Roll D
Membr. 1 1 Oct. 1300
Court of Elyas Russel, Mayor, Saturday after the
Feast of St Michael [29 Sept.] A° 28 Edw. [1300]
Martin le Tauier (fn. 1) , Heyne de Holecote, John de Gaiateshal,
Roger Taup, John Scot, Alexander le Tauier, Roger le
Fraunceys, Roger Martre, Adam Cornys and John Alger were
attached to answer the King and the men of the Craft of
Skinners (officii Peletrie), for ordaining a new ordinance
touching their craft, viz. that whereas of old they took 5s
for the thousand of "Grysover" (fn. 2) , they now took 6s, and
2s and 3s more than formerly for every thousand of work
(operis), to the prejudice and damage of the King, the nobles,
and their craft. The defendants pleaded that nowadays more
good work was needed for the thousand, and double as much
in other skins than formerly, and yet all necessaries for their
work were dearer than before. They denied that they made
a confederacy by oath or any other bond, and said that those
who were willing to pay more were served more quickly, but
otherwise they did not take more except on account of the
dearness of necessaries; and thereon they put themselves on
their country. A jury was summoned for Monday, on which
day the parties came to an agreement on terms that for the
work of each thousand of "Grysovere" 4s be charged, and
5s 6d for "stranglin" (fn. 3) , "polan" (fn. 4) , and every other kind of
black work (nigri operis), 4s 6d for "Roskyn" (fn. 5) , 12d for a
hundred "Coninges" (fn. 6) of England, 8d for "Coninges" of
Spain, and 7d for "scrimpyn" (fn. 1) . The defendants agreed that
in case of contravention of this covenant, three men of the
Skinners, and one from the Curriers, elected on either side,
should affix penalties according to the offence.
Chynus de Burgo was attached to answer Silvester de
Morton, weigher of the King's Beam, on a charge of instigating certain unknown persons to assault him, when he took
his beam to the house of Walter de Rokesle in Langburn
Ward to weigh goods. The defendant denied the offence and
said that the plaintiff wanted to set up his beam at a föul
door [ad hostium putridum apponere], and a servant of the
house prevented him, but this man was not the defendant's
servant. Afterwards a jury of the venue of St Mary de
Wolenoth found the defendant not guilty, and the plaintiff
was amerced for a false claim.
Membr. 1 b 4 Oct. 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 from him £8 16s worth of skins, and
promised to give him an acquittance for £8 recovered against
the plaintiff in the Sheriff's Court, and pay him the balance
of 16s, which he now refused to do. The defendant pleaded
that he bought skins to the value of £4 16s, and his wife
on her own account bought skins to the value of 7s, and
that he was always willing to give him an acquittance for
that amount. The plaintiff claimed that this defence was
unjust, because he had good and lawful men, John and
Gilbert, who were present at the sale; and thereupon by his
attorney Terricus de Enefeud he took a corporal oath that
he would not produce any others than these, and would not
suborn them. Afterwards at a Court held on the morrow of
All Souls he appeared with his witnesses, who were sworn
and examined by William de Leyre and Nicholas Picot,
aldermen, and gave evidence in support of his plea. Judgment that the defendant fulfil the covenant and be amerced.
His amercement was condoned because he was poor.
Geoffrey Beble, chaplain, complained to the Mayor and
Aldermen that Antony, rector of the Church of Hurtts (fn. 1) in
the Archbishopric of Canterbury, who dwelt in his house as
a member of his household, had stolen £17 out of his chamber
and taken it to the house of Brachius Lumbard of the Society
of Puche (fn. 2) , to be paid out to him by the Society at Paris, and
had received a letter addressed to the Society at Paris. The
above Brachius was summoned and admitted the receipt of
the money, and said that it had not been paid out in London
or Paris, but that he did not know whether it had been paid
by the Society elsewhere. As the said Antony was not in
Court, and as the Society in Paris had written to the other
Societies not to pay the money, and as it was not known
whether any other Society had already paid, Brachius was
forbidden to pay the money until further orders.
6 Oct. 1300
Thursday the Feast of St Faith
Hugh de Canterbury was attached to answer John de
Hattefeud in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained
that when he went to Smethefeud to buy a palfrey for Sir
John de Ingham, Precentor of St Paul's, the defendant and
Stephen de Skelton, his domestic (manupastus), and others
beat him on the head and wounded him in two places. The
defendant pleaded that he was not present on the occasion
and had no part in the assault. A jury of Smethefeud was
summoned for Wednesday, when the parties came to an
agreement on terms that the defendant pay the plaintiff 20s
on the morrow. The attachment on the defendant was to
remain till he paid, and he put himself in mercy. The amercement was condoned at the instance of Sir John de Cham.
Membr. 2 14 Oct. 1300
Friday the morrow of the Feast of St Edward King (fn. 1)
John Witffihe was summoned to answer Isabella sister of
Master John Bushe on a charge of beating her, tearing her
clothes, and striking her on the face with a handful of mud
(cum taio) in the parish of St Mildred Poultry. A jury was
summoned, and it was ordered that no skinner should be
included in the panel. Afterwards the parties came to an
agreement on terms that the defendant pay the plaintiff 4s,
and be in mercy.
21 Oct. 1300
Friday after the Feast of St Luke the Evangelist [18 Oct.]
Walter de Wetersfeud claimed ten sacks of wool which
were attached on Ralph de Brakele at the suit of William le
Riche, and demanded to be admitted to verify his goods.
John de Ware, William's attorney, was asked whether he had
anything to say against such admission, and said nothing.
Thereupon Walter swore (fn. 2) that the above Ralph, on the day
the attachment was made on him, had no wool to the value
of 4d of his own, so that if the wool had been lost, he himself
would have suffered. Judgment was given that the wool be
delivered to the claimant.
