Staffordshire Historical Collections, Vol. 6 Part 1. Originally published by Staffordshire Record Society, London, 1885.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
Banco Roll, Easter, 21 E. I.
Staff. The suit of the King versus Hugh le Blund for the manor of Penkryz is adjourned to Trinity Term. m. 130, dorso.
Staff. The King by Hugh de Louther sued John Archbishop of Dublin for the advowson of the Church of Penkryz before the Justices Itinerant. And the Archbishop stated that King John had granted to Henry de Lond, formerly Archbishop of Dublin, and his predecessor, the advowson of the said Church, to be held by him and his successors so long as they were Englishmen and not Irish; and he appealed to the records of the Chancellor's Rolls of the seventeenth year of King John; and a day was given to him at the Quindene of Easter. A postscript adds that J. de Langeton, the King's Chancellor, produced a copy of King John's charter in these words: "J., Dei gratiâ etc. Sciatis nos concessisse, etc., venerabili patri H. Dublinensi Archiepiscopo et successoribus suis terras et tenementa subscripta quæ habet ex dono Hugonis Huese, scilicet manerium de Pencrich cum villâ de Cungrave, et villâ de Cullega, villâ de Wulegrave, et de Deffecote (sic, Befcote), et cum terra de Oyme (sic, Onne), et cum feriâ ejusdem villæ de Pencrich et cum omnibus ad predictasterraset tenementa pertinentibus, sicut carta ipsius Hugonis quam inde habet rationabiliter testatur. Preterea concessimus de dono nostro intuitu Dei et pro salute animæ nostræ et antecessorum et successorum nostrorum Regum Angliæ dicto Dublinensi Archiepiscopo et successoribus suis qui non fuerint Hibernensi advocacionem Ecclesiæ de Pencrich in perpetuum. Ita quod, etc." m. 130, dorso.
Leyc. Ralph de Grendon sued Philip de Gayton for causing waste and destruction in houses, woods, etc., of his inheritance in Coppeshale, which Philip held for a term only by a demise of Scholastica formerly wife of Robert de Grendon, who had demised the tenements to him for her life. The Sheriff is ordered to make an inquisition on the spot, and return it into Court at the Quindene of Michaelmas. m. 75, dorso.
Warr. Warine de Rossale sued William de Montefort for £10 of rent in Wellesburne, in which William had no entry except by Peter de Montefort, to whom Peter son of Thurstan had demised this rent unjustly, and by which he had unjustly disseised Roysia de Staundon, the mother of Warine, whose heir he is.
William stated he claimed nothing in the said rent except for term of his life by a demise of Peter de Montefort, and he called to warranty John de Montefort, who is to be summoned for the Quindene of Michaelmas. m. 36, dorso.
Assizes (fn. 1) taken before Magister Adam de Crokedayk and William Inge, Justices assigned to take the same at Tamworth, in co. Stafford, the Saturday after the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincula, 21 E. I. 1st August, 1293.
Staff. An assize, etc., if William de Beauchamp Earl of Warwick, Hugh Quatre hommes, and eight others, had unjustly disseised William de Oddinggeseles of fifty acres of wood in Weford, who complained that the defendants had removed the fence which enclosed his wood.
The Earl stated that the wood in question was within his free chase of Sutton, and which chase was formerly a forest in the hands of the predecessors of the King, and which he had in exchange for certain tenements in co. Roteland, and that it was not lawful for any body to enclose within the limits of his chace without his permission. And he stated further that he conceded to Ralph de Lymesey and Joan his wife, who formerly held the wood, permission to enclose it for their joint lives; and after their deaths he had pulled down the fences, as it was lawful for him to do, and he added that the greater part of the chace was in Warwickshire, and a minor part only in this county; and by the custom of the chace nothing relating to it could be inquired into without men of both counties.
And William de Oddingeseles stated that the said Ralph and Joan were in seisin of the said wood enclosed and held in severalty, and they had enfeoffed him in it, and he had held it until disseised by the Earl; and he appealed to a jury. The Earl then produced a writ from the King, dated from Wyndesore, 5th August, 21 E. I., and addressed to the Justices, commanding them to take the assize by a jury of both counties. A jury of the two counties is therefore to be summoned, to be at Wolverenhampton on the Saturday after Michaelmas Day; on which day a postscript states that William withdrew his writ, and the Earl conceded that he and his heirs might enclose the wood as it was enclosed in the time of Ralph de Lymeseye, so that beasts could not pass in or out of it; and that they might chase all beasts within it and the woods of Weford and Thickebrome and in the wood and fields of Hyntes, at their will, with dogs and with bows, but without laying down nets or other contrivances (alio ingenio). And they might follow a wounded animal through the wood of Drayton and take it and carry it away within the wood. And if it should happen that the animal went further into the chace of the Earl, neither William nor any other on his part should pursue it. And if the dogs of William should go further, then his huntsman should follow them with a whip (virga) and a horn to collect them. And if the dogs should be taken by the men of the Earl, they shall be given back to William or his men. And for this concession William remitted his claim to pursue animals within the chace of the Earl with five bows and a berseletum and wenlatores. m. 1, dorso.
