Roll C
Membr. 1 7 Feb. 1298-9
Court of the Chamberlain held on Saturday after the
Feast of the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.] A° 27 Edw.
[1298-9]
Thomas Brun(i)ng and John Elys were attached to answer
the Commonalty in a plea of forestalling, whereof they were
deraigned by John of the Chamber, clerk of the Commonalty,
to the effect that the defendant Thomas was accustomed to
avow the defendant John in buying and forestalling goods
from foreigners outside the City, to the damage of the men
of their trade. The defendant Thomas pleaded that John
became his apprentice for a term of seven years, but only
remained for four and three quarters years, when he arranged
with him for the remainder of the term on payment of half
a mark, and that afterwards John traded with his own property. And since the defendant Thomas admitted the receipt
of money and the remission of the remainder of the apprenticeship, together with the avowry of merchandise, a day was
given him till the Wednesday following to hear judgment.
John de Totenham, junior, was attached to answer Philip
Dode, his apprentice, in a plea of covenant of apprenticeship,
wherein the latter complained that he was apprenticed to the
defendant by indentures for a term of ten years, and that he
was dismissed after six and a half years, to his damage £10.
The defendant admitted the covenant, but pleaded that Philip
after many offences withdrew from the apprenticeship of his
own accord, and that afterwards it was agreed that they
should submit to the arbitration of reputable men chosen
from either party, and as for himself he was prepared to
stand by their award, but Philip refused to do so. The latter
pleaded that the defendant was not able to maintain him in
his service in a fitting manner and gave him permission to
leave, and that he was always prepared to stand by the award,
but that the defendant would not; and he demanded an
inquest by the country. A jury of St Mary de Conhope
was summoned for Wednesday. Afterwards the defendant
admitted the covenant, and that Philip had served him well
and faithfully, and that he himself had not kept the covenant.
Judgment that he be amerced. The parties quitclaimed all
actions against each other, after which the defendant paid a
fine of 40d for the amercement.
Walter Parrok and John de Eston were attached to answer
the Commonalty in a plea of trespass, it being alleged that
the defendant Walter was accustomed to avow purchases by
the said John from divers foreigners under cover of the
freedom of his apprentice (advocare predictum Johannem emere
mercandisas diversas a diversis extraneis sub quopertura libertatis sui apprenticii), whereas the defendant John on his own
behalf and by purchase had bought from his master the unexpired portion of his apprenticeship; by which avowry the
men of the trade had damage £10. The defendants admitted
the trading, but Walter pleaded that John had been and was
still his apprentice, and traded with his master's goods and
not with the goods of foreigners, and he denied that John had
bought from him the remainder of his term of apprenticeship.
The defendants demanded that inquest be made by the country. And John of the Chamber who sued for the Commonalty
did likewise. A jury from Cheap summoned for Wednesday.
11 Feb. 1298-9
Court of the Chamberlain held on Wednesday before
the Feast of St Valentine [14 Feb.]
A loveday between Jordan de Langele and Katherine
Atthecherch and Thomas her son.
Adam de Wytton was attached to answer Henry de
Merlawe in a plea of covenant of apprenticeship, wherein
the latter complained that Adam became his apprentice in
accordance with the Will of Ralph le Cuteler, and afterwards
left his service without leave, to his damage &c. The defendant admitted that his apprenticeship would not be completed
till Easter next, but said that the above Ralph, late his master,
had released one year of his term, and that he had left
Henry's service through fear, but he was prepared to serve
the remainder of his term. The plaintiff pleaded that the
defendant ought not to be allowed to return to his service
till he had done satisfaction for his trespasses, because the
defendant had married within his term. Adam admitted
marrying. A day was given to the parties till next Wednesday
to come to an agreement.
A jury from Cheap and of "Cissehers" (fn. 1) brought in a verdict
that John de Heston and Walter Parrok did not trade as
partners for loss and gain; that Walter released to John the
remainder of his apprenticeship; and that the latter did not
forestall within the City or without, but that he had certain
dealings with citizens and foreigners. Judgment was given
that John's goods be taken into the hands of the City until
&c., and that Walter be in mercy for avowing the said John
and remitting his term.
Membr. 1 b 19 Feb. 1298-9
Court of the Mayor held on Thursday before the Feast
of St Peter in Cathedra [22 Feb.] A° 27 Edw. [1298-9]
Adam de Fulham, junior, was attached to answer Nicholas
Picot in a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that
the defendant, in obedience to a writ of the King's Steward
and Marshal (fn. 2) , attached Geoffrey le Power at the plaintiff's
suit for 17 marks, and that the above Geoffrey admitted the
debt, whereupon he was delivered to the defendant to keep
him in custody till he satisfied the plaintiff for the debt, and
that nevertheless the defendant allowed him to escape, to the
plaintiff's damage £20. The defendant defended the words
of Court, and admitted the arrest and imprisonment of
Geoffrey, but alleged that Sir William de Apperle, acting as
deputy of the Steward, sent a billet to him ordering him to
send Geoffrey to his household, which billet was shown in
Court, and that Master William afterwards sent Geoffrey
back, but that the latter did not return to the defendant's
custody, which he was prepared to prove. The plaintiff
maintained that it was from the defendant's custody that
the above Geoffrey escaped. As the plea had its origin in
the Court of the Steward and Marshal, a day was given to
the parties until the arrival of the King at Westminster.
25 Feb. 1298-9
Wednesday the morrow of St Mathias the Apostle
[24 Feb.]
William de la Foreste, smith, was attached to answer the
Commonalty by John of the Chamber, who sued for the same,
in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that,
although it was the ancient custom that no one should remain
within the City to trade with foreigners unless he was a
freeman, nevertheless the defendant stayed ten years, trading
like a freeman with foreigners, to the damage of the reputable
men of that trade £40. The defendant defended the words
of Court and admitted that he was not a freeman, but declared that he did not trade except with freemen, and that
he was a handicraftsman (operarius), and not a merchant.
The prosecutor alleged that the defendant and his men traded
with both foreigners and denizens, even though he was a
handicraftsman, and he demanded that inquest be made by
lawful men of the craft of smiths, as also did the defendant.
A jury summoned against Friday.
5 March 1298-9
Thursday after the Octave of St Mathias the Apostle
[24 Feb.]
Richard Horn was attached to acquit the Commonalty
against the King for 300 marks, wherein John Horn, his
father, was responsible to the Commonalty as regards his
Receipt as their Sheriff. The defendant pleaded that he was
not his father's executor, had inherited nothing from him,
and had none of his goods and chattels, and he demanded
an inquest thereon. Good men of the Wards of Bridge and
Billingsgate were summoned against the first Monday in Lent.
22 March 1298-9
An inquest was held on Sunday before the Feast of the
Annunciation B.M. [25 March] before Mayor and Aldermen,
as to what malefactors beat and wounded the men of the
household of the Bishop of Durham, by Walter de Herlested,
Adam de Arcubus, Symon de Oxon, Richard de Stanford,
Geoffrey de Conductu, Alexander de Causton, Andrew Mele,
Robert Frer, Gregory Lorimer, Robert de Donmawe, John
Scharpe and William le Caundeler, who said on oath that a
certain Richard le Lacer, on Wednesday before the Feast of
St Peter in Cathedra [22 Feb.] A° 27 Edw. [1298-9], in a certain
tavern, procured some of the bishop's men to go to the house
of Richard le Cordewaner in Wdestret, where they threatened
Richard, and one of them struck him on the head with a stick
and threw after him (post ipsum prostravit) a big knife with
which he was cutting leather, and not content therewith,
entered his house and broke the door of his chamber and
beat him, whereupon his wife raised the hue and cry. On
this, Henry de Gloucestre and Elias de Suffolk came to the
house to stop the affair, and the Bishop's men, letting go the
above Richard, and drawing their swords, pursued them as far
as the house of Elias. Meanwhile the neighbours, roused by
the hue and cry, came to the place to restrain the men from
doing further harm, and strangers and unknown persons
joined in the fray, so that if the Bishop's men received any
hurt there, it was done by unknown persons.
Membr. 2 20 Nov. 1299
Court of Elyas Russel, Mayor, on Friday the Feast
of St Edmund, King and Martyr, A° 28 Edw. [1299]
Guy Bertand, Remund de la Bro and Hugelin Sampe were
attached at the suit of Brachius de la Bro to produce their
award in a dispute between the plaintiff and William Servat.
26 Nov. 1299
Thursday after the Feast of St Katherine [25 Nov.]
Thomas de Basinges was summoned to render an account
to his late ward, Stephen, son of Richard de Abbendon, of
his lands, tenements and rents, during his minority.
5 Jan. 1299-1300
Tuesday the Vigil of the Epiphany [6 Jan.] A° 28 Edw.
[1299-1300]
Robert Wodhock, poulterer, and Brian the poulterer were
attached to answer the Mayor for forestalling poultry in
Suthwerk, and all through the year. The defendants admitted
the first charge, but denied the second and put themselves
on their country. A jury was summoned for Thursday, and
the defendants were committed to prison on their confession.
William, rector of the Church of St Margaret Lothebury,
was attached for avowing four putrid wolves sent from abroad
in a cask. The defendant said that he bought the wolves
because of a certain disease called "Le Lou." And as the
defendant was examined by the Mayor and Aldermen concerning the disease, and admitted that he was not suffering
from it, or knew anybody who was, and that he was not a
physician or a surgeon, he was committed to the Sheriffs, for
having first of all said falsely that he had the disease, until
the truth of the matter could be elicited. The Sheriffs were
ordered to summon all the physicians and surgeons of the City
for Thursday. On that day the latter came into Court and said
that they could not find in any of their medical or surgical
writings any disease against which the flesh of wolves could
be used. Accordingly the defendant was delivered to the
Official (fn. 1) .
