ROLL F
Membr. 1 2 May 1303
Court of John de Blunt on Thursday the morrow of the
Apostles Philip and James [1 May] A° 31 Edw. [1303]
Nigel le Brun (fn. 1) , executor of Robert de Bree of Dublin,
offered himself by Geoffrey de Morton, his attorney, against
James le Reve in a plea of account, and produced a letter
close under the seal of the Commonalty of Dublin, and a
letter patent under that of Cragfergus, and a letter of
Richard (?) de Bereford, the King's Treasurer in Ireland,
testifying that the above James was in Ireland, during the
twentieth and twenty-first years of King Edward till Pentecost,
trading with the goods of Robert de Bree, deceased. The
plaintiff did not come, and did not certify in any Court as
regards the robbery upon him and his imprisonment on the
coast of Brittany during the above twentieth year. Judgment
that he and his pledges be in mercy. Simon de Paris, Sheriff,
was ordered to execute the judgment given in the Court of
Peter de Bosenho, late Sheriff.
10 May 1303
Friday after the Feast of St John before the Latin
Gate [6 May]
Elias Russell offered himself against Robert de Rummesseye
in a plea that the latter acquit him of five marks, which he
undertook to pay on his behalf, against Andrew de Sakevile,
groom of the Prince of Wales, for a horse which Robert had
of Andrew. And Robert came and acknowledged that he had
received the horse, and showed no reason why he should not
acquit him. Judgment that he be distrained to acquit him.
A jury of the venue without Bisshopesgate was summoned
for Monday to say on oath whether John le Hornere had
made a malicious error in proving the will of William le
Hornere, which he said was made on Thursday before the
Feast of the Ascension, whereas he acknowledged before the
Mayor that it was made on the Wednesday preceding, as was
alleged by Walter Osekin, or had merely erred from simplicity, as he himself pleaded. The defendant was mainprised by William Poyntel and William le Hornere to come
on Monday to hear the verdict.
A jury of the venue next to the Friars of the Cross (fn. 1) was
summoned to say whether Walter at Waye, John Scot,
"gaunter" (fn. 2) , and Henry atte Stufhous made an assault on
Juwecta Wenge, by beating her doors and windows with
sticks and other arms on Sunday night.
23 May 1303
Thursday before the Feast of Pentecost [26 May]
Simon de Paris, Sheriff, was summoned to answer Geoffrey
de Morton, attorney of Nigel le Brun, executor of the will of
Robert de Bree, for his delay in making execution of the
judgment in the Court of Peter de Bosenho, Sheriff. The
defendant answered that the defendant in that action, James
le Reve, had been mainprised by John le Benere to render
account of £74, and as John had not produced the defendant,
he had distrained him by goods, value 20s, either to produce
him or to render account for him, and the said John had
declared that he was not willing either to render an account,
or to give satisfaction for the above money.
Membr. 1 b 10 June 1303
On Monday the Vigil of St Barnabas the Apostle
[11 June]
Guydo Bonaventure was attached to answer Thomas atte
Velle (fn. 3) , serjeant of the Sheriff, in a plea of trespass, wherein
the latter complained that when he went by precept of the
Mayor to Guydo's house in Langeburne Ward to distrain (fn. 4)
him for money owed to the Commonalty, and had put his
seal on his door, the defendant took the seal away, threw it
in the street and assaulted him. The defendant denied the
charge, and put himself on his country, and the plaintiff also.
A jury of the venue was summoned against Wednesday.
2 Aug. 1303
Friday after the Feast of St Peter ad Vincula [1 Aug.]
Gilbert Payn was summoned to answer the Mayor and
Commonalty and Nicholas Pikot, guardian of John and
Thomas, sons of Walter Hauteyn, being under age, in a plea
of trespass. Order was given to distrain him against the
next Court.
Robert de Molton came and acknowledged that he covered
his house, and that he laboured in it in the Parish of St
Benedict Shorhogge, against the Mayor's prohibition. A day
was given on Monday to hear judgment.
12 Aug. 1303
Monday after the Feast of St Laurence [10 Aug.]
Simon de Paris, Sheriff, was summoned to answer Nigel
le Brun, executor of the will of Robert de Bree, in a plea of
error, in that he gave judgment that James le Reve, defendant
in a plea of account, should acquit himself as regards £30
by his law. Also he complained that the Sheriff would not
make execution of the judgment against the above James as
regard £74, but delayed it till James and his mainpernor
had withdrawn from his jurisdiction, to the plaintiff's damage
£80. The Sheriff said that the plaintiff had not prosecuted
his suit, and he claimed judgment. Geoffrey de Morton
pleaded that the plaintiff had not made default, because he,
Geoffrey, was Nigel's attorney in the principal plea in the
Court of Peter de Bosenho, late Sheriff, and was accepted as
such in the Court of Simon himself, and that his present
action was accessory and dependent on the principal plea,
and therefore he demanded judgment. The Sheriff pleaded
that the action was a new one, and as Nigel had not appeared
himself or appointed Geoffrey as his attorney in this action,
he demanded judgment precisely whether he need answer
him therein. A day was given on Friday to hear judgment.
Membr. 2 19 Aug. 1303
Monday after the Feast of the Assumption [15 Aug.]
