Roll H
Membr. 1 2 Dec. 1305
Court of J. le Blound, Mayor, on Thursday after the
Feast of St Andrew the Apostle [30 Nov.] A° 34 Edw.
[1305]
Geoffrey de Gernemuhe was summoned to answer the
Commonalty and Richer de Refham, collector of the Murage
of London, in a plea that he render an account of his receipt
of murage (fn. 1) , issuing from corn within and without Neugate,
from 6 Sept. last till the day of St Luke the Evangelist
[18 Oct.]-he having received during that time £16 and
having paid over only 75s, and refused to pay the remainder.
The defendant pleaded that he had paid over to Richer all
he had received. The plaintiff answered that some days the
defendant had received murage from 240 carts, at other
times 220, sometimes more or less, and demanded a jury.
A jury of the venue towards Neugate and round St Nicholas
at Shambles was summoned. Afterwards, since Geoffrey had
acknowledged that he was a receiver of murage, he was
ordered to render an account, and Walter de Finchingfeld
and Thomas Romeyn were appointed auditors. On an
account being made, it was found that Geoffrey had received
five marks more than he had paid in to Richer. He was
delivered to the Sheriff until &c.
Adam de Fulham, Richard Aleyn, John Aleyn, Walter
Pykeman, Thomas de Colingham, Walter Mounde, John de
Croydone, Robert Turk, William Cros le Bole, John Lambyn
of Colecestre, Adam de Tindale, Walter le Benere, Robert
Baudry, William Frere, Pynnefoul, Robert le Portier, Homfrey,
journeyman of Adam de Foleham, Robert de Mokkingg,
Hugh Frohs, John Pyfre, Roger Bacheler, Richard Brith,
John Baldewyne, John de Wodeforth, John de Boys, William
le Reve, Walter Miles, Adam Hospinel, Simon Morival,
fishmongers of Bridge Street, and Robert de Ely, Richard,
journeyman of Walter de Hakeneye, Roger de Bernes, John
Pardome, Henry Matefrey, Thomas Matefrey, Stephen le
Bakere, William le Lung, Simon his man, William Flinchard,
Alan Flinchard, John his man, John Flinchard, Simon
Fiz Robert, Matthew de Ely, Alan, journeyman of Geoffrey
Scot, junior, William Monamy, Robert Scot, William his
brother, John de Tornham, Simon de Tornham, John de
Guldeford, John de Stratford, Henry de Fingrie, William
Pardome, and Adam de Ely, fishmongers of Old Fish Street,
were summoned to answer the Mayor and Commonalty and
John de Ely, who prosecuted for the King, on a charge of
forestalling fish coming to the City by land and water against
the Statute of their aforesaid trade, to the damage of the
King, the magnates of England, the whole commonalty of
London, and the people resorting to the city. The defendants
pleaded not guilty and demanded to acquit themselves by
their law. The prosecutors pleaded that as the offence was
against the King &c. they could not so acquit themselves.
The defendants were ordered to inform the Court whether
they wished to acquit themselves in any other way, whereupon
they demanded a jury. Subsequently the cases were dealt
with by three juries of William de Lutone, John Dode,
Richard le Barbere of Bredstrete and others, who found the
majority of the defendants not guilty. William Cros le Bole,
Robert Turk and Henry Graspeys were found guilty of
buying a boatload of fish and each selling to the other, thus
enhancing the price. Robert Baudry was found guilty of
hiding his own fish to the scarcity and damage of the people,
and adjudged to prison &c.; Adam de Fulham was found
guilty of taking more lampreys and fish for the King's use
than he delivered to the King, thus making a profit.
10 Dec. 1305
Friday after the Feast of St Nicholas [6 Dec.]
William Passemer was summoned to answer Peter de
Neuport in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained
that when he wanted to repair his houses in the parish of
St Andrew Holebourne and to roof them, by hanging his
ladder on the house, the defendant drove away the tiler by
force and arms, and would not allow the tiling to proceed for
2½ years, whereby the timber and walls were rotted. Afterwards an agreement was made by permission of Court, on
terms that the plaintiff quitclaim all actions, and the defendant
pay an amercement of 20d through the Mayor, which amercement was afterward paid to the Chamberlain, R. Poterel.
Membr. 1 b 15 Dec. 1305
Wednesday after the above Feast
Peter Adrian was attached to answer the Master of the
Hospital of St Giles without London in a plea of trespass,
wherein the latter complained that when he went to Peter's
house in Sopereslane and took a pledge of a piece of wax
weighing 20 lbs, for 16s arrears due on an annual rent of 8s,
the defendant took the wax away from him, against the peace
and to his damage 100s. The defendant pleaded that the
house in which the plaintiff made the distraint was not held
from the plaintiff, and the annual rent of 8s was not chargeable
upon it. A jury of the venue was summoned.
William de Londoneston, who was attached to answer
William de Lyndesseye in a plea of trespass, came and said
that he was discharged without a day before Sir Roger de
Hegham, the King's Justice. The plaintiff could not deny it,
and the defendant went thence without a day.
A jury of butchers was summoned for Friday to say
whether Godfrey le Webbe bought 500 sheep at Thotenham (fn. 1)
on their way to London, as Richer de Refham alleged.
