Plea Rolls for Staffordshire
8 Edward II

Sponsor

Institute of Historical Research

Publication

Author

Major-General Hon. G. Wrottesley (editor)

Year published

1889

Pages

15-19

Citation Show another format:

'Plea Rolls for Staffordshire: 8 Edward II', Staffordshire Historical Collections, vol. 10, part 1 (1889), pp. 15-19. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=52334 Date accessed: 20 September 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Coram Rege. Mich., 8 E. II.

Staff. Margaret, formerly wife of Robert de Esnyngton, appeared against John son of Roger de Swynnerton, and Nicholas his brother, Hugh, Parson of the Church of Byshebury, John de Levyngton, Robert Personesune of Byshebury of Esyngton, John Charles, Richard de Chelle, Ithel Poker, Thomas de Stretton of Esnyngton, Robert Knyght of Stretton, Agnes wife of Ralph de Byshebury, Thomas son of Richard Pecok, Petronilla sister of Thomas, and Alice daughter of Margery le Dene of Esnyngton and four others named, for the death of Robert her husband, and the Sheriff returned that none of them could be found and held nothing within his bailiwick. He was therefore ordered to put them into the exigend, and if they appeared, to arrest them and produce them Coram Rege at a month from Easter. m. 7.

Staff. Robert de Horseleye, John de Stok, Stephen son of Robert de Horseleye, John his brother, John le Parker, William son of Robert de Horseleye, and Robert his brother, Roger Child of Knyghteleye, and twelve others named, were attached at the suit of Robert de Knyghtley for cutting down his trees at Knyghteleye vi et armis on the Sunday before the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincula, and for which he claimed £60 as damages. The defendants denied the trespass and appealed to a jury which is to be summoned for the Quindene of Hillary. A postscript states that on that day Roger Child of Knyghteleye appeared by attorney and pleaded that the father of Robert de Knyghteleye had conceded to him by deed reasonable estovers in his wood at Knyghteleye, and he appealed to a jury, and the said Robert de Knyghteleye stated that the said Roger had cut down and carried away his trees over and above the tenour of the grant, and he likewise appealed to a jury.

The same Robert sued Richard Ramayl, Adam de Whitegreve, Richard de Northbury, and Richard de Weston for the same trespass, and the defendants appeared and denied it, and appealed to a jury which is to be summoned for the same date. m. 36.

Staff. The same Robert sued Roger le Child of Knyghteleye, Stephen de Horseleye, and three others named, for breaking into his park at Knyghteleye on the same date, and taking from it bucks and does to the value of £40. The defendants appeared and denied the trespass, and appealed to a jury which is to be summoned for the Quindene of Easter. m. 36.

Staff. John de Pikstoke, Robert Selymon, William Reyner, Nicholas de Pikestoke, Simon de Pikestoke, Walter de Pykestoke, Simon Tromwyne, John de Hughcesdon, William de Hughcesdon, and eighteen others named, were attached at the suit of John Hastang, for taking his goods and chattels, viz.:— money, coats of mail (loricas) bacinets, and other goods to the value of £10 at Stafford on the day of St. Peter and Paul, 6 E. II., and for beating, wounding, and ill-treating his servant, John de Piriton, so that he lost his services for a long time, and for which he claimed £100 as damages. The defendants appeared and denied the trespass, and appealed to a jury which is to be summoned for the Quindene of Hillary. m. 81, dorso.

Coram Rege. Hillary, 8 E. II.

Staff. Richard de Whitemor of Brodok, John and Richard his sons, William Lougsing, and Robert and Henry his sons, Henry del Shawe of Hunteleye, and Thomas his son, Philip Galpyn, and twenty-six others named, were attached at the suit of Robert de Dutton, for coming vi et ormis on the Saturday before the Feast of St. John the Baptist, 7 E. II., and breaking down his fences at Rounhale, at a place called Sothewode, and destroying his growing corn with oxen, cows, and horses, to the value of £20, and for which he claimed £60 as damages. Some of the defendants denied the trespass, and Robert son of William Lousing for himself and others stated that the place called Suthwode was his common-pasture appurtenant to his tenement, and because the said Robert de Dutton had put up fences and sown his common pasture, he and the others named had pulled them down, as was lawful, and he appealed to a jury, which is to be summoned for three weeks from Easter. m. 60.

Coram Rege. Easter, 8 E. II.