Roger de Lincoln, draper, was attached to answer Hugh
Pourte, Sheriff of London, in a plea of trespass, wherein the
latter complained that when he went into Thames Street
opposite the house of Katherine de Lincoln to attach the
defendant to answer Katherine in a plea of trespass, Roger
would not allow himself to be attached by the Sheriff and
bailiff of the King, but laid violent hands on him, seized him
by the chest and tore his clothes in contempt of the King
and to his damage £20; and as he would not find pledges,
the plaintiff had sent him to prison. The defendant denied
the charges of unwillingness and put himself on a jury. As
regards the assault he demanded to acquit himself by his
law. The plaintiff pleaded that as the offence was one against
the King and his bailiffs, the defendant was not entitled to
make his law (fn. 1) . This contention was upheld by the Court
on Monday, when Roger was mainprised by Thomas de
Frowyk, goldsmith, Thomas de Staundon, goldsmith, John
le Amayler, goldsmith, Ralph de la Bare, goldsmith, Walter
de Walepol, goldsmith, Richard de Burdeus, John Walsheman,
"fevere," Manekyn le Heumer, Henry de Faveresham, cordwainer, Richard Bullok, taverner, John de Luttegreshale,
goldsmith, and Walter Conestable, goldsmith, for his appearance in Court to hear the verdict of the jury, and for keeping
the peace between himself and his following, and Hugh
Pourte and Adam de Foleham, alderman, and the above
Katherine. A jury was also summoned to say whether the
defendant broke the sequestration made upon him by Thomas
atte Welle, Serjeant of the Sheriff, for his arrears of the
present tallage of £1100. Afterwards, on Monday after the
Feast of St Bartholomew, a jury of Gilbert de Mordone and
others found the defendant guilty of the charges against him,
but was unwilling to undertake the matter of the sequestration, on which another inquest was ordered. Judgment
that he go to prison.
Richard de Luda, tailor, was attached to answer Hugh
Pourte, Sheriff of London, on similar charges. The same
jury found that the defendant allowed himself to be attached,
but would not find pledges, for which reason the Sheriff had
committed him to prison.
9 Sept. 1303
Monday after the Feast of the Nativity B.M.
[8 Sept.]
Geoffrey Hubertyn of Lucca, plaintiff, appointed Nicholas
Teste his attorney against the Abbot of Tylteye in a plea of
debt.
14 Sept. 1303
Saturday before the Feast of St Matthew the Apostle
[21 Sept.]
Peter Berneval was summoned to answer the Mayor for
lack of respect to him, and because he said in the presence
of Sir Ralph de Sandwich that he wished to God that the
latter was still Warden of the City as he used to be, because
business was dealt with speedily under him, and; this he said
out of disrespect to the Mayor. The defendant waged his
law that he was not guilty. He was permitted to make his
law on the Octave.
The same Peter was summoned to answer William, clerk
of the Chamber, for saying that the latter received money
from the executors of Simon Godard to support unjustly
their side in the action between them and Peter, and that
the Commonalty had lost 200 marks and more through him.
On being asked how he wished to acquit himself, the
defendant admitted that he had spoken thus, and that he
believed it. The plaintiff denied that he had received anything
or that the Commonalty had suffered any loss through him.
He was adjudged to make his law on the Quinzime. Afterwards the plaintiff appeared to make his law, and Alice, relict
of Simon Godard, and Richard Costantyn, executors of Simon
Godard's will, Roger de Linton, Robert le Convers, goldsmith, Robert de Pipehirst, Richard de Shordich, William de
Harewe, Thomas de Farndon, . . . . Jordan, "paternosterer" (fn. 1) ,
William de Pelham, and Gilbert le Bole, cordwainers, Mark
le Draper and Richard Anesty came likewise, and offered
themselves to make the law for him and acquit him of the
charge against him. The Mayor and Aldermen condoned the
law. The above Peter did not come. Judgment was given
that William be acquitted (fn. 2) .
Membr. 2 b 24 Sept. 1303
Tuesday after the Feast of St Matthew the Apostle
[21 Sept.], before Nicholas Pycot
Two posnets, one small basin, two coverlets (chalones), and
one new saddle-bow (arzoun) taken on John de Waledene,
saddler, for 10s owed to John de Nony, were valued by oath
of William de Stebenhethe, "batour," Roger le Batour, and
Thomas le Taillour of St Lawrence Lane, at 22d for the
posnets and basin, 20d for the coverlets and 6d for the
saddle-bow. A day was given till to-morrow to John de
Waledene to acquit them; otherwise they would be sold.
As he failed to do so, they were given to the above John de
Nony on Thursday in part payment of his debt-also a
screen (scrinea).
19 Oct. 1303
On Saturday the morrow of St Luke the Evangelist, John
de Tynerval constituted John le Fauchor his attorney by a
letter, which the Mayor sealed for him with the Mayoralty
seal. This document appointed John le Faucheur and Roger
le Graunt to receive debts owed to him in France, and
especially to obtain from the executors of Margaret, late
Queen of France, £100 Parisian (fn. 1) , due to him partly in payment of a debt and partly as a legacy from the above Queen.
Dated 15 Oct. 1303.
23 Oct. 1303
Wednesday after the above Feast
William de Pelham, Robert de Frowyk, John de Wynton,
John de Laufare, William de Singham, Thomas de Derby,
and other master cordwainers of London were summoned
to answer William, called "Cok," de Laufare, John de
Bristol, William de Walthom, John de Paris, Andrew Scot,
Roger Monkessone, John de Kent, and John de Bechesworthe, and others their companions, being journeymen
workers of "Cordwanerye" (fn. 2) , in a plea of trespass, wherein the
latter complained that the above masters compelled and
bound by an oath other masters, to lower, by common
consent of all the master cordwainers, the wages of the
journeymen cordwainers, viz. 1d for the making of a dozen
pairs of shoes, and ½d for each pair of top-boots (ocrearum),
and ½d for each pair of ankle-boots (botorum), against the
ordinance and custom of the trade of immemorial usage, and
to the impoverishment of the same journeymen. The
masters of the cordwainers came and said that the custom
of the trade, before the circulation of the "cokedonii" (fn. 1) and
crocards, was to give for the repair of 12 pairs of shoes not
more than 5d, and for one pair of top-boots 1d, and one pair
of ankle-boots 1d; but on account of the high price of food
and the decreased value of money, they had increased these
amounts by 1d for the shoes and ½d for the top- and ankle-boots, until the money should be improved and there should
be a greater abundance of food; and they asked that a jury
should be called on the matter. And the journeymen likewise. A jury consisting of Roger de Lintone and others said
that the masters, before the coming of the "cokedeni" and
crocards, used to pay 5d, 1d and 1d, as they said, for the
above classes of work, but they could not find out among
themselves about the alleged oath. Accordingly the journeymen were told to work well and faithfully, and serve their
masters and the people, and that they should not demand
more than the above amounts, and that they were in mercy
for their false claim.