Roger de Rokesle, senior, was attached to answer Thomas
de Frowyk and Alice his wife for entering the house of Alice
at Ebbegate with eighteen other men, when she was living
apart from her husband (duni a viro fuit soluta), assaulting
her and ejecting her into the street, where she raised the
hue and cry, breaking open her cupboards, "forcers" (fn. 1) and
coffers and taking away gold and silver jewels to the value
of 20 marks, to her damage £40. The defendant was mainprised by Peter Berneval and Richard de Brompfeld. Afterwards the parties made agreement on terms that the plaintiffs
pardon the offence and the defendant pay 46s 8d, which
was done. The defendant was amerced.
Martin de Ambresbury, late Sheriff of London, was attached
to answer Gilbert le Mareschal in a plea that he pay him
12 marks, because the defendant and Robert Dobes (fn. 2) , during
their Shrievalty, allowed Richard Gentilcors to go at liberty,
although he had been delivered to them by the Stewards
and Marshals to keep in custody until he had paid the
plaintiff 12 marks, acknowledged by him as due to the
plaintiff. Martin pleaded that he never received the body of
Richard as the plaintiff alleged.
Simon del Eldestrete, Golding de Crepelgate, John de
Bumstede, Osebert Wildegos, Geoffrey Giffard, Robert le
Holer, William Maners of Hundsdich, Richard le Wilde, John
de Badbourham, Robert Dosing and his wife, Holilde and
Felice their daughters, Richard Priour, John son of John de
Alegate, Mabel de Pelham atte Nax, John atte Barre, Alexander
of ye helde, John Botis, John de Canterbiry, Alice de Haliwelle, Robert Wedhok, John de Redbourne, John Burel, Roger
le Longe, John Seward and Adam Russel, poulterers, were
attached to answer the Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty,
on a charge that they bought and forestalled by day and night
all kinds of poultry both coming to the City and within the
City, to the grave damage of all the people of the City and
those resorting there, unjustly and against the ordinances
and statutes of the City. The defendants demanded a jury.
A jury of the Poultry and Cornhill was summoned for
Wednesday. The defendants mainprised each other for their
appearance to hear the verdict &c.
Membr. 2 16 Dec. 1305
Thursday after the Feast of St Lucia Virgin [13 Dec.]
before J. de Wengrave
Roger de Sprengwelle and William Cros Muriele, executors
of the will of John de Midelborou, were attached to answer
the Mayor and Commonalty as regards the wardship of
Juliana and Alice, daughters of John de Midelborou, which
wardship was devised to them by John, as it is said. Roger
appeared, and was ordered to bring the will and the children
on the morrow. Order was given to distrain William for his
appearance.
It was ordered that Roger de Rokesle and Joan his wife be
attached to bring John and Alice, the children of Robert
Lambyn, with their goods into Court on the morrow.
17 Dec. 1305
Friday after the above Feast
Roger de Sprengwell and William Cros Muriele, executors
of the will of John de Midelborou, were attached to answer
the Mayor and Commonalty as regards the wardship of
Juliana and Alice &c. and to render account of the goods
devised to them. The defendants admitted the wardship of
the children and £90 of goods. John de Wengrave, Richer
de Refham, Simon de Paris and Nicholas Pycot were appointed auditors for an account. After making default, the
defendants appeared and said they were unwilling to show
the will or render an account. They were delivered to the
Sheriff (fn. 1) until they should be willing.
20 Dec. 1305
Monday, the Vigil of St Thomas the Apostle [21 Dec.]
John, son of Henry le Bole, was attached to answer Reginald
de Thunderle, Sheriff of London, in a plea that whereas the
Sheriff wished to attach a certain man in the house of John
de Romeneye, the defendant warned him, so that the attachment could not be made, and he (the man?) thrust out the
Sheriff and abused him. A jury of Billingesgate was summoned. Afterwards the plaintiff made default, and the
defendant went without a day.
Geoffrey de Horsham, butcher, who was attached to answer
Richard le Baumere (fn. 1) of Kynemeretone in a plea of trespass,
did not come. He and his pledges were in mercy. And as
it was testified that he had no lands, tenements or goods by
which he might be distrained, order was given to attach
him by his body against Wednesday.
10 Jan. 1305-6
Monday after the Epiphany [6 Jan.] A° 34 Edw.
[1305-6]
Robert Turk, Geoffrey de Lyre, John de Fulham, Edmund
Lambyn and Robert de Mokking were summoned to answer
Richard de Farmberwe on a charge that they took his fish
and held it in forfeit until he paid a fine, to his damage 20s.
The defendants said they were sworn before the Sheriffs and
bailiffs of the City to take the paniers of all people coming to
the City, which they found to be less than a bushel and of
worse quality below than above, in order that the fish might
be forfeited to the King and his bailiffs (fn. 2) .
The Sheriff was ordered to take security from John de Ely
to appear before the Mayor on Wednesday after the Feast of
St Hilary, to hear the verdict of the jury as to whether he
received divers moneys from divers persons for the suit which
he prosecuted on behalf of the King. Afterwards a jury of
Alexander Pik and others said that John de Ely received from
William Pykeman 40s, and from William Flinchard 10s, for
wrongfully withdrawing his prosecution against them. Judgment that he go to prison until &c.
Schedule. Mainprise for John de Ely taken by William de
Carletone at the Exchequer, at the Purification of the Blessed
Mary [2 Feb.] A° 35 Edw. [1305-6]-John de Radewell, William
de Esthalle, Edmund, Keeper of the Gaol of Flete, William
de Bretevill of co. Kent, Peter Chyld and Robert Dyvelyn.
