Staffordshire Historical Collections, Vol. 7, Part 1. Originally published by Staffordshire Record Society, London, 1886.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
Gaol Delivery, Co. Stafford, 34 E. I.
Indictments of co. Stafford made before W. Martyn, H. Spigurnel, and his Fellow Justices, Assigned to hear and Determine divers Felonies and Trespasses, on the Mon-day the Feast of St. Michael, 34 E. I., incipiente.
Extracts. (fn. 1)
Thomas le Screvayn of Newcastle had broken by night into the house of William Coly in Newcastle, and take a cloak worth 6s., a clasp (firmaculum) of silver worth 3s., and had ravished Licoricia the daughter of the said William, and in company with Thomas de Knotton and John Screveyn of Newcastle had broken by night into the grange of Richard Tredefer, Chaplain, and carried away six quarters of oats worth 6s., and had beaten and illtreated the said Richard.
John Partrich of Acton had feloniously killed William de Bagenholt (fn. 2) in the vill of Newcastle. m. 1.
William Baly of Beche had feloniously killed Henry de Salt (fn. 3) in Stafford.
Thomas de Aston and Geoffrey and Richard his brothers assaulted John de Lambourne the King's Bailiff with their swords, and had pursued him in order to beat him in full market of Stafford, until he was rescued by the Bailiffs of the town, and they are common fighters (pugnatores) in fairs and other places.
William le Tayllur of Duynton is a mover of false pleas, and had falsely and maliciously impleaded Walter le Teynturer, Alan le Gaunter, and many others of the vill of Burton, by divers King's writs, and had prosecuted the pleas to extort money from them.
John lord of Bursyngcote had beaten and illtreated John Rammesheved in the full court of the Abbot of Burton in Burton, because the said John had come into court with Henry le Parminter to sue the said John. And the same John had threatened John Jolyf the man of the Earl of Lancaster that he would beat him, so that the said John Jolyf had made a fine with him of half a mark not to be beaten, and he had taken half a mark from Richard Cole in the same way out of fear, and he had beaten, wounded, and illtreated Roger de la Bachouse, and had taken 4s. from him in the same way out of fear. And by threats he had extorted 40d. from Richard de Walton. And the same John had beaten and illtreated William de Dunstal with his sword, and had broken his sword upon him, and afterwards by threats had extorted from him 2s. in order to repair his sword broken in this manner. And the same John by his threats had so terrified Richard de Donwedgla that he did not venture to essoign Richard Golle in the Hundred Court of Repyndon against the said John, so that Richard making default lost his case. And John Chatel had beaten and illtreated William Tugg and many others in the vill of Burton by the support of the said John de Brunescote, and he is a common malefactor and disturber of the peace.
William de Wemme the shepherd of Ralph le Botiller had feloniously killed William the Parson of the Church of Northbury ; and the same William had beaten and illtreated John the Clerk of Levynton (Loynton), and is a common malefactor.
John de Braundon and John Coublod had broken by night into the house of Alice formerly wife of Roger the Carter of Forbrugge, and had taken her goods to the value of 2s., and had feloniously killed the said Alice and Agnes her daughter; and the same John de Braundon and John Coupland had feloniously killed John de Leye and William de Sondon at Tyllynton.
Audoen de Montgomery had maliciously impleaded the men of the vill of Tottenhale Regis, which is of the ancient demesne of the King, before the Barons of the Exchequer, for a trespass against the King in the wood of Breuwode, and had prosecuted the plea against them until the said men had fined with him for 100s., which he had appropriated to himself.
Robert lord of Esyngton had taken from Robert de Wynton goods to the value of 100s. to defend and maintain him vi et armis in his Prebend of Codeshale, for which he was impleaded by Magister Thomas de Tefons, and afterwards had taken from the said Magister Thomas £10 to permit him to enter into the same Prebend.
Richard son of Richard Burdun, Adam his brother, Chaplain of Tottenhale, and Richard son of Elias of Wolverhampton, had broken open the house of William son of Luke de Wygges (Wergs), the Provost of Tottenhale, and beaten and wounded Agatha the wife of the said William.
John Wodeman of Blokeswich, John de la Bourne of Langdon, and Simon Scot of Kyngesbromlegh, had come with others unknown to the house of Magister Geoffrey de Bilston, in the vill of Bilston, and had feloniously stolen from it goods to the value of £40.