31 Oct. 1303
Thursday the Vigil of All Saints [1 Nov.]
Margaret atte Blakeloft was summoned to answer John le
Botoner in a plea that she restore to him £7, which she owed
him of the goods of Adam and Margery, children of John
de Storteford, to whom he was appointed guardian by the
Mayor and Aldermen. Margaret came and said she had a
husband John who was not mentioned in the plaint, and she
demanded judgment [as to whether she need answer without
him]. Judgment that he be summoned against the next Court.
William de Spersholt was summoned to answer Alice de
Sutton in a plea of estrepement (fn. 2) , wherein she complained
that William removed and carried away a cistern, three handmills, and a lead receptacle [alveum] from her house in
Lothebury, which house she had recovered against him-
against the prohibition of the Mayor in the Husting. The
defendant admitted that he moved the cistern and other
utensils as being his own goods, and demanded judgment.
The plaintiff said that the cistern &c. were fixed with nails,
and had been put in position by her father and belonged to
her house, and she put herself on a jury. Afterwards a jury
of Thomas Eylmere and others gave a verdict in her favour
and fixed the damages at 20s. Judgment for that amount.
Membr. 3 9 Nov. 1303
Saturday before the Feast of St Martin [11 Nov.]
Richard de Wetherbe, bailiff of Queenhithe, was summoned
to answer John de Brinkele, Roger le Palmere, Roger Husbonde and other cornmongers of London in a plea that the
above Richard did not allow any of the cornmongers to
measure their corn before they had paid 1d the quarter
for the Hithe; and although before dinner they paid this
1d, nevertheless after dinner he compelled them to pay
another penny the quarter, unjustly and against the liberty
of the City of London, and to the damage of the cornmongers £20. The above Richard said he only took the
penny which his predecessors had taken, and thereof he
found the King was seised. The plaintiffs said that he and
his predecessors took the 1d before dinner and after, unjustly.
Richard answered that he found the King seised of this
custom, and that it was not his business to determine the
King's seisin. The plaintiffs and the other cornmongers said
that the custom was never applied to the King's benefit, and
that he took it unjustly, and they asked for an inquiry by a jury.
Afterwards the parties came on Wednesday after the Feast
of St Katherine [25 Nov.], when the defendant declared that
he was the servant and attorney of William de Combe Martin
and John de Burreford, Sheriffs of London, and that he
collected the said custom in their name and by their authority.
The Sheriffs came also and acknowledged him as their servant,
and the taking of the penny as just, because they found their
predecessors had taken it for a long time, and that the King
and their bailiwick were seised of it. The plaintiffs again
declared that both they and their predecessors had taken it
unjustly, and demanded an inquiry by a jury. A day was
given, and the Sheriffs were ordered to produce all customs
relating to Queenhithe. Subsequently at a Court held on
Tuesday after the Octave of St Hilary [13 Jan.], before the
Mayor, Aldermen, and four men from each Ward summoned
for the purpose, the parties came. And since the Sheriffs
did not produce their customs, the Mayor and Aldermen
delivered to them certain customs (fn. 1) , which they were not to
transgress.
15 Nov. 1303
Friday after the Feast of St Martin [11 Nov.]
Richard de Wolchirchhawe and Olive his wife, relict of
William de Wolchirche and executrix of the latter's will, were
summoned to answer Sir Thomas, Rector of the Church of
St Mary de Wolchirch, and John atte Gate, her co-executor,
in a plea that the defendants return to them and the Commonalty of London £256, which they had in their custody
by delivery of the executors of the goods of the testator, from
which sum 120 marks were assigned by agreement of the
executors for constructing the pavement of Bishopsgate
Within, as far as the money would go, and for the good of the
testator's soul. For this sum of £256, the above Richard had
given to the executors a bond which had been put in the
hands of Thomas Perceval as common friend, and now they
detained this sum to the damage of the plaintiffs. The defendants admitted that they had £89 of the testator's goods,
which he wished to be expended on the repair of the above
road, by direction of the Mayor and Aldermen and the
executors, but the remainder they had paid to the use and
profit of the testator; and this they were ready to prove by
an acquittance. Walter de Wanlok, one of the executors, did
not come, and order was given to distrain him. The Bailiff
was also ordered to warn Thomas Perceval to come on the
morrow with the bond. A day was subsequently given at the
request of William de Braye, Official of the Bishop of London,
and other adjournments took place. Meanwhile the defendants
were ordered by the Mayor to keep safely the £89 which
they admitted having in hand.
23 Nov. 1303
Saturday the Feast of St Clement [23 Nov.] A° 32
Edw. [1303]
James Ponchinus was summoned to answer John de
Burreford, Sheriff of London, in a plea of trespass, wherein
the latter complained that the defendant struck a certain
Henry de Lobiere, in his Court in the Guildhall.
Precept was given to Peter de Bosenho, late Sheriff, to be
here on Tuesday with his clerks and rolls, in order to render
account of his receipt of the Queen's Gold (fn. 1) .
Membr. 3 b 12 Dec. 1303
Thursday after the Feast of St Nicholas [6 Dec.]
