Calendar of Early Mayor's Court Rolls: 1298-1307. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1924.
This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.
Membr. 1 5 Feb. 1304-5
Further proceedings of the Court of J. le Blound, Mayor, Friday after the Feast of the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.] A° 33 Edw. [1304-5]
Nicholas Beaubelot was summoned to answer Hugh de Strubby (fn. 1) for retaining Robert Fraunceys of Maltby, his apprentice, in his service for six years, and not having him enrolled in the Paper of the Chamber of Guildhall (fn. 2) according to the use and custom of the City. The defendant admitted that he kept him unenrolled, but said that it was the plaintiff's fault, as the latter did not pay for the enrolment according to the covenant between them. The plaintiff said no money ought to be paid for enrolment-only 20s for his teaching and sustenance, and this he had paid; and he demanded to acquit himself thereof by his law. A day was given at the Quinzime.
Adam le Brochere was summoned to answer Arnold de Teler in a plea that he pay him £9 owed for five casks of wine, which the plaintiff sold him, and which he fraudulently took away on payment of 20s, promising to pay the rest when the plaintiff came to his house; but before the latter's arrival he sent the casks to Coventry, and when the plaintiff came and asked for his money, he did not pay it, but only said he would do his best to pay. The defendant admitted buying the wine, but said he had not the money to pay at present. He admitted also that he promised to pay and had sent the wine to Coventry. Judgment that the defendant for his fraud be committed to prison till he satisfy the plaintiff for the money. Afterwards, on Thursday following, Robert de Dodeford and Peter de Byri, skinners, entered into a Recognizance to pay the £9 on the Quinzime.
20 Feb. 1304-5
Saturday after the Feast of St Valentine the Martyr [14 Feb.]
A jury of Adam Wade and others said on oath that if a foreign merchant discharged wines or woad upon the quay of a citizen without the latter's knowledge, he ought to pay, for the first day and night, 1½d for each tun of wine or woad.
24 March 1304-5
Wednesday the Vigil of the Annunciation B.M. [25 March]
Margery de Rothing was summoned to answer Margery, relict of John Somery, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the defendant had a pit dug in her free tenement in the parish of St Michael of Wodestrete, and had it filled with filth from the privy, against the Mayor's prohibition (fn. 3), in contempt of the King and to her damage 100s. The defendant denied the offence and claimed a jury. Afterwards a jury of Gregory le Botoner and others found her guilty and assessed damages at 5 marks. Judgment for the same, and that the defendant be summoned to hear judgment as regards what was done after the Mayor's prohibition.
Walter de Canefeld, butcher, came and admitted that he took John Oseburn as his apprentice for seven years, and at the end of the first year quitclaimed the apprenticeship for 40s. A day was given to hear judgment on Monday.
Membr. 1 b 27 March 1305
Saturday after the Feast of the Annunciation B.M. [25 March]
A jury of Robert le Convers and others said on oath that Margery de Wengham did not hurt Margery, daughter of William le Mareschal, on the arm as Francis de Vilers and Agnes his wife alleged, but that the above Agnes, who was the mother of Margery, had done the hurt, and that Margery de Wengham diligently caused it to be cured; and further that the latter maintained and instructed the girl, and maintained the house and rents devised to her well and faithfully; and that the property when leased was worth 75s per annum, subject to payment of 31s 8d to the chief lords, and 6s 8d was paid for repairs per annum.
Reymund de St Clement was summoned to answer Reginald de Thonderle in a plea that he restore to him two bills of £70 15s 11d, which the plaintiff bought from William Foundepe, merchant, and which the said William entrusted to the custody of the defendant for delivery to the plaintiff. Reymund admitted receipt and detinue of the bills, and said he was willing to give them up, if the plaintiff would pay a debt of 15s 11d, and undertake to acquit him as regards the above William. The plaintiff admitted the debt. Judgment that he pay Reymund and Reymund give him the bills.
Roger de Paris, Sheriff, was summoned to answer Matthew de Arace in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that although the defendant had 44 coloured and ray cloths of his, valued by oath of lawful and honest men at £167 6s 8d for payment of a certain debt of £167 4s, which William de Combemartin recovered against the plaintiff in the defendant's Court, and although the defendant caused the said cloths to be sealed by David his clerk and William de Combemartin, thus ratifying the value of them for payment of the debt, nevertheless the next day the defendant sequestrated 16 other cloths of the plaintiff. The defendant said that William de Combemartin recovered against the plaintiff £233 11s 8d and that he sequestrated the 16 cloths at the suit of the above William, who brought a writ of the King, for £66 5s.
2 April 1305
Friday before the Feast of St Ambrose, Bishop [4 April]
John de Wavendon, baker, was attached to answer Simon Geram of St Albans in a plea that he pay him 25s, due for three quarters of wheat, payable on delivery. The defendant admitted the debt, but said that several magnates of the land owed him large sums, and as soon as he received them, he would pay the plaintiff. And because it was of old ordained, and is still the custom, that bakers should pay on the spot all those who sell grain to them, under penalty of imprisonment, on account of the quarrels and actions which arose between them in past times, judgment was given that the defendant go to prison until &c. Afterwards he was mainprised by William de Ravenestone to pay before noon (ante horam nonam). And a day was given to him on Monday to hear judgment.
Henry de Passenham was attached to answer John Tedmar, Robert de Mocking, and their fellows, executors of the will of John le Benere, in a plea of trespass, wherein they complained that John le Benere, in his house by London Bridge, handed to the defendant a Statute Staple in which Richard le Spicer was bound to him in £20, in order that the defendant might collect that sum, and that the latter had sold it to Richard le Spicer, thus defrauding John and his executors. The defendant denied that he received or sold the Statute, and demanded to acquit himself by his law. The plaintiffs pleaded that he ought not to be admitted to his law, as they were ready to prove the receipt and sale by a jury. Afterwards the Court directed that the case be inquired into by a jury of the venue of the Bridge and Smethefeld.
Membr. 2 7 April 1305
Wednesday after the Feast of St Ambrose, Bishop [4 April]
Roger le Graunt, barber, collector of the Customs of Smethefeld (fn. 4), was attached to answer John Underwode in a plea that he pay him 42s 6d, unjustly detained for five oxen which he sold to the defendant for 47s 6d, 5s of which the latter paid on the spot, promising to pay the rest next day, but next day he refused to do so and charged the plaintiff with stealing the oxen, and had several times since refused to pay, using opprobrious words to him, to his damage and the scandal of the city. The defendant said he never bought oxen from the plaintiff, but that a certain William atte Knole. . . .Afterwards the defendant entered into a Recognizance to pay the plaintiff 37s 6d on the morrow, and was in mercy. The money was paid to William de Hichingg, clerk, in the Chamber of Guildhall, and by him paid to Walter le Lord, attorney of the plaintiff, who gave an acquittance in the presence of Richard Poterel, then Chamberlain.
William de Foresta, smith, was attached to answer Adam de Clerkenwell, beadle of the Ward of Cornhulle, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the defendant struck him with a stick the previous night after curfew. The defendant denied the charge and demanded a jury. He was mainprised by John de Ware, "mauncher" (fn. 5), Roger le Ferour and Roger Herand to hear the verdict. Afterwards a jury of William le Wolf and others found for the plaintiff with damages half a mark. Judgment accordingly. Subsequently a smith's whetstone (?) and a pair of bellows (unus lapis aplar' fabr' et duo flabelli), seized upon the said William, were valued by John de Elsingham, John atte Holte, John May, and Thomas de Wymbihs, smiths, at 4s, and delivered to the plaintiff in part payment of the half mark, and order was given that the defendant be distrained for the remainder.
8 April 1305
Thursday after the Feast of St Ambrose, Bishop [4 April]
A jury of Cheap Ward was summoned for Saturday to say whether Geoffrey de Meldebourne beat and ill-treated John de Harwe and John, servant of John Juvenal, Serjeants of the Sheriff, and took away from them two carts with horses, requisitioned by them for the King's service.
30 April 1305
Friday after the Feast of St Mark the Evangelist [25 April]
Nicholas le Batour entered into a Recognizance to pay Sir Roger de Hegham and Ysabell his wife one good and decent brass bowl at Pentecost.
Odo le Goldbeter and Robert atte Forde, "seler" (fn. 6), were attached to answer William de Carleton, Serjeant of John de Lincoln, Sheriff, and the Sheriff, for refusing to allow the above William to make delivery of a supertunic belonging to Sir John de Horne, knight, which had been taken from the latter and was found in the possession of the defendant; and also for interfering with the Serjeant by keeping him in the defendant's house as a prisoner until he was liberated by the Sheriff, to his damage £10. The defendants denied the charge. Afterwards a jury of Goderonelane, consisting of William de Sinigham and others, found them not guilty. Judgment accordingly, and that the plaintiff be in mercy.
Membr. 2 b 5 May 1305
Wednesday after the Feast of the Holy Cross [3 May]
David de Gloucestre, clerk, offered himself against Symon Bolimer and William de Hestone, plaintiffs, in a plea of trespass. The plaintiffs did not come nor prosecute their plea. The defendant went thence without a day, and the plaintiffs were amerced.
Robert le Sauser was attached to answer Maud de Milham in a plea of trespass, wherein she complained that she bought from him three casks of wine and three silver cups for £9 19s 11½d, and entered into a Statute Merchant to him for payment, and that she had hired from him a house from Sunday in Midlent till the Easter following, and from that Feast for a year, at two marks annual rent, and had put the above wines and other goods in the house, and that on Wednesday after Midlent the defendant had expelled her from the house, and seized the goods therein to the value of £20, to her damage £30, and to the scandal of the City £100. The defendant denied the charges and offered to acquit himself by his law. The plaintiff pleaded that in so serious a matter, involving imprisonment, the defendant ought not to be admitted to his law, and she demanded judgment thereon. Afterwards the defendant offered himself against the plaintiff, and she did not come on the day given her Judgment that she and her pledges be in mercy, and the defendant go thence without a day.
7 May 1305
Friday after the Feast of the Invention of the Holy Cross [3 May]
William de Ponte of Leytonebusard, attorney of the Abbess "de Fonte Ebrudi" (fn. 7), acknowledged that he had received from Girard Orgul £9 10s, in which Girard was bound to her, as appears by a Recognizance in the Court of Peter de Bosenham, Sheriff.
A day was given to Thomas Sely on Wednesday to bring his clerks and memoranda, in order to answer Thomas le Barber of Bredstret, who complained by petition (fn. 8).
Membr. 3 17 May 1305
Monday before the Feast of St Dunstan [19 May]
Adam atte Rose, "poter," was summoned to answer Alice Pas in a plea of trespass, wherein she complained that he invited her to dinner, and afterwards took her into his chamber and forced her to seal a certain document, the tenour of which she did not know, to her disinherison, as she believed. The defendant denied the sealing, and said he had no deed from her, except a quitclaim of a rent at Wytewellebech belonging to the inheritance of John Pas, his apprentice, and he demanded a jury. Afterwards a jury of the venue of Bredstret, consisting of Simon de Rokesle and others, said that Alice sealed no deed unwillingly. Judgment for the defendant. A day was given on Friday for the defendant to hear judgment as regards the deed made in disinherison of John, his apprentice.
10 June 1305
Thursday after Pentecost [6 June]
Further proceedings in an action by Richard Hauteyn against Geoffrey de Hengham. [See p. 141.]
Membr. 3 b 19 June 1305
Saturday after the Feast of St Botulph, Abbot [17 June]
David de Gloucestre, clerk, was attached to answer Simon de Bolimere in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that David distrained him on his goods to the value of one mark, alleging a mainprise which the plaintiff never undertook. The defendant pleaded that at the suit of Sir Robert de Snoryngg, chaplain, Renter of St Paul's, London, he distrained the Abbot of Flaxele by a horse for a debt due to Sir Robert, the horse being valued at one mark by the above Simon and William de Heston, and that the horse was returned to the Abbot under mainprise of Simon and William; afterwards the Abbot eloigned himself and the horse, so that justice could not be done to Sir Robert for the debt, and accordingly, he had distrained the plaintiff to produce the horse. The plaintiff denied being mainpernor of the Abbot for the horse or the value of it, and demanded a jury. A jury of the venue round St Paul's Quay was summoned for Wednesday.
