ROLL A 26
Further, of the time of John Norhampton, mayor
Membr. 1
31 May 1383
Thomas Depham of co. Norfolk was committed to prison
for saying that the news of the war (fn. 1) which the lord bishop
of Norwich began in Flanders and other previous news from
those parts were false.
Membr. 1 b
6 Dec. 1382
John Filiol, fishmonger, who had been committed to prison
for opprobrious words against the mayor, as recorded in
Letter Book H, fo. 157 (fn. 2) , was set free at the instance of his
friends, by mainprise of William Naffertone, John Norwych,
John Southam and John Enemeth for his good behaviour
towards the officers of the city under penalty of £100.
12 June 1383
William Sherere was mainprised for his good behaviour
by John Charney and Richard Serle and sworn to set out
immediately to join the bishop of Norwich in Flanders.
25 June 1383
John Hood, armourer, was mainprised to appear before
the Mayor and Aldermen when summoned, and further
sworn not to sell any bassynet
(fn. 3) of Flanders as of London
manufacture nor to place the mark of any London man upon
any such basinet or any other armour of the same country.
The same day Thomas Hogecote was sworn to be obedient
to the surveyors of the mistery of Armourers.
30 June 1383
Richard Leukenore, corsour
(fn. 4) , was mainprised to keep the
peace and not to use shameful, indecent or evil words to
any stranger or freeman whereby the city of London might
be defamed.
Membr. 2
20 Nov. 1382
Quitclaim from Augustine Damasce, merchant of Lucca,
executor of Master Laurence de Nigris, to Bartholomew de
Bosano, merchant of Lucca.
14 Nov. 1382
Nigel Taillour of Holbourne produced before the Mayor
and Aldermen a bill of complaint addressed to the King of
Castile and Lyons (fn. 5) , duke of Lancaster, to the effect that
Roger Gailer of Holbourne, at the time of the rising, was a
leader of the rioters and rode with a great rabble to the
Savoy and St John's (fn. 6) , for which he had purchased a charter
of pardon, and nevertheless he and his wife said openly to
their neighbours that they would willingly spend £100 of
the money he had gained at the Savoy and St John's in order
to be revenged on their poor and loyal neighbours. [French]
Thereupon an inquest was summoned from the neighbourhood to make inquiry. The jurors, being sworn, said
that the above-mentioned Roger Gailer was not one of the
principal captains at the time of the rising, nor did he ride
with the mob to the Savoy, as alleged, but he rode with other
evildoers to the house of St John at Clerkenwell and there
feloniously stole certain goods, viz. a book called "a missal"
and a small side of bacon, of the value of 100s, and also certain
bulls sealed with lead, all of which he afterwards restored
to the officials of the house.
5 Dec. 1382
Memorandum that on 22 Dec. 1380 Guy de Port, Lombard, brought a bill demanding from William Gappe, William
Ode and Custaunce Beamond, executors of Thomas Beamond,
the sum of £11 for two cloths of silk engreyn
(fn. 7) supplied by
him to the said Thomas on 30 Oct. 1376. After the latter's
death in Lombardy, the executors had declared that during
his lifetime he had paid the amount to a merchant in Lombardy for the complainant and offered to bring proof of the
fact, meanwhile depositing £11 in court. As they had failed
to bring proof, he prayed that the money be delivered to him.
Though the defendants, on being summoned, had made
four defaults, the money still remained in court (fn. 8) . Accordingly
on 5 Dec. 1382 it was delivered to the plaintiff under security
to answer therefor if the defendants should submit themselves
to justice within a year and a day.
13 Dec. 1382
Nicholas Darel, hostiller, was summoned to answer Tidemann Wauschede for a debt of £22 10s, the balance due on
the purchase of two hogsheads of steel in 1377, the price
being £28 10s, of which the defendant had paid, £6 on
account at the time of sale.
