Roll A 14: 1368-69

Calendar of the Plea and Memoranda Rolls of the City of London: Volume 2, 1364-1381. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1929.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.


, 'Roll A 14: 1368-69', in Calendar of the Plea and Memoranda Rolls of the City of London: Volume 2, 1364-1381, (London, 1929) pp. 96-113. British History Online [accessed 26 May 2024].

. "Roll A 14: 1368-69", in Calendar of the Plea and Memoranda Rolls of the City of London: Volume 2, 1364-1381, (London, 1929) 96-113. British History Online, accessed May 26, 2024,

. "Roll A 14: 1368-69", Calendar of the Plea and Memoranda Rolls of the City of London: Volume 2, 1364-1381, (London, 1929). 96-113. British History Online. Web. 26 May 2024,

In this section


Membr. 1

Roll of pleas held in the Chamber of the Guildhall in the time of Simon de Mordon, Mayor, from the Feast of SS. Simon and Jude [28 Oct.] A o 42 Edw. III [1368]

6 Nov. 1368

Enrolment of a letter of attorney, dated at Westminster 3 Nov., whereby the King notified that Nigel Loryng, knight, who was sojourning in Aquitaine in the King's service, had appointed William de Luscote his attorney, in accordance with the King's permission granted for one year or until the said Nigel should return to England.

7 Nov. 1368

Nigel Loryng (fn. 1) by his attorney, William de Luscote, brought a bill of complaint against John de Everdon, clerk, executor of the will of John Weye, clerk, for detaining the sum of £114 in a sealed bag, value 1d, which the late John Weye had received on the plaintiff's behalf and had failed to deliver, and which after his death had come into the hands of his executor. [French]

Both parties being summoned to appear, the said John de Everdon said he could not deny having received the money, which he was prepared to deliver to the plaintiff. Judgment was given accordingly. The money was then paid, and a deed of acquittance was given for the same, the tenor of which was enrolled by request of the parties.

Membr. 1 b

9 Nov. 1368

The following vintners were sworn to scrutinize wines in the City and suburbs according to the custom: Thomas Cornwaleys, Thomas Gysors, Roger Long, William Sharpyng, Richard Sprot, Henry Boseworth, John de Brenyngham, William de Shirbourne, Walter Doget, John de Clopton, Robert de Honyford and John de Mockyng.

The same day, Thomas de Folkeshull, wyrdrawere, was committed to prison for practising a deception in a certain covenant made by him. He was released on the following day.

10 Nov. 1368

Walter, parson of the Church of St Leonard in Fosterlane, and Robert Fraunceys, executors of the will of Thomas de Hyngeston, came before the Mayor and Aldermen and delivered two keys of a tenement formerly belonging to the said Thomas, to be kept for the use of Thomas, his son, until the Court should decide to whom the keys ought to be entrusted.

The same day a bond was acknowledged before the Mayor and Aldermen, whereby John Hostiller and John Milby, merchants of London, had severally bound themselves in the presence of John de Bridport, public notary, to pay Baldewyn Markant, merchant of Amiens, the sum of £24 good and lawful sterling of the King of England's mint on Midsummer day, this sum having been lent to them by the said Baldewyn as a genuine and true loan. Witnesses, the above notary, William Ditton, William Stokesby, citizens of London, and Milo de Boyllon, citizen of Amiens.

17 Nov. 1368

John William of Wantyngge (fn. 2) was brought before the Mayor and Aldermen by Adam de Wymondham, one of the Sheriffs, for selling counterfeit gold and silver rings to divers persons near Smithfield in deceit of the people. In answer to questions, the accused declared that he bought a portion of the rings from Walter Latoner of Coleman Street, and the rest from John Kerne of Lechlade. He was committed to prison quousque etc.

Membr. 2

6 Nov. 1368

Gille Corder, Valery (Wallericus) his son, Leonard de Harmes and John le Mauguyr, executors of the will of Simon Corder, son of the aforesaid Gille, burgesses of St Valery, brought a bill of complaint to the effect that on the last day of April 1368 a writing obligatory, whereby Ralph Knyghton, John Southam and William Brycles, merchants of London, bound themselves to pay £525 to the said Simon at Midsummer, had been committed for safe custody to Simon Benyngton, merchant of London, since deceased, on the understanding that it was to be returned to the said Simon Corder in case the day of payment should pass and the money not be paid. The money had not been paid, and accordingly the complainants prayed the Court to summon Simon Benyngton's executors, viz. Idonea his wife, John Tours and John Benyngton, in order that the deed might be delivered to the complainants. [French]