William de Parys, defendant, and William de Bray, "stockfismoggere" essoined against Michael, the Prince's tailor, in a plea of debt by Henry de Oxford.
A jury was summoned in an action between Thomas Box of Brinchesle and Roger de Queneby. The former had bought 500 quarters of coal for £20 from the latter, and had taken pledges for the delivery of the coal. He refused either to give up the pledges or pay the price until the coal was delivered; the plaintiff demanded the price and the return of the pledges before delivery.
Membr. 4 22 June 1305
Tuesday before the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist [24 June]
Thomas Juvenal was attached to answer Robert le Pestour of Aldresgate in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that on Monday after the Feast of St Leonard [6 Nov.] A° 28 Edw.  the defendant broke into his house and took away timber &c. to his damage 100s. The defendant came and said that as no bailiff gave evidence that he had been summoned or attached, he demanded judgment as to whether he was bound to answer. Nevertheless he pleaded that he bought three parts of a house from three sisters, the fourth part being held by the plaintiff by virtue of his wife, who was the fourth sister, and the house was partitioned, according to the custom of the city, by the sworn carpenters and masons (fn. 9), and that he took the timber belonging to his part and not that belonging to the plaintiff. Afterwards a jury of the venue of Aldresgate, consisting of Henry de Kele and others, found for the defendant, who went quit. Judgment that Robert be in mercy for his false claim.
William de Toulouse produced a writ directed to the Mayor and Sheriffs, and dated at St Albans 2 May A° 33 Edw. , which recited that William had freighted in London a ship belonging to John, son of William Aykyn, merchant and mariner of Middelbourgh in Seland, with wines and other goods for conveyance to the King in Scotland, when the latter was engaged in his warlike expedition there, but the above John had sailed for Seland, had forcibly put William ashore at Wulpsand, and taken the ship and William's goods to the value of 200 marks to Middelbourgh; thereupon the King had moved the Count of Hainault, Holland and Seland to make restitution, but as he delayed doing so, the King directs that goods belonging to merchants of Holland and Seland in London should be arrested to the value of William's loss, and information thereof returned with the writ.
Accordingly Hardekyn of Hardwyk, Thedrik Swalman, and Aldeger of the same place, merchants, were attached. They appeared and said that they were unjustly distrained, because they were under the authority and Hanse of Almaine. The plaintiff maintained that they belonged to Holland and Seland, and demanded an inquiry by merchants and sailors; and the defendants likewise demanded a jury. Afterwards a jury of the venue around Billinggesgate, consisting of Godfrey Moof and others, said that the defendants belonged to Hardwik in the domain of the Count of Geldres [Gerlie] and under the dominion of the King of Almaine. Judgment that their ships and goods be delivered to them.
Reginald de Thunderle was summoned to answer Henry Rammesdong, Henry Baysetart, Henry le Wolf and Janinus le Hefene, merchants of Malines, in a plea that he pay them £81 for cloths which he had bought of them, and which by common assent had been handed over to the shearmen to be sheared and to remain with the shearmen till the price was paid. The plaintiffs said that the defendant, by virtue of his being King's Aulnager for cloth, had taken away their cloths against their will and contrary to their Charter from the King concerning the New Custom. The defendant admitted that he owed £63 18s 4d for cloths, in various proportions to the plaintiffs. A day was given to pay them, and the matter of the remaining £17 1s 8d claimed was adjourned till the morrow.
Membr. 4 b 23 June 1305
Wednesday the Vigil of the Nativity of St John the Baptist [24 June]
Judgment by default was given for Thomas Sely against Thomas le Barber of Fridaystrete, who complained that the former during his Shrievalty had allowed to lapse a sequestration made on William de Boys, executor of Arnold Murdak, whereby the plaintiff lost 60s owed to him by Arnold.
A jury of the venue brought in a verdict that Adam le Bedel of Alegate and Margery atte Blakelofte were not guilty of assaulting Nicholas de Ardern, chaplain, and expelling him from a house in Alegatestrete, which he rented from them. The defendants had denied the assault and pleaded that they ejected him because he could not find sufficient security for the rent on entry, as he had promised to do.
Martin de Aumbresbiry and William de Fridaystrete were attached to answer John Musard of London and Joan his wife on a charge that, during Martin's Shrievalty, when John was absent on the King's service, they dragged Joan by the feet out of her house, ill-treated her and put her into the prison of Crepelgate unjustly and against the peace. Afterwards a jury of the venue brought in a verdict that the defendant William, by Martin's order, took Joan out of her house in East Cheap and kept her in prison eight days, to the plaintiffs' damage 40s. Judgment was given that Martin and William go to prison and satisfy John and Joan for the 40s.
Henry le Taylour of the Riole was attached to answer John de Vintry, Alderman, on a charge that when the plaintiff, with the Sheriff's bailiff, made a sequestration for the money which the defendant owed to the tallage made in the City by common consent of the citizens for the gift of money to the King, Queen and magnates, the defendant broke the sequestration and slandered the Alderman, the Mayor and other aldermen, and the bailiffs of the City. The defendant admitted breaking the sequestration and was adjudged to prison, but he claimed a jury as regards the slander. He was mainprised by Hugh de Oxford, John Scharp, John of the Chamber, Thomas le Fleming, Robert de Beaulou and John de Wynton to appear on Friday to pay his fine to the King. Afterwards, on Friday, he was fined 20s for his contempt of the King, which was respited until &c.
On the above day a proclamation was made (French) to the effect that John, bishop of Cardoil (fn. 10), and his bailiff John le Bole were in Court prepared to pay a quarterly rent of 100s for the Manor of Melreth, which the Bishop had leased from Dame Margaret, widow of Sir Warin de Bassingbourne.
Richard de Caumpes was summoned to answer Thomas Crodde and his wife for having, during his Shrievalty, sequestrated their doors for an unjust claim of 40s, thus forcing them to pay 20s. The defendant claimed judgment on the ground that the wife did not prosecute. The plaintiff Thomas was ordered to bring his wife on Wednesday, as the Court desired further information about the plaint.
Symon de Paris, late Sheriff of London, was attached to answer Andrew de Hengeham, who complained that Symon had neglected to obey a writ concerning trespasses done against the plaintiff. The defendant said that he obeyed the writ, but that the plaintiff had lost his case because he did not prosecute his plaint; he demanded a jury of people living round Guildhall and of persons frequenting the Court. A jury was summoned for Saturday.
John de Writele, John de Radewell and William de Haukesdene were attached to answer John Miles of Cornhull in a plea of trespass, wherein he complained that they came to his house and took away half a wey and one clove of cheese to the value of 16s against his will and without payment, tally or valuation. The defendants admitted receipt of the cheese for the King's use and to the value of 4s. Afterwards a jury of the venue consisting of Ranulf Balle and others said that the defendants took one wey of cheese for the King's use, in their capacity as his servants by letters patent, and offered the plaintiff a tally. As it was clear that the cheese was taken for the King's use, judgment was given for the defendants.
[Record and process of an action in the Sheriff's Court.]
Membr. 6 14 Nov. 1302
Court of Simon de Paris, Wednesday after the Feast of St Martin [11 Nov.] A° 30 Edw. 
Writ 26 Oct. A° 30 Edw.  to the Sheriffs that they cause Ebright le Estreys to pay to Alan de Maldon a debt of £34 13s.
Egbrytht le Estreys was attached by virtue of the above writ to answer Alan de Maldon in a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that whereas he and the defendant traded in common, and had an account made at Wycumbe, as the result of which Egbrytht was shown to owe the plaintiff £34 13s, which he promised to pay in London, nevertheless he refused to do so. Thereupon came Thetard (fn. 11) le Estreys, Alderman of the Hanse of Almaine, and demanded his Court as regards Egbrytht. The plaintiff pleaded that he ought not to have his court, since Egbrytht was attached by the King's writ. The writ being read, the defendant pleaded that no account was held and that he owed nothing on the day and year alleged. On this the plaintiff asked leave to produce witnesses, Thomas and Roger; immediately, as the parties were foreigners, which was granted. The former, Thomas, swore that he was present at Wycumbe in the house of William le Lung, "heyward," when the plaintiff and defendant made an account on a certain tabard hung up in the solar, the defendant being shown to owe £33 11s 2d, and that he and Roger Athelard, the other witness, and Thomas Corbet were present. Being asked if they made account by tallies, rolls or other writings, he said no, but that Alan had a schedule. Roger gave the same evidence except that he did not recollect any schedule. Judgment in respite till the next Court to give the parties an opportunity of coming to an agreement. At subsequent courts Egbrytht was represented by William de Railee, his attorney, and judgment was respited that the Court might be further advised. Finally, at a Court for Foreigners held on Monday after the Feast of St Andrew the Apostle [30 Nov.], Alan offered himself against Egbryth, who appeared by Richard Gladewyne his attorney, and demanded the record and a reasonable judgment in his action. On inspection of the record, it was then found that the defendant was not indebted in the sum mentioned in the writ, since the plaintiff's witnesses stated the amount as £33 11s 2d. Judgment was given that Alan recover this sum and the defendant be in mercy, and the plaintiff also be in mercy for demanding more by the writ than his witnesses proved.
Membr. 6 b 15 Dec. 1302
Court of J. le Blound, Mayor, held on Saturday after the Feast of St Lucia Virgin, A° 31 Edw. [13 Dec.]
Alan de Maldone (fn. 12) was summoned to answer Egbrith de Werle of Almaine in a plea of error made in the Court of Symon de Paris, Sheriff; the error, according to the plaintiff, consisting in the fact that though Decard, Alderman of the Free Merchants of the Hanse, claimed his Court over Egbrith according to grants and charters of the Kings of England and of the citizens, nevertheless the Sheriff did not allow him his court; further, the Sheriff condemned the plaintiff in £33 11s 2d, although the above Alan had claimed £34 13s, and although the witnesses could not say out of what contract the alleged debt arose, as they should have done. A day was given to the parties to hear judgment at the next Husting.
26 June 1305
Afterwards, at a Court of the Mayor held on Saturday after the Feast of St John the Baptist [24 June] A° 33 Edw. , the plaintiff by Richard Gladewyne his attorney offered himself against the defendant, and pleaded that the error lay in the record and process, in that the witnesses did not fully prove the sum mentioned in the writ. Judgment was given that the process and proof of the witnesses be null.
[Reasoned judgment (French) apparently delivered by the Mayor.]
The Court annuls the process and proof because (1) There was a difference between the sum mentioned in the writ and that in the proof. (2) The witnesses differed as to the source of the indebtedness, whereas according to the Law Merchant they ought to agree. (3) The proceedings of the Aldermen who examined the witnesses were not fully recorded, and thus no sufficient reasons were given for the judgment.
Membr. 7 25 June 1305
Friday the morrow of St John the Baptist [24 June]
Richer de Refham was attached to answer Hugh Baudri in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that Richer prevented foreign merchants from going to the plaintiff's quay with their merchandise, and threatened that if they did, he would not pass them through the Customs. The defendant said that he went to Hugh's quay and passed all the merchants found there and handed to them cockets (fn. 13) as regards the New Custom and passed them. He demanded a jury, and Hugh did likewise. A jury of the venue of Billinggesgate consisting of merchants frequenting the said quay was summoned for Monday. Afterwards the parties made agreement by permission of court, on terms that Hugh quitclaims all actions against Richer, and Richer puts himself in mercy.
Simon Bolimer, William de Heston, and David the clerk made agreement by permission of Court. Simon and William were in mercy. The terms were that Simon and William pay half a mark for the mainprise of the Abbot of Flaxle, and David half a mark.
