ROLL A 31
Roll of Memoranda of the time of Edward Dalyngregge,
knight, warden of the city of London
(fn. 1) , in the sixteenth
year of the reign of King Richard the Second (1392)
Membr. 1
6 July 1392
Whereas John Harmesthorpe, master of St Katherine by
the Tower (fn. 2) , placed a certain William Gynne, a boy of about
ten years of age who was in his wardship, to school with
Richard Exton near the Friars of the Holy Cross (fn. 3) , certain
of the friars came to the boy and told him to translate into
Latin the words—"Y oblisshe me to be a frere of the croys"
and when the boy had done so, one of the friars kissed him
and said that all the bishops in England could not absolve
him from becoming a friar of their order, and so they took
the boy away on 4 July 1392 and dressed him in the habit of
their order and withdrew him from the custody of the said
Richard Exton. And when the latter complained to Edward
Dalyngregge, warden of the city, praying for a just remedy,
the warden on 5 July ordered the friars to send the boy to
him, and next day, on the ground that the boy was of tender
age and not of marriageable years and was a servant of the
master of St Katherine, without whose consent he could not
legally bind himself, and further because the friars had gained
possession of the boy by deception, the warden sent him
back to the master of St Katherine.
9 July 1392
Bond by John Loveye, William Shiryngham and Thomas
Vynent, citizens and mercers, before William Venour,
deputy of Edward Dalyngregge, in £3000, to Bernard Brocas,
knight, to save the latter harmless within one month, in case
John Shadworth (fn. 4) , who was in his custody, should escape or
absent himself.
Afterwards on 18 Oct. the said Bernard came before the
Warden and Aldermen and acknowledged that the above
covenants had been fully observed, and agreed that they
should be cancelled.
13 July 1392
Acquittance by Lefardus Blumendale, merchant of Prussia,
before the Warden and Aldermen, to Sir John Montagu,
knight (fn. 5) , lord of Werk, for the receipt of 1000 nobles, owed
by the said Sir John, as principal, and John, Lord Bemund (fn. 6) ,
William, Lord de Botreaux, knights, Peter Byxton, John
Bever and Edmund Faukes, citizens in Danczik, and Robert
Ko, English merchant, as his sureties, on a recognisance to
Sir Wynand Ostinchusen, consul in Danczik, and the said
Lefardus. Dated in London under his seal, 12 July 1392,
and sealed, for further evidence of the true identity of the
said Lefardus, with the seals of Frowin Stepyng, John
Swarte and Henry Smytman, merchants of Almaine, dwelling
in London.
Bond by the said Lefardus, Frowin, John and Henry
to John Mountagu, knight, in 1000 nobles to indemnify him
and his sureties against any further claims for the money
paid as above.
Of the time of Baldewyn Radyngton
(fn. 7) , knight,
warden of the city of London
Membr. 1 b
Letter of attorney from Francis Johan, merchant of Sene (fn. 8) ,
to Guy de Port of Lucca and William Palmere of London.
23 Aug. 1392
Bond of James Clabaud, son of James Clabaud, merchant
of Amiens, in £200 to William Wende, hosier, that he would
not take away Joan, wife of the said William, or communicate
with her, or do the said William any harm either in his
person or his goods.
21 Oct. 1392
Letter of attorney from Bernard Dalem, alias Bernard
Doat, esquire, of Gascony to Sir Bertrand de la Traw, clerk,
John Frankeleyn, draper, and Arnald Guilliam of Sedzes (fn. 9) ,
dwelling in London, to receive from the king or the treasurer
of England an annual pension of 40 marks, granted to him
for life by the king, and to give acquittances for the same.
Sealed by Sir Baudewyn Radyngton, warden of the city, with
the seal of his office, for greater credence, since the seal of
the said Bernard was unknown to many. Dated at London
17 Sept. 1392. [French]
Membr. 2
5 June 1391
Pleas held in the Chamber of the Guildhall before Adam
Bamme, Mayor, and the Aldermen, according to the
custom of the city, on Monday 5 June 1391
Gilbert Bonet, executor of the will of Richard Lyons, was
summoned to answer Isabella, widow of the said Richard,
for detinue of 5000 marks, her widow's portion of her late
husband's goods.
The defendant pleaded that Isabella had already sued a bill
against him on 2 Dec. 1388, proceedings on which were still
pending, and he prayed judgment as regards a bill sued, when
a previous one was still pending. On being told to answer
further, he pleaded the record of the previous proceedings
to the effect that the plaintiff was divorced in 1363 owing to
certain impediments and that such marriage as there was
between her and Richard Lyons was annulled (fn. 10) .
The plaintiff now pleaded that after the bishop of London
had given a certificate that she had been divorced, she appealed against the divorce to Robert, bishop of London, who
instructed his commissary, William Laas, to hear the appeal,
and the latter annulled the divorce and confirmed the marriage. She offered to verify this in such manner as the court
required.
