Plea Rolls for Staffordshire
19 Edward II

Sponsor

Institute of Historical Research

Publication

Author

Major-General Hon. G. Wrottesley (editor)

Year published

1889

Pages

62-74

Citation Show another format:

'Plea Rolls for Staffordshire: 19 Edward II', Staffordshire Historical Collections, vol. 10, part 1 (1889), pp. 62-74. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=52345 Date accessed: 22 August 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Coram Rege. Mich., 19 E. II.

Staff. William de Ipstanes, Parson of the church of Eyton, appeared by attorney against Thomas de Brumpton, William Trumwyn, John, son of William de Stafford, Edmund, William, and Walter, the brothers of John, William de Hundesacre, Adam de Elmeleye, Nicholas de Stretton, William Kemp of Stretton, Robert, son of Peter de Greseleye, and Edmund, brother of the said Robert, Ralph Chopcok, Roger de Chetewynd, Stephen de Bromleye, and Peter, his brother, and Thomas Fox for breaking forcibly into his house at Eyton, and taking his goods and chattels to the value of £40, and for beating and ill-treating his servants, so that he lost their services for a length of time. None of the defendants appeared, and the Sheriff was ordered to distrain and produce them at the Quindene of Hillary. m. 77.

Staff. Ralph Basset, of Drayton, appeared by attorney against Thomas de Rudham, Alexander, son of Clement, William le Keu of Pelshale, John de Ruggele, Robert, son of John de Hampton, John de Holand, Richard in the Lone of Wolvernehampton, and John de Whithorse in a plea of trespass. None of the defendants appeared, and the Sheriff was ordered to distrain, and produce them at the Quindene of St. Hillary. A note above their names shews that William le Keu and John de Ruggele were dead. m. 135.

Staff. Thomas de Brumpton, Parson of the church of Eyton, appeared against William the brother of John de Ipstone, John de Coveleye, Henry de Rok, Richard de la Lone, and John de Pycheford in a plea of trespass, and they did not appear. The Sheriff returned that John de Coveleye and John de Pycheford were dead, and that Richard de la Lone could not be found and held nothing within his bailiwick. He was ordered to produce the defendants at three weeks from Easter. m 214.

Staff. The Sheriff had been ordered to distrain Ralph son of Robert Flouressone of Barton, Ralph Basset, Henry le Suthreen, Richard de Wenlok, John Hodynet, John Bagot, Stephen de Blorton, Simon de Ruggelegh, Clerk, William Mauveysyn, Roger Corbet of Haddeleye, William Shirard, Robert de Pipe of Little Rideware, and others named, and to produce them coram Rege at this term to answer to the King for forfeited goods and chattels of certain rebels and enemies of the King which had been taken by them, and for which they had been indicted before John de Stonore and his fellow Justices, assigned to enquire, etc. None of the defendants appeared, and the Sheriff was ordered as before to distrain, and produce them at the Octaves of Hillary, but the distraint against Ralph Basset is to remain sine die as the said Ralph was in Gascony, and had letters of protection for two years from 10th May, 18 E. II. m. 20, Rex.

Staff. A jury had presented elsewhere before John de Stonore and his fellow Justices that John de Somery had taken to Duddeleye of the goods of the Earl of Lancaster, nine horses of the equipment of the said Earl each worth 40s., and which Robert de Holden after the death of the said John had taken to Teukesbury. They also presented that the said Robert de Holden, custos of the lands of John de Somery, had taken from Robert de Esyngton 20s. for a default of appearance at the Court of Duddele, and that it was an extortion, and the said Robert de Holden now appeared before the Court and produced the King's authority, dated 5th December, 19 E. II., to take possession of all the horses which had belonged to any of his rebels and enemies. Robert is therefore quit of the same, and as regarded the other presentment for extorting 20s., etc., as he was charged with the same in his account with the King, no further proceedings were to be taken against him. m. 46, dorso, Rex.

Staff. A jury had elsewhere presented before John de Stonore and his fellow Justices in co. Stafford, that Roger de Bodenham in the month of March, 15 E. II., had taken at the Church of Tuttebury of the goods of the Earl of Lancaster and rebels of the King—four small barrels of silver, with silver chains, 24 silver dishes, and plates of silver and other jewels to the value of £100, also that the said Roger and others had taken at the same time, gold, silver, armour, jewels, and other goods to the value of £200, and the said Roger had also taken at the same place three brass jars, two pockets of saffron (duos poketos de saffron) worth 100s., and carpets, robes, and cloth to the value of £10, and likewise a silver flask, "unum flasketum argenteum," worth 10 marks, and that the Roger held at the same place of the goods of the rebels, four small barrels of silver, with silver chains, three silver water jars, 24 dishes and salt-cellars of silver, twenty pounds worth of crocus (xx libratas croci), robes, carpets, beds, and jewels to the value of £200 all which goods should have been forfeited to the King. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to produce the said Roger and the said presentments were returned coram Rege, and the said Roger appeared in person on this day, viz., on the Octaves of Michaelmas, and being questioned respecting the same, stated that the King had commanded that all those who being in his service had taken possession of goods belonging to the rebels and their adherents should not be molested for it, and he produced a writ to that effect addressed to John de Stonore and his fellow Justices, dated from Westminster, 7th February, 18 E. II. The said Roger is therefore quit of the suit. m. 21, Rex, dorso.