The defendant pleaded that the only debt he owed was
one of £22 10s due on a bond, and he was willing to make
his law that he owed no other debt (fn. 9) , and as the plaintiff had
not produced any bond for the £22 10s, he prayed judgment
as to whether any action lay against him. The plaintiff then
acknowledged that there was no other debt than the, £22 10s,
but as the bond was lost he could not produce it. If the
defendant would pay this debt, he would give him a general
acquittance or enter into any security the court might require
that he would not sue the defendant on the bond, if he found
it. He prayed that the defendant answer further. The latter
said he did not wish to make any further answer. Accordingly,
in default of an answer, it was considered that the said Tidemann recover the said £22 10s, that the defendant be committed to prison and that the plaintiff give him an acquittance
on his leaving prison or paying the debt. Afterwards on
13 May 1384 the plaintiff came into court and asked that the
defendant be released from prison since they had come to
an agreement.
Membr. 2 b
15 Dec. 1382
Hugh de Ware, fishmonger, was attached to answer Robert
Aleyn, knight, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that at Michaelmas 1361 he leased to a certain John
Blake, cornmonger, a messuage, shop, cellar and ten solars
in Thames Street by Billingsgate for 10 years at 17 marks
annual rent and afterwards assigned this rent to Ralph de
Mordon, who in turn assigned it to the above Hugh, which
assignment the plaintiff ratified, further granting to him to
hold the premises for two further years after the expiration
of the lease, and nevertheless the defendant forcibly retained
the premises for another year still, to the plaintiff's damage
20 marks.
The defendant pleaded that a certain John Bethewode,
tymbermonger and citizen, had sued the plaintiff for a debt
of £36 before the justices of the Bench at Westminster in
Michaelmas term 1378, as the result of which the plaintiff
had been put in exigent and outlawed, and that therefore the
present action, being a personal action and originating from
a time long before the outlawry, was extinguished.
To this the plaintiff replied that the king by a charter,
which he produced, had pardoned him the outlawry, that
he had made suit by scire facias against the aforesaid party
according to the form of the statute (fn. 10) upon which his pardon
was allowed to him, and that inasmuch as the defendant did
not deny his allegations he prayed judgment and damages.
Process being continued, the parties appeared on 12 Feb.
1383, when it was considered that the plaintiff take nothing
by his bill, but be in mercy, and that the defendant go quit
thereof.
Afterwards on 25 Feb. the king by a writ of certiorari
ordered that the tenor of the record and process be returned
to Chancery, which was done.
13 Dec. 1382
Writ of protection in favour of John Gemel, esquire, then
about to cross the sea in the company of Betrucat de Lebret
in the king's service.
Membr. 3
29 Jan. 1383
Memorandum that the king sent to the mayor a letter
sealed with his signet charging him to arrest Ogolyne Gerard,
Lombard (fn. 11) , and to deliver him to Sir Thomas Morrieux,
constable of the Tower, to await the king's pleasure. The
prisoner's goods and chattels, with all his papers and letters
found in his lodging, were to be delivered under the mayor's
seal to the king's continuel conseil in London. Given under
the signet at the manor of Sheen, 29 Jan. 1383. [French]
After the above orders had been carried out the king sent
a writ to the effect that since Hugh (sic) Gerard was prepared to answer any charge, and Peter Marke, Nicholas Luke,
Galadine de Reest, Angel Cristofre, Bernard George and
Thomas Lyppe had entered into security in Chancery to
produce him when required and to account for his goods
under a penalty of 1000 marks above their value, the king
ordered that the said Hugh and his goods be delivered from
arrest and prison. Dated at Westminster 13 Feb. 1383.
26 Feb. 1383
Writ of protection in favour of John Cristian of Salisbury,
then about to cross to foreign parts in the company of Henry,
bishop of Norwich.
19 March 1383
William Spaldyng, tailor, was brought before the Mayor and
Aldermen in the Chamber of the Guildhall for speaking evil and
shameful words against Robert Croule, tawyer, whence discord
might have arisen between the two misteries of Tailors and
Tawyers. He put himself on the mercy of the Mayor and
Aldermen and was sentenced to prison for forty days. Afterwards on the same day, at the request of the aldermen and of
the good men of the mistery of Tawyers, he was set free, being
bound over to keep the peace under penalty of 100 marks
payable to the chamberlain if he were again convicted.