The Court ordered John Chamberleyen, serjeant of the Chamber, to summon the executors to answer on a certain day. On that day the above-mentioned Valery alone appeared. He obtained leave to prosecute sole, in the absence of his co-executors, and appointed Ralph Coo his attorney. The executors of Simon Benyngton failed to appear on this and two subsequent occasions. Finally on Saturday after the Feast of St Lucia [13 Dec.] John Benyngton, one of the executors, appeared after the great distress had been made upon him. After hearing the bill read, he testified that the writing obligatory in question had been handed to Simon Benyngton under conditions contained in a certain paper under the seals of the parties and remaining with the parties, which paper began with the words fait aremembrer. There was also another writing obligatory, in which Simon Corder bound himself to the said Ralph Knyghton and John Southam in a sum of money, and this also had been entrusted to the late Simon Benyngton, on the understanding that as soon as all the covenants were fulfilled, each party should receive back its obligations, or if either party failed, then each of the deeds should go to the party which carried out the agreements. He further said that he did not know how far the agreements had been fulfilled, and prayed that the said Ralph, John and William might be summoned. As for himself, he was willing to hand over the writing obligatory in question to whichever of them the Court should adjudge.

The plaintiff Valery, while not acknowledging that the writing obligatory had been deposited under the conditions mentioned, prayed the Court to record that John de Benyngton did not produce the document in Court, nor the signed paper, nor any other deed proving the alleged conditions, and he prayed judgment on the ground that the said John de Benyngton was a foreigner, and did not produce the documents or allege any matter or cause why the Court should warn John de Southam and his partners, and moreover did not deny that he was detaining the writing obligatory. He prayed further that the deed should be delivered to him, and damages be adjudged to him.

John de Benyngton also prayed judgment on the ground that the plaintiff did not deny that the document was delivered to the late Simon Benyngton under the conditions mentioned, and had alleged nothing in fact (in facto) why the said deed should be delivered to him, and he (John) then produced the deed in Court.

Both parties having thus prayed judgment (fn. 3), a day was given on Wednesday after the Octave of St Hilary, because the Court was not yet advised as to its judgment. On that day the parties appeared, and the record and process of the action having been recited, the Court were of opinion that Ralph Knyghton, John Southam and William Brikles ought to be warned. Precept was given to summon them for Saturday to show cause why the deed should not be delivered to the plaintiff Valery.

Membr. 2 b

6 Nov. 1368

A letter of attorney was read and enrolled whereby Ralph de Cauntebrugge, kervere, appointed William Donmowe, baker, his general attorney to deal with his goods and chattels, lands, rents etc. in the City during his absence. [French]

Membr. 3

23 Dec. 1368

The King sent a writ of certiorari, ordering the Mayor, Sheriffs, Recorder and Aldermen to return into Chancery the record and process of proceedings against Nicholas Sarduche, merchant of Lombardy. Dated at Windsor, 20 Dec. Ao 42 Edw. III [1368].

Tenor of the process against Nicholas Sarduche, merchant of Lombardy, before Simon de Mordon, Mayor, William de Haldene, Recorder, and the Aldermen of London:

29 Nov. 1368

On Wednesday after the Feast of St Katherine [25 Nov.] Ao 42 Edw. III [1368] came certain women called "Silkwymmen" and delivered to the Mayor and Aldermen a bill complaining that whereas within the last fifteen days the pound of raw silk (soie crude) was worth 14s, Nicholas Sarduche, Lombard, by his crafty and evil design, embraced all the silk which he could find for sale in London and refused to sell it for less than 18s, and further that he daily spied out all aliens bringing such merchandise to London and either embraced it or caused them to sell it at a higher price than they would otherwise have done, to the great damage of the said women and the whole realm, wherefore the complainants prayed for a remedy, that they might not have cause to complain elsewhere. [French]

1 Dec. 1368

2 Dec. 1368

By virtue of this bill precept was issued to summon the said Nicholas for Friday after the Feast of St Andrew the Apostle [30 Nov.]. He made default and order was given to distrain him by his chattels for the Saturday. On that day he appeared and, on being questioned, declared that his master and his partners in foreign parts had warned him by letter that divers bales of silk and other merchandise had been lost and stolen on their way to Bruges, on account of which they thought the price of silk ought to be much dearer in future, and that he ought to buy as much silk as he could. Accordingly he had bought all the silk he could find in the hands of strangers, both to sell it in the City at a profit and to export it abroad for resale. He was not aware that he had committed any trespass in doing so, and he was willing to sell that silk to anyone at 16s the lb. Being further asked by the Court what quantity of silk he had bought, and from whom, and where it was weighed, he said he had bought 59 lbs of raw silk from Paul Penyk, Lombard, and 80 lbs of coloured silk from Dyne Sanoche, Lombard, and that the whole of this silk was weighed in his house by his own balance, and not by the common balance of the City (fn. 4) ordained for weighing silk.