Derb. The Sheriff had been ordered to summon a jury for this day, viz., the Quindene of St. Michael to make recognition if Robert son of Peter de Greseleye, Knight, was guilty or not of the death of William atte Wode of Lockesleye, killed in the month of December, 14 E. II., under the park of Marchyngton and of taking from the purse of the said William 20s. in money, and he now returned the writ reached him too late. He was therefore ordered to summon a jury for the Quindene of St. Hillary of 24 of the vicinage, and the said Robert was committed in the interim to the custody of the Marshall, viz., Robert de Dumbelton. m. 18, Rex, dorso.

Warr. The Sheriff had been ordered to arrest John son of John de Donheved and produce him at this term to answer the appeal of Gerard son of William Donheved for the death of Oliver de Donheved his brother, and the Sheriff returned that the said John could not be found, and the said Gerard being solemnly called up to the fourth day of the plea never appeared; he is therefore to be arrested, and the Sheriff was ordered to produce the said John at the Octaves of Hillary to answer to the King for the said death. m. 8, dorso, Rex.

Coram Rege. Easter, 19 E. II.

Salop, Staff. John de Chetewynde, Knight, appeared in Court on the 10th April of this year and acknowledged he owed to John Cokeyn of Assheburn £40 of which £20 was to be paid at the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist and £20 at the Feast of St. Michael next following, etc. m. 11.

Derb. John de Chetewynd, Thomas de Wynnesbury, and William de Spyneye were attached to answer the plea of William de Knyveton of Assheburne that they together with Walter de Huggeford, Edmund de Whythacre, John son of John le Rider of Ruggeleye, had taken him by force at Assheburne and imprisoned and ill-treated him and taken his goods to the value of £20, on the Friday the Feast of St. Gregory, 15 E. II., and for which he claimed £200 as damages.

And the said John appeared by attorney and Thomas and William appeared in person, and stated that the said William de Knyveton in the year in question was an adherent of Roger de Mortimer, a convicted enemy of the King, and was at Bridgenorth in his retinue, making war against the King, and that in pursuing the said William and other rebels from Bridgenorth, they found him concealing himself at Assheburne, and they had taken and imprisoned him as a rebel to the King, as was lawful, and as regarded his goods and chattels, they denied they had taken any except one horse which had been taken by William de Spyneye and respecting which the said William produced a writ of the King which stated he was not to be molested for taking any of the goods of the rebels. And the said William de Knyveton denied that he was an adherent of Roger de Mortimer, or in his retinue at Bridgenorth, and appealed to a jury; and the Sheriff of co. Derby was ordered to summon a jury of 24, and the Sheriff of Salop another jury of 24, to appear coram Rege at the Octaves of St. John the Baptist. m. 133.

Staff. A jury had elsewhere presented before J. de Stonore and his fellow Justices that Henry del Ile, John le Blount, and Roger de Bodenham acting as locum tenentes of Ralph Basset had taken and kept possession of in the Castle of Tuttebury, of the goods of the Earl of Lancaster, which had been forfeited four small barrels of silver (parvos barillos argenteos), with silver chains, three silver water jars, 24 silver dishes and salt-cellars of silver, twenty pounds worth of crocus, robes, carpets, etc., to the value of £200, etc. (as before in the case of Roger de Bodenham), and that John de la Launde had taken of the said goods £40; and that the said Henry del Ile in March, 15 E. II., had taken fish from the fish ponds of John de Myners, at Blakenhale, and Myners, which were in the King's hands, and forfeited to him, to the value of 40s. And the Sheriff was ordered to produce the defendants, and the presentments were devolved to be heard before the King in person, coram ipso Rege, and the process was continued against them up to this day, viz., three weeks from Easter. 19 E. II., on which day Henry del Ile, John de la Launde and Adam Basset appeared by attorney and John le Blount and Roger de Bodenham appeared in person; and being questioned on the subject denied they had taken anything to their own use or profit, and on this put themselves on the country, and a jury was summoned coram Rege for the morrow of the Ascension. A postscript states that on that day a jury appeared and stated on oath that none of the defendants had taken any forfeited goods or chattels to their own profit nor were guilty of any of the other trespasses laid against them. They are therefore acquitted of the same. m. 23, Rex.

Staff. A jury had presented elsewhere before J. de Stonore and his Fellow Justices that William de Mountagu in the month of March, 15 E. II., had taken at Tuttebury of the goods of the Earl of Lancaster, two silver candelabra which should have been forfeited to the King, and he had also taken four silver dishes worth 4 marks, three spittoons (platas pro spuera), worth 40s., a gilt cup with a cover worth £21 and another cup of silver worth £14, and a cup and two pecias of silver worth 2 marks, and the said William took of the same forfeited chattels a scarlet Wynd-pannum (Portière) worth 100s. Also a jury of co. Wygorn presented that William son of William de Mountagu had taken in the Manor of Benteley of the goods of Emeric Pauncefot the King's enemy three cart-horses each worth 10s., an ox worth 4s. and meat in the larder worth 19s. 4d., and a cart worth 6s. 8d., and the said presentments were now devolved to be heard coram Rege, and the process being continued against the said William up to this day, the said William de Mountagu appeared in person and being questioned respecting them, stated that the King had ordained that those who were in his service pursuing the rebels, should not be molested for the possession of any of the goods of the rebels, and he produced the King's writ to that effect dated from Kenylworth, 15 April, 19 E. II., m. 9, dorso, Rex.