Thereupon the defendant, saying that he did not acknowledge these allegations, prayed judgment on the ground that
the plaintiff had not disputed the certificate or his pleading.
Membr. 2 b
15 Nov. 1391
Nicholas Benyngton, mercer, brought a bill against Geoffrey
Grigge, taverner, for refusing to quit certain tenements, the
"bol othe hope" and a house late in the tenure of John
Hamerton which he held as a tenant at will (fn. 11) . [French]
On the defendant's pleading that he held the unexpired
portion of a lease of 60 years originally granted by a certain
John Oxenford, the plaintiff cited the record of a previous
suit for rent due, wherein the bill alleged that the defendant
was a tenant at will, in which suit judgment was given for the
plaintiff. He prayed judgment whether the defendant could
be admitted to verify his plea against the said record. The
defendant then pleaded that the record was not sufficient in
law to bar his proof, and prayed judgment.
Membr. 3
Pleas in the Chamber of the Guildhall according to law
merchant and the custom of the city before John Hende,
Mayor, and the Aldermen, A
o 15 Ric. II
14 May 1392
Francekyn Johan, merchant of Siena, brought a bill against
Nicholas Donat, son of John Donat, and John Tervyn, clerk,
administrators of the goods of John Donat, late citizen and
merchant of London, setting forth that John Donat had had
charge of certain jewels of the value of 1000 francs belonging
to the plaintiff, viz. two nouches and two gold rings, on condition that if the Duke de Berry, who owed John's brother
Nicholas the sum of 1430 francs on a bond, should pay that
amount to the plaintiff before Easter, then John Donat should
keep the jewels, but otherwise he should return them, receiving
back the bond, as appeared in examination before the court (fn. 12) .
On John Donat's death, the administrators received the jewels
in the presence of the court. But though the plaintiff had
often asked that they should be returned to him, according
to the conditions, the administrators refused. The plaintiff
prayed that they should be forced to return them—and
speedily, in deference to the king's letters sent to the court,
and in accordance with the law merchant. [French]
Order having been given to summon the defendants, John
Covelee, the mayor's serjeant, reported that John Tervyn
could not be found and had no goods in the city or suburbs
whereby he might be summoned. He was arrested and taken
to the compter of John Shadworth, sheriff. Thereupon Amy,
widow of John Donat, brought the jewels into court and asked
for his release, which was granted. He then found sureties
for his appearance, John Shalyngford and John Creek,
draper, and asked that the jewels might be returned to Amy,
which the court refused on the ground that his sureties were
not substantial enough. The other defendant Francis Donat
was also arrested.
The parties appeared on 5 Aug., when Nicholas acknowledged the truth of the bill. The other defendant, John
Tervyn, pleaded that the bill was insufficient in law, because
it did not mention or allege that the Duke de Berry had
failed to pay the money due before Easter. The plaintiff
answered that there was sufficient matter in the bill to maintain his action and that the other defendant, Nicholas, had
acknowledged the truth of it. He prayed judgment.
The action was adjourned until 10 Dec. in order that the
court might be advised according to the law merchant and
the custom of the city. On that day it was considered that
the plaintiff take nothing by his bill and be in mercy, and
the jewels were returned to the said Amy.
Marginal note: The record sent to the king's Chancery.
28 Oct. 1393
Writ of certiorari, demanding the true and full tenor of the
record and process of the above action. Dated at Westminster 28 Oct. 1393.
Return that the complete tenor of the record was being
returned with the writ.
Membr. 4
Roll of memoranda of the time of John Hende, mayor
of London, A
o 15 Ric. II
10 Nov. 1391
Writ of certiorari, reciting that John Botelesham and his
mainpernors had appeared before Walter Clopton and his
fellow-justices, who were sitting at St Martin le Grand to
hear pleas of error in the actions John Reymes v. John
Botelesham (fn. 13) , and John Payn and wife v. John Botelesham (fn. 14) ,
and had alleged error in the record and process of these
actions, which had been heard before the Mayor, Sheriffs
and Aldermen on 27 Nov. 1388, to wit, that the Mayor,
Sheriffs and Aldermen on the first day of the process had
ordered the arrest of the said John Botelesham, whereas he
was a freeman and as such had the right to make three defaults in a case where process was made against him by summons or attachment, to which John Reymes, John Payn and
his wife had severally answered that as soon as such a plaint
was affirmed and it had been reported to the Mayor, Sheriffs
and Aldermen by two freemen of the city, not necessarily
officers, that the defendant was a fugitive and insufficient in
goods and chattels to be attached, such a defendant ought to
be arrested, and further that, immediately after they had
affirmed their plaints, they had brought John Rede and John
Cole, sufficient men of the city, on 4 Nov. 1388, who witnessed that the said John Botelesham was a fugitive and did
not possess goods whereby he might be summoned or
attached, whereupon by precept of the mayor the said John
Botelesham had been arrested by his body; and to this John
Botelesham and his mainpernors had pleaded before the
justices that such witnesses must by the custom of the city
be officers, and further that John Rede and John Cole had
not given their evidence after the plaints had been affirmed.
