ROLL A 29
Divers men adjudicated to prison in the time of
Nicholas Twyford, knight, mayor
Membr. 1
1 June 1389
Thomas Derby, brodurer, was committed to prison at the
suit of Lionel Vyvarde, merchant of Genoa, for a debt of
£20 due to the said Lionel for an embroidered silk curtain.
28 Aug. 1389
John Whyte, lymenour, was committed to prison for a debt
of 16s which Henry Gaysle, scriveyn, recovered against him on
the award of the masters of the Lymenours
(fn. 1) , and for 40d which
the court adjudged that he should pay to the chamberlain
for disobeying the ordinances of his mistery.
30 Aug. 1389
John Kempe, boatman, unmarried (solutus), who was taken
in adultery with Isabella Smyth, wife of Richard Smyth, in
Billingsgate ward by John Kempe, smith, constable of the
ward, was mainprised the same day by the said John Kempe
and John Chiltre to appear before the Mayor and Aldermen
where and when etc., under penalty of £40 (fn. 2) .
Membr. 1 b
23 Jan. 1389
Whereas divers charters of divers misteries, granted to
them by the king and his progenitors, had in the time of
Nicholas Brembre, knight, been taken into the Chamber of the
Guildhall into the custody of Richard Odyham, chamberlain (fn. 3) ,
there to remain etc., and afterwards, when it should be necessary to the men of the misteries, to be handed back to them
for production before the king and his council, the charter
of the Drapers was on 23 Jan. 1389 delivered by the chamberlain to John Basse, Thomas Noket, Thomas Weylond and
John Eston, drapers, who were mainprised to produce it
before the Mayor and Aldermen and their successors where
and when etc.
The same day the chamberlain delivered to Roger Excestre,
Thomas Depham, Thomas Kirwode and Thomas Cole,
saddlers, the charter of their mistery, under the same conditions (fn. 4) .
24 Jan. 1389
The charter of the Goldsmiths was similarly handed over
on mainprise of Thomas Polle, Thomas Panton, Andrew
Stamelden and Reymund Standulf, goldsmiths; the charter
of the Skinners by mainprise of William Olyver and William
Horscroft, skinners; the charter of the Girdlers by mainprise
of John Nasyng, William Sewall, William Picot and William
Potenham, girdlers; and the charter of the Tailors by mainprise of John Dymmok, John Wilby, William Horston, Richard
Rose, John Garnet and John Ballard, tailors.
15 July 1389
Martin Falimonica was mainprised by Ciprian de Mare
and Isuellus Spinula to appear before the Mayor and Aldermen where and when etc. and to answer if any wished to
sue against him.
Membr. 2
20 Sept. 1388
Further writ relating to the arrest of Hanse merchants in
London in reprisal for the arrest of English merchants at La
Sounde by men of Lubyk etc. (fn. 5) The king commands that
the merchants, viz. Hermann Vynthorpe, Frowyn Stepyng,
William de Bourne, Conrad de Ulpe, Bernard van Lunen,
Henry Smythman, John Epenschede, Henry Mayresbek,
John Knyght and Bernard Mekilkus, all of Cologne,
Andrew Kilmere, Brunus Dycof, Hilbrand Ispelyngrode,
Nicholas Leure, Frowin Balke, Albert Cleppyng and John
Wystrote, all of Dortmund (Tremonia), and Nicholas Paternostermaker of Ungaria, should be disarrested and allowed
to go at large, because the said Hermann Vynthorp, William
de Bourne, John Pape, Hermann Huseman and Matthew
Walkemolle had appeared before the king and his council
and had entered into mainprise that English merchants should
go and come with their goods, without injury or arrest, in
the towns of Lubyk, Rustok, Wyssemere and Hamburgh and
the districts of the same, excepting the town of La Sounde.
Dated at Cantebrigg 20 Sept. 1388.
By virtue of this writ the mainprise of the merchants of
Almaine was cancelled and they and their mainpernors were
exonerated.
Membr. 2 b
16 Jan. 1389
Quitclaim from John Wantynge, son of Sibil, sister of
Robert Hamull, citizen, whose heir he is, to William de
Briene, knight, his heirs and assigns and other persons
holding (fn. 6) the manor of Esthall co. Kent, of all his right and
claim to the same manor and to a messuage, mill, 4 carucates
of land, 13 acres of meadow, 60 acres of wood, £10 annual
rent and a rent in kind of 120 hens and 400 eggs, in Esthall,
Crei St Mary, Orpinton, Doune, Codham, Okeholte, Hese,
Farneburgh, Pintham and Frenigham co. Kent (fn. 7) , which the
said Robert his uncle acquired of Richard de Esthall and
Margaret his wife. Dated 15 Jan. 1389.
