Roll B
Membr. 1 16 Dec. 1298
Court of H. le Galeys, Mayor, and Richer the Sheriff (fn. 1)
on Tuesday before the Feast of St Thomas the Apostle
[21 Dec.] A° 27 Edw. [1298]
Writ, dated at Abbercorn, 15 Aug. 1298, directed to H. le
Galeys and the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, stating
that the kings "valet," Nicholas de Montpelers, was robbed
in Zeland of a ship by men of that country, when the King
was in Flanders, and bidding the Mayor and Sheriffs give
him redress as best they can.
In accordance with the above, Lambinus Modersone was
attached to answer Nicholas de Monte Pessulano in a plea
that, when the plaintiff in the Quinzime of St Martin (11 Nov.)
A° 26 Edw. [1297] was crossing to Flanders in a ship of
Sandwich with goods belonging to the King and to himself,
i.e. cloth and other merchandise, the defendant with other
malefactors attacked him and took away the ship and the
goods in it, against the peace and to his damage 200 marks.
The defendant denied that he was guilty and put himself
on a jury of merchants and masters of ships who were accustomed to cross the seas, and the plaintiff did the like. The
Serjeant was ordered to summon a good jury for the Friday
following. Afterwards at a Court held on Wednesday before
the Feast of St Valentine (14 Feb.) the same year [1298-9], the
jury brought in a verdict that the defendant was not guilty
of the trespass or of the act, or of assenting thereto, or of
partnership with those who robbed the plaintiff. Judgment
that the latter recover nothing and the defendant go quit.
19 Dec. 1298
Court of the same Mayor on the Friday following
Nicholas de Monte Pessulano and Lambinus Modersone
appeared and a jury also. As Nicholas challenged all the
jurors in the panel, a day was given till the Octave of St
Hillary to hear the verdict. The Sheriff was ordered to bring
the body of the above Lambinus on that day to receive the
verdict of the jury.
John de Trillawe, parson of the Church of St Dunstan,
appeared and on behalf of the executors of the will of Henry
Box paid £4 6d, in part payment of £8 12d due on a Recognizance to the Wardens of the Bridge. He demanded on
behalf of himself and his co-executors, that the executors of
Thomas Cros, who was the other executor of Henry Box,
should be distrained for £4 6d in arrears, which they owed
to the above Wardens on a Recognizance, as appears in the
Pleas held (fn. 1) ....
Membr. 1 b
An Inquest, ex officio without writ, consisting of Adam
Braz and others on the panel, was held at the Priory of St
Bartholomew Westsmethfeld, before H. le Galeys and the
Sheriffs of the City and Middlesex, on Friday before the
Feast of St Andrew the Apostle [30 Nov.], to return a verdict
as to the malefactors who dragged John de Stonham, a servant
of the Earl of Lincoln, from the door of Clerekenwell, imprisoned him and did other enormities to him to his damage
and in contempt of the said Earl. They gave a verdict that
on the Friday evening before Michaelmas, John de Stonham
and William de Dodington, servants of the above Earl, entered
the house of John le Keu in Westsmethfeld to drink, and a
certain Stephen, servant of Brother William de Ringeland,
drank with them in turns, and words having arisen between
them, Stephen struck John on the jaw with his hand, whereupon John le Keu turned them out of the house. Immediately
Stephen followed John de Stonham with two knives in his
hands to kill him, and seeing this, William knocked him down
opposite the house of Richard ate Hole, while John fled
towards the monastery church. Nevertheless Stephen pursued John to a bridge called Kaytifbreg, so that John in fear
of his life drew a knife and struck Stephen in the left side,
while they were in the kennel, and then fled into the church.
Afterwards Stephen with a certain Walter de la . . . . and other
unknown persons of the household of the Hospital of Clerekenwell followed John to the High Altar in the church, dragged
him out and took him to the house of Stephen de Weresdal,
chief tithingman (fn. 1) (decennarius), to keep him till the morrow;
and since Stephen was in danger of death from the blow, the
tithingman asked Brother William de Ringeland to lend him
the shackles of the Hospital to keep John safely. The jurors
also said that these people put John de Stonham's feet higher
than his head. Next day Roger de Appelby, Undersheriff of
Middlesex, came and carried him off to Neugate, as Stephen's
life was despaired off, until he could have sure information
on the point from the physicians (medici). He remained
in prison for three days, and was afterwards mainprised to
stand his trial against anyone who should accuse him.
Whereas Matilda, wife of Robert le Barber of Garscherch,
who is in the service of Sir H. le Despenser, Forest Justiciar
for this side of Trent, brought a petition to the said Sir Hugh
at his last coming to London, in which she alleged that
Saer le Barber had said that Sir Hugh was unworthy of
praise (esse benedictus) and that it was a great wonder that he
had not lost his hood (?; quin ipse non amissiset capitum suum)
in Gant in going into Flanders, and other enormities in contempt of the said Hugh, and also that he kept more robbers
with him than any man in England-the above Hugh le
Despenser summoned the Mayor and ordered him on the
King's behalf to cause the said Saer le Barber to be attached
by his body, and to send him to Neugate, in order that he
might appear before him to answer for the trespass.
23 Dec. 1298
Tuesday before the Nativity of the Lord [25 Dec.]