Because Isabel, wife of Nicholas de Tenete, bought hens
and capons coming towards the City, a jury of the venue of
Bridge was summoned to say whether she was a common
forestaller of victuals for the profit of her husband. The jury
of William le Chapeller and others said that she went to meet
poultry at Suthwirk and bought it before it could come to
the City. She was committed to prison, and was mainprised
by Robert de Rye, John le Chapeler, Stephen le Taverner
and William le Chapeler. Afterwards she paid 40d fine to
Richard Poterel, Chamberlain.
Membr. 2 b
A jury of the venue of Fletestrete was summoned to say
whether Richard le Barber of Fletestrete raised the hue and
cry, after knocking down Brother Peter, the Renter of the
Hospital of St Katherine, in the presence of Joce the bailiff,
who was sent with the Brother by the Mayor in order to
keep the peace. Afterwards a jury of Richard Leueson and
others said that the defendant did no harm to the plaintiff,
but as he did not know him, he raised the hue and cry over
him. Judgment for the defendant.
This day it was ordered by the Mayor and Aldermen that
the fishmongers of Bridge Street and Old Fish Street should
allow the free fishmongers of the City standing at the Stalls,
to deal with them and to obtain their share of the wares
bought, as was right and just and as the liberty of the City
required (fn. 1) .
5 Feb. 1305-6
Saturday after the Feast of the Purification B.M.
[2 Feb.]
John Orpedman, guardian of Henry and Hugh, the children
being under age of Thomas Orpedman, offered himself
against Margery Cros, Thomas Cros and William Lambyn,
executors of the will of Thomas Cros, in a plea that they pay
to the said orphans, chattels to the value of £50. Thomas
and William came, but not Margery. Order was given to
distrain her against the next Court.
Master Geoffrey Hengeham, clerk, was attached to answer
Richard Hauteyn for impleading the latter against the Mayor's
prohibition in a matter of chattels and debts before the
Official of the Archdeacon of London and his Commissary.
The defendant denied the charge and demanded to acquit
himself by his law. He was mainprised by William de
Norhampton and Thomas de Salloppia to make his law on
Friday. Afterwards the plaintiff made default and did not
prosecute his plea. Judgment for the defendant.
Thomas le Kyng, butcher, was attached to answer John le
Messer (fn. 1) of the Prioress of Clerkenwell in a plea of trespass,
wherein the latter complained that when he had to impound
20 sheep found in his mistress's corn and pasture, the defendants and others rescued them and beat him, to his damage
40s. The defendant denied the charge and was adjudged to
make his law. Afterwards on Saturday before the Feast of
St Peter in Cathedra [22 Feb.] the defendant made his law
and was acquitted. The plaintiff was amerced.
Roger de Rokeslee was attached to answer William Lambyn
and Edmund Lambyn, executors of the will of Robert
Lambyn, and the Mayor and Aldermen, to whom belongs the
custody of orphans under age, in a plea of account, wherein
they complained that Roger received £40 sterling devised to
Alice and John, children of Robert Lambyn, and £62 of the
issues of their rents. The defendant came and said that Alice
was of full age and had her rent and received it, and that
John had no rent, and he refused to render account. And
since Roger did not deny receipt of £40, but tacitly admitted
it, as well as the receipt of the rent of Alice before she was
of age, as was charged against him, he was delivered to the
Sheriff, William Cosyn, until &c.
Membr. 3 9 Feb. 1305-6
Wednesday the Octave of the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.]
Thomas Cros, Margery Cros, and William Lambyn, executors of the will of Thomas Cros, were summoned to answer
Hugh and Henry, sons of Thomas Orpedman, deceased, in a
plea that they pay them £38, also 20 marks, being the third part
of the value of a ship, and 40s in gold, which the late Thomas
Cros received by legacy from Thomas Orpedman for the use
of the latter's children. The defendant William pleaded that
he never administered his father's will, and Thomas and
Margery said that a certain Edward de Wycumbe was their
co-executor, and his executor was a certain John de Essex,
without whom they were not bound to answer. The latter
appeared on summons and said that he never administered
Edward de Wycumbe's goods, and so was not bound to
answer. Thomas and Margery Cros said that it was unjust
to demand the money from them, because the children remained in the custody of their mother Custance, together
with their goods, and she delivered to Thomas de Kent £40
of their property, and they demanded a jury on that point.
The children answered that the goods were in the custody of
Thomas Cros, senior, on the day of his death, and afterwards
came into the hands of the defendants Thomas and Margery,
his executors, and they were ready to prove by a jury that
Thomas and Margery had never paid them. Afterwards the
parties came to an agreement by permission of the Court on
terms that the defendants pay the plaintiffs £40, from which
the defendants claimed an allowance for the sustenance of
the plaintiffs during four and a half years. Subsequently on
Monday after the Feast of St Barnabas [11 June] the same
year, the Mayor and Aldermen gave judgment that the
children were then of full age to receive their goods, and
ordered that the defendants be distrained by all their goods
to pay them the said £40.
11 Feb. 1305
Friday after the Octave of the Purification B.M.
[2 Feb.]