Membr. 2 b 7 Jan. 1299-1300
Thursday after the above Feast
John de Kent, John de Paris, Agnes Godman, Laurence
Schail, Richard le Barber, William Gorre, Peter le Blunt,
William Crel, Hugelyn of St Magnus, John de Reigat,
Edmund Sket, John Bussard, Nicholas Sket, Robert the cook
of Foxle, William de Waledon, John de Mardenheth and
many other cooks were attached to answer the Mayor and
Commonalty on a charge of forestalling capons, hens, geese
and other victuals, before they reached the City and also
within the City, before the hour of Prime and before the
freemen could buy their necessaries. The defendants denied
the charge and put themselves on their country. A jury,
summoned from Cornhill (fn. 2) and from each Ward within the
Gates and from the suburbs, consisting of William le Lou,
Nicholas le Long, John Plot, Nicholas Brun, William Poyntel,
Edmund Trentemars, Walter de Bredstrate, Richard Horn
and others, brought in a verdict that certain of the cooks
were guilty of forestalling poultry, and that the rest bought
victuals and poultry outside their doors and elsewhere in the
City from persons known and unknown, against the Proclamation. Judgment that each be mainprised by the other until &c.
Nicholas Beaublet, Adam Dalleye, Robert de Dalleie, John
de Cherteseie, William le Hernesemaker, William de Chestehonte, Richard Rok, John Hamond and Walter his man,
Robert de Cheleshuch, Geoffrey le Meuner, Ralph le Sporier
and other spurriers were attached to answer the Mayor and
Commonalty at the suit of Hugh Stroby, on a charge of
having made an ordinance, confirmed by touching the Gospels,
that no one of their trade of spurriers should do any work
between sunset and sunrise, in consequence of which they
had summoned Richard, the prosecutor's servant, before the
Official of the Archdeacon, and charged him with working
against the ordinance, and the said Richard, after being three
times warned by the Official, had been expelled from the
church and excommunicated, until he would swear to keep
the ordinance. The prosecutor also alleged that the spurriers
had made Clement and Robert le Rouwlmakere swear not to
sell any of their goods to him; that they had ordained that
no one should take an apprentice for less than 10 years and
40s; and that, if any one was injured by a person outside
the trade, the defendant Nicholas promised to do him justice
without any other servant of the king; and that no one of
that trade would do anything for anyone dwelling within or
without the City unless he were sworn to the ordinance [et
quod nullus officio predicto aliquid faciet alicui comoranti infra
civitatem seu extra nisi fuerit juratus ordinacioni predicte]. The
defendants declared that they were not guilty, and put themselves on their country, and the prosecutor likewise. A jury
of the venue of Fletebruge was summoned. Afterwards, the
parties made agreement on terms that the prosecutor quitclaim all actions, and the confederacy was condoned because
nothing of it had yet been put into operation [?-eo quod
nondum aliquid ex ea positum erat in factum].
9 Jan. 1299-1300
Saturday after the above Feast
William de Wolcherchehawe, taverner, was attached to
answer Sir John Botetourte in a plea of trespass, wherein the
latter complained that William beat one of his carters and
tore his clothes (fn. 1) [? delaniavit pannos suos] and did other
enormities &c. The defendant came and defended the force
&c. and put himself on the mercy of the said Sir John, and
pledged to him a cask of wine, which cask Sir John gave to
the officers (ministris) of the Chamber of the Guildhall.
Sir Richard de Scolaund, knight, in the name of Sir William
de Grandisone, offered to pay Tote de Monte Claro £21
pollard, which the latter refused, saying that Sir William
owed sterling.
11 Jan. 1299-1300
Monday before the Feast of St Hilary [13 Jan.]
Adam de Ely, fishmonger, put himself on the mercy of the
Mayor and Aldermen for having sold his goods too dear, in
contempt of the King's Proclamation, and of that of the Mayor
and Aldermen.
Membr. 3 14 Jan. 1299-1300
The morrow of St Hilary [13 Jan.]
Walter Payn and John de Canefeld, bailiffs of the Guild
of Weavers, and others of the same craft were attached to
answer the Mayor and Commonalty at the suit of Henry le
Jevene and others of the craft of burellers (fn. 2) , in a plea of
trespass, wherein the latter complained that the weavers,
yearly on the day of St Edmund King in their Guild (Gilla)
in the Church of St Nicholas Akonn, choose two bailiffs to
hold their Courts and to hear and determine pleas of trespass,
whereas the bailiffs ought to be under the jurisdiction and
power of the Mayor, and be presented to him yearly and be
sworn by him, and the Mayor ought to attend their Courts
as often as he pleased, and any cloth which was found to be
against the Assize should be burnt by the Mayor and not by
the bailiffs. Further the burellers complained that the weavers
ordained that no one of their craft should weave any cloth
from Christmas until the Purification under any circumstances; moreover they had destroyed many hand-looms after
the death of workmen, when they ought to have maintained
them by right and custom of the trade; and whereas the
burellers and others who had cloths to weave were able to
have them woven formerly for 16d or 18d, the defendants
by an agreement among themselves ordained, first, that none
of their craft should weave a cloth for less than 2s, secondly,
for less than 2s 6d, and thirdly, for less than 40d; and when
a certain Stoldus, a Lombard, who was a freeman, wished
to make sale of cloths for the common profit of citizens and
foreigners, the defendants would not allow him to do so,
until he had promised to pay two marks a year, and nevertheless they charged him 20s for the weaving of each cloth,
whereas the price should have been 4s at most; moreover
they ordained that if any bureller should injure any of their
trade his work should be put in defence, until he had been
corrected by them, thus defrauding the Sheriff and the King's
farm; further, the weavers put in defence the cloths of the
burellers and others at the instance of any of their craft who
was plaintiff in any plea, so that he to whom the cloth belonged could not have it, although their bailiffs had no power
to make any attachment on persons, who were not of their
Guild, without the Sheriffs. All the aforesaid ordinances, the
burellers complained, were to the prejudice of the Mayor
and Commonalty and Liberty of the City and to their own
damage £100.
The defendants denied that their bailiffs were accustomed
to be presented to, or sworn and admitted by, the Mayor.
Thereupon the plaintiffs alleged that in the time of G. de
Rokesle (fn. 1) , Thomas Jordan and Reginald le Blount were so
presented. The defendants could not deny this, and a day
was given them on the Tuesday following to hear judgment
thereon, and to answer the other charges. The defendants
appeared on the day given and asked for the appointment of
twelve men, chosen from each side. This was granted; and
the twelve, being sworn and examined by William de Leyre
and Thomas Romeyn, aldermen, ordained certain articles (fn. 1)
for all time which are enrolled in the Chamber of the Guildhall. The weavers were amerced.
18 Jan. 1299-1300
Monday before the Feast of SS. Fabian and Sebastian
[20 Jan.]
Charter of Henry II to the Weavers. [The membrane is
incomplete and closes with "contumeliam faciat." See Lib.
Cust. (Rolls Series), vol. 1, pp. 33, 418. Cal. of Letter Book D,
pp. 221-2. The original Charter is preserved among the
Archives of the Weavers' Company.]
Membr. 3 b 19 Jan. 1299-1300
Tuesday before the above Feast
John le Botonner (fn. 2) , junior, was summoned to answer John
Danesty in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained
that he was bound to the defendant in a bond of £50 of
common money ["sterling" obliterated] payable in portions
of 100s, the last term being the Feast of the Nativity last,
and that he duly offered to pay before that term the sum of
£10. The defendant pleaded that after the above Feast the
plaintiff agreed to pay him 100s sterling at Easter, and he,
the defendant, agreed to condone the rest until &c. The
plaintiff defended (i.e. denied) this agreement, according to
the custom of the City, and was ordered to make his law at
the Quinzime, on which day he appeared with his law. But
as the defendant produced a deed stating that the plaintiff
was bound to him in good and lawful sterling according to
a contract made prior to a proclamation, which enjoined that
all such payments should be made according to the terms
of the contract, and the Mayor and Aldermen wished to
consult as to whether the money now current could be used
in paying, a day was given a week hence to hear judgment.
And the £10 proffered by the plaintiff was handed to the
Chamberlain to keep. Afterwards a further day was given
till the Saturday before Sunday in Midlent.
William de Creye and Isabel his wife and Richard Hutgoh
were found guilty by a jury of having assaulted and torn the
hoods of William, prior of St Mary Suthwerk, Ralph his
Canon, and Walter le Potagier and William de Reygate, who
had gone to the tenement of the defendants in Westchepe in
order to distrain them for 72s rent in arrears.
Betin de Luca was attached to answer John, servant of
Simon de Paris, in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter
complained that the defendant sold him cindon (fn. 1) to the value
of £14 5s in November, for which he paid 45s, and at
Christmas he had offered to pay the rest, but the defendant
refused it. The latter pleaded that he ought not to receive
the money except in sterling of the King's money, by virtue
of the contract between them. The plaintiff replied that he
ought to receive the money in crocards according to the
King's Proclamation. Subsequently, on Wednesday after the
Purification, the defendant agreed to receive two pollards for
the penny sterling. On so doing, he went quit and the
plaintiff received no damages.
William Goldsmith was acquitted of a charge of exposing
putrid veal for sale. The jury added that a certain John
Carle was guilty of the offence, and an attachment was issued
against the latter.
Membr. 4 23 Jan. 1299-1300
Saturday after the Feast of SS. Fabian and Sebastian
[20 Jan.] before William de Leyre and William de
Beton, aldermen, deputies of the Mayor
Giles le Forner, servant of Roger de Derby, was attached
to answer the Mayor in a plea of trespass at the suit of
Richard, beadle of Walebrok, who complained that in accordance with an ordinance enjoining that watch should be kept
at Christmas (fn. 1) , the watchmen of Walebrok (custodes wayte de
Walebrok) were on Walebrok, when the defendant Giles,
together with Hugh le Forner and Walter le Fannere, came
without a light and with edged weapons, and refused to
surrender to the Peace and defended themselves, wounding
some of the Watch, and then, hiding in the shadows, made
their way to the Ryole, so that they could not be found, to
the damage of the Watch and in contempt of the City 100s.
The defendant pleaded that a certain William had been
supping at his master's house, and that by the latter's orders
he accompanied him homewards, when they met the Watch
on Walebrok, and that as soon as he understood that they
were watchmen, he was willing to surrender, but the Watch
wanted to kill him, so that if they suffered anything, it was
because he defended himself. A jury was summoned and an
attachment issued against the above Hugh and Walter. On
the Wednesday following, a jury from Walebrok, Douuegate
and Cordwanerestrette brought in a verdict of guilty, and
the defendants were committed to prison.