Whereas it had been presented before Adam de Halling
(beri), Alderman of the Ward of Allgate, in his Wardmote,
that Roger le Rous makes a great roistering (rigolagiam) with
unknown minstrels, tabor-players and trumpeters to the grave
damage and tumult of the whole neighbourhood and against
the prohibition; and that Peter Portehors is a receiver by
night of unknown depraved men and prostitutes; and that
in the Rent of Ralph le Chapeleyn there is a low haunt of
prostitutes and depraved men who go about the City by
night; and that Alice la Clerekes harboured Robert le
Ceinturer after she had forsworn the Ward, against the prohibition of the Alderman; and that Adam le Botoner is a
receiver of evildoers-the above persons were summoned
before the Mayor to answer &c. Roger, Peter, Adam and
Ralph pleaded not guilty and put themselves on their country.
Afterwards a jury brought in a verdict of not guilty for Roger,
Peter and Adam, but said that Ralph knowingly harboured
loose women against repeated warnings by his Alderman.
He was put in mercy. Alice, who did not appear, was ordered
to be attached.
Membr. 2 29 Jan. 1298-9
Thursday before the Feast of the Purification of the
Blessed Mary [2 Feb.] A° 27 Edw. [1298-9]
Fulk de St Edmunds was summoned to answer Friscus
de Monte Claro and Tottus his brother, merchants of Lucca,
and John le Grant of London, in a plea of debt of 50 marks,
due for a horse which the defendants bought, together with
Hugh Bardolf and John le Brettoun late Warden of London,
the amount being payable on Jan. 5 1294, as appeared by a
deed in which Hugh, John and Fulk were severally responsible
for payment. The defendant appeared by his attorney, Walter
Woleward, and admited the deed and his seal. Judgment
that he be in mercy and satisfy the plaintiffs at the Quinzime.
The defendant appeared in Court on the Monday following
and paid the plaintiffs 30 marks, for which he received an
acquittance, the remaining 20 marks being respited till the
Vigil of Easter. Afterwards the deed was delivered to him
in the presence of the Mayor, G. de Northon, R. de Refham,
Th. Sely and others.
Roger de Len, taverner, was attached to answer William
de Leyre in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained
that the defendant had abused him as he was walking harmlessly along Tamys Street, and had charged him with having
procured the publication of an Assize of Wine by the Mayor
and Aldermen against the common good, in which Assize
the price of better wine was fixed at 1½d the gallon. The
defendant denied the offence and put himself on his country
and was mainprised by John Vigerous and Geoffrey de
Conductu. Afterwards he admitted the trespass and pledged
to the Mayor and the plaintiff two casks of wine. As he
could not find pledges for the same he was committed to
prison until &c.
31 Jan. 1298-9
Saturday before the above Feast
Richard de Pelham was charged by the Mayor and Aldermen that, being a freeman sworn to maintain the freedom,
he associated himself with a certain William de Wilton, a
foreigner, and bought merchandise with him at Bristol, which
ought to have been dealt with to the advantage of the merchants of the Liberty, but after William had bought the goods
at Bristol with his own and Richard's money, the latter met
them at Brainford, and forestalled and avowed them as his
own, whereby the Sheriffs were defrauded. The defendant
denied that he did as alleged at Bristol and Brainford and
demanded an inquest thereon. A jury of men of his trade
of the venue of Bridge, who were not connected with him
by affinity, was summoned and brought in a verdict of not
guilty. The defendant was acquitted and was told that he
might use the freedom as before.
Membr. 2b
Walter de Maydenestan, carpenter, was charged by the
Mayor and Aldermen with gathering together a parliament
of carpenters at Milehende, where they bound themselves by
a corporal oath not to observe a certain ordinance (fn. 1) or provision made by the Mayor and Aldermen touching their craft
and their daily wages, which was enrolled in the "paper" of
the Guildhall. The defendant admitted that he was at Milehende, but said that he never held a parliament there, or
took an oath or made any one else take one against the
ordinances, and he demanded an inquest. A jury was
summoned.
5 Feb. 1298-9
Thursday the Feast of St Agatha [5 Feb.]
Robert le Treyere was summoned to answer for certain
trespasses against the City whereof he was deraigned by the
Mayor and Aldermen, to wit, that as Warden of the Thames
at Billingsgate, to which various goods came by water, which
ought to be dealt with to the profit of the City, and other
goods by land and water, which ought not to be allowed to
go outside the City, the defendant allowed divers goods
to go abroad, such as corn, bacon and other victuals. The
defendant admitted that he allowed goods to go by the hands
of foreigners over the sea, but pleaded that he never knew of
the prohibition. Afterwards he made a full acknowledgment.
A day was given till the next Court to hear judgment.
Membr. 3 11 Feb. 1298-9
Wednesday before the Feast of St Valentine [14 Feb.]
Writ, dated at Loweder 9 July A° 26 Edw. (1298) to Henry
le Galeys, mayor, reciting a Recognizance of £32 by Ralph
Hardel to Reymund de Nevile and Arnald de Squinetta, and
ordering the Mayor to liberate the above Ralph from Newgate
if it appeared from an acquittance produced by him, which
was to be examined in the presence of Ralph de Sandwich
and John de Bauquell, that he had paid the amount due.
The above Reymund, Arnald and Ralph were summoned
before the Mayor, when Ralph asked for a respite on the
ground that he could not at the moment produce his acquittances, which were in the custody of Sir Hugh de Hengham,
clerk. A day was given and he was remanded to prison. The
other parties appointed as their attorney Oto, a merchant of
Toulouse.