A jury of the venue of St Clement's Lane, consisting of
Thomas de Wynton and others, said on oath that Stephen
de Wynton did not make the brown bread (panem bissum)
which was seized in the bakehouse of Thomas de Wrotham
in St Clement's Lane, for which he was arrested on the ground
that the bread weighed 20s 8d less than it ought to do, but
that a certain Thomas de Bedeford, oven-man (furnator) of
Thomas de Wrotham, made it and sealed it with the seal
belonging to the house of his master, to his master's profit.
Judgment that Stephen go quit, and that Thomas de Wrotham
be distrained to answer concerning what may be charged
against him.
Alan de Sutton, called "Ballard," saddler, was summoned
to answer Manekin le Heumer and his fellows, collectors of
the tallage of £1000, for the Ward of Cordewanerstrete, and
John Juvenal, Serjeant of the Commonalty, for contempt of
the King and the Mayor and Commonalty, in that he violently
snatched away from the plaintiffs a woman's supertunic of
green furred with squirrel, which they had taken from him
by way of distraint for the 10s which he owed to the tallage.
The defendant denied that he snatched it away violently, as
they complained, and put himself on his country. A day was
given to hear the verdict.
16 Dec. 1303
Monday after the Feast of St Lucia Virgin [13 Dec.]
A jury was summoned from the venue of St Clement's
Lane by Candelwykstrete to say whether Thomas de Wrotham
made a certain brown loaf &c. The defendant was mainprised by John de Brynkele, Roger atte Vine, Roger Hosebonde, and Adam Wade to hear the verdict and receive &c.
The case was subsequently postponed owing to the absence
of Aldermen, and the defendant was again mainprised by
John Baunber, Thomas le Maderman, Edmund Lambyn,
Paul le Potter, Robert Box and John de Shaftesbiry. Finally
a jury consisting of Stephen le Potter and others said on
oath that the above Thomas had no profit from bread made
in his bakehouse, except 4d the quarter, which was the rent
for the use of the bakehouse and utensils, and that a certain
Thomas de Bedeford made the bread and sustained judgment
for the same. Judgment that the defendant be acquitted.
Membr. 4 21 Jan. 1303-4
Tuesday after the Octave of St Hilary [13 Jan.] A° 32
Edw. [1303-4]
As it was testified by good and faithful men, and by Sir
William de Bereforth, King's Justice (fn. 1) , that Thomas de
Saleford, goldsmith, had threatened Adam de Warwick and
Edward his son in their lives and limbs, the Sheriff was
ordered to keep the above Thomas in custody till he found
twelve pledges for keeping the King's Peace.
Since Geoffrey de Notingham, skinner, admitted that he
had struck William de Prestwod, skinner, who had accused
him of agreeing to a confederacy of journeymen skinners
[familiorum peletrie], and of paying money into their box, he
was committed to prison, &c.
22 Jan. 1303-4
Wednesday before the Feast of the Conversion of
St Paul [25 Jan.]
A jury of the venue of London Bridge was summoned to
say on oath whether Richard le Schethere, Stephen his son,
Roger de Warewyk, cobbler (sutor), John his son, Richard
Hagyn, Gunnora his wife, John de Sandwich, cobbler, Robert,
apprentice of Robert le Fourbur, William his mate, and
Richard his mate assaulted the Watch in the above Ward
on the eve of the Epiphany [6 Jan.]. Afterwards on Wednesday after the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul [25 Jan.],
a jury consisting of Henry le Blund and others found that
the defendants assaulted John de Berking, William le Wite
and Walter, the servant of Henry Bod. They were fined 8d
each for damages; and for breaking the peace at night-time
to the terror of the neighbours and the scandal of the City
they were sent to prison.
Simon de Canterbury, skinner, was summoned to answer
Geoffrey le Lacer in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter
complained that he had bought from the defendant five dozen
lambskins for 10s, of which eleven were false and counterfeited out of old skins, being newly sheared again. The
defendant denied the fraud and said that he bought the skins
at St Botulph's Fair in their present condition and sold them
as such, and thereon he put himself on his country. And
Geoffrey said he bought them as lambskins, and that the
defendant, knowing they were false, deceived him, and he also
demanded a jury. A jury of Walebrok was summoned for
the morrow.
Membr. 4 b
The Sheriffs were ordered to bring before the Mayor on
Friday twelve bakers from each side of Walebrok, to say on
oath how many men hired their bakehouses for 4d the quarter.
The jury of Roger de Derby and others presented the names
of twenty-six bakers of tourte-bread (fn. 1) who hired bakehouses,
and six who owned their own, and twenty bakers of white
bread who hired, and one who owned bakehouses. [The
rents varied from 1 mark to 11 marks per annum, and from
2d the quarter baked to 4d, with or without utensils. Among
the places mentioned were the Parish of St Mary atte Hull,
opposite the King's former Wardrobe, Ebbegate, Sivethestrete, Kironlane, the Church of St Tauntellin (fn. 2) , Basingelane,
and St Clement's Lane. The lessors included William le
Micere, Alfred le Weyder, Juliana Aubyn, Gautrinus le
Fraunceis, the Rector of the Church of St Werburg, and the
Brothers of the House of St John.]
29 Jan. 1303-4
Wednesday after the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul
[25 Jan.], by the Mayor and John de Wengrave (fn. 3) and
other Aldermen
The Sheriffs were ordered to be present on that day to
say, and also to do, whatever the Mayor and Aldermen should
enjoin upon them for keeping the King's Peace. And they
did not come.