4 Dec. 1368

11 Dec. 1368

13 Dec. 1368

Inasmuch as, among other ancient ordinances made for the benefit of the King and his people in the City, it was ordained that all silk and merchandise of the same character exposed for sale in the City ought to be weighed at the common balance of the City established for that purpose under penalty of forfeiture of such merchandise weighed otherwise, and since the said Nicholas had confessed that he had bought the aforesaid silk from Paul and Dyne, alien merchants, for further sale or transference for sale to foreign parts, and had weighed it with his own balance against the aforesaid ordinance, and because the Mayor and Aldermen wished for further information as regards giving judgment in the matter, a day was given to the said Nicholas to hear judgment on Monday after the Feast of St Andrew the Apostle [30 Nov.]. Thereupon the defendant was mainprised for his appearance by Blasius Karouche and Matthew Damask. On that day, a further day was given for Monday after the Feast of the Conception B.M. [8 Dec.], the same mainprise being accepted. The defendant again appeared and threw himself on the mercy of the Court for his trespass against the ordinances of the City. In order that the Mayor and Aldermen might have further information, another day was given on the Wednesday following, and for lack of mainprise the defendant was committed to prison.

8 Dec. 1368

Thereupon the King sent his writ to the effect that a petition had been received from certain women of the City called "silkwymmen" complaining of injuries done to the King, the petitioners and the people by Nicholas Sarduche, merchant of Lombardy. The Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen are commanded to consider the petition, which is enclosed, and to do full and speedy justice in the matter, so that the King may be no further troubled therewith. Dated at Westminster, 8 Dec.

The petition was as follows: The silkwomen say that they have no other means of livelihood than their craft, that a certain Nicholas Sarduche for a long time past had been in the habit of forestalling and regrating all the crude and coloured silk and other kinds of merchandise brought by aliens, thus grievously enhancing the price, as was openly proved by his confession before the Mayor and Aldermen, and that he had recently bought all the silk he could find in the City and had raised the price 4s and more the lb to the great damage of the King, the commonalty of the land and the petitioners; wherefore they prayed the King to grant a writ directed to the Mayor and Recorder commanding them to find a remedy, and also for the King's special profit, to enquire as to other subtle operations (compassementz) carried on by the said Nicholas against the common profit of the realm, and concerning the King's customs concealed and never paid by the said Nicholas. [French]

By virtue of this writ and petition the Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen took an inquest whereof the tenor was as follows:

Membr. 3 b

19 Dec. 1368

Inquest taken before the Mayor etc. on 19 Dec. by oath of Walter Walden, Thomas de Walden, Richard Sprot, John Haukeshall, Richard Wrotham, Ralph Prentice, John Foxton, Robert Osprenge, Thomas Wyltesshire, Henry Makeseye, John Bangore and Stephen Bradele. The jurors said that the said Nicholas Sarduche carried and sent abroad on divers occasions gold and silver in plate and money to the value of £1000 against the ordinance of Parliament, between 2 Feb. 1363 and 1 Nov. 1368. Further the said Nicholas, between 1 Nov. 1360 and 1 Nov. 1368 unjustly detained £300 due to the King as parva custuma (fn. 5), on divers goods brought to London, which he avowed to be the goods of a certain Thomas Serlande, a Lombard, who was free of the City, though they belonged not to him, but to other foreigners, thus escaping custom. Further, the said Nicholas bought up from Dyne Sanoche, Lombard, Paul Penyng, John Penyng, Lazer Sweins and Gydo de Port and other foreigners, during the same period, a quantity of raw and crude silk, with the result that whereas the price at Michaelmas was 14s the lb, it was now 18s, to the damage of the King and his kingdom, £300. But the jurors were unable to state the exact quantity of silk thus regrated.