Afterwards Ralph showed three acquittances making mention of £7 10s, whereof one was a Release and Quitclaim of
all actions relating to the whole of the above debt, and he
demanded that these acquittances be allowed to him and that
he be delivered from prison. Oto, as attorney of the other
parties, said that he did not know whether the acquittances
were the deed of Reymund and Arnald, who were now
abroad, and he asked that the documents be kept in custody
till their return. Ralph offered to verify the acquittances;
but as the Court held that no verification could take place
in the absence of Reymund and Arnald, he willingly granted
that the deeds remain in the custody of the Mayor till their
return. Meanwhile his delivery from prison was allowed on
condition of his finding mainpernors to answer for the debt
if necessary.
Writ, dated at Ely 16 Jan. A° 27 Edw. [1298-9] to H. le
Galeys, mayor, reciting a complaint of Richard de Wyt that
he had entered into a Recognizance of £22 to Ralph Abbehal,
payable at Michaelmas 1298, before the above Mayor and
John de Bauquell the clerk deputed to receive Recognizances,
and though he had paid the debt and received an acquittance,
the above Ralph had procured his imprisonment in Newgate.
The Mayor is ordered to hear the parties and inspect the
acquittance, and if it appeared that the complainant had paid
the sum due in accordance with the Statute (fn. 1) , and was imprisoned for no other cause, the Mayor is to deliver him
from prison.
In accordance with the above, the parties were summoned,
when the complainant produced a tally under the seal of
Ralph concerning £20 2s, which he demanded should be
allowed. Ralph acknowledged the tally, but said that he gave
it to the plaintiff, blank and sealed, under condition that
Richard and his servant Reginald should meet to make account
and that the tally should be marked for sums received, but
that he never received more than 42s of the above debt. He
called to witness Reginald, who was not present in Court.
Afterwards the latter appeared on summons, and said that
he never received more than 42s on his master's behalf, and
that he and the plaintiff accounted together at Croyndon and
agreed about everything as regards 42s, which they placed
on the tally, but that he had never marked the tally for any
other moneys beyond the 42s, and that the said tally (for
£20 2s) was not the deed of his master.
Membr. 3 b 11 Feb. 1298-9
Wednesday before the Feast of St Valentine [14 Feb.]
Jordan de Wytzand, broker, was attached to answer the
Commonalty of London in a plea that, whereas the said
Jordan was a sworn broker for ships only, he acted as a
common broker in all kinds of merchandise against the
custom, forestalled merchandise and procured it for others
not of the Liberty, thus buying against his oath, to the damage
of the City. The said Jordan defended &c. and said he was
not guilty thereof, and put himself on his country. A jury
of Walter le Fuller and others, as appears by the Panel,
brought in a verdict of guilty, and said that he had done this
all the time he had been in the City, and that he was not fit
to remain in the City as a broker, because in the late war
between the kings of France and England he informed the
King's enemies abroad of English news (rumores Anglicos);
and that he was an associate of Frenchmen at that time and
more favourable to them than to Englishmen. Judgment that
he abjure the City, that he engage in no trade (officium) in
the same henceforth, and that he do not remain in the City
more than one night, except by special permission of the
Commonalty, under penalty of imprisonment.
John Gumbard was summoned to answer John de Worcestre
and Gunora his wife in a plea of trespass, wherein they complained that he impleaded them in the Court Christian in
lay pleas, against a prohibition (fn. 1) of the King directed to him
and against a precept of the Mayor communicated by his
Serjeant, in contempt &c. The defendant denied that he
impleaded them as alleged, and waged his law. He was
ordered to come with his law on the Quinzime. Pledges:-
Robert de Keleshull and Walter Portehors.
Afterwards on Thursday after the Feast of St Peter in
Cathedra [22 Feb.] the said John Gumbard made his law.
Judgment that he go quit, and that the plaintiff be in mercy
for a false claim.
Membr. 4 25 Feb. 1298-9
Wednesday after the Feast of St Matthew [Query:
Mathias, 24 Feb.? ]
John Gumbard was attached to answer the King and the
Mayor, on the grievous complaint of John de Worcestre and
Gunora his wife, for having impleaded the latter in a lay plea
before the Court Christian and for having sued against them
a sentence of excommunication. The defendant pleaded not
guilty and put himself on his country. A jury was summoned
from the venue of Billingesgate.
28 Feb. 1298-9
Saturday after the above Feast
Peregrine de Orte, John de Ramus, John de Sataly and
Ernald de Sere were attached to answer the King and John
Juvenal, Serjeant (fn. 1) , in a plea that whereas the plaintiff John,
by precept of the Mayor and Sheriffs, had attached Bernard
du Pyn for breaking a sequestration made upon him in an
action of trespass, in which Peter Adrian was plaintiff, the
defendants rescued him and assaulted the Serjeant. The
defendants pleaded not guilty and put themselves on their
country. A jury was summoned and they were accepted as
pledges for each other to hear the verdict. Afterwards a jury
from Bredstrate brought in a verdict that the defendants
rescued the above Bernard, but did no other harm to the
Serjeant. Judgment that they be committed to prison
until &c.
4 March 1298-9
Ash Wednesday following [4 March]
The action (loquela) between Robert le Bedel, plaintiff, and
Martin de Dollingham in a plea of debt was removed into
the Court of Richard de Refham, Sheriff, as pertaining to
the Shrievalty. A day given by the Sheriff on the Quinzime.