An assize, etc., if Richard le Eyr, John de Norton, William de Chavyldon and three others, had unjustly disseised William son of William de Knyghton of a messuage and a virgate of land in Knyghton in the Hales. The jury say that the tenements formerly belonged to one Adam de Knyghton, who enfeoffed the said William his father in them, who was to maintain the said Adam out of them; and William died seised of them; and after his death William had entered as his son and heir, and held them until disseised by the defendants. Verdict for William. m. 1, dorso.
An assize, etc., if Robert son of Robert de Essington, William de Penne, William de Tittenleye, Thomas de Stretton, Henry son of John de Esington, Robert de Assheleye, and three others, had unjustly disseised William (sic) de Sewelfelde of three acres of meadow in Bisshebury.
Robert de Essington answered as tenant, and stated that he had impleaded Robert de Sewelfelde for a messuage and half a virgate of land and an acre of meadow, within which the meadow now claimed was included, and had recovered the tenements by a verdict; and they had been delivered to him by the said Robert de Assheleye, who was the King's bailiff.
Robert de Sewelfelde denied that the meadow now in dispute formed a part of the land recovered by Robert de Essington.
The jury say that the meadow in dispute did not contain more than two acres and two-thirds of an acre, and formed no part of the land recovered by Robert de Essington. Robert de Sewelfeld is therefore to recover seisin of it. Damages 20s. m. 2.
Robert son of Robert de Horselegh recovers a messuage and thirty acres and half a virgate of land in Horslegh by writ of novel disseisin against Robert de Horselegh. m. 2.
Matilda daughter of William Humfray recovers a messuage and a virgate and a half of land in the suburb of Stafford against William Humfrey of Stafford. m. 2.
John Trussel (sic, de Tresel) withdrew his writ against Roger Carles and others respecting a tenement in Tresel. m. 2.
Assizes taken at Wolverhampton before the same Justices on the Saturday after the Octaves of St. Michael, 21 E. I.
An assize, etc., if Brother Peter de Hagham, the Prior of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem in England, Brother Simon de Gunges, Brother Henry de Grafton, Robert Noel, Walter de Elmedon, Geoffrey de Pyrye, John de Sumery, Agnes de Sumery, and five others, had unjustly disseised John de Parles of the manor of Huneswurth (Handsworth).
Agnes de Somery answered as tenant of the manor, and stated that Roger de Somery formerly her husband, and father of John, died seised of the tenement, and after his death the King had taken it into his hands by his Eschaetor, and it had been assigned to her as part of her dower out of the lands of Roger, which are in the King's hands by reason of the minority of John de Somery; and she prayed for judgment if the assize could proceed without the assent of the King (Rege inconsulto).
John de Parles admitted that Roger had died seised of the manor, and that it had been assigned as dower to Agnes, but stated he had been in seisin of it until the Prior and the other defendants had unjustly disseised him of it. Suit adjourned for reference to the King (loquendum cum Domino Rege). m. 3, dorso.
An assize, etc., if Adam de Bresenhull father of Alice, daughter of Adam, was seised, etc., when he died of a messuage and four acres of land in Hegheoffele (High Offley), which Robert de Halughton and another hold.
Robert stated Alice had no claim because she had a brother Roger who was son to Adam and survived him, and he had committed a felony, for which he had been hanged. Alice admitted her brother Roger had been hanged for felony, but stated he had never been in seisin of the tenement in question. Suit adjourned to Stafford, when judgment was delivered in favour of Robert, because Roger had survived Adam his father. m. 4.
Assizes taken at Stafford before the same Justices on the Thursday after a month from Easter, 22 E. I.
Staff. An assize, etc., if Robert de Grendon and Roger de Pulesdon had unjustly disseised Stephen son of Isabella de Mulewich of three acres of land in Cotes near Mulewich.
The jury say that Robert (sic, Roger) entered by demise of Robert (de Grendon) for a term of three years, and Robert had entered by a feoffment of John de Grendon, and John by Isabella the mother of Stephen. Stephen is therefore in misericordiâ for a false claim. m. 5.