Membr. 3 b
2 March 1383
Writ of corpus cum causa to the mayor ordering him to send
Peter Gracyan, Lombard, then a prisoner in Newgate, before
the council at Westminster on the Wednesday following with
the cause of his taking and detaining.
Return that on 19 Aug. 1382 the said Peter, in a plea of
account between himself and Luke Bragadyn, merchant of
Venice, was adjudged to prison until he had made satisfaction for a debt of £383 8s and other goods. Also on
15 Dec. following the said Peter had undertaken to pay, on
behalf of the said Luke, the sum of £1250 to Nicholas
Brembre, knight, in case the said Luke, who was then in
prison, failed to pay that amount. Since the said Peter had
failed to make either of these payments, he was detained in
prison, in accordance with the custom of the oity and the
law merchant. While obeying the king's command, the mayor
prays that the prisoner may be returned to custody according
to custom.
25 April 1383
William Thornhill, armourer, was committed to prison
for selling wine in Fleet Street at 8d the gallon, instead of
6d, as laid down in the statute (fn. 12) . Two days later he was
bound over to obey the statute and to indemnify the mayor
and other officials of the city against the king and the city.
The same day William atte Sele, baker of tourte-bread (fn. 13) ,
was bound over to make his bread of the correct weight,
under penalty of £40.
Membr. 4
9 June 1383
Letter of attorney from Jerome Arigi of Boloigne le Crasse
(Bologna) to Saint de Bartilmeu de Saint (fn. 14) of Bologna to
receive and sue for debts due to him and to transact business
on his behalf.
Similar letter from Thomasin Lippy, merchant of Bologna.
7 May 1383
An inquest of office before John Norhampton, mayor, and
William Cheyne, recorder, to inquire whether a messuage
in the parish of St Martin Ludgate, late belonging to Thomas
atte Crouche, was entailed so as to descend to Roger, son
of William, son of the said Thomas, or could be alienated
by the said William—by oath of twelve jurors and two informers, William Norton and John Willughby. A verdict was
given that Thomas atte Crouche had been seised of the
messuage in his demesne as of fee and right and had granted
it by charter to Thomas Lemynstre, parson of the aforesaid
church, and Henry Aldryngton, their heirs and assigns, which
Thomas and Henry had thereupon reconveyed it by feoffment
to Thomas atte Grouche and Agatha his wife for the term of
their lives with remainder to William, his heirs and assigns,
and that on the death of the said Agatha, William had sold
the reversion (sic) to a certain Richard Pulle, to whom
Thomas atte Crouche had attorned, and who now, after
the deaths of Thomas and William, occupied and held the
messuage in his own right as he was well entitled to do; and
further, that the said messuage was not entailed.
17 June 1383
Grant from William Bartelot, son and one of the heirs of
Thomas Bartelot, to Thomas Elys of Sandwich in fee simple
of lands etc. in Kent and the Isle of Thanet, and letter of
attorney to Thomas Rollyng, chaplain, of Sandwich, to deliver
seisin.
Membr. 5
12 May 1383
Memorandum that Robert Kydenot had recently sued
Richard Horewode, mercer, for a debt of £4 due in part payment of a larger sum owed to himself and a certain Robert
Colyn, and that in the course of the proceedings a certain
Henry Permay came and said that the above claim was in
respect of a quantity of linen cloth sold, and since Robert
Colyn was indebted to himself in a far larger sum he prayed
that the money paid by Richard Horewode should be retained
and paid over to himself. As the money had been lying for
a long time in the Sheriffs' Court without any discussion or
judgment, the said Robert Kydenot prayed the mayor to
summon the action into the Chamber of the Guildhall and
there deal with it according to the law merchant.