3 Oct. 1388
Writ of protection, dated at Cambridge 3 Oct. 1388, in
favour of John Holbech of London, who was prosecuting
divers pleas touching himself and the king in divers courts
in England and was afraid of personal violence and damage
to his goods by his enemies.
Further writ to the mayor and sheriffs ordering them to
proclaim the above protection in the city and not to molest
or trouble the said John.
23 Jan. 1389
Writ to the mayor that whereas letters patent of pardon (fn. 8)
had been issued to Margery, widow of Hugh Bromhull,
pinner, for all offences entailing penalty of life, limb or forfeiture, between 1 Oct. 1382 and 31 May 1388, whereof
she might have been indicted, accused or appealed, the king
wished to be certified as to whether the said Margery was
one of the citizens of the city.
Return of Nicholas Twyford, mayor, that the said
Margery was one of the citizens according to the custom of
the city.
16 Jan. 1389
Memorandum that Robert de Whiteby, clerk and servant
of John, duke of Lancaster, lately entrusted to Peter Mildenhale, skinner, a counterpane of ermine for a bed belonging
to the duke, which the said Peter pledged as security to
Thomas de Kent and Walter Pykenham, skinners, executors
of Stephen Daubeneye, skinner, for a debt of £101 1s 8d,
which he owed to Stephen, and afterwards the said Peter was
arrested and imprisoned in the king's castle of Nottingham (fn. 9)
on charges of felony and treason. Subsequently, when Robert
asked for the counterpane, the executors refused to deliver
it to him. Thereupon the king on 16 Jan. 1389 sent letters
under his privy seal to the mayor and sheriffs demanding
that they return the counterpane to Robert, as appears more
fully in the file of letters received from the king and other
lords and magnates. The mayor and sheriffs caused the
executors to deliver the counterpane, and the latter were
exonerated thereof.
Membr. 3
2 Dec. 1388
Pleas held in the Chamber of the Guildhall according
to the custom of the city before the Mayor and Aldermen
2 Dec. 1388
Gilbert Bonet, executor of the will of Richard Lyons, was
summoned, together with his co-executors John Warde and
Thomas Medelane, to answer Isabella, widow of the said
Richard, for detinue of 1500 marks, being her portion of the
goods and chattels of her late husband according to the
custom of the city, whereby a widow took a third part if there
were children, and one half if there were no children. She
alleged that when her husband died without issue on Corpus
Christi day (13 June) 1381 he possessed goods and chattels in the
parish of St James Garlikhithe to the value of 3000 marks, viz.
gold and silver in money, silver vessels, linen, woollen and silk
cloth, wine in tuns, pepper, ginger and other merchandise.
John Warde and Thomas Medelane making default, the
defendant Gilbert appeared, after the great distress had been
put upon him, and protested that he did not acknowledge
the custom to be as alleged, or that the plaintiff was ever
de jure the wife of Richard Lyons, or that the said Richard
had any goods and chattels on the day of his death. He alleged
that in 1363 before John Harald, commissary-official of the
bishop of London, in St Paul's church the said Richard and
Isabella, by the name of Isabella Pledour, were divorced at
the suit of the said Richard on account of certain impediments, and such marriage as there was between them, so far
as it went in fact, was declared annulled by definitive sentence.
He demanded judgment whether the plaintiff could have any
action against him.
The plaintiff answered that she was married (desponsata)
to the said Richard long before the time of the alleged divorce
and that the marriage (sponsalia) continued till the death of
her husband, and that at the Husting of Common Pleas on
13 Nov. 1385 she sued John Wakelee and Maud his wife on
a writ of dower for the third part of two messuages and sixteen
shops in London, which John and Maud afterwards alleged
that her union with Richard Lyons was not lawful wedlock.