William son of William de Netherpenne had robbed Magister Richard Walrond at Netherpenne of oxen and cows, and had feloniously killed two men there, and had buried them in a marl pit in the fields of Penne.
Roger son of the Lady of Stratton (fn. 4) (Stretton) had beaten, wounded, and ill-treated Richard son of Henry de Stanton in Stretton, but not with malice aforethought.
Henry de Nonyleye, living in the vill of Idushale (Albrighton) in co. Salop, William Baret of Nonyleye, and William Donnogh le Harpour of Dydeshale, with others unknown, had robbed Richard de Pychefeud by night in the vill of Blomenhale (Blymhill) of goods to the value of £10. m. 2.
Richard Broun of Stretton, and Oliver, John, and Roger his brothers, and John Basset of Shradycote, had beaten, wounded, and ill-treated Robert le Megre the Parson of Mokynton at the fair of Pencrych, against the peace, and with malice aforethought.
Richard Jolyf the sub-bailiff of John de Somery in the castle of Doddeleye, had broken into the park of the said John de Somery, and had driven out of it by night six of his cattle, which were inhibita by the said John.
William son of Albred de Sollenny (Alfred de Sulney (fn. 5) ), Adam Buck, Robert le Parker, Hugh Gamel, and Robert de Verney had entered the park of Sir Robert de Bures of Charteleye and, with the assent of William Galvun the parker, had taken and carried away game (feras) from it.
Robert son of Agnes de Stretton, William his brother, Hugh his brother, Robert son of Simon Sadelgos, John son of Agnes de Stretton, Richard son of John le Bedel of Stretton, John his brother, Hugh his brother, and Robert son of Robert le Fowler of Stretton, had beaten, wounded, and ill-treated Henry le Carter, William atte Pole, Roger le Heuster, Stephen de Grenehull, and others named, at Brewode, and broken the windows and doors of their houses, and they are common disturbers of the peace.
Hugh, Roger, William, Robert, John, and Thomas, brothers of the said Oliver, had broken into the park of the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield at Brewode, and had taken on one occasion a buck, and on another two bucks.
Adam son of Robert de Hampton, and John and Thomas his brothers, had beaten, wounded, and ill-treated Richard de Leyes, Chaplain, and Thomas de Huctesdon at Lockesleye, and are common disturbers of the peace.
Robert le Grene, Adam Skat, Robert de Hyntes, Peter de Griseleye, (Gresley), and twenty-seven others named, had come vi et armis to the heath of Hendenhows, and with a great multitude of cattle had driven over the standing corn of Sir Geoffrey de Campville, Knight, and they had done the same on several occasions in the years 27 E. I., 28 E. I., and 31 E. I.
Nicholas Page of Hamburi had feloniously killed Richard Godman of Collingwood (fn. 6) (Bosco calumpniato) in Tattenhull (Tattenhill).
Peter le Ferour, who was with the Earl of Lancaster had beaten and illtreated Stephen de Cursun the lord of Falde (Fauld) and Stephen his son, and he is a common bully (verberator) and disturber of the peace.
Peter de Fulham, who was Chief Forester of Nedwode, Reginald le Ferour, who was with the Earl of Lancaster, Peter le Palefraymon, and ten others named, had come with others unknown to the house of Juliana de Myneres, and had broken down the fence of her park vi et armis, and had taken away all the beasts from the said park and killed two colts of the said Juliana.
William Illary is a conspirator and campertor of pleas, because he moved a plea of William de Erleston against John de Heronville respecting a piece of land, and had half of it given to him to prosecute the plea.
The same William Illary had caused Roger Normon to be indicted for the death of his wife, and had afterwards obtained three cows from the said Roger, and he had caused John de Blockeswich to be indicted for the death of * * * * son of Adam de Herdewych, and afterwards the said John sold his land to the said William for 20 marks and it was worth 40 marks, and Roger Norman then fled out of fear lest he should be arrested.
Ralph de Pype and Robert de Gressebrok, by a conspiracy between them, had caused William de Rudyng of Stonhale to be indicted for felony three times, and each time had acquitted him for a bribe, and they are common conspirators.