Accordingly the mayor gave the parties a day on 12 May
1383, when Richard Horewode gave evidence on oath as to
purchasing the linen, but said he did not know whether it
belonged to Robert Kydenot or Robert Colyn. Thereupon
Robert Kydenot asked for and obtained fifteen days adjournment in order that Robert Colyn, who was in Calais, might
be examined in the presence of the mayor of the Staple of
Calais or his lieutenant and constables. After that interval
he produced in court a certificate [French] dated 14 April
1383 from the lieutenant and constables of Calais, to the
effect that Robert Colyn had appeared before them and had
informed them that the linen belonged to himself alone and
that he had assigned the money due for it to Robert Kydenot
because he was indebted to him in a larger sum of money,
and that he owed nothing to Henry Permay.
This document having been read by the court, it was considered that the £4 should be delivered to Robert Kydenot
under security that, if the said Henry Permay or Robert
Colyn should appear within a year and a day and prove
reasonably that it belonged to them or either of them, the
said Robert should repay it.
24 July 1383
In an action by Joan, wife and attorney of John Olney,
woolmonger, against Richard Scotard for a debt of £17, the
latter's attorney, John Merssh, produced a writ of protection
dated 13 July in favour of the above Richard, who was then
about to cross the sea with Thomas Fychet to join the
company of Henry, bishop of Norwich. By which writ the
said action remains without a day.
Membr. 5 b
2 July 1383
Letter of attorney from Cosmas de Aurea, merchant of
Genoa, to John de Carlo, merchant of Genoa, to receive all
sums due to him, both from his debtors and by way of
exchange, and to transmit them to Genoa, and further to
charge him with the payment of sums received on exchange,
but this power of attorney was not to extend to binding the
said Cosmas by obligations or making further payments than
as expressed above.
Membr. 6
24 July 1383
William Brikles, pepperer, executor of the will of Sabina
Yerdele (fn. 15) , brought a bill of complaint before the Mayor and
Aldermen showing that the said Sabina six years before her
death had set apart and specified in her will a sum of £100
for the support of a chaplain to celebrate divine service in
the church of All Hallows the Great for her wellbeing in life
and for her soul after death, the said chaplain to receive an
annual salary of 10 marks. She had appointed Walter Lyndon
as chaplain and had placed the money in the hands of Robert
Corn on account of the trust and affection she felt for him.
The said Robert had paid the chaplain £40 for the six years
before her death and 33s 4d for the first quarter of the year
afterwards. But though the chaplain had celebrated for three
further years, the said Robert would neither pay him the £20
thus due nor appoint another chaplain.
The said Robert appeared on summons on 27 July and
said that Sabina at the time of her death had acquitted him
of all that remained of the £100, i.e. £60, and that he had
paid 33s 4d more to the chaplain of his own free will, and
that therefore he need not answer further, nor pay more to
the chaplain, nor appoint another one. The plaintiff answered
that so far as his own knowledge went Sabina had never
acquitted him. Thereupon the defendant offered to pay the
£20 in arrears of the chaplain's salary, if the plaintiff together
with two other good men would swear that he had no knowledge that Sabina had remitted the £60 (fn. 16) . The plaintiff accepted this offer and produced four men, viz. Roger Carneford, Henry Baret, John Romeseye and William Campyon,
who, after he had taken the oath, swore that his oath, so far
as they knew, was a true one.
Accordingly it was considered that the defendant pay the
£20 in arrears to the chaplain, and as the latter had received
no notice about seeking other work, that the defendant pay
him 10 marks for the coming year. And since the will produced in court showed that the testator wished the defendant
to be exonerated from finding a chaplain if he fell into
poverty through misfortune or any other cause, the question
of continuing the chaplain's services was respited until the
court should have information as to the defendant's means.
The defendant then paid £20 arrears of salary and afterwards
on 30 Nov. the instalment of the present year's salary due
at Michaelmas.
21 Aug. 1383
Richard, Fodringay and John Godard, esquires, exhibited
to the Mayor and Aldermen an indenture and an obligation.