A jury of the Venue of Alegate consisting of Robert
Lorchon and others said on oath that John Sampson came
on Thursday night, the morrow of the Circumcision [1 Jan.],
and joined the Watch and Ward in Alegate, and went with
them till he arrived between Alegate Gate and the House of
the Brothers of the Cross (fn. 4) , where he entered into the house
of a certain imbecile [fatue] woman, who raised the hue and
cry, and when the men of Sir John de Sandale, who were
coming from the house of Roger de Frowyk with a light in
front of them, heard the noise and entered the house of the
above woman, the defendant assaulted Giles Peche, John de
Sandale, junior, and William le Reve, to their damage half
a mark each. They said also that the above John is a regular
nightwalker who goes out to do harm, and has been three
times indicted by the Wardmote for the same. Judgment
that he be delivered to the Sheriff for safe custody until &c.
A jury from the venue of Walebrok were summoned to
say whether Reginald de Holcote, currier, was a dealer in
skins and other things belonging to peltry, against the
ordinance and rights of that trade.
4 March 1303-4
Wednesday after the Octave of St Mathias the Apostle
[24 Feb.]
William de Wautham was attached to answer the Mayor
&c. for prosecuting a plea in the Court Christian relating to
rents and tenements, which plea belongs to the King's Court,
and especially concerning certain rents devised in his will
by John de Export for the provision of a chaplain to pray
for his soul in the Church of St Mary le Bow-which will
was not enrolled in the Husting of London as it ought to
have been (fn. 1) . The defendant said that he had sued no plea in
the Court Christian relating to a lay fee, and he put himself
on his country. A jury was summoned against the next Court
of Common Pleas after Hokeday, and the same day was
given to the defendant to hear the verdict.
A jury of Castle Baynard Ward, consisting of Adam
Absolon and others, declared that the two quarters of wheat
which were attached from Thomas atte Loke for 13s 4d,
being his fifteenth due to the Queen's Gold, were the property of Robert atte Loke, and that the above Thomas had
no interest in them to the value of 4d. They said also that
Robert did not trade with any goods of Thomas nor avow
them, as was charged against him. Robert now mainprised
Thomas to appear in Court at Easter to satisfy the Commonalty as regards the mark claimed from him.
Membr. 5 24 Jan. 1303-4
Friday before the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul
[25 Jan.]
Roger de Derby and others said on oath that certain persons
hired bakehouses &c. [Note. The list is identical with that
on Membr. 4. See p. 155.]
Membr. 5 b 5 Feb. 1303-4
Wednesday after the Feast of the Purification B.M.
[2 Feb.]
Gerard le Fruter, John Oki, William de Writele, Richard
de Bermingham, Robert le Skynnere, Terry de Dudlee,
William de Meleforthe, Robert de Meleforthe, Geoffrey
Trentemars, Adam Knith, Stephen atte Losue, Richard
Treuchappman, Henry Pride, Walter de Aldresgate, and
other "fruters" were summoned to answer the Mayor and
Aldermen for having made a confederacy between them,
strengthened by an oath, that none of them would buy the
fruit of any garden within London or without before the
Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist [24 June], so that
they might then have their fruit as it were for nothing-
and this they did without the King's warrant and in contempt
of him, and to the great loss and hardship of the people.
William de Writele, fruiterer, came and said that the above
Gerard came to him soon after Easter last, saying that the
fruiterers were all poor and captives on account of their own
simplicity, and if they would act on his advice they would
be rich and powerful, namely, if they would bind themselves
by an oath not to buy before the Nativity of St John the
Baptist, when they could buy and sell all fruits according to
their will. He himself agreed, and took a book in his bosom
to the meeting of fruiterers, whereupon they all took their
corporal oath as above; but afterwards, reflecting that the
confederacy was not good, lawful, or to be advocated, he
repented of his oath, and bought his fruit as he was wont
to do. As regards his trespass he puts himself on the mercy
of the Court. A day was given to him at the next Husting
of Common Pleas to hear judgment.
And as regards the accusation made against him that he
bought and forestalled fruit to the damage and scarcity of
the King and his people, he demanded a jury.
And the above Gerard, John Oky, Richard de Bermingham
and the others demanded a day to answer the charges, which
was granted to them. But on the day given the Mayor and
Aldermen could not find time to deal with the case, and
another day was given.
Membr. 6 26 Feb. 1303-4
Wednesday after the Feast of St Mathias the Apostle
[24 Feb.]
Adam de Benetele was attached to answer William de
Fridaystrete and Philip de Merdele, Serjeants of John de
Burreforthe, for slandering them, calling them thieves and
robbers, and raising the hue against them in contempt of the
King and to their damage 100s, when they distrained him
by a small maser-cup for his arrears due to the 2000 marks
and the Queen's Gold, which distraint they were ordered to
make by the Mayor and Aldermen in accordance with the
record submitted by the Chamberlain. The defendant denied
the charge and demanded a jury. A jury from the venue of
Friday Street was summoned against the Friday.
Philip le Cotiller was summoned to answer Richard Edward,
butcher, in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained
that Philip apprenticed his brother Walter to him for seven
years, and became surety and principal debtor for Walter's
faithful service as an apprentice, and that the latter had left
him without permission and carried away £4 16s of his
goods, and though he claimed that sum from the defendant
Philip, as surety, the defendant refused to pay it. Philip
pleaded that Richard committed the goods to Walter on the
arrangement that he give an account within the first half
year, and this before the apprentice had any knowledge of
the business, and against the defendant's wish; and he demanded judgment whether he ought to answer for goods so
committed, and a jury to say whether Walter carried away the
goods. A jury was summoned for Wednesday after Hokeday.
Afterwards at a Court held on Friday after the Quinzime
of Easter, a jury of Richard Sharp and others said on oath
that the above Richard committed his money to Walter the
apprentice to trade therewith, before the latter had learnt the
business, and that Walter, having lost them to the value of
20s, took fright and fled. Judgment that the plaintiff recover
nothing and be in mercy, and that Philip go thence without
a day.