Derb. The Sheriff had been ordered to distrain Nicholas de Craunford, John son of Henry de Derleye, Roger de Okovere, Richard de Pountfreit lately Constable of the Castle of Tutteburi, Ralph de Cressy, Richard de Grey, Robert de Henovere and five others, and to arrest Robert de Holande, William de Bredon, Baldwin de Richemund, Knight, Richard Sire de Holand, Nicholas Trymenel, Knight, William de Wolvardescote, Knight, John de Welles, Knight, John de Hastang of co. Stafford, John de Chetwynd, Knight, William de Ros, John de Somery, William de Monte Gomeri, Fulk de Penbrigge, Walter de Huggeford, Richard de Hastang, John de Dene, Knight, Roger Herny, William le Champioun, Thomas le Wolf, Henry Coly, John de Roggeley, William de Charles (Charnes) and Reginald his brother, John Hardyng, William son of Hugh Shirard, Hugh Shirard, Vivian de Tunstall, and forty-four others named, to answer to the King for certain goods and chattels of the King's enemies and rebels, which had been forfeited in the said county, and had been in their possession (per ipsos occupatis) and of which they had been indicted according to the tenor of certain indictments made before John de Stonore and his Fellow Justices, and none of the defendants appeared but the Sheriff returned certain sums which he had levied from the goods of those he had distrained. He was therefore ordered as before to distrain those who had found bail, and to arrest the others, and produce them at the Octaves of Michaelmas. m. 8, dorso, Rex. (fn. 1)

Pleas of the Crown at Tamworth, before John de Stonore and John de Denum, Justices of the Lord the King, assigned to enquire into illicit assemblies, homicides, depredations, burnings, and other damages, and to hear and determine the same, on the Monday before the Feast of St. Gregory the Pope, 19 E. II. (March, 1326.)

The King sent to Geoffrey le Scrop, John de Stonore and John de Denum a commission to enquire into illegal assemblies, and other felonies, etc., in these words. (Here follows the special commission, dated from Leycestre 1st March, 19 E. II.)

Staff. In virtue of which commission, the Sheriff was commanded to summon before the above Justices or any two of them, from each Hundred or Borough of co. Stafford 24 Knights and others.

The jury of the Borough of Lichefeld (fn. 2) presented that Roger Moriz of Lichefeld, about the Feast of St. Nicholas, 17 E. II., had feloniously killed Richard Valeis of Lichefeld at Lichefeld, and that Hugh de Sheyle about the Feast of St. Barnabas, 18 E. II., had feloniously killed Simon Pite of Lichefeld, Taillour, at Lichefeld and that Roger son of Roger de Swynnerton about the Feast of St. Peter and Paul, 18 E. II., had feloniously killed William le Wolf of Herlaston at Hopewas, and that John de Boulewas and others unknown had abused John de Couleye at Cowleye because he was of the maintenance of one William de Ipstanes, and had feloniously killed him.

And that John the brother of James de Stafford, and William his brother about the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincula, 19 E. II., had beaten and wounded John de Picheford who was with William de Ipstanes, so that on the sixth day afterwards he died. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to arrest them and produce them before the Justices at Tamworth on the Thursday after the Feast of St. Gregory. And the same jury stated that a certain dispute had arisen in co. Stafford between Thomas de Brumpton on one part and William de Ipstanes on the other respecting the Church of Eyton. And that each of them had collected a multitude of armed men to maintain his part, and, that the said Thomas de Brumpton had collected William de Stafford, Knight, James de Stafford and John his brother, James son of Roger Trumwyne, and Roger his brother, Roger de Chetwynde, John son of John Bozoun of Edeneshovere in Peeke and John de Boulewas, and many others to the number of nearly 80 armed men of whose names they are ignorant, and they rode armed about the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincula, 19 E. II., at Stafford, and Eyton and other places in the county to the terror of the people and to the disturbance of the King's peace in order to maintain the part of the said Thomas de Brumpton; and that the said William de Ipstanes, on his part had collected and maintained John de Ipstanes, Knight, William de Chetelton, Henry de Cressewalle, John de Couleye, and John de Picheford and many others to the number of about 40 men on foot and on horseback, who rode armed at Stafford and Eyton about the Feast of St. Lawrence, 18 E. II., to the terror of the people, etc., and that William le Valeis of Lichefeld is a common malefactor and beater of men in the vill and market of Lichefeld and had beaten Isolda (Isoult) the wife of William le Blount of Lichefeld at Lichefeld about the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, and many others at various times. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to arrest them, etc., as before.