James de Astle (Astley) is a conspirator, because when William le Botyller lord of Werynton enfeoffed the said James of his manor of Crophull, in order that the said James might re-enfeoff William and his wife to hold to them and their heirs, the said James after he had obtained seisin of the manor, up to this time had refused to re-enfeoff them.
Adam, who was sometarius (sompterman) of James de Astele, and William Flyngaunt, had robbed the house of Edith Schot at Hautbari of goods to the value of 20s., and had feloniously burnt her house and taken the goods to the house of the said James in co. Warwick ; and James de Astele had sent them to commit the said felony, and had received the goods. The same James had feloniously entered by night the close of Adam del Ree, and had taken away, on three carts and by men unknown, the timber of Jordan de Tamworth which was lying there, to the value of 40s.
The same James had rescued, vi et armis, six oxen which Robert Odynet (Hodynet) the King's bailiff had taken as a distress for a debt owing to the King, and had beaten and ill-treated the said bailiff.
John de Felton son of Robert de Felton, and Madoc de Cuckot together with Robert de Stapelton, who is dead, had come with others unknown to the fields of Fyscherwyke, and had beaten and wounded Nicholas Durdent, and had broken his arms and legs.
Robert de Felton, Knight, had sent the said John and John Maddoc to commit the above assault, and he sent them because he would not prosecute his writ which he had sued out against the said Robert for a day given to him in the King's Court, and for which writ the said Nicholas Durdent gave to the King 100s., and he thus lost his writ through malice and falsehood.
Richard atte Rowe of Horborne and Richard Jolyf of the same, of the household of John de Teshale, had beaten, wounded, and ill-treated William de Heaumes, the bailiff of the Bishop of Chester, at Horbourne (Harbourne), and had taken away the arms of the said William, viz., his sword, bow, and arrows, to the value of 20d., and the said John de Teshale had afterwards knowingly received them.
John de Brumle (Tanner), Richard de Wollerhampton, Richard de Brewode, William son of Robert de Pipe (Tanner), and six others named, had beaten, wounded, and ill-treated Hugh de Tympmore (Timmoor) in Lichfield, and they are common bullies (verberatores).
Stephen de Brewode the forester, Richard son of Walter the carpenter, of Rydewarehampstal, and John his brother, and William Hardyng of co. Chester, had feloniously killed Thomas de Arderne of Rydewarehampstal in Rydewarehampstal.
Roger le Gardiner of Yoxhale, Henry de Shirleye, and others unknown, had burnt the close of the park of Joan de Myners at Blakenhale, and had killed a colt and other cattle belonging to her, and Roger is a common robber.
John de Brimshill, Hundredarius of Tottemonslawe, is a conspirator, because he caused an approver from Gloucester to appeal Philip de Chetewynde and Robert his brother for a robbery committed at the house of the said John de Brumeshulle, falsely and maliciously.
That Oliver, Roger, Hugh, Robert, William, Thomas, Richard, John, and Nicholas, the sons of Agnes de Stratton (Stretton), had beaten, wounded, and ill-treated Robert le Megre at Pencrych, with malice aforethought; and they are common malefactors in parks and fishponds; and they had broken into the park of the Bishop of Chester and taken two beasts, of which one had been sent to the house of Robert le Champioun.
Adam de Staneye had come by night, and vi et armis had abducted Elena formerly wife of Richard de Loges (fn. 7) at Rodbeston, and he had taken her and married her against her will.
Nicholas Meverel of Gayton had falsely and maliciously caused William in the Bourne to be indicted for the death of an unknown man, after he had been previously acquitted of the same, and William del Hull, formerly subSheriff of the County, had abetted him in the same.
William Shirard, William son of Roger Bydulf, and William de Bromhale of Lek, with others unknown, had assaulted Robert de Bockenhale at Rewenhale (Rownall) with bows and arrows in order to kill him, and had killed his horse with an arrow.
From the chattels of William de Podymor, confiscated, (fn. 8) 111s. 3d.
William Shyrard, Richard his brother, Roger de Bydulf, and William his brother, were attached to answer Robert de Bockenhale in a plea that, on the Thursday after the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, 32 E. I., they had assaulted him on the high road at Ruwenhale (Rownall), vi et armis, and had killed his horse, worth £20, with an arrow. The defendants denied the trespass and injury, and appealed to a jury.