An assize, etc., if Richard son of Richard de Stretton, Richard son of Hervey de Stretton, and Andrew de Montegomeri had unjustly disseised Geoffrey de Kynsedeley of the manor of Stretton, excepting a messuage, ten acres of land, and ten of wood.
Richard son of Hervey stated he held the manor by demise of Richard son of Richard, and he answered as bailee for Richard, and stated that Geoffrey had remitted and quitclaimed his right to the said Richard by a deed which he produced. Verdict for the defendants, and Geoffrey is in misericordiâ for a false claim; his fine is remitted because he is the vallettus of Malculine de Harley the Eschaetor. m. 5.
An assize, etc., if Richard de Stretton and Joan the widow of William de Careswelle had unjustly disseised Agnes the wife of Robert le Champyun of a rent of 40d. in la Doune and Bradeleye. The bailiff of Joan appeared for her, and stated she held the tenement conjointly with Henry de Harecurt and Elienora his wife; and as Robert and Agnes could not deny this, the suit is dismissed. m. 5.
Richard de Bentelegh and Matilda his wife withdrew their writ against Roger Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield respecting a tenement in Norton near Cannokbury. Their sureties, William de Alrewych and William le Freman of Barre, are in misericordiâ. m. 5, dorso.
An assize, etc., if Urian de St. Pierre and Margaret his wife and two others had unjustly disseised Richard son of William de Wolaston of a messuage and two carucates of land in la Hyde and Chylinton near Brewode.
Urian answered for his wife, and stated he had demised the tenements to Richard in fee farm for 18 marks annually, on condition he found sufficient security for the farm in question; and because he had not found security he had turned him out.
The jury say that there had been an arrangement as stated by Urian, and on the faith of it Richard had ploughed and sown the land with his own corn, but he had never been in seisin of it. Verdict for the defendants. m. 6.
An assize, etc., if John de Baskerville, Nicholas de Audelegh, and John de Norton, had unjustly disseised Peter de Ardern and Elice his wife of a messuage and a carucate of land in Aston near Mere. John de Norton stated he only held at the will of Nicholas; and Geoffrey de Wolselegh the Bailiff of Nicholas stated Nicholas only held the custody of the land till the full age of John de Baskerville; and John stated that John his father died seised of the tenement. The jury say that Peter and Elise were never in seisin of the tenement; they are therefore in misericordiâ for a false claim. m. 6.
Roes daughter of Henry de Wyvereston did not appear to pursue her writ of mort d'ancestor together with Richard le Tayllur and Pavia his wife. She and her sureties, Richard Sprigonel and Hugh de Wyvereston, are therefore in misericordiâ. m. 6.
Thomas de Hamstede not appearing to prosecute his writ of common of pasture in Pyrie versus Richard de Pyrie and Isolda his wife, he and his sureties, Simon le Esquier and Robert de Brondeston, are in misericordiâ. m. 6.
Staff. An assize, etc., if Richard son of Adam de Wolaston, Letitia the widow of Richard of Little Onne, and two others, had unjustly disseised Richard son of Richard de Pycheford of a messuage, six acres of land, an acre of heath, and half an acre of meadow in Little Onne.
The jury say that there was some talk (prolocutio) of Richard son of Adam marrying the sister of Richard son of Richard, and Richard son of Adam had enfeoffed Richard son of Richard of two parts of the messuage and the other tenements on condition that he re-enfeoffed him and his sister in them, and he had put him into seisin of them for three days, and it was afterwards found that Richard son of Adam could not marry the sister of Richard son of Richard, because another woman claimed him as her husband (petiit ipsum in virum) by reason of a previous contract. The Court gave judgment in favour of Richard son of Adam, because the tenements were given upon conditions which could not be carried out, and inasmuch as the cause was destroyed, the effect should also be destroyed (sicut destructa causa, destrui debet effectus). m. 6, dorso.
Hugh de Veston (Weston) produced the King's Charter in these words: "Edwardus, etc. Omnibus ballivis, etc. Compatientes inbescillitatem (sic) dilecti et fidelis nostri Hugonis filii Hugonis de Veston in Comitatu Stafford, concessimus ei, etc., quod toto tempore vitœ suœ habeat hanc libertatem videlicet quod non ponatur in assisis, juratis, etc., et quod non fiat vicecomes, coronator, escaetor, forestarius, veredarius, agistator, regardator, aut alius ballivus noster contra voluntatem suam. In cujus rei, etc. Datum xv. die Novembris, anno regni nostri octavo." m. 6, dorso.