5 Dec. 1368

An inquest ex officio was taken before Adam Wymondham and Robert Gurdelere, Sheriffs, on Tuesday after the Feast of St Andrew [30 Nov.] as to what merchandise had been brought to the City from abroad and had been exposed to sale without paying customs dues to the Sheriffs, and further as to the nature, price and time of their arrival, the names of the importers, those who received and sold the goods, and those in whose hands the goods then were—by oath of Thomas de Thorneye, Richard de Norton, John Permay, Robert Corn, William Wetton, Thomas Braughyng, Thomas Vylers, Thomas Cressyngham, John Lyndon, John Yonge, Geoffrey Adam and Hugh Sheyne, good men (probi homines) and merchants of the City. The jurors said that Thomas Serland, Lombard, a foreign merchant, who claimed to be free of the City, and who lived in Flanders and was a servant of John Termynell, Master of the Mint at Ghent, had between Michaelmas and the Feast of St Andrew sent over from Flanders to London six bales of goods of the value of £1000, as being his own goods and thus the property of a freeman of London, to Nicholas Sarduche, a Lombard residing in London, whereas these goods for the most part belonged to foreigners and not to the aforesaid Thomas nor to any other freeman of the City. They further found that the aforesaid Nicholas avowed the said goods as the property of a freeman of the City and sold them, without paying the King's custom which he knew to be due to the Sheriffs of London; but the nature of the goods and who purchased and now held them, the jury did not know.

9 Dec. 1368

16 Dec. 1368

By virtue of this presentment precept was given to David Bertvill, Serjeant, to summon the said Nicholas before the Sheriffs on Saturday after the Feast of the Conception B.M. [8 Dec.]. On his appearance, he pleaded not guilty and put himself on the country. A jury of merchants was summoned for Saturday after the Feast of St Lucia Virgin [13 Dec.] and the defendant was committed to prison for lack of mainprise. On that day the jury, viz.: John Bonmarche, William Waldern, John Burgey, Roger Brendewod, Blasius de Bury, Nicholas Kilby, William Norton, John Hampsted, Nicholas Cove, Robert Oxenford, Robert Fraunceys and John Broun, goldsmith, brought in a verdict that Nicholas Sarduche, Lombard, had avowed as the property of Thomas Serland, and thus of a freeman of London, the six bales value £1000 sent by Thomas to him, and had exposed them for sale, being well aware that no custom had been paid to the Sheriffs, and further that the said Thomas Serland was interested in the goods only to the extent of 100 marks, and that the rest, concealed, sold and eloigned by the said Nicholas in order to defraud the Sheriffs of their customs, belonged to other foreign merchants.

8 Jan. 1369

And because the Sheriffs wished to consult on these matters, a day was given on Monday after the Epiphany [6 Jan.] and meanwhile the said Nicholas was committed to prison.

3 Jan. 1369

Writ cum pluries to the Mayor, Sheriffs, Recorder and Aldermen, complaining that they had neglected to return to the Chancery the tenor of the proceedings taken against Nicholas Sardouche of Lombardy by indictment, presentment, ex officio, or otherwise, and bidding them send such particulars by Monday after the Feast of St Hilary [13 Jan.], and the Mayor and Sheriffs themselves attend coram nobis in the Chancery to explain their contempt of the King's commands. Dated at Windsor, 3 Jan. Ao 42 Edw. III [1368-9].

Return to the effect that the particulars demanded had already been sent in obedience to a previous writ, a transcript of which is attached.

Membr. 4

18 Jan. 1369

Thursday after the Feast of St Hilary [13 Jan.] the King sent a further writ of certiorari demanding the tenor of the record and process of all proceedings taken against Nicholas Sarduche. Dated at Westminster, 17 Jan. Ao 42 Edw. III [1368-9].

Return to the effect that the execution of the above writ was to be found in an inquest and bill attached to it, and also in certain proceedings against the said Nicholas, which had already been returned in obedience to a previous writ.