They prayed that, although no payment had been made to
them at the date specified in these documents, the Mayor
and Aldermen would bear witness, if necessary, that they
were willing to fulfil their own undertakings in the matter:
Covenant reciting that John Northebury, Richard Foudringay and John Godard had bought a barge of Bristol, with
all its goods and gear, which had belonged to John Poculchurch, Thomas Martyn, Geoffrey Martin, William Stephens,
John Bradewey and Ralph Welles, burgesses of Bristol, and
John Weneton, citizen of London, from Pascual Miglice,
John de Lano and other Spaniards, John Pulmic and several
other Bretons and Frenchmen, enemies of the king of England.
They now agree to sell the barge again to John Poculchurch
and his companions for £800 payable on 15 Aug. in the house
of Robert Boxeford in Cheap. The said Poculchurch and his
companions agree to purchase the barge; and if they fail to
pay the above amount, a bond of £183 6s 8d shall remain
of full force and effect and the barge shall remain with the
said John, Richard and John to do with as they will. But
if they shall pay the said sum of £800, the bond shall be
of no effect and the barge shall come into their possession.
For their part the said John, Richard and John promise to
deliver the barge as soon as a message shall arrive at Brest
that the money has been paid. Dated 2 June 1383. [French]
Obligation from John Pokelcherche and his companions to
Janekyn Northbury, Richard Foudringey and John Godard
to pay £366 13s 4d (fn. 17) at the above date and place by reason
of a pure and loyal loan made to them by the said Janekyn,
Richard and John, in deliverance of their bodies from the
hands and prison of Pascoual Miglice, Johan de Lano and
other Spaniards and Frenchmen their enemies. Dated 1 June
1383. [French]
Membr. 6 b
24 Sept. 1383
Nicholas Stoke of co. Southampton, who had been detained in prison for a year on a charge of violent behaviour
and for having threatened to burn divers houses, and who
had nearly died there, was liberated with the consent of the
sheriff, on taking an oath for his good behaviour.
Membr. 7
10 Nov. 1383
Writ of habeas corpus directed to the sheriffs and coroner (fn. 18)
of London. Whereas of late the king had ordered them to
send under their seals to Chancery the tenor of an appeal
which Leticia, widow of John Cryel, knight, had made before
them without writ against Richard Boydon, late servant of
John Cornewaille, knight, for robbery and breach of the
peace, which order they had obeyed, and whereas the king
had caused the tenor of the appeal to conic before him (coram
nobis) (fn. 19) for the due execution of the appeal, and because it is
expedient and necessary that the court should be informed
as to that appeal with all its circumstances before proceeding
to execution thereof, accordingly the sheriffs and coroner are
ordered to send the appeal with all matters relating thereto
under their seals before the king at Westminster on 16 Nov.,
and further the sheriffs are ordered to have the body of the
said Richard, then detained in Newgate, before the king on
the above day, and to warn the said Leticia to sue her appeal
against him. Witness R. Tresilian at Westminster 10 Nov.
1383.
Membr. 7 b
25 Oct. 1383
James le Brauwere, attorney of James le Grave of Bruges,
having sued Richard Ayllesbury of London for the sum of
£21 4s 6d gros of Flanders, being the balance due of a sum
of £45 12s 5d gros turnois of Flanders of which £26 7s 5d
sterling had been paid (fn. 20) , obtained judgment. On 3 Dec. 1383
he prayed that execution of the judgment cease, as he had
come to an agreement with the debtor.