Gilbert le Barber confessed that he bought 5 casks of wine
for the use of a foreigner against his oath as a freeman, i.e.
from Simon de Salerne, a foreigner, to the use of Juliana de
Carlisle, a foreigner, receiving 2s from the latter for brokerage.
The Sheriff was ordered to bring him to the next Husteng,
where judgment was given that he be deprived of the freedom.
Afterwards he was readmitted on a fine of 20s to the
Commonalty, by mainprise of R. de Monte Pessulano for
the payment thereof on the morrow.
5 March 1298-9
The morrow of Ash Wednesday [4 March]
Bernard du Pyn was attached to answer the King and John
Juvenal in a plea that, whereas the above John, by precept of
the Mayor and Sheriffs, sequestrated certain of his goods in
a room in the house of William le Surrygien (fn. 1) and sealed them
as an attachment, the defendant broke the seal and carried
away the goods in contempt &c. Peregrine de Orde, John
de Rames, John de Sataly, and Arnald de Sere were attached
to answer a charge that they ordered him to do so and consented thereto. All defendants pleaded not guilty and put
themselves on their country. Afterwards at a Court held on
the above date, a jury brought in a verdict against them.
Judgment that they be committed to prison, except the
defendant Bernard, who was under age.
7 March 1298-9
Saturday before the First Sunday [in Lent:- 8 March]
Thomas Juvenal and Alice his wife essoined (fn. 2) against Robert
de Aldresgate, fishmonger, and Juliana his wife in a plea of
trespass by R. de Leycestre.
John le Gros, clerk, was attached to answer Francis de
Vilers, knight, in a plea that, whereas the plaintiff was lodging,
by precept of the Sheriff, in the house of a certain Agnes
de la Cornere in Bredstrate until the King's arrival and
until the King could provide for his lodging elsewhere, the
defendant drew his sword against him, arrested his horses
in the said house and would not let him take them away,
and wounded his squire John in the face with a misericord
in contempt of the plaintiff and to his damage 100s. The
defendant pleaded not guilty and put himself on his country.
Afterwards, on the same day, a jury of Bredstrate brought
in a verdict that the defendant was not guilty and did not
prevent the plaintiff from taking away his horses. Being
asked who prevented him, they answered that the men of
Sir Walter de Beauchamp, Steward of the King, whose horses
were stabled in that inn, would not allow any stranger's
horse to enter. Judgment that the defendant go quit, and
the plaintiff be in mercy for a false claim.
John le Leche, "mouner" (fn. 1) , was attached to answer John
le Wayer in a plea that, whereas the plaintiff was a servant
of the King appointed by the Mayor to take the King's
customs for the pesage (fn. 2) of corn on London Bridge, the
defendant on Monday last came on to the Bridge leading a
quarter of wheat belonging to a certain Henry le Cupere,
baker, and as the said Henry was in arrears for the pesage
of 4 quarters of wheat, which amounted to 4½d, the plaintiff
attempted to distrain the miller's horse, but the defendant
would not allow him, and removed the horse and the custom
due, and took him by the throat and snatched his cap, and
drew his knife against him, in contempt of the King and the
Mayor and to his damage 100s. The defendant admitted that
he came with a quarter of wheat, but denied resisting the
distraint, and said that Henry le Cupere did not owe more
than ½d for pesage, which he was only bound to pay at the
end of the week according to agreement; and as regards the
other charges he pleaded not guilty and put himself on his
country.
Afterwards on the same day a jury brought in a verdict that
the plaintiff attached the wheat for the arrears of pesage, and
that when he would have attached the miller's horse also,
the defendant took the plaintiff's cap and wanted to blind
him with it, whereupon the plaintiff struck him in the face
with his hand, and they both drew their knives, but that the
defendant did not strike the other or take away either the
custom or the horse; the latter escaped by himself and ran
to his stable while they were engaged in the mêlée. Judgment
[breaks off].
Membr. 5 7 March 1298-9
Saturday before the Feast of St Gregory [12 March]
Elyas de Bristoll was summoned to answer the King and
the Commonalty of London in a plea that whereas no freeman
could lawfully avow contracts between foreigners or buy for
foreigners, whereby the King lost his forfeitures, nevertheless
the defendant avowed 24 sacks of wool which the Society of
the Bardi (fn. 1) bought from a certain John de Lodelawe, a foreigner,
in fraud and deceit of the Liberty, and to the damage of the
citizens. The defendant said that he himself bought the wool
from the above John and sold it to the Society, but that at
the time of the first purchase he did not know the second
purchasers, and thereon he puts himself on his country (fn. 2) .
Afterwards at a Court, held on the Monday following, a jury
brought in a verdict that the defendant bought the wool for
the Society's use and at their risk and that he received nothing
from the Society except brokerage. A day was given to the
defendant to hear judgment and the same day given to the
merchants. Afterwards, on the Tuesday following, the Court
considering that the contract of sale and purchase was the
fraud and deception of the defendant alone, and not the fault
of the merchants, the attachment made upon the latter was
delivered to them, and judgment was given that the defendant
be deprived of the freedom.
Subsequently, at the instance of common friends, the
defendant was readmitted to the freedom and sworn, on
payment of 10 marks of silver to the Commonalty.