Walter de la Quenhethe was attached to answer Henry
Mable in a plea of trespass wherein the latter complained
that on the previous Saturday he carried wood to the Quay
of Queenhithe and there exposed it for sale, and the defendant attached his boat and wood until he had paid 2s,
against the Liberty of his lord the Abbot of Wautham and
to his own damage. The defendant admitted attaching the
wood because the plaintiff, who was a foreigner, was selling
to a certain . . . . le Clovier, but he denied that he received 2s,
and said that the boat came into his seisin only because of
the wood. A jury of Queenhithe was summoned for Wednesday. The defendant was ordered to take an oath from
Hugh le Fraunceys, Henry de Hanewell and the plaintiff
that the wood which was attached in their possession belonged either to the Abbot of Waltham or to themselves, and
that they were not carriers [traventarii], and the wood would
be delivered to them. On Wednesday the plaintiff made
default, and he and his pledges were in mercy.
Membr. 2 b 27 Oct. 1300
Thursday the Vigil of the Apostles Simon and Jude
[28 Oct.]
The Court of the Weavers (fn. 1) in the action of Eustace, cook
of the Earl of Lancaster, plaintiff against Walter Payn, Gilbert
Payn and Andrew Payn for debt, was granted with the consent
of the parties, and a day was given on Saturday.
3 Nov. 1300
Thursday the morrow of All Souls [2 Nov.] before
William de Leyre, deputy of the Mayor
Mainprise of William le Bret of Wyntringham and Dyonisia
his wife to render the account which John de Norton and
Sibilla his wife demand of them, viz. Thomas de Hales,
Robert le Moneour, Geoffrey de Talworth and William le
Heymonger.
A jury of the venue of Castle Baynard, consisting of
Nicholas de Cambridge and others, brought in a verdict
that the house and quay formerly belonging to Nicholas le
Moneyer were vacant and unlet from the twelfth to the
fourteenth years of King Edward, and this not by default
of William le Bret and Dyonisia his wife, as John de Norton
and Sibilla his wife assert, and that the house and quay were
then let until the latter recovered them by an Assize of Novel
Disseysin, and that William and Dyonisia spent 15s 11d on
the property, as they say. Judgment to be given on Tuesday.
4 Nov. 1300
Friday after the Feast of All Saints [1 Nov.]
William le Brasur was summoned to answer Thomas de
Bray in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained
that in August at the defendant's request he became mainpernor with him of a certain John Bunting for half of £10
against Agnes Greyland, and that the defendant promised to
save him harmless, and afterwards refused to do so. The defendant denied asking or promising anything, and demanded
an inquest by the venue of Wollecherchehawe. The plaintiff
demanded an inquest by the venue of Vintry. The two
juries were summoned for Friday.
Membr. 3 5 Nov. 1300
Saturday after the above Feast
Peter de Coumbe made proof by Edmund de Coumbe,
Elyas de Bristoll, Hugh Baudry, Andrew de Rothewell, John
de Northfolk and Reginald Auberkyn that the 9 sacks of wool
attached at Hardeburg at the suit of Margaret, daughter of
John de St Omer, belonged to him and Stephen de Blakeneye
his partner, and that no one else had to the value of 4d or
more in those sacks. The above Edmund &c. were asked by
the Mayor and Aldermen, on behalf of John de Trillowe,
Rector of the Church of St Dunstan, Thomasyn Gydechon
and John de Northfoulk, executors of John de St Omer,
whether the said John had anything in the sacks at the time
of the attachment. They answered no.
9 Nov. 1300
Wednesday before the Feast of St Martin [11 Nov.]
before William de Leyre and Geoffrey de Norton,
deputies of the Mayor
John de Rokeslee, Nicholas de Fonte, and Robert de
Blechinglee, were summoned to answer Elyas Russel, who
complained that on Monday at Douegate the defendants
assaulted his men and overturned his cart laden with Flemish
tiles, so that the tiles were broken on the pavement, to his
damage 100s. A jury was summoned for Saturday.
Stephen de Coventre was summoned to answer Richer de
Refham in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained
that on Tuesday, when Roysia de Coventre was suing the
plaintiff in the Husting for having occupied her seld in Cheap
against her will, the defendant abused him in Court, calling
him false and perjured and convicted of fraud, in contempt
of the King and his Court. The defendant denied having
done so and offered to make his law. Afterwards the parties
came to an agreement by permission of the Court.
Membr. 3 b 10 Nov. 1300
Thursday before the above Feast
William Koc, and Richard Treuchapeman, "fruters," took
an oath to make a just scrutiny of cider-vinegar and sour
wine, and concerning all of their trade who engage in saltery,
and to do right therein.
12 Nov. 1300
Saturday after the above Feast
William le Ireys and Alice la Converse his wife were summoned to answer Nicholas Pycot in a plea of eloignment of
a deed, wherein the latter complained that he entrusted a
bond for 17 marks to Walter de Henlee, attorney at the
Court of the Steward and Marshall, and that he came on
Wednesday to Cornhulle, where he found the deed in the
possession of the defendants, who refused to restore it. The
defendants said they received the bond as a pledge from the
above Walter for a loan of 6s; they offered to restore it to
the plaintiff for 3s, if he would promise to help them to
recover the debt from Walter when he came into those parts.
The plaintiff agreed and judgment was given accordingly.
Membr. 4 19 Nov. 1300
Saturday before the Feast of St Edmund King and
Martyr [20 Nov.]
Precept was issued to Henry de Fingrie, one of the Sheriffs,
to produce the record of the judgment given in his Court
between Ranulph Balle and Isabella his wife, plaintiffs, and
Peter de Monte Pessulano and Agnes his wife, defendants, for
a debt of £8. The record being produced, no error was found.
