Plea Rolls for Staffordshire
Gaol Delivery, 21 Edward I

Sponsor

Institute of Historical Research

Publication

Author

Major-General Hon. G. Wrottesley (editor)

Year published

1885

Pages

279-289

Citation Show another format:

'Plea Rolls for Staffordshire: Gaol Delivery, 21 Edward I', Staffordshire Historical Collections, vol. 6 part 1 (1885), pp. 279-289. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=52443 Date accessed: 23 October 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Gaol Delivery of the County of Stafford.

Extracts.

Henry Gerveys, taken for a robbery at the house of Roger de Burgton (Broughton), William le Trippere of Ecleshall, taken for a burglary and many larcenies, and Robert son of William son of William de Wyttemore, taken for a burglary at the grange of Roger de Bureton in Cherleton, were put on their trial. Henry appealed to a jury, and the jury of the Hundred together with the four nearest vills say he is not guilty, and William le Tippere (sic) and Robert son of William son of William refused to put themselves on the country. They are therefore remitted to prison to undergo the punishment of the Statute (habeant penam statuti). (fn. 1) m. 30.

Bertram son of Richard de Marnham taken for the death of Nicholas son of Richard de Marnham, on being put on his trial stated he was a Clericus; and upon this Walter de Elmedone, Rector of the Church of Weston, on the part of Roger Bishop of Coventry and Lichefeld, came and claimed him as a Clerk; and in order that the status might be known in which he should be delivered up, (fn. 2) the truth is to be determined by the country; and the jury of the Hundred of Offelowe, together with the nearest vills, said that Nicholas son of Richard de Marnham and Bertram son of Richard were sitting and drinking together with others at the house of Agnes the weaver (textrix) of Bromwych in Bromwych in the dusk of the evening, and contumelious words were used between them, and the said Bertram, who was the younger and humble (junior et humilis), out of respect for the said Nicholas, got up and left the house of Agnes in order to avoid the malice of the said Nicholas, who was valde maliciosus; and Nicholas being irritated at this, got up and followed him with a long knife drawn in his hand, and Bertram ran away between two high hedges as far as the door of the said Richard de Marnham in that vill; (fn. 3) and the door was closed so that he could not enter the house, nor could he climb over the hedges because of their height, and he could not evade Nicholas except by defending himself. In self defence he struck Nicholas with his sword on the head and in the breast. He is therefore to be given up to the Bishop as not guilty. The King afterwards sent for the record. m. 31, dorso.

William de la More taken for the death of Robert brother of Henry de Gaulegh, whom he trampled under the feet of his horse, which the said William concealed in the vill of la More (quem conculcavit pedibus equi sui, quem idem Willielmus asconderat in villâ de la More), and likewise for the death of Henry de la Hull of Levedale, whom he struck with his foot on the breast so that he died on the following day; likewise for the death of Reginald son of Osborn Aleyn of Wyrleye, and likewise for the robbery of a black ox of Henry "ad capud villæ" of Pencriz, which he caused to be killed and secretly carried to his larder; being asked how he wished to acquit himself (requisitus qualiter se velit acquietare), denied the death of the men and the robbery, and put himself on the country (i.e., appealed to a jury). And Adam de Brumpton, Stephen de Wolaston, John de Herunville, Henry de Crassewelle, Henry Mauveysin, Richard de Draycote, Thomas de Tythenesovere, Robert de Hugeford, Richard de Blythefeld, Simon de Brysenhull, Geoffrey de Blyston (Bilston), and William de Wytynton, jurors, say on their oath that the said William is guilty. Ideo, etc. (fn. 4) His chattels are worth £68 6s. 11¼d., excepting the chattels which were of the dower of his wife in this county, and in co. Salop, for which Robert de Halghton, Thomas Corbet, William son of William Bagod, Ralph de Dokeseye, Ralph de Wasteneys, Richard de Couleye, and John de Say, answer, viz., for one-half on the Quindene of Easter, and for another half on the morrow of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist following. Also chattels of the value of £13 11s. 4¼d., for which Henry de Emkerdon, Robert de Horselega, William de Chatkulne, Richard de Couley, William de Cotes, Clericus, Robert de Cotes, William de Coulegh, and John de Colewych answer for the same terms. He also held ten acres of land in Stratton (Stretton), of which the year and waste is worth 10s.; and Richard son of Hervey (de Stretton) the capital lord came and made fine of 20s. for the said year and waste, for which Robert de Knythelegh is his surety. The said William also held a croft in Pylatenhale, of which the year and waste is worth 10s.; and Walter de Elmedon the capital lord made fine of 1 mark for the same, for which Alan de la More is his surety. He also held two acres of land in Badenhale, of which the year and waste is worth 2s., and for which William de Badenhale the capital lord made a fine of 4s. He also held forty acres of land and four acres of meadow at la More, besides the land which the King had recovered against him, and of which the year and waste is worth 7s. 4d.; and Hugh le Blund the capital lord of the said tenant, excepting fifteen acres, made fine of 5 marks for the same; and the Canons of Pencriz made fine of 20s. for the said fifteen acres, for which Hugh le Blund is their surety. m. 33.