10 Jan. 1369

Inquest taken before the Mayor and Aldermen on Wednesday before the Feast of St Hilary [13 Jan.] as to divers forestalments, regratings, circumventions, purchases, sales, deceits and embracements of merchandise within the City and suburbs and liberty of the City contrary to the ordinances on that behalf, and as to divers concealments of merchandise and customs due to the King, and also as to those persons who had sent or carried the King's gold and silver money abroad, without the King's licence, contrary to ordinances and proclamations thereon made, and in prejudice of the King and his people—by oath of William Swalclyf, Richard Sprot, Bartholomew Castre, Nicholas Herpesfeld, Peter Dunmowe, Robert Colham, Adam Carlill, William Walderne, William Essex, Hugh atte Churche, John Basse and John Bangor. The jurors said that Nicholas Sarduche, Lombard, had between 29 Sept. 1361 and 11 Nov. 1368 forestalled divers sorts of merchandise on their way to the City, viz., gold of Cyprus (aurum de Cypre) (fn. 6), cloth of gold and of silk, veils (velamina), raw and coloured silk, pepper, ginger, sugar, wax and other goods to the value of £4000, all of which merchandise the foreign merchants were intending to carry into the City for sale at a much lower price, and the damage thus caused to the King and his people they assessed at £300. Further the said Nicholas for his own advantage had from time to time advised and persuaded such merchants to sell their goods at a higher price than they would otherwise have done, to the damage of the King and his people, £1000. The said Nicholas also during the last four years had weighed all the raw and coloured silk, which he bought and sold to the value of £2000, by his own balance in his lodging instead of at the King's common balance established for the purpose from time immemorial, in contempt of the King and his people, and to their grave damage. Also that during the last four years the said Nicholas had frequently received from abroad bales of canvas and linen thread, tuns and barrels, in which were concealed, to his knowledge, cloth of gold and silver, and silk cloth of gold of Cyprus, silk of divers colours, ribbons of Venice and Damascus, pepper, ginger, saffron (crocus), sugar, brasil (fn. 7) and many other fine goods (subtiles mercandise) to the value of £6000, thus defrauding the King of his customs, which had been granted to the Sheriffs in part payment of their ferm. Also between 24 June 1367 and 25 Nov. 1368 he had falsely avowed bales, tuns and barrels of merchandise as belonging to Thomas Serland, a Lombard free of the City, knowing them to belong to John Terminel, Master of the Mint of Flanders and Amiens, Dyn Malapres, Junctyn Gascoygne and many others, thus defrauding the customs. Further, during the time he was servant of the above John Termynel, i.e. between 29 Sept. 1366 and 25 Nov. 1368, he had exported from the City for his master and others, to whom he was agent, gold and silver money and bullion to the annual value of 4000 marks, and previous to that period, from 1361 onwards, gold etc. to the annual value of £1000 at least.

Membr. 4 b

25 Jan. 1369

On Thursday the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul [25 Jan.] the King sent a further writ of certiorari, demanding the record and process of all proceedings against Nicholas Sarduche (fn. 8), and the appearance of the accused man himself, in Chancery on Friday morning, in order that the King might do what right and justice required. Dated at Westminster, 21 Jan. per consilium.

Membr. 5

2 Jan. 1369

Elias de Thorpe, skinner, William de Baldewyne, saddler, and Walter Broun, parson of the Church of St Magnus, mainprised Master Thomas Sprote, clerk, of Burstall, not to leave the country without the King's special licence, and not to sue any matters prejudicial to the King or his realm.

28 Feb. 1369

Robert Barbour was committed to Newgate by the Mayor and Aldermen for assaulting William Shirbourne by contumelious and malignant words so as to cause a quarrel in breach of the peace, and also for procuring the citation of the said William before the Ordinary (fn. 9) on false charges in order to impoverish him, of which charges he afterwards cleared himself. Next day the said Robert was mainprised by Bartholomew Frestlyng to appear etc.

29 Feb. 1369

Thomas, son of John Otteleye of Ufford, co. Suffolk, apprentice of Nicholas Alre, spicer, was committed to prison for a trespass against his master in breach of the conditions of his apprenticeship. He was released on 19 April, when the parties came to terms.

Membr. 5 b

8 Feb. 1369

John Catour of Reading brought a bill of complaint against Elis Mympe, broudurer (fn. 10), of London, to whom his daughter Alice had been apprenticed for five years, for beating and illtreating the girl, and failing to provide for her. [French]

The parties were summoned to appear on 3 March, when they announced that they had come to an agreement on terms that the defendant should pay the complainant 13s 4d and release the girl from her apprenticeship. Thereupon he released her.

The defendant was then asked why he took the girl for a less term than seven years, and had not enrolled the indentures, according to the custom of the City and his oath. He put himself on the mercy of the Mayor and Aldermen who gave judgment exonerating the said Alice from her apprenticeship. By order of the Court the indentures were surrendered for cancellation.