The jury of Tamworth stated on oath, that Roger de Swynnerton, the son of Roger de Swynnerton had feloniously killed William le Wolf, the King's forester at Hopewas about the Feast of St. Peter and Paul, 18 E. II., and that Thomas de Haulton (Haughton), Knight, had sent him to commit the said felony, and that Geoffrey de Bolunhull on the Wednesday before the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, 18 E. II., had feloniously killed Geoffrey de Bollunhull his brother at Bollunhull, and that William son of Geoffrey del Hulle on the Monday after the Feast of the Assumption, 12 E. II., had feloniously killed Nicholas de Picheford at Tamworth. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to arrest them, etc. (as before). m. 1.

And Robert de Knytheley, John de Morton, John de Otherton, Henry de Wolaston, Roger de Levedale, Roger de Aston, John Bagot, Ralph de Grendon, John de Okovere, Robert Bythewater, and Henry Iwenel, jurors, of the Hundreds of Cutheleston and Pirhull, say on their oath that Richard le Rede, of Boulewas, William son of William de Caynton, Henry de Sogeden and Richard son of Robert de Onylegh, about Easter, 18 E. II., had feloniously killed John de Coueleye at Coueleye, and that William son of Robert de Hatton, and another had feloniously killed Roger de Hatton at Hatton, on the Sunday after the Epiphany, 19 E. II. And that William son of William Champioun of Little Sardon, William son of Adam Henry of Stratton (Stretton) Roger de Stretton, and another about the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, 18 E. II., had feloniously killed Robert son of William de Draicote of Stretton at Stretton. The Sheriff was therefore commanded to arrest them, etc. (as before).

And the same jurors said that about the Feast of Trinity, 17 E. II., a dispute arose between Thomas de Brumpton on one part and William de Ipstanes on the other concerning the Church of Chirche-Eyton, to which church the said Thomas had been instituted, and he held it until the said William de Ipstanes and John de Ipstanes his brother, Henry de Cressewalle, Philip de Ipstanes, Philip son of Vivian de Chetewynde, William de Chetelton, John de Picheford, Thomas de Rudeyerd, Thomas of the Greneway, Stephen de Beghterton, John de Coueleye, Roger Priour of Couleye and seven others named, had on the day and year above named ejected him by force, and they had all with the exception of William de Ipstanes, Henry de Cressewalle, William de Chetelton, and Thomas of the Greneway, besieged the manor house of Mary de Brumpton at Eyton with swords, bows and arrows, against the King's peace, and to the great terror of the people. And that the said William de Ipstanes and his companions had maintained themselves in the said church until about the Nativity of St. John, the Baptist, 17 E. II., when the said Thomas de Brumpton, John son of William de Stafford, junior, Walter and William brothers of the said John, Roger son of Roger de Trumwyne, Roger de Chetewynd, John de Boulewas, Henry de Sogenhull, William Trumwyne of Cankbury, Thomas de Aston, near Stone, and Robert his son, John le Hore of Frodewall, Richard de Aston, near Stone, Robert de Beaumeis, Robert de Greseleie and Roger his brother, John son of John de Perton, and 21 others named, with the maintenance, council, and help of Sir William de Stafford, Knight, and of Roger Trumwyne, Knight, had come armed with men, both foot and horse, and had ejected the said William de Ipstanes from the said church against the King's peace, etc.

And that on the Thursday before the Feast of St. Cedde, 19 E. II., after the return of the said John de Ipstanes from Gascony on the day that the County Court was held at Stafford and in full County, the said John de Ipstanes, Knight, came with Thomas Wither, Knight, Nicholas de Longeford, Knight, Edmund de Appelby, Knight, Philip de Barynton, Knight, Thomas de Barynton, Knight, Hugh son of Hugh de Meynil, Knight (miles), William de Chetelton, Henry de Cressewalle and Thomas his brother, (fn. 3) John de Bradburn, Richard and William his brothers, Ralph de Stafford, Richard de Hastang, and Humphrey his brother, Geoffrey Biroun, Thomas of the Greneway, Philip son of Vivian de Chetewynde, Philip of the Lee, and Richard his brother, Richard Shirard, and William his son, William de Chetelton of Draycote, Thomas de Rudeyerd and John his brother, William Wyther, and Theobald de Barynton, armed to the great terror of the people, and they had in the same way congregated together in many other places, against the King's peace, etc. And at the next County Court of Staffordshire held at Stafford about the Feast of Pentecost, 18 E. II., there came John Priour of Stafford, Chaplain, Philip de Lutteley, Ralph de Stafford, and Richard his brother, William de Chetelton, Henry de Cressewalle, John Domville, Richard de Hastang and Umfrey his brother, William Blaunchard, John son of Thomas de Stafford, William de Chetelton of Draicote, and Philip his brother, Roger de Pipe of Lichefeld, and five others named, armed against the King's peace, with horse and foot, and in the same way at many other places in the said County at the maintenance of Thomas de Pipe, to the great terror of the people, etc. The Sheriff was therefore commanded to summon them to be before the said Justices at Lichefeld on the Friday after the Feast of St. Gregory, etc.

And Thomas le Rous, Robert Mauveysyn, Hugh de Aston, William de Derlaston, Philip de Aust, Richard de Calengwode, Robert de Gresbrok, William de Stretton, Henry de Morf, Ralph de Eynefeld (Enville), William de le Horewode, and John de Mollesleye of the Hundreds of Offelowe and Seysdon, jurors, said upon oath that Henry le Parker of Bretteby had feloniously killed at Burton-upon-Trent, John Jons of Cateby, junior, on the Thursday, the Feast of the Ascension, 16 E. II. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to arrest him, etc. (as before). m. 1, dorso.