William de Mere taken for the reception (receptamento) of John de Bernes, a robber who had been beheaded, and for being accessory to the robberies committed by Stephen de Bagenholt, being asked, etc., put himself on the country. And Thomas Corbet, of Tasselegh, John Giffard, of Chylynton, William Trumwyne, Robert de Pype, John de Wasteneys, Henry Mauveysin, Henry de Crasswelle, John de Tresel, William de Wrottesle, John de Herunville, Henry le Keu, and William de Alrewich, jurors, (fn. 5) say on their oath that he is not guilty. (Ideo inde quietus.) m. 33.

William de Bagenholt, brother of Stephen de Bagenholt, taken for the reception of Thomas Hardheved and of Geoffrey de la Linde, robbers, who had been beheaded, and for being an accessory to their robberies, on being asked, etc., stated he was a Clericus. And John the Prior of Stanes acting for Roger the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, came and claimed him as a Clerk; but that it might be known in what status he should be given up, let the truth of the matter be inquired into by the country (i.e., by a jury). And William de Richre, Robert de Hasteng, Robert de Staundone, Roger de Piulesdone, Roger de Swynnertone, John Giffard of Chilingtone, William Trumpwine, John de Tresel, William de Wrottesle, John de Wastneis, Robert de Pipe, and Henry le Keu, jurors, say on their oath that William is not guilty. He is therefore to be given up as such to the Bishop. m. 33.

Henry le Barbur of Newcastle, William Coly, and Richard de Lavedene Canon of Trentham, Roger de Bagenholt, and two others, were put upon their trial for harbouring the same robbers and of being accessory to their robberies. But the juries found they were not guilty. m. 33.

Henry le Barbur of Newcastle, taken for the death of Richard of the Brokhurst, a robber whom he had beheaded, because after the said Richard had been apprehended he had accused certain relations of the said Henry, being asked, etc., put himself on the country; and Thomas Corbet of Tassele, Henry de Creswelle, Henry Mauveysin, Henry le Keu of Hamburi, William de Alrewych, William de Wrottesle, John de Wasteneys, Adam de Brumptom, Robert de Knittele, John de Herunville, and John de Doyly, jurors, say on their oath that Henry is not guilty. (fn. 6) m. 33, dorso.

Robert de Pipe, William Wyther, Richard de Barton, Geoffrey de Stretton, Henry de Alrewas, Thomas de Atteleberge, Robert de Meleborne, Henry le Fleccher, Richard de Blithefelde, Roger de Aston, Henry de Verdun, and Robert le Blund, are sureties for Geoffrey de Greseleye to stand to his trial for harbouring (de receptamento) Robert and William sons of Geoffrey de Greseleye. m. 33, dorso.

Agnes formerly wife of Richard de Draycote, taken for the death of Richard her husband, being asked, etc., put herself upon the country. And the jury of the Hundred of Pyrhull, excepting John de Oyli, John de Wasteneys, and Henry de Hextall, and together with Robert de Hugeford, Henry de Enkerdon, and William le Pyus (fn. 7) say on their oath that the said Agnes is not guilty. m. 33, dorso.

Robert de Standon, Roger de Swynnerton, William son of Robert de Cavereswelle, John Coyne of Weston, William de Pus, Stephen de Wylaston, Henry de Colton, Richard de Berdesmor, Adam le Kyng of Rowenhale, John son of Simon de Cherleton, William de Bagenholt, and Robert de Knipersle, are sureties to produce Margaret de Bagenholt to stand to her trial for harbouring (de receptamento) Stephen de Bagenholt her son. m. 33, dorso.