5 Feb. 1299-1300
Friday after the Feast of Purification [2 Feb.]
Geoffrey de Somerceste was attached to answer John Crane
in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that,
whereas it was ordained that two loaves or four might be
sold in a fixed place, the defendant carried a loaf of tourte
(fn. 2)
through the streets, which he would not sell for less than 3d,
to the damage of the plaintiff &c. The defendant admitted
the manner of sale. Judgment that he be committed to
Newegate.
11 Feb. 1299-1300
Thursday before the Feast of St Valentine [14 Feb.]
Martin de Dulingham, William de Horsham, John Dachet,
Luke de Ware, John le King, Boidinus de Grene, and William
Fatting were summoned before the Mayor and Aldermen to
inform them of certain persons who, after the Proclamation,
had refused money, and they declared on oath that they
knew no such persons.
Adam Brun, John de Sabrichesworth and Thomas Brun
swore that Adam Russel, Geoffrey Geffard, William Haber,
hostermongere (fn. 1) , Robert le Rede, Henry Pride, Simon Mamyware, Alice Hardeye, Gilbert Hunger, William son of Robert
le Taillour, William Curteys, Walter Sopere, Richard Love
and his servant had not observed the Proclamation.
13 Feb. 1299-1300
Saturday before the Feast of St "Walentine" [14 Feb.]
Ralph le Mason was attached to answer the Mayor for
contempt at the suit of Adam de Derlington on behalf of
the King and the Commonalty, who complained that in
accordance with an ordinance requiring two collectors to be
appointed for each Ward, he himself was chosen for Cordwanerstrete, and a certain John Partriche paid the defendant
(the other collector') 21s pollard, for which the defendant
had John's pledges, but the defendant refused to return the
pledges unless John paid double, and when the plaintiff
ordered him to return them on behalf of the King, the
defendant followed him into the street and threatened him,
and said "Jeo ay chie a vous & au Ray ausi." The defendant
denied that he was guilty and put himself on his country, and
on Adam Mulgas, Gerdo le Armerer, John Swyrel and John
Parti who were present (fn. 2) . And the plaintiff did likewise. A jury
together with the above were summoned against Wednesday.
John le Fundour, dwelling in St Lawrence Lane, was
attached to answer Nicholas, carter of Sir John Botetourte,
in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the
defendant took his cart and loaded dung into it against his
will. The defendant said he bargained with Nicholas to carry
a load of dung for a farthing. The plaintiff denied this, and
being ordered to make his law did so at once. The defendant
was committed to prison.
Membr. 4 b 23 Feb. 1299-1300
Tuesday the morrow of St Peter in Cathedra [22 Feb.]
Walter atte Belhous, William atte Belhous, Robert le Barber
dwelling at Ewelleshalle, John de Lewes, Gilbert le Gras,
John his son, Roger le Mortimer, William Ballard atte Hole,
Peter de Sheperton, John Brun and the wife of Thomas the
pelterer, Stephen de Haddeham, William de Goryngg,
Margery de Frydaiestrate, Mariot, who dwells in the house
of William de Harwe, and William de Hendone were attached
to answer for forestalling all kinds of grain and exposing it,
together with putrid grain, on the pavement, for sale by the
bushel, through their men and women servants; and for buying their own grain from their own servants in deception of
the people. The defendants denied that they were guilty and
put themselves on their country. A jury of Richard de
Hockeleye and others brought in a verdict of guilty, and
the defendants were committed to prison till the next
Parliament.
John le Chaundeler dwelling near the house of Peter de
Bolyngtone, William le Hay of Wodestrate, Richard atte
Rothe, William de Manhale, Stephen le Oynter, John de
Lyndeseye, Walter de Waldegrave dwelling at the Stockes,
Henry le Chaundeler, beadle of John Wade, John de Dunninghurst and other chandlers were attached to answer the King
and the Mayor for selling the pound of tallow candles dearer
after Christmas, in contempt of the King's Proclamation. The
defendants admitted that they sold the pound at 4d before,
and 5d after Christmas. They were committed to the Sheriff
to take good security for their appearance at the next Parliament.
Roger de Acton dwelling at Clerkenwell, William his
brother, dwelling without Altresgate, Geoffrey de Heston
and James de Bury of the same place, Ralph le Frensche
dwelling at Red Cross, Richard de Bernham dwelling without
Crepelgate, Thomas Chese dwelling at Cherringe, John
Fithele, Symon Fairman, dwelling without the Bar of Holleburne, and John Fairman, Henry Poer and William Eyrot of
the same place, and other curriers were attached to answer
the King and the Mayor for selling their leather dearer after
the Proclamation about Pollards and Crocards, with the result
that the cordwainers sold their shoes dearer. The defendants
said that they did not sell their leather dearer after the
Proclamation, but that the dearness was due to foreigners,
for none of them had any hides at Christmas, and all the hides
they worked afterwards had been bought from foreigners
at double the price; and they asked for an inquest by the
country. A jury was summoned against Thursday.
Membr. 5 17 Feb. 1299-1300
Wednesday after the Feast of St Valentine [14 Feb.]
John de Hadham, tanner, Geoffrey de Chelcheithe, John
de Hormed, Ralph de Chelcheithe, Simon atte Spalebrige,
Stephen de Hadham, Richard de Hadham, Richard le
Hosker (fn. 1) , Roger de Eddelmeton, William Balsham, Robert
de Sellingdon, Philip de Hundesdiche, Gervasius his brother,
John le Lunge, William, son of Geoffrey de Hundesdiche,
Robert le Prest, Walter de Daginhale, Baudewin le Tannour,
Richard le Bruys, Adam Baudri, Richard le Lung and John
Baudri, tanners, were attached to answer the Mayor and
Aldermen for selling more dearly after the Proclamation than
before, and for concealing their goods and removing them
from the City, and refusing payment in pollards. The
defendants put themselves on their country. Afterwards, a
jury of Nicholas le Brun and others brought in a verdict
that certain of the defendants were not guilty, and that the
rest sold more dearly for pollards than for sterling, but did
not remove their goods or refuse money.
John Tilli, Walter de Bedefunte, William called le King,
John Talifer, Hugh le Kisser (fn. 1) , John de Sancto Salvatore,
Adam de Hakeneye, Richard le Kisser, William Fleye,
Robert Tilli, John Elys, Geoffrey Canoun, Thomas Bruing,
Walter de Chabenham, Senn le Kisser and John de Bedefunte, kissers, were attached on a similar charge. A jury of
William de Red and others brought in a verdict that some
of the defendants were not guilty, and that the others had sold
dearer for the pollard than the sterling, but had not concealed
their goods or carried them out of the City to sell them dearer,
with the exception of Walter de Bedefunte who had hidden his
goods; and that John Tilli went out of the City and met carts
bringing hides to Religious Houses and elsewhere and bought
the hides against his oath as a freeman and sold them in the
City. Judgment that John and Walter be committed to prison,
and that the other guilty defendants be taken into custody to
appear before the King (coram Rege) at the next Parliament.
26 Feb. 1299-1300
On Friday after the Feast of St Peter in Cathedra [22 Feb.]
a jury of William de Red and others brought in a verdict
that Walter Chese, William son of Clement, and Henry Puer,
curriers, were not guilty of selling dearer after the Proclamation, but that Walter de Acton and William his brother
concealed their goods and would not expose them for sale
except in samples [nisi per particulas], and would not sell
them except for sterling; that John le Fraunceys would not
sell his goods at all; and that the other curriers sold dearer
for pollards than sterling. Judgment that the Sheriffs take
security from Walter de Acton and the rest to appear before
the King and his Council at the next Parliament.
Membr. 5 b
Eva la Callestere was attached to answer John Fuatard in
a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that, when he
went, by the Mayor's command, with Thomas Sely, Alderman, into the Ward of Nicholas de Farndon to seize false
grain measures, the defendant assaulted him and bit his finger,
in contempt of the King and to his damage 100s. The
defendant pleaded that the plaintiff entered her house against
her will, for she did not know that he was a bailiff, and wanted
to lie with her, and if he received any damage, it was owing
to his own assault, and she demanded an inquest thereon.
A jury of Geoffrey de Finchinfeud and others found her
guilty of the assault and taxed damages at 12d, and she was
committed to prison.
Martin de Dullingham, butcher, was attached to answer
Roger Heved in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that, when he went with Roger, Clerk of the King's
Wardrobe, to demand from the defendant a tally which he
had lent him, the defendant assaulted him. The latter pleaded
that the plaintiff assaulted him first. A jury of the venue of
the Stockes found him guilty and assessed damages at half a
mark, and the clerk's damages at 2s.
John de Wyncestre, cordwainer, William de Pelham,
Thomas de Derby, Robert de Frowyk, John de Laufer,
Stephen de Hollecote, John de Batricheseye, Henry Fitz
William, Geoffrey Bonmarche, Adam de Starteford, John de
Gildeford, Robert de Totenham, William atte Roche, Reginald
de Essex, Hankok le Cordewaner, William de Westminstre,
John de Wincestre junior, Philip de Luddelowe, Simon de
Kendale, John de Tissindon, John de Redinge, John Scot,
William de Sinngham, William Stanes, Hugh Stot, Andrew
de Lughteburgh, Simon de Norton, John de Soham, Henry
de Stanford, Walter de Norhamton, Robert de Webbele,
William de Redinge, Hugh de Esseburne, Roger de Bristow,
William de Norhamton, Thomas le Cofferer, William de
Treinlingham, John de Renham, William de Castle Barnard,
Peter de Sauescomb, Henry de Bury, Thomas Hasserwit,
John de Ware, Thomas de Norwich, John de Lincoln, John
de Chalham, Thomas de Luddelow, Alan de Reding, William
Wastell, Robert de Pampesworth, Robert de Norhamton,
Simon de Coundon, William de Sutton, John Wastell, Thomas
de Norwich, Richard Springefeld and Daniel de Chiltren,
were attached to answer the Mayor and Aldermen for selling
dearer after the Proclamation, concealing their goods, refusing money &c. A jury of John de Coffrerer and others
brought in a verdict of not guilty, and said that if prices were
higher in their trade (cordwainery) it was due to the tanners,
curriers and kissers.