Assizes taken at Tamworth in co. Stafford before the same Justices on the Thursday after the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincula, 22 E. I.
An assize, etc., if Robert le Champion and Agnes his wife, William son of Agnes, and Robert brother of William, had unjustly disseised Richard son of Hervey de Stretton of the third part of a virgate of land in Stretton.
The defendants pleaded that they held the tenement in common with William the brother of Robert (le Champion) by a demise of Richard son of Richard de Stretton, and they produced the deed of Richard. Suit dismissed. m. 8.
An assize, etc., if John the Prior of Stone, Richard le Clerk, and two others had unjustly disseised William son of Robert de Cotes of a corrodium at Stone, viz., every day a loaf of bread, a gallon of beer, a potagium and ferculum, as a Canon, and of a robe annually, of the value of a mark, and sustenance for a horse in hay and oats for three nights, viz., a bushel of oats, and the corrodium for a groom, and four cartloads of wood annually, and two candles de cepo every night from the Feast of All Saints till the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Mary. The jury find in his favour. Damages 30s. (fn. 2) m. 8.
William de Freford not appearing to prosecute his suit against Walter de Wynterton and Sibilla his wife and others respecting common of pasture in Swynefen, it is dismissed. m. 8.
John son of Reginald de Norton and Alice his wife and Richard de Bentlegh and Matilda his wife not appearing to prosecute their writ against John son of Thomas de Norton respecting a tenement in Norton near Cannockbury, it is dismissed. m. 8.
Henry de Caumpeden not appearing to prosecute his suit against Sibilla the wife of Alan Pees and other tenants in Alveton, it is dismissed. m. 8.
Thomas Cotyn of Great Madelegh-under-Lyme not appearing to prosecute his writs against Robert de Grafton and Isolda his wife and Felicia de Brokendale respecting land in Great Madelegh, the suits are dismissed. m. 8, dorso.
An assize, etc., if Robert Abel and Isabel his wife, Henry son of Ralph Neel of Tamworth, Robert de Somerville, Henry de Alrewas, Clericas, John de Orreby, and twenty-nine others named, had unjustly disseised Robert de Pycheford of three tenements specified in Tamworth. The jury say that King Henry held the tenements in demesne, and committed them to Henry de Hastingges in exchange for other lands in Cheshire, and Henry had enfeoffed in them Magister Richard de Wyvelesleye and Robert his brother to hold of him and his heirs, and Richard and Robert had enfeoffed in them Philip Marmyon, to hold of them and their heirs, and Philip had caused to be constructed on the laud a certain Hospital, and had placed in it a master and brothers, who afterwards relinquished it out of poverty; and Philip then took the land again into his own hands and conveyed it to certain tenants-at-will; and Philip had afterwards demised the tenements to Robert de Pycheford for term of his life, and Robert Abel and Isabella, and two others of the defendants, had lately impleaded Robert de Pycheford in the Court of Robert de Somervill of Alrewas by a King's writ of right, according to the custom of the manor of Alrewas, for the same tenements; and because Robert de Pycheford refused to plead in the Court, had recovered them by a verdict given in their favour, and a precept had been issued by the Sheriff to his Bailiff to put them into seisin of them; but Robert would not permit them to take seisin until they and the other defendants, excepting Robert de Somerville and Henry Myner, had ejected him vi et armis. And the jury being questioned if the tenements are of the manor of Alrewas, or appurtenant to it, say they are not, but belong to the manor of Tamewurth, which John de Hastings holds of the King. It is therefore considered that Robert de Pycheford should recover seisin of them, and all the defendants excepting Robert de Somerville and Henry Myner should be committed to prison. m. 8, dorso.
Assizes taken at Tamwurth in co. Stafford on the Thursday after the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincula, 22 E. I.
Staff. An assize, etc., if Ralph le Botiler and Matilda his wife had unjustly disseised Jordan de Flosbrok of estovers of wood for burning and building without the view of the Forester in Northbyri (Norbury). The Bailiff of Ralph stated that one Richard the father of Jordan (whose heir he is) had brought a King's writ against Philip Marmyon then the tenant of the wood respecting the same estovers, and Philip had then conceded to him reasonable estovers by view and livery of his Foresters, but not otherwise, and Jordan is now in seisin of that right. Jordan stated he was in seisin of the right of estover without view or liberty of the Foresters until Ralph and Matilda had deprived him of it; and the jury find in his favour. Damages 1 mark. m. 9.