The jury presented that Thomas Gerveys had falsely procured felons to be released, and likewise that the same Thomas and Reginald de Legh, William de Stafford, William de Mere, William Wyther, John de Bromshulfe, Henry de Colton, William Coygne, Henry le Barbur of Newcastle, Ralph de Burgo, Ralph de Bysshebury, Richard Spigurnell, Henry de Cavereswell, Michael de Morton, Walter de Morton, John de Say, Nicholas de Buryton, Nicholas Prior of St. Thomas outside Stafford, Thomas de la Hyde, and Richard de Barton, are common maintainers of false procurers in the King's Court, County and Hundred Courts, taking money from both sides, and by which truth and justice are stifled (per quod veritas et justicia suffocantur). The Sheriff is ordered to produce them; and they denied the accusation and put themselves on the country. And Henry de Caswell (Creswell), Henry Mauveysin, John Giffard of Chylynton, William Trumwyne, Hugh de Weston, John de Wasteneys, Adam de Brumpton, Robert de Knythelee, John de Herunville, John de Oyly, John de Tresel, Henry le Keu of Hamburi, William de Alrewych, and William de Wrottesle, jurors elected ad hoc, say on their oath that as regards the said Reginald de Legh, William de Stafford, William de Mere, William Wyther, Nicholas Prior of St. Thomas, Richard de Barton, Henry de Colton, Richard Spygornel, Michael de Morton, and John de Say, that they are not maintainers of false procurers, etc. But as regards the others they are guilty of the practices laid to their charge. They are therefore sent to prison. A postscript states that afterwards Thomas de la Hyde came and was fined 100s., for which Robert le Mareschal of Aston and Henry de Wyvereston are his sureties.

John de Bromshulf was fined 40s., for which Robert de Caverswall and Richard de Blithefeld are his sureties.

William Coygne was fined 5 marks, for which John Coyne of Weston and William son of Robert de Caverswelle are his sureties.

Henry le Barbour of Newcastle was fined 10 marks, for which Nicholas de Thyknesse and Roger le Burguyllon are his sureties.

Ralph de Burgo was fined 40s., for which William son of Robert de Caverswelle and Nicholas Meverel are his sureties.

Henry de Caverswelle was fined 2 marks, for which Richard de Caverswelle and Michael de Morton are his sureties.

Walter de Morton was fined 2 marks, for which Ralph de Covene and Michael de Morton are his sureties.

Nicholas de Byryton was fined 20s., for which Michael de Morton and Robert de Wyston are his sureties.

Ralph de Bysseburi was fined 10 marks, for which Simon son of Clement of Wolverhampton and William de Peleshale are his sureties.

And Thomas Gerveys was fined 20s., for which Robert Gerveys and Richard de Vernay are his sureties. m. 34.

Robert de Knyghtele, Coroner, was fined £10 for many transgressions, for which William Wyther and William Trumwyne are his sureties.

Philip de Mutton, Coroner, was fined 10 marks for the same, for which Roger de Swynnerton and Richard de Blythefeld are his sureties.

Reginald de Charnes, Coroner, was fined 40s. for the same, for which John de Creswell and Richard de Draycote are his sureties.

Roger de Burghton, Coroner, was fined 5 marks for the same, for which Reginald de Charnes and Henry de Emkerdon are his sureties.

Philip de Draycote, Coroner, in misericordiâ for other transgressions, was fined 20s.

Hugh de Weston, Coroner, was fined 5 marks for many transgressions, for which William de Mere is his surety.

William Wyther, Coroner, was fined 100s. for the same, for which Robert de Knyghtelee and John de Herunvill are his sureties.

William de Mere was fined 5 marks for the same, for which John de Wasteneys is his surety.

John de Herunville was fined 20s. for the same, for which Roger de Aston and William Illory are his sureties.

Magister Adam de Waleton payed 5 marks to be under bail (sub plevinâ) by the surety of Robert de Pype, William de Puys (Puteo), Richard Spygurnel, and Roger de Burton (Broughton).

William de Tytneleye the Sheriff is fined £20 for many transgressions, for which Robert de Bukenhale and Thomas de Tytneleye are his sureties.