Staff. In the appeal of Margaret formerly wife of Robert de Esnyngton, against John son of Roger de Swynnerton, and the seventeen others previously named, for the death of Robert her husband, the Sheriff returned that he had put them into the exigend according to the term of the writ, in full co. of Stafford, on the Thursday before the Feast of St. Clement the Pope, 8 E. II., and so on from County Court to County Court up to the fourth County Court, at which Court all the defendants appeared except Thomas de Dunnesby, and surrendered themselves prisoners. Thomas is therefore to be outlawed, and the said John son of Roger de Swynnerton and the others now appeared, brought up by the Sheriff, and Margaret the appellatrix also appeared and stated that Robert de Esnyngton formerly her husband, was in pace dei et in pace domini Regis in the vill of Esnyngton in co. Stafford on the Wednesday after the Feast of the Apostles St. Peter and Paul, 7 E. II., at the third hour on a piece of land contiguous to a garden called Berard Orchard, when the said John son of Roger de Swynnerton came up as a felon feloniously holding in his left hand a bow of Spanish yew, two ells in length, and of the thickness of four men's thumbs, and with a barbed arrow called a clotharewe which he held in his right hand, and with the said bow and arrow he shot Robert her husband through the heart, and of which wound he died within her arms, (fn. 1) etc., and the said Margaret had raised immediately the hue and cry and followed the said John from vill to vill up to four vills, and if the said John should deny the said felony, she was prepared to prove the said felony and homicide against him as a woman ("ut femina") and as the Court should think fit, etc.

And the same Margaret appealed Nicholas the brother of the said John of the death of Robert her husband, and stated that at the day, and place, and hour above named, the said Nicholas was present holding in his left hand a bow of Irish yew, and in his right hand a barbed arrow called a Doggearewe, and with the said bow and arrow he shot Robert her husband under the left breast, and of which he died immediately within her arms, and if the said Robert was not killed by the wound inflicted by the said John son of Roger de Swynnerton, he died of the wound inflicted by the said Nicholas, and the said Margaret immediately raised the hue and cry, etc. (as before).

The same Margaret appealed John de Levyngton of the death of Robert her husband and stated that at the hour and place named, the said John came up as a felon feloniously, holding in his right hand a sword of Cologne, six feet (sic) in length, and of four inches in width at the hilt, and struck the said Robert her husband, half-way between the left foot and thigh, and cut off the foot of the said Robert, and she said that if he did not die of the wounds made by the said John de Swynnerton and Nicholas, then he died of the wound inflicted by the said John de Levyngton, and the said Margaret raised the hue and cry, etc. (as before).

And the same Margaret appealed Roger Personesone of Byshebury, of the death of Robert her husband, and stated that on the day and place named, he came feloniously, and with a bow called Turkeys of Spanish yew, one and a half ell in length, and with a barbed arrow called a Wolfare we made of ash and three-quarters of an ell in length, shot the said Robert her husband, wounding him under the right breast, and of which wound he died within her arms, and so that if he was not killed by the wounds made by the said John son of Roger, Nicholas, or John de Levyngton, he was killed by the wound inflicted by the said Roger Personesone, etc.

The same Margaret appealed John Charles of the death of Robert her husband, and stated that at the time and place named, he came feloniously with a bow made of elm, and with a barbed arrow called a Scotische arewe, which was made of a wood called in Romanis Boul, an ell in length, and feathered with the red feathers of a peacock, and shot the said Robert her husband in the back, and if he was not killed by the wounds inflicted by the others above named, then he died of the wound inflicted by the said John Charles, etc.

The same Margaret appealed Richard de Chelle of the death of her husband, and stated that at the hour and place named, he came feloniously with a bow made of Irish yew, and with a barbed arrow called a Scotische arewe, shot the said Robert her husband in the stomach below the navel, so that he died immediately within her arms, and if he did not die of the wounds inflicted, etc. (as before).

The same Margaret appealed Ithel Poker of the death of Robert her husband, and stated he had shot him with a bow and arrow under the right breast, etc.

She also appealed Thomas de Stretton of Esnyngton, of the death of her husband, and stated he had struck him on the head feloniously with a staff called a Kentisshstaf made of ash, two ells in length, and which he held in both hands, etc.

The same Margaret appealed Hugh the Parson of the Church of Byshebury, as an accessory to the death of Robert her husband, and she stated that he had feloniously held him with both his hands by the right shoulder whilst Thomas de Dunesby, who had been outlawed for the death of her husband, struck him with an Irish dagger (de uno cultello de Hiberniâ) in the breast to the heart, and if the said Robert her husband was not killed by the wounds inflicted by the said John son of Roger de Swynnerton and the others above named, he died of the wound made by the said Thomas de Dunesby with the help of the said Hugh, etc.

The same Margaret appealed Robert Stywardman as an accessory to the death of her husband, and stated that he had held him by the left shoulder whilst Thomas de Dunesby struck him with a dagger, etc.

The same Margaret appealed John Fox as an accessory to the death of her husband, and stated he held his right arm whilst Thomas de Dunesby struck him with a dagger, etc.

The same Margaret appealed Robert Knyght of Stretton as an accessory to the death of her husband, and stated he held him by the left arm whilst the said Thomas de Dunesby struck him with a dagger, etc.

The same Margaret appealed Thomas Bynde as an accessory to the death of her husband, and stated he held him by the throat with both hands whilst the said Thomas de Dunesby struck him with a dagger, etc.

The same Margaret appealed Thomas son of Richard Pecok as an accessory to the death of her husband, and stated he had struck him with a staff of elm, etc.

The same Margaret appealed Agnes wife of Ralph de Byshebury as an accessory to the death of her husband, and stated she had sent the said Thomas de Dunesby to kill him, and had afterwards received the said Thomas knowingly in her house at Bysshebury, etc.