John de Elsingham, Andrew de Stibbenheth, Nicholas de
Totenham, John ate Holte, Laurence de Wymbysh, Michael
de Wymbysh, John May, Milo le Fevre, John le Simple,
Roger de Wodestrate, John de Guyppewyco (fn. 1) , Richard de
Chigewell, John de Sholane, William de Sholane, Robert de
Sholane, Robert de Sandwich and Stephen de Holte were
attached to answer the City and the Commonalty of London
in a plea that, whereas according to the custom of the realm
of England no Parliament (parlaymentum) can take place
relating to the aforesaid kingdom without the King and his
Council, nevertheless the said John &c., privily by the imposition of a corporal oath, taken by all, made a parliament
and confederacy in contempt of the King and to the harm of
the City; and the confederacy was such that if any one offended
against any citizen, the others would support him, and that
no one was allowed to work with others than themselves, and
for this purpose they had a casket (pixis) for their contributions, which casket was seen in Court; and also that they
impleaded persons who had offended them before the Ecclesiastical Courts in lay pleas, and made several other provisions
against the Liberty of the City; and that they drew up a
charter for the confederacy, which was in the custody of
John de Elsingham, in contempt &c. and to the damage of
the city £100. The defendant John acknowledged that he
had the charter and craved permission to bring it into Court.
Afterwards he said he could not find it. Since he had contradicted his admission, judgment was given that he be taken
into custody. Precept was given to the Sheriff to bring him
to Court on Thursday with the charter. Afterwards, at a
Court held on Saturday the defendant John came, but produced no charter. Thereupon the Court ordered that a jury
be summoned to say whether the said John had maliciously
eloigned it. The other defendants then defended, and admitted that they made unanimously an ordinance to the effect
that none should work at night on account of the unhealthiness of coal (propter putridinem carbonis marine), and damage
to their neighbours; that their doors should be closed all the
year at the first stroke of Curfew at St Martins le Grand, and
that none of their households should wander through the
streets against the Proclamation; and that they made the
casket so that each master of the trade of smiths could put
a farthing a week therein to maintain a wax-taper [cirgeam]
to the honour of the Blessed Mary and St Laudus, and also
for the relief of any of the trade who should fall into poverty.
And as regards the trespass they put themselves on their
country. A jury was summoned for the Wednesday following.
Afterwards, at a Court held on Saturday before the Feast of
the Annunciation B.M. [25 March], the jury brought in a
verdict that the said John and the others were not guilty of
the trespass, and that the said John did not have any charter
in his custody contrary to the City. As it seemed to the
Court that the acknowledgments made were not prejudicial
to the King or the Liberty, judgment was given that the
defendants go quit.
Membr. 5 b
Frissottus de Monte Claro granted an acquittance, on behalf of himself and his brother Tottus, to Fulk de St Edmunds,
Sir John le Bretun and Sir Hugh Bardolf, the latter having
paid them fifty marks of silver due on the purchase of a horse.
William de Storteford, charged with resisting a sequestration upon his goods for a debt to Edmund, Earl of Cornwall,
incurred by him during his Shrievalty, put himself on the
favour of the Mayor and pledged himself in five casks of
wine, to be taken at the Mayor's pleasure.
Further writ dated at Bernes 22 Feb. 1298-9 on behalf of
Ralph Hardel, who complained that he had been kept in prison
for a debt of £32 due to Reymund de Nevill and Arnald
de Skynat, though he had paid the money and received
acquittances.
Return; to the effect that Ralph had produced his acquittances, which were deposited in court until the above Reymund
and Arnald returned from abroad. He remained in prison,
because he could not find mainpernors to answer for the
debt if necessary.
19 March 1298-9
Thursday before the Feast of St Benedict [21 March]
John Andreu was attached to answer the Mayor and Commonalty and Walter le Hethereve, bailiff of Queenhithe, in
a plea that, whereas it was unlawful for a foreigner to make
any contract of merchandise with another foreigner, nevertheless the defendant sold a fish called "moscles" by retail
to a certain William Purchaz, a foreigner, at Queenhithe, and
would not allow the above Walter to attach his ship and goods
for the offence, but drew his knife upon him in contempt &c.
and to his damage £20. The defendant admitted the sale of
fish, and said that he hired the above William to sell the fish
because he did not understand the selling of fish himself,
and thus his fish was sold to divers persons, but William
bought none of it by retail; and thereon he put himself on
his country. Precept was given to summon a jury and to
attach the ship and goods meanwhile.
Afterwards, at a Court held on Saturday, the defendant
admitted the offence. Judgment that his ship and goods be
forfeited to the King, and that the bailiff retain them in his
custody till the defendant satisfy the Sheriff for the forfeiture.
William de Broughton, skinner, was summoned to answer
William de Leyre (fn. 1) on a charge that, when the defendant was
distrained by John Juvenal, Serjeant of the Chamber, for
2 marks which he promised (tendebat) to the Commonalty
for the purchase of the freedom, he came to the plaintiff's
house and used opprobrious words to him, declaring that
the distraint was unjust and that William was plotting to drive
him and others from the Liberty of the City. The defendant
denied the charge and put himself on his country.
Membr. 6 30 March 1299
Monday after the Feast of the Annunciation B. M.
[25 March] A° 27 Edw. [1299]
Stephen de Uptone was attached to answer the King and
Thomas Sely, Sheriff of London, in a plea of trespass, wherein
the latter complained that, having been ordered by Sir Walter
de Beauchamp, the Steward of the King's Household, to bring
the defendant to Westminster to answer Julia, relict of Henry
Box, in a plea of trespass, he sent his clerk, John de Fridaiestrate, to the defendant's house to carry out the order, but
the latter closed his doors and gate against him, and also
against the plaintiff himself and his clerks and Serjeants,
so that the King's commands could not be fulfilled. The
defendant admitted that John the clerk came to his house,
but said he was in bed because it was late at night, and that he
did nothing to hinder them from executing their orders. He
demanded that inquest be made by a jury of the venue.