The jury present that William de Mere the Subeschaetor took into the King's hands the manor of Norbury after the death of Philip Marmion. And it was found afterwards by an inquisition which he took that Jordan de Floxbrok had appropriated to himself a portion of the waste of the manor whilst the manor was in the King's hands, to the disinheritance of the heirs of the said Philip; and William took sureties from the said Jordan to satisfy the King respecting the said trespass. And William had falsely concealed the above, so that no compensation had been made. And they also present that William Wyther the Coroner had taken from Richard de la More of Lee, and from his wife, indicted for the death of a man, 4 marks for a favourable verdict (pro bonâ inquisitione habendâ). And the same William had taken 4 marks for the same from Jenkyn of Hyldulston, and also from Richard de Bromleye 40s. for the same. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to produce them all before the Justices. William de Mere stated he had not concealed any trespass made by the said Jordan, nor did he find that Jordan had ever committed any trespass as stated; and William Wyther denied that he had taken any money from Richard de la More or from Richard de Bromleye. And they appealed to a jury, which found in their favour. m. 34.

Of Indictments they say that Robert le Bykere, Adam de Allesacher, Nicholas and Richard his brothers, William de Gresele, and Robert his brother, Adam de Sheynton, and Benedict his brother, had withdrawn themselves for sundry robberies, homicides, and larcenies. They are therefore to be outlawed. They had no chattels. m. 34.

The King pardons John son of Robert de la Ho for the death of Richard de Bradeleye, John having killed him in self defence. Dated apud Pleslee, 18th February, 21 E. I.

William le Champion, taken for the theft of one hundred and forty sheepskins from the house of John Derkyn of Fayrston (Featherstone), was put on his trial and pleaded he was a Clericus. And William de Norton, acting for John the Archbishop of Dublin and Dean of Penkriz, claimed him as being within the jurisdiction of his Deanery of Penkryz. And in order that the status might be known in which he was to be delivered, the truth is to be inquired into by the country. The jury of the Hundred of Cutheleston together with the nearest vills say that William is not guilty. m. 34, dorso.

William de la More, taken for the death of William le Ro, whom he was stated to have killed before the last Iter, appeared and was put on his trial. The jury of the Hundred of Cutheleston together with the four nearest vills say he is not guilty. m. 34, dorso.

Henry son of Clement de Hampton, Geoffrey de Bylston, Clericus, Robert atte ho of Bradeleye, Richard Gerveys of Hampton, John in la Lone of the same, Nicholas de Trescote of the same, Simon son of Clement of Hampton, Thomas son of Simon de Bradele, and others, were sureties to produce John son of Robert atte ho on the first day, and they did not produce him. They are therefore in misericordiâ. m. 34, dorso.

Richard Brun and Adam his brother of Stretton, Henry Vicar of Alrewas and Gilbert his Clerk, taken for many robberies committed in the company of Stephen de Bagenholte and other robbers, were put on their trial, and pleaded they were Clerks, and William de Norton Priest of the Church of Penkriz, acting for John the Archbishop of Dublin, claimed the said Richard and Adam, as being within the jurisdiction of the Deanery of Penkryz; and Walter de Elmedon, acting for Roger the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, claimed the said Henry and Gilbert as his Clerks; and that it might be known in what status they are to be given up, the truth is to be determined by the country; and the jury of the Hundred and nearest vills say that Richard and Adam his brother, and Henry the Vicar and Gilbert his Clerk are guilty. Richard and Adam are therefore to be delivered to the Archbishop of Dublin as convicts, and Henry and Gilbert to the Bishop as convicts. The lay chattels of Henry the Vicar are worth 20s. 7d., for which the Sheriff answers. m. 35, dorso.

John de Bisshopeston (Bishton), Chaplain, taken for a robbery of 10 marks from Magister Richard de Nugent in the wood of Rideware, and for many other robberies and larcenies, was put on his trial, and pleaded he had been previously acquitted before Robert de Knytheleye and his fellow Justices for the gaol delivery at Bridgenorth, and he appealed to the record of the Justices; and the record being examined, it appeared that he had been acquitted. m. 35, dorso.

Richard le Bek and William de Badenhale, taken for robberies committed in the company of Stephen de Bagenholte and other robbers frequenting the park of Blore, were put on their trial, and acquitted by the jurors of the two Hundreds of Pyrhull and Cutheleston.

Henry the Bailiff of Chartelegh was put on his trial for harbouring within the park of Chartelegh Thomas Harheved of Dulverne and Geoffrey de Lynde, robbers who had been beheaded. The jury of the Hundred of Pyrhull and four nearest vills say he is not guilty.