Adam de Fulham, senior, John le Benere, William Jurdan,
Stephen Pykeman, Turgis Pykeman, William Pykeman,
Robert Pykeman, John de Mockingge, William Sorweles,
Salmon Borghard, Richard de Haddle, Robert de Folleham,
John de Folham, John de Stebenhethe, Robert Sterre, John
Bacheler, John Baldewene, Alan Aunore, Richard Pykeman,
Robert Yvri, Thomas de Collingham, William Haunsard,
William Rymond, William Greylaund, William Amys,
Richard Horn, John de Colesdon, William Cros, Henry Cros,
Stephen Lambin, Robert de Mockingge, Richard Swote,
Walter Ragen, Giles Jurdon, Edmund Lambyn, Robert le
Benere, Richard Aleyn, John Frochs, Geoffrey de Lyre, John
Allyn, Robert Baudry, Symon Lambyn, John Moldefrey,
Walter de Hakeneye, Richard Matefrey, John de Stratford,
Richard Lichitfot, Peter de Bolinton, Adam de Ely, Bartholomew de Romberwe, Richard de Bernes, William de Barton,
William Albyn, John de Tornham, Adam le Bakere, James
Flinchard, William Flinchard and William Gubbe were
attached to answer the Mayor and Aldermen for selling
dearer after the Proclamation &c. A jury of Walter le Fullere
and others brought in a verdict that the defendant Adam
and the other fishmongers were not guilty.
Membr. 6
Roger le Lenerd, John Gubbe, Walter Gubbe, John Scot (fn. 1) ,
Robert le Wolf, Robert Turck, John Elys, James le Reve,
John de Romeneye (fn. 1) , Adam Lutekyn (fn. 1) , Adam Ballard (fn. 1) ,
Richard le Barber, John de Ware, John de Brompton, Gilbert
le Fevere of Fridaystrate, John de Coventre (fn. 1) , John Makery,
Richard de Watherby (fn. 1) , Alan Wade of Quenehythe, John de
Crepelgate, near Quenhithe, Robert Brangwayn at Castle
Baynard, Geoffrey de Yarmouth (fn. 1) , Henry de Bellehous,
Laurence de Quenehithe, Richard Poterel (fn. 1) son of Richard
Poterel, Geoffrey Godale at Flete, Henry de Cherringge,
Thomas de Wrotham, Thomas de Leycestre, John de
Stratford, William Gubbe, Thomas le Maderman, Geoffrey
le Nayler of Sevethenelane, William le Brasour of Wolchurchehawe, John de Haveryngge (fn. 1) , Stephen le Naylere,
Adam Trug (fn. 1) , John Page and Robert Atteloke were acquitted
of a similar charge.
John Poyntel (fn. 2) , Roger Poyntel (fn. 2) , Peter de Helding, Stephen
Dorgod, Thomas, brother of Roger Pointel, Raude de Borham,
Robert de Bray, John Geryn, William Godale, William de
Horsham (fn. 3) , Gilbert de Bray, William Noger, John de Befald,
Walter de Borham (fn. 3) and Richard atte Gate were likewise
acquitted.
John Gilberd, John called le Longe, James de Bredstrate,
Henry le Vocy, Yvo Balle, Robert le Longe, and Laurence
le Saltmetere were attached to answer the Mayor and Aldermen for entering the boats of foreigners bringing salt, oysters
and mussels, and taking a wage of 2d a day with expenses
to sell the above goods at a higher price, to their own advantage, but to the damage of the City, since no foreigner
can sell his goods retail either by himself or by another.
A jury of Robert de Chalfhunte and others found the first
three defendants not guilty, and said that the rest entered
the boats of freemen, by their orders, and enabled foreigners
to obtain part of their goods, selling them at a higher price
than their employers would be able to charge if they were
present (intrant batellos liberorum hominum facientes forenses
habere partem de bonis illis vendentes bona predicta carius quam
domini facerent si presentes essent). Judgment that Gilberd
and the others go quit, and that Henry le Vocy &c. be mainprised to come up for judgment. Afterwards their offence
was pardoned on condition that they did not occupy themselves with that trade any more.
18 March 1299-1300
Friday the Feast of the Translation of St Edmund King (fn. 1)
before William de Leyre
John de Ware, "batour" (fn. 2) , Alan Sprot, William de Berhamstead, Adam Attecherch, Ralph le Batour, Nicholas
Sprot, John Baroun, Hugh le Batour, John Fraunk, William
Atteweld, William de Langele, John de London, William
Smart, Thomas Ailmer, Adam de Munden, William Sprot,
Robert de Hadham, Geoffrey Sewhat, William le Batour and
Walter le Delvere were attached to answer the Mayor and
Aldermen, for selling dearer after the Proclamation, refusing
pollards, selling more for four sterling than for seven pollards
doubled (quam pro septem pollardis dupplicatis), and further
with making a confederacy and appointing Geoffrey Suat (sic)
their bailiff and Walter le Delvere their beadle. The defendants admitted selling dearer, and pleaded that the pound
of metal which they bought at 2d before Christmas cost 4d
or 5d since, and they demanded a jury. The Court remitted
the jury because of the coming time (Easter) and allowed
them to choose four men from each mistery (ministerium) to
regulate prices according to the true value of the goods, viz.
from the craft of Girdlers (fn. 3) :-Adam Trug, Walter de Norwich,
John le Chamberleyn, and Ralph de Brawhing, and from the
craft of Batours:-John de Ware, Alan Sproth, John de
London, and Adam de Munden, who later came to an agreement that the pound of copper, which used to be sold for 8d,
should be sold for 7½d during the time that pollards were
current, and that what was sold for 7d should be sold for
6½d, and they were ordered to announce this to both crafts.
Membr. 6 b
Richard de Stevenath, Richard Otgo, Richard Fatting,
Simon Tripasy, Thomas Dosswell, Boidinus de Grene,
Henry Palet, Maurice "ad aquam," Nicholas Sniggel, Roger
le Wynour, Maykin de Kent, and other butchers, were
summoned for selling dearer after the Proclamation &c. The
jury was remitted because of the imminence of the Passion,
and the butchers were warned to behave well in their sales,
and to give such proper measure to their neighbours that it
should not be necessary to summon them again.
Ralph Sporon was summoned to answer Robert le Boteler
for detinue of a silver cup, with silver foot and covercle,
value 5 marks, entrusted to the defendant to be remade at
a cost of 40s. The latter admitted receiving the cup, and said
that he delivered it to a certain Thomas de Linch, a journeyman (vassel'), to work on it. Thomas de Lynch appeared
and said that the defendant agreed to give him two marks
sterling for the work, which he had not paid. The defendant
denied making this agreement with the journeyman and was
ordered to make his law on the Quinzime, but meanwhile
Ralph and Thomas agreed out of Court that the latter
should receive 40s pollard for the work, which were deposited with the Chamberlain, and that he should condone
to the defendant the making of his law. Both were amerced.
19 March 1299-1300
Saturday the morrow of the above Feast
Recognizance (gongnovit se teneri
(fn. 1) ) by Ralph de Honilane,
alderman, to John de Petresdon of a debt of 40s payable
on the morrow.
Katherine de Lincoln was summoned to answer William
de Mount Seins in a plea that she return to him an iron horsecuirass, and a pair of plates covered with cloth of gold and
samite (fn. 2) , which he pledged to her for 35s for cloth bought
from Peter de Armenters, one of her household. The defendant said that the pledges were delivered to her servant,
Peter de Armenters, and she demanded that he be summoned
to answer with her. On the Tuesday following, the above
Peter produced a deed to the effect that Sir William granted
to Katherine that she might sell the pledges after Easter,
paying to him any surplus over the 35s. The plaintiff admitted that this was the deed of a certain William de Monsens.
The defendant further said that the pledges were sold for
22s 1d only. Thereupon the plaintiff offered to accept this
statement if Peter would swear it with his single hand (fn. 1) . The
latter did so and was acquitted, and Sir William was in mercy.
Thomas le Chaundeler was summoned to answer the
Mayor and Aldermen in a plea that, whereas Matthew le
Caundeler and his fellows were chosen to keep the Assize of
Candles when Parliament was sitting, a certain Robert,
servant of Sir John de Droknesford, wanted to buy a pound
of candles for 3d, and the defendant refused the money;
thereupon Robert had complained to Matthew, and the latter,
in accordance with the ordinance made by the men of that
craft, had caused the candles to be delivered to the servant
for the above price, and afterwards the defendant had abused
Matthew and struck him as he was standing in his shop.
The defendant denied the offence, and a jury of Candelwykestrate was summoned for Tuesday, on which day the
parties made agreement on terms that the defendant pledge
five casks of wine, to be forfeited if he were convicted in the
future of any trespass against Matthew. He was mainprised
by Richard Fiz, ceynturer, and John le Chaundeler of
Ismongerelane to come up for judgment quo et quando &c.
for his trespass against the officers of the craft, and the Mayor
and Aldermen.
Richard Davy, baker, was attached to answer the Mayor
and Aldermen on a charge that, whereas on Friday the Feast
of the Translation of St Edward, he was dragged on the
hurdle because his bread was false, when he arrived home
and descended from the hurdle and entered his house, he
took a bone and threw it at the tabor-player and broke his
tabor through the middle. Peter de Berneval undertook to
produce him before the Mayor on the Tuesday, on which
day the defendant did not come. Peter was summoned to
hear judgment for failing to produce him, and order was
given to distrain the defendant.
28 March 1300
Monday after the Feast of the Annunciation B.M.
[25 March] A° 28 Edw. [1300]
John le Poer appeared before the Mayor, and with the third
hand (fn. 1) verified a foal (unum equum fanum) value 1 mark, as
his property. This animal, being in the seisin of Peter de
Annardestoun, knight, had been arrested as an attachment
in a plea of the Forest in Parliament. It was now delivered
to the above John.
29 March 1300
Tuesday after the above Feast
Sir Eustace Delehak claimed from John de Stanes two
silver gilt cups, which had been put in his hands as security
for a debt of 5 marks 10s 8d due to John de Dorking for a
doublet (pro una duploid') and gambeson. The latter acknowledged receipt of the money, but as the plaintiff did not
prosecute his plea, the defendant went quit. He was amerced
for previous defaults, and the plaintiff for non-appearance.
