in several actions for debt brought against
him by John Hayne, tailor, John French, prior of the
Carmelite Friars, and John Denys, jeweller. On 20 June
he was allowed to escape to the sanctuary of St Martin le
Grand through the negligence of Thomas Clerc, who was
servant of the sheriffs' serjeant, John Starlyng, without
having paid the debts recovered against him, in consequence
of which the plaintiff became chargeable for those amounts.
Although every sheriffs' serjeant was responsible for the misdeeds of his servants, the said John Starlyng had refused to
find security to save the plaintiff harmless against the abovementioned claims. [French]
John Starlyng was brought before the Mayor and Aldermen
and was asked if he could give any reason why he should
not exonerate the sheriff against the plaintiffs in the said
actions. He pleaded that John Gentyll had been handed over
by the court to his servant, Thomas Clerc, without his
knowing anything about it, and therefore he was not responsible for his escape.
As it seemed to the court that, according to the custom
of the city, sheriffs' serjeants were bound to answer to their
masters not only for their own offences but also for such misdeeds of their servants as concerned the sheriffs, and since
the serjeant's servant, who had been ordered by the court
to take the prisoner to Newgate, had allowed him to escape,
it was considered that John Starlyng find sufficient security
to indemnify his master against any claims of the plaintiffs
in the aforesaid actions, and since John Starlyng could not
find such security, he was committed to Ludgate until he
could do so.
6 Sept. 1391
Writ of protection in favour of Henry Tamworth, esquire,
who was then on the king's service in the company of Thomas,
earl of Nottingham and earl marshal, captain of the town of
Calais. Dated at Westminster 6 Sept. 1391.
By virtue of this protection a plea of trespass brought against
the said Henry by Walter atte Welle was adjourned without
a day.
Membr. 7
10 Oct. 1391
John, son of William Shynguler of Bermyngham co. Warwick, brought a bill showing that his master, Roger Grymston,
draper, to whom he had been apprenticed at Easter for eight
years, had absconded for debt on Tuesday after Michaelmas,
leaving him destitute and homeless and without food and
drink except what was given to him by good people for the
love of God. He prayed to be exonerated from his apprenticeship. [French]
The master, on being several times summoned, failed to
appear, and since evidence was given by the neighbours that
he had left no goods and chattels in the city to carry on his
trade and had not put his apprentice to any one else to learn
the trade, the latter was exonerated, on condition that if the
master returned within a year and a day and had any action
against his apprentice, he should be allowed to sue it.
Membr. 7 b
1 April 1391
Letter under the mayoralty seal to the duke of Gyene and
Lancastre (fn. 9) and to all royal and other lords. Whereas a certain
Robert Ospreng, claiming to be executor of Thomas William,
had complained to the duke that William Venour, during his
mayoralty, had given him a letter under the mayoralty seal
confirming the impression of the seal used by the testator
during his lifetime, but had afterwards sent for him to bring
to Guildhall a bond of £200 made by William Page to the
testator, and had imprisoned him and taken away from him
the letter under the mayoralty seal, in consequence of which
he could not have execution of the bond—the real truth was
as follows: The said Robert had come to the mayor saying
that he had been appointed administrator of the goods and
chattels of Thomas William by the abbot of Westminster,
whereupon the mayor had given him a letter witnessing that
a lease of a shop in Bokelersbury (fn. 10) from Thomas Medelane,
vintner, to the testator, bore the seal used by the testator in
his lifetime, but afterwards the Mayor and Aldermen were
advised that this testimonial letter might turn to the prejudice
of other persons, since they had no full information or knowledge of the seal of the testator and did not truly know whether
it had been used by him in his lifetime or not, except on the
word of the said Robert and other insufficient persons, and
accordingly, with the assent of the aldermen and the city's
counsel, the mayor had taken back the letter. It was not true
that the said Robert had been in any way imprisoned or
grieved or molested in his person, as he alleged. They begged
the duke to give credence to this explanation and to hold
the said William Venour excused. [French]