The same Margaret appealed Petronilla sister of Thomas son of Richard Pecok as an accessory to the death of her husband, and stated she had sent the said Thomas de Dunesby to kill him, etc.

The same Margaret appealed, Alice daughter of Margery Le Dene of Esnyngton as an accessory to the death of her husband, and stated she was present and had sent the said Thomas de Dunnesby to kill him, etc.

And the said John son of Roger de Swynnerton and Nicholas his brother John de Levyngton and all the others except Thomas de Dunesby who had been outlawed, appeared and denied the felony, etc., and the said John son of Roger de Swynnerton, Nicholas his brother, John de Levyngton, John Charles, Richard de Chelle, and Hugh, Parson of the Church of Bysshebury, stated they were Clerks, and could not answer without their Ordinary, and upon this appeared Brother William Chalk, a monk of the Church of Westminster and claimed them as Clerks in the name of the Prior and Convent, by a letter signed with his seal and dated 10 April, 1315. (Here follows the letter claiming them as Clerks in the name of the liberty of the Church, and appointing the said William Chalk and John de Butterle, the attorneys of the Prior to receive them.) And as the Court was not satisfied that the said letters were sufficient, the said monk was ordered to appear again at the Quindene of Trinity, and as regarded the other defendants, each of them being arraigned singly, put themselves on the country; a jury is therefore to be summoned for the same date, and in the meantime all the defendants, Clerks as well as laics, were committed to the custody of the Marshall. A postscript adds that the process was continued from term to term at the suit of the said Margaret until three weeks from Easter in 9 E. II., on which day John, son of Roger de Swynnerton, Nicholas his brother, Hugh, Parson of the Church of Bysshebury, John de Levyngton, John Charles and Richard de Chelle who had pleaded they were Clerks, and likewise Roger Personessune of Bysshebury of Esnyngton, Robert Stywardsman, John Fox, Thomas de Stretton of Esnyngton, Robert Knyght of Stretton, Agnes wife of Ralph de Bisshebury, Thomas son of Richard Pecok, and Petronilla sister of Thomas were brought before the King by the Marshall William de Graham, and the said Ithel Poker, Thomas Bynde and Alice daughter of Margery le Dene of Esnyngton, did not appear as shewn on the said Roll of Easter, 9 E. II., and the said Margaret, being solemnly called on the first, second, third, and fourth day did not appear and she was the appellatrix. Therefore the said John son of Roger de Swynnerton and all the other defendants, so far as the suit of the said Margaret was concerned, were quit for ever, and the said Margaret is to be apprehended, and the said John son of Roger de Swynnerton and the other defendants both Clerks and laics being arraigned at the suit of the King, the said John son of Roger de Swynnerton, Nicholas his brother, Hugh Parson of Bisshebury, Johnde Levynton, John Charles and Richard de Chelle, stated they were Clerks, and John de Bittele a monk of the Abbey of Westminster and Archdeacon, appeared and claimed them as Clerks, and the said Roger Personessune and the other laics, being arraigned at the suit of the King, stated as before that they were not guilty of the death of the said Robert, and put themselves on the country. And upon this the King by word of mouth (oretenus) commanded that Henry Spigurnel, associated with a Knight of co. Stafford, should try the case in the vill of Stafford, and the Marshall was ordered to produce all the defendants both Clerks and laics before the said H. Spigurnel at Stafford on the morrow of Holy Trinity. And afterwards at Stafford on the Monday, the morrow of Holy Trinity, the said John son of Roger de Swynnerton, Nicholas his brother, Hugh Parson of the Church of Bisshebury, John de Levynton, John Charles, and Richard de Chelle, Clerks, Roger Personessune, Robert Stywardsman, John Fox, Thomas de Stretton of Esnyngton, Robert Knyght of Strettou, Agnes wife of Ralph de Bysshebury, Thomas son of Richard Pecok, and Petronilla sister of the said Thomas being brought up by the Marshall, appeared before Henry Spigurnel, with whom was associated John Hastang Knight; and the Prior of Ronton, acting for the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, produced the Bishop's Letters Patent and claimed the said Clerks, and a jury of the vicinage appeared and stated on their oath that the said John and all the others named were not guilty of the deed, nor accessory in any way to the death of the said Robert de Esnyngton, and Richard Hastang, Henry de Cresswall, Roger de Swynnerton, Robert le Mareschal, John de Houton, and William de Chauldon, were sureties to produce the prisoners coram Rege to hear judgement. Afterwards at the said Quindene of Holy Trinity, the said John son of Roger de Swynnerton and all the others, Clerks as well as laics, appeared, and as it appeared by the above verdict that the said John son of Roger de Swynnertone and the other Clerks and the said Roger Personessune and the other laics were not guilty nor accessory to the death of the said Robert, they are quit of the suit of the King for the felony in question. m. 105a, 106 and 107.

Footnotes

1 These words "statim obiit inter brachia ipsius, etc," are purely formal, being a necessary part of the indictment.