John de Madefrey was attached to answer the Mayor and
Commonalty because, when William de Fridaystrete and
John Juvenal, Serjeants of the Commonalty and of the
Sheriffs, distrained him by a piece of cloth for his arrears of
his fifteenth due to the Queen's Gold, he snatched the pledge
away. The defendant admitted that he would not let them
take it away, because it seemed to him unjust. As it was found
from the Chamberlain's Record that the distraint was just,
judgment was given that the defendant go to prison &c.
Afterwards he was mainprised by Gilbert Cros and Adam "de
villa Sancti Johannis" (fn. 1) , tailor, to appear on Friday to hear judgment and to receive and do what the Court should consider.
A jury of the venue of Vintry, consisting of John de
Salisbiry, cordwainer, and others, said on oath that Garsias
de Sanetere is not a nightwalker and evildoer, as indicted by
the Inquest de officio taken by the Mayor and Sheriffs with
regard to nightwalkers and evildoers, on account of which
indictment he had been imprisoned. Judgment that Garsias
be acquitted; and he was enjoined to stay within doors after
curfew so long as he remained in the City, and forbidden to
do any harm to anyone either by night or day, under penalty
of imprisonment.
. . . . . was found armed with iron corset and cap and a
sword in the Guildhall in the presence of the Mayor,
Aldermen, and many citizens. He was adjudged to forfeit his
arms and be committed to prison.
Membr. 6 b 18 March 1303-4
Wednesday after the Feast of St Gregory [12 March]
A jury of the venue of Vintry was summoned against
Wednesday after the Quinzime of Easter, to say on oath
whether Gylenzon de Genue weighed any merchandise or
mercery in the City of London between citizens and strangers
by the beam produced in Court, as he was accused of doing.
The jury between Reymon Momace of Gascony, plaintiff,
and Philip Burgy de More was respited till Saturday for lack
of jurors. Afterwards, on Monday before the Annunciation
B.M. [25 March], a jury of Roger le Ferrour and others said
on oath that the two horses, whereof one was black and the
other "baustan" (fn. 1) , which were attached from Philip Burgy,
merchant of the Society of the Mosi (fn. 2) , at the suit of Reymon
Momace of Gascony, belonged to the said Philip on the
Saturday after the Feast of St Gregory Pope [12 March], and
not to Master Walter de Ipre or any other man of Flanders, as
Reymon alleged. Judgment that Philip have his two horses.
24 March 1304
Tuesday the Vigil of the Annunciation [25 March]
Gydo Bonaventure appointed John Tyle his attorney
against John le Engleys, Serjeant (fn. 3) of the Fair of Champenoise
Brie and attorney of the same, in a plea of debt.
Letters of attorney and recommendation, addressed to all
justices and justiciars, ecclesiastical and lay, to the effect that
Hugh de Calvomonte and John Cayn of St Manehuld,
Wardens of the Fair of Champenoise Brie, had appointed
John the Englishman to do certain business on behalf of the
Fair; and on behalf of Philip, King of France and Navarre
and Lord of Champenoise Brie, they pray that the above
John may be well treated on his journeys by the justices &c.,
as they would wish their own servants to be treated. Sealed
with the Seal of the Fair, January, 1303. R. de Monte
Calvulo.
Membr. 7 15 April 1304
Wednesday after the Quinzime of Easter [29 March]
Simon de Graham was attached to answer John de Burreforth, Sheriff, that whereas he was a foreigner, and not of the
Liberty of the City, he bought much merchandise, such as
spicery and other things, from certain foreign merchants and
especially from . . . . Durand who was dwelling in the house
of William Servat, through the instrumentality of Henry de
Farnham, spicer, hired by Simon for the purpose, thus defrauding the King and his bailiffs of the customs due. The
defendant denied that he bought merchandise except from a
freeman of the City, and this he was prepared to prove in
such manner as the Court adjudged. A jury was summoned
from the venue round Bokerelesbury for Friday.
Richard de Houndeslowe was summoned to answer the
Prior and Brothers of the Order of St Augustine for killing
horses and burying their carcasses within the Walls of London
against the ordinance of the citizens, thus corrupting the air
to the danger of the Brethren and citizens dwelling around.
The defendant did not deny killing and skinning the horses
&c., but said that the men of his trade had always been
accustomed to do so and had never been prohibited. He was
mainprised by John Baudry and John Note, tanners (fn. 1) of the
Moor, for his appearance on Friday to hear judgment. Afterwards, on Friday after the Quinzime of Easter, he came before
the Mayor and Aldermen and swore on the Gospels that he
would not henceforth skin any carcasses within the City or
bury them within the City or cast them in the ditches either
within or outside the City, and if he knew of any one else
doing so he would inform the Mayor and Chamberlain (fn. 1) .
17 April 1304
Friday after the Quinzime of Easter [29 March]
Thomas le Palmere offered himself against William de
Fridaistrete, late clerk of Peter de Bosenho, Sheriff, in a plea
that whereas the above William was charged by Peter to
collect the Queen's Gold, and received 16s from the plaintiff,
he only acquitted him against the Mayor and Chamberlain
for 13s, so that the plaintiff was wrongfully distrained for 3s.
The above William, who had this day, did not come. The
Court ordered that the Sheriff be distrained to attend on
Monday to show cause &c.
John le Barber, plaintiff, and John de Laufare, cordwainer,
defendant in a plea of trespass, made agreement by permission
of Court, on terms that the latter pay the former one silver
mark.
2 May 1304
Saturday the morrow of the Apostles Philip and
James [1 May]
A jury of the venue of Billingesgate, consisting of John de
Romeneye and others, said on oath that the ship of William
Clayssone called the "Pelerim," which was attached at the
suit of Henry de Lincoln, burgess of Gernemue (fn. 2) , belonged to
Durdrich in Holland, and not to Almaine. Judgment that
the ship remain attached till Henry receive satisfaction for
his damages in Friseland.