William de Lyndesseye complained that he had brought
pledges before William de Londoneston, Undersheriff, for
prosecuting an action relating to certain goods, value £20,
which his wife Alice had eloigned into the houses of William
de Wynchelsee, and the Undersheriff had put these goods
under a sequestration, but afterwards he had delayed the
action for three months, by which time a divorce (divorcium) (fn. 1)
between himself and Alice had been celebrated in the face
of the Church (celebratum in facie ecclesie], and then the
Undersheriff had delivered the goods to Alice, to the plaintiff's
damage £30. The defendant denied having done so and put
himself on his country. A jury of the venue round Colmanstrete brought in a verdict that the Undersheriff never
received the plaint, nor did he attach or deliver the goods.
Judgment was given accordingly.
18 Feb. 1305-6
Friday before the Feast of St Peter in Cathedra
[22 Feb.]
Robert Dru, butcher, was attached to answer William
Andreu of Bernflete in a plea that he pay him 7s 6d arrears
due on a sale of 60 lambs at 6¼d each. The defendant admitted the purchase, and that so far he had only paid 5d for
each lamb. And because the Statute of the City (fn. 2) directs that
a butcher should pay for the animals he buys before he kills
them, and the defendant had not so paid, judgment was
given that he go to prison till he should pay &c.
A jury of Henry le Brewere and others say that William
Passemer did not find fault with his fellow jurors in the
inquest made about the robbery at the Carmelite Friars, to
the persons who were indicted, as he was accused of doing
by Hugh le Armurer and others. He was acquitted.
John, son of Luke de Ware, was summoned to answer Elyas
de Salle in a plea of account, wherein the latter complained
that the above John as his apprentice received goods to the
value of £10, to render account thereof, but wasted them
and fled into hiding. The defendant denied receipt of the
goods and put himself on his country. Afterwards a jury of
the venue round St Michael at Corn, consisting of Andrew
Mel and others, said that John accompanied Elyas to the Fair
of St Botulph, and Elyas sent him to his wife, who delivered
to him goods which were in his shop, and that John traded
with them well for fifteen days, and afterwards fell ill, whereupon Elyas on his return from the Fair had him taken to his
father's house; for these goods he ought to render account,
but the jury did not know the value of them. Judgment was
given that he render an account, and William de Leyre and
Walter de Finchinfeld were appointed auditors. The defendant was mainprised by his father Luke de Ware. Afterwards
the parties accounted, and it was found by a jury of Robert
le Convers and others, taken before the auditors, that John
remained indebted to Elyas in 40s. Judgment that he go to
prison until &c.
Membr. 3 b 24 Feb. 1305-6
Thursday the Feast of St Matthias the Apostle
Nicholas le Keu of Fridaystrete was attached to answer
Simon Guth, John de Guldeford, William de Bidik, William
de Helmeton and the other pepperers of Soperuslane in a
plea of trespass, wherein they complained that he, by his
journeyman who was at Sandwych, made an agreement with
William Motoun and Robert Noldin, burgesses of Sandwich,
that they should buy almonds, figs and raisins at Sandwich,
and he would pay them for the goods, thus forestalling and
enhancing these goods to the damage of the merchants and
the whole City. The defendant pleaded that he bought from
William Motoun two baskets (? buillones) (fn. 1) of almonds faithfully and without fraud or forestalling, and offered to make
proof as the Court should direct. A day was given that the
Court might be certified. Afterwards the parties made agreement by permission of Court.
Nicholas, Edward, William, and Thomas, sons of Hamo le
Paumere, deceased, came by John de Paris, "corder" (fn. 1) , and
Thomas le Paumer, executors of Hamo's will, and demanded
against Nicholas le Lung, William de Caustone, Geoffrey de
Langele and Laurence, son of Nicholas le Lung, executors
of the will of Edith la Paumere, £200 which Edith gave to
them during her lifetime, and prayed that the money be put
into safe custody for their benefit, inasmuch as the Mayor
and Aldermen are guardians of the orphans of the City. The
defendant pleaded that neither the Mayor and Aldermen nor
any other persons had any standing in that matter, because
the above Edith gave to the six children £200 on condition
that if any of them died before he came of age (cetera desunt).
2 March 1305-6
Court of J. le Blound held by J. de Wengrave, W. de
Leyre and the other Aldermen on Wednesday after the
Feast of St Mathias the Apostle [24 Feb.]
A jury of Henry de Harewe and others said that William
de Hoggenortone threw down John de Lincoln, so that he
fell in the mud and turned over three times before he could
rise, and that the defendant also took John's sword and
wanted to strike him with it, raising a tumult in which the
neighbours joined. Judgment that he go to prison &c.
A jury of Robert Sterre and others said that Thomas le
Tapicer is good and loyal, and that Thomas de Blendesowe
goes to the tavern at night, gets drunk and is quarrelsome,
and is a nuisance to the neighbours. Judgment that the
latter do not remain in the Ward. Afterwards he was mainprised by Adam de Rokesle for his good behaviour.
5 March 1305-6
Saturday after the Octave of St Matthias the Apostle
Geoffrey de Gernemue was attached to answer Geoffrey
de Garscherche in a plea that, being the plaintiff's receiver
of moneys coming from the King's Custom on corn entering
the City during two years, he refused to render account. The
defendant admitted receiving the Custom for 12d salary, and
said he rendered account every Saturday and paid over all
moneys received. A jury was summoned, but the plaintiff
made default. Judgment for the defendant.
Membr. 4
John de Lincoln, late Sheriff of London, was summoned
to answer John le Botoner on a complaint that he took six
pieces of sendal (fn. 1) , value 6 marks, to the plaintiff's damage &c.