Membr. 7
John in the Lane was summoned to answer Brother John
de Shorisdich of the Order of Friars Preachers in a plea that
whereas the Friar bought from the defendant at Smethefeud
a bay horse for 60s, which the defendant asserted to be
healthy and sound in its limbs, nevertheless the said horse
when it came into the Friar's possession and before that
time was maimed in the shoulders (maynatus in chapulis).
The defendant said that he did not warrant the horse (ecum)
and he was prepared to prove &c. He was ordered to make
his law on the Wednesday, but appeared without it; whereupon the Friar claimed judgment as in an undefended action.
The defendant pleaded that he had not offered to make his
law, but the Friar had done so. On Thursday judgment was
given that the plaintiff recover the 60s with 40d expenses
of the horse, and that the defendant have his horse back and
be in mercy.
4 April 1300
Monday after the Octave of the above Feast
Ralph de Petypount was summoned to answer Thomas
de Canvyle in a plea that he detained 5s, which the plaintiff's
servant handed to him under the plaintiff's seal to carry to
a certain Peter of St Lawrence Lane. The defendant acknowledged receiving the money, but only as money owed to himself
for work done; but he offered to repay it, if the plaintiff would
swear with his single hand that the money was intended for
Peter. When the plaintiff offered to do so, the defendant
condoned the oath. Judgment for the plaintiff and that the
defendant be in mercy.
Membr. 7 b 20 April 1300
Wednesday after Quasimodo [17 April]
Richard de Wellaund having complained of error in the
record of a plea of debt by royal writ between himself and
Walter de Mouncy in the Court of John de Armenters,
Sheriff, the latter was ordered to produce the record and to
summon the above Walter. On Tuesday after the Feast of
St Mark the Evangelist [25 April] the plaintiff appeared, but
the Sheriff reported that Walter could not be found in his
bailiwick. John de Armenters produced the Record as
follows.
Court of John de Armenters, Sheriff of London, held for
foreigners on Tuesday before Easter [10 April] A° 28 Edw.
[1300]. Walter de Munsy, knight, was attached by writ to
answer Richard de Weylond, knight, in a plea of debt of
40 marks wherein the latter complained that he went with
the army to Scotland in the 26th year of King Edward (fn. 1) as a
follower of the defendant, and lost three horses value 80
marks, and that they made an account together about
Christmas 1298 at Pulham, co. Norfolk, when the defendant
entered into a bond to pay him 40 marks for the loss of the
horses, which bond he had subsequently acknowledged in
London before trustworthy persons, yet nevertheless he had
failed to pay the money. The defendant pleaded that the
bond was a foreign one, that the horses were not "merchandisable" (fn. 2) , that he and the plaintiff were both foreigners,
and that the latter had his remedy at Common Law, since
he, the defendant, had sufficient property in the kingdom for
the purpose of distraint and attachment; and he asked the
Court to consider whether they would take cognizance of the
action. The Court informed him that he might answer further
if it was of any advantage to him. The defendant then
inspected the deed, and after comparing the seals and
examining it, denied that it was his own, and demanded an
inquest by the venue of Pulham, where the deed was alleged
to have been drawn up. And the plaintiff Richard answered
nothing against this. Accordingly on the ground that the
contract was a foreign one, that the action was not "merchandisable," and that the Court could not call in a jury of
the venue, the plaintiff was advised to seek his remedy at
Common Law. Afterwards the plaintiff wanted the defendant
to swear that the writing was not his deed, and demanded
that it should be enrolled.
Membr. 8 20 April 1300
Wednesday after Quasimodo [17 April]
Thomas de Wandelesworth, Robert de Eltham, Walter de
Wymbeldon, William de Roudon, William le Fraunceys,
Adam le Pestour, John Fuatard, John de Bedeford and John
Grigori were attached to answer Reginald the Chaplain,
Stephen le Fannere (fn. 1) , Isabella his wife and Felicia their
daughter in a plea of trespass, wherein they complained that
on Sunday after Easter, when the plaintiff Reginald with his
clerk was in the plaintiff Stephen's house, the defendants
broke in the door, assaulted Reginald, and tried to get money
from him, and when they could not, handed him over to the
Beadle of Billingesgate Ward, and then returned and beat
the plaintiffs Isabella and Felicia. The defendants said they
were appointed to the Watch that night, and on a rumour
that Reginald was with Isabella as her paramour, they knocked
at the door, which was opened to them, and asked Reginald
what he was doing there at that time of night, but they did
nothing further; and thereon they put themselves on their
country. A jury of Billingesgate and the two neighbouring
Wards was summoned.
23 April 1300
Saturday next to (ad) the Feast of St Mark the Evangelist [25 April]
Robert le Treyere and Alan Wade were summoned to
answer the Mayor and Aldermen on a charge of avowing
the goods of Walter de Andewyle of Amiens and Ralph de
Dovre, to the damage of those of Amyens, Nele and Corbie
belonging to the Hanse, by concealing the King's customs.
The defendants denied the avowry; but Alan said that the
previous year he had sent 14 casks of woad overseas to the
North to the above Ralph that he might sell them on his
behalf, and that he owed £10, but that he had not avowed
Ralph's goods, and he demanded an inquest thereon. The
defendant Robert said that he had received from the above
Walter Andevyne of Amyas (sic) 120 quarters of wheat, of
which 60 remained to be sold, but said he received no other
goods from Walter, nor any goods at all except for sale in the
name of the said Walter; and he likewise demanded an
inquest thereon. He was forbidden to pay Walter anything
for the 60 quarters until the Court had come to an understanding (posuerunt rationem cum) with the men of Amiens (fn. 1) ;
and a jury was summoned for Monday. On that day, before
William de Leyre and Geoffrey de Norton, deputies of the
Mayor, a jury of John de Waus and others said that they
could not among themselves find out whether Alan was
guilty. He was acquitted. Adam de Ely was charged the
same day with avowing the goods of Mauncel, a burgess of
Amiens, and put himself on his country. On Friday a jury
of Robert Sutel and others brought in a verdict that the
above Robert le Treyere received and warehoused 120
quarters of wheat and sold it in his own name and kept the
money by him, and that the above Adam avowed the woad
of Maunsel of Amiens. Robert and Adam were committed
to prison.
26 April 1300
Tuesday after the above Feast
John de Kirketon, John Bolychromp called "Byndere,"
Richard de Kirketon and Robert de Staunford, brokers of
carts, were charged that they met foreign carters five leagues
outside the City, and warned them that if they went to the
City the carts would be seized by the King's officials, and
then, after hiring the carts for a mark or 16s, they afterwards
let them out to freemen and foreigners for two marks or 30s,
in contempt of the King and to the damage of the citizens
100s. Robert admitted the offence and the other three were
found guilty by a jury of William de Helweton and others.
They were committed to prison.
Thomas de Rederesgate, keeper of the Quay of St Botolph's
by Billingesgate, was found guilty by a jury of John de Wodeforde and others and committed to prison, for housing wood
belonging to foreigners of Greenwich and other places, and
avowing it and selling it retail.
11 May 1300
Wednesday after the Feast of St John before the Latin
Gate [6 May]
Robert le Breton, who was attached in the house of John
de Armenters, Sheriff, by a servant of Sir William de
Middilton, clerk of the Household of the King's son, was
found guilty by a jury of Henry le Pottere and others, of
taking carts with the goods and ale of their owners, and
making the latter pay him a fine for delivery, on the pretence
that he was a member of the Prince's Household.
Membr. 8 b
William Sciphupe was attached to answer Walter Heyne,
clerk to the King's son, for being possessed of a silver knife
belonging to the Prince. The defendant admitted receiving
the knife from John Gamel for 14s which the latter owed
him for carrying the King's wines at Fulham, and said that
he afterwards pledged it for 8s to William, servant of William
Wigerus. The said servant admitted the receipt and said that
he pledged it five years ago to a taverner of Sutwerk, who was
now dead, and that he could not get the knife. Judgment that
the plaintiff recover the knife or its value against William
Sciphupe, and that the latter pay the plaintiff 8s, and recover
the knife against the servant; and as the servant could neither
produce the knife or find security for producing it, he was
committed to prison until &c.
William de Insula was summoned to answer Reginald
Denmars that whereas no toll should be taken except by the
Sheriffs, nevertheless when the plaintiff came to the defendant's house to buy merchandise, the latter arrested the
merchandise bought, and demanded from him for each
dozen pennyworths a farthing more. The defendant was first
ordered to make his law on the Quinzime; but as he would
not allow the goods to be delivered by Thomas Juvenall,
the Mayor's Serjeant, a jury was summoned for Monday.
18 June 1300
Saturday the morrow of St Botulph [17 June]
John de la Roche, Alan de Cressi, Geoffrey de Cressi, and
John de Cressy of Pountif (fn. 1) , foreign weavers, were attached to
answer Silvester de Morton and others of the Guild of
Weavers, for exercising that craft against the Charter of
Henry III to the Weavers of London, in which it was laid
down that no weaver should remain in the City or in Suthwerk
to weave or make cloth unless he belonged to the Guild,
under penalty of £10 forfeiture to the King. The defendants
asked to hear the Charter read, and pleaded that they were
not versed (nec se cognoscunt in consuetudinibus) in the customs
of the City and the laws of the realm. As regards the penalty
nothing at present. They were told not to meddle in that
craft without the consent of the Weavers, to whom a charter
had been granted, under penalty &c.
20 June 1300
Henry de Farinham appeared to answer a complaint of
Ralph de Arras. He was forbidden by the Mayor to lease out
(ne aliquam shopam locet) any shop of any freeman of London.
Whereupon he said that he had a free tenement in a certain
shop at St Botolphs (fn. 1) which the plaintiff claimed to be his for
a term of years. The latter was directed to prosecute his claim
before the Wardens of the Fair of St Botolph's in London,
who would report their finding to the Mayor and Aldermen.
Ralph le Mortemer was attached to answer John Tilli in
a plea of debt of 16s 8d, borrowed by him at Baldhok
A° 25 Edw. [1296-7], and repayable on his next arrival in
London. The defendant denied the loan, and was ordered
to make his law on the spot as a foreigner, which he did with
the seventh hand (fn. 2) . He was acquitted and the plaintiff was
in mercy for a false claim.