26 March 1369

Robert Havelok, ironmonger, paid Joan Halfhide of Ware the sum of £4 10s, which she recovered against him by bill, the Court directing that the money should be returned to him, if the said Joan should be proved to be guilty of slander, abuse or quarrelsome conduct towards him.

14 March 1369

Robert de Watlyngton, acting on a letter of instructions from John Helde dated in the first week of Easter at Engelosme (fn. 11) in Gascony, paid John Arnold the sum of £12 due to him, for which the said John gave an acquittance.

Membr. 6

11 June 1369

John Basset, in the presence of the Mayor and Aldermen, proffered £7 10s 4d in part payment of debts amounting to £89 4s due to Lodewyc Rannesbrok, merchant of Bethresfeld in Flanders, Nicasseus Scapecopir of Owdenard in Flanders, Francis Scape, merchant of Ghent, and Simon Alams, merchant of Ghent. The creditors not being present, the money was entrusted to the Chamberlain for payment on demand.

12 June 1369

Writ of protection in favour of John de Carleton, who was about to cross the seas on the King's service, ordering that all legal proceedings against him should be stayed with the exception of pleas of dower (unde nihil habet (fn. 12) ) and quare impedit (fn. 13), assizes of novel disseisin and darrein presentment, attaints and actions (loquelis) before the Itinerant Justices. Dated at Westminster, 12 June Ao 43 Edw. III [1369].

In virtue of which, a plea between John Mitford, plaintiff, and the above John Carleton, defendant, remains over sine die.

The same day John de Carleton was mainprised by John Essex, girdler, William Pictenham, girdler, William Furneux, pouchmaker, and Thomas Evesham, to keep the peace with John Mitford.

11 June 1369

Writ of protection in favour of Roger de Daventre, who was about to cross the seas on the King's service in the company of John, Duke of Lancaster. Dated at Westminster, 11 June Ao 43 Edw. III [1369].

In virtue of which, the action between David Manyfel, cook, and the said Roger was respited sine die.

22 June 1369

Nicholas Sardouche appeared before the Mayor and Aldermen and produced a writ of protection, dated 15 June, reciting that the said Nicholas had complained to the King of charges, whereof he was innocent, made against him by his enemies, to the effect that he had done wrong to the citizens of London; and also of threats against him, wherefore the King commands the Mayor, Sheriffs and Aldermen to protect him and his property and to punish any persons guilty of violence or injury to him (per consilium).

Membr. 6 b

23 June 1369

William Hert, baker, was committed to prison for refusing to deliver up to William Serjeant of Clopton a certain indenture of defeasance, although he was ordered to do so by the Mayor and Aldermen. The above William Serjeant and Alexander Dykeswell had entered into a bond of £100 in connection with the manor of Henxteworth (fn. 14) recently demised to William Hert by Richard Otewy, and it had been agreed that the bond should be cancelled, if the conditions were fulfilled. Though the conditions had been duly fulfilled, the defendant refused to surrender the defeasance and had fraudulently sued Serjeant on the bond, obtaining a verdict for £100 and 15s damages. The Court ordered him to be kept in prison till he had repaid this sum and given up the defeasance. Afterwards the parties came to terms and Hert was released.

The same day, John Fuller was committed to prison for being a deserter from Calais without leave of the Captain of that town. Afterwards on 26 June he was mainprised by John Herde and Walter Coupere, curriers, to return to Calais and not to desert again, and also to surrender his arms to the constable of Cripplegate Ward when he finally returned to London.

Membr. 7

26 July 1369

Clement Lavender brought a bill of complaint against William Haldene the Recorder for not giving up a bill of sale, which had been placed in his custody to be delivered to the said Clement in the event of his not being paid the sum of £100 by John Pykenham within a month after Midsummer. [French]

The Recorder pleaded that he had no knowledge as to whether the payment had been duly made or not, and he prayed that the said John Pykenham might be summoned. The latter made default, whereupon the complainant demanded the letter. In order that the Court might have information a further day was given, but the said John again made default. Accordingly judgment was given for delivery of the letter, which was handed over in court.

16 Aug. 1369

William de Preston, vintner, and Alice his wife acknowledged as their own a deed whereby they sold to William Kent, cordwainer, certain utensils in a house which he held from them in the parish of St Peter Cornhill, viz. 2 leaden vats (pluniba) in the furnace, one taptrogh of lead, all other brewing vessels (vasa) and utensils, algistes (fn. 15) and querns, with liberty to remove and dispose of them as they wished.