Martin de Aumbresbiry and the executors of the will of Robert Dobes (fn. 14), late Sheriff of London, offered themselves against Gilbert le Mareschal, plaintiff, in a plea of debt. As the plaintiff was in prison, the case was respited until &c.
30 June 1305
Wednesday the morrow of the Apostles Peter and Paul [29 June]
William de Honiton appointed Master Robert de Swithelund or John de Rislee his attorney against Richard le Despenser, chaplain, and Juliana la Hoddere (fn. 15) his concubine, William de Collecestre, chaplain, and Robert le Mire, in a plea of trespass by petitions.
Membr. 7 b
Salamon le Cotiler was attached to answer Alice de Panbregge in a plea of trespass, wherein she complained that she sent six quarters of corn for sale by her reeve Eustace, and that the above Salamon seized the corn and the horse of a certain Richard Pecche, her servant, and still detains them. The defendant said the plaintiff owed him 48s on a bond, and that Eustace sold him the grain for 27s, which money Eustace then handed over to him in part payment of the debt; and he demanded a jury. As regards the horse, he demanded judgment as to whether he was bound to answer Alice, because in her petition she said that the horse belonged to Richard, who could bring his own action against him "quo et quando," unless the plaintiff could prove that Richard was her villein (fn. 16).
Sayer le Barber was attached to answer Gunnora de la Welde in a plea of trespass, wherein she complained that she hired a house in Lymstrate from William du Mareis, attorney of the Earl of Gloucester, for one year for 50s, and that the defendant broke into her close during that term and carried away her goods to the value of 40 marks, and imprisoned her daughter and her maidservants for a day, against the peace and to her damage £40. The defendant denied the charge and claimed a jury. He was delivered to the Sheriff for his appearance at the next Court to hear the verdict. Afterwards a jury of Lymstrate, consisting of Adam le Paviloner (fn. 17) and others, said that the defendant, as bailiff of the Earl of Gloucester, removed linen and canvas from Gunnora's house for arrears of rent, and retained them to her damage one mark. As regards the imprisonment the jury could not inquire. Judgment for Gunnora for one mark damages and that Sayer be in mercy.
Richard de Chigewell was attached to answer John Bacheler in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that Richard came to his house in Breggestrate and carried away salt fish to the value of £4 14s 10d. The defendant pleaded that William de Marchia, the King's Treasurer, sent his men and servants to him, as though to a sworn servant (tanquam jurato), and ordered him to tell them where fish could be found for stocking the King's Castle of Dover, and that these men carried away the fish for the King's use to Brokene Wharf, and there loaded it into a ship to be taken to Dover, and that he, the defendant, did not carry away the fish for his own use. The plaintiff said that the defendant and his servant John carried away the fish without any of the King's Household or any command of the Treasurer, and claimed a jury. Afterwards the defendant offered himself against the plaintiff, who did not prosecute. The plaintiff and his pledges were in mercy and the defendant went thence without a day.
Richard de Chigewell was attached to answer John Lambin in a plea of trespass, in which he was charged with carrying away John's fish called "abberdene" (fn. 18), to the value of two marks. The defendant made the same defence with the same result.
Nicholas de Berkhampsted did not prosecute against John le Ku of Finkeslane in a plea of trespass. He was amerced.
Richard le Trewechapman was attached to answer William le Long, "portur," in a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that the defendant detained 2s 10½d arrears of 4s, recovered against him in the Sheriff's Court. The defendant defended "the words of Court," and admitted the 4s debt, but said that afterwards by execution of Simon de Paris, then Sheriff, Philip de Merdele levied the debt with the exception of 10d, which Philip put in defence in his hands, until the plaintiff had satisfied the Sheriff for an amercement suffered by him because he did not prosecute a plaint against the defendant. Afterwards a jury of the venue of Bredstrate, consisting of Lovekyn le Ku and others, said that the defendant paid the 4s, except 10d put in defence by John of the Chamber, late clerk of Simon de Paris. Judgment that the plaintiff take nothing by his action and be in mercy.
1 July 1305
Thursday after the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul [29 June]
Robert de Nedham was attached to answer Alan de Waleton in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that when he, as attorney of the Abbot of St Albans, made a distraint on the house of Walter le Porter at Brokenwharf, the defendant wanted to take the distraint away from him, and threw water on him, to his damage 20s. Afterwards the plaintiff did not proscute. He was amerced and the defendant went thence without a day.
William de Bray, fishmonger (piscator) (fn. 19), was attached to answer Michael the Tailor of the Wardrobe of the Prince, in a plea of debt of 20 marks due on a bond. He admitted the debt, and was ordered to pay on the morrow.
William de Leyre (fn. 20) was attached to answer Roger de Broune in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he leased from Avice la Haubergere, widow of Roger Cary, for the term of her life and two years after, a tenement by the Conduit of London, which the defendant wanted to have himself, and that the latter caused Avice to eloign the plaintiff's deed, and maintained the said Avice in the Court of Roger de Paris, Sheriff, so that he could not obtain the deed from her hands by form of law, for she said she would make her law that she had received no deed from him. The plaintiff was ready to prove by a jury that the defendant was guilty of this maintenance, to his damage 100 marks; further, that when the plaintiff was on the King's service in Scotland and under his protection, the defendant ordered his doors to be closed and sequestrated until his wife had paid a tallage, against the above protection; and when he argued with Roger, asking for proper amends, the latter caused him to be attached before the Mayor by pledges, and kept him in a plea and vexed him for a quarter of a year, whereas the plaintiff was always ready to answer by form of law and do whatever the law demanded; moreover the defendant caused 21s to be levied from the plaintiff when the latter was in Scotland under the King's protection. The defendant, on the ground that he was not a bailiff of the city, and had distrained nobody and received money from nobody, demanded judgment as to whether he was bound to answer concerning the tallage and moneys received from the plaintiff.
William Servat came, and in the presence of the Mayor and Aldermen entered into an obligation to save harmless, against the King and all others, the mainpernors of Bernard Baran.
William de Leyre was attached to answer John Mariscelle in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that though he recovered against the defendant in the Husting before Henry le Waleys, Mayor, and Richard de Gloucestre and Henry Box, Sheriffs, 10 marks for a trespass, the present Mayor and Sheriffs refused to give him execution of that judgment, although he had often brought writs "de execucione facienda." The defendant acknowledged that there had been a plea of pledges (fn. 21) between them in the Husting, in which he, the defendant, had been amerced for an unjust distraint, but no damages had been adjudged, and he called to record the Rolls of the Husting. And John likewise. Afterwards, on Monday after the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul [29 June], the parties came, and as it was found by the Rolls of Common Pleas A° 23 Edw.  that neither the above 10 marks nor any other sum was adjudged to the plaintiff, judgment was given that he gain nothing by his action.
Membr. 8 b
John de Dunstaple was attached to answer John de Kent in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the defendant, during his Shrievalty, took the plaintiff's horse, value 60s, and still detains it. The defendant said that a messenger from Lord Edmund, the King's brother, then overseas, came to the King, and Master William de la Marche, Treasurer of the King's Exchequer, ordered him (the defendant) to provide a horse for the messenger, whereupon he took John de Kent's horse and gave it to the messenger, and he demanded judgment whether he was bound to answer the plaintiff as regards a horse taken for the King's service and not for his own use. The plaintiff pleaded that it was for the defendant's use, and claimed a jury. Afterwards a jury from the venue of Langebourne and Candelwykstrete, consisting of James le Botiller and others, gave a verdict for the defendant. Judgment accordingly.
5 July 1305
Monday after the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul [29 June]
Richard Hereng, chaplain, was attached to answer Robert de Bissheye in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that Richard wounded him with a sword in the left arm, the head and other parts of his body, so that he was confined to his bed for half a quarter of a year. The defendant pleaded that he was coming from the house of Master John de Sencler about curfew with a servant of Master John carrying a lantern (fn. 22), and opposite the Church of Holy Trinity the Less he found about twelve men attacking the Rector of that Church with swords and other weapons, and on the Rector crying out, he asked them if they wanted to kill him, whereupon the plaintiff, who was one of the malefactors, attempted to strike the defendant on the head with a sword, and he, the defendant, turned the blow with his own sword and struck the plaintiff in defence, so that if the latter got any harm it was due to his own assault, and he demanded a jury. He was mainprised by John Laurence, John de Crokesle, Adam de St Albans, "ferron" (fn. 23), and Walter de Cheswyk, woolman. Afterwards a jury of the venue, consisting of Robert de Cornedale and others, said that Richard wounded the plaintiff, to his damage 20s. Judgment that he go to prison until &c., and be in mercy.
John le Botener was attached to answer Thomas de Wymondham and Maud his wife, daughter of John Elys of Collecestre (fn. 24), in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that the defendant covenanted to take Thomas, son of Maud, as apprentice for 13 years on payment of 5 marks, and after two years unjustly drove him away, keeping the money. The defendant admitted the covenant, but said that the boy was so malicious and caused him so much damage that he expelled him, until Thomas and Maud should satisfy him for the damage, and that they made an agreement through mutual friends that all covenants between them should be annulled. For this he called to witness the record of the Mayor and Aldermen, who were present. As regards the money, he denied receipt and demanded a jury. A jury from St Laurence Lane and round the Church was summoned against Thursday.
William le Herneys Makere was sent to prison for assaulting William le Lameman and Cecilia his wife in Sholane.
Avice la Haubergere (fn. 25) was attached to answer Roger de Broune in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he hired from Avice a house by the Conduit for the term of her life and two years afterwards, by an indenture between them, and on her asserting that she had lost her counterpart, he delivered his counterpart to her, which she refused to restore. The defendant said that a covenant was made, and a deed drawn up, which the plaintiff delivered to her on the covenant being annulled, and that he never had seisin of the tenement by virtue of the deed, and she demanded a jury. Afterwards a jury of the venue, consisting of William de Bristol and others, gave a verdict for the plaintiff, further saying that Avice tore the deed, to the plaintiff's damage half a mark. Judgment that she go to prison until &c.
William Fratre was attached to answer John le Brewer of Billirica in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that William detained a mazer in the form of a nut, value one mark, and a basin and a washbowl, value 3s, which the plaintiff pledged to him, to be returned on request. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff sent to him asking him to supply two quarters of malt, and that he sent the [messenger] to the house of William Lambyn, who sold him two quarters of malt for 10s 2½d, of which he paid 2s, and for the remainder pledged the above goods to William Lambyn by the hands of Simon de Botertunte, and he demanded judgment as to whether he, the defendant, was bound to answer for the pledges delivered to William. John le Brewere said that he received the malt in his solar on Cornhill, and handed over the pledges there, and he demanded a jury. Afterwards a jury of the venue, consisting of Thomas de Flete and others, said that Simon Botertounte (sic) went with William Fratre to the house of William Lambyn and there pledged the cup for 8s 2½d; and as regards the basin and washbowl, that William Fratre lent the plaintiff 4s on them. Judgment that John gain nothing by his plaint, and be in mercy, and that William go quit.
Petronilla, widow of Walter Wolleword, was attached to answer William Wolleward in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he demised to her a house for the term of her life at an annual rent of 20s, as appears by a deed, and that in the 25th year of the present King she seized and carried away from the house three lead cisterns, value 20s; three pairs of handmills, value 12s; one bed (torallum), value one mark; three vats, two tuns, five kemelins (fn. 26), and other utensils, value 40s. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff granted and released to herself and her husband Walter and to the survivor of them for life the above house with all its appurtenances, and that after the death of Walter the plaintiff released to her and her heirs and assignees all his right in the house, by a deed which she proffered in Court, and she demanded judgment whether the plaintiff could claim any thing in the house against the deed. The plaintiff did not deny the deed or impugn it. Judgment for the defendant &c.