The jury say that the said Richard brother of William Shirard, and Roger de Bydulf, are not guilty of the trespass, but that William Shirard and William brother of Roger Bydulf, together with Henry de Crossele, sic (Creswell), who had been hanged, with many others who are unknown, on the date named, with malice aforethought, had collected together, and had laid concealed on the high road sub dumis, waiting insidiously for the said Robert in order to beat and ill-treat him; and when the said Robert passed by, the said William, and William and Henry who had been hanged, and others of his company, had assaulted the said Robert, and shot arrows at him, and had penetrated his robe in several places with arrows, and had so wounded his horse with arrows, that it had died within three days; and the jury being asked if the said Robert had been wounded in his body, said no. It is therefore considered that Robert should recover damages, which are taxed at £20, and the said William and William are committed to gaol. They afterwards made fine as appears on the Roll of Fines.
Nicholas son of Nicholas le Keu of Great Sardon not prosecuting his suit of breach of the peace against William de Coursun, lord of Croxhale, Joan his sister, Woladouse (Gladys) de la Pole, and Simon the groom of William Corsun sic (de Curzon), he and his sureties are in misericordiâ. m. 7.
James de Astleye was attached to answer John de Myners, the executor of the will of Thomas de Arderne, in a plea that together with others unknown, on the Thursday after the Feast of the Translation of St. Thomas the Martyr, 26 E. I., he had come to the house of the said Thomas at Rydewarehampstall, and had carried away the chattels and goods of the defunct to the value of £100, viz., in silver, and gold rings, horses, arms, etc.
James admitted he had come to the house on the date named, in order to take possession in the name of Robert de Stapelton, the said Thomas holding the tenement in capite of the said Robert, but he denied any injury to John, and appealed to a jury.
The jury say that Thomas with others unknown had carried away, vi et armis, goods formerly belonging to Thomas de Arderne, and which were in the custody of the said John de Myners. It is therefore considered that John should recover damages, which are taxed by the jury at £40, and James is committed to gaol. He afterwards made fine, as appears on the Roll of Fines. m. 7.
Robert de Bockenhale was attached to answer Henry de Hunhull (Houndhill) in a plea of trespass and conspiracy; and Henry stated that the said Robert by a conspiracy formed between Thomas de Tytteleye then Sheriff of Stafford and Salop, and him then sub-Sheriff, had procured him to be appealed by one Philip fitz Philip, who was under age, for the death of Philip de Louskeford, in the Salop County Court, at Michaelmas, 26 E. I., and by which appeal he had been taken and imprisoned at Stafford, until, by a King's writ, the case had been removed coram Rege, when he had been acquitted, and for which he claimed £40 as damages.
Robert denied that any appeal had been brought against the plaintiff in 26 E. I., or at any time within the date of limit of the Justices in the County Court of Salop, and this he was ready to prove as the Court should think fit. Afterwards Henry came and admitted that no appeal had been brought against him in the County Court within the time of limit of the Justices, and he is therefore in misericordiâ for a false claim. m. 7.
William son of William son of Nicholas de Chatculne sued Vivian de Verdoun, Thomas his brother, John de Coueleye, Richard Malle, and John de Talk for beating, wounding, and ill-treating him, and for breaking his right arm. The jury say that Richard Malle had committed the trespass and injury complained of, and that Vivian and the others were not guilty of it. William is therefore to recover damages against Richard, which were taxed at 100s., and Richard was committed to gaol.
Hugh Gregory of Salop complained that Roger de Verdoun, William son of Roger de Bydulf, and William Shyrard, together with Roger brother of the said William Bydulf, Hugh de Kynnesleye, and Maddoc fitz Gryffin of Hynbarton, on the Sunday the Vigil of St. Matthew the Apostle, 32 E. I., came by night to the house of Henry le Schermon in the vill of Stafford, and had beaten, wounded, and ill-treated him (Hugh Gregory), so that his life was despaired of, William de Mortimer and Roger de Bellafago the King's Justices assigned to take assizes at that time sitting in the town, and for which he claimed £100 as damages. The defendants denied the injury, and appealed to a jury. The jury state that Roger de Verdoun came with others by night to the house of Henry le Scherman at Stafford whilst the said Justices were there to take assizes, and had beaten and ill-treated the said Hugh. Hugh is therefore to recover damages against him, which are taxed by the jury at 60s.; and he is in misericordiâ for a false claim against the others. m. 7, dorso.