Judgment that the Sheriff make execution, and that Peter
and Agnes, who had complained of error, be in mercy.
The Prior of the New Hospital of the Blessed Mary without
Bissopesgate offered himself against John Heyrun in a plea
of trespass. The latter to be distrained.
The above Prior was summoned to answer Thomas Godard
in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that the
Prior's predecessor, Roger, in March 1296 had leased to him
for life two shops in Sopereslane at 104s annual rent, and
as regards one shop the present Prior refused to fulfil the
covenant. The defendant admitted the covenant and said
that a certain John Heyron was occupying the shop, so that
he could not obtain seisin until &c.
26 Nov. 1300
Saturday after the Feast of St Katherine [25 Nov.]
A° 29 Edw. [1300]
John Heyrun, junior, was summoned to answer the above
Prior in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that
he let to the defendant a shop in Sopereslane from Easter
1298 till the following Easter, and the defendant refused to
surrender the shop on expiry of his term. The defendant
said the shop was his own free tenement, and that the Prior
on the day of his plaint had only a rent issuing from it; and
he demanded judgment whether he need answer for his free
tenement in this Court. Judgment was respited till Saturday.
Membr. 4 b 1 Dec. 1300
Thursday after the Feast of St Andrew [30 Nov.]
Precept was given to John de Armenters, one of the Sheriffs,
to produce the record of the judgment in his Court in an
action by writ between Elyas Corbel (fn. 1) , who claimed 84 marks,
and Robert Hardel, defendant, as regards which the above
Elyas complained that error had been made. The record
being produced, it was found that there was no error in the
matter of two acquittances for £35 in the name of Elyas,
and one acquittance of £4 10s in the name of Garsyas de
Marsolano, servant and attorney of Elyas, or as regards four
and a half marks allowed to Robert for gauging. Judgment
therein was confirmed. Precept was issued to summon
Robert's witnesses, Geoffrey and Walter, for the next Court
concerning the sum of 20½ marks. Afterwards it was found
that there was no error in this particular also. Judgment that
Elyas be in mercy.
9 Dec. 1300
Friday after the Feast of the Conception of the Blessed
Mary [8 Dec.]
Adam de Hallingbiry (fn. 1) was summoned to answer Peter de
Hungrie in a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that
in Adam's Court he obtained judgment for 100s against
William de Kelvedene and John Spendelove, who had
wounded him so that his life was despaired of, and that
subsequently the defendant and his bailiffs had refused to
execute the judgment. The defendant pleaded that he was
a layman and asked for the help of his clerks, Richard de
Wymburne and Peter the clerk, which was allowed to him
at his own risk. Afterwards on 19 Dec. the defendant denied
that he attached the above William and John, at the plaintiff's
suit, or that he had seisin of their bodies, on account of which
he would be responsible for any money, and he demanded
to make his law. A day was given him on Monday after the
Feast of St Hilary.
Matthew le Chaundeler was summoned to answer William
La Postle in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained
that he hired a house from the said Maykin (fn. 2) in Candelwikstrat &c. The defendant demanded judgment, on the
ground that his name was Matthew, and the plaintiff had
previously made his allegations against him in that name, and
now under the name of Maykin, as to whether he need answer
under the latter name. As this was found to be the case,
judgment was given that the plaintiff recover nothing and be
in mercy, and that the defendant go thence without a day.
John le Benere acknowledged receipt from John le Fraunceys, "peleter" (fn. 3) , of £8 due on a Recognizance made in the
Court of Richard le Botoner, Sheriff of London.
Membr. 5 25 June 1300
[Record and process of an action in the Sheriff's Court.]
Court of John Darmenters, Sheriff of London, on
Saturday the morrow of St John the Baptist [24 June]
A° 28 Edw. [1300]
Robert Hardel (fn. 1) was summoned to answer Elyas Corbel in
a plea of debt of 84 marks, due on a purchase of wines made
at St Botolph's Fair by the defendant and Ernald Barage
from the plaintiff and Guy Barlack, for the payment of which
a Recognizance was made. The defendant produced acquittances for two sums of £20 and £15, and a letter from
Garsyas de Marsolano, servant and attorney of the plaintiff,
to whom he had paid £4 10s. He pleaded that he also paid
20½ marks to the plaintiff at the house of John the clerk of
Vintry, for which he ought to have received an acquittance,
and with regard to which an action was now pending between
them. He claimed an allowance of 4½ marks for gauging the
wine, as the casks were not of the right size, and demanded
judgment as to whether he owed anything further. The
plaintiff admitted receipt of the £35, but denied that Garsyas
de Marsolano was his attorney. A jury of Vintry was sumnoned on these points. As regards the gauging, he pleaded
that the Recognizance was final and the allowance for gauging,
if any, ought to have been made beforehand. On this matter
the parties put themselves on the arbitration of wine-merchants, citizens and foreign, viz. Reginald le Barber, William
de Beverley, Matthew de Wodeham, Richard Hardel, Henry
de St Osith, Alan de Suffolk, William Trent, Gerard Orgoyl,
Reymund Margyz, George de Acre, Vitalus Manent and
Bartholomew de Rivers, who awarded, according to the Law
Merchant hitherto observed among them, that the gauging
should be allowed to the defendant. Judgment was given
that 4½ marks be allowed for the gauging of 59 sextars of
wine which were deficient. Afterwards at a Court held on
Tuesday the Vigil of the Apostles Peter and Paul, the plaintiff
was adjudged to give an acquittance for the 20½ marks.