The jury of the vill of Stafford stated that William de Ipstanes, Clerk, John de Ipstanes, Edmund de Appelby, Nicholas de Longford, Thomas de Barynton, Thomas Wither, Hugh de Meignil, junior, William de Chetelton, Henry de Cresswalle, Geoffrey Biroun, Thomas de Greneway, Philip son of Vivian de Chetewynde, Ralph de Stafford, William de Hastang, Humfrey de Hastang, Philip de Barynton, Knight, William Shirard, and Richard his brother, Thomas de Rudyerd, Geoffrey de Leeye, Clerk, Philip de Ipstanes, John Priour, Chaplain, Nicholas son of Henry de Preston, Theobald de Barynton, Thomas de Cresswalle, John de Staundon, Robert de Pipe, of Rideware, Robert de Prayers, William Blaunchard, Richard Hastang, William le Champion, John son of Thomas de Stafford, Roger de Pipe of Lichefeld, John de Salt, Richard son of Richard de Burton, and William his brother, Robert de Slyndon, John de Slyndon, and three others named, had come several times armed to Stafford and elsewhere and had ridden armed about the country, day and night, to the terror of the people, and that Thomas de Pipe, and Margaret his wife were of the maintenance of the said William de Ipstanes, and others, and that Thomas de Brumpton, John de Stafford, Walter and William brothers of the said John, John de Boulewas, James Trumwyne, Roger his brother, Roger de Chetewynde, David de Pywlesdon (Puleston), John Bozoun, Roger de Greseleie, Robert Beaumeis, Richard de Venables, Richard de Aston, Robert de Aston, Thomas de Aston, Ralph Chopcock, John de Verdoun, Robert de Hanchirche, Hugh son of Hugh de Wasteneys, Pagan de Wasteneys and others named, had held the Church of Eyton by the maintenance of William de Stafford, Knight, and of Isabella, Lady of Ingestre, and had ridden armed about the country to the great terror of the people, and that Henry de Cresswalle, is a common malefactor and beater of men, "verberator hominum," and that he had beaten and wounded Walter de Pykstok, and William de Aston at Stafford, about the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, 17 E. II., and had beaten many others at various times, and that John de Salt of Cressewalle, William son of Richard de Burton and Richard his brother, Robert de Madeleye, John son of Henry de Heywode and William Gasthare are common malefactors and disturbers of the peace, and they had beaten and wounded Nicholas le Barbour, the Bailiff of the vill of Stafford, about the Feast of St. Matthew, 19 E. II. And the said Henry de Cressewall extorted from Richard de Wenlok, 12 marks not to beat him, and he had done the same with others. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to summon them to be before the Justices at Lichfelde on the Friday after the Feast of St. Gregory the Pope. m. 2.

Pleas at Tamworth before John de Stonore and John de Denum, Justices assigned to enquire, etc., into illegal assemblies, homicides, etc., and to hear and determine the same at Tamworth on the Thursday after the Feast of St. Gregory the Pope, 19 E. II.

Staff. The Sheriff had been ordered to arrest Roger Moriz of Lichefeld, Hugh de Sheyle, Roger son of Roger de Swynnerton, Thomas de Haulton, Knight, John de Boulewas, John brother of James de Stafford, and William his brother, and others, to answer for divers homicides, etc., and he returned they could not be found. He was therefore ordered to put them into the exigend and if they did not appear to outlaw them, etc. A postscript states that afterwards on the Tuesday before the Feast of St. Cudbert in March, the said Thomas de Halughton surrendered, and that Roger de Swynnerton, Walter de Hugeford, William de Ercalwe, Thomas le Rous, Vivian de Verdon, John Giffart, Philip de Somerville, William de Wolseleye, Roger de Aston, Richard de Blithefeld, Robert le Mareschal, and Vivian de Chetewynde appeared and became sureties to produce him before the Justices on the Friday before the Feast of St. Margaret. The writ of exigend against him was therefore superseded.

Staff. The Sheriff had been commanded to summon before the said Justices, or any two of them, Thomas de Brumpton, William de Stafford, Knight, James de Stafford, and John his brother, James son of Roger Trumwyne and Roger his brother, Roger de Chetewynde, John son of John Bozoun of Edeneshovere (Edensor) in Peak, William de Ipstanes, John de Ipstanes, Knight, William de Chetelton, Henry de Cresswalle, John de Couleye, John de Picheford, and William le Valeis of Lichefeld to answer for various transgressions of which they had been indicted, and John de Ipstanes and Henry de Cresswalle appeared, but no others, and the Sheriff returned that James de Stafford and Richard Wolrich were bail for William de Stafford, Knight; and that William de Pipe and John Put were bail for John the brother of the said James; and Walter de Stafford and Thomas his brother were bail for James de Stafford; and Richard de Canok and Robert de Canok were bail for Roger the brother of James son of Roger de Trumwyne; and Adam Polessone and Hugh Shyne, were bail for William de Chetelton; and Symon Rigge and Enfrand Vigour were bail for William de Ipstanes; and as they did not appear the said manucaptors were in misericordiâAnd the Sheriff was ordered to distrain the said William de Stafford, Knight James de Stafford, John his brother, James son of Roger Trumwyne, William de Chetelton, and William de Ipstanes, and to produce them at Lichefeld on the Friday after the Feast of St. Gregory the Pope; and respecting the said John de Coueleye and John de Picheford the Sheriff returned that they were dead, and respecting the said Thomas de Brumpton and the others named above, the Sheriff returned they held nothing within his bailiwick, and he was therefore ordered to arrest them and produce them at Lichefeld on the same day.