Robert son of Ralph de Pype and Emma his wife sued John del Ermytage, Chaplain, for coming with others unknown on the Vigil of the Epiphany, 32 E. I., to the vill of Pype Rydware to the house of the said Emma and ejecting her from it and taking her goods and chattels to the value of 40s., and extorting from her a sum of 5 marks before he would permit her to re-enter her house.
John denied having inflicted any injury to her, and stated that after the death of Walter de Radeware (Rydeware) formerly the husband of the said Emma, who held the said tenement of Ala de Hundesakre, he had taken the possession of the tenement as custos by reason of the minority of Roger son and heir of the said Walter, acting as Seneschall for Ala, and he had held it in the name of the said Ala until Emma had made a fine of 5 marks to have the custody of it until the full age of the said Roger, and he appealed to a jury. The jury found in favour of Robert and Emma, who recovered 8 marks as damages, and John is committed to prison. He afterwards made fine, as appears on the Roll of Fines. m. 7, dorso.
Gaol Delivery of co. Stafford, before W. Martyn, H. Spigurnel, and three fellow Justices, assigned to hear and determine divers Felonies and Trespasses in the said county, on the Monday the Feast of St. Nicholas, 34 E. I.
William de Podymor, indicted for being privy to the death of John de la Dolye, whom Robert Swyft and others had killed at Audeleye, and of receiving part of the proceeds of a robbery committed by the said Robert and others of William Fenne of Eccleshale, in the park of Heleye, and for which Robert and the others had been outlawed, and Thomas son of Utte, William Clyde, William Stok, senior, William Stok, junior, John de Fennyshawe, Alexander de Bygenowe, and others, indicted for the reception of the said Robert Swyft and others, who had killed John de la Doleye, refused to put themselves on the country. They are therefore remitted to gaol ad penam, and their chattels are confiscated.
Henry del Hethe, indicted for the death of Richard Roudyng at Gayton; Simon son of Simon Pare, indicted for the death of Thomas son of William de Careswell, feloniously killed at Fysbrok (Forsbrook); William son of William de Grene of Draycote, indicted for the death of Robert de Pedelore in the fields of Draycote, William le Leche, indicted for the death of Thomas le Peyntour, feloniously killed at Stafford; Roger Greneway, indicted for the death of Robert son of Alan de Knypsleye; William son of Robert de Hampton, indicted for the death of William son of William de Leyes; produced King's pardons, dated from Dunfermelyn, 10th November, 31 E. I.; upon which proclamation was made if anyone sued them for the said deaths; and as nobody sued, firm peace was conceded to them. m. 9.
William de Perton, Forester, indicted for the death of William Vapurnyent, feloniously killed in the wood of Kyngesleye; Thomas brother of Richard de Blythefeld, indicted for the death of Thomas de Litteleye (Lutteley) at Blydefeld; Nicholas Wyrhof of Bydulf indicted for the death of Peter Streythose of Thurfeld, feloniously killed at Tunstall; Roger Gamel, indicted for the death of Richard son of Nicholas le Barber, feloniously killed at Condeshale; Adam son of Richard de Stratton (Stretton), indicted for the death of William son of Adam de Cot feloniously, killed in Pencrych; and Nicholas Page of Hembury, indicted for the death of Richard Godman of Boischallenge, feloniously killed in Tattenhull, produced the King's pardon for the same, viz., William de Perton produced a pardon dated from the town of St. John of Perth, 27th June, 31 E. I.; Thomas son of Richard de Blythefeld produced the King's pardon (de se defendendo) dated from Lenton, 10th April, 31 E. I.; Nicholas Whyrhof a charter dated from Westminster, 26th July, 30 E. I.; Robert Gamel a pardon dated Stryvelyn (Stirling), 7th August, 32 E. I.; Adam son of Richard de Stretton, a pardon dated from Lynlyfen (Linlithgow), 30th January, 30 E. I.; Nicholas Page, a pardon dated from Weston (sic) 3rd April, 26 E. I., and upon which proclamation was publicly made, etc. (as before).