To this she had replied that she was married at the door of
St Mary de Stanynge church in Aldrichesgate. As the court
then considered that the case belonged to ecclesiastical jurisdiction and they had no power to demand information from
the bishop of London, and they wished to consult further,
the action had been adjourned from Husting to Husting
until 12 Nov. 1386, when the king sent a writ of certiorari,
returnable to Chancery, demanding the record and process,
and afterwards sent the return with another writ to the
justices of the Bench (fn. 10) to deal with it. She had appeared
before the justices and, on the default of the said John and
Maud, prayed that a writ of certiorari be sent to the bishop.
After several writs had been sent to him, the bishop at last
sent to the justices his letters patent and close saying that
he had summoned the parties before himself and his commissaries and, the matter having been thoroughly discussed,
it had been found that Richard Lyons and Isabella Pledour
had lawfully contracted matrimony, which was solemnised
according to the accustomed form of the church. Afterwards
the king sent his writs to Robert Bealknappe, justice of the
Bench, and to Thomas Haxeye, keeper of the writs of the
Bench, ordering them to send to Chancery their certificate
with all matters connected, which certificate they duly sent.
Thereupon the king sent the record and process with the
certificate to the Husting on 27 April 1388 in order that they
might proceed. She said further that there had been no
divorce, which she was prepared to verify, wherefore she
prayed judgment.
Membr. 3 b
Membr. 4
As the court considered that the cognisance of the case
belonged to the ecclesiastical court and that they had no
power to demand information from the bishop, and because
they wished to consult further, a day was given to the parties
and process was continued until 15 Feb. 1389. Meanwhile
the king by a writ of 8 Feb. demanded that the writ and
process be returned to Chancery. Finally on 10 May 1390
the king sent a writ, sub pede sigilli sui, reciting the proceedings
and informing them that the record and process had been
forwarded by Chancery to Robert Cherlton and other justices
of the Bench, who had obtained from the bishop of London
a certificate, dated 15 Nov. 1389, to the effect that the marriage
contracted between Richard Lyons and Isabella Pledour had
been quashed and annulled (fn. 11) .
Membr. 5
10 Feb. 1389
William Shrympelmerssh was attached to answer John
Pygeon, piebaker, in a plea of deceit (fn. 12) , wherein the latter
complained that on 24 Sept. 1386 the defendant offered to
sell him a house in the parish of St Andrew Baynardescastell
in fee simple, free of all encumbrances, and guaranteed that
it would let at 20 marks per annum and that he would rent
it himself for 20 years at that amount, whereupon the plaintiff
bought it for 100 marks, but found that it was burdened by
two statute-staples, one to William Venour in £100 and
another to Edmund Gyssyng in £40, and that it was worth
only 12 marks per annum; and moreover the defendant,
instead of finding security as promised and renting the house,
fled to sanctuary at Westminster.
The defendant in bar of action pleaded an agreement of
2 Nov. 1386 in the parish of St Gregory as regards all claims
of the plaintiff against him, except a claim for the enrolment
of a deed in Guildhall, which claim he did not acknowledge,
and that in accordance with the agreement he paid the
plaintiff 21 marks.
The plaintiff answered that the agreement was made not in
the parish of St Gregory but in that of St Mary Wolcherchehawe and that it was conditional on the defendant enrolling
the deed of feoffment of the house, sealing indentures of a
twenty years lease of the same and paying an old debt of
21 marks, which conditions, as regards the enrolment and the
indentures, were not fulfilled.
On these issues a jury of the two parishes of St Gregory
and St Mary brought in a verdict that the agreement was
made in the latter parish and was conditional, and they assessed
damages at 5s. Accordingly it was considered that the
plaintiff recover damages as taxed by the jury and that the
defendant be in mercy.
20 March 1389
Letter of attorney from Hugelin Gerard of Bolonia Crassa
to Philip de Matuan of the same.
Membr. 5 b
15 March 1389
Robert Somersete, draper, who had been named in the will
of Thomas Carleton, grocer, as an executor, together with the
widow, Joan, and John Arnold, chaplain, came into court and
renounced his executorship and prayed that his renunciation
might be entered of record.
Membr. 6
16 Feb. 1389
Indentures between Thomas Sampson of co. Suffolk and
John Otteleye, citizen of London, for a settlement on the
marriage of Simon Sampson, son of the said Thomas, with
Margaret, daughter of the late William Knightcote of
London, and ward of the said John. The said John agreed
to pay over to the said Thomas the said Margaret's inheritance,
viz. £333 6s 8d, namely £100 in money and the remainder
for the purchase of real property, when an opportunity should
occur, for the benefit of Simon and Margaret and their
children, or, failing children, the legitimate children of the
survivor, with remainder to Thomas Sampson. It was further
agreed that half of any goods and chattels which might accrue
under the will of William Knightcote be used for the same
purpose and half be paid to the said Thomas. Dated 9 Feb.