And the said John de Ipstanes, Knight, and Henry de Cresswalle appeared, and being questioned by the Justices did not deny that they had ridden armed at various times, as stated in the indictment against them, and they put themselves on the King's grace, and because riding about armed, to the terror of the people, with a multitude of armed men in concert, in public places, is manifestly in contempt of the King and against the King's peace, it is considered that the said John de Ipstanes and Henry de Craswalle should be committed prisoners to the custody of the Sheriff. m. 2, dorso.

Pleas of the Crown before John de Stonore and John de Denum, Justices assigned, etc., (as before) at Lichefeld on the Friday after the Feast of St. Gregory the Pope, 19 E. II.

In these Pleas the same process was followed as in the case of the other indictments. Where a writ of capias had been issued, as in the case of those indicted for felony, and the Sheriff returned "non sunt inventi," he was ordered to put them into the exigend, and if they failed to appear, to outlaw them. In those cases where a distringas had been issued, and the Sheriff returned "quod nihil habent in ballivâ suâ," he was ordered to arrest them, and produce them at a later date. If they held property in the County, the Sheriff returned a certain sum as issues of a distress, and was ordered to distrain again and produce them at the same date as the others.

William de Stafford, Knight, and James de Stafford appeared and being questioned by the Justices separately, the said William stated that he had not ridden armed to the terror of the people, and as regarded the rest of the indictment against him, he admitted that he had maintained the cause of Thomas de Brompton, his kinsman, and had assisted him as much as he could in the matter of the Church of Eyton, and he put himself on the King's grace. And the said James could not deny that he rode armed and was of the maintenance of Thomas de Brumpton, his kinsman, in his contest for the Church of Eyton, but not in contempt of the King nor to the terror of the people, and he put himself on the King's grace. They were therefore ordered to be in attendance de die in diem. m. 3.

Philip son of Vivian de Chetewynde, Thomas Wyther, Knight, Hugh son of Hugh de Meignill, Philip de Ipstanes, Robert le Prayers, Thomas de Craswalle, Richard de Venables, William Wyther, and Philip de Lutteleye appeared, and being questioned separately by the Justices, Philip son of Vivian admitted he rode armed at Stafford and Eyton several times with others taking the part of William de Ipstanes and to maintain him in the Church of Eyton, but he denied he had done so to the terror of the people or against the King's peace as he then understood it, "ut tunc intellexit," and he put himself on the King's grace.

And the said Thomas Wyther stated that William de Ippestanes who had been presented to the Church of Eyton was his kinsman, and after John de Ipstanes his brother returned to England from Gascony, he had ridden armed in company with the said John to maintain the cause of the said William, but not to the terror of the people, and he put himself on the King's grace.

And Hugh son of Hugh de Meignill admitted that after his return from Gascony he had ridden armed in company with the said Thomas Wyther and others, but not to the terror of the people, and he put himself on the King's grace.

And Philip de Ipstanes admitted that he had ridden armed to maintain the cause of his kinsman, William de Ippestanes, but not, etc., as before, and he put himself on the King's grace, and Robert de Prayers admitted the same and put himself on the King's grace.

And Thomas de Creswall stated he frequently rode in company of Henry de Creswall his brother and others at Eyton, and he put himself on the King's grace.

And Richard de Venables admitted he rode armed as stated, in order to maintain Thomas de Brumpton in the Church of Eyton, but not in contempt of the King, etc., and he put himself on the King's grace.

And William Wyther admitted that after the return of Thomas Wyther his brother from Gascony, he rode armed in company of the said Thomas, but for his own safety, and not in contempt of the King, etc., and he put himself on the King's grace.

And Philip de Lutteley denied he had ridden armed with the others, but admitted he had given counsel, and had favoured the said William de Ipstanes in his undertaking (in prisâ suâ), but not in contempt of the King, and he put himself on the King's grace.

And the said Roger Trumwyne, Knight, Philip de Barynton, Knight, and John de Verdon, appeared, and being separately questioned by the Justices, the said Roger Trumwyne denied he had ridden armed to the contempt of the King, or was present on the occasion named in the indictment against him, but admitted he was of the maintenance of those who had done so, viz., of James and Roger his sons, and he put himself on the King's grace, and Philip de Barynton stated he had not borne arms for the last six years, but admitted he had assisted to maintain the cause of the said William de Ipstanes by his advice, favor, and help, and he put himself on the King's grace. They are therefore to await the judgment of the Court ("expectentur inde judicium suum").