Membr. 7 b

18 Aug. 1369

Letter of general attorney from William de Nerny, merchant of Genoa, to William de Strete and Benedict Zacarie, vintners.

30 Aug. 1369

Ralph Rothyng, spurrier, was committed to prison by order of the Mayor for calling John de Tuttebury, cordwainer, "a liar" and for treating him contemptuously in open court. He was afterwards mainprised by Ralph Node, spurrier, and John Baker to come up for judgment next day.

Membr. 8

5 July 1369

Memorandum that whereas Turellus Gascon, Paul Penyk and Guido Portyngo, Lombards, lately impleaded John Basset, mercer, before Adam Wymondham, one of the Sheriffs, to render account of the sums of £65, £500 and £180 respectively, the parties had subsequently come before the Mayor and Aldermen and agreed to the appointment of the following auditors, viz. John Donat, Salvate Saleys and John Pyel, chosen by the plaintiffs, and John Philippot, William Essex and John Orgon, chosen by the defendant. Both parties had then been mainprised by John Donat and Bonacursus Brankylion to stand by the decision of the auditors and pay any sums adjudged due. Afterwards on 5 July John Basset came into court and complained that though he had always been prepared to render his account before the auditors, the other parties had failed to appear, with the result that the auditors were no longer willing to meddle further in the matter. Accordingly he prayed that his mainpernors might be discharged. Evidence having been given in accordance with his allegation, the mainpernors were discharged.

9-14 July, notes of moneys deposited in the Chamber for payment to Nicholas Sardouche, viz. £12 by Robert Mansell, mercer; £12 14s by John Orgon, mercer; £24 by William Hawe, mercer.

8 Aug. 1369

John Bottele, mercer, and Dionisia his wife paid in court to the above Nicholas the sum of £6 15s, for silk bought by her, before her marriage, from Dinus Malaprese of Lucca, agent of the said Nicholas.

18 July 1369

John Norhampton, draper, John de Grymston, Robert de Nunton, John de Faversham, Richard de Kyllyngworth and Thomas de Lyncoln, draper, became mutual sureties to keep the peace and abstain from all affrays and assemblies against the peace.

Robert Norwold and John Snetesham, mercers, were likewise mainprised by John Berlyngham and Henry Frowyk, John Feraunt by Adam Stable, and John More, mercer, by Thomas Mounteneye and Ralph Blakeneye.

Membr. 8 b

Thomas de Grantham was summoned to answer Thomas de Aston, clerk, in a plea of debt of 20 marks due on an obligation dated 20 Feb. 1368, whereby the defendant covenanted to pay the plaintiff that sum in St Paul's Church at Michaelmas following, which he had not done.

The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff ought not to have any action against him because by an indenture of 4 Feb. 1367 (fn. 16) he had agreed that, if Robert de Charwelton, clerk, who was bound by the above obligation, and the defendant should pay him 10 marks at Michaelmas, then the obligation should be of no effect, and the plaintiff had afterwards assigned the debts to divers persons in London, to whom 10 marks had been duly paid, as the defendant was ready to verify by a jury. He prayed judgment as to whether the plaintiff had any action against him.

The plaintiff by his attorney, John Hynstoke, replied that the defendant did not deny the obligation, further that the money was not paid according to the tenor of the obligation, and as regards the assignment, the defendant had not produced any specialty (fn. 17) (factum speciale); accordingly he was not legally bound to answer to the alleged assignment, and he prayed judgment and damages.

The defendant prayed judgment on the ground that the obligation was defeasible on payment of 10 marks and that he was ready to prove the assignment by a jury.

As the Court desired to consult on the premisses, a day for judgment was given on Monday after the Feast of St Bartholomew [24 Aug.].

Membr. 9

17 Sept. 1369

Roger Strete acknowledged an acquittance by himself and Joan his wife, dated 20 March 1369, to Emma, widow and executrix of John Rothyng, mercer, for a legacy of £66.

24 Oct. 1369

Recognisance by William Claworth, taverner, of a debt of £20, payable to Thomas Eye at Christmas. Thereupon the said Thomas granted that so long as the said William should behave well towards him, the recognisance should remain of no effect.