4 July 1304
Saturday after the Feast of the Apostles Peter and
Paul [29 June]
William Smert, "shippewrith," was attached to answer
Adam de Foleham, alderman, for claiming to be free of the
City.
Walter de Wanlok was attached to answer Jordan Moraunt
and the bailiffs of the City in a plea of trespass, wherein they
complained that when John Juvenal went to distrain him
for £20, which he acknowledged as owing to Jordan in the
Paper of the Guildhall (fn. 1) , the defendant would not permit the
distraint, and removed the distraint made on him and the
sequestrated goods, in contempt of the King. The defendant
admitted that he would not allow the Serjeant to make a
sequestration upon him. Judgment that he go to prison. He
denied that he broke the sequestration or carried away the
goods, and claimed a jury. Afterwards a jury, consisting of
William de Cantebrig and others, said that he removed the
sealed door from the hinges, and carried away sequestrated
goods to the value of 20s. Judgment that he go to prison till
he satisfy Jurdan for the goods removed. At a subsequent
Court a day was given him, at the instance of Gilbert, son of
Thomas de Clare, to appear in Court and satisfy Master
Jurdan for the 20s, and the King for his contempt.
11 July 1304
Saturday after the Feast of St Thomas the Martyr
[7 July] A° 32 Edw. [1304]
A jury of the venue of Bradestret by the Church of St
Bartholomew the Less was summoned to say on oath whether
David the clerk, Gocelyn, and Thomas de Kent received
from Richard le Clerk 6s 8d, Queen's Gold, as he avers, or
4s, as they say.
25 July 1304
Saturday after the Feast of St Margaret Virgin
[20 July]
John le Wyttawyere skinned a black horse (fn. 1) in the week
before the Feast of the Invention of the Holy Cross. To be
distrained.
Membr. 8 27 July 1304
Monday after the Feast of St James [25 July] before
John de Wengrave (fn. 2) , deputy of the Mayor
Robert de la Bourse de Brugges who was distrained by
6 tuns of woad, and Eustace Liene de . . . ., who was distrained
by 17 tuns of woad, by the King's writ at the suit of Remund
de la Bruwe, offered themselves against the latter, and demanded return of the distraints in accordance with another
writ which they produced. The Sheriff gave evidence that
Remund was not in town and could not be warned. He was
ordered to warn him to come on Friday to hear verification
of the above goods.
Writ, dated at Strivelyn 22 July A° 32 Edw. [1304], to the
effect that Adam de Fulham had complained that Robert, son
of Walter le . . . ., had entered his chamber by night, broken
open his chests and carried away rolls and memoranda
relating to his Aldermanry, charters, writings obligatory,
tallies, jewels and other chattels, and that the Mayor and
Aldermen had delayed giving him a remedy, and had allowed
the above Robert to wander about the City consuming the
above goods. The Mayor &c. were ordered to make amends
to the above Adam and do justice in the matter.
In accordance with the above writ, Robert was attached
to answer Adam in a plea of trespass, wherein the plaintiff
claimed damages £300. The defendant pleaded not guilty
and demanded a jury. A jury of the venue of London Bridge
was summoned for Thursday, and the defendant was mainprised by Henry le Blound, "stokfihsmongere," and Peter
Berneval to hear the verdict. Afterwards the parties came,
and another day was given them.
12 Sept. 1304
Saturday after the Feast of the Nativity [8 Sept.]
Beringer Aulyn, Matthew de Corbins and many companions
were attached to answer John de Burreforth (fn. 1) , for selling
dates and several kinds of spices to citizens and foreigners
by their own measures against the Liberty of the City. The
defendants denied the charge and demanded a jury. A jury
of the venue of the Ryole was summoned for Tuesday.
Membr. 8 b 28 Nov. 1304
Court of J. Blound, Mayor, held by him and John de
Wangrave on Saturday before the Feast of St Andrew
the Apostle [30 Nov.] at the beginning of the 33rd year
of King Edward
Bartholomew de Fihsbourne, Thomas de Meles, Henry de
Melingg, Peter de Somersete, Roger de Raby, Geoffrey de
St Cross, Robert de la Marche, Simon FitzWarin, and
"Adinettus" of Gascony were attached to answer John le
Blound, Mayor, John de Lincoln and Roger de Paris, Sheriffs,
for assaulting them with bows and arrows on Friday night
after the Feast of All Souls [1 Nov.]. They denied the charge
and put themselves on their country. A jury of the venue
of Cheap between the Church of St Mary le Bow and Friday
Street was summoned, and the defendants were mainprised
by Hugh de Oxford, Peter le Hireys, and Roger de Redingge.
Afterwards the jury, consisting of William de Wyncestre and
others, brought a verdict of not guilty, and they were acquitted.
2 Dec. 1304
On this day judgment was given by the Mayor and
Aldermen that the two casks of new wine which John le
Botoner, junior, admitted having harboured [hospitasse] among
his old wines be forfeited.
18 Dec. 1304
Friday after the Feast of St Lucia Virgin [13 Dec.]
A jury of the venue of Wodestrete around St Alban's
Church was summoned to say whether Gregory le Botoner
and John de Wynton, "fuster" (fn. 1) , hindered William de
Carletone, Serjeant of the Sheriff, from making a distraint
on John for a debt acknowledged in the Sheriff's Court.
20 Jan. 1304-5
Wednesday the Feast of SS. Fabian and Sebastian
[20 Jan.] A° 33 Edw. [1304-5]
Thomas de Kydemenstre, "chaucer" (fn. 2) , was summoned to
answer William de Beverlee, because he did not clothe, feed
and instruct his apprentice Thomas, William's son, but drove
him away. The defendant said that the apprentice lent his
master's goods to others and promised to restore them or
their value, but went away against his wish; and he demanded
a jury. Subsequently a jury of William de Upton and others
said the apprentice lent two pairs of shoes belonging to his
master and was told to restore them, but, frightened by the
beating which he received, ran away; further that the master
did not feed and clothe his apprentice as he ought, being
unable to do so, to the apprentice's damage 40d, but that he
was now in a position to look after his apprentice. Thereupon
Thomas de Kydemenstre said he was willing to have the
apprentice back and provide for him, and the father agreed.