Thomas de Whytynton not appearing to prosecute his suit against Reginald de Chavernes, Reginald, Richard, and Thomas his sons, and four others named, respecting tenements in Chavernes (Charnes) and Whytynton, it is dismissed. m. 9.
An assize, etc., if Roger son of Jordan de Pywelesdon had unjustly disseised Jordan de Flosbrok of nine marks of rent in Flosbrok. Roger took exception to the writ, because the last word but one of it, where "vicessimo secundo" should have been written, was written "vicesim." Roger withdrew his writ. m. 9.
An assize, etc., if William de Routhelegh the father of Roger had been seised as of fee when he died of a messuage in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which Geoffrey de Cnotton holds. Geoffrey took exception to the writ, because he held the tenement conjointly with Richard his son, who was not named in it. Verdict for Geoffrey. m. 9.
An assize, etc., if Philip Burnel, Richard de Bisshopeston (Bishton), and Ralph Sprengehose had unjustly disseised Richard Bagod of Brunesford and Covene of a messuage, fifteen and a half acres of land, and three acres of heath. Philip Burnel did not appear, and the other defendants pleaded the assize could not proceed because the land was in the King's hands. Suit dismissed. m. 9.
The jury upon whom Jordan de Flosbrok and Ralph son of Ralph le Botyler had put themselves, convicted the said Ralph of having struck Jordan in the presence of the Justices, maliciously and to the contempt of the King and of the Court, when the said Jordan was withdrawing from the bar of this Court (a barrâ istius Curiœ), after he had recovered his reasonable estovers against Ralph le Botyler the father of Ralph. Jordan is therefore to have half a mark for damages, and Ralph is to be committed to prison. m. 9.
Robert son of Robert de Esington appealed to a jury of twenty-four to convict a former jury of a false judgment in the suit between him and Robert de Sewalefeld and others respecting a tenement in Byssheburi (Bushbury). The jury of twenty-four found the same verdict as the former jury. Robert son of Robert is therefore committed to prison for a false claim. He was afterwards released on payment of a fine of 20s. m. 9, dorso.
Staff. An assize, etc., if Roger the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, Robert de Pype, Richard Trumwyne, and three others, had unjustly disseised Richard de Bentelegh and Matilda his wife of three hundred acres of heath in Norton near Cannokbury.
The Bishop by Robert de Pype his bailiff stated the assize should not proceed, because the King had given him the heath by a charter which he produced, dated 28th May, 18 E. I., and which testified that the King gave to the Bishop the woods of High Canok, which he had taken into his hands on occasion of a presentment made before the Justices of the Forest at the Iter of 14 E. I., (fn. 3) together with the venison, waste, and all other things pertaining to the Bishop's manors of Ruggeleye and Canokburi by the metes and bounds written below, viz., Asselenetherende (Assele nether end), ascending as far as Claybrok by the haye of Asseleye, and so ascending Claybrok as far as Claywalle, and from Claywalle as far as Blakesicheheved, and then ascending the Blakesicheheved as far as Hauekeswelle, and so from Hauekeswelle by Lechenardesty through the Dyngles as far as Modyok, and so on from the Modyk by the same road of Lechenardesty as far as Blakestret, and so ascending the Blakestret as far as Orburywelle, and so descending the demesne (dominicum) of Orburywelle as far as Sarebrok, and from Sarebrok as far as the brook (rivulum) which is called Caldewellesiche, and from Caldewellesiche ascending by the King's haye of Chystelyn as far as Marebrok, ascending as far as the Fethersty and ascending the Fethersty as far as the haye of Huntyndon, and thence by Huntyndonsty ascending as far as the ditch of the Blessed Cedde, and so by the other road as far as the road which leads from Pencrich towards Ruggeleye, and then descending that road as far as Nantmarethorn, and thence by a valley as far as Shirebrokesheved, and so descending from Schirebrok as far as Ottefordewey, then ascending Ottefordewey as far as Holbrokesheved, and so descending by Alfledewey as far as Alfledeforde in Ruybrok, and then descending from Ruybrok as far as Frenbrak, and so from Fernbrak by a certain pathway as far as the Myddelwey, and then ascending the Middelwey as far as the Boredebyk, and so from the Boredebyk as far as Daywellewey, and then descending Daywellewey as far as Daywelle, and so descending Daywellesich as far as Trente, and then following by Trente as far as Asseleynetherende.