And the said John de Verdoun denied he had ridden armed against the Church of Eyton, or had lent any favor or assistance to either party and he appealed to a jury; and a jury elected "ad hoc," stated on oath that the said John was never of the maintenance of either party, nor had given any favor or assistance to either side. He was therefore acquitted. m. 3, dorso.

And the said Henry de Cressewalle being brought before the Court by the Sheriff and questioned by the Justices as to how he proposed to acquit himself of the indictment laid against him, that he was a common malefactor and beater of men, and had wounded Walter de Pikstok and William de Aston at Stafford on the date named, etc., stated he could not deny that he had beaten and wounded the said Walter and William as above stated, and he admitted he had taken from Richard de Wenlok 12 marks not to beat him, and he put himself on the King's grace. He was therefore remitted to prison in the custody of the Sheriff. m. 4.

Pleas of the Crown, etc. (as before), on the Saturday after the Feast of St. Gregory, 19 E. II.

At the above date Geoffrey de Leye, Clerk, Thomas de Aston near Stone, John de Hondford, John son of John de Perton, appeared and likewise Nicholas de Longford, Knight, Ralph de Stafford, Umfrey de Hastang, William Shirard, Richard his brother, Thomas de Rideyert, John de Staundon. John de Slyndon, David de Pywelesdon, William Trumwyne of Canekbury, John le Vernay of Uttokeshather, John atte Brok the groom of William Trumwyne, John Alret of Wyrleye and Roger the brother of James son of Roger Trumwyne, and being questioned separately, the said Nicholas de Longford, Ralph de Stafford, Umfrey de Hastang, William Shirard, Richard his brother, Thomas de Rudeyert, John de Staundon, and John de Slyndon, admitted they rode armed to maintain the cause of William de Ipstanes, but denied they had done so in contempt of the King or to the terror of the people, and they put themselves on the King's grace. And the said William Trumwyne, Roger the brother of James son of Roger Trumwyne, John de Hondford, David de Pywelesdon, John atte Brok, John Alret, John son of John de Perton, and Thomas de Aston, being questioned by the Justices, stated they could not deny they had ridden armed at various times to maintain the cause of Thomas de Brumpton, the kinsman of William de Stafford, Knight, in his undertaking, but denied they had done so to the contempt of the King or to the terror of the people, and they put themselves on the King's grace. They are therefore to await the judgment of the Court.

And John le Vernay of Uttokeshather denied he had ridden armed at Eyton, or had abetted either party and appealed to a jury which found in his favor. He was therefore acquitted. m. 4, dorso.

Pleas of the Crown, etc. (as before), at Lichfield on the Monday after the Feast of St. Gregory, 19 E. II.

At this sitting of the Court the Sheriff was ordered to further distrain those who had found bail, and to apprehend the others who had not appeared, and produce them before the Justices at Tamworth on the Friday before the Feast of St. Margaret. m. 5.

Edmund de Appelby, Walter de Stafford, John Priour, Chaplain, William Gastehard, William Gos, Alexander le Bercher of Levedale, Robert Beumeys, Robert de Hanchirch, Richard de Aston near Stone, Robert de Aston, John de Salt of Cressewalle, Robert le Prestessone, Hugh son of Hugh de Wasteneys, Pagan le Wasteneys, John Scol, Stephen de Beghterton, John le Mercer with one eye, John son of John Bozoun of Edeneshovere, Peter le Barbour of Newport, Roger Priour of Couleye, Philip brother of William de Chetelton of Draicot, James son of Roger Trumwyne, Roger de Chetewynde, and five others named in the same indictment, appeared, and likewise Robert de Pipe, William Blaunchard, Adam le Breuster, Isabella, Lady of Ingestre, John le Hore of Frodeswalle, Richard le Neveu of Hopton, Philip of the Lee, Richard his brother, William de Chetelton of Draicote, and Richard the brother of Ralph de Stafford appeared, and with the exception of Isabella the Lady of Ingestre, being questioned singly by the Justices, admitted they had ridden armed at Stafford and Eyton and elsewhere, to maintain the cause of their friends, etc., but denied they had done so to the contempt of the King or to the terror of the people. And they put themselves on the King's grace. They were therefore ordered to await the judgment of the Court, de die in diem. m. 5.

And the said Isabella, Lady of Ingestre, being questioned by the Justices as to how she wished to acquit herself of the indictment laid against her, that she was of the maintenance, and had given aid and counsel to Thomas de Brumpton and the others who had ridden armed at Stafford and elsewhere to the terror of the people, etc., stated she could not deny that she had maintained the said Thomas, her kinsman, in his undertaking, and had given aid and counsel to him; and she put herself on the King's grace. And upon this the King sent his close writ to the Justices in these words:—Here follows the King's writ dated from Lichfield, 19 March, 19 E. II., directing the Justices to admit to bail all those who had put themselves on his grace, on condition they found sufficient sureties to present themselves coram Rege on the Monday after he Octaves of Trinity.

In virtue of which writ the said William de Stafford, Knight, and the others who had put themselves on the King's grace appeared and were admitted to bail as under, viz.:—Thomas le Rous, John de Hynkeleye, Ralph de Grendon, John de Benteleye, Roger de Aston, Hugh de Aston, Roger de Webbeleye, and Simon de Ruggeleie, were sureties for William de Stafford, Knight, Roger Trumwyne, Knight, James de Stafford, and Richard de Venables.