Hugh de Waletone, alias de la Marche, was attached to answer Thomas de Oxford, tailor, and Ellen his wife for having assaulted them in front of their door three years before. Afterwards a jury of the venue of Fridaystrete was summoned, but the plaintiffs withdrew from their action. They and their pledges in mercy &c.
Roger de Broune was attached to answer Avice la Haubergere, who complained that the defendant had been her tenant at will for seven years from year to year, and that she gave him notice three months ago to find other accommodation, because she heard he was claiming a free tenement in the house, and that he said he would not leave for any Justice, Mayor, or other bailiff, in consequence of which he remains in her tenement against her will.
6 July 1305
Tuesday the Octave of the Apostles Peter and Paul [29 June]
Afterwards (see p. 190), on Saturday before the Feast of St Margaret [20 July], a jury, consisting of Robert de Thorneye and others, said that John le Botoner received from Maud, daughter of John Elys of Colecestre, 5 marks, with Maud's son Thomas as his apprentice. Judgment that Maud recover the 5 marks.
William Servat was attached to answer Thomas Migg, master of the ship "The Welfare," in a plea that he pay 13 marks 12s arrears of 26 marks, for which the defendant chartered the ship to take wine from London to Aberdene in Scotland, and coal from Newcastle-on-Tyne to London or Southampton, the money to be paid six days after discharging the cargo. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff discharged the wine at Berewyc and the coal at London and not at Southampton, as he ought to have done, and that it was agreed by his supercargo (mercator) and the plaintiff that they should subtract from the charter-money the value of the distance between Berwick and Aberdeen, and London and Southampton. The plaintiff said that he discharged the wine at Berwick and the coal at London by order of the defendant's supercargo, James, and that there was no such agreement about deductions between them, and he was prepared to verify this by sailors and merchants. A jury of the latter was summoned. Afterwards the plaintiff withdrew from his action. He and his pledges were amerced.
Richard de Bokelande, John de Etone, John de Caustone, John de Hakeword, John de Pampesworthe, William de Dallingg, Richard de Midelbourgh, Hugh de Caustone, John de Dokesworth and William de St Albans were attached to answer William Faukoun in a plea of trespass, wherein he complained that they dragged him out of his house in St Lawrence Lane and beat and wounded him, and when his mother Roysia raised the hue and cry, the neighbours came and rescued him half alive, and his life was despaired of, to his damage £40. The defendants demanded a jury. Afterwards the plaintiff made default. He and his pledges were amerced.
John de Bottertone was attached to answer John Hornclerk (fn. 27), in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that, whereas he had two horses, value 40 marks, 36 quarters of grain, value £8, and £17 Parisian (fn. 28), value £4, at Abevyle in Ponthieu, the defendant had these goods arrested for a debt of 16 marks which the plaintiff had already paid him, and when the plaintiff said he was a clerk and would only answer before his Ordinaries, the defendant had him imprisoned for a day and a night till he was delivered by the Bishop of Amyas, and as he was thus so impoverished that he could not hire an advocate, he returned to England and so lost all his goods; further, the defendant by the King's writ of "monstravit" demanded an account from him as from his bailiff and receiver, and maliciously detained him in prison for a whole year less six weeks, though a jury had found that he had received nothing from him for which he need render account; further, that the defendant detained fifteen gold rings, two silver buckles, four silver spoons, one pot and one posnet of brass, value 40s, which the plaintiff delivered to him for custody, and also merchandise to the value of 2s, to the plaintiff's damage £100. The defendant demanded judgment whether he was bound to answer here for an arrest and attachment made in the kingdom of France and likewise for the imprisonment there. As regards those two charges he was absolved by the Court for the present. He pleaded further that the plaintiff, at the time when the pollard was worth sterling, pledged to him for 60s eight gold rings, one silver gilt ring and one brass pot, which he would have restored on payment of the 60s, and that he never received any more goods from him, and he demanded a jury. Afterwards a jury of the venue of Smethefeld, consisting of Andrew le Blader and others, said that the plaintiff pledged eight gold rings, one silver ring, and two silver buckles, but as regards the silver spoons and merchandise they could not inquire; and further that the defendant had from the same John Hornclerk one brass pot and one posnet value 4s, to the plaintiff's damage 12d. Judgment that the plaintiff recover these goods and damages and the defendant be in mercy.
Membr. 9 b
Richard de Chigewelle was attached to answer Robert de Mokkyng in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the defendant came on Saturday after the Feast of St Nicholas [6 Dec.] A° 23 Edw. , and sequestrated and sealed the door of the plaintiff's cellar on St Botulph's Quay, without any bailiff of the King, and kept it sequestrated until he had received herrings to the value of £4 17s 6d, and refused to give him any tally, writing or payment for the same. The defendant pleaded that at the time when the King was engaged in his expedition in Wales, Master William de Marchia, the King's Treasurer, ordered him by his fealty to the King, to inquire and find out where fish could be found for the service of the army and send it to the King. Thereupon, together with the King's servants appointed for the purpose, he took the herring, and sent it by a ship freighted at the Brokenewharf, and he demanded judgment whether he was bound to answer or pay for fish thus taken for the King's service. The plaintiff pleaded that it was taken for the defendant's own use, and demanded a jury. Afterwards a jury from the venue round St Botulph's Quay and Brokenewharf, consisting of William Hardel and others, said that the clerk and cook of Master William de la Marche took the fish, and that the defendant showed them where the fish was, but took none himself. Judgment that Robert gain nothing by his plaint, and be in mercy for his false claim and that Richard go quit.
Similar actions at the suit of Walter Gubbe, Richard Swote, William Abel, Henry Amys, son of Juliana la Jovene, Henry le Wite and John Gubbe concerning seizures of "mulvel" (fn. 29), "aberdene" (fn. 30), and "stockfis." The plaintiffs allowed the actions to go against them by default.
Simon de Parys, late Sheriff of London, was attached to answer Richard de Hatfeld, butcher, who complained that he entrusted to a certain Margery de Camerwelle a hood of "bluet" furred with "meniver," value ½ mark, a brass pot, value 3s 6d, and two "coverchefs" (fn. 31) and two "barbes" (fn. 32), value 3s, and that a certain William de Canefeld, by his own authority, and without a bailiff, took the goods away; and the plaintiff then went to the Sheriff and found pledges to prosecute William, and to prove that Margery had no property in the above goods on the day of the attachment, but the Sheriff was unwilling to attach William or to do justice, whereby the plaintiff could not have his goods through default of the Sheriff. The defendant pleaded that the action was discontinued for lack of prosecution and called his Rolls to witness. At a later Court the defendant produced his Rolls, which showed that the case was discontinued as alleged. Judgment for the defendant &c.
Agnes, widow of Guy le Hurer and executrix of his will, was attached to answer John de Stratford on a charge of detaining a quitclaim of all rights of dowry, made by Lucy, widow of German Brid, to the plaintiff, with regard to a house which he had bought from German. This quitclaim he had entrusted to the late Guy le Hurer, whose widow he now charged with maliciously returning it to Lucy. The above Agnes appeared and demanded judgment whether she was bound to answer without her co-executor, John Gamel. The plaintiff pleaded that Agnes was sole administratrix, and demanded a jury. Afterwards a jury of Sivethenelane, consisting of William de Finchingfeud and others, said that Agnes was sole administratrix, as the above John and Custance his wife declared. Judgment was given that Agnes go to prison till she restore the deed.
Membr. 10 8 July 1305
Court of J. le Blound concerning plaints and petitions (fn. 33), Thursday after the Feast of the Translation of the blessed Thomas the Martyr [7 July]
James de Sene (fn. 34) was attached to answer Adam Godesone in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that James came to his house on Tuesday before the Feast of St Edward [18 March] A° 24 Edw. [1295-6] and entered it against his will and the King's peace, broke the chain of a lock, and took away two horses, value 40s and 30s. The defendant admitted the distraint on the two horses, which were valued at 26s before John le Bretoun, then Warden of the City, and taken for arrears of 2 marks due on an annual rent of half-a-mark. This annual rent had been demised to the defendant for 12 years by German Brid and Lucy his wife, as appeared by a deed produced in Court. He further denied breaking the chain etc. against the peace, and except as stated, and demanded a jury. Afterwards a jury of the venue of St Olave by the Tower, consisting of Walter le Pestour and others, said that the defendant found Adam's door closed, and went to John le Bretoun, who sent his serjeant, who opened the chain and delivered to him the two horses to pay the arrears of 2 marks, being four years' arrears of the rent. Judgment for the defendant.
John de Paris, clerk, executor of the will of Joan Goldcorn, was attached to answer Thomas Squier and Saira his wife in a plea of detinue of certain muniments, wherein they alleged that Bartholomew le Locksmyth acquired a tenement outside Ludgate and bequeathed it to Joan his wife for life, and after her death Bartholomew's daughter Saira and her husband Thomas, the plaintiff, entered and had seisin, but that the defendant detained the deeds relating to the property, and procured the Mayor and Commonalty, to wit, Nicholas Pykot and William de la Chaumbre, who unjustly disseised and ejected the plaintiffs. The defendant admitted having certain deeds in his custody as executor, but said they did not concern the plaintiffs, nor was he bound to make them any restitution; and thereupon he produced in Court a deed from Guy le Seler to Bartholomew and Joan Goldcorn relating to a tenement without Ludgate, which Joan in her widowhood sold to Henry Sprot; and another deed under the name of William de Rokeslee of Westhamme and Joan his wife, daughter of Richard le Keu, which was made to the above Bartholomew and Joan, relating to an acre of meadow in Westhamme; and further, a certain will of the above Bartholomew, which will the defendant delivered to the plaintiffs in full Court. He denied that he had any other deeds and demanded an inquiry. Thomas and Saira, who were in court, were unable to show that the defendants had any other deeds or had done any trespass against them. Judgment for the defendant.
Note, that the above Thomas and Saira came and acknowledged that they had sold their tenement outside Ludgate on the North side to Thomas de Luda, clerk.
John de Bureford, William de Frideistrate and Philip de Merdelee were attached to answer Agnes la Longe in a plea of trespass, wherein she complained that John, during his Shrievalty, with William his clerk and Philip his serjeant, at the suit of Roger le Flaoner, entered her house on Lamberhull and attached two horses of Sir Richard de Overton, and had them valued at 20s for a debt of £7 due from Sir Richard to Roger. The plaintiff, as hostess of the house, entered into a mainprise against John de Bureford to pay for the above Richard if the debt was proved against him. When it was so proved, the said Sheriff and his men carried away, in lieu of the 20s, a mantle of white cameline (fn. 35), furred with "Eremyn," value 30s, a mantle of piers blue (fn. 36) cameline lined with red "sendall" (fn. 37), value 2 marks, a supertunic of azure-blue furred with squirrel, value 15s, and a towel in which the above garments were wrapped, value 12d, and also 20s, which the Sheriff received from Agnes for delivering the pledges, which delivery he refused to make; likewise the defendants came to her house and declared that more goods and chattels of Sir Richard were attached on the day when the horses were attached, whereas none had been found or attached; and they carried away two quarters of pure grain, value one mark, and 1200 of large faggots at 5s 6d the hundred, amounting to 66s, and by other distraints 47s 8d in silver and a washbowl, value 3s, as an amercement on the above Sir Richard, unjustly and to her damage, &c. The defendants pleaded that they attached two horses, valued at 20s, and the harness of Sir Richard, which was not valued, and caused Agnes to come into Court to answer as regards the harness that it might be valued, and that she willingly bound herself to answer for Sir Richard if he were convicted of the debt, viz. £7, and that subsequently, on the debt being established by a jury, they levied the £7 from Agnes. The plaintiff pleaded that she never agreed in Court to answer for Sir Richard in the form alleged. The defendants appealed to the record of the Rolls of the Court, which the above Sheriff was ordered to produce on Saturday. At a subsequent court came the defendant by Reginald Woleward, his attorney, and the plaintiff, and although the Mayor and Aldermen found the record and process pleaded and enrolled as was stated, yet at the instance of the plaintiff they granted that inquest be made by the servants and attorneys of the Court at Guildhall and by the neighbours of Guildhall, as to whether the plaintiff, in the Sheriff's Court, demanded an imparlance to consult with Sir Richard; and whether she joined with Sir Richard's attorney in pleading, and promised to satisfy the Court or the other party with regard to the attachment made in her lodging-house, or for the whole debt claimed, or not. Afterwards a jury, consisting of Elyas Everard and others, said that the two horses, and other goods in boxes and outside, in Agnes' house, were attached on Sir Richard de Overtone at the suit of Roger le Flanner (fn. 38) for £7, and that the horses were valued at 20s; and as regards the residue of £6, Agnes being summoned was unwilling to swear as regards the value of the remaining goods attached in her house, although Roger was willing that she should, but she demanded an imparlance of fifteen days to consult with Sir Richard as to the value of those goods and certify to the Court, and on returning to Court she was still unwilling to certify, but joined with Sir Richard's attorney and pleaded against Roger in the principal plea of the said £6. The then plaintiff Roger recovered the £6, for which she was distrained by the Sheriff until, &c. Judgment that she gain nothing by her plaint. And because she said in presence of the Mayor and Aldermen in full Court that the jury were lying, she was condemned to prison, and delivered to Roger de Parys, Sheriff.