Richard de Swynescho taken for homicide and robbery was put on his trial, and pleaded he was a Clericus; and it was testified that the said Richard was a bigamist, and therefore could not have the clerical privilege (per quod privilegio clericali gaudere non debet). And Richard admitted this to be true, and put himself on the country (et de bono et malo ponit se super patriam). And the jury of Tatemoneslowe and the nearest vills say that he is guilty. Ideo, etc. He had no chattels. m. 35, dorso.

Of Indictments they say that Geoffrey son of Robert de Freford withdrew himself for a robbery committed at the house of the Provost of Robert de Typetoft at Kynesburi; and William and Robert sons of Sir Geoffrey de Graseleye (Gresley) withdrew themselves for the death of a man killed at Tamewurth, and for the companionship of Stephen de Bagenholte, and for many robberies; and Robert de Bagenholte and John de Bagenholte brothers of Stephen de Bagenholte, Adam de Alesacher, Richard brother of Adam, Roger de Maysham, and thirteen others named, had withdrawn themselves for various robberies committed in company with Stephen de Bagenholte. They are therefore to be outlawed. m. 35, dorso.

The jury of the Hundred of Offelowe presented that—

Robert de Somerville holds the manor of Alrewas, which is of ancient demesne of the Crown, and is worth £15; and Thomas Corbet holds the manor of Brumleg Regis, which is of ancient demesne, and is worth annually 100s.; and Roger de Mortayn, John Paynel, and Margaret his wife hold the manor of Waleshale, which is of ancient demesne, and is worth £10 annually; and John de Hasting holds the manor of Wyginton and Tameworth, (fn. 8) which is of ancient demesne of the Crown, and is worth £20 annually, and it is not known by what warrant these manors are held. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon the above-named. And Robert de Somerville stated that he claimed to hold the manor of Alrewas of the King in fee farm because King John had granted it to Roger de Somerville his ancestor, to be held by him and his heirs at the old farm of £10 per annum, and for an increment of 100s. yearly, and for the service in addition of one-fourth of a Knight's fee, and he produced the charter of King John in the above terms. And Thomas Corbet stated that King John had granted to Cecilia de Hedlegh his grandmother, whose heir he is, the manor of Bromlegh to be held by her and her heirs of the King for £4 yearly, and he produced the King's charter. And John de Hasting appeared by attorney and stated that he held the manor of Wyginton and Tameworth of the King in exchange for his purparty of the county of Chester. And the said Roger de Mortayn, John Paynel, and Margaret his wife stated they held the said manor (of Walshall) of the King in capite at fee farm for £4 annually by the grant of King Henry the great grandfather of the King, whose charter they produced in these words: "II. Rex Angliæ, etc., Sciatis me dedisse, etc., Hereberto Ruffo servienti meo et heredibus suis Waleshala cum omnibus pertinentiis suis, reddendo inde michi quatuor libras per annum ad custodiam et compotum pro omnibus servitiis. Quare volo, etc. T. etc.: Thoma Cancellario." And they say that by the said charter they claim in the manor two free courts yearly, and to hear the same pleas in them that the Sheriff heard in his tourns, and to have a fair and market and all things appertaining to them, and they and their ancestors had always from the date of the charter enjoyed these liberties. And because the lord the King now conceded that all who had obtained such franchises from of old and had made use of them, should enjoy them in peace, it is considered that the said Roger and the others should depart in peace with the said manor and liberties, saving the right of the lord the King (inde sine die cum manerio et libertatisbus suis, salvo jure Domini Regis, etc). m. 36.

The jury of an inquisition had presented elsewhere that John de Herunville held the manor of Wodnesburi, which is of ancient demesne of the Crown, and which was worth £4 annually, and it was not known by what warrant. John de Heronvill appeared and stated he held the said manor in exchange for the manor of Stontesfeld in co. Oxon, and that this exchange was made between his ancestors and the ancestors of the King; and because the manor of Stontesfeld was of less value than the manor of Wodnesburi by 20s. a year, he rendered to the exchequer of the King annually 20s., and to verify this he produced an enrolment of the exchequer in these words: "William de Heronville holds Wodnesburi in exchange for Stontesfeld by right of his wife, and renders 20s. annually by the hands of the Sheriff, and he (i.e., the Sheriff) used to render £4 in the ferm of the county." And as it appeared from the said record that John held the manor of Wodnesburi in exchange for the manor of Stontesfeld, rendering 20s. yearly, and the Sheriff testified that the King was in seisin of the said 20s., and there were no arrears, it is considered that John "eat inde sine die." m. 36.