An inquest was taken before Elias Russel, Mayor, on
23 June, 1300, by the oath of William Peter, Robert Joye
and others from the Wards of Porthesocne and Alegate, who
presented that Ralph the Chaplain, dwelling in the rent of
Gilbert de la Marche, was a receiver of thieves and prostitutes
by night, that Walter le Coupper was a night-walker who
made disturbances in various inns in the Ward, and that a
certain chaplain in Belleryteryslane in the rent of Matthew
le Caundeler did the same, to the terror of the neighbourhood. Order was given to arrest them.
Membr. 9 30 May 1300
Plea of Reymund de Margoys held before Elyas Russel,
Mayor, John de Armenters and Henry de Fingrie, Sheriffs (fn. 3) ,
on Monday in the Feast of Pentecost [29 May] A° 28 Edw.
in obedience to a Writ of 10 March, in which the Mayor
and Sheriffs were bidden to give Reimund de Margoys,
merchant of Bordeaux, execution of a Recognizance made
before Henry le Galeys, Mayor, and John de Baukwell,
whereby William le Splenere was bound to the above
Reymund in a debt of £12.
Precept was issued to enquire what lands and tenements
the above William had at the date of the Recognizance.
A jury of twelve men of the City returned that he had in
fee on Nov 23, 1286, a messuage and five shops, now in the
tenure of Adam de Hallingbury, of 100s annual value, of
which he paid 20s yearly to the New Temple, 20s to the
Hospital of St John, 10s to the Bishop of Ely and 10s for
repairs, thus leaving a net annual value of 40s. Thereupon
the plaintiff demanded execution. As it was found that the
above Adam now held the tenements in fee, he was summoned to appear before the Mayor the next day to show
cause why execution should not be made. He appeared and
resisted it, on the ground that the above-mentioned William
le Splenere held the tenements from the Master of the
Knights of the Temple and the Prior of St John of Jerusalem
by the above services, as from the chief lords of the fee, and
on default of those services the Master and Prior had sued
out a Writ of Customs and Services and demanded the tenements as "Gavelet" (fn. 1) , as they could not be distrained upon,
and had finally recovered them as a "Schertford"; wherefore
Adam claimed that by the custom of the City, the tenements
could not be burdened any further for rent or any other
service belonging to the time when the above William had
them in demise from the chief lords. The Mayor and Sheriffs
gave a day in order to consult the Rolls of Common Pleas,
when it was found that the Master and Prior had sued out
a Writ of Customs and Services against Beatrice, widow of
William le Splenere, and had recovered the tenements against
her as a Gavelet on the death of her husband. Accordingly
a jury of the four neighbouring Wards was ordered to give
a verdict as to whether the tenements ought to be burdened
further by reason of any debt of the said William, under
whose authority (sub cuius virga) she had entered into possession; and also whether the tenement was still in the hands
of the said Beatrice, or of the Master and Prior, or of the
present tenant through the Master and Prior who recovered
it, whereby the tenement would be exonerated of all debts;
and a day was given to the Wednesday following. On that
day Adam de Hallingbery appeared and the plaintiff Reimund
made default. Judgment was given that the former go quit
and that the latter be in mercy.
Membr. 10 2 July 1300
Saturday after the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul
[29 June] A° 28 Edw. [1300]
William May, clerk, was ordered to bring into Court on
Monday, Jaketta (fn. 1) , a minor and daughter of his sister, and to
appear himself to answer the Mayor and Aldermen in charges
against him. Walter de Dyry and Alice his wife were also
warned to produce the will of Michael de Provincia (fn. 2) .
A day was given to Richer de Refham and Gibert le
Abrokur to make an account of the King's moneys, received
by the said Wybert (sic), and not paid to Richer during the
time when the latter was Sheriff.
5 July 1300
Tuesday after the above Feast
John le Benere was summoned to answer John le Fraunceys
in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that the
defendant bought fur from him to the value of £8 16s, and
undertook to pay him that amount, and acquit him of a
Recognizance, neither of which he had done. The defendant
pleaded that he bought fur to the value of £5 8s. At this
point came John de Armenters and demanded his Court,
which was granted to him, and the parties were told to go
into the Sheriff's Court.
Wibert de Abbevile (see above, "Gibert le Abrokur")
entered into a Recognizance of 8s 10d to Richer de Refham,
payable at the Quinzime.
William May was summoned to answer Walter Diri and
Alice his wife concerning Jakemina, daughter of Michael de
Pountif, then in the defendant's wardship. The plaintiffs
alleged that, though the wardship of minors ought not to be
in the hands of a kinsman to whom her inheritance could
descend (fn. 1) , the defendant was the heir of Jakemina; and accordingly they demanded that the wardship be transferred
to themselves, in accordance with the will of the above
Michael which they produced in Court. The defendant
answered that Jakemina was in the wardship of her aunt,
the Prioress of Kelingburne, and that the plaintiff Alice
ought not to have the wardship, because the girl's inheritance was derived from her mother, and that her father
left her nothing, and could not devise her wardship, since
her inheritance lay within the Liberty of the City. As it
was found that the above Michael by his will left the girl
nothing, judgment was given that the wardship remain with
the Prioress.
John de Ely was summoned to answer Michael de Wonburn
in a plea of debt of £9 due on a Recognizance to Henry de
Winchester, knight, of whose will the plaintiff was executor.
The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was not an executor.
Thereupon the latter produced the will, with a clause to the
effect that the testator committed to his executors the distribution of the residue of his goods for the good of his soul,
in accordance with the instructions of the Lady Idonea his wife
and Brother Simon his son. On the back of the will was an
endorsement showing that it was proved before the Official of
London in 1299 as the nuncupative or last will of the deceased, but whereas the testator appointed Edmund Paske and
Hugh Petipas his executors, the Official had appointed Lady
Idonea in place of Edmund, who refused administration, and
Michael de Wonburn in place of Hugh, who was suspected of
"notorious delapidation." The defendant pleaded that he
need not answer the plaintiff as executor, and that it was not
a true will, since the seal of the Diocese was not appended nor
that of the testator, and that the plaintiff was not an executor,
except as a deputy, and then only under the supervision of
Brother Simon, who was not present, and the plaintiff had
produced no authorisation from him for recovering the debt.
After adjournments that the Mayor might take advice, the
parties appeared, and the defendant now pleaded that the
plaintiff could not have a better ground of action than the
testator, if he were alive, and that during the Shrievalty of
Thomas Romayn and William de Leyre (1290-1), he (the
defendant) had been imprisoned in Newgate at the suit of
the testator on the above Recognizance, and had been delivered from prison by him, a compromise having been made
by an indenture which he produced in Court. This indenture
was a covenant (French) to the effect that if the defendant
did not pay Sir Henry de Winchester £9 by Christmas 1291,
for which he had pledged his houses and appurtenances, then
the houses should belong to the said Sir Henry, who should
be recouped for his expenses, and the Recognizance should
stand; but if the money were paid, the houses should return
to the defendant and he should receive an acquittance. The
defendant now pleaded that he had already been imprisoned
on the Recognizance and delivered by the testator, and he demanded judgment whether he could be imprisoned again on
the same Recognizance or be molested for the said debt. The
plaintiff answered that he still had the Recognizance, which
had neither been disallowed nor cancelled, that he had the
same ground of action as the testator, and that the defendant
had produced no acquittance; on which grounds he claimed
judgment. As the Mayor wished advice as to the force of
the Recognizance, and the defendant had not his counsel
ready, a day was given till Monday the morrow of All Souls (fn. 1) .
Membr. 10 b 11 July 1300
Monday after the Translation of St Thomas the Martyr
[7 July]
Walter de Frogwell, beadle of the Ward of Cordwanerstret,
plaintiff in a plea of trespass, and William son of Richard de
Mountpelers, Michael Pickard, John Silly and his servant
Michael, defendants, came to an agreement by permission of
the Court on terms that the defendants buy the plaintiff a
gown, value half-a-mark, and the plaintiff be in mercy. The
amercement was condoned because he was a "bailiff."
Walter the bailiff of Queenhithe was summoned to answer
Salemann Michel, Robert the baker, and Salemann Fyges,
boatmen of Serre (fn. 2) , in a plea that, contrary to immemorial
custom, he took from them a basin of salt as custom, to the
prejudice of their liberties; and further on Thursday last,
when they wanted to leave the Quay, having sold their goods,
he arrested their boats. The defendant justified the arrest
as having been made at the suit of Roger le Palmere and
Roger de la Vyne; and as regards the salt, he claimed that
he and his predecessors, acting on behalf of the Sheriffs, had
always been seised of a basin of salt, and he demanded that
inquest be made by the country. The plaintiffs answered
that a basin of salt was due for wharfage only, and not for
custom, and they never paid any custom on salt except 2d
the sieve (siva). They claimed also that they could go by
water to Westminster and beyond, on this side of the
Bridge, to sell their wares without leave of any one; and
they demanded an inquest thereon. The defendant pleaded
that they could not sell their wares this side of the Bridge,
except only in the Port of Queenhithe. The jury was respited
till the coming of the Mayor, and the basin was delivered
to the bailiff under mainprise of John de Brenkele and Robert
de Gloucester.
Membr. 11 21 July 1300
Thursday after the Feast of St Margaret [20 July]
The Prior of Holy Trinity was summoned to answer the
Mayor and Aldermen in a plea that, whereas it had been
found by a jury of the Ward of Bradestrete and the three
neighbouring Wards (fn. 1) that from time immemorial the Priors
had been charged with the duty of building, covering and
repairing a bridge by the Wall, where the Walebrok enters
into Bradestret Ward, by virtue of holding the advowson of
All Hallows on the Wall and certain rents near this bridge,
and that likewise the Prior had a right of way for carts
bringing wood and other necessaries from his manors-
nevertheless the said bridge was so ruinous that no one on
horse or foot could cross it without danger, owing to the
default of the Prior in repairing it. The Prior appeared and
pleaded that he was not bound to repair the bridge, and
produced a Charter of King Henry (fn. 2) , great-grandfather of
the present King, granting that the Priors should be quit of
such repairs, and he said further that he had no tenements
or rents near the bridge, except the Church of All Hallows,
which he held to his own uses, and the advowson of it, which
he and his predecessors held before and since the granting
of the above charter. Ralph Pecok, appearing for the Commonalty of the City, alleged that the Prior and his predecessors
had always repaired the bridge when necessary since the
granting of the charter, and accordingly he claimed that the
Prior should not be quit of the duty by his charter. The
latter said that this answer should not be allowed to nullify
his charter, because in the Statute de Waranto it was enacted
that when any one claimed a liberty by charter, he should
be judged by the tenor of the charter, and accordingly he
demanded judgment. He said further that in the Statute of
Westminster it was enacted that no one should be distrained
for repairing bridges save those anciently accustomed to do
it, and since his charter showed an ancient acquittance from
so doing, he claimed judgment as to whether he ought to be
distrained. To this Ralph Pecok answered that the Statute
de quo Waranto only applied to liberties issuing from lords,
and not to liberties of this kind, i.e. concerning the making of
bridges, parks, and ponds, and he likewise demanded judgment.