Membr. 9 b

16 Feb. 1370

Writ of certiorari, dated 16 Feb. Ao 44 Edw. III [1369-70] reciting that a certain Richard Page feloniously killed Thomas Bernard, and being taken was committed to the Marshalsea, whence Richard de Imworth, the Warden, allowed him to go forth on mainprise, on the strength of a bond for £100 entered into by Edmund del Clay, and that the felon having failed to surrender, the Warden had sued the said Edmund before the Mayor and had recovered the £100. Simon de Mordon, late Mayor, is ordered to send the record and process of this action into the Exchequer.

Return to the effect that no such action was pleaded before Simon de Mordon.


  • 1. A distinguished soldier and one of the original Knights of the Garter. At this time he was Chamberlain to the Prince of Wales in Aquitaine. See D.N.B.
  • 2. Early next year he was convicted of a similar offence and sentenced to stand in the pillory for an hour with his counterfeit rings and buckles hung round his neck and then to be imprisoned. Letter Book G, fo. 219. See Riley's Memorials, pp. 337-8.
  • 3. This was known as "pleading to judgment," i.e. resting the action on an interpretation of the law, which was fit subject for the Court to decide, and not on fact, which required a jury's verdict.
  • 4. The Small Beam, used for the weighing of silk and other fine goods and for spices when they were sold in small quantities. Heavy goods, including fine goods in bulk, were weighed by the Great or King's Beam or Tron. In Henry III's Charter of 26 March 1368 it was granted that no merchant stranger or other should buy or sell goods which had not been weighed at the King's Beam or Tron. Apparently this referred to the Great Beam only, for foreigners continued to use their own balances for fine goods. Next year on complaint of the citizens all such balances were seized and destroyed. Liber de Antiquis Legibus (Camd. Soc.), p. 118. Among certain ordinances in 1285, when the City was taken into the King's hand, it was mentioned that goods over 25 lbs in weight must be weighed at the King's Beam, but nothing was said of fine goods. Lib. Alb. i, p. 285. However, in 1291 there is mention of the Small Beam, which was granted for life to William de Betoyne, the King's nominee being refused. Cal. of Letter Book A, p. 191. In 1344 the Small Beam was remade and new weights provided, with the assent of the men of the mistery of Mercers. Cal. of Letter Book F, p. 113. In 1362 the keeper of the Small Beam was elected by the mistery of Mercers, and the keeper of the Great Beam by the Grocers, Pepperers and Apothecaries, the balance becoming the mark of distinction between these trades. Cal of Letter Book G, pp. 2, 204. For the manner of weighing, see Lib. de Ant. Leg. p. 118; Carta Mercatoria in Lib. Cust. i, p. 208; Cal. of Letter Book C, pp. 127-9; D, pp. 209-10; F, pp. 113-14; G, p. 138.
  • 5. Imposed on foreign merchants by the Carta Mercatoria of 1303, Lib. Cust. i, p. 209; it consisted of a duty of 3d per lb avoirdupois on all commodities beyond wool. It was temporarily abolished in the Statute of Stamford (Rot. Parl. i, p. 444 a), but subsequently reimposed. See Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, i, pp. 277, 291.
  • 6. i.e. a fine fabric into which gold threads were woven.
  • 7. According to N.E.D. a reddish dye obtained from the wood of an East Indian tree (Caesalpinia Sappan).
  • 8. Cal. of Letter Book G, pp. 247-8, records a writ of 16 June 1369 directing the Sheriffs to restore the goods and chattels of Nicholas Sardouche, merchant of Lombardy, arrested on account of the abovementioned offences, of which he had been indicted before the Mayor and Aldermen and convicted in King's Bench, the said Nicholas having paid a fine of £200 to the King.
  • 9. The Official or judge-ordinary, who presided over the Bishop's Consistory Court.
  • 10. Broderer or embroiderer.
  • 11. Angoulême.
  • 12. An original writ calling on the Sheriff to order a deforciant to restore to a widow her dower. Registrum Omnium Brevium, 1634, p. 170. It lay for the widow against the tenant who bought land of her husband in his life-time, whereof he was seized in fee-simple or fee-tail, and of which she was dowable. Jacob's Law Dict.
  • 13. An original writ, which lay for him who had purchased an advowson against a person that disturbs him in his right of advowson by presenting a clerk thereto, when the church is void. Ibid.
  • 14. Hinxworth co. Herts.
  • 15. Alegist, sc. ale-joist, a barrel-stand.
  • 16. There appears to be some error of dates here as the defeasance is dated a year before the obligation.
  • 17. A specialty was a bond, bill, writing or deed under the hand and seal of the parties. Jacob's Law Dict.