The juries of inquisitions had presented elsewhere that all who held by Barony in this county withdrew themselves from suit of the county. m. 36, dorso.

The same juries had presented that the Dean and Chapter of Stafford held the manor of Wytegreve which used to be geldable and to do suit to the Hundred of Pyrhull every three weeks by the Provost and four men until forty years ago, when the Dean and Chapter had withheld the suit. And the Dean and Chapter now appeared by attorney and stated that the Church of St. Mary of Stafford is a free chapel of the King, and that the said manor is the free alms of the said Church, and that King Henry the father of the King had conceded that they and their men should be quit of all suits by a charter in these words. (Here follows the King's Charter), dated 35th year of his reign; and the jury of the Hundred of Pirhull stated that the Dean and Chapter and their men before the date of the said Charter and ever since had been quit of suits of this nature without any interruption.

Similarly the same juries had presented that half the vill of Stokes used to be geldable, and to come twice a year to the Sheriff's tourns, until the fortyeighth year of King Henry, when the Prior of Stanes had withheld the suit; and the same Prior had likewise withheld one man out of four, and the Provost, who used to come twice a year to the Sheriff's tourn for the fifth part of the vill of Walton. And the said Prior stated that King Henry had never been in seisin of the said service for half of Stokes, and appealed to a jury; and as regards the man of the vill of Waleton, the King is in seisin of the service. The jury say that King Henry the King's father was in seisin of the said service for half of Stokes until the forty-eighth year of his reign, when it was first withheld by the predecessor of the said Prior, and by which the King had lost 2s. yearly; and that as regards the man of Waleton the King is in seisin of his service. It is therefore considered that the King should recover his seisin of the service for half of Stokes, and the arrears, which are taxed at 56s., and the Prior is in misericordiâ because he sued against it (quia contra placitavit).

They also presented that Geoffrey de Waleton had held half a virgate of land in Little Aston which used to find a man to the frankpledge (fn. 9) twice a year until the fifty-sixth year of King Henry. And John de Houton now holds the said land, and the suit thus withheld from the King, which was worth 2s. 4d. yearly. John did not appear, and the Sheriff is ordered to distrain him and to take into the King's hands the said amount as a distress.

The jury presented that Robert de Frankeville and Hilaria his wife claimed to have view of frankpledge, assize of bread and beer, and gallows in the manor of Elenhale. And they did not appear, and the Sheriff is ordered to take the said franchises into the King's hands. Afterwards Richard de Harecourt appeared and stated that the said Robert and Hillaria held the manor as dower of Hillaria of the inheritance of him (Richard), and he prayed that he might be admitted to answer to the King in respect to the said liberties. This was conceded, and he stated that his ancestors from time out of memory had the said liberties, and Hugh de Louther who sued for the King stated that King Richard, King John, and King Henry had been seised of the said liberties as appurtenant to their Hundred of Pirhull until the ancestors of the said Richard had usurped them, and he prayed that the truth might be inquired into by a jury. The jury of the Hundred elected ad hoc stated on their oath that the ancestors of Richard had held the said liberties from time out of memory. m. 36, dorso.

A jury had presented elsewhere that Ralph de (sic) Basset held the vill of Drayton, which used to come twice a year to the Sheriff's tourn with four men and the Provost until twenty-eight years ago, when the said Ralph Basset had withheld the suit; and he now held the said vill and the suit thus substracted. The Sheriff was therefore ordered to summon him; and Ralph appeared and stated that the King had not been in seisin of the said suit from time out of memory. Hugh de Louther stated King Richard had held the said suit, and asked for a jury. The jury of Offelowe found in favour of Ralph Basset. m. 36, dorso.

A jury had presented elsewhere that Ralph de Grendon held two free courts yearly, and heard the same pleas as the Sheriff heard in his tourns in Shenestan, Stonhale, and Swynefend (Swinfen) for one mark, which he paid yearly to the Sheriff, and he had gallows and wayf, and it was not known by what warrant. Ralph now appeared and stated that he and his ancestors had held the said liberties from time out of memory, and had likewise held the said courts for a mark yearly, and appealed to a jury. The jury of Offelowe found in his favour. m. 36, dorso.