A jury was summoned for Wednesday.
Writ dated at Westminster 28 March A° 27 Edw. [1299] to
the Mayor and Sheriffs, to the effect that Richard de Burdegale,
whom R., bishop of London, claimed as a clerk by letters
patent, had been taken and detained in Newgate for a Recognizance of debt to Andrew Payne, although by the Statute (fn. 1)
relating to Recognizances of debts to merchants, it had been
laid down that clerks should not be so taken and imprisoned.
They are to deliver him without delay.
Afterwards the Mayor sent this Original Writ to the Sheriff,
Thomas Sely, by Philip de Mardel, for execution thereof,
which writ remains with the Sheriff as his warrant.
Membr. 6 b 4 July 1299
Saturday before the Feast of the Translation of
St Thomas the Martyr [7 July]
Thomas Sely, Sheriff, was summoned to answer Sabina
Malemeins in a plea of trespass, wherein she complained that
he came to her house in the parish of Holy Trinity the Less,
and unjustly distrained and sequestrated all her goods, and
sealed the doors of her chamber, in-connection with a claim
of 40s by William Overton, though she did not owe that
sum; and that he dragged her out of bed and did other
enormities. The defendant pleaded that he went to the house
of Michael de Carlisle, Sabina's husband, in obedience to a
writ from the Exchequer, in order to distrain him for 40s,
in which he had been condemned before the Barons of the
Exchequer in an action of trespass at the suit of William
Overton, and that he (the defendant) made no other distraint
upon her, than this upon her husband, and he demanded a
jury. The plaintiff answered that the above Michael was not
her husband and had no goods in her house on which the
Sheriff could distrain for 40s, nor even to the value of 2s;
and thereon she put herself on her country. Afterwards a
jury found a verdict for her on these issues. Judgment that
the distraint be delivered to her, and the defendant be in
mercy.
9 July 1299
Thursday after the above Feast
Hanekin Yacopp brought a plaint against Thomas Sely,
Sheriff, to the effect that the latter distrained him by 25
pounds of copper. Afterwards he abandoned his plaint,
saying that he had previously sold the copper to a certain
Thomas de Doddeford. He was in mercy for withdrawing
from his plea.
Thomas de Doddele (sic) was summoned to answer the
King and the Commonalty of London in a plea that, whereas
by the custom of London no freeman was allowed to avow
contracts by foreigners or buy for the use of foreigners,
whereby the king lost his forfeitures, nevertheless the defendant bought 25 pounds of copper from a certain Hanekin
le Rede for the use of Robert Craumpe, a foreigner of
Coventry, thus acting as an unsworn broker, and that he
avowed the goods to be his own, whereby the sheriffs were
defrauded of their customs. The defendant acknowledged
that he bought the copper, but declared that it was for his
own use and that he was not a broker, and that he did not
know of any other merchant as a purchaser for the copper
at the time he bought it; and thereon he put himself on his
country. Afterwards, on the Monday following, a jury brought
in a verdict that the defendant was not a broker, and that
he bought the copper from Henekin le Rede for the use of
Robert Craumpe, and that at the time of the purchase he
knew the latter as his prospective buyer. Judgment that he be
deprived of the freedom (fn. 1) , and be precluded from trading within
the same, under penalty of forfeiting all his goods as a foreigner.
Membr. 7 10 July 1299
Friday after the above Feast
Geoffrey David, butcher, was attached to answer the King
and the Mayor in a plea that, whereas a common tallage of
2000 marks was granted to the King for renewing the Liberties
of the City, and Richer de Refham, Sheriff, by precept of
the Mayor and in the person of Hugh de Waltham (fn. 2) , his
sworn clerk, entered the defendant's house in the Parish of
St Leonard, together with the Collectors of Bridge Ward,
to sequestrate his goods and chattels in order to levy therefrom his portion, being a fourth, for the use of the King, the
defendant would not allow the clerk and the collectors to carry
out their duty, but refused the money, and broke the sequestration, which was placed on his chattels by the clerk in the
presence of the collectors, and abused them. The defendant
denied the charge and put himself on his country. He was
committed to the Sheriff to produce him at the next Court
to hear the verdict.
Letters Patent (French) from H. le Galeys, Mayor of
London, to John de Claus of the Honour of Seguis, to the
effect that he had received in London from Bernard de la
Gane, burgess of Leyburn (fn. 3) , by the hand of John des Claus
of the Honour of Segur (sic), the sum of £17 in part payment
of a debt of 250 tuns of wine, in which Bernard was indebted
to him by his bond. In default of payment of the wine in
time of peace before the war, he had caused the aforesaid
£17 to be arrested, wherefore he quitclaims this amount to
Bernard and his heirs. Dated at London 27 Aug. 1298.
Witnesses:-Bernard Johann de la Rue Maior dakes
(fn. 1) , Peres
Normand, Peres Simon, Renaud le Barber, Elys Gerard,
Robert de Cornedale, clerk, and others.