Meanwhile a jury of Reginald le Barber and others brought
in a verdict that the above-mentioned Garsyas de Marsolano
was the assignee of the plaintiff, and that he gave an acquittance for £4 10s, though they did not know whether at the
time he produced the bond. Judgment was given that the
defendant be quit of the debt, and the plaintiff be in mercy
for a false claim.
[Record and process of an action in the Sheriff's Court.]
Membr. 6 9 June 1300
Court of John de Armenters, Sheriff of London, on
Thursday after the Feast of the Holy Trinity [5 June]
A° 28 Edw. [1300]
Proceedings in a plea of covenant, wherein Robert Hardel
complained that Elyas Corbel refused to give him an acquittance for a payment of 20½ marks. The defendant pleaded
that the plaintiff had made no mention in his count of any
debt owed to him, but merely of a sum of 20½ marks, and he
demanded judgment whether he need answer such a plaint.
The plaintiff said he made mention in his count of a covenant
broken, and as the defendant was not willing to answer the
plaint according to the "words of Court," he claimed judgment as in an undefended action. At a later Court the
plaintiff was ordered to say to what debt the 20½ marks belonged, and did so, whereupon the defendant was directed
to answer further. The latter then denied that he received
the money or agreed to give an acquittance. To this the
plaintiff replied that he had witnesses, Geoffrey and William,
who were present, and he demanded that they be examined.
After an adjournment owing to lack of Aldermen, the above
witnesses were examined separately in the presence of William
de Betoyne and Thomas Romayn, aldermen, and agreed in
support of the plaintiff's pleading. Judgment was given that
the plaintiff receive an acquittance, and that the defendant
receive the money from John the clerk, Coroner, to whom
he had entrusted it, and be in mercy.
Membr. 7 10 Dec. 1300
Court of Elyas Russel, Mayor, on Saturday after the
Feast of the Conception B.M. [8 Dec.]
Thomas le Keu, Henry atte Mersshe, Thomas Crudde,
Walter de Brompleye, Symon de Hereford, Robert le
Gurdelere, Richard de Rocheford, and Thomas le Fox,
Master Cornmeters at Queenhithe, and Thomas le Ram,
John Sket, Nicholas le Couk, William le Fiz Saundre, Walter
de Paris, Henry atte Mershe, Robert le Clerk, Robert Mikelman, Walter le Milneward, John le Smyth, Symon de Sabrichteworth, Richard Scheyl, Geoffrey Hodle, William de
Tolyngdone, Richard le Brewere, William de Heytfeld,
Robert Gous, Roger Crisp, Symon de Laitone, Geoffrey le
Keu, William de Herppinge, David Caperiche and Walter
Nekkeles, servants of the above Masters, were attached to
answer Roger le Palmere and his friends, corndealers, in a
plea of trespass, wherein the corndealers complained that,
whereas according to ancient custom in London and the
Suburbs, the bakers and brewers should pay for the metage,
carriage and porterage to their houses of all corn bought at
Queenhithe as follows:-from Queenhithe through all streets
and alleys to Westchep, the Church of St Anthony, Horshobrigg and Wolsiesgate in the Ropery, ¾d; beyond to Flete
Bridge, Neugate, Crepelgate, to the opposite side of Berchenereslane on Cornhulle, Estchep and Billingesgate, 1d; and
from Queenhithe as far as the Barres of the Suburbs, 1¼d-
the Masters did not faithfully measure the corn according
to their oath, or treat the people as of old, and the servants
charged more than they did formerly for carriage and
porterage against their oath. The defendants denied that
they were guilty and put themselves on their country.
12 Dec. 1300
Monday after the Feast of St Nicholas [6 Dec.]
A jury of John de Stratford and others (fn. 1) brought in a
verdict that the Master Cornmeters were not guilty, and they
were acquitted. They said further that for the meting, carriage
and porterage of corn no more ought to be taken for the
quarter than as mentioned above, and that the servants
demanded and took more, especially for carrying to the
Ryole. Their offence was condoned, but they were warned
not to repeat it under penalty of abjuring their craft.
14 Dec. 1300
Wednesday after the Feast of St Lucia [13 Dec.]
Alan le Pestur was summoned to answer Peter de Durdrich
in a plea of debt of £14 due on a sale of handmills, value
£18 as they lay in a heap, at 29s the last, with the condition that if there were more or less lasts than computed, the buyer should pay more or less, whereof the
defendant had paid £4 and refused to pay the balance.
The defendant admitted the purchase, but said it was agreed
that the money should be paid if the handmills were satisfactory, which they were not. A jury of Billingesgate was
summoned against the next Court.
Membr. 7 b 16 Dec. 1300
Friday after the above Feast
Ralph Hardel was summoned to answer Henry le Galeys,
who complained that the defendant took away the gutter
between their houses which had received the water from the
plaintiff's roof for 20 years and more. A jury from Vintry
was summoned for Monday.
19 Dec. 1300
Monday before the Feast of St Thomas the Apostle
[21 Dec.]
John Heyron, junior, was attached to answer Peter Adrian
in a plea that he render account for the time when he was
the plaintiff's receiver and traded for their common profit,
from Michaelmas 1296 to Michaelmas 1300, during which
time he received £66 from the plaintiff. The defendant
pleaded that he received £12 10s wherewith to trade abroad,
solely to the profit and at the risk of the plaintiff, and these
goods, together with his own, were lost at sea. He demanded
judgment as to whether he was responsible, and offered to
make his law that he received nothing further than the above
sum. The plaintiff claimed that he ought not to be admitted
to his law as this was a plea of account (fn. 1) , which he wished to
be settled by the judgment of the Court or by a jury, and a
law was not a just method in that plea, and he demanded
judgment as in an undefended action. Afterwards at a Court
held on 27 Jan. the parties appeared, and the defendant
pleaded that the cognizance of the action belonged to the
Husting (fn. 1) and not to that Court. A day was given for the
next Husting of Common Pleas.