1389. [French]
18 Feb. 1389
Recognisance by Egbert Ludykesone of Campe (fn. 13) to Richard,
earl of Arundel and Surrey, of a debt of £500 payable at
Christmas at the earl's town-house (hostiel) of Pulteneys (fn. 14)
in London. [French]
Membr. 6 b
8 April 1389
Letter of attorney from William Bacoun, son and heir of
the late Richard Bacoun, stockfishmonger, to Sir John
Gardyner, parson of the church of St Martin Oteswich, and
John Douve to receive from Richard Bedewynd and Margaret
his wife a quitrent of half-a-mark issuing from their tenement
in the occupation of John Chircheman and situate in the
parish of St Michael Crokedlane in Tamestret. Dated 1 Feb.
1389.
Membr. 7
27 Nov. 1388
Pleas held in the Chamber of the Guildhall before
Nicholas Twyford, knight, Mayor, the Sheriffs and
Aldermen
(fn. 15)
according to the custom of the city on
Friday 27 Nov. A
o 12 Ric. II
Whereas John Walpoll, tailor, and others had brought
divers bills of trespass before the mayor against John
Bodesham of Bury, late serjeant of the city, the said John
was arrested and taken to the compter of Thomas Austyn,
one of the sheriffs, on 5 Nov. 1388. Afterwards on 12 Nov.
he was mainprised by Robert Litle, fishmonger, and seven
others to keep the peace with the complainants and for his
appearance in court where and when etc.
Among the bills above-mentioned was one affirmed at the
suit of John Reymes, cordwainer, who complained that the
said John Botelesham (sic) (fn. 16) on 19 Dec. 1384 in the parish
of St Peter Westcheap, with several others in his company,
sought for the plaintiff in his house and from house to house,
with force and arms, in order to kill him, so that the plaintiff
did not dare to approach his house to carry on his trade
and make his profit for a quarter of a year, to his damage
£100, and moreover the said John was the chief abettor of
all the indictments made against the plaintiff. [French]
Thereupon the sheriff was ordered to bring the body of
the defendant into court on 27 Nov. and to warn the mainpernors to have him there. But though the sheriff testified
that the mainpernors had been warned, the defendant did
not come. Accordingly, since the Mayor and Aldermen wished
to be more fully informed as to the truth of the matter contained in the bill and as to the damages to be awarded,
precept was given to summon a jury of the venue for 2 Dec.
On that day came a jury of William Maryner and others, who
said on oath that all the matter contained in the bill was true
and that the said John Botelesham was guilty of the trespass
alleged, to the plaintiff's damage £50. Judgment was reserved until 5 April, when, the sheriff's serjeant having
testified that the mainpernors had been warned, judgment was
given that the plaintiff recover his damages as taxed by the
jury. The plaintiff then prayed that the defendant and the
mainpernors be committed to prison until the damages be
paid. Order having been given for their arrest, the sheriffs'
serjeants, Nicholas Covele and Richard Clare, testified that
the mainpernors Robert Litle, Thomas Neel, Thomas
Prentys, William Poull, John Blake and Simon Rous had
been arrested and committed to prison, but that the defendant
and the other mainpernors Stephen Sedere and Walter
Lynot could not be found within the liberty of the city.
Similar proceedings on a bill [French] of John Payn, goldsmith, and Joan his wife, who complained that when the said
Joan on 1 Aug. 1386 was in Ludgate prison at the suit of
Sir Nicholas Brembre, whom God assoil, the said John
Botesham, then being keeper of the prisoners of Ludgate,
out of envy, strong rancour and ill-will, conspired to ruin
her and, desiring to please the said Sir Nicholas, procured
and abetted the prisoners there to beat her in her bed and
elsewhere so continually and so horribly that her life scarce
endured, and then, venomously despoiling her of all her
goods, he drove her, naked except for a single gown, to Newgate, where he confined her in a cell so hard and piteous that
she came near to death, all of which horrible and outrageous
hardship she would not willingly have suffered for £100.