Membr. 10 b
John de Bureford, late Sheriff, was attached to answer Peter de Corb, merchant of Ferar, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the goods of a certain Master Peter de Sancto Marico were attached at his suit in John's Court for a debt of £4, which the plaintiff recovered against Master Peter, but the Sheriff had returned the attachment to the latter without any satisfaction to the plaintiff beyond 24s, which the above Peter paid to him. As regards the 56s, the defendant, who was present in Court, could not deny the charge. He was ordered to pay the plaintiff within the Octave, and be in mercy for his unjust detinue.
Robert de Romeseye was attached to answer Agnes, widow of Richard de Newerk, in a plea of trespass wherein she complained that the defendant assaulted her at her house in Fletegate in the parish of St Bride, and carried away her goods viz. eleven doors, three pairs of handmills, one chest sealed with the seal of J. de Wengrave, three large vats, two tuns, one basin, one washbowl, four tables and other goods to the value of £20. Also she complained that whereas she demanded against the defendant a messuage in the parish of St Dunstan, Fletestrete, by writ of Right, and the action had been brought to judgment, the defendant, while judgment was pending, alienated the messuage to a certain Robert de Hauvile, who was suing in the King's Bench to support his injustice, to the disinherison of the plaintiff and to her damage £100. The defendant denied the first charge and demanded a jury. As regards the alienation, he demanded judgment, since she admitted that the action between them was pending, and since, until judgment was given, she could have no legal right in the above messuage. The plaintiff did not deny this. Accordingly nothing can be done at present. Afterwards a jury of Henry Rofot and others said that Robert carried away her goods, value one mark, to her damage 20s. Judgment accordingly, and payment to be made in the Quinzime. The defendant was mainprised for payment by Hugh le Armurer and William de Holebourne, taverner.
Vilanus Stolde and his companions of the Society of Perouche (fn. 39) were attached to answer Peter de Maners for detinue of 100 marks which he entrusted to them, to be paid out at Andvers in Brabant a week later, or failing that, in London at Midlent, which money they now refuse to pay.
The defendant admitted that some of his partners had received the money, but they had sent a letter to a partner, John Vyleyn, at Andvers by John de Maners, the plaintiff's brother, to pay the money, which they supposed had been done; but if the plaintiff would return the letter and prove that payment had not been made, they would satisfy him. As the plaintiff could not produce the letter and the defendants could not prove that payment had been made, a day was given to the parties to certify in Court on the above matters.
10 July 1305
Saturday after the Feast of the Translation of St Thomas the Martyr [7 July]
Adam de Scheftington and Maud his wife were attached to answer Adam "le Palefreour" of Sir Peter Maloure (fn. 40) and Robert de Lekke in a plea of trespass, wherein they complained that the defendants assaulted them when they were watering their lord's horses at Castle Baynard. The defendants denied the charge and claimed a jury. Afterwards an agreement was made by licence of Court, on terms that the defendants pay the plaintiffs half-a-mark. The defendants were amerced. The amercement was condoned by the Mayor at the instance of Sir Peter Malouree.
Peter le Clerk was attached to answer Thomas Seli in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that Peter, being his clerk during his Shrievalty, made an attachment on Master William de Boys, executor of the will of Sir Arnold de Mordak, for 60s owed to Thomas le Barbour of Friday Street, and without the plaintiff's consent, the defendant delivered the attachment, whereupon Thomas le Barbour recovered that amount from the Sheriff. The plaintiff demanded that Peter should repay him the 60s. The defendant pleaded that he made and delivered the attachment by the plaintiff's orders, and demanded a jury. Afterwards a jury of Friday Street and Melkestrete, consisting of Robert de Gloucestre and others, said that the defendant delivered the attachment without the plaintiff's consent. Judgment accordingly.
Membr. 10 c
Jury panel in the Sheriff's Court between Simon Beauflur and John de Melan, plaintiffs, and John de Thotenham, defendant.
Membr. 10 d 10 Dec. 1304
Court of Roger de Paris, Sheriff, on Thursday after the Conception B.M.
John de Totenham was attached to answer John de Melan for assaulting him on the Quay of Robert Hardel in Vintry. A jury found him guilty and assessed damages at 5 marks. Judgment that the defendant go to prison till he pay the damages, and that he be amerced.
Membr. 10 e
Judgment for Simon Beauflur with £10 damages in a similar action.
Membr. 11 10 July 1305
Court of J. le Blound, Mayor, Saturday after the Feast of the Translation of St Thomas the Martyr [7 July] A° 33 Edw. 
Simon Beauflur and John de Melan were attached to answer John de Totenham in a plea that they sued him in the Sheriff's Court for an assault, and that a packed jury, which was not sworn, found him guilty and taxed damages at 20 marks, although no wound was seen nor any effusion of blood, in consequence of which the plaintiff was adjudged to prison, where he had been for six months and more, and had spent all his goods. He demanded that the record and process in the Sheriff's Court be produced and the error therein amended. Afterwards the Sheriff sent his record, in which no error was found. Judgment was given that the plaintiff gain nothing by his action &c.
15 July 1305
Thursday before the Feast of St Margaret Virgin [20 July]
Roger de Hevere was attached to answer Walter Meriot and Alice his wife in a plea of trespass, wherein they complained that when Alice was in the brewhouse of William atte Ramme in the parish of St Mary of Wolcherchehawe, the defendant and others broke into the two doors of the house, carried her away unwillingly to Roger's house, kept her there as in a prison, and despoiled her, so that she was not liberated until Thomas Juvenal, by order of Elyas Russel, then Mayor, delivered her-to her damage £100. The defendant denied the charge and claimed a jury. Afterwards a jury of the venue of Cornhill round the Shambles, consisting of Henry de Benge and others, said that Alice was detained as alleged until she was delivered by Nicholas Pycot, chamberlain, and Thomas Juvenal, Serjeant, to her damage 10s. Judgment accordingly. Roger to go to prison until &c. Afterwards came Salamon le Cotiler, Symon le Pestour and John Dode and mainprised the defendant, Roger de Evere (sic), for his appearance before the Mayor on Tuesday &c.
Roger de Evere was attached to answer Walter Cote in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that when he was under age and in the wardship of Roger, A° 19 Edw. [1290-1], Roger by promises and smooth words instigated and procured him to demise and grant all his houses in the parish of St Mary Wolcherchhawe for a term of years, and also made him betroth himself to Alice his daughter, then being under age, and afterwards bound his hands behind him and beat him until he made a charter of feoffment; and thirteen years later, he forced Walter to seal a quitclaim relating to the houses, to his disinherison, and likewise to bind himself by a Statute in £42, payable at £4 a year, of which he had paid 100s; and afterwards Roger enfeoffed Walter and Alice with the houses to themselves and Alice's heirs, to the disinherison of Walter and his heirs. The defendant showed an acquittance in Court under the names of Walter the plaintiff and Walter de Berdenn, quitclaiming all actions against the above Roger by reason of any charters, letters, or deeds of covenant &c. dated at London the Vigil of the Trinity [13 June] A° 33 Edw. , and he demanded judgment whether the plaintiff could have any action against this acquittance. Afterwards the plaintiff craved view of this deed, and as he did not deny it, he confessed it. Judgment that he gain nothing by his action.
A jury of Fletestrete, consisting of John de Flete, "chapeler" (fn. 41), and others, brought in a verdict that Henry le Sporoner (fn. 42) did not promise to pay 100s on behalf of his brother Richard le Sporier (fn. 42) for a quitclaim made to the latter by John le Chaundeler of Flete.
Membr. 11 b 22 July 1305
Court of J. le Blund, Mayor, Thursday the Feast of St Mary Magdalene [22 July]
James Cok, barber, of Cornhull was sued by John le Barber for having maliciously rented (conduxerat) three houses in the neighbourhood of Cornhull, one of the fee of the Prior of the New Hospital without Bishopsgate, another of the fee of Thomas le Palmere, and the third of the fee of the Rector of St Peter's Cornhill, which the plaintiff had previously rented, owing to which the plaintiff could not dwell in the bounds (in patria) of Cornhull, to his damage 40s. The defendant pleaded that he himself dwelt in the Prior's shop, and that Thomas le Paumer ejected the plaintiff from his house owing to the latter's malice, and as regards the third house the defendant was still living there, and that he had not let (locavit) the houses for malice or any other cause. The plaintiff did not deny the defendant's pleading concerning the first two houses, but asserted that the defendant had let the third house against Michaelmas to his damage and maliciously, and he demanded a jury. The defendant admitted letting the third house to a relative, and said that this was lawful on proper notice, and denied malice. Afterwards a jury of the venue, consisting of John le Fourbour (fn. 43) and others, brought in a verdict that the defendant rented two of the houses maliciously, to the plaintiff's damage 20s. Judgment accordingly. The defendant, who was mainprised for payment within the Quinzime by Thomas le Palmere and William de Laufare, cutler, subsequently paid the damages, and his pledges were returned to him.
John de Heston, carpenter, was attached to answer Alice de Evere on a complaint that he assaulted her on Monday before Pentecost [6 June] and broke her shoulder with a bar (de una barra), and damaged her reins (renes suos quassavit), and did other enormities to her damage. The defendant pleaded that an action about the same charge was pending in the Sheriff's Court, and although the plaintiff had changed the date and place, there was no action between them, or could be, except the action in the Sheriff's Court, and he demanded a jury. The plaintiff said that the trespass she complained of took place after the action was begun in the Sheriff's Court. Afterwards a jury of Alegate, consisting of Philip de Offord and others, gave a verdict that no trespass was committed after that alleged in the Sheriff's Court. Judgment that Alice gain nothing by her plaint and be in mercy.
John le Furbour of Cornhull was convicted on his confession that he practised with a stone-bow (fn. 44) on churches and houses in the City, against the public proclamation made by the Mayor, Aldermen and citizens. Judgment that he go to prison. Afterwards it was condoned on his swearing on the Gospels that he would never again practise with a stonebow in the City.
John de Berdefeld was attached to answer John de Wautham in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he lived with the defendant for eight days in order to sell his wines, and that, on an account being made between them before Geoffrey Scot, Robert Portehors, taverner, and Walter le Furmager, he remained in arrears to the defendant for 18s 7d. For this sum he found pledges, Baldechon le Chaucer and Robert Portehors, and also pledged to the defendant goods to the value of 20s. Nevertheless the defendant, by a writ of monstravit, caused him to be imprisoned in Newegate falsely and maliciously. The defendant denied that the plaintiff had been imprisoned at his suit, and claimed a jury. A jury of Cheap was summoned, but the plaintiff made default. Judgment was given for the defendant.