Membr. 8 17 Jan. 1300-1
Tuesday after the Feast of St Hilary [13 Jan.] A° 29
Edw. [1300-1]
Alan le Pestur and Peter de Durdrich came to an agreement
out of Court. Both were amerced.
Coppe Cotenne appointed Ralph de Algate, clerk, his
attorney to receive £47 15s due to his partner Stoldus (fn. 2)
from the Sheriff of London for the ferm and issues of the
bailiwick of London and the county of Middlesex, as appears
more fully among the names of Arogaññ contained in a
certain Dividend of the King's Wardrobe.
26 Jan. 1300-1
Thursday after the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul
[25 Jan.]
William le Mariner was summoned to answer Tedmarc,
merchant of Almaine, in a plea of debt of 100s for merchandise sold to a certain Simon, servant and attorney of
the defendant, for the use of the defendant. The latter denied
that Simon was his servant on the date mentioned, or that
he received the profit of the goods, and offered to wage his
law. He came with his law on the morrow. The plaintiff
condoned it, and put himself in mercy.
27 Jan. 1300-1
Friday after the above Feast.
A jury of Roger de Evere and others found Thomas
Abraham, ironmonger, guilty of going to Southwark to meet
merchants and smiths coming from the dales (de Wallibus
(fn. 1) )
to London with horsehoes, nails and other merchandise belonging to the trade of ironmongers, and of forestalling those
goods, and also of avowing foreigners' goods. Judgment
respited till the next Husting.
4 Feb. 1300-1
Saturday after the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.]
Geoffrey de Canefeud and Roger de Wandlesworth,
weavers, were attached to answer Henry le Juven, "burler" (fn. 2) ,
in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he
delivered two cloths to the defendants to repair and weave
the same between the Epiphany [6 Jan.] and the Purification
[2 Feb.], and although there was an ordinance that men of
that craft should work during that time, as at other times of
the year, they refused to do so. The defendants denied that
they ceased work maliciously and put themselves on their
country. Segin the Weaver, Richard Salman, John Broud
and Robert Moriz, weavers, who were likewise sued by
Richard de Wrotham, William de Uggele, burler, Robert de
Freston and Walter de Hallingbiry, respectively, also put
themselves on their country.
Membr. 8 b
Recognizance by Thomas de Brumleye of London to
Walter de Hakeneye and Adam Simond, citizens, of a debt of
£100 due at Michaelmas 1299.
Walter de Hackeneye produced the above Recognizance
before the Mayor. Luke de Haveringe, one of the Sheriffs,
through William de Londenston, his clerk, was ordered to
attach the debtor, and returned that he could not be found
in his bailiwick. Richard de Caumpes, his fellow-Sheriff, was
then ordered to hold an inquest as to the lands and tenements
of the debtor on the day of the Recognizance and return the
finding under the seals of the jurors, which was done as
follows:-the jurors, Nicholas de Cantebrig, Laurence Smith,
Geoffrey Scot, William Smith, Stephen Bernard, John
Fairhod, Henry de Somersete, John de Stratteford, William
de Heston, William Brett, goldsmith, Peter de Boligton and
Elyas Everard returned that the debtor had in fee and
inheritance in the City of London at the date of the Recognizance:-one house in Distavelane of an annual value
40s; two shops with a solar 36s, one house with two shops
33s 4d, and two other shops in Old Fish Street 28s; total
annual value, when they were let, £10 14s 4d, charged with
40s rent to the lords of the fees and 5 marks for the keep of
a chaplain, leaving a nett annual value of 107s 8d. The
documents having been examined, the Sheriff was directed
to give seisin to the creditor as a free tenement till his claim
was satisfied, which delivery of seisin was performed by
Richard de Crofton, the Sheriff's clerk. Afterwards at a Court
held on Saturday after the Octave of Easter, Walter de
Hackeneye was summoned to show cause why the execution
of the Recognizance should not take place.
8 Feb. 1300-1
Wednesday after the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.]
Henry le Juven, "burler," and the other burellers offered
themselves against Richard Salamon and the other weavers.
A jury of Matthew le Chaundeler and others said by their
faith to the King that the weavers ceased work by their own
malice and fraud to the damage of the burellers, 18s 11d, in
the following amounts:-Henry le Juven, 5s 6d; Richard de
Wrotham, 6s 3d; William de Uggele, 2s 6d; Robert de
Freston, 2s; Walter de Hallingbiry, 2s 8d. Judgment for
those damages.
11 Feb. 1300-1
Saturday before the Feast of St "Walentine" [14 Feb.]
John le Fraunceys, peleter, acknowledged himself bound
to Richard Sprot in 21s payable at Easter. The money was
stopped in John's hands, in order that it might be paid into
the Chamber, since the said Richard owed them that amount
for his freedom.
16 Feb. 1300-1
Thursday after Ash Wednesday [15 Feb.]
Nine silver spoons, weighing 8s 6d, and one mantle of
"Bluett" (fn. 1) furred with "bisses" (fn. 2) , attached from Robert de
Rokesle in lieu of 20s, which was his portion towards raising
the sum of £1048 due to the King for divers debts of the
City, were delivered to the Chamberlain of the Guildhall,
Nicholas Picot, and valued at 4s for the mantle and 8s for
the spoons by the oath of good and lawful men. Paul le
Botiller made the delivery to the Sheriff.