Since the Mayor and Aldermen wished to be fully and
completely informed, and since the more important men of
the venue of Ludgate were either mainpernors of the defendant or belonged to his covin, they gave orders that
12 good men who were confined in Ludgate (fn. 17) at the time of
the alleged trespass and were now at large should be summoned for 4 Dec. On that day the jury of William Strange
and others said on oath that the whole matter contained in
the bill was true, to the plaintiff's damage 20s. On 5 April
1389 judgment was given accordingly.
Membr. 7 b
27 Nov. 1388
Similar proceedings on a bill [French] of William Waleys,
tailor, who complained that John Bodesham, when he was
keeper of Ludgate prison, deprived him of his right to alms,
during his imprisonment, to his great undoing, and also of
his rights of Holy Church at Easter and at all other times,
to his discomfort and unhappiness, and further, when the
plaintiff received a grant of 26s 8d for his deliverance from
prison, the keeper heard of it and out of enmity to him
prevented his being set free. The plaintiff prayed a remedy,
so that no other poor persons might in the future suffer such
injustice.
The same jury as above said on oath that the defendant
did not receive or retain the sum of 26s 8d as was charged
against him, but all the rest of the material in the bill was true,
and they taxed damages at 40s.
Membr. 8
27 Nov. 1388
Similar proceedings on a bill [French] of John Horlee of
the parish of All Hallows Stanyng, who complained that
when he was a prisoner for debt in Ludgate a year or more
ago for 14 weeks, during which time he lay in his own
clothes, borrowing no garments from any one else, some of
his acquaintances gave the keeper the sum of 3s 4d for him,
as the keeper himself admitted, and a certain Shalyngford
also gave another 3s 4d, but the keeper not only retained
these moneys but also charged him 3s for sleeping on the
bare ground in the plaintiff's own bed and bed clothes, and
demanded 8d more, taking a lined cloak (cloche double) from
him as security, and then later, when the plaintiff, being
delivered, went with his wife to ask humbly for the cloak and
the alms due to him, the keeper suddenly leapt out on them
and would have killed them with his drawn baselard, if they
had not fallen on their knees and piteously begged for mercy.
The same jury found the defendant not guilty of retaining
the cloak, but said that the rest of the bill was true and
assessed damages at 13s 4d. Judgment was given on 10 April
1389 that the plaintiff recover the above amount, but be in
mercy for his false claim as regards the cloak.
Membr. 8 b
27 Nov. 1388
Similar proceedings on a bill [French] of John Walpoll,
tailor, formerly a prisoner in Ludgate, who complained that
the keeper, John Bodesham, and his clerk, William Rounde,
had ruled the prison extortionately and evilly, viz. when alms
of 100s or 10 marks were received for the deliverance of poor
and feeble prisoners, they put down in the calendar of
deliveries the names of their own servants and the officers
of the prison, who were at large, so that they might receive
the alms, thus depriving the poor prisoners of their deliverance; and further, the common alms-box was shared out in
the keeper's own chamber against the wishes of the prisoners,
and he chose three or four prisoners, as he pleased, to share
out the alms and do with them as they wished, whereas the
box ought to be shared out in the presence of all the prisoners
in their common room; and lately, when the prisoners had
raised a great clamour against this unjust division of the alms,
he had allowed them to divide the alms themselves, as was
right and reasonable, but being angry because he could not
have control of the box, he had forbidden the usual begging
by two prisoners outside the prison of alms for the sustenance
of the prisoners; and when the plaintiff prepared a bill of
complaint to the mayor, containing all these matters, the
officers of the prison delayed it for three weeks, so that when
it reached the mayor, it found him too busy to deal with it;
and then the keeper, to punish the plaintiff for his share of
the bill, put him in the stocks and in irons for five weeks
to the great damage of his legs and limbs, during which time,
when a grant of 40s was made for his deliverance, the keeper
heard of it and detained the money and by evil suggestion
to the mayor had him transferred from Ludgate to Newgate,
thus depriving him of his deliverance, and moreover he told
charitable people that the plaintiff had been indicted, and he
also detained his clothes and other things, of all of which
matters and many others the plaintiff would inform the
Mayor and Aldermen by word of mouth, if they would
graciously listen to him.
The same jury appeared on 4 Dec., when the plaintiff
prayed leave to amend his bill, which the court refused.