The defendant admitted taking the sendal as a distress in
connection with the forfeiture of two tuns of new wine, which
the plaintiff had harboured among his old wines against the
ordinances of the City. The plaintiff said he had paid 20s for the
forfeiture, to which the defendant replied that he had produced
no proof of the payment. Afterwards the latter admitted
receiving 20s, but only in part payment of the forfeiture, and
demanded a jury on that issue. A jury of Queenhithe of the
Parish of Holy Trinity the Less was summoned.
10 March 1305-6
Thursday before the Feast of St Gregory [12 March]
John de Lincoln was summoned to answer Reginald de
Walsingham who complained that Peter Ogger of Bourths,
who owed him 19s 6d for board, pledged to him a horse,
which the Sheriff had taken to the Guildhall by his clerk
Richard and his son Reymund for valuation, after which the
Sheriff had taken the animal to his own house and detained
it. The defendant said he was always willing to restore the
horse to the plaintiff. As the defendant's attorney did not
deny this, judgment was given that the plaintiff receive his
horse and be in mercy for a false claim.
Thomas de Wrotham was summoned to answer Stephen
le Bakere, fishmonger, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter
complained that the defendant caused him to be imprisoned
for a month and two days, by maliciously suing him as his
bailiff on a writ of monstravit, and that afterwards a jury
acquitted him. The defendant, on the ground of the plaintiff's
allegation that he was acquitted and the defendant amerced,
demanded judgment as to whether he ought to be twice
punished for one offence.
Membr. 4 b 17 March 1305-6
Thursday after the above Feast
William le Plater complained that William Cosyn, Sheriff,
who had attached, by his Serjeant William Sallok, the goods
of Sir John de Engayn to the value of £7, viz. a palfrey, value
100s, and a robe, value 40s, at the plaintiff's suit against Sir
John for a debt of 5 marks 6s 4d, afterwards delivered the
attachment without the plaintiff's consent and to his damage.
As the defendant said that he could not answer without the
Serjeant, who was mentioned in the petition, he was ordered
to bring him on Saturday.
13 April 1306
Wednesday after the Octave of Easter [3 April]
Reginald de Thunderle, Sheriff of London, was summoned
to answer Richard Priour, Osebert le Poleter, John de
Bumpstede, Richard le Wilde, Golding le Poleter, Margaret
la Buttermonggere, John de Alegate, Alice de Dunstaple,
John de Wautham, Alice de Haliwelle and Felicia, daughter
of Hughelyng, poulterers, in a plea of trespass wherein they
complained that he took from them 51 pigeons, 7 hens,
6 capons, 8 pullets, and two and a half hundred of eggs and
5 cheeses. The defendant said that he took the above goods
lawfully as forfeitures to the Sheriff, because the plaintiffs
were common forestallers who forestalled poultry both in
the lodgings of poulterers and by meeting foreigners coming
to the City. Afterwards a jury of Cornhull gave a verdict for
the defendant. Judgment was given that the plaintiffs be
committed to prison (fn. 1) until &c. and that the poultry be forfeited to the Sheriff.
Anianius de Peyssoun had a day on Thursday after the
Feast of the Invention of the Holy Cross [3 May] to give
evidence that Ralph de Honilane was debtor on a Statute
Merchant, and did not come. He was summoned for the
morrow.
Membr. 4 c
[Record and Process of an action in the Sheriff's Court.]
17 Nov. 1305
Court of Reginald de Thunderle, Sheriff, Wednesday
before the Feast of St Edmund King [20 Nov.] A° 33
Edw. [1305]
Michael de Pistorie was attached to answer John de Eton
in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that a
certain Mone le Lumbard came to his house and bought from
him a "morel" (fn. 1) horse for £10 for the use of the defendant,
and afterwards the latter came and was satisfied with the
horse, but not with the price, whereupon they settled on a
price of 12 marks, but the defendant had not paid this sum
and so had hindered the plaintiff from selling the horse,
which he might often have done for a higher price. The
defendant denied the whole transaction and offered to make
his law. The plaintiff said that he had two witnesses, who
were present, and could be produced to prove that the
defendant agreed to pay the same day. Afterwards the
plaintiff produced his witnesses, and the defendant did not
show any cause why they should not be examined. The first
witness, Salamon, being sworn and examined before the
Sheriff and Richer de Refham, Alderman, said that the
defendant came to Marcellus de Novo Mercato
(fn. 2) at Wollechirchagwe and met John de Etone, with whom he made a
bargain about the horse that he would pay twelve marks
before sunset, and in order to clinch it, he took a penny from
the lining of his shirt [de birra camisie sue] and gave it to the
plaintiff. In answer to questions, he said this was immediately after noon struck, and that the defendant was
wearing a green supertunic, and that Bartholomew de
Redyngg and others were present. Bartholomew gave similar
evidence. Judgment was given for the plaintiff with damages,
which damages were afterwards taxed both by the Court and
a jury at 8 marks.
dorso
Michael de Pistorie alleged error in that the plaintiff
claimed £10 and only proved 12 marks; and that the Court
caused the jury to tax damages instead of taxing them itself.
On Thursday after the Feast of St Gregory [12 March]
A° 34 Edw. [1305-6] the parties and the Sheriff came before
the Mayor and Aldermen, who inspected the record, in which
they found no error, and confirmed the judgment, except that
they mitigated the damages by 40s.