Thomas le Screveyn, indicted for the rape of Licoricia, daughter of William Cok of Newcastle, and for stealing her father's goods, was acquitted. Roger Barker (Bercarius) of Wotton, indicted for stealing three sheep from the Abbot of Crokesdene, was found guilty and hanged. He had no chattels in co. Stafford; his chattels in. co. Derby consisted of three cows, worth 12s., and thirty-two sheep, worth 32s., which were in the custody of Robert de Ayscheburne his brother and William Throp of Knynton.
Henry de Newework, taken at the suit of Philip son of Thomas for feloniously stealing a pair of spurs, put himself on the country. The jury say he is guilty of the theft, but they value the spurs at 3d. only. Philip is therefore to recover his spurs, and Henry is to be put into the pillory on two market days.
Richard Dun, Robert son of Nicholas de Buckenhale, William Baly, Roger Tyvet, Thomas in le Lones of Creswell, Robert de Mere of Berliston, William de Myneworth, Henry del Berfrey, Stephen Turnepenny of Little Barre, Robert son of Robert de Leyes, John son of Ralph de Flynteleye, Robert Gryffyn, (fn. 9) Thomas Cogh, Thomas de Aston, William le Blomere, and Roger de Morghale, indicted for murder, produced King's letters of pardon.
Thomas de Kyrywilyhaile (Willenhall), indicted for the death of John Paynel, and John de la Bourne of Langedone, indicted for a burglary at the house of Magister Geoffrey de Bylston, and William Astel, indicted for a murder, were acquitted.
James de Asteleye, indicted for feloniously entering by night the close of Adam del Ree and stealing timber from it and a horse belonging to the Lady Joan de Myners at Rydeware, refused to stand to his trial, and was remitted to prison ad penam. His chattels were forfeited, and amounted in this county to £9 4d., for which John de Dene the Sheriff answers.
William le Flemyng, indicted for the death of Adam le Flemyng his brother, put himself on the country. The jury say that on the Feast of St. Nicholas, 33 E. I., a quarrel arose in the vill of Tetenhale between the said William and Adam respecting a certain piece of land, of which William their father had enfeoffed the said William his younger son; and Adam assaulted William with an axe, and followed him to kill him as far as a hedge, which William could not climb over, and William, being in peril of death, struck the said Adam on the head with an iron fork which he had in his hand, but he only struck him one blow, and Adam lived for six weeks afterwards; and they say that William did not kill Adam his brother with malice aforethought, but in self defence. He is therefore remitted to prison to await the King's pardon.
This membrane contains a precept to the Sheriff to take the necessary steps for the outlawry of Thomas le Stothurd, and upwards of three hundred others, who had not appeared and against whom indictments had been preferred, and to take into the King's hands all their goods and chattels; and if found to produce them before the Justices; and the Sheriff returned that they could not be found within his bailiwick, and that they had no chattels or goods; the Sheriff was therefore ordered to take them if found and produce them before the Justices at Lichfield on the Saturday after the Feast of St. Luke, on which day the Sheriff made the same return as before, and he was ordered to produce them at Stafford on the Monday after the Ascension, on which day the Justices did not come, because they were elsewhere by the King's command; and they came afterwards on the Monday after the Feast of the Translation of St. Thomas the Martyr, on which day the Sheriff and the Coroners of the county recorded that the said Thomas le Stothurd and all the others named had been outlawed, except Richard de Miteyn of Mere, Alan son of Juliana Attebrok of Fulford, William Felice of Eton, William son of William de Netherepenne, William de Paunton of Hales, Roger son of Agnes de Stretton, Adam de Bromhale, Henry son of William le Ryder of Boterdon, William le Despencer of Dokeshegh (Doxey), and eleven others who had been mainprized at the fourth Court of the County; and at the fifth Court they had surrendered and were acquitted, as appears in the Roll of Gaol Delivery; and excepting Walter de Wynterton, Stephen de Stubbe, Thomas le Wodeward of Pylatenhale, Henry de Shirle, and Adam de Staneye, who produced King's letters of pardon, by which the outlawry promulgated against them was superseded; and Walter de Wyntertone appeared before the Justices and produced his charter of pardon, as appears in the Roll of Gaol Delivery.