23 July 1300
Saturday the morrow of St Mary Magdalene [22 July]
Alice la Blund offered herself against Walter de Flete.
The Court of the Dean and Chapter of St Paul's was allowed
to Richard Gladewyn, "sokenreve," and the parties were
given a day to appear in that Court.
Membr. 11 b 27 July 1300
Wednesday after the Feast of St James the Apostle
[25 July]
Peter the Surgeon acknowledged himself bound to Ralph
de Mortimer, by Richard atte Hill his attorney, in the sum of
20s, payable at certain terms, the said Ralph undertaking
to give Peter a letter of acquittance. This Recognizance arose
out of a covenant between them with regard to the effecting
of a cure. Both were amerced for coming to an agreement
out of Court. A precept was issued to summon all the
surgeons of the City for Friday, that an enquiry might be
made as to whether the above Peter was fitted (abilis) to
enjoy the profession of a surgeon.
29 July 1300
Friday after the above Feast before William de Leyre,
the Mayor's deputy
Thomas Beauflur proved by the evidence of John de
Buttertone and Jordon, a mariner, that at Calays on the
3rd Feb. John de Cesterton threatened to do him personal
hurt and to burn his houses. The latter was attached, and
mainprised by William Canoun, John de la Barre, John
Harwe, clerk, Walter de Wenlok, Thomas de Salop, and
Richard le Barber of Douegate.
Thomas de Frowyk, Roger de Frowyk and William Beynin
were summoned to answer Agnes, widow of Reginald Frowyk,
in a plea that they produce her late husband's will (fn. 1) which, she
alleged, they had kept in their possession unproved. The
defendants Roger and William pleaded that after the will had
been proved before the Official of the Archdeacon of London,
it was left in the possession of the defendant Thomas. The
latter said that he entrusted it to the mother of the deceased,
Isabella Frowyk, of whom he and Walter de Finchingfeud,
alderman, were executors. Subsequently he produced the
will, which was returned to him, to be brought into Court
quo et quando.
John de Douwegate was mainprised to restore to the above
Agnes five deeds needed by her in connection with her
property outside the City of London, held by her in the name
of her son Henry, because the lord of the fee was distraining
her for services not due from that land.
Membr. 12 30 July 1300
Saturday after the Feast of St James the Apostle
[25 July] before William de Leyre and Walter de
Finchingfeud, deputies of the Mayor
Stephen de Colegate was summoned to answer Henry le
Galeys in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained
that he entrusted the defendant with lead for covering his
Chapel, and the defendant substituted inferior lead, at halfa-mark the wey (pondus), and covered the Chapel with it.
A jury from the venue of Candelwykstrate and of men of the
defendant's craft was summoned. A jury of Vintry was also
summoned to deal with a charge against Ralph Hardel of
carrying away lead, value 20s, from the plaintiff's house in
the parish of St Martin Vintry.
9 Aug. 1300
Richard le Keu, fishmonger, was summoned to answer
Henry his apprentice for breach of covenant, in driving the
plaintiff out of his house and service, though the latter had
served him faithfully. The defendant pleaded that the
plaintiff had left his service of his own free will, by going to
a certain woman night and day with his master's possessions,
for which he had rendered no account. A jury from this side
of the Stocks was summoned for Wednesday.
16 Aug. 1300
Tuesday the morrow of the Assumption B.M. [15 Aug.]
Adam de Hidecroun and Richard le Gayoler of Newgate
were attached to answer Geoffrey de la March in a plea of
trespass, wherein he complained that after he had brought
water in a "tyne" (fn. 1) from Ludegate for the use of his master
Richard de Gloucestre, the defendant Adam took the water
and filled his own pot with it, and when the plaintiff cursed
(blasfemavit) about it, the defendant took the plaintiff's stick,
and hit him on the head with it and upset the tyne. The
defendants denied the assault. A jury of Ludegate was
summoned, and the above Adam was mainprised for hearing
the verdict by John Huberd, "flecher" (fn. 2) , and John le Brun.
Subsequently the parties came to an agreement on terms that
the defendants pay the plaintiff 2s and put themselves in
mercy. Richard's amercement was condoned by W. de Leyre.
John atte Selde (de Senda), William Kinesman, Thomas
Wastel and John de Talworth were found not guilty of going
out of the City to forestall wood and charcoal, by a jury of
Vintry, Queenhithe and Castle Baynhard. Richard le Keu,
Richard Baudechun, William Baudechun, William de Chalfhunt, Robert Orpedeman, James le Swayn, Robert le Clovier,
Thomas le Norreys and Thomas le Rutur, being found guilty,
were adjudged to lose their freedom, and to pay toll to the
Sheriff in future as foreigners.
Membr. 12 b 17 Aug. 1300
Wednesday after the above Feast before W. de Leyre
Bernard Johan was attached to answer John de Cornibia
in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he
owed the defendant £80 on a bond payable at certain terms,
on security of his goods which might be distrained and retained by the Steward and Marshall, the Barons of the Exchequer, the Justices of the Bench, the Mayor and Sheriffs
&c., and that he had repaid £13 11s, when the defendant,
four days before the Feast of St Mary Magdalene, without
informing the Mayor and bailiffs that payment was in
arrears, and although the plaintiff was a freeman of the City
and had enough property in London whereby he might have
been forced to come to Court, followed him on his journey
to the Fair of Thoraud, and at Caleys had him arrested and
imprisoned by the bailiffs of that town for five days, until
William de Brouthton of London paid him £16 18s on the
plaintiff's behalf. On the Friday following the parties came
to an agreement by permission of the Court on terms that
the plaintiff withdraw his action, and the defendant enter
into a Recognizance to pay him or John de Brouthton the
sum of £11 on the Feast of St Bartholomew next (24 Aug.)
under mainprise of John de Dowegate. The plaintiff put
himself in mercy, which was condoned by William de Leyre.
27 Aug. 1300
Saturday after the Feast of St Bartholomew [24 Aug.]
Robert Derman was summoned to answer Ralph Ratspray
on a charge of avowing and "covering" the merchandise of
a certain Andrew de Berkyng. A jury of Bisopesgate, Stockes,
Eschep, and St Nicholas Shambles was summoned for
Wednesday.
John of the Seld was summoned to answer John de
Armenters, Sheriff, for avowing two casks of wine which he
bought from Peter de Pyne, a foreigner, for the use of
Julian de Cardoyl, a foreigner. The defendant pleaded that
the wine was bought for his own use, and that Julian had no
interest in it on the day of the arrest. A jury of Vintry consisting of Thomas Drinkwater and others brought in a verdict
that John knew that Julian would buy his wine before he purchased it himself. Judgment that he be deprived of the freedom.
Membr. 13 3 Sept. 1300
Record of Proceedings in the Sheriff's Court, 3 Sept. to
1 Oct. 1300, in an action of covenant between John Fraunceys,
"peleter," plaintiff, and John le Benere, defendant.
Membr. 14 3 Sept. 1300
Saturday before the Feast of the Nativity B.M. [8 Sept.]
before W. de Leyre and Walter de Finchingfeud, the
Mayor's deputies
Simon de Paris was summoned to answer William Belebuch,
"cossur" (fn. 1) , in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that the defendant bought from him at Smethefeud
a bay horse, in exchange for another horse and four marks, to
be paid if both were satisfied with the horses; and that the
defendant rode the plaintiff's horse outside the Bar at Smethfeud and returned with it immediately, so that the plaintiff
could not examine the defendant's horse (fn. 2) , and thus the defendant unjustly detained the plaintiff's horse, to his damage
&c. The defendant pleaded that the bargain was without
condition. Thereupon the plaintiff offered to acquit him of
his plea if he would swear that the bargain was unconditional.
On the defendant's agreeing to do so, the plaintiff asked leave
of the Court to come to terms, which was granted. An agreement was then made that the plaintiff should have his horse
back again if he paid six marks to the defendant before
Monday night. The plaintiff put himself in mercy, which
was condoned by William de Leyre.
13 Sept. 1300
Tuesday before the Exaltation of the Holy Cross [14 Sept.]
William de Donecastre appointed Thomas Juvenal his
attorney to sue, attach and distrain, at the suit of the Sheriff,
the merchants of Brabant, in order to recover 22 marks and
35 sacks of wool, value 420 marks, which John, Duke of
Brabant, had lately caused to be taken from the said William
at Andewerpe by arrest.
17 Sept. 1300
Saturday after the above Feast
Eustachius le Mercer was attached to answer that, whereas
it had been ordained by the King and his Council that all
bundles of goods coming from overseas should remain unopened until they were examined by the Sheriffs or other
good and lawful men elected and sworn to that office, nevertheless the defendant went to the house of Brachius Gerard
in his absence and, saying that he was a bailiff, had a bale of
goods opened. The defendant admitted that he went with
John, servant of Roger de Parys, to the above house, but said
that he had nothing to do with the opening of any bale, and
he demanded an inquest thereon. A jury from Langeburn
Ward, consisting of John de Shaftesbiry and others, gave a
verdict that the defendant went to the house in the presence
of Gydotty Gy, partner of Brachius, and found a bale bound
up, and asked if it contained goods for sale and if it could
be opened, and the said Guy (sic) assented. Thereupon the
defendant and another person opened the bale, and finding
nothing that they wanted, went away, and the said Guy
offered them money for the custom, and asked if they were
Customs Officers, to which they answered no, they were only
merchants. The jury could not find that false money or
anything else contrary to the Proclamation was in the bale,
nor that Eustace came there as a bailiff, but only as a broker.