Membr. 9 4 July 1301
Pleas before Elyas Russel, Mayor, on Tuesday after
the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul
(fn. 3) [29 June]
A° 29 Edw. [1301]
Michael de Wynborn (fn. 4) , executor of the will of Henry de
Wynton, knight, deceased, was summoned to answer John
de Ely in a plea that whereas the plaintiff was bound to the
above Henry in a statute of £9, and having failed to pay was
committed to prison in the shrievalty of Thomas Romeyn and
William de Leyre, A° 19 Edw., being subsequently liberated
in accordance with an agreement made between them, nevertheless the defendant had caused him to be committed to
prison again for the same debt. The defendant pleaded that
he had been appointed executor and administrator by the
Official of the Archdeacon of London, in place of Edmund
Pask, and having found the Recognizance among the papers
of the deceased, he had sued the plaintiff on it, and as the
latter had not produced any acquittance he demanded judgment. The plaintiff then said that the above Henry had
entered into possession of tenements belonging to the plaintiff,
and he produced the agreement above mentioned. By this
deed Henry de Wyncestre (sic), knight, had consented that if
the money was paid by Christmas 1291, the Recognizance
should be cancelled and certain houses pledged to him should
be returned, but if not, the houses should remain his property.
The agreement (French) was dated at London, 24 Aug. 1291,
and witnessed by Sir Rauf de Sandwich, then Warden of
London, Thomas Romeyn and Willyem de Leyre, Sheriffs,
Willyem de Bettoyn, alderman, Richard de Hakene and
Aleyn le Chandeler. The plaintiff pleaded that by this agreement the Recognizance lost its effect, and he demanded judgment as to whether he could be imprisoned or troubled
further about the debt. The defendant said that, as the
Recognizance remained uncancelled with the above Henry,
and the plaintiff had not produced any acquittance, he
demanded judgment on that ground (precise). The Court
gave judgment that the plaintiff be quit of the Recognizance,
and that the defendant be amerced.
Membr. 10 3 March 1300-1
Friday after the Feast of St Mathias the Apostle
[24 Feb.] A° 29 Edw. [1300-1]
Peter de Leycestre, plaintiff in a plea of debt, offered himself
against James de Brabazuns and Castellus his partner, merchants of the Society of Bonseingyurs (fn. 1) , who had this day
by their essoin and did not come. Order was given to
distrain them.
6 March 1300-1
On Monday before the Feast of St Gregory Pope [12
March] Edmund the tailor, Martin de Dullingham, Robert
le Blund and Roger le Rous complained to the Mayor and
Aldermen that Roger de Waltham had threatened them in
life and limb, which threats they proved by William de
Caxtone and Ralph de Thakstede. The Sheriff was ordered
to take the body of the above Roger into his custody till he
should find security for keeping the peace.
20 March 1300-1
Monday before the Feast of the Annunciation B.M.
[25 March]
An inquest to discover what malefactors and disturbers of
the peace had beaten, wounded and ill-treated the men of
Sir J. de Brytannia (fn. 2) , was taken before Geoffrey de Norton,
deputy of the Mayor, by the oath of William Passemer, Hugh
le Armurer, Reginald le Feyver, Roger le Coteler, William
le Barber, John Garlaund, Stephen le Corriour, Reginald
Germin, Roger de Paris, Adam de Whiteby, John Sterre,
William le Spicer and Adam le Couper, who said that on
Thursday last about midnight two men, Credo and Falwey,
went with other unknown persons to a brothel close to the
house of Nicholas le Lockyer in Fletestrate, and there among
themselves raised the hue and cry, whereupon a certain
Adam le Coteler came to the door of the brothel and on
behalf of the King ordered Credo and Falwey and the others
to do no harm to anyone. The latter came out and with drawn
swords pursued Adam to his house, and broke the door of
his hall and entered. Adam resisted them and then took
refuge in his solar, closing the door on himself, but Credo
and the others broke down that door also. Seeing that he
was likely to be killed, Adam climbed out of the window and
so escaped. When the others found that he was gone, they
returned to Adam's chamber and pursued his servants, and
wounded and ill-treated them in the curtilage of a neighbour's
house. The jurors further said that Credo and the others had
received no harm from Adam or his servants or neighbours
so far as they could discover, but the same day they were
embroiled with the Bishop of Durham's men outside the Bar
of the Temple, and if they came by any harm they received
it there.
22 March 1300-1
Wednesday before the above Feast
The record and process of an action in the Sheriff's Court (fn. 1)
between Peter de Munkuc and Geoffrey Segyn was examined
on the complaint of Peter, and was confirmed. Judgment
was given that Geoffrey recover the £10 awarded to him in
the Sheriff's Court.
Membr. 10 b 23 March 1300-1
Thursday before the above Feast
Simon le Coteler and Katherine his wife were summoned
to answer William Jordan and John le Benere, Wardens of
London Bridge, in a plea of trespass wherein the latter complained that the defendants had been found guilty, by a
jury, on a charge of abetting their sons John and William in
ill-treating the neighbours, and had come before the Mayor's
deputies on 5 Aug. last year, and had promised not to harbour
or maintain their sons in future under penalty of forfeiting
to the Bridge their house on the Bridge, and that nevertheless
they had received and maintained their sons in assaulting
the neighbours, and in threatening them that they would
light such a fire that it would be seen by all the dwellers in
London-to the grave damage and terror of these neighbours.
The defendants pleaded not guilty. A jury was summoned
for the next Court after Hokeday (fn. 1) .
15 April 1301
Saturday after the Octave of Easter [2 April] A° 29
Edw. [1301]
Dignus Reyneri, Lombard, and Thomas Gydechoun (fn. 2) of
Lucca came and acknowledged that they had received from
Sir Eymer de Valence one silver cup with a gold foot and
covercle weighing 12 marks, one silver basin weighing 4
marks, and four gold rings set with sapphires and one with
topaz, which were to be returned to Sir Eymer on Saturday
before Pentecost. Cancelled because Sir Eymer acknowledged
receipt.