Robert and Matilda admitted the land in question was within the metes and bounds named in the King's Charter, but they said it was in Norton and not in Ruggelye, nor in Cannockburi, and that they were in seisin of the land before the charter was issued. The suit was adjourned to Lichfield for the Monday after the Octaves of Trinity; on which day a postscript states the Justices did not come to that place, but they were at Wolverhampton on the Monday after Michaelmas Day, 23 E. I., when the parties appeared before them, and Robert de Pype on the part of the Bishop pleaded that all the lands and tenements within the bounds specified were taken into the King's hands on the occasion of the Bishop's forfeiture before the Justices of the Forest, and they were in the King's hands for more than two years, and the Bishop then obtained them back by the King's Charter, so that he was in seisin of them by gift of the King, and not by a disseisin, and he prayed judgment on this point.
The jury say that two parts of the land in question are in Canokbyry, and the third part is in Norton, and the Bishop obtained the third part by the King's Charter and not by a disseisin; a verdict is therefore given for the Bishop on this writ. Richard and Matilda to sue the King for the third part, if they think it expedient (si sibi viderint expedire). m. 10.
Assizes taken at Tamwurth on the Thursday after the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincula, 21 E. I.
Staff. An assize, etc., if Robert Corbet and Petronilla his wife, Adam de Swynesheved, Richard Corbet, and Robert son of Hamon de Onileye and Alice his wife, had unjustly disseised John son of Simon de Cherleton and John son of Thomas de Wodewardington, and Petronilla the wife of Roger de Levington of sixty acres of wood and ten acres of heath in Cherleton.
Robert and Petronilla answered as tenants, and stated the wood and heath did not contain more than sixty-five acres, and are now cultivated and were cultivated at the date of the writ, viz., 29th April of this year, and no assize ought to be taken, because the tenements belonged to the said Robert Corbet, and he by a fine levied in Banco 8 E. I., had acknowledged they belonged to Richard Corbet, for which acknowledgment Richard had granted them to Robert and Petronilla and heirs of their bodies, and he produced the fine and prayed for judgment, because the plaintiffs at that date were all of full age and of good memory, and within the four seas, and out of prison, and made no claim. Afterwards withdrawing this exception, they stated that as regarded thirty-five acres of the land Robert had entered by Simon de Cherleton, and Thomas de Wodewardington and Robert de Johanneston, who had conjointly demised them to him, and he had entered into ten acres by the said Simon, and into another ten acres by Thomas de Wodewardington, and another ten acres by John de Joneston, and not by a disseisin.
The jury return a verdict in favour of Robert Corbet and Petronilla.
Geoffrey de Greseleye, John Bagod de Bromleye, John Griffin of Colton, John de Charnes, John de Eyton of Asshele, recognitors, never appeared, and are in misericordiâ. m. 10, dorso.
Assizes taken at Wulrenehampton on the Tuesday after Michaelmas Day, 22 E. I.
An assize, etc., if Walter de Wynterton and Sibilla his wife, Philip de Anst, Thomas de Kirkeby and Margaret his wife, Richard de Pulton, Henry son of Hugh de Swynefen, and two others named, had unjustly disseised William de Freford of sixty acres of common of pasture in Swynefen appurtenant to his free tenement in Freford. The jury found in favour of William, except as regarded Walter and Philip. Damages 2s. John de Heronvill, Stephen de Curzon and Walter the carpenter of Rydeware, recognitors, never appeared, and are in misericordia. m. 11.
An assize, etc., if Henry Fynch the brother of John Fynch of Lichefeld was seised, etc., of a messuage and thirty acres of land, an acre of meadow, and 16d. of rent in Morughale near Lichefeld when he died, which William son of Adam Trumwyne and Lettice his wife hold. William and Lettice called Robert Trumwyne to warranty, who is to be summoned for the Octaves of Trinity. m. 11.
An assize, etc., if Richard de Ruggeleye had unjustly disseised Hugh son of Geoffrey de Longedon of a messuage and six acres of land in Longedon.
The jury say that Richard four years ago had enfeoffed Hugh of the tenement on condition that Hugh re-enfeoffed Richard for term of his life, and the charter of feoffment was given to one John le Waleys to hold on behalf of both parties until Hugh made the feoffment; and because Hugh would not make the feoffment agreed upon, Richard had re-entered the tenements. Verdict for Richard. m. 11.
An assize, etc., if Richard son of Richard de Leleweys (Liswys) of Wonnynton, William de Chatculne (Clericus), and Roger his son had unjustly disseised Thomas son of Gervase de Staundon of fourteen acres of land and 14d. of rent in Chatculne.