31 July 1305
Saturday before the Feast of St Peter ad Vincula [1 Aug.]
Thomas Sely (fn. 45) was attached to answer Thomas le Barber of Fridaystrete in a plea of trespass, in which the latter complained that the defendant sent him and his apprentice Wymar to Newegate at no one's prosecution and kept them there till the plaintiff produced a writ of delivery, after receiving which writ and pledges, the defendant still kept Wymar in prison for a night and a day to his damage &c. The defendant pleaded that Thomas and his men assaulted the men of John, son of the Duke of Brittany (fn. 46), and it was at the latter's suit and by order of H. de Waleyes, then Mayor, that he detained them in prison, and he claimed that the imprisonment was just. The said Sir John of Brittany sent a letter testifying to the assault and that no amends had been made as yet. A day was given till the arrival of the above Sir John.
William de Lincoln, lorimer, was attached to answer Henry de Kemesseye, and Ellen his wife, on the charge that he assaulted the latter when she was in her house by Aldrisgate in the Rents of Sir Roger de Brabazon. The defendant demanded a jury, and was mainprised to hear the verdict by Richard Horn, "feron," and Walter Cote, "sub periculo quod incumbit." Afterwards the plaintiffs made default. Therefore &c.
William de Spersholte, "chaundeler," was attached to answer William Jolyf in a plea that he pay him two marks for a horse which the plaintiff lent him to try at Kensingtone, on condition that he either pay the two marks or return the horse, neither of which he had done. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff lent him a horse, value 10s, to try to Henley and back, and pleaded that the horse died by accident on the way, and he demanded a jury. The plaintiff reiterated the condition relating to the two marks. Afterwards a jury of Holebourn, consisting of Hugh de Hereford and others, said that William received the horse, value 12s, to try it, and that it died by accident. Judgment for the plaintiff for the 12s, and that the defendant be in mercy for his unjust detinue.
John de Oxford, "stremuler" (fn. 47), plaintiff, did not prosecute against Henry de Benge in a plea of trespass.
2 Aug. 1305
Monday the morrow of St Peter ad Vincula [1 Aug.]
John de Bottertone was attached to answer John Hornclerk, who complained that after he had recovered 17 marks against the defendant in the Court of Hengry de Fyngrie, then Sheriff, the defendant, in order to hinder execution of that sum, had served a writ of monstravit on Richard de Caumpes and the other Sheriff, and had charged the plaintiff with owing him £200, for which he ought to render account, owing to which the plaintiff was imprisoned for a year by the defendant's malice, although he was acquitted of the debt before Elias Russel, Mayor, and the Aldermen in full Husting of Common Pleas. The defendant admitted the writ and the imprisonment, and pleaded that the plaintiff had been amerced (fn. 48), on which matter he demanded judgment; and he denied having acted maliciously, and on this charge he put himself on a jury. Afterwards a jury of Smethefeld and Alegate, consisting of Hugh le Chaundeler and others, gave a verdict that the defendant did not by the writ demand a great sum maliciously, so that the plaintiff lay in prison for lack of mainprise, as alleged. Judgment for the defendant on this issue. As regards the imprisonment, the parties had a day on Monday to hear judgment.
Robert de Blakeslou, cornmerchant, was summoned to answer Philip, son of Guyco de Florence, in a plea that he restore to him three obligations of £137 15s 1d, which the plaintiff had exchanged with him for 20 marks, that sum being repaid to the defendant by the hands of Sir John de Drokenesford. The defendant said he handed over the deeds to Sir John de Drokenesford (fn. 49) by agreement of the plaintiff. and he called to witness the record of Sir John. A day was given, and the defendant was mainprised by Robert de Kelesseye. Afterwards the defendant produced letters patent of Sir John to the effect that he was willing to deliver the deeds to the plaintiff on payment of the 20 marks which he, Sir John, had paid out on his behalf. The plaintiff was advised to go to Sir John for the deeds. Judgment for the defendant.
Membr. 12 b
A jury of the venue of Heldefihstrete (fn. 50) summoned against Wednesday to say whether Agnes la Lunge slandered the Mayor and Court.
John le Blound, "Cirger" (fn. 51), was attached to answer William atte Watere on a charge that he produced a writ of monstravit maliciously against the plaintiff, whereby the latter was kept in Newegate for seven weeks, being delivered because John made default in the Husting of Common Pleas. The defendant denied the malice, and said that William was his man, hired by the day from Michaelmas to Easter, and had charge of scoops and other utensils, for which he was bound to render account. He demanded a jury. Afterwards a jury of Cordwanerestret and Candelwykestret, consisting of Matthew le Chaundeler and others, said that William was servant of John at 3s the quarter, that they could not find out that William had any goods in charge, and that John maliciously caused him to be imprisoned by the above writ, to his damage 10 marks. Judgment accordingly, and the defendant was committed to the Sheriff until &c. Afterwards came Thomas de Oxford, skinner, and John de Staundone, "chapeler," and undertook to pay the clerks of the Court 20s, which the plaintiff presented to them.
Alice de Sutton was attached to answer William de Spersholt in a plea of detinue of chattels, wherein the latter complained that the defendant had recovered in the Mayor's Court a tenement in which were certain vessels and utensils belonging to the plaintiff and that she detained them, viz. two "yilvates" (fn. 52), value 12s; one "masfat" (fn. 53), 4s; one "rering vat" (fn. 54), 3s; seven "cumelyngs" (fn. 55), 21d; two "seges" (fn. 56), 12d; and two "clayes ad toreyl" (fn. 57), 20d. The defendant pleaded that all these goods belonged to the house, and that her ancestors bought them, and that she had none of William's goods. A jury was summoned, and as the defendant made default, the verdict was given in her absence. The jury found that the plaintiff had no goods in the house except two "crates ad torell" (fn. 57), value 20d. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the 20d, and that the defendant be amerced; and as regards the rest, judgment was given for the defendant and that the plaintiff be amerced.
A jury of the venue of St Antonine found Richard Harm, "bolenger" (fn. 58), not guilty of assaulting William Sothcrist.
John de Lewes was attached on a charge that he and others at curfew assaulted Robert de Arundel, who had been appointed by Nicholas de Farendon, Alderman, and the faithful men of the Ward to guard the Gate of Newgate and close it at night. The plaintiff withdrew from his plaint, and his amercement for so doing was condoned by the Mayor and J. de Wangrave (fn. 59), because he was poor.
Ivo de Fynchingfeud, butcher, and Richard le Bocher, his man, were attached to answer Richard le Forester, baker, for refusal to pay 40s in which they had been condemned in the Court of Salamon le Cotiler, Sheriff, for a trespass against him. The defendants admitted the conviction, but said that they had satisfied the plaintiff by the hands of Ralph de Finchingfeud and Geoffrey de Finchingfeud, their mainpernors, and other friends, and they asked that inquest be made. The plaintiff demanded judgment because the defendants brought no proof of the payment and did not dispute the record of the conviction. On these grounds the Court ordered the above Salamon to send his record to the present Sheriffs, and that the latter should make execution on the goods and chattels of the defendants for the 40s, according to the judgment in Salamon's Court. The defendants were amerced.
Robert le Brokettour and Maud his wife were attached to answer Thomas Dogget in a complaint that whereas the plaintiff handed to Maud a cloth (fn. 60) of thread of wool (une leyne de fillaz de leyne) value 12s 6d, that she might sell it for that price, she sold the cloth and retained the money, and afterwards she and her husband went to the plaintiff's house and by false suggestion made to the latter's wife Alice, demanded and carried away half a cloth of thread of wool (dimidium filacium lane), value ½ mark. The defendants admitted the debt of 12s 6d, which they were ordered to pay within the Quinzime; but as regards the half-cloth, they said they took it away for sale by the plaintiff's orders, and demanded a jury. Afterwards a jury of the venue round the Church of St Margaret atte Patines, consisting of Nicholas de Hadlee and others, said that Maud took the half-cloth by fraud. Judgment that Thomas recover the half-mark from Robert and Maud. And Maud was delivered to the Sheriff by Richard de Croftone until &c.
Membr. 13 (fn. 61) 7 Aug. 1305
John Goys, smith, was attached to answer Robert de Wedon, carpenter, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that when he, the plaintiff, had begged Geoffrey de Blyd, Master James, the King's smith, Henry le Poter, Robert de Alegate, "poter," Geoffrey le Poter, Salamon le Poter, Michael de Wymbys, Gilbert de la Marche and his brother, and Gilbert atte Herst in the Church of St Mary Wolcherchawe to arrange an agreement and peace between the defendant and William de Northampton, late his servant- the defendant, with a band of unknown persons armed with swords and bucklers, assaulted the plaintiff, took him by the nose and tried to drag him out of the Church, and threatened and still threaten him in life and limb, against the peace and to his damage £20. Afterwards a jury of the venue, consisting of Geoffrey de Nottingham and others, said that the defendant did not commit a trespass against the plaintiff to the value of 4d. Judgment for the defendant.
The Prior of Holy Trinity, London, Walter de Burgo and Robert de St Martin, his canons, Norman, John le Pestour, John the clerk, John le Porter, and Simon le Clerk, servants of the Prior, were summoned to answer Richard atte Nax, "bokeler," in a plea of trespass wherein the latter complained that between Prime and Tierce they crossed his walls by the Prior's curtilage, and broke and carried away his doors and windows into the Prior's close. The Prior and the others said a presentment was made before the Alderman in his Wardmote, by the oath of good men, that prostitutes dwelt in the plaintiff's houses (fn. 62), whereupon the Beadle of the Ward was ordered to gather to himself the neighbours, and after warning given to Richard for removing the prostitutes, to take away the doors. As the plaintiff did not comply, the Beadle gathered the neighbours, including the Prior &c., and removed the doors and windows. They demanded a jury. Afterwards a jury of the venue round the Church of St Mary atte Nax, consisting of Gilbert Schep and others, found for the defendants. Judgment accordingly. And order was given to the Inquest Jury to go to the house and remove the prostitutes, as the jury said they were still there.
Simon le Palefreour (fn. 63), Richard le Despenser, Simon the cook and Maddok, servants of William de Trente, were attached to answer Thomas de Wautham on a charge of assaulting the latter and taking his goods, to wit, four writs under the King's seal and a tally of 19s, and 6s 11d cash, a gown, value 6d, a hood of burnet (fn. 64), value 8d, a purse, value 4d, and a pair of tables (fn. 65) with a comb, value 4d, and that they did so by order of William de Trente, and were abetted by John Storremonthe, to his damage £100. The defendants Simon, Richard and Maddok pleaded that the plaintiff and eight others assaulted them, and such harm as they received was their own fault, and demanded a jury. The bailiff reported that Simon the cook was dead. William and John demanded judgment whether they need answer as to the order and abbetting until the defendants were convicted of the fact. They went quit for the present. Afterwards a jury of Roger de Lenne and others said that Maddok assaulted the plaintiff without provocation, to his damage one mark. Judgment that he go to prison until &c. Simon and Richard were acquitted. The jury said further that William and John knew nothing of the matter. They were acquitted, and the plaintiff, was amerced for his false claim.
John de Harewe, Serjeant, was attached to answer William Cok, butcher, for detinue of five boxes, value 12s, four vats, value 11s, three barrels and two kemelins, value 2s 6d, two rainwater cisterns, value 12s, firewood, value 20s, one lantern, value 4s, one "houche" (fn. 66) and one carpet, value 4s, and 9s 6d which he received from John Fuatard for the hire of a shop; also 6s due to the plaintiff from two chaplains for rent in Yvilane, and four cushions (auricular') and four little costers (costerellis), value 6s, and one hair-blanket for a bed (cilicium ad torellum) value 4s 6d, one coat of "Morre" (fn. 67), value 2s, and "rocheres" (fn. 68) and mortars and other small vessels, value 5s, and two handmills, which he took from the plaintiff, to a sum total of 104s 6d. The defendant pleaded that he took one box, value 4s, and one "cheker" (fn. 69), value 18d, and 100 of firewood, value 2s 4d, and 18d in money from the chaplains for a quarter's rent, and from John Fuatard for the same, for arrears of 20s rent due from the plaintiff to Margery de Gysorrs and her sister, daughters of Anketin le Mercer, and for a certain leaden vessel in an oven (pro quodam plumbo in fornace stante) removed by the plaintiff; and as regards the four vats, four barrels, two kemelins, and two handmills, they belonged to a house bought by his father and descended to him, and were never the property of the plaintiff. Subsequently the plaintiff made default and the defendant went thence without a day.