20 April 1301
Thursday before the Feast of St George [23 April]
An inquest came by William le Chaundeler and others in
a panel, and said on their oath that William and Roger le
Mirurers had prosecuted Cristine la Milnward in the Court
Christian after the prohibition of the Mayor and bailiffs.
Judgment that they be committed to prison until &c.
2 May 1301
Tuesday before the Feast of the Invention of the Holy
Cross [3 May]
A jury of the venue of Ismongerlane was summoned to say
on oath whether Gilbert de Sewar broke into a cupboard
filled with the goods of John de Bittrele, the keys of which
were under the King's sequestration, and whether John
Stangne and Bartholomew le Chalaundrer, executors of the
will of John de Bitterle (sic), carried away goods to the value
of £100 as alleged by John de Combes, who prosecuted for
the King. The defendants were mainprised by Thomas de
Chykewell, "lorriner," John de Gay, John Michel, William
Alisaundre, Henry de Gildeford, clerk, and Roger de Leycestre. They were found not guilty.
Membr. 11 5 May 1301
Friday after the above Feast
Robert de Uptone entered into a Recognizance to pay a
debt of 20s to Katherine la Fraunceyse of the Ryole on the
Quinzime. The said Katherine gave the money for the
making of the Conduit.
10 May 1301
Wednesday before the Ascension [11 May]
James de Berners was attached to answer Richard de
Gloucestre on a charge that he met the latter's servant
William riding on his corn in St Christopher's Street, and
had upset him and the corn by the door of St Christopher's
Church, beating him and pursuing him to the plaintiff's
house, where he assaulted another servant Walter de Whyteney, to the plaintiff's damage by lack of his men's services,
£100. The defendant's attorney denied the trespass. Subsequently, 2 June, the plaintiff made default and the defendant was acquitted.
18 May 1301
Thursday before the Feast of St Dunstan [19 May]
Thomas Romayn and Simon Godard swore that the goods
and chattels attached on William de Hebuthon for payment
of £6 18s, which the latter owed to "John the Gote" and
his partners on a Recognizance made in the Guildhall at
Easter, were their own property, and that William had no
interest in them at the time of the attachment.
Membr. 11 b
Robert de Roquesle was summoned to answer Roger le
Ferun in a plea of detinue of a horse, wherein he complained
that the defendant came to his house in the parish of St
Michael, Cornhill, and took away his bay horse, value 10 marks,
to his damage 100s. A day was given to the defendant to
make his law on the Quinzime.
9 June 1301
Friday before the Feast of St Barnabas, [11 June]
Henry de Bustre was attached at the suit of William de
Donecastre, as being a burgess of the Duchy of Brabant, on
the ground that the Duke was indebted to the plaintiff in
divers sums of money, as appears by the King's writ remaining with the Sheriff. A jury of Robert Hardel and
others brought in a verdict that the defendant was not a
burgess of the Duke, and had no goods and chattels in the
Duchy. He was acquitted.
Godfrey de Alemain was acquitted of the like charge.
19 June 1301
Monday after the Feast of St Botulph [17 June]
Thomas de Donecastre (fn. 1) was attached to answer Ralph
Pekoc, who sued for the City, in a plea of trespass, wherein
the latter complained that he had made an inspection of the
Common Moor outside Bishopsgate with his servants William
Pointel, Richard de Hattefeld, Roger Sueting and Thomas
Bruming in a boat belonging to William Pointel, and had found
part of the meadow cut and the grass carried away. On
tracing the grass to the close of the defendant, they had
questioned him on this trespass done to the City, whereupon
with his servants Ralph, Alexander, Robert le Gardiner and
Roger le Messager, the defendant had assaulted him and
taken the boat away. The defendant denied the trespass and
declared that the boat was his own property, and put himself
on his country. Afterwards on Monday after the Nativity of
St John the Baptist [24 June] he came and restored the boat
and submitted to the judgment of the Court. He was committed to prison until &c.
Membr. 12 20 June 1301
Tuesday after the above Feast
William de Dalby, attorney of Peter de Leycestre, acknowledged receipt of 300 marks sterling from James le Brabazun
of Scene and his partners (fn. 1) . The latter went quit.
A jury of the venue of St Lawrence Lane in Jewry was
summoned against the next Court to say on oath whether
Walter de St Omer unbound a certain bundle of mercery
from foreign parts, in the house of John le Botoner, junior,
and sold the goods against the prohibition of Richard de
Caumpes, Sheriff, without paying toll, as the Sheriff avers,
or whether the said John le Botoner paid a fine of 12d for
customs for the bundle, saving to the Sheriff the customs
on saffron and silk, if any were found in the bundle, whereas
none were found, as the defendants say. Afterwards the
parties came to an agreement by permission of the Court,
and the penalty was condoned.
27 June 1301
Tuesday after the Feast of St John the Baptist [24 June]
Roger le Ferun offered himself against Robert de Roquesle
in a plea of debt, the latter having a day on Monday to make
his law, which he had waged against the plaintiff concerning
the detinue of a horse, value 10 marks. And as he did not
come, he was ordered to appear on this day to hear judgment,
when he again made default. Judgment was given for the
plaintiff for 10 marks, and that the defendant be amerced.
6 July 1301
Thursday before the Translation of St Thomas [7 July]
Alexander de Scaylesworth of Northampton was attached
by 10 casks of wine, because the Bailiffs of Northampton had
arrested the goods and chattels, value 20s, of Richard Poterel,
junior, of London, as a forfeit, which goods Richard had
bought in Northampton market. The defendant found pledges,
Walter de la Legh and Walter le Fuller, to restore Richard's
goods within eight days, and to satisfy the City for the contempt and trespass. Afterwards he came and satisfied the
plaintiff (fn. 1) .