The jury then said on oath that the defendant was guilty
of the bodily trespass against the plaintiff to his damage
£30.
Afterwards on 2 Feb. 1389 the plaintiff brought another
bill [French], reciting the above proceedings and mentioning
that his action had been abundantly affirmed by the verdict of
the jury given in answer to questions by the court. On this
occasion the plaintiff had submitted to the court that he was
not learned in the law, and that his bill had been drawn up
by lay persons and did not contain the day or year of the
alleged trespass or the value of the goods detained or the
amount of the damages, and he had prayed that his bill
might be amended and that matters omitted might be inserted, in accordance with the advice of his counsel, as
follows: the date of his imprisonment in Ludgate, 19 June
1388; the value of the goods, £10; and the damages, £60.
The plaintiff again prayed that the bill might be amended,
or alternately that the present bill might be put in the file
and annexed to the former bill and record, and that judgment
might be given.
The sheriff's counsel and the counsel of the mainpernors
prayed that the above bill might remain in court among
other bills to which objection could be made. The court
agreed.
Process being continued, the plaintiff appeared on 10 April
1389 and prayed judgment. Whereupon, the record and process being heard, it appeared to the court that the original
bill was defective for the reasons alleged by the plaintiff
and for other reasons, that the bill was false in matter, since
John Bodesham was not keeper of Ludgate during the
mayoralty mentioned but had previously been relieved of
his office, that the verdict of the jury had been taken inadvisedly, and that therefore judgment could not be rendered
on that verdict, and further that by the custom of the city
a bill in such a case could not be amended. Wherefore it was
considered by the court that the bill be quashed and that
the said John Walpole and his pledges be in mercy (fn. 18) .
Membr. 9
14 April 1389
Writ of certiorari demanding the record and process of
the actions brought by John Reymes and John Payn against
John Botelesham and of the judgments against the mainpernors. Dated at Westminster 14 April 1389.
Return to the same.
28 April 1389
Note that the king sent a writ of corpus cum causa, followed
by a similar writ sicut alias, and a further writ sicut pluries,
demanding that the mainpernors imprisoned in connection
with the above actions be brought to Chancery, together with
the cause of their taking and detaining.
Return to the sicut alias of 28 April 1389.
Afterwards the record and process of the pleas between
John Reymes, John Payn and John Horlee, on the one part,
and John Bottlesham on the other, were sent before the
justices at St Martin le Grand.
Membr. 10
10 May 1389
Writ of protection in favour of John Swan, son of Henry
Swan of Mertok (fn. 19) co. Somerset, then about to proceed to
Scotland on the king's service with Thomas, earl of Nottingham, marshal of England and warden of Rokesburgh Castle (fn. 20) ,
to join the garrison of the castle under Thomas Swynburne,
knight, the earl's lieutenant. Dated at Westminster 10 May
1389.
Membr. 10 b
20 June 1389
Writ of certiorari, to Nicholas Twyford, mayor, and Richard
Odyham, chamberlain, inquiring whether John Nichol, son
of Geoffrey Nichol of Bordeaux, was a freeman of London,
and if so in what manner. Dated at Westminster 20 June
1389.
Return, that the said John had served his apprenticeship
with John Clopton, late citizen and vintner, and was accepted
as a freeman in the Husting of Common Pleas on Monday
before the feast of St Dunstan (19 May) Ao 8 Ric. II (1385).
Membr. 11
12 June 1389
Letter of attorney from Robert de Grafton, burgess of
Shrewsbury, to John Levere, fishmonger, to receive from
the prior and convent of the house of the Salutation of the
Mother of God of the order of the Carthusians near London,
an annual pension of £10, and another annual pension of £10
owed to him by the prior and convent of the hospital of the
Blessed Mary without Bishopsgate.
6 July 1389
John Costace, merchant of Gascony, demanded against
John Forteneye, apprentice and attorney of John Mokkyng,
merchant of London, the sum of £57 18s 4d due for 10 casks
of Gascon wine at 110s 7d the cask, bought by the defendant
at Sandwich on 9 Nov. 1388, which sum ought to have been
paid on the quay late of Henry Picard in the parish of
St Martin Vintry immediately the casks were put on shore,
but though the casks were landed, gauged and filled, according
to the agreement, the defendant refused to accept delivery
or to pay the money. He demanded a remedy according to
the custom of the city and the law merchant.