Roger de Lauvare, cordwainer, was attached to answer John de Gaytone, cordwainer, in a plea of trespass wherein the latter complained that he hired a room (placea) in Roger's house in the parish of St Sepulchre to sleep in at night, and that Roger came in the middle of the night to his bed and assaulted him and drove him out of the house, and took from him a coat party-furred with lambswool, one carpet, two towels and one "houce" (fn. 70), value ½ mark, and threatened him in life and limb, so that he did not dare to return to the neighbourhood until he had agreed to pay the defendant 3s, of which he had paid 6d, to his damage 100s. Afterwards a jury of Stephen de Hereford and others said that John did not hire the room, but was himself the hired servant of the defendant, who beat him and took away his clothes, because he was unwilling to go to Croydone with him, the clothes being valued by the jury at 2s 6d, and the damage at 6d. Judgment accordingly for these amounts.
William de Rothewelle, clerk, William de Cornewale, clerk, dwelling in the parish of St Sepulchre, Roger, servant of Sir Robert Chivaler, Agnes de Newerk, Adam Wade, "wodemogger" (fn. 71), and Roger Wyndwawe, "tapicer" (fn. 72), were attached to answer Robert de Romeseye in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that they broke into his house and took away goods to the value of £40, to his damage £100. All the defendants except Roger Wyndwawe were attached for their appearance, the latter being present and pleading that he had been acquitted of that charge before Sir Ralph de Sandwych and the other Justices at Newegate. The plaintiff said the trespass took place after the above acquittal. Afterwards a jury of Flete Strete came together and was sworn, but the plaintiff then left the Court and withdrew from his plea. He and his pledges were amerced &c.
Membr. 13 b 9 Aug. 1305
Monday the Vigil of St Laurence [10 Aug.]
Walter de Walepol, goldsmith, was attached to answer Henry de Gloucestre in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that Walter came to his shop in the Goldsmith's quarter (fn. 73), and assaulted his servant William de Walepol, and broke a marble piece fitted for precious stones, and a dish in which were rubies and "esmeraged," so that the stones were scattered through the house and some were lost, to his damage £20. The defendant admitted the charge and was committed to prison until &c.
Judgments by default. William de Harwode, plaintiff against Gervase le Frend; Alan de St Albans and Margaret his wife, plaintiffs against Roger de Evere, John de Haleford, Edmund his servant, Walter de Waldegrave, "smeremogger" (fn. 74), and Hamond le Barber &c.
Peter le Latoner and Juliana his wife were attached to answer Gilbert le Bracer of Hiengham for entering his house in St Botulph's Lane by Billinggesgate and assaulting Gilbert, who hid for his life in a room, and for beating and stamping on his servant Margaret and carrying away the plaintiff's goods. A jury of Walter Pykeman and others said that Peter did nothing, but Juliana beat Margery, and that no harm was done to Gilbert. Judgment for the defendants.
John le Heymogger (fn. 75) and Mabel his wife were summoned to answer Gilbert le Brasour of Hiengham for a debt of 13s 10d for beer which Mabel took in Gilbert's house in Wodestrete. Mabel came and said that as John her husband was not mentioned by name in the charge she could not and ought not to answer. The plaintiff said she took the beer without her husband's knowledge, and that she kept an inn, received guests and traded "sole" (fn. 76). On this issue the parties went to a jury of the venue of Wodestret and round the Brewhouse of St Paul's, who said that Mabel traded "sole" in hay and oats and kept an inn. John le Heymogger did not come. Order was given to attach him to appear at the next Court to hear his judgment, and a day was given to Mabel and the plaintiff.
Membr. 14 2 Aug. 1305
A jury of the venue round St Antonin's Church, consisting of Roger de Balsham and others, found for the defendant Richard Harm, who was sued by his late servant, Stephen de Dillewyss, for assaulting and imprisoning him.
4 Aug. 1305
Wednesday after the Feast of St Peter ad Vincula [1 Aug.]
William Passemer was attached to answer Robert de Romesseye in a plea that though all the parties were free of the City, William caused Robert and Margery his wife to be attached before the Steward and Marshal at Westminster (fn. 77) in prejudice of the City's liberties and to Robert's damage £20. The defendant said that a certain Hugh de Badborouham, John Marie and William Gomage of the King's Household were lodging at his house, in which the plaintiff, Walter de Hormede and others assaulted them, whereupon Hugh and his fellows caused the plaintiff and his wife Margery to be attached before the Steward and Marshal, and had the defendant's name inserted in the plaint, but that he, the defendant, did not cause them to be attached or prosecute them there; and he was willing to verify his pleading as the Court should direct. Robert demanded a jury on the issue that the attachment was at William's suit. The latter said that a jury could have no knowledge of what happened in the other Court, and especially before the King's Steward and Marshal, which were naturally matters of record, and he willingly granted to the plaintiff to demand the record. The latter refused, and demanded judgment. Afterwards the plaintiff made default, and judgment was given for the defendant.
John de Wrytele, "furmager" (fn. 78), and Isabel his wife were attached to answer Cristian le Foundour in a plea of trespass, wherein he complained that they dragged him inside their seld in Cheap, closed the door, and beat him. A jury of Westchepe, consisting of John Poyntel and others, said that John did not, but Isabel did assault Cristian, to his damage 40d. Judgment that Cristian recover that amount against John and Isabel, and that they be in mercy.
Bennet de Burgo was attached to answer Godfrey de Loveyne in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he bought from Bennet two barrels of ashes of good and faithful woad (duos barillos cinerum wisde) (fn. 79), of which one barrel was mixed with earth and the other almost all false, and Bennet refused to make amends as he was bound to do, because he had sold the ashes as good, and on the plaintiff's warning had recovered damages against the merchants who sold them to him. The defendant denied receiving damages from the merchants, and said that they had gone abroad before the fraud was known to him, and he demanded a jury. Afterwards a jury of Candelwykstrate, consisting of woadmerchants and dyers, came in the persons of Richard Wolmar and others, who said that at the suit and warning of the plaintiff, the defendant had recovery of his damage (habuit suum recuperare de dampnis suis), to wit, 60s for nine barrels. A day was given for hearing judgment, when the plaintiff made default. He and his pledges were amerced and the defendant went thence without a day.
6 Aug. 1305
Friday after the above Feast.
A jury of Walebrok, consisting of William Tovy and others, found John Cotoun, skinner, not guilty of a charge of slandering the Mayor and John de Dunstaple, alderman, when the latter went round his Ward to collect money for a courtesygift to the King and other magnates, for the benefit of the City. The collectors, William de Red, Thomas de Waledene and William de Caxtone were summoned to give evidence.
Membr. 14 b
William de Stalham, taverner, and Peter le Taverner, were charged with slandering the collectors of the tallage for a courtesy-gift to the King and Queen and other magnates, against their oath, so that others taking an example from them were unwilling to do anything for the honour of the City. Richard Horn, fishmonger, William Lambyn, John de Wymondham and William de Braye, the collectors, appeared on summons. The defendant Peter admitted breaking a sequestration, and was committed to prison. A jury of the venue of the Bridge round Estchep found the other defendant guilty of the same, and a Capias was issued against him.
John de la Marche of Alegate put himself on the Mayor's mercy for insulting the collectors in Alegate Ward, Robert de Campedene and Robert Lorchoun. He was ordered to come up for judgment on Monday.
John le Cu, "brasour" (fn. 80), was attached to answer Ysabel de Estre in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that John hired a brewhouse in the parish of All Hallows Stanignechurch for 3½ marks per annum, and took away goods from it to the value of 46s 1½d, viz. for rent 11s 8d; half a tun of beer, 15d; a spade, 8d; 3 kemelins, 15d; 5 pieces of tables (pecias tabularum), 4s; timber, value 8d; one standard, one hair-sieve for clarifying beer (unum saitum ad coland' cervis'), one "malre" (fn. 81) and one basket, value 2s 9d; one pair of handmills, value 3s 6d; and a dog with a chain, value 20s 4d. John admitted hiring the house, and said that Ysabel ejected him long before the end of his term, so that it was not his fault if he owed her any part of the rent; as for the dog, he understood that she gave it to him, but she could have it back if she would pay for its feed; all he removed was a pair of handmills belonging to himself. A jury of the venue of Blaunchapelton was summoned, but Ysabel did not prosecute her plea. She was amerced, and the defendant went thence without a day.
Edmund le Taylour of Alegate was attached to answer Cristina, daughter of William de Suffolk, in a plea of trespass, wherein she complained that she impleaded the Abbot and Convent of Sibertone as regards a tenement which she claimed by inheritance, and that she recovered part by judgment, and judgment on the other part was pending undecided. The defendant, she said, took the capital messuage of the tenement from the Abbot to hold part thereof in order to sustain and maintain his plea and to eloign the plaintiff, who is under age, from her rights; and moreover, as regards her part of the tenement which she recovered, she could not take or have profits and esplees on account of the estrepement and threats and violence done by Edmund to the tenants thereof, against the peace and to her damage £10. The defendant said that he took the tenement, which Cristina claimed, from the Abbot a year before she obtained her writ, for the lifetimes of himself and his wife, that he was the Abbot's bailiff to collect the latter's rents, and that he made a distraint for arrears, lawfully and not maliciously; and he demanded a jury. Afterwards a jury of Alegate, of Walter le Taylour and others, said that the defendant took the house after the obtaining of the writ, maliciously in champerty (fn. 82), to the damage of Cristina 10s. Judgment accordingly, and that Edmund go to prison &c.
7 Aug. 1305
Saturday after the above Feast
Thomas, late Vicar of the Church of St Sepulchre without Newegate, and John le Copersmyth were attached to answer William Cok, butcher, on a charge that they came to his houses in Cokkes Lane before Christmas A° 29 Edw.  and entered them and tore away eleven doors and five windows with hammers and chisels, against the precept of the Mayor and Alderman of the Ward, who ordered the defendants to restore them. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff was presented before the Wardmote for harbouring prostitutes, and that the Beadle, after due warning to remove them, gathered the neighbours, among whom were the defendants, and carried away the doors &c. as was lawful. Subsequently a jury of the venue round Cokkes Lane came, but the plaintiff did not prosecute his plea. Therefore &c.
A jury of Bradestrete found Richard le Barber not guilty of abusing the Alderman and collectors of the tallage, against his oath as a freeman. Salamon le Cotiller, the Alderman, and Robert de Asshendon, Simon the baker and Thomas Perceval, the collectors, were present in Court.
Membr. 15 25 Aug. 1305
Wednesday the morrow of St Bartholomew the Apostle [24 Aug.]
John Orpedman was attached to answer the Master of the Hospital of St Giles, who complained that when he went to John's house in Briggestrete to make a distraint for one mark, annual rent, then two years in arrears, the defendant, in the presence of Thomas de Kent, the Mayor's Serjeant, refused the distress and assaulted the plaintiff. On a later occasion the defendant admitted the plaintiff and his men, and then closed the doors behind them, so that the Master with difficulty escaped into the shop in front. The defendant sent the Master's men after him, kicking and ill-treating them, and when the plaintiff raised the hue and cry, the defendant took him by the neck and pushed him out of the shop-door and ill-treated him, to his damage £40. The defendant demanded a jury. Subsequently a jury of Roger de Bury and others said they could not find out whether John ill-treated the plaintiff, but that he denied to him a pledge in the presence of John de Kent, the Serjeant, when the Master took up a fish on his stall (as a pledge); and further, the defendant refused entry to the Master, to his damage 2s. A day was given to hear judgment on this matter. They said also that the defendant did not imprison the plaintiff's men nor do him any other harm. Judgment was given that the plaintiff be in mercy, and that the defendant be quit as regards this charge.