As the justices desired information on these points the
mayor was directed to inform them as to the custom of the
city. Witness W. Clopton at St Martin le Grand, 10 Nov.
1391.
Return to the above by the Mayor and Aldermen that John
Rede and John Cole gave their evidence after the plaints
had been affirmed, and that it was not necessary that the two
witnesses should be officers, but only that they should be
freemen.
7 Dec. 1391
Letter of attorney from Bernard Dalem alias Bernard
Doat to Bernard du Siguer. Sealed at the request of the said
Bernard Dalem by Sir Richard Craddoc, knight. Dated at
London 1 Dec. 1391. [French]
Revocation of the above, 12 Sept. 1392.
Membr. 4 b
13 Feb. 1392
Robert Excestre, prior of Christ Church, London, appeared in court and acknowledged that the following indenture between William Rysyng, late prior, and the convent,
on the one part, and John Caumpe and William, Thomas
and Robert, his brothers, on the other part, was the deed
of the prior and convent and sealed with their common seal.
Indenture of covenant, dated at London, 15 March 1386,
in the presence of John, bishop of Durham and treasurer
of England, and Walter, Lord Fitzwauter, between Sir
William de Risyng, prior of Crischirche, and the convent,
on the one part, and John, William, Thomas and Robert
Caumpe, on the other, recites that by common agreement
of Sir Aubrey de Veer, knight (fn. 15) , and the said John Caumpe
and his brothers, a quitclaim by the said Sir Aubrey to them
had been entrusted to the prior and convent on the following
conditions:
If it were proved by Sir Aubrey or his heirs by due process
of law within eight years that John and his brothers or any
of them were villeins of Sir Aubrey, as regardant
(fn. 16) to his
manor of Dullyngham co. Cambridge, and this proof were
shown to the prior and convent, the quitclaim should be
returned to Sir Aubrey.
If it were not so proved, or if the said Sir. Aubrey or his
heirs delayed the delivery of the said John and his brothers,
in case they were taken by Sir Aubrey or his heirs, after they
had claimed their delivery by law, or if Sir Aubrey or his
heirs put them in prison with the punishment of the stocks,
irons, manacles or other engines in grievous pain of their
bodies, or if the said John Caumpe or any of his brothers
were proved by matter of record to be free and of free condition as regards Sir Aubrey and his heirs, then the quitclaim
should be delivered to John Caumpe and his brothers and
their heirs without hindrance.
Provided always that any suit sued within the said eight
years by John Caumpe or his brothers should be sued to the
end without nonsuit (fn. 17) , after villeinage in their persons had
been alleged against them by Sir Aubrey or his heirs, with
the exception of the suit which the said John had pending
at present against Sir Aubrey, which in consideration of this
covenant should be discontinued.
And the said Sir Aubrey granted, in the presence of the
above-mentioned lords, that he would not arrest the bodies
of the said John and his brothers during the term of eight
years unless he had more sufficient proof of their villeinage
than at present, and that if he or his heirs arrested them for
the said cause, he would guard them, without hardship of
the villein's prison, until they were replevied.
In witness of the above, the common seal of the prior and
convent and the seals of the said John, William, Thomas and
Robert Caumpe were interchangeably set to these indentures.
[French]
7 March 1392
Letter of attorney from Walter Cachemayd, merchant of
Bristol, to Thomas Witton of London, dwelling in Podynglane, to receive from John Solak the sum of £76 17s 6d
recovered against him by bill in the court of Guildhall, which
money was due on a bond to the said Walter and Robert
Walrond, apprentice of William Whyt of Bristol. Dated at
London in Brigestret 28 Sept. 1391.
15 Dec. 1391
Hervy Rokhawe, goldsmith, and Richard Darell, esquire,
brought a bill of complaint against Maude Holbeche for
detaining two deeds, relating to properties in Fulham and
Braynford belonging to Margaret the widow of John de
Norwich, goldsmith, which deeds they had placed in her
hands for safe custody and return when required. [French]
When the action came on for hearing Richard Darell did
not appear and after two defaults the co-plaintiff Hervy
Rokhawe received permission to sue alone. The defendant
pleaded that in the bill the plaintiff alleged that he and
Richard delivered the deeds to her, and she said it was
agreed that she should return the deeds to both of them,
and as Richard had not appeared, she prayed judgment
whether Hervy Rokhawe could have his action against her.