Robert by the Water of Salt is a conspirator, because he persuaded Richard de Colsale to sell his land to Joan de Venables, and afterwards abetted the same Richard to implead the said Joan respecting it.
Ralph de Bromleye is a conspirator, because he procured himself to be put on a certain inquisition and falsely and maliciously indicted Robert the Celerer of Deulacres for a robbery of which he was afterwards acquitted.
Nicholas Meverel is a conspirator, because he procured himself to be placed on an inquisition and falsely and maliciously indicted William de la Berne of Gayton for the death of Robert Duttecount, who was afterwards acquitted, and he is a common conspirator.
Robert de Esyngton is a conspirator, because he took 20s. from Philip de Chetewynde to maintain himself in a certain assize against the Prior of St. Thomas, and from the same Prior he took a mark to maintain the same plea against the said Philip.
Richard Aubyn is a conspirator, because he maintained a certain plea in the Court of Newcastle between William de Swerkeston and his wife and the former wife of Mathew de Veterimercato (Oldemarket), taking from one side half a mark, and from the other side 10s., and they say he is a common maintainer of pleas, taking money from both sides.
The same Richard whilst he was Bailiff of the Foreign (Ballivus forinsecus) of Newcastle, stopped a certain robber near the vill driving four oxen and two cart horses (affros), and he apprehended the robber and afterwards took from him two oxen and the cart horses, and sent them to his own house in co. Hereford by one John Screveyn of Newcastle, and he allowed the robber to depart.
Thomas le Screveyn is a conspirator, because he maintained Felicia formerly wife of Richard de Knotton of Newcastle against divers tenants of the same vill in a plea respecting lands and tenements ad cambipartens (by champerty), and by which he obtained a croft of land.
And the same Thomas and Felicia his wife, John le Escreveyn and Edwyne de Knotton, came by night to the house of Robert de la Brok of Newcastle, and on the lands of the said Robert they made a funnel (foneam), into which they led a great inundation of water, to the great damage of the said Robert; and he perceiving it, raised the hue and cry against Thomas and the others, upon which they shot arrows at him and killed his dog; and William de Copston of Newcastle and Joan his wife assisted at the same trespass.
Robert le Chaumpyoun had taken half a mark from Margaret de Bold of Pencrych to unjustly eject Joan the daughter of Isolda de Merlouwe from her house, and he had ejected her, and Richard, Adam, Roger, Robert, and William, sons of the wife of the said Robert Champioun, (fn. 10) assisted him at the same eviction.
William de Wytheges (Wergs), who sued Henry son of Philip de Oldewallyng in a plea of trespass, withdrew his plaint; and he and his sureties, viz., Richard son of Thomas de Wytheges and Henry de Barnchurch, (Barnhurst), are in misericordiâ.
Richard de Herthull and Peter de Greseleye were attached to answer Geoffrey de Kaumpville in a plea that they together with Henry de Norton John Greyme, Richard de Eddenesovere, Robert de Hentes (Hints), and many others, had come vi et armis to the heath of Clyfton upon Hundenho, on the Sunday before the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, 27 E. I., and on two subsequent occasions named in 28 E. I., and 31 E. I., and with their cattle had trodden down and destroyed his standing corn, viz., wheat, rye, and oats, to the value of £300. The defendants denied having inflicted any injury on the plaintiff, and Richard stated that the land on which the corn was growing was part of a certain waste, and that he and all his villein tenants of Clyfton had a right of common on it with their cattle by reason of certain services, viz., of reaping and ploughing, and which services the said villein tenants for themselves and for the said Richard annually performed to the said Geoffrey; and because the said Geoffrey had ploughed and sown parts of the said waste, appropriating it to himself, he depastured it with his cattle as was lawful.
Geoffrey stated that he was lord of the said waste, and as the said Richard and his villein tenants had sufficient pasture on the waste with free ingress and egress, he had approved portions of it as was lawful; he also stated that the part he had approved had been sown and the crops had been reaped in quiet for three years without any impediment by the said Richard or any one else, and which he was prepared to prove. Richard denied that Geoffrey had reaped and carried away his crops for three years as stated, and appealed to a jury.