The jury say that the tenements formerly belonged to one Robert le Cotiller, who was put on his trial for the death of his wife by an inquisition taken before the coroners, on which occasion the tenements were taken into the King's hands, and the said Robert apprehended and put into prison; and Thomas was accused before John de Berwick and his fellow Justices of having by conspiracy and deception procured the release of the said Robert and obtained the tenements in question. The tenements were therefore taken again into the King's hands, and then William paid a fine to have the seisin of them which the King might possess. And Thomas was afterwards acquitted of any conspiracy, and William whilst in seisin of the land enfeoffed his son Roger. And because William enfeoffed the said Roger when he only held in the name of the King, he was committed to the custody of the Sheriff, who was ordered to produce him before the same Justices at Westminster at three weeks from Michaelmas. A postscript states a verdict was delivered at that date, that inasmuch as it was shown that Robert le Cotyler who enfeoffed Thomas of the tenements was not guilty of the death of his wife, and Thomas was acquitted of the said conspiracy, and William de Chatculne could therefore claim no eschaet in the tenements, and because the same William had enfeoffed his son Roger when he only held a tenancy in the name of the King until Thomas was acquitted of the said conspiracy; it is considered that William and Roger should gain nothing by this assize, and that Thomas should recover his seisin in the tenements; and William is committed to prison, and Roger is in misericordiâ, and William is in misericordiâ for a false claim against Richard son of Richard. William afterwards fined 20s. for his release, for which Thomas de Benteleye, Adam de Swynesheved, Nicholas de Fraunkele, and John de Hereford of co. Worcester are sureties. Damages 1 mark. m. 11.
An assize, etc., if John le Mareschall of Stafford, William Gilberd of Stafford, Adam de Overton, Richard de Coueleye, William de Tytteleye, and two others, had unjustly disseised Hugh le Blund of twenty-four acres of land and an acre of alnetum in la More near Pencrych.
William de Tytteleye appeared by his Bailiff Robert Trumwyn, and John le Mareschal stated that one William de la More formerly held the tenements of him, and he had committed a felony of which he was convicted in the Iter of John de Berwick and his fellow Justices lately itinerant in the county, for which he was hanged; and after the year and a day had elapsed during which the tenements were in the King's hands, an inquisition had been taken by which it appeared that William held the tenements of him, and he had entered into them by livery of the Sheriff. And William de Tytteleye stated he had merely executed the King's writ, and Richard stated he was Bailiff of the Hundred, and had executed the writ of the Sheriff.
Hugh stated that William de la More held the said tenements of him, and he had fined with the Justices Itinerant to have the year and waste as capital lord, and he was in seisin of the tenements until ejected by the defendants.
The jury say that Hugh had obtained the tenements by a fine he made for the year and waste, and remained in seisin of them for half a year longer, claiming them as his eschaet, and when it appeared by inquisition that the tenements were held of John le Mareschal, William as Sheriff had delivered seisin of them to the said John. And the jury being asked of whom William de la More held the tenements, said he held them of John le Mareschal, and John held them of the said Hugh. A day was given to the parties to hear judgment at Westminster at three weeks from Michaelmas. A postscript states Hugh never appeared at Westminster, and his sureties, Adam son of Thomas de Penkrich and Robert son of Hamon de Couleye, are in misericordiâ. m. 11, dorso.
An assize, etc., if Richard son of William de Caureswelle, William de Fulford, and two others, had unjustly disseised Joan the widow of William de Caureswelle of sixty acres of wood, a piece of land, and every third wild beast (bestia silrestris) taken in the park of the said Richard de Caureswelle.
Richard stated that Joan was in seisin by reason of her dower of the piece of land claimed, and every third beast, if she chose to take them.
The jury say that Richard had disseised Joan of part of the land and of the wild beasts she claimed, and her damages are taxed at 12s. And Robert de Acovere of Denston, Richard de Acovere, Roger de Bagenholt, William Poutrel, Henry son of Ralph de Astenefeld, Roger de Sutton, Ralph de Rodeyerd, William de Stanlowe, and Adam de la Haye, recognitors, never appeared, and are in misericordiâ. They are fined 20d. each.
Damages 12s. 8d., and the cost of the writ, 8s. 2d. m. 12.
An assize, etc., if Richard son of Philip de Draycote and Philip son of the said Richard, Robert le Harpur, and five others, had unjustly disseised William son of Philip de Draycote of forty acres of land and his reasonable estovers in one hundred acres of wood in Draycote, Cressewell, Leyes, and Neuton near Cressewelle. None of the defendants appeared except Richard, and the assize was taken in their absence. And Richard stated that his father Philip died seised of the said lands and wood in severalty, and he had entered as his son and heir.