2 Oct. 1383
Philip Fretheby brought a bill of complaint against Andrew
Sewardby, tailor, as follows: Whereas the said Andrew, had
in his charge the sum of £12 belonging to the plaintiff and
conceived a plot to compass the death of the plaintiff in order
to possess that money, he requested him on 8 March to take
with him the defendant's servant, Walter, and show him the
way to Bridlington in the county of York and promised him
6s 8d for so doing, of which he paid him 3s 4d, and on the
same day he procured and hired the said Walter to kill the
plaintiff on the way. When the plaintiff and the servant
reached a valley five leagues from Lincoln, the said servant
drew his baselard and struck the plaintiff suddenly and then
beat and illtreated him and left him for dead, to the damage
of the plaintiff £100; wherefore he prayed redress and asked
the Mayor and Aldermen to note the fact that the defendant
told friends of the plaintiff that he had. paid the money to
the plaintiff, who had been robbed and killed by thieves on
the way.[French]
John Botkisham, the serjeant of the Chamber, was ordered
to summon the parties for 6 Oct. On that day the defendant
produced a quitclaim of all actions, real and personal, made
to him by Simon Swan and the plaintiff, which was dated
20 Aug., subsequent to the trespass alleged in the bill. The
plaintiff acknowledged the quitclaim. Therefore it was considered that he take nothing by his bill, but be in mercy,
and that the said Andrew go thereof without a day. And
because the plaintiff prosecuted contrary to his own deed, it
was considered that he be committed to prison and pay a
fine at the mayor's discretion. Afterwards on 1 Feb. 1384
he was released on payment of a fine of 40d.
Membr. 8
21 July 1383
Robert Aleyn, knight, was summoned on a bill exhibited
to the Mayor and Aldermen to answer William, prior of the
hospital of the Blessed Mary without Bishopsgate, in a plea
of debt. Gilbert Meldebourne, the plaintiff's attorney, declared the amount as £19, i.e. £15 (fn. 21) for bread, beer, meat,
fish and other victuals bought by Matilda, the defendant's
wife, for herself and her two servants when she was in the
hospital, to wit, 18s thereof for two loaves, two gallons of
beer and two dishes of cookery every day from 11 July to
22 Aug. 1378, in the time of John Lyndeseye then prior;
66s 8d which she borrowed from the prior through Robert
Salisbury, canon of the hospital, on 20 July 1376; £8 6s 8d
for other victuals supplied to her for 50 weeks from 22 Aug.
1378 at 40d a week in the time of Robert Salisbury, who was
sub-prior during the vacancy; £7 for other victuals during
the time of the present prior from 5 Aug. 1379 for 42 weeks
at 40d a week; and 6s 8d borrowed from the prior on 15 June
1381 through Thomas Tomme, chaplain; all of which sums
the defendant refused to pay, to the plaintiff's damage £20.
The defendant denied the debt, excepting the loan of
£3 6s 8d, and put himself on the country. As regards the
loan he said that his wife gave as security a locked and sealed
forcer containing goods of the same value, which forcer still
remained in the prior's hands. Thereupon the prior's attorney
was ordered to bring the forcer to court on 28 July.
Process was continued till 8 Oct., when the attorney
brought into court one large and six small buttons, made of
silver pennies, together with the forcer. In the absence of
the said Matilda, who had the key, the forcer was opened
and found to contain nothing of any value. It was sealed
again with the seal of John Charneye, coroner of London,
and returned to the prior. The defendant's attorney then
produced a writ of protection in favour of the defendant,
running from 29 Aug. for one year, and prayed that the
action might be adjourned without a day. The court allowed
the protection as regards the two debts for money borrowed.
But, since by the custom of the city a protection was not
valid in a plea concerning victuals, a jury was chosen, tried
and sworn. They found for the plaintiff as regards the claim
for £15 6s 8d and taxed the damages at 10 marks. Therefore
it was considered that the plaintiff recover these sums.
Afterwards on 29 Oct. the prior came into court before
Nicholas Brembre, Mayor, and the Aldermen, with a writ
of the king annulling the protection, and prayed that the
defendant might be summoned to answer for the loans. The
latter made four defaults, whereupon it was considered that
the said £3 13s 4d should be arrested and remain in the
prior's hands and be allowed to him as a deduction from a
larger sum of money which Robert Aleyn had recovered
against him in an Assize of Freshforce heard before the
sheriffs, unless the defendant appeared within a year and
a day.