The jury say that the place where the corn was grown was part of the waste of which Geoffrey de Caumpville was lord, and that the said Richard and his villein tenants of Clyfton and likewise many others had a right of common with their cattle over the waste for certain fixed services, and that the said Geoffrey had frequently ploughed and sown parts of the waste in different places, and the said Richard together with others who claimed common on it, had always in recent times impeded the said Geoffrey from doing so; and the jury being asked if the said Richard and his villeins had sufficient pasture, with free ingress and egress, said they had not. The suit is therefore dismissed, and Geoffrey is in misericordiâ for a false claim. m. 13.
From Robert Caumpyon, Matthew de Congreve, Walter de Parco, Adam le Freman of Stratton, John le Parker, and three others, because they did not produce Robert son of William le Parker, whom they had mainprized, 40s. m. 14.
And for the chattels of Robert son of Benedict de Boterdon, who was hanged, 52s. 3d. (and many more). (fn. 11) m. 14, dorso.
Gaol Delivery of co.Stafford made at Stafford before H. Spigurnel, G. de Knoville, and R. de Bellafago, Justices, etc., on the Friday before The Feast of St. Margaret the Virgin, 34 E. I. m. 15.
Richard Miteyn of Mere, indicted for a burglary at the house of Matthew de Oldemarket of Newcastle; John son of Margaret de Bettyngeshale, taken for the death of Robert de Park at Bettyngeshale; William son of William de Netherpenne, taken for the death of two unknown men whom he buried in a marl pit in the fields of Penne, and for stealing oxen and cows of Magister Richard Walrond at Netherpenne; William de Blakeleye, taken for robbing Thomas de Wyneshurst of six cattle; William le Wodeward of Halghton, and William le Despencer of Dokeseye, taken for robbing the Prior of Ronton of a falcon; Roger son of Agnes de Stratton, taken for appropriating a cow, which was a wayf of the King at Eton, and selling it for 8s.; Simon Scot of Bromleye, taken for robbing Geoffrey de Billeston, at Billeston, of goods to the value of £40; and seven others indicted for felonies, appeared and put themselves on the country, and were acquitted; but their chattels are confiscated for their flight.
Henry son of William le Rydere of Boterdon, taken for the death of Roger son of Benedict de Boterdon, feloniously killed at Boterdon (Butterton on the Moors); Walter de Wynterton, taken for the death of John son of John de Somery; Stephen de Stobbeleye, taken for the death of Robert de Bradewalle at Newcastle; Henry le Keu of Pencrych, taken for the death of Richard de Norton at Pencrych; and Thomas le Wodeward of Pyletenhale, taken for the death of Richard Bateman, of Seggesleye, at Pencrych, produced King's letters of pardon, (fn. 12) but their chattels are confiscated for their flight.
William de Podymore, indicted for being accessory to the death of John de la Dolyne, whom Richard Swyft had feloniously killed, and for which Richard had been outlawed; and for a robbery near the park of Heleye, and out of which William had received 40s. as his share, and for his refusal to stand to his trial, and for which he had been adjudicated ad penam, now came and prayed he might be admitted to answer for the said felonies, and he was admitted. Adam Lovekyn, taken for the reception of Robert le Clerk of Audeleye, who had feloniously killed John de la Dolyne; and Adam atte Knottyoke, taken for the reception of William his son, who had feloniously killed William Pane, and for which he had been outlawed, put themselves on the country, and were acquitted. William Felice of Eton, taken for the death of Richard Page, feloniously killed at Kynewaston, stated he had been previously acquitted for the same death before Roger Sprengehose and Robert Corbet, the Justices of the Gaol Delivery at Stafford, in 27 E. I., and he put himself on the record of those Justices. m. 15.
Robert son of Benedict de Boterdone, indicted for the death of Alice de Leycestre, whom he feloniously killed in his house at Onyecot (Oncote), refused to put himself on the country. He was therefore remitted to gaol ad penam. His chattels were worth 52s. 3d., for which J. de Dene the Sheriff is answerable.
Afterwards, on the following day, the said Robert appeared and put himself on the country; and the jury said he was guilty. He is therefore to be hanged. The same Sheriff to answer for the year and waste of the tenements of the said Robert m. 15 dorso.