The jury say that Richard and the other defendants had disseised William of the land and of his estovers vi et armis. He is therefore to recover seisin of them, and his damages are taxed at 5 marks. And Richard is committed to prison, and the other defendants who did not appear, except William Badecock and William Hodynet, are to be apprehended. Richard was afterwards released for a fine for himself and his son Philip of 5 marks, for which William de Stafford and John Giffard of Chelington are sureties; and Richard afterwards paid a fine of 20s. for the other defendants, for which Roger de Draycote and John de Cressewell are sureties. And Ralph Basset, Henry de Verdun, John Bagot, William lord of Colton, and William de Bagenholt (Bagnall), recognitors, who did not appear, are fined 20d. each, with the exception of Ralph Basset, who was at Portsmouth. Damages 5 marks, and 20s., and cost of the writ, 8s. 2d. m. 12.
An assize, etc., if John son of Olyver de Longeford, Joan the widow of William de Caureswelle, Theobald de Verdun, Henry Godman, Henry le Chaloner, Henry de Locwode, and Symon Vicar of the Church of Athelaxton, and six others named, had unjustly disseised John son of Ralph de Prestwode of his common of pasture in one hundred and sixty acres of moor and heath in Athelaston (Ellaston) in Duvedale. Joan stated as regarded half the heath claimed she held it by the assignment of William de Careswell for a term of years; and Theobald de Verdun stated he had demised half the vill of Athelaston to William de Caureswell for the life of William; John fitz Olyver stated that Olyver his father had demised the other half of the vill to William de Caureswell, and William had approved the moor and heath in question in the name of Theobald and Olyver, (fn. 4) and with the assent of the said John son of Ralph de Prestwode, who had received eight acres of the waste to permit the approvement. The jury find in favour of the defendants. Roger de Sutton, William de Bagenholt, and Henry son of Ralph de Astenesfeld, recognitors, who did not appear, are fined 20d. each, excepting Roger, who was sick (eger).
An assize, etc., if Magister Robert de Fyleby and Henry Wymer, junior, and Agnes his wife, had unjustly raised a stank in Forbruge to the injury of the free tenement of Robert de Marisco in Bradeleye, and by which ten acres of his meadow and ten of pasture had been submerged. The jury state that Magister Robert had raised the dam unjustly; it is therefore to be lowered at his costs, and the damages are taxed at 20s., and Robert de Marisco is in misericordiâ for a false claim against Henry and Agnes. (fn. 5) m. 12, dorso.
An assize, etc., if Richard de Bisshopeston (Bishton) and Ralph Sprengehuse had unjustly disseised Richard Bagod of Brunesford (Brinsford) of a messuage and fifteen and a half acres of land, and three acres of heath, and a rood of meadow in Byssebury.
Ralph answered as tenant, and stated Richard had remitted all his claim in the tenements to Robert Burnel formerly Bishop of Bath and Wells, and his heirs, by a deed which he produced. A jury found in his favour. m. 12, dorso.
Assizes taken before the same Justices at Wolverhampton, on the Monday after Michaelmas Day, 23 E. I.
Staff. An assize, etc., if the Prior of Stanes and two others had unjustly obstructed a road in Stanes to the injury of the free tenement of Joan the widow of Roger de Pyveleston in Walton, and where she used to have a right of way (chaciam) direct from the open fields (campo) of Walton to her manor of Walton. The Prior denied that Joan had any right of way except at his will, and the jury found in his favour. m. 13.
An assize, etc., if William de Dutton, Robert de Dutton, Roger de Dutton, and two others, had unjustly disseised Philippa the widow of Thomas de Dutton of the fourth part of the manors of Mere and Aston.
Robert de Dutton stated that Philippa was never in seisin of the tenements claimed, and the jury found in his favour. m. 13.
An assize, etc., if John Griffyn of Colton, and William de Neuton of Colton had unjustly disseised Henry son of Hugh de Colton of two pieces of land in Colton, one fifty-four feet by four feet, and the other twelve feet by eight feet. The jury found in favour of the plaintiff. Damages 40d. m. 13, dorso.
An assize, etc., if Agnes daughter of Henry Griffyn of Colton, Richard de Rolvyston, William son of John Griffyn of Colton, and John brother of the said William, had unjustly disseised Alice the daughter of Henry Griffyn of half a messuage and three acres of land in Colton.
John answered as tenant of the land, and stated he had entered by the said William son of John Griffyn, and William said he had entered by Richard de Rolvyston, and Richard stated he had entered by Agnes, and Agnes stated that Alice never was in seisin of the tenement. The jury found in favour of Alice. Damages 2s.