Walter de Beauchaump, William Crykecoft, Ralph le Botiller, William de Freford, John de Perton, and Robert de Bek were sureties for Thomas Wither, Knight, Hugh son of Hugh de Meignil, Knight, William Wither, Philip de Chetewynd, and Philip de Ipstanes.

Robert de Bek, Philip de Somerville, Vivian de Verdon, William Griffyn, William de Chetewynde, and Richard de Falde were sureties for Robert le Preiers, Thomas de Cressewalle, Philip de Barynton, and Philip de Lutteleye.

And John de Hynkeleye, William Trussebut, Robert le Mareschal, Vivian de Verdon, John de Benteleye, Robert Bithewater, and Ralph de Grendon were sureties for William Trumwyne, John atte Brok, John Alred, John son of John de Perton, David de Pywlesdon, and Thomas de Aston. And Ralph de Grendon, Robert by the Water, Vivian de Verdon, and William Gryffyn were sureties for William Shirard and Richard his brother.

And John de Hynkele, William de Chetewynde, Vivian de Verdon, and William Trussebut were sureties for Roger the brother of James Trumwyne, and for John de Hondford.

And Roger Suel, Henry atte Yate, Robert Boner, and Nicholas de Weld were sureties for John de Slyndon.

And Vivian de Chetewynd, Adam de Beresford, William Trussebut, and William Moycok were sureties for Thomas de Rudyerd and Geoffrey de Leye, Clerk.

And Thomas le Rous, Philip de Somerville, Ralph le Botiller, and Robert de Bek were sureties for Nicholas de Longeford, Knight; and Roger de Swynnerton, Philip de Somerville, Ralph le Botiller, Thomas le Rous, and Robert de Bek were sureties for Ralph de Stafford and Umfrey de Hastang.

And Vivian de Verdon, William de Chetewynd, William Gryffyn, and Richard de Boure were sureties for John de Staundon.

And Philip de Chetewynd, Ralph de Grendon, John Bagot, Robert Bithewater, William Trussebut, Robert de Gressebrok, Adam de Beresford, and Richard de Faled were sureties for Isabella, the Lady of Ingestre, and for Roger de Chetewynd.

And Adam de Mordon, Henry de Wyvereston, John de Benteleye, William de Walton, Henry le Lady, and Ralph de Thikebrom were sureties for Richard de Stafford, Robert de Pipe, Adam le Breuster, and Alexander le Bercher.

And William Trussebut, John de Draicote, Adam de Beresford, Henry Godmon, and Thomas de Wotton were sureties for William de Chetilton and Philip his brother, and for Philip de Lee and Richard his brother.

And Henry Huynet, Richard del Boure, Ralph Tolous, William Knysmyt, John de Rothewall, and Stephen de Salt were sureties for John Fox, William Gasthare, and William le Goos.

And William de Erkalwe, Thomas le Rous, John de Benteleye, and John de Perton were sureties for Edmund de Appelby and William Blaunchard.

And William Trussebut, Ralph de Grendon, John de Okoure, Robert Bithewater, William de Walton, Robert de Gressebrok, John de Wyrleie, Hugh de Aston, John del Diche, Adam de Beresford, William de Stafford, junior, John de Benteleye, Richard Godmon, John de Draicote, and John de Verdoun were sureties for James son of Roger Trumwyne, Robert Beaumeis, Pagan le Wasteneys, Ralph son of Ithel le Warner, John le Hore, Hugh son of Hugh le Wasteneis, Robert le Prestesson, Thomas le Breustere, William Jouet, Richard de Aston near Stone, Robert de Aston near Stone, and John Stel.

And John de Heteleie sic (Hinkeleie ?) and Robert Bek were sureties for John Priour.

And Vivian de Chetewynde, Adam de Beresford, and William Morcok, were sureties for Peter le Barbour, Stephen de Beghtirton, John le Mercer with one eye, and Roger Priour.

And Robert de Bek and Henry atte Yate were sureties for Richard le Neveu of Hopton.

And William Griffyn, Ralph de Grendon, John de Okoure, and Robert Bithewater were sureties for Peter Welot of Weston.

And John Dymmok, Ralph de Grendon, Hugh de Aston, Richard de Blithefeld, Vivian de Verdon, and John de Okoure were bail for John Bozoun, Walter de Stafford, and Robert de Hanchirch.

And Robert de Bek and William de Wolsleie were sureties for John de Salt.

Afterwards on the Sunday the Feast of the Holy Trinity, 19 E. II., the King sent a close writ to the same Justices proroguing the further hearing of the cause till the Monday, the Octaves of St. Michael, dated from Hayles, 1st May, 19 E. II.

Footnotes

1 There is no further notice of these prosecutions on account of the possession of forfeited goods of the Earl of Lancaster and others on the Roll of Michaelmas, 20 E. II., probably owing to the troubles and difficulties in which the King had involved himself, and which resulted in his deposition very shortly afterwards.
2 (The names of all the jurors are given in the original Roll.)
3 The ancestor of the Cresswells of Tettenhall.
4 At Lichfield on the Saturday after the Feast of St. Gregory.