Judgment was given that he go quit, and that Guy find
security to come before the Mayor and Aldermen on Thursday;
viz. Brachius Gerard and Ralph de Alegate. The Sheriff was
ordered to bring the Officers of the Scrutiny (custodes dicti
scrutinii) the same day.
Richard Tripaty and Laurence de Shirebourne were attached to answer a charge of having used insulting language
to Roger de Lenne, servant of John atte Gate, before dusk
in Thames Street in the parish of Allhallows the Great in
the Hay, and that afterwards they entered the house of
William Marisone, and asked William's wife to open the
door of a room, in which they wished to indulge in bucklerplay (fn. 1) [ad bucularium ludere], and when she refused, they drew
their swords and attacked her, and when, owing to the tumult,
Richard le Barber, beadle of the Ward, came with his rod
to keep the peace, they assaulted and beat him also. The
defendants denied that they did any harm to the woman or
the beadle, and the defendant Richard said that they found
the beadle and the servant Richard fighting, and that the
latter struck the beadle on the breast, but that neither he
nor the other defendant did anything. A jury of Douegate
was summoned, and Laurence was mainprised by Richard
the Tailor of Langeburne Ward and Henry le Sauser, and
Richard Tripaty by . . . . Thorp, John le Botoner, junior, and
John Cendal, mercer.
William le Bracur and Thomas le Keu were summoned to
answer the Mayor and Aldermen, on the complaint of persons
living in Thames Street belonging to the craft of woodmongers
(buscariorum), for buying and selling their goods at markets
and fairs and in the City, though they were not freemen.
The defendants denied that they were foreigners and called
to warrant the Paper of the Chamber of Guildhall. The
Chamberlain was ordered to search the Paper and report on
Thursday.
Membr. 14 b 27 Sept. 1300
Tuesday before the Feast of St Michael [29 Sept.]
Stephen de Flete, Gerard de Hopstathe, Peter de Aske,
John Teste, Gilbert Flemingg, John Fernus and Thomas de
Dichefeld were summoned to answer Peter de Blakeneye,
John de Dorking, John Beauflur and John Bussard in a
complaint that John, Duke of Brabant, had taken part of the
plaintiff's goods when they were exposed for sale in the
Duchy of Brabant, for which reason the Sheriff had been
ordered to attach the goods of all Brabantine merchants until
the Duke made restitution, and that the defendants were
under the dominion of the Duke. The defendants denied
this, and said that they belonged to the City of Malynges and
held of the Bishop of Leges, and that the Bishop held of the
Church of St Lambert and had nothing to do with the Count
of Brabant; and they demanded an inquest by foreign merchants who knew the said country. On Wednesday a jury
of Theotard le Estreys, John de Eldchirk, Eylbrich, Henry
Colle of Collon, Godelin de Colon, Tykimann the goldsmith,
James Fisshe, Albridus de Dynaunt, Lambert Maulechyn,
Peter de St Vincent, John Saunterre, Baldewyn Chapun and
Guy de Goly found a verdict for the defendants. Order was
given to return their distraints, and the plaintiffs were told
to sue distraints on men belonging to the Duke's dominions.
Thomas de Donecastre, Canon of the Church of Bedlehem,
was attached to answer a charge of having sued a certain
Richard de Keles, apprentice of William de York, for assault
before the Official of the Archdeacon of London, against the
King's prohibition of the citing of laymen in the Ecclesiastical
Courts in matters belonging to the Crown. The defendant
admitted having sued Richard as alleged, but only as allowed
by ecclesiastical law. The plaintiff Richard pleaded that the
defendant was suing him maliciously in order to extort money,
and as the defendant had tacitly agreed that he acted against
the King's prohibition, since he had neither denied it or
confessed it, he demanded judgment as in an undefended
action. As the Mayor wanted further information, a day was
given that an inquest might be made by a jury of the venue.
The same day Robert, called "de Tylemount," produced
Letters Patent (French) of Sir Arnald, Count de Los, to the
effect that the above Robins (sic) was one of his servants and
merchants, and that the horses in the possession of Robert
and his servants belonged to and were under the protection
of the said Arnald, who prayed that no harm be done to the
said Robert. Dated A.D. 1291. As it appeared by this letter
and the evidence of Peter de Edelmeton and other credible
persons that the above Robert did not belong to the dominions
of the Duke of Brabant, the attachment made upon him was
returned to him.
William de Storteford was summoned to answer Geoffrey
le Hurer, who complained that on Tuesday before Lent 1298
he went by the defendant's orders with Sir Geoffrey de Norton
and William de Londonstone to the Earl of Cornwall, who
was then staying at Asherugge, in order to prevail upon the
latter to deliver an arrest which he had made at Henley on
some citizens of London, in reprisal for a trespass done by
the Sheriffs against his own men. The Earl had consented,
and the plaintiff waited four days after the others had departed for the Earl's letter of delivery, and then coming home
in great haste broke the shin of his horse, and accordingly he
demanded from the defendant either the value of the horse,
or a new one, which the defendant refused. The defendant
pleaded that he could only be liable for the horse in three
cases viz. if the plaintiff had gone to military service and remained from the beginning till the end of the war; or went
by night under his orders at excessive speed; or went by
day under his orders and was attacked by robbers and his
horse was stolen; and he demanded judgment as to whether
he was liable under any of these cases. A day was given till
Monday after the Feast of St Michael.
Roll D. membr. 1 3 Oct. 1300
On which day the parties came, and the plaintiff demanded
judgment on the ground that the defendant tacitly admitted
that he was the defendant's servent and went by his command.
The defendant pleaded that he was at liberty to affirm or
deny it, since it was not part of the plaintiff's case. The
plaintiff then said that if the defendant denied it he was
prepared to make it the issue. Whereupon the defendant
denied that the plaintiff went in his service, and said he
went in the service of good men of the City whose goods
were attached at Henley; and thereon the parties put themselves on their country. A jury was summoned for Thursday,
on which day the parties came to an agreement by permission
of the Court, on terms that the defendant pay two marks
and put himself in mercy. On the morrow the plaintiff
appeared before Nicholas Picot, John de Donestaple, and
Simon de Parys and acknowledged satisfaction.
Membr. 15 20 Dec. 1299
Court of the Soke of the Prior of St Bartholomew,
London, held in Honilane on Sunday before the Nativity
of the Lord [25 Dec.] A° 28 Edw. [1299]
Adam Braz essoins concerning detinue of chattels against
Geoffrey Trotter and William de Tolyndon by Stephen de
Wethresfeud.
17 Jan. 1299-1300
Sunday after the Feast of St Hilary [13 Jan.] adjourned
till the next Sunday
24 Jan. 1299-1300
Sunday after (? before) the Conversion of St Paul
[25 Jan.]
Geoffrey de Trotter and William de Tolyndon offered
themselves against Adam Brace in a plea of detinue of chattels,
wherein they complained that they took four quarters of
barley, value 29s 4d, to Adam's house, in mistake for the
house of a certain Ramessey, and that Adam detained them.
The latter defended, and demanded judgment as to whether
he was bound to answer them, since they produced no cause
of action, or any tally, by which they could bind him to
answer them. The plaintiffs demanded judgment as in an
undefended action, because they had said in their count that
the grain arrived at his house and was received by him and
his household, and he had not denied it. A day given till
the Octave.
31 Jan. 1299-1300
Sunday before the Feast of the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.]
Geoffrey le Trotter and William de Tolyndon offered themselves against Adam Brace in a plea of detinue of chattels,
and again demanded judgment as in an undefended action.
And because the Court held that they had alleged a sufficient
ground of action, i.e. ignorance, judgment was given that the
defendant answer further. Afterwards the defendant admitted that he had received three quarters, for which he
acknowledged that he owed the plaintiffs at the rate of half
a mark the quarter, but he pleaded that he did not receive
the fourth quarter; and thereon he put himself on his country.
The plaintiffs demanded judgment, because the defendant
proffered another answer than what the Court could receive,
and they pleaded further that the defendant did not owe the
value alleged, but 7s 4d, the price at which the quarter was
then being sold. A day was given till the Octave.
7 Feb. 1299-1300
Sunday after the above Feast
Adam Braz essoins by Stephen de Wethresfeld. A day
given till the Octave by the Canon of the said House, by
consent of the parties.
14 Feb. 1299-1300
Sunday the Feast of St Valentine
On that day the parties appeared and the Court could not
make a jury. Accordingly a day was given till the first Court
of Henry de Fingrie, to hear and determine the plea.
Membr. 15 b 17 Feb. 1299-1300
Court of Henry de Fingrie, Sheriff of London, Wednesday after the above Feast
Adam Braz essoined by Stephen de Wethresfeud. And
note that the Prior of St Bartholomew sent his record, and
warranted the essoin till the Octave.
2 March 1299-1300
Wednesday after the Feast of St Mathias the Apostle
[24 Feb.]
Geoffrey le Trottere and William de Tolindone offered
themselves against Adam Braz in a plea of detinue of four
quarters of barley, value 29s 4d, as appears in the Record
of the pleas of the Court of the Prior of St Bartholomew sent
to this Court. The defendant pleaded that he need not
answer concerning four quarters, as he only received three,
and these of the value of 20s, at half-a-mark the quarter, for
which he was willing to give satisfaction. The plaintiffs
declared that they carried four quarters, at 7s 4d the quarter,
to Adam's house, and this they offered to prove as the Court
should direct: The defendant agreed that the plaintiffs should
swear, touching the holy Gospels, and if they did so, he
would give satisfaction for the four quarters. The plaintiffs
then took the oath, and judgment was given that they recover
the barley, or its value, and that the defendant be in mercy.
Roll D. membr. 2 14 Oct. 1300
Court of Elyas Russel, Mayor of London, Friday the
morrow of St Edward King (fn. 1)
Adam Braz complained of error of judgment in a plea
which was in the Court of Henry de Fingrie without writ
&c. on account of which the Sheriff was ordered to bring his
record on Wednesday last. The Sheriff produced the record,
in which no error was found. Precept was issued to execute
the judgment, and the above Adam was in mercy.