Membr. 7 b 24 July 1299
Court of William de Leyre, locumtenens of the Mayor,
Friday before the Feast of St James the Apostle
[25 July]
Henry Hoppe was attached to answer the King in a plea
that, whereas according to the custom of the City merchandise
coming from overseas to London, to be sold there to the
profit of the citizens, ought not to be opened until it had
arrived there, nevertheless the defendant, by his servant, met
merchandise at Grenewych and took 25 pieces of wax from
a ship of William le Mariner, and had them secretly carried
away against the King's Proclamation and to the prejudice
of the Liberties of the City, whereby the Sheriffs were defrauded of their customs; and also, together with the wax, he
opened and carried away several bundles and false money (fn. 2) ,
before they had arrived at the quay, and this he did in the
absence of the Sheriff. The defendant admitted that he
carried away the wax. Judgment that it be forfeited to the
Sheriff. But as regards the money, he denied that he took it,
and put himself on his country. A jury of sailors, travellers
and good men of the venue of Billingesgate was summoned,
and the defendant was mainprised on good security to hear
the verdict. Afterwards, the jury returned a verdict that the
defendant and his men had no money in the ship and carried
none away. Judgment that he go quit.
Richard de Swerre was attached to answer a similar charge
of removing six pieces of wax. He denied that they were
unloaded by him, or by his means, or that he had any money
in the ship, but he did not deny that the pieces were carried
into his house, though without his knowledge. A jury of
Thames Street was summoned for Wednesday.
Adam le Palmer, a freeman, was attached to answer a
charge of avowing certain battery (bateriam) viz., a pan, a
brass pot and other merchandise, value £8, for the use of a
foreigner of Almaine. He admitted the offence; but as witness
was borne by good and lawful men that he did not know the
custom of the Liberty, his amercement was remitted. The
battery was forfeited to the Sheriffs, who were asked by the
Court to mitigate the forfeiture, which they afterwards did,
at the instance of G. de Northon, to the extent of 40s.
Edmund le Coteler was attached to answer William
Mokelyn and Roger de Derby in a plea that, whereas they
had been ordered by the Mayor and Aldermen to guard
the streets of their Ward against ordure, nevertheless the
defendant late on Wednesday night relieved himself in the
street, and when they went to take amends of him, he drew
his knife on them, against the peace and despite the Proclamation. The defendant denied the charge and put himself
on his country. Afterwards the defendant made default, and
the jury gave a verdict of guilty in his absence. Judgment
that he be in mercy. Being asked whether he drew his knife,
the jury answered that he did not. Judgment that the
plaintiffs be in mercy for a false charge.
Membr. 8 8 Aug. 1299
Saturday before the Feast of St Laurence [10 Aug.]
Walter Bareth was summoned to answer William le Pavour
in a plea that, an agreement having been made between them
that Walter should tile William's houses in Westsmethfield at
a daily wage, and remain in his service till the work was done,
nevertheless the defendant withdrew from his work, from
Thursday the day of the agreement till the Tuesday following;
and whereas the plaintiff needed journeymen tilers, defendant went about in Westsmethfield and elsewhere preventing
workmen from entering his employment, by slandering
him and saying that he would never pay his workmen any
equivalent for their labour (quod nunquam aliquod servicium
aliquibus operariis suis redderet pro suo labore)-to the damage
of the plaintiff 100s. The defendant denied the trespass and
put himself on his country. Afterwards, a jury brought in
a verdict that the defendant left the service of the plaintiff
contrary to the agreement, and that he prevented others from
serving him, but they had no means of knowing whether he
was in the habit of doing this. They taxed damages at 10s.
Judgment that the plaintiff recover his damages and the
defendant be kept in custody, till he find security for paying
the damages and the amercement.
18 Aug. 1299
Tuesday after the Feast of the Assumption B.M.
[15 Aug.]
John le Paumer was summoned to answer Richer de
Refham, Sheriff, in a plea that, whereas the defendant and his
Society of Bermen (fn. 1) (Barmannorum) in the City were sworn
not to carry any wine, by land or water, for the use of citizens
or others, without the Sheriff's mark, nor lead nor cause it
to be led, whereby the Sheriff might be defrauded of his
customs, nevertheless he caused four casks of wine belonging
to Ralph le Mazun of Westminster to be carried from the City
to Westminster without the Sheriff's mark, thus defrauding
the latter of his customs in contempt of the King &c. The
defendant acknowledged the trespass. Judgment that he
remain in custody of the Sheriff till he satisfy the King and
the Court for his offence.
19 Aug. 1299
Wednesday after the above Feast
Adam de Shepeye, merchant of Coventre, complained of
Thomas Sely, Sheriff of London, that whereas he came to
London on Sunday [16 Aug.] after the Feast of the Assumption B.M. with his woolfells, the defendant on the
Tuesday following [18 Aug.] unjustly distrained upon them
to his damage of their value. The defendant claimed that
the distraint was just, and said that after the plaintiff had
unbound the skins at the house which formerly belonged to
Geoffrey de Cavendyssh in the street of St Lawrence Jewry,
and had offered them for sale to certain merchants of the
City, he afterwards refused to sell them and had them bound
up again, intending to send them overseas for sale, to the
prejudice of the Liberty. The plaintiff denied that he unbound the skins for sale, and said that Richer de Refham,
one of the Sheriffs, had them unbound by his clerk, David,
in order to make a scrutiny for false and counterfeit money,
as ordered by the King throughout the ports, and that he
never intended to send the skins abroad; and he demands
that inquest be made. Afterwards, at a Court held on
Thursday (fn. 1) , the defendant remitted his action against the
plaintiff (i.e. the distraint). Judgment that Adam recover his
woolfells, and Thomas be in mercy for his false distraint.