Membr. 12 b 18 July 1301
Tuesday before the Feast of St Margaret Virgin [20 July]
Walter Bullok, taverner, acknowledged that he owed to
Peter de Paris, Spicer of our Lady the Queen, 20s payable
on the Quinzime.
An inquest was taken before Elyas Russel, Mayor of
London, on the above day by John de Cheswyk and other
jurors of Langborne Ward, Candelwykstrate and Cornhull, as
appears on the panel, with regard to the malefactors and disturbers of the King's peace &c. They said on oath that when
Philip de Spine and his companions of the Society of Spine (fn. 2)
on Saturday at the hour of vespers were sitting at supper in
their lodging (hospitium), talking together about the war between the Kings of France and England, magnifying and
praising the King of France and his baronage, and vituperating and despising the King of England, and calling him
a wretched and captive King who had lost so much, vilely
and miserably, in the war-on account of this abuse and
contempt continually repeated against the King of England
by Philip and his companions, a certain John le Lung, their
servant, an Englishman, began to murmur and contradict
them. Thereupon the said Philip, moved by anger, struck
him with his fist, and when the servant fled from their further
malice and harm, they pursued him with drawn swords and
misericords as far as St Edmund's Church, and would have
slain him in the church, if the neighbours had not arrived
on hearing his shouts, and questioned Philip and his companions as to why they made so great an uproar, terrifying
the neighbours and the whole neighbourhood. Philip and the
others, in reply, cursed them and called them "Englishoundes," and turning back home, threw down stones outside
their house and made a stronghold against the bailiffs of the
City, until the Mayor arrived. The jurors also said that Philip
and his companions of the above Society, Pouch Lumbard
and the members of his Society (fn. 1) , John of the Society of the
Friscobaldi (fn. 2) , Theobald Courter, Cose Lumbard (fn. 3) with his two
sons and his Society, Bonaventure and Bynde, dwelling at the
house of James de Cene on Cornhull, Rogaz, servant of
Burgensis Fulbard of Florence, and Simonetus de Sercle of
the Society "Sercle noyr" (fn. 4) , were accustomed to raise uproars in the City of London by night and day to the terror
of the whole neighbourhood and the disturbance of the
King's peace, by abusing and afterwards beating, ill-treating,
wounding and maiming anyone who withstood them or reproved them for their evil words and deeds. The jurors said
further that the above Philip and all the others of the various
Societies were accustomed to drag the wives, daughters and
servants of good men of the City, and other girls passing by,
into their lodgings and to violate them against their will, and if
the women had any men in their company, they would detain
the latter in their yard and beat them, until they had accomplished their purpose on the women thus violently dragged
into their lodgings; and all this against the peace and to the
damage and scandal of many women, and in contempt of
the English.
Membr. 13
[Record and Process of an action in the Sheriff's Court,
endorsed "Recordum istud affirmatur" (fn. 1) .]
17 June 1300
Court of Henry de Fingrie, Sheriff of London, on
Friday before the Feast of the Nativity of St John the
Baptist [24 June] A° 28 Edw. [1300]
Peter de Moncuk was attached to answer Geoffrey Sigyn
in a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that the
defendant, on the eve of St Michael last, promised to pay him
£20 on behalf of Gaillard de Gassak, being empowered by
the latter to receive that sum in payment of a debt incurred
by the King, and though the defendant received £10, he
had not paid the plaintiff anything. The defendant defended
the words of Court, and while admitting that he had received
£10 of the King's debt, denied the promise to pay the plaintiff,
and offered to make his law on this point. The plaintiff said
that he defended unjustly, since he had witnesses Vitalus and
John, who were present when the promise was made, and
whom he asked leave to produce on the spot (fn. 2) , as both parties
were foreigners. Their examination was postponed for lack
of aldermen till the next Court. The defendant then objected
to John on the ground that as plaintiff in the Court of John
Darmenters in a similar case concerning a debt of Gaillard,
in which the present defendant was defendant, John had
called Geoffrey Sigyn as witness, and it would be a hardship
and against law that two plaintiffs should thus call each other
alternately to witness. To this the plaintiff replied that John
was a fit witness, because he had never suffered judgment
for perjury or been excommunicated or put in the pillory,
and therefore he claimed judgment. After several respites
the Court gave judgment on 9 Sept. for the plaintiff for £10,
on the ground that the witness could not be rejected in this
case, and that the "exception" raised by the defendant was
inadmissible.
Membr. 14
[Record and Process of an Action in the Sheriff's Court,
endorsed "judicium istud affirmatur."]
6 July 1300
Court of Henry de Fingrie, Sheriff of London, on
Wednesday before the Feast of the Translation of
St Thomas the Martyr [7 July] A° 28 Edw. [1300]
Peter de Monte Pessulano and Agnes his wife were summoned to answer Ranulph Balle and Isabella his wife in a
plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that Agnes bought
from Isabella 20 quarters of barley at 7s 4d the quarter and
4 quarters of oats at 3s 4d the quarter, amounting to £8
silver, which she had not paid. The defendants denied the
sale and receipt, whereupon the plaintiffs offered to produce
witnesses, Robert and Roger. A day till the Quinzime was
given them to do so. The witnesses, being sworn and
examined in the presence of Salamon le Cotiller and Simon
de Paris, aldermen, gave evidence that Peter and Agnes received the grain from Isabella in their house on Cornhull
between prime and nones, they themselves and other persons
unknown being present. A day was given for hearing judgment, and as the defendants made default and produced no
warrant for their essoin "de servicio regis," judgment was
given for the plaintiffs.