Membr. 5
[Record and Process of an action in the Sheriff's Court.]
4 March 1305-6
Court of Reginald de Thunderle, Friday after the
Octave of St Mathias the Apostle [24 Feb.] A° 34 Edw.
[1305-6]
Richard de Fersdene and John de Ely were summoned
to answer John Jacob, master of the "Edmund" of Brithlingeseye, in a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained
that they freighted his ship at Bordeaux with 68 casks and
3 pipes of wine, of which Richard loaded 58 casks and 3 pipes,
at 21 to the 20, and the three pipes makeweight (de avantagio),
at 10s the cask to London, the freight amounting thus to
£27 10s, and John loaded 10 casks at 100s freight; and that
this money should have been paid twenty-one days after the
cargo had been disembarked, in proof of which he produced
the charter. The defendants admitted freighting the wine
according to the charter, but pleaded that they were not
bound to answer the plaintiff, because the charter contained
a proviso that he should take the wine to London to be disembarked, and he anchored at Sandwich and there left the
ship, whereby it fell into danger, and the men of Sandwich
and Mergate received 13 casks of wine for salvaging it by his
default, and the bailiff of Sandwich one cask, and the master
himself received four casks in part payment of his freight at
Sandwich; and after the wines had thus been salvaged, they
hired another master and mariners at Sandwich to take the
ship to London at a cost of £11. They demanded judgment
whether they were bound to answer the plaintiff. The
plaintiff pleaded that being tossed about by contrary winds
and tempest he anchored in the port of Wynchelse in order
to save the men and cargo, and being unfamiliar with the
course from thence to London, he and the merchants in the
ship, to wit, Emeric Salmer and Walter and Gerard Pedyn,
hired a certain Simon Carnon, their lodesman (fn. 1) , to take the
ship to the Thames at the expense and responsibility of the
merchants, according to the custom of sailors (fn. 2) , and that Simon
took the ship to a port of safety before Sandwich; and since
he, the master, was entirely lacking in money and victuals,
and anticipated that they could not set sail on account of
the uncertainty of the weather, he set out for his home in
order to find money and victuals (fn. 3) , giving orders to all in the
ship that they were not to depart before his return. But the
merchants in the ship, Walter and Gerard, together with
Simon their lodesman, taking no notice of his orders, continued their journey, whereby they ran into danger, so that
if the merchants suffered any damage or expenses, it could
not be imputed to the plaintiff and did not arise from any
default of his. To this the defendants answered that Emeric
was not in the ship, and that Walter and Gerard were under
age, and were not merchants, nor were they acting for the
merchants in the ship. The plaintiff pleaded that they were
merchants, and that they and the lodesman took the ship
out of port against his orders, and he offered to prove this
by a jury of merchants and mariners. Afterwards on Wednesday before the Feast of St Gregory, Pope [12 March], came
the parties and a jury, which the defendants challenged
without giving any ground for their challenge. And as the
plaintiff was a foreigner, four good and lawful men were
chosen and sworn to examine the challenge, to wit:-Adam
Wade, John de Parys, "corder," John Paul and John de
Rokesle, who said upon oath that Alexander Pyk, Thomas
Cros, Adam Lutekyn and Adam Ballard were not of the
affinity of the plaintiff; after which they and the others were
sworn in the panel which is annexed to this record. The
jury gave a verdict that Walter and Gerard were merchants
and regarded as merchants in the ship, and that they, together
with their lodesman, set sail from Sandwich against the
master's orders, so that if the defendants sustained any loss,
it was not to be imputed to the master, according to the law
and custom of mariners. Judgment that the plaintiff recover
the sums claimed, and the defendants be in mercy for unjust
detinue.
Membr. 6 9 June 1306
Court of J. le Blound, Thursday before the Feast of
St
the Apostle [11 June]
Thomas, Rector of the Church of St Mary Wollechirchehawe, Guy le Clerk, and Richard le Coffrer, executors of the
will of Thomas le Fleming, were summoned to answer Ralph
de Wottone in a plea that they return to him one "gambeson" (fn. 1) ,
one "aketoun," one "corset" (fn. 2) and one "banere," pledged
with them for a loan of 13 marks, for which the plaintiff had
paid 2 marks and a gambeson, value £10. Guy appeared and
said he could not answer without his co-executors. Order
was given to distrain them against the next Court.
16 June 1306
Thursday after the above Feast
A jury of Robert de Norhampton and others said that
Richard le Barber of Cornhill bought timber coming to
Cheap, before it was on sale, and put the timber in foreign
carts so that the buyers were deceived, and that he had done
this at Chinggeston (fn. 3) and Souwer (fn. 4) and elsewhere, and that
he forestalled all things relating to his trade. Judgment that
he go to prison, and only be liberated by special precept of
the Mayor. Afterwards he was released on mainprise for his
appearance on Monday to hear judgment.
Membr. 6 b 13 Aug. 1306
Saturday after the Feast of St Lawrence [10 Aug.]
Elias Renaud of Gascony appointed Katherine Bompuz
his attorney to receive from Richard de Burgh, goldsmith,
his gold ring with a sapphire in it.