The jury of Pirhull Hundred presented that in the time of King Henry the King's father the Sheriff of Staffordshire held view of frankpledge in the King's name in the manor of Saundon (Sandon) once a year, until the present King, whilst he was bachilarius (fn. 10) had the custody of two parts of the said manor. And William de Stafford, Roger de Litleburi, Richard de Stoke and Matilda his wife, and Robert de Wymenton (Wilbraham) now held the view of frankpledge, to the loss of the King of 1 mark yearly. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon them; and William and the others came, but as the said Robert de Wymenton is under age, the suit is to remain till his full age. m. 36, dorso.

A jury had presented elsewhere that the Abbot of Burton holds the manor of Bromlegh of the King in capite, which used to do suit to the Hundred of Pirhull every three weeks, and to render to the King by the hands of the Sheriff 6d. for the Sheriff's aid, and 6d. for frythfee, and 12d. for the Provost's aid (de auxilio prepositi). And the Abbot came and stated he performed the said suit, and that the King was in seisin of the aids and frithfee, and the Sheriff acknowledged he received 6d. for the Sheriff's aid and 6d. for frithfee. The Sheriff is ordered to answer for 12d. for Provost's aid in future in addition to the other payments. m. 37.

A jury had presented elsewhere that after the Church of Stafford with its chapels had become exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield by the consent of King Henry the King's father, the vills of Wytegreve and Boturton, which are three hides, and used to render to the King 4s. for frythfee and half a mark to the Bailiff of the Hundred of Pyrhull, until the Dean and Canons of the said Church now fifty years ago had withheld the said payments. And the Dean and Chapter appeared by their attorney, and stated they had been quit of the above payments ever since the Church had become a free chapel of the King, and they produced a charter of King Henry exempting them and their tenants both within and without the town of Stafford from suit to County, Hundred, or Borough Court. m. 37.

The same jury had presented that Forgate which is a suburb of Stafford used to be geldable and answer with the vill of Merston (Marston) to county and Hundred until fifty years ago, when the Burgesses of Stafford had attracted the said suburb to their borough of Stafford, and the Burgesses of Stafford appeared and said that King John had conceded that Stafford should be a free borough for ever, and that the burgesses of Stafford should hold the borough at fee farm from the King and his heirs with soch and sach and tholl and theam, infongenethef and other liberties and free customs which they used to have from of old, rendering yearly to the King's exchequer the ancient farm. The said King had also conceded that the burgesses should be quit of toll and of lestagio, passagio, paagio, stallagio, et pontagio for all their lands saving the liberties of the city of London, and that they should perform no suit to county or Hundred for their tenements within the borough of Stafford, nor that any of them should be impleaded ontside the borough for any tenements they held within it; and that they should not be impleaded for any tenements within the borough by writ of mord ancestor, but that such causes should be determined by the law and custom of the borough, etc.; and all these liberties had been confirmed to them by a charter of King Henry the King's father, which they produced; and they say that at the time of the grant of the charter of King John the said suburb of Foryate was attendens et respondens with the borough of Stafford and not with the vill of Merston. The King's attorney asked that the question might be referred to a jury, and a jury elected ad hoc found in favour of the Burgesses of Stafford. m. 37.

The jury of Pyrhull Hundred presented that Robert Brun formerly Subeschaetor of the King under Magister Henry de Bray in this county, after the death of Nicholas the Baron of Stafford, had taken into the King's hands the manor of Maddele, and that in the park of the said manor he had made waste and destruction of oaks and Boul (sic) to the damage of the King and of the heir of Nicholas, and that he had taken 10½ marks from Richard son of Simon Cotyn of Maddele for entry into the lands of Simon his father. Robert Brun appeared and stated that as regards the waste complained of, he found when he took the manor into the King's hands a certain manufactory of iron there (fabrica ad ferrum facciendum), and in order to maintain the factory and for burning and fabricating the iron, it was the custom to take wood and charcoal from the said park; and that the lord of the said manor was accustomed to receive the profits of the said factory, and that he had maintained the factory in the same way for the profit of the King, and he denied having made any waste or destruction except for the above purpose; and as regards the 10½ marks he said that the said Richard had made a fine of 100s. and no more to the use of the King to obtain seisin of the lands which formerly belonged to Simon his father, when one William brother of the said Simon intruded himself into the tenements, denying the right of Richard, and he had rendered account to Magister Henry de Bray for all money he had received, and for the money of which the said Richard was now claiming restitution before the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer, and he appealed to a jury. The jury elected ad hoc stated that the said Robert had made no waste or destruction in the park of Maddele except for the purpose of making charcoal to maintain the iron factory for the profit of the King, and as regards the 10 marks they say that he took from Richard 7 marks out of the fine of 100s. to the use of the King, and for this money Richard was now seeking restitution at the Exchequer, and half a mark was still in arrear of the fine of 100s., and as regards the residue, viz. 40s., the said Richard had given them to Robert to his own use to maintain him in his inheritance, and this was done spontaneously by Richard and in no other way. Robert is therefore inde quietus. m. 37, dorso.