Richard le Barber of Fletestrete was charged by the Mayor
and Aldermen with allowing four casks of wine belonging to
Ralph le Mazun of Westminster to pass through Ludgate
without the Sheriff's mark, in prejudice of the Liberty, and
contrary to the oath which he had sworn in the presence of
the Mayor and Sheriffs. He acknowledged the trespass. Judgment that he be kept in custody till he had made due satisfaction to the Mayor and Sheriffs, according to the custom.
Membr. 8 b
Writ dated at Canterbury 17 July A° 27 Edw. [1299] to the
Mayor and Sheriffs, ordering them to inquire by the oath of
good and lawful men as to the malefactors who beat and
wounded Walter de Berton at London, and to return the
finding under the seals of themselves and the jurors.
Inquest taken on Tuesday after the Feast of St James the
Apostle [25 July] A° 27 Edw. [1299] by oath of Adam Bernard,
John de Folleham, Jordan le Ceynturer, Robert de Doddeford,
Laurence le Coteler, Gilbert le Barber, John le Barber,
William le Clerc, William de Sandwich, Richard Syward,
Thomas le Poleter and Saer le Barber, who said that a certain
William ate Wode committed the assault. Sealed as directed.
Writ dated at Kenyton 7 Aug. A° 27 Edw. [1299] to the
Mayor and Sheriffs reciting that King Henry, the king's father,
by his letters patent at the instance of Richard, King of the
Romans (fn. 1) , had granted to the merchants of Almaine, who had
a house in the City commonly called "Gyhalde Teutonicorum,"
that he would maintain them in the liberties and free customs
which they had enjoyed under his predecessors; and this
grant the present king had inspected and reissued under his
letters patent. Nevertheless the citizens had not allowed
those rights. Wherefore they are commanded to permit the
merchants to enjoy their liberties, or else appear coram nobis
to explain their disobedience.
Return; that the citizens had not interfered with the liberties
of the merchants of the Guild and of the Hanse of Almaine,
and as regards their complaints, these merchants when summoned had no charge to make against any one.
Membr. 9 16 Sept. 1299
Wednesday after the Feast of the Exaltation of the
Holy Cross [14 Sept.]
Further writ, dated at Canterbury 11 July 1299, on behalf
of Ralph Hardel, who complained that he was kept in prison
for a debt of £32 to Remund de Nevile and Arnald de
Squinat, though he had paid the debt and had acquittances.
Proceedings in Court by virtue of the above writ. The
above Arnald denied that the acquittances were his deed and
claimed a jury of merchants, both citizens and foreigners.
Subsequently the parties submitted to the arbitration of
John le Clerk, Coroner of the City, Robert Hardel, Geoffrey
de Brakele and Reginald le Barber of Vintry, with power to
add Richer de Refham, Sheriff, in case of disagreement.
They awarded that Ralph pay Remund and Arnald 10 marks
in full settlement.
Membr. 10 16 Sept. 1299
Wednesday after the above Feast
Michael de Wymbyssh, smith, was summoned to answer
the King, the Mayor, and Richard de Chigewell in a plea
that, by means of Stephen del Holt, he caused the said
Richard to be impleaded in the Court Christian &c. Afterwards the parties came to an agreement, on terms that if
either were in future convicted of trespass against the other,
he should pay one mark to the fabric of the new Chapel at
Guildhall.
18 Sept. 1299
Friday before the Feast of St Mathias (fn. 1)
the Apostle
Gregory le Botoner, defendant, essoined against Jordan le
Seler in a plea of trespass by David de Candelwykstrate. The
essoin does not lie, as Gregory was afterwards seen in Court.
Gregory Botoner was attached to answer Jordan le Seler
in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the
defendant used opprobrious words to him at his house in
Wodestrate, and then followed him to the Saddlery (fn. 2) , and there
beat and wounded him to his damage £20. The defendant
pleaded that the plaintiff had previously assaulted him, by
striking him on the head and right arm, in his own house
in Wodestrate at vespers, to his damage 20 marks, and that
if the plaintiff suffered anything, it was owing to his own
assault. A jury of Chepe and Wodestrate, together with
reputable and lawful men living nearby in the Ward (fn. 3) of
W. le Mazener, was summoned for Tuesday.
A jury of the venue of Wodestrate was also summoned in
an action for assault brought by the above Gregory against
Alexander de Chigewell and Michael his brother.
Membr. 10 b 22 Sept. 1299
Tuesday before the Feast of St Michael [29 Sept.]
Ralph FitzPeter was summoned to answer William de
Leyre in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that
the defendant came to his house in Colmanestrate to distrain
for a certain rent which he was unjustly demanding, whereupon the plaintiff, as soon as he knew of it, had the distraint
delivered by giving pledge and security to the Sheriff in the
"Husteng," and the further consideration of the matter had
been adjourned to the next Husting. Nevertheless the defendant, while the plea was still pending, had again distrained
the plaintiff's tenants in the tenement, and although the
plaintiff then obtained from the Mayor a prohibition against
further distraint, the defendant had distrained him grievously
for the third time in contempt of the Mayor. The defendant
admitted that he had distrained the plaintiff for a certain
rent charged on the tenement-as was lawful to him, but
denied that he did so after the Mayor's prohibition. A jury
from Colmanstrate was summoned for the Saturday following.