31 Aug. 1306
Wednesday after the Feast of the Decollation of St John
the Baptist [29 Aug.] before John de Wengrave,
deputy of the Mayor
John de Coppedok, Geoffrey Giffard, John Brid, John de
Rodbourne, and Hamo atte Barre, poulterers, were attached
to answer the Commonalty, for buying poultry within the
City to sell it outside, as though they were freemen, thus
producing a scarcity of poultry to the damage of the citizens.
The defendants pleaded that they bought poultry in the
markets of Kyngeston, Berkingg, St Albans and other places
far and near, paying custom there, and brought it to the City
and sold it there to the profit of the City, and that they paid
the bailiffs murage and other customs; and they demanded
a jury. Afterwards John de Redbourne (sic) and Hamo atte
Barre paid a fine to the Commonalty to have the freedom, and
went quit. A jury of John Burel and others gave a verdict in
accordance with the defendants'. pleading. They were mainprised by John de Sabrichesworth, John atte Barre, John
Burel and Roger Prior, poulterers, to hear judgment on
Saturday. Afterwards the defendants made satisfaction to the
Commonalty and were admitted and sworn to the freedom
of the City.
Maud Fattyng was summoned to answer Warin Page, her
apprentice, for unjust dismissal. She pleaded that the plaintiff
beat her, her daughter, and her household, despised his food,
tore his linen clothes, and lent the money, which she had
entrusted to him to trade therewith, to others against her will
to the amount of 69s 4d, and also she had paid for him 13s for
a mayhem (fn. 1) done by him on Alice Martyn, and accordingly she
had dismissed him till he should pay the above debts. The
plaintiff denied these charges and demanded a jury. After
wards a jury of John le Loung and others said that the
plaintiff did not beat the defendant, despise his food, or tear
his clothes. A day was given to hear judgment. Afterwards
the parties made agreement by permission of Court on terms
that Maud quitclaim all actions against the plaintiff, for which
the plaintiff pay her 102s 8d. Maud was in mercy, which was
condoned for 2s 8d, which she paid to Richard Poterel the
Chamberlain.
2 Sept. 1306
Friday after the Feast of the Decollation of St John
the Baptist [29 Aug.]
John de Bluntesham, taverner, was attached to answer
William de Wynchelse and his fellows, collectors of the
present tallage in the Ward of Cheap, in a plea of trespass,
wherein they complained that when they demanded from
Richard de Bluntesham, brother and landlord of the defendant, 2s, being his assessment, the defendant violently abused
and cursed them, to their damage 100s. The defendant denied
that he abused or cursed them, but acknowledged saying,
"let those who thus assessed him be cursed and hanged by
the devil." And since he cursed the collectors in the presence
of the Mayor, judgment was given that he go to prison until
&c. Afterwards he was mainprised by Salamon le Cotiller
and William de Lauvare to come to the next Court and pay
a fine.
John le Spencer, spicer, was attached to answer William
de Prestone in a plea of fraud, wherein the latter complained
that the defendant bought from him a cask of wine for 36s 8d,
and asked him either to come or send some one with him to
fetch the money. The plaintiff thereupon sent his servant
William, and the defendant had the wine carried to Bredstrate
and caused it to be. . . .there, and told the servant to follow
him, which the latter did through various streets until they
came to London Bridge, when the defendant told the servant
to wait for him while he went into the privy there. The
servant did so, but the defendant left the privy by another
entrance.... [remainder of the membrane mutilated].
Membr. 7 5 Sept. 1306
Monday before the Feast of the Nativity B.M. [8 Sept.]
Alan le Baker, who was attached to answer the Mayor and
Commonalty for breaking the sequestration made on him for
his share of the tallage levied for the gift to the Prince of
Wales, came and said that Thomas Juvenal gave him permission to break the sequestration in order to pay the collectors
of Cheap Ward 2 marks. He admitted that he still owed 2s 8d,
and he abused the collectors in the presence of the Mayor and
Court. Judgment that he go to prison until &c. Afterwards
he was mainprised by Walter de Bardeneye, William de
Laufare, Adam de Auntioche and John de Lincoln, cordwainer, to appear on the morrow to pay a fine.
Nicholas de Herdewyk was attached to answer Thomas le
Parmenter of Baudak in a plea of detinue of chattels, wherein
the latter complained that when he deposited five sacks of
wool in the house of Peter de Coumbe towards the Tower,
the defendant had them removed to an unknown place, took
away the plaintiff's seal and put another on, and afterwards
delivered to him three sacks, but retained two, to his damage
£10. The defendant pleaded that the detinue was just,
because the plaintiff had pledged the sacks to him for £10 in
which he, the defendant, had stood surety for him, i.e. for the
sum of 13 marks in which the plaintiff had been convicted
by the Justices of Traylebaston in an action of trespass
against him at the suit of Walter le Parmenter, and for an
amercement of 2 marks. He said further that the plaintiff, on
delivery of the three sacks, begged him in the presence of the
Sheriff and others to retain the two sacks till the plaintiff had
paid the £10. The plaintiff denied this, and demanded to
acquit himself by his law. The defendant said that this
was an unjust defence (fn. 1) , because he could produce witnesses,
Peter and William. After taking an oath that he would not
produce others than those named, and that he would not
suborn them nor cause them to speak anything but the truth;
he produced Peter de Cornwall, and caused the other witness
William to be essoined by John de Ware. The plaintiff demanded judgment against him as to whether an essoin lay,
on the ground that the defendant was a foreigner, and according to the custom and law of the City, he ought to have
his suit ready in Court. The defendant pleaded that after
he had one witness ready in Court, according to the custom
and law of the City, the other could be essoined. A day was
given to hear judgment at the next Court. After three postponements that the Court might be certified, judgment was
given for the plaintiff, on the ground that according to the
laws and custom of the City an essoin did not lie.