The defendant admitted the agreement, but declared that
the plaintiff was not prepared to deliver the casks as agreed,
and on this issue he put himself on the country. Precept
was given to summon a jury of whom one half should be
Gascons, according to the custom. After making default, the
jury appeared by distress on 16 July, when the parties agreed
to put themselves on the arbitration of four men of the
mistery of Vintners chosen by Robert Kerry, viz. William
Sharpyng, Richard Patesle, Richard Lyttlyngton and Thomas
Say, who were sworn. The jury were exonerated. As the
said William Sharpyng had to leave town (devillare) on business, the arbitrators went next day to the mayor's house next
to the church of St John Zakary, and announced their award
in favour of the plaintiff, which award the mayor recited and
recorded before the aldermen in court on the following
Monday. The defendant was committed to prison until he
should pay the sum due, after which the wine was to be
delivered to him.
Membr. 11 b
Afterwards the said John Forteneye brought a bill against
his master, John Mokkyng, complaining that the latter had
sent him to Sandwich with 13s 4d to buy the wine, which
he did, sending word by a certain Robert Grey to his master,
who approved of the bargain and assigned a portion of the
wine to John Doget, and afterwards when the plaintiff
returned to London, the master again said that he was content, but when the wine arrived in London, delivery was
delayed for awhile owing to its being arrested by the sheriffs,
after which the master refused to accept it. Since the bargain
was not for his own but for his master's profit, he prayed
a remedy.
The matter having been thoroughly examined in accordance
with the law merchant, it appeared to the court that the
apprentice had bought the wine for the use and profit of
his master, in which case the latter was bound to save him
harmless. Accordingly it was considered that John Mokkyng
pay £57 18s 4d to John Costace and that the apprentice be
delivered from prison. As the master had not that sum ready
he was committed to prison. An account being held, 51s 8d
was deducted for gauging and other expenses, and on
20 March 1390 the defendant paid the residue.
Information having been given to the mayor and chamberlain by Ralph de Cromwell, knight, lord of Tateshale (fn. 21) ,
that a certain John Slory occupied a plot of waste ground
annexed to his tenement in the parish of St Sepulchre without
Newgate, claiming it as an appurtenance of his free tenement,
whereas it was the soil and free tenement of the commonalty
of the city (fn. 22) —the mayor and chamberlain ordered John Wykes,
the serjeant of the Chamber, to summon an inquest of office
from the neighbourhood to give a verdict. On 17 May 1389
a jury of Thomas Ermelyn and others were separately sworn
to tell the truth. They said that at present they were not fully
informed, but that certain good men of the neighbourhood,
viz. Richard Storm, John Squyer, Henry Godchep, Richard
Asshewell and Roger Totyng, were fully cognisant of the
matter, and they prayed that they might be sworn to give
them information. The above-named persons were summoned for the following Monday to be sworn and the jurors
were ordered to attend on the plot of land on Thursday,
when the informers would be there with them, so that they
might give their verdict on 31 May. In addition Thomas
Mallyng and Richard atte Chirche, masons, and Stephen
Warde and William Endcote, carpenters, who were sworn
to the city, were ordered to attend on Thursday to advise
them, so that the law of the city might be observed in all
things. The jurors with two of the informers duly appeared
in the Chamber and declared that John Slory had met them
on Thursday and had shown them deeds, which had been
enrolled in the Husting, manifestly proving that he had
certain messuages, houses and shops there, held from the
king by service of 4d per annum, of which the plot in dispute
was a parcel, and that the commonalty of the city had no
title to the same. At the same time the masons and carpenters
certified to the same effect.
Membr. 12
14 Jan. 1389
Stephen Brunne, grocer, came before the Mayor and Aldermen and, in accordance with the custom of the city and the
law merchant, brought a bill of complaint, as administrator
of William Barkham, grocer, who died intestate, against John
Beaufrount. The bill alleged that the plaintiff and William
Barkham had entered into a bond dated 28 Oct. 1374 to pay
the said John Beaufrount and a certain William de Lubenham
the sum of £200. Afterwards on 4 Oct. 1375 in the parish
of St Thomas the Apostle John Beaufrount agreed that if
William Barkham would deliver to him cloth to the value
of £200, taking in return a payment of £40, he would restore
the bond and give him an acquittance. But though the cloth
was delivered at Winchester, as witnessed by certificates
under the mayoralty seal of Winchