Plea Rolls for Staffordshire
4 Edward III

Sponsor

Institute of Historical Research

Publication

Author

Major-General Hon. G. Wrottesley & Rev. F. Parker (editors)

Year published

1890

Pages

14-21

Citation Show another format:

'Plea Rolls for Staffordshire: 4 Edward III', Staffordshire Historical Collections, vol. 11 (1890), pp. 14-21. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=52480 Date accessed: 20 September 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

De Banco. Easter, 4 E. III.

Staff. The King's Attorney appeared against Roger, the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, in a plea that whereas the King had recovered before his Justices at Westminster, the presentation to the Church of Ideshale in a suit against Margaret formerly wife of Bartholomew de Badlesmere, and the King had sent to him a mandate to admit to the said Church a fit person on the King's presentation, the said Bishop had refused to admit to the Church Robert de Swynnerton, the King's Clerk to the contempt of the King and enervation of the said Court, and the Bishop did not appear, and the Sheriff had been ordered to distrain, and the Sheriff now returned that he had sent the precept to William le Messager the Bailiff of the Bishop's Liberty who had answered that he had distrained the Bishop by his chattels to the value of 20s. He was therefore ordered to distrain again and to produce the Bishop on the Octaves of Trinity. A postscript states at that term it was testified that the Bishop's Bailiff could answer for £100, from the issues of the lands and chattels of the said Bishop and a precept was sent to the Justices holding assizes in the said county to return by an inquisition upon oath at the Octaves of St. Michael what issues the said Bailiff should answer for. At which term Henry de Ambury (Hanbury) and William de Shareshull, the Justices assigned, etc., in the said county returned an inquisition which stated that the said Bailiff of the Bishop's Liberty could answer for issues of the Bishop's lands and chattels to the amount of £160. The Bailiff is therefore to be answerable for that amount (inde oneretur) and he is "in misericordiâ" for an insufficient return in the first instance. m. 6.

Staff. Thomas le Rous sued Henry de Ribbesford for forcibly breaking into his house at Walshale and taking away four falcons worth £40. Henry did not appear and the Sheriff was ordered to attach him, and he returned he held nothing within his bailiwick. He was therefore ordered to arrest and produce him at the Octaves of Holy Trinity. m. 6, dorso.

Staff. John Touchet, senior, and Joan his wife sued William de Shavynton, William del Peek of Cheshire and Margaret his wife, Richard son of the said William, Henry de Shavynton, John de Shavynton, Richard de Shavynton, and Ralph de Morton and seven others for the abduction from Draycote of Mary, daughter and heir of John de Brichull, who was under age and whose marriage belonged to them. None of the defendants appeared, and the Sheriff returned they held nothing within his bailiwick, and he was ordered to arrest and produce them at the Octaves of Trinity and respecting the said heir the Sheriff returned she could not be found. He was therefore ordered as before, to make diligent enquiry and to produce her at the same term. m. 6, dorso.

Staff. Hugh, son of John de Perton, sued Thomas de Tefford for £15, the arrears of an annual rent of 30s., which he owed to him. Thomas did not appear and the Sheriff returned he was a clerk, and as it was testified that he held a benefice within the See of Lincoln, a mandate was sent to the said Bishop to produce him at the Octaves of St. Michael. m. 40.

Staff. The Dean and Chapter of St. Cedde of Lichefeld were summoned to answer the plea of Joan formerly wife of Thomas Botetourte, that they should permit her to present a fit person to the Church of Honesworth (Handsworth) and she stated that a certain John de Parles was seised of the Manor of Honesworth to which the advowson was appurtenant, and had presented to the Church one Hugh de Alvechirche, who had been admitted and instituted temp. Hen. III., and the said John held the said manor of Roger de Somery the father of the said Joan and one of whose heirs she was, and after the death of the said Hugh, a contention arose between the said John de Parles and one Hugh then Prior of Lenton respecting the advowson of the Church and the said John conceded that the said Prior should present for that time, and the Prior conceded that the said John and his heirs should present at the next vacancy, and so on, each presenting to the Church alternately, (fn. 1) and by virtue of which composition the said Prior presented to the Church one John de Derby, his clerk, who was admitted and instituted temp. Hen. III. And from John de Parles the said manor and his share of the advowson descended to one William de Parles, his son, who held the said manor of Roger de Somery, and the said William committed a felony for which he was hanged, and after the year and the day, the said Roger claimed seisin of the manor and share of the advowson, and on a vacancy caused by the resignation of the said Magister John presented to the Church one William de Hamelton who was admitted and instituted by virtue of the composition made temp. Hen. III. And the said Dean and Chapter afterwards acquired from the Prior and Convent of Lenton their share of the advowson, and on a vacancy by the resignation of William de Hamelton, then presented to the Church one Roger de Grutwych, who was admitted and instituted temp. Ed. I., and by whose death the Church is now vacant.

And from Roger de Somery the manor and his share of the advowson descended with other lands and advowsons to one John as his son and heir and from John who died s.p., the manor, etc., descended to one Margaret and to Joan who now sues as his sisters and heirs, which Margaret was now wife of one John de Sutton between whom the lands and tenements fees and advowsons formerly belonging to John de Somery were divided, and the said Manor of Honesworth and the said share of the advowson were assigned with other lands, etc., to the said Joan in the Chancery of King Edward the King's father, by reason of which it now pertains to her to present to the said Church, and the said Dean and Chapter unjustly impeded her presentation for which she claimed 100s. as damages. And the Dean and Chapter appeared by attorney and could not deny that it appertained to the said Joan to present this time by virtue of the said composition, saving their right to present at the next vacancy. It was therefore considered that Joan should recover her presentation to the said Church, and a mandate was sent to the Bishop accordingly, and Joan remitted her damages. m. 40, dorso.

Staff. Alexander de Walsham was summoned by Isabella, formerly wife of Simon Basset in a plea that he should permit her to present a fit person to the Church of Chedle, which was vacant, and she stated that one Ralph Basset was seised of the Manor of Chedle to which the advowson was appurtenant in the reign of King Henry III, and bad presented to it one John Basset who was admitted and instituted temp. Hen. III, and from the said Ralph the manor and advowson descended to one Simon as son and heir, which Simon gave the manor and advowson to one Simon Basset, junior, and to the said Isabella his wife and the heirs of their bodies and for which reason it now pertained to her to present to the Church. And Alexander pleaded the presentation belonged to him and not to the said Isabella, and he stated that the said Ralph Basset was seised of the manor and advowson temp. Hen. III, and from Ralph they descended to one Simon as son and heir, and from the said Simon to one Simon, junior, as son and heir, and the said Simon, junior, had afterwards acknowledged by fine in the Court of King Edward the King's father, viz., on the Quindene of St. John the Baptist, 20 E. II. that an acre of land in Chedle and the advowson of the Church belonged to Hervey de Staunton Clerk, to be held by the said Hervey and his heirs for ever, and he produced the fine in question, and stated that from the said Hervey, the said land and advowson had descended to him (Alexander) as cousin and heir, viz., as the son of one Avice the sister of Nicholas the father of the said Hervey, and he said that the said Isabella had afterwards released and quitclaimed to the said Hervey all her right in the said land and advowson by her deed which he produced in these words, viz:

Omnibus xpi fidelibus ad quos presens scriptum pervenerit, Isabella que fuit uxor Simonis Basset de Sapecote Chivaler, salutem, etc., Noveritis me in purâ viduetate meâ concessisse, etc., domino Alexandro de Walsham Militi totum jus meum et clameum quod habeo vel in futurum habere potero in unâ acrâ terre cum pertinentiis in Chedle et in advocatione ecclesie ejusdem ville quas quidem acra terre, etc., dictus Simon quondam vir meus in Curiâ domini Regis recognovit esse jus domini Hervici de Stanton clerici antecessoris ipsius domini Alexandri et illas eidem Hervico reddidit in eâdem Curiâ per finem inde levatum, etc. In Cujus rei testimonium huic presenti scripto sigillum meum apposui. Et quia sigillum meum pluribus est incognitum, sigillum domini Radulphi de Stafford una cum sigillo meo presentibus apponi procuravi, et ego dictus dominus Radulphus de Stafford in testimonium premissorum sigillum meum presentibus apposui Testibus Willelmo le Botiller de Wemme, Rogero de Swynnerton, Roberto de Beek militibus, Radulpho Basset, Roberto le mareschal de Aston, Radulpho de Grendon, Willelmo Galpyn, de Comitatu Stafford, Willelmo de la Chaumbre de Cresswelle, Johanne Thurgor de Melford Clerico de Comitatu Suffolk et aliis. Datum apud Chedle, 18 March, 4 E. III.

And as Isabella could not deny that she had executed the said deed, it was considered that the said Alexander should recover the presentation to the Church, and a mandate was sent to the Bishop to admit a fit person on his presentation. And Alexander prayed that damages might be adjudicated to him, and as the value of the advowson was not known, the Sheriff was ordered to make inquisition upon oath into the value per annum of the said advowson and the length of time it had been vacant, and to return the inquisition into Court on the Quindene of Trinity. m. 64.

Staff. Robert, son of Philip de Stepelton sued Robert de Stepelton and Isabella his wife for a messuage, two carucates of land, six acres of meadow, thirty acres of wood, twenty acres of pasture, and 8d. of rent in Great Barre. Robert and Isabella called to warranty William, son of William de Frome, who is to be summoned for three weeks from Michaelmas, the summons to be served in co. Hereford. m. 155.

De Banco. Mich., 4 E. III.

Salop. Roger, the Bishop of Coventry and Lychefeld appeared by attorney against Roger de Bromesleye and Alice his wife, Reginald, son of Reginald de Charnes, Philip Syre, William, son of Simon de Prees, Reginald de Prees, and Richard, son of Reginald de Charnes for forcibly cutting down his trees at Prees to the value of 40s. None of the defendants appeared and the Sheriff had been ordered to arrest the said Richard, and to distrain the others and produce them at this date and he now returned certain sums as issues of distraints, and that the said Richard could not be found and that Reginald, son of Reginald de Charnes was dead. He was therefore ordered as before to distrain and to arrest the said Richard. m. 6, dorso.

Staff. Roger, the Bishop of Coventry and Lychefeld sued Alice, formerly wife of John de Carleton for twelve acres of land in Brewode, as the right of his Church, and Alice did not appear and had previously made default, and the land had been taken into the King's hand. It was therefore considered that the Bishop should recover seisin, but the Sheriff was ordered to summon a jury for the Octaves of Hillary to make recognition according to the Statute of Mortmain as to whether there had been fraud and collusion between the said Alice and the Bishop, and the land was to remain in the meantime in the King's hand. m. 30.

Staff. Thomas, son of Richard de Marnham sued Margaret, formerly wife of Edmund de Stafford in a plea that she should give up to him a bond which she unjustly detained. Margaret did not appear, and the Sheriff was ordered to distrain and produce her on the morrow of the Purification. m. 136.

Staff. The Prior of St. Thomas near Stafford was attached to answer the plea of William le Botiller of Wemme that he together with Richard de Burghton and Alice his wife, John, son of John de Suggenhulle, and Roger de Aston, the Parson of the Church of Weston-upon-Trent had abducted from Charnes, Christiana, Sibil, and Isabella, the daughters and heirs of William de Charnes who were under age and whose marriage belonged to him; and William le Botiller stated that the said William de Charnes, the father of the heirs held of him the third part of the manors of Dalilegh and Tybryghton, in co. Salop, by homage, fealty, and the service of one-third of a Knight's fee, viz., for the King's scutage of 40s. when it was levied, he paid 13s. 4d. and by the service of 6s. 8d. per annum, and suit of Court of the said William le Botiller at Hynstok every three weeks, and he being seised of the said service, the defendants had abducted the heirs from Charnes on the Monday after the feast of St. Peter ad Vincula, 1 E. III, and for which he claimed £200 as damages.

The Prior appeared by attorney and denied the claim of William le Botiller, and stated that the said William de Charnes held the manor of Charnes from his predecessors and from those whose status they held, by homage, fealty and the service of a fourth part of a Knight's fee, and that they had held it before they held the third part of the manors of Dalilegh and Tybryghton of the said William le Botiller, or of his ancestors, and he appealed to a jury which is to be summoned from both counties for the morrow of the Purification. m. 245.

Ebor. Thomas, son of John de Hertford sued Thomas, son of William de Moubray for a messuage and 140 acres of land and six acres of meadow and half a mill in Barton near Melsamby. Thomas, son of William called to warranty Robert, son of John Fraunceys who appeared and warranted the tenements to him, and as regarded one acre of land and one-and-a-half acre of meadow, Robert called to warranty Thomas, son of John de Hodelleston of co. Ebor and as regarded the residue of the tenements he called to warranty William de Vernoun, the kinsman and heir of Gilbert le Fraunceys, who is to be summoned in cos. Stafford and Westmoreland, and he stated that the said Thomas son of John, and William de Vernoun were under age, and prayed that the suit might be made a remanet till their full age.

Thomas, son of John, stated they were of full age and prayed that they might be summoned, and the Sheriffs of cos. York and Stafford were ordered to summon them for a month from Easter. A postscript states that at the above date Thomas, son of John de Hertford, admitted that Thomas, son of John de Hodeleston, and William de Vernoun were under age, and the suit was therefore to remain till their full age. (fn. 2) m. 329.

Staff. Henry de Colton sued William Attewode, Parson of the Church of the Blessed Mary of Colton for an acre of land in Colton. William did not appear and had previously made default and the tenements had been taken into the King's hand. Henry is therefore to recover seisin. m. 356.

Staff. Isabella, formerly wife of Richard le Vernoun, senior, sued Robert le Wolf of Herlaston for the third of a messuage and two virgates of land in Herlaston, and she sued Alice, formerly wife of Nicholas de Herlaston for the third of a messuage and a virgate of land in the same vill which she claimed as dower. The defendants did not appear, and the Sheriff was ordered to take the dower claimed into the King's hand, and to summon them for the morrow of the Purification. m. 400.

Staff. Edmund de Draycote of Leyghe sued Robert de Leygh, clerk, junior, and Lettice his wife for six acres of land and half an acre of meadow in Leygh, and he sued John de Mere of Leygh, and Sibil his wife for two acres of land and an acre of meadow in the same vill. None of the defendants appeared, and they had previously made default and the tenements had been taken into the King's hand. He therefore recovers seisin. m. 425.

Staff. The suit between John, son of Philip de Auste, plaintiff, and William de Freford and Thomas (fn. 3) de Pakynton and Alice his wife, tenants, in a plea of land is respited till three weeks from Easter unless J. Travers should first come to Lichefeld on the Thursday after the Feast of St. Hillary, through defect of a jury. m. 425.

Staff. Adam Muryman of Little Wyrleye, appeared by attorney in a plea against John le Baker, that he should warrant to him 12 acres of land in Little Wyrleye, which John de Say claimed as his right, etc. John did not appear and the Sheriff was ordered to summon him for three weeks from Easter. m. 461.

Salop. The Sheriff had been ordered to return on oath of a jury the length of time which had elapsed since the death of Philip de Stepelton, the father of Robert, son of Philip de Stepelton, and likewise the yearly value of the manor of Stepelton, which the said Robert had recovered against Robert de Stepelton by default of the said Robert, and of which the said Robert de Stepelton had unjustly disseised the said Philip, father of the said Robert whose heir he is. And the Sheriff now sent the inquisition which stated that Philip de Stepelton, the father of Robert fitz Philip de Stepelton died on Ascension Day, 1 E. II, and they say that the capital messuage with the adjacent gardens, etc., was worth 13s. 4d. yearly, and there were three carucates of land each worth 40s. etc.—and there were 32 natives and 20 cottars who rendered £19. 6s. 9d. annually, and their labour was worth 26s. 11d., and the pleas and perquisites of the Court were worth £6. 6s. 8d., etc. Robert appeared by attorney and prayed for judgment and his damages, and a day was given to him at the Quindene of Hillary. A postscript shews repeated adjournments up to Trinity 6 E. III. m. 487, dorso.

Assizes taken at Stafford before Henry de Hambury and Roger Hillary, Justices Assigned, etc., on the Monday after the Feast of St. Bartholomew the Apostle. 4 Ed. III. (fn. 4)

Staff. An assize, etc., if Thomas de Furnyvall and Joan, his wife, and William Lylie, of Alveton, had unjustly disseised Richard le Smyth, of Farleye, of a piece of land in Alveton eighty feet in length and four feet in width.

Ralph de Grendon answered as bailiff of the defendants, and pleaded that the land in question was in Farley and not in Alveton. The jury stated that the tenements were in Farley, but that Farley was a hamlet of Alveton, and that the defendants had unjustly disseised the said Richard, and they assessed the damages at 13s. 4d. m. 6.

Staff. An assize, etc., if Roes, daughter of Thomas de Modyesmor and Theobald de Barynton had unjustly disseised Walter de Stafford of a messuage and two parts of two bovates of land in Crakemarsh, near Strongeshull (Stramshall).

William de Rossynton answered for the defendants as Bailiff, and stated that Theobald made no claim to the tenements and had done the plaintiff no injury, and he answered for Roes as tenant, who also denied any injury to the plaintiff. The jury found for the plaintiff; damages 20s. m. 6.

Staff. An assize, etc., if Edmund Peverel, Roger, son of William de Draicote, and Thomas de Wibaston had unjustly disseised Agnes, formerly wife of Richard de Stretton, of an acre of meadow in Stretton, near Lappeley.

Geoffrey de Assheburne answered for the defendants as their Bailiff, and stated nothing against the assize. It is therefore to proceed, but was respited till the Monday after the Feast of St. Nicholas, at Lichfield, through defect of recognitors. m. 6, dorso.

Staff. An assize, etc., if John Hamelyn, William Doget, John, son of Robert Ster, William Fox, William Hurdy, and Robert le Wryghte had unjustly disseised John de Arderne of his common of pasture in Okeleye, appurtenant to his freehold in Elleford, viz., in common of pasture in 200 acres of land for two years after the corn had been reaped and carried, and until the land was resown, and each third year during fallow for the whole year with all manner of cattle, and in 60 acres of meadow every year after the hay had been cut and carried until the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Mary, with all manner of cattle, and in thirty acres of wood, for two years, viz., from the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel until the Feast of St. Martin, with his hogs, and from the Feast of St. Martin until the Annunciation, with all his cattle, and every third year from the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel until the Feast of St. Martin, with his hogs, and from the Feast of St. Martin until the Feast of St. Michael, with all his cattle.

John Hamelyn appeared, and the others appeared by their Bailiff, Thomas de Lollynton, and denied any injury to the plaintiff. And John Hamelyn, for himself as tenant, pleaded that the vill was called Okle, and not Okleye, and prayed judgment on the writ, and if this was given against him, he stated that the said John de Arderne never was seised of the common of pasture in question. The jury stated the vill was called Okleye, and on the question of common of pasture, found in favor of John de Arderne, and assessed his damages at 40s. m. 7.

Staff. An assize, etc., if William, son of Benedict de Boturdon had unjustly disseised Robert Boule, of Boturdon, of half an acre of land in Boturdon (Butterton-on-the-Moors). William did not appear, and his sureties were in misericordiâ, and the assize was to be taken in his absence, but was respited through defect of recognitors till the Monday after the Feast of St. Nicholas at Lichfield. m. 7, dorso.

Staff. An assize, etc., if Sampson le Budel and Stephen, his son, William, son of Alexander, of Little Sondon, and Richard, his brother, and William le Budel, of Little Sondon, had unjustly disseised Philip de Smalrys of three acres of meadow in Little Sondon (Sandon). Stephen appeared, and the others appeared by John Stel, their Bailiff, and denied any injury to the plaintiff, and Stephen answered for himself as tenant, and stated that the tenements had been in his seisin, and he had demised them to Sampson le Budel for his life, and the said Sampson had given them to the said Philip de Smalrys and his heirs, and he hearing of the alienation made of his inheritance had disseised the said Philip, and he appealed to the assize. The assize is therefore to be taken, but was respited till the Monday after the Feast of St. Nicholas, etc. (as in the last case). m. 7, dorso.