Of Franchises they say that the Abbot of Burton claimed a market on the Tuesday of every week in his manor of Bromlegh, and a yearly fair of three days' duration, viz., on the vigil, the day, and the morrow of St. Bartholomew, it is not known by what warrant. The Abbot appeared and produced a charter of King Henry the King's father granting to the Abbot of Burton and his successors the above liberties within his manor of Bromlegh. m. 38.

A jury had presented elsewhere that the Abbot of Burton held Horninglowe, Stretton, and Brunteston (Branston), with the villenagio of Burton, in which were six hides, which were geldable, and from which the King used to receive annually a mark for view of frankpledge, and for Sheriff's aid and wakefe 1 mark, and they used to do suit to the Hundred of Pyrhulle every three weeks, and to the county every month, and that the Abbot's predecessors fifty years ago had withheld the said 2 marks and the suits of Court. The Abbot appeared and stated that the King is in seisin of the said mark for view of frankpledge, and of 11s. for the Sheriff's tourn and wakefe, and that he performed suit to County and Hundred; and the Sheriff acknowledged that the King was in seisin of the said payments and of the suits of Court, and as regards the 28d. of residue for which the King's attorney sued on account of the Sheriff's tourn and wakefe, he stated that the King had never been in seisin of that money. The King's attorney asked that the question might be referred to a jury, and a jury elected ad hoc found in favour of the Abbot. m. 38.

The same jury presented that the Master of the Knights Templars in England held half a virgate of land in Shyrescote, of which the tenants used to do suit to County and Hundred until forty years ago, when his predecessor had withheld it. The Master of the Templars appeared by attorney and stated that King Henry the King's father had conceded that the Master of the Templars and all his men should be quit of scot and geld and of all aids and suits of County and Hundred, by his charter dated 10th June in the thirtyseventh year of his reign, and they had held the said tenement long before the date of this charter. The King's attorney asked for a jury, which found in favour of the Knights Templars. m. 38.

A jury had presented elsewhere that the Abbess of Polesworth held a virgate of land in Shyrescote, which used to be geldable and to do suit to County and Hundred until fifty years ago, when the predecessor of the Abbess had withheld it. The Abbess appeared and stated that King Henry the King's father in the twenty-sixth year of his year had conceded to the Abbess and nuns of Pollesworth and their successors that they should be quit of suits of County and Hundred which they used to perform for a virgate of land they held in Shyrescote, and from the Sheriff's aid, and from murdrum and all other customs appertaining to County or Hundred, and she produced the King's charter to that effect. m. 38.

Footnotes

1 They afterwards put themselves on a jury; William was acquitted, and Robert was found guilty, and hanged.
2 i.e., whether innocent or guilty.
3 Richard de Marnham was lord of half the manor of West Bromwich; see p. 248.
4 Ideo, etc., means that he was hanged. If a man was found guilty of felony in these days he was hanged as a matter of course. It would appear from the large amount realised for the chattels that the verdict was unexpected; for when a charge of felony was hanging over a man of property, it was usual for him to transfer his chattels by deed to other parties. William de la More was lord of the manor of Great Wirley.
5 The reader will note the contrast between these juries and a petty jury of the present day. The jurors at these assizes, with one or two exceptions, were Knights or heads of knightly families.
6 It appears from the proceedings in the proof of age of Nicholas the Baron of Stafford, which took place 22 E. I., that one Henry le Barbur was steward of Madeley Manor.
7 Three of the jury had been removed, owing probably to their relationship to the deceased, and three others substituted for them.
8 The manor of Wiginton included the Staffordshire portion of Tamworth, and was distinct from Philip Marmion's manor of Tamworth.
9 i.e., the Sheriff's tourn, which is sometimes called the Sheriff's view of frankpledge.
10 i.e., during his father's lifetime. A young man knighted whilst his father was alive would be a knight batchelor.