Membr. 7 b 9 Sept. 1306
Friday the morrow of the Nativity B.M. [8 Sept.]
Stephen le Barber of London was attached to answer
Robert le Barber of Graschirche and Maud his wife, in a plea
of trespass, wherein they complained that Stephen came to
their house with a woman and asked to see the solar and to
drink there, and when Maud heard them making a noise she
ascended to the solar and found Stephen pulling on his
breeches, and he struck her on the head with a quart pot and
kicked her, to her damage £20. The defendant pleaded that
he went only to drink and buy wine, and that the plaintiff
assaulted him first. Afterwards a jury of Grascherche, consisting of William Wastel and others, found for the plaintiff,
with damages 10 marks. Judgment was given for that amount,
and that the defendant go to prison.
10 Sept. 1306
Saturday after the above Feast
Robert le Barbur of Graschirch and Maud, his wife, were
summoned to answer Stephen le Barbur in a plea of trespass,
wherein he complained that when he went to Robert's house
to drink, Maud and her maidservant assaulted him, and tore
out his eye (oculum suum eruerunt) while he was in the custody
of Thomas Juvenal the bailiff. A jury of the venue, consisting of John Laurens and others, found for the defendants.
Judgment accordingly.
12 Sept. 1306
Monday after the above Feast before John de Wengrave,
deputy of the Mayor
The jury between Joan, relict of John de Armenters, and
the Mayor and Aldermen, who sued on behalf of John's
orphans, came in the persons of Richard de Wandelesford
and others, and said that Joan had no goods belonging to
John de Armenters, except what he devised to her and what
was delivered to her by the executors. Judgment that her
goods, which were sequestrated, be delivered to her.
Membr. 8 19 Sept. 1306
Monday after the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy
Cross [14 Sept.]
A jury of the venue of Neugate was summoned to say by
whom dung was cast into the ditches of the City.
John de Troys was attached to answer Gocelin the Serjeant
on a charge of assaulting the latter in Grascherche Street and
tearing his hood. The defendant admitted the charge, and
prayed leave to make agreement. This was granted, on terms
that Gocelin pardon the trespass and John pay him a tun of
wine to be taken at his will. A day was given to hear judgment.
6 Oct. 1306
Thursday after the Feast of St Michael [29 Sept.]
Robert de Armenters, John Tedmar, Peter de Armenters
and John de Northampton, chaplain, executors of the will of
John de Armenters, were attached to answer Henry Scof in
a plea of debt, wherein the latter complained that the late
John de Armenters by his son John and Peter de Armenters,
his merchants, bought cloth from him at the Fair of Westminster to the value of £50, A° 26 Edw. [1297-8], for which
payment was to be made, half at Christmas and the rest at
the Purification, and that £22 was paid, leaving a debt of £28.
The defendants denied the transaction, and demanded a jury.
Afterwards a jury of William de Parys, draper, and others
said that the plaintiff sold £50 worth of drapery to John, son
of John de Armenters, and Peter de Armenters, and that the
latter paid £22 by an agreement under their names, but that
the cloth never came into the hands or to the profit of John
de Armenters, senior. Judgment was given for the executors, Robert, John and John. Peter de Armenters did not
appear.
15 Oct. 1306
Saturday after the Feast of St Edward [13 Oct.]
Robert de Berkyng, goldsmith, was summoned to answer
William de Helmeton for having sued the latter in the King's
Court, and there charged the plaintiff with prosecuting a
sentence of excommunication against him (fn. 1) contrary to the
King's prohibition. The plaintiff pleaded that such an action
in the King's Court was against the Liberties of the City.
The defendant admitted having sued the plaintiff, and said
it was lawful to do so. The Mayor and Aldermen forbade
the defendant to prosecute his plea any further in the King's
Court, as such action was against the Liberties of the City.
Membr. 8 b 21 Oct. 1306
Friday after the Feast of St Luke the Evangelist
[18 Oct.]
A jury of the venue of Cornell and round the House of the
Friars Minors was summoned for the morrow to say on oath
whether John de Offington, mason, threatened the King's
masons and carpenters, who were brought to London by
Master Walter de Herford, mason, for the Queen's work,
telling them that if they accepted less wages than the other
masons of the City, they would be beaten; in consequence
of which the Queen's work was unfinished.
22 Oct. 1306
Saturday after the above Feast
William de Leycestre, "fevere" (fn. 2) , was found guilty of
striking Stephen le Barber over the left eye, by a jury of All
Hallows, Garscherche, and St Bennets, which assessed
damages at 1 mark.
12 Nov. 1306
Court of J. le Blound, Mayor, on Saturday after the
Feast of St Martin [11 Nov.]
Thomas Brok and Robert Pickard were attached to answer
Nicholas de Cantebrig and his fellows, who were impanelled
as a jury between Matthew de Essex and Baudewyn le
Chaucer, for having said that the plaintiffs spoke falsely in
the inquest and were perjured, to the damage of the latter
40s. A jury of Westchep and Cordwanerstret was summoned.
Afterwards the parties came to an agreement without permission of the Court. They were amerced, but their amercement was condoned by the Mayor.