Staff. An assize, etc., if Robert de Esenyngton had unjustly disseised John del Dych, of Great Wyrleye, and Agnes, his wife, of their common of pasture in Esenyngton, appurtenant to their freehold in Great Wyrleye, viz., in common of pasture in 800 acres of wood and pasture with all manner of cattle for the whole year. Robert did not appear, and his sureties were in misericordiâ, and the assize was to be taken in his absence, but was respited till the Monday after the Feast of St. Nicholas, etc. (as before). m. 7, dorso.

Footnotes

1 See fine levied 31 Hen. III., between John de Parles and the Prior of Lenton.
2 In a note at p. 27, Part 1 of Vol. IX, of these Collections, I expressed an opinion that Richard de Vernon, living temp. E. I., was stepson and not heir of blood of Gilbert le Fraunceys, but it seems plain from this suit that he was his son and heir of blood, for William de Vernon is called to warranty as kinsman (consanguineus) and heir of Gilbert. He was really his great grand-son. Gilbert had issue Richard who assumed the name of Vernon, and was father of another Richard, who died v.p. in 16 E. II, leaving a son William, then ten years of age. Inqn. p.m., 16 E. II.
3 Another record of this suit at Easter, 5 E. III, calls this defendant Thomas Basset of Pakington, and Alice his wife.
4 This Assize Roll has been classed amongst the Rolls of Edward II at the Record Office, owing to the first membrane of it, containing a suit of that date, which has been attached to it by mistake; as this suit is of interest, it is appended here as a note:—
Assizes taken at Lichfield, before Henry de Hambury and Roger Hillary, on the Wednesday the Feast of St. Margaret the Virgin. 17 E. III.
Staff. An assize, etc., if John Haclut and Alice his wife, William de Pycheford, and Cecilia de Neville had unjustly disseised Henry de Teddesleye of a messuage, a virgate and twenty-six acres of land, six acres of meadow, and twenty acres of moor in Shenstone.
John and Alice appeared by attorney, and William de Stokfaston answered for the other defendants as their Bailiff, and denied any injury to the plaintiff, and John and Alice answered as tenants and stated the tenements were a parcel of a messuage and a carucate of land named in a Fine levied in 7 E. II., between Gilbert le Hunte and Agnes, his wife, complainants, and Theobald de Neville, deforciant, of a messuage and a carucate of land, by which Gilbert and Agnes acknowledged the right of Theobald, and for which acknowledgement the said Theobald granted the tenements to Gilbert and Agnes for their lives, with remainder to Theobald and his heirs, and Gilbert had survived the said Agnes and had alienated the said tenements to the said Henry in fee, and the said John and Alice, who was the daughter and heir of the said Theobald, hearing of the alienation of her inheritance had entered into the tenements, and they prayed for judgment whether the assize would lie.
And the said Henry stated that the said Gilbert was seised in demesne as of fee, and had enfeoffed him by his deed, which he produced, and the said Henry had demised the tenements to Gilbert for his life, with remainder to himself and his heirs, and Gilbert had been in seisin by this deed, and on his death he had entered into his reversion, and had held it for a long time until disseised by the defendants.
The jury stated that the said Gilbert and Agnes, his wife, had acquired the said tenements, to be held by them and their heirs, and Gilbert had survived Agnes, and had enfeoffed the said Henry by deed to hold to him the and his heirs, and upon this a fine had been levied in the present reign between the said Henry and Gilbert, by which fine Gilbert acknowledged the right of Henry, for which Henry granted the said tenements to Gilbert for his life, with remainder to himself and his heirs, and they said that by virtue of this fine, Gilbert had been in seisin all his life, and after his death, one Ralph de Grendon and Joan, his wife, had intruded themselves into the tenements, on which Henry had obtained a writ of "scire facias" against them to show cause why he should not have seisin of the said tenements, and a day was given to the parties in Court, and Ralph and Joan did not appear, and Henry recovered seisin against them, and a writ was directed to the Sheriff to put him into seisin of the tenements, and Henry was in seisin 40 days, until the said Robert and William by order of the said John Haclut and in the name of the said John and Alice had forcibly and unjustly disseised him, and they assessed his damages at £10. Henry is therefore to recover seisin and the above damages, but was in misercordiâ for a false claim against Cecilia de Neville.