Judgment that the master take back the apprentice and feed
and instruct him, or that he repay to the father the money
paid by the latter, and that he pay the father the 40d and be
in mercy.
26 Jan. 1304-5
Tuesday the morrow of the Conversion of St Paul
[25 Jan.]
Philip Hodde appointed William de Toulouse his attorney
against Remund Geraundon, Remund de Vile Fraunk, Peter
Fanne, and Donan de Ponte in a plea of debt.
27 Jan. 1304-5
Wednesday after the above Feast.
Philip Hodde offered himself against Remund Geraundon,
plaintiff, in a plea of covenant. The latter did not prosecute
his plaint (fn. 1) . He and his pledges in mercy. And the Sheriff
brought his record.
Bernard de la Rochele was attached to answer Arnold de
Teler of Gascony in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter
complained that Bernard bought from him five casks of wine
for £10 in London, and took him to a tavern and paid him
20s in part payment, and while they were sitting in the
tavern, caused the casks to be loaded on carts and taken away
from his custody against his will, to his damage £10. The
defendant said he was a broker to a certain Adam le Brocher
as regards the five casks, and that the latter paid him 20s in
part payment, and that Arnold himself made delivery of the
wine to Adam. Afterwards a jury of Vintry, consisting of
Alan de Suffolk and others, said that the plaintiff delivered
the wine to Adam and not to the defendant. Judgment that
Arnold gain nothing by his plaint and Bernard be acquitted.
A jury of the venue of the Conduit, consisting of Ralph
Godchep and others, said that a certain boy carrying water
in a tankard came on Saturday last opposite the shop of
Adam de Boctone, "cofferer" (fn. 2) , and there came also a cook
and a clerk called William de Radendene,. both then unknown, and ill-treated the boy, so that the neighbours thought
he would be killed. Thereupon a certain Adam de St Albans,
fearing this would happen, asked the cook and the clerk why
they were beating the boy so maliciously. And the clerk
replied that they would beat him as they liked in spite of
Adam. And when Adam took the boy from their hands, the
clerk bit Adam, and Adam took the clerk by the hood and
tore it. And the cook struck Adam, who struck him back.
They said further that several foreigners unknown to them
were round them; and if the cook and the clerk received any
harm, they had no cause of complaint.
5 Feb. 1304-5
Friday after the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.]
Alan de Suffolch and other jurors said that Bernard de la
Rochele, broker and citizen of London, was host to foreign
merchants dealing in woad &c., but did not trade with them.
Bernard admitted that he had charge of the wines and the
wife (fn. 1) of Gerard de Orgoyl, who was then abroad. And because
the use and custom of the City do not allow a broker to be
a host or a merchant, the said Bernard was mainprised by
Alan de Suffolch and Henry le Gaugeour to come on Wednesday to receive judgment.
Hugh de Strubbi was summoned to answer Nicholas
Beaubelet in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained
that the defendant took away the plaintiff's apprentice,
Robert le Fraunceys of Malteby, and detained him in his
service. The defendant denied the charge, and said that
Hugh drove the apprentice away, and that he, the defendant,
often asked him to take the apprentice back, but the plaintiff
refused, whereupon he took the apprentice into his service
lest he should perish of hunger; and he demanded a jury.
A jury of the venue of Fletestrete was summoned against
Wednesday.
[Record and process of an action in the Sheriff's Court.]
Membr. 9 12 Jan. 1304-5
Court held on Tuesday before the Feast of St Hilary
[13 Jan.]
Philip Hudde, master of the ship called "le Messager" of
Lym, was attached to answer Reymund Gerardoun in a plea
of covenant, wherein the latter complained that he and other
merchants freighted the above ship from Bordeaux to the
Pool of London, and put on board 134 casks of wine, so that
the ship should go directly from Bordeaux to the Pool, as
appears in an indenture dated at Bordeaux 15 Oct. A° 33 (fn. 2) Edw.
between the parties. The said Philip, however, on his journey
perceiving certain casks of wine floating in the sea and being
moved by cupidity, made a delay and got together part of the
casks, and overloaded his ship with them knowingly and
maliciously, and when he came to Portesmeuwe (fn. 1) , he tied
[applicuit] up there, and wickedly remained six weeks, whereas
he ought to have gone direct to London; and afterwards
when he came to London and ought to have tied up in the
Pool, he maliciously grounded his ship on a sandbank, whereby
the plaintiff lost two casks on the voyage and also the sale
of his wines. The defendant denied the charges, or that he
did any of the matters alleged knowingly and maliciously,
and said he was ready to defend himself by his law according
to the custom of the City. The plaintiff pleaded that the
defendant ought not to be admitted to his law, because
he charged him with certain matters touching a covenant
contained in a deed, and if the defendant was unwilling to
answer otherwise, he claimed judgment as in an undefended
action. The defendant pleaded that he had done none of the
things the plaintiff alleged, and as he had handed over the wine,
he demanded judgment as to how he ought to defend himself.
A day was given at the next Court for judgment. Afterwards
the parties came and added nothing to their pleadings. And
since the plaintiff did not deny that he had received the wine,
which he had consigned at Bordeaux, and since the defendant
was ready to defend himself by his law in the matter touching
the covenant, and as the Court had no power to summon any
jury by which the truth of the matter could be better or more
safely investigated than by the defendant's law, which law
the plaintiff refused to admit, judgment was given that
Reymund gain nothing by his plaint, and be in mercy, and
that the said Philip go thence without a day.