The plaintiff denied that there was any such agreement
and pleaded the court's permission to sue alone. It was considered that he recover the deeds and damages of 40d.
Membr. 5
19 Jan. 1392
John Baldeswell, citizen and cook, brought a bill against
Robert Carter for having obtained from him by falsehood
and deceit the sum of 9 marks 12s 4d under the following
circumstances. A certain Bartholomew Berford, who owed
the plaintiff £120 and had fled to sanctuary at Westminster,
owned 4 tuns of woad, which lay in a cellar hired from John
Pycard on his behalf by a certain Mark Hunt. The said
Robert came to him in the parish of St Mary at Hill and said
that he knew where the tuns of woad were and that on these
tuns 8 marks were due to a certain John Pycard and 23s 8d
to himself, but the woad was worth more than this, and if the
plaintiff would pay him the amounts mentioned, he might
have the tuns. Accordingly he paid the said Robert; whereas
the truth was that Robert had nothing to do with the woad,
and the only amount due on it was 8s to John Pycard for
cellarage. [French]
The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff came to his wharf
next to the Wolkeye in the parish of St Dunstan in the East,
and walked up and down, sighing and wailing (suspirando
et ululando); so he asked him why he had come and what he
was looking for. The plaintiff answered that he was given
to understand that Bartholomew Berford had 4 tuns of woad
in a house on the wharf, but he did not know which house.
He told the plaintiff that there were 4 tuns in John Pycard's
house, but to whom they belonged he did not know. Thereupon the plaintiff asked him to go to Pycard to make inquiries,
which he did, learning that they belonged to Bartholomew
Berford and had been pledged to Pycard by a certain Mark
Hunt for 10 marks 7 shillings, in connection with some debt
or other. The plaintiff then gave him this amount and asked
him to pay Pycard, which he did the same day, whereupon
the plaintiff received delivery of the tuns. He prayed judgment
whether the plaintiff ought to have any action against him.
The plaintiff repeated that the defendant was guilty of
deceit and put himself on the country.
A jury of the venue, consisting of William Bastard, Hugh
Roos, John Dromayn and others, related the facts (fn. 18) in the
same manner as the defendant had done, and said he was
not guilty of any deception. Judgment that he be acquitted
of the bill and that the plaintiff take nothing and be in mercy.
Membr. 5 b
8 May 1392
Recognisance by Cataneus de Spinola, Leonellus Vyvald,
Matheus Grymald and George Granell, merchants of Genoa,
of a debt of £545 6s 9d payable on 1 June to John Nichol,
Thomas Bere and Ralph Glovere, merchants of Cornwall, and
John Job.
25 May I392
Lease for three years, in consideration of a sum of money
and an annual rent of one grain of wheat, from Thomas and
Robert Broun, sons of Matthew Broun, late woolmonger of
London, to John Skut, citizen and merchant, of
1. A tenement in Themestrete in the parish of St Dunstan
by the Tower, bounded on the west by the tenement of Peter
Ferye, tailor, and on the east by the shop of John Bere,
cordwainer.
2. A shop bounded on the west by the shop of John
Parson, chandler, and on the east by the shop of Isabella
Phippe, shepster.
3. A tenement with a small wharf (fn. 19) in Petywalys lane in
the parish of All Hallows Berkyngchirche, lying between the
street and the Thames, bounded on the east by the tenement
belonging to a chantry in the said church, and on the west
by the tenement of William Talworth, shipwright.
4. Three shops in Poortes lane by St Dunstan's Church.
Membr. 6
26 April 1392
Action of John Broun against Walter Ludneye, draper, for
a debt of 80 marks awarded to him on the arbitration of John
Stapulton, William Berdevile, William Beset and Edmund
Cappemaker. The defendant pleaded that the action was a
prolongation of disputes which had already been settled by
a concord made between the parties at Westminster before
Richard Ravenser, clerk, when mutual quitclaims were enrolled in Chancery [breaks off].
Membr. 6 b
7 Feb. 1392
John Prentys, draper, was summoned to answer a bill of
John Mawsyn, parson of the church of St Peter Cornhill,
executor of the will of John Strowsburgh, late citizen and
browderer, claiming from him a debt of £56 13s 4d. The
plaintiff alleged that a certain John Bradfeld, grocer, owed
the said John Strowsburgh the sum of £60, and that on
12 March 1388 the defendant took the debt upon himself,
of which a portion was paid in John Strowsburgh's lifetime,
leaving the above sum in arrears.
By request of both parties a day, 14 Feb., was given for
them to come to an agreement. On that day the defendant
denied that he owed any debt to John Mawsyn and waged
his law (fn. 20) as a freeman of the city according to the custom.
The plaintiff granted that he should have his law. Thereupon
the defendant made his law with six other men that he owed
nothing. It was considered that the plaintiff take nothing by
his bill etc.