John, son of Henry le Bole, was attached to answer the Mayor and bailiffs of the City for breaking the sequestration made on him for the King's money. The defendant demanded a jury, and was mainprised by Richard de Hadlee, fishmonger, and Ralph de Bury, cordwainer. A jury of the venue of Martelane, consisting of Adam Honteman and others, found him guilty. A Capias was issued against him to hear judgment.
Hugh de Wautham, and Robert, servant of Gocelin, the Serjeant of Roger de Paris, Sheriff, were attached to answer Roger de Southcote, "paternostrer" (fn. 83), in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that when he went into the road on the North of St Michael at Corn to look at the head of William le Waleys (fn. 84), the above Robert took him to the Sheriff's house and there detained him in prison by Hugh's order. The defendant Hugh said that he found Roger making a disturbance, and behaving as one against the King's peace towards Robert the Sheriff's servant, who had custody of a prisoner by the Sheriff's command. Robert pleaded that he was taking a man attached by the order of the Justices, when the plaintiff assaulted him, so that the prisoner nearly escaped, and accordingly he attached the plaintiff. He demanded a jury. A jury of the venue round the Church of St Michael at Corn was summoned.
Walter Diry and Alice his wife were attached to answer Nicholas Turgis in a plea that whereas it was agreed that Alice should go to the Husting to acknowledge and confirm the sale of a house in Marcelane in the parish of St Olave by the Tower, which she had sold to the plaintiff, and whereas ten marks had been put in the hands of Richard Pykeman for delivery to Alice after the confirmation, the defendant now refused to confirm the sale, wherefore the plaintiff demands repayment of the ten marks. The defendant Walter acknowledged the agreement, but Alice pleaded that she never agreed to it and would not carry it out. Judgment was given that Nicholas recover the ten marks. The defendants were amerced. And because Walter insulted and abused the plaintiff in full Court in the presence of the Mayor and Aldermen, he was adjudged to prison and delivered to the Sheriff through Gocelin, his Serjeant. Afterwards he was mainprised by Adam Hunteman, John de Hamme, Matthew de Hakeneye and John Cook for his appearance on Saturday to hear judgment on his contempt and for keeping the peace with Nicholas.
James le Reve, Roger de Parys, Sheriff, and Hugh de Wautham, clerk, were attached to answer Gerard de Waldericham, master of the ship called "Gronewold," Ludekyn de Waldericham, master of the ship called "Welefare," Wilebrand de Waldericham, master of the ship called "Gronewold," Reyner de Waldericham, master of the ship called "Lythfot," Reyner de Waldericham, master of the ship called "Blytheleved," and Adam de Waldericham, master of the ship called "Blycheyleved" (sic), in a plea of trespass wherein they complained that Roger and Hugh, at the suit of James, unjustly attached their ships and goods. Roger and Hugh pleaded that James delivered to them a writ for attaching all ships, and goods therein, which seemed to them to belong to the men of Holand, Zeland and Frigia, and to be under the dominion of the Lady Katherine de Vorne. The plaintiffs denied that they belonged to the dominion or power of the above Count (fn. 85) or Katherine, and demanded a jury of merchants trading in those parts. Afterwards a jury of Billiggesgate and of foreign merchants, consisting of Stephen de Prestone and others, said that the plaintiffs were not of the dominion of the Counts of Holand, Zeland and Frigia, nor of Katherine de Vorne, but of the dominion of the Bishop of Outrich, who holds from the King of Almaine. A day was given on Monday to hear judgment.
Membr. 15 b 27 Aug. 1305
Court of J. le Blound held by John de Wengrave on Friday after the above Feast
John de Breydeston and Robert de Breydeston were attached to answer William de Raveneston in a plea of trespass, wherein he complained that the defendants harboured his apprentice, William de Breideston, who left his service against his will, and carried away his goods, to the value of 40s. The defendants came by Richard Horn, ironmonger, their attorney, and said that the plaintiff beat the apprentice and drove him out naked, and that they did not harbour him with the plaintiff's goods. A jury of the parishes of St Michael Wodestrete and St John Zacarias was summoned against Monday.
Action by the above apprentice against his master, on the ground that the latter drove him away, and did not instruct him, and find him in woollen and linen clothes.
1 Sept. 1305
Wednesday after the Feast of the Decollation of St John the Baptist [29 Aug.]
A jury of the venue of Graschurch was summoned to say whether Peter le Taverner abused and insulted the Earl of Athol (fn. 86), as the Mayor was given to understand.
2 Sept. 1305
Thursday after the above Feast
Judgments by default of plaintiffs:-Thomas de la Rye, "aparailour (fn. 87) de Forcos," plaintiff against Ivo de Wyttelee; William de Hengeham, "bracer" (fn. 88), plaintiff against Andrew de Hengeham, tailor, and Agatha his wife; Cok Willem, plaintiff against Robert de Abbyndon and Maud de Cauntebregg.
Edward de Fremelingham, Clerk of the Arches (de Arcubus) (fn. 89), was attached to answer Emma, relict of Nicholas le Taylour, for assaulting her in Tower Street, and breaking her left arm &c. A jury of the venue of the Tower, consisting of Thomas Pourte and others, said that Edward was guilty of the assault, except breaking the arm. Judgment for the plaintiff for 5s damages.
John de Rokeslee, dyer, of London, was attached to answer Adam Godesone in a plea of debt of 9s due from John to Adam for a thousand of firewood called "bilets." The defendant admitted purchasing the wood at the price, but said that a certain Edmund le Marny, who married the plaintiff's daughter, owed him that sum, and that he, the defendant, asked him, the plaintiff, if he would undertake to discharge Edmund's debt, and it was under this agreement that the plaintiff sold him the wood. The plaintiff said he never agreed to receive payment for the wood from Edmund. The plaintiff was ordered to make his law, and did so. Judgment was given that Adam recover the 9s from the defendant, and that the latter be in mercy for his unjust detinue.
Membr. 16 3 Sept. 1305
Friday after the Decollation of St John the Baptist [29 Aug.]
William Pykeman, Thomas de Colingham and Richard Pykeman were attached to answer John de Stratford, William de Stratford, and Richard de Hadlee in a plea that they pay the plaintiffs a moiety of a ship value £10, and goods therein value £20, which foundered at the mouth of the Thames by collision with the ship of the defendants, which ran over it; on the ground that it was immemorial usage both at sea and in the Thames (fn. 90) that if ships or boats collided by accident or in any other way, whereby one sank with its goods, the surviving ship or boat should make good the half of the ship and goods thus sunk-which half the defendants refused to pay &c. The defendants pleaded that their ship entered the mouth of the Thames with lowered sail (velo sublato) because of the danger of the sands, and the sailors in the plaintiffs' ship sailed under full sail, and with malice aforethought collided with the defendants' ship which was crossing into the mouth of the river, intending to overturn it, but stove in their own ship, so that it sank from the water rushing into the breach; and when the sailors in the defendants' ship saw it, they launched their boat and with difficulty saved the sailors of the plaintiffs' ship. The defendants demanded judgment whether they were bound to make any restitution for the loss of a ship and goods thus lost by the malice of the plaintiffs' crew. The plaintiffs pleaded that the ship was lost by the malice of the defendants' crew, and demanded a jury of merchants trading by sea and sailors, which was summoned. The defendants appointed John de Cornhulle their attorney, and their ship was delivered to them on their acting as mainpernors to each other. Subsequently they made an agreement by permission of Court, on terms that the plaintiffs quitclaim all actions against the defendants, and that the defendants pay the plaintiffs 10 marks sterling, entering into a Recognizance for payment, and that the defendants be in mercy. Afterwards the defendants paid the money in the Chamber and were quit.
Avice la Haubergere, who was delivered out of prison on mainprise because of sickness, came before the Mayor and acknowledged that she tore the deed delivered to her by Roger de Brunne. Judgment was given that she be delivered to prison as before.
Two counterpanes, two covers of catskin (cooperture murelegorum), two barber's basins, and two red serges, taken upon James le Barber at the suit of John de Benham for 20s which the latter recovered against him in the Mayor's Court, were valued by oath of Thomas de Oxford, Simon de Brouchtone, William de Laufare, Roger the beadle of Candelwykstrete and William de Reyle at 18s 4d. Afterwards he received the goods on paying that amount.
11 Sept. 1305
Saturday after the Nativity B.M. [8 Sept.]
The good men of the Ward of Chepe, viz. Thomas de Northwiz, Robert de la Daunce, John Goyz, Roberd (sic) de Farneberghe, John de Greneford, John Snow, William de Hamptone, Adam de Bouthone, William le Coffrer, John Herm, Robert de Paddinton and Peter de Hungerford, came to this Court and complained against Master Stephen the surgeon in a plea of trespass. The Sheriffs were ordered to produce him at the next Court.
28 Sept. 1305
Tuesday the Vigil of St Michael [29 Sept.]
Martin de Dullingham and Gilbert, his son, and David de Dullingham were attached to answer Thomas de Kent, Serjeant of the Mayor, in a plea that when he wished to attach the defendant Gilbert at the suit of Walter, marshal of the household of Sir John Botetourte, plaintiff in a plea of trespass, Gilbert would not allow himself to be attached or find pledges, whereupon the Serjeant delivered him to the Sheriff, and the others then abused and insulted the plaintiff (fn. 91) in contempt of the King and his bailiffs. A jury of the venue round St Mildred's Church, was summoned. Afterwards the parties made agreement by permission of Court on terms that the plaintiff remit all actions, and the defendants deliver to the plaintiff a tun of wine, which was put in respite till one of them should be convicted of an offence against the bailiffs of the City. The defendants agreed that each of them was bound to pay the tun, and they put themselves in mercy.
Membr. 16 b 5 Oct. 1305
Tuesday after the above Feast.
Henry Scof was summoned to answer Reginald de Thunderle, Sheriff, in a complaint that whereas Henry was Reginald's tenant-at-will of a house called "la Coppedhalle" (fn. 92), and had received notice at Christmas, he refused to give up the house, whereby the plaintiff, his clerks and servants, were dispossessed. The defendant denied receiving notice, and the plaintiff replied that he had witnesses. A day was given on Thursday.
21 Oct. 1305
Thursday after the Feast of St Luke the Evangelist [18 Oct.]
Richard de Bolnhirst, called "Godard," pepperer, acknowledged that he impleaded the executors of the will of William de Beton before the Official of the Archdeacon of London, after prohibition made to him by the Mayor. Judgment that he go to prison until &c. Afterwards he was mainprised by Simon de Guldeford, Simon Gut, Peter Adrian, and William de Bydik to be in Court on the morrow to receive whatever the Court should adjudge.
Roger Blaket, apprentice of Adam de Horsham, was found this day to have assaulted Gilbert de Horsham in the King's highway with a drawn falchion. And because he carried a sword and falchion against the King's proclamation, judgment was given that he go to prison.
Because it was testified that Arnold Waxemot of Almaine struck the King's Beam loaded with wax, thrice with a large cowlstaff (tinulo), in contempt of the King and to the breaking of the beam, Reginald de Thunderle, Sheriff, was ordered to attach him by his body for his appearance before the Mayor and Aldermen.
22 Oct. 1305
Friday after the above Feast
As an order was given as above, and neither did Arnold Waxemot appear, nor Reginald de Thunderle answer for his body, the other Sheriff, William Cosin, was ordered to summon Reginald to answer why he had not obeyed the King's orders, and also to attach the above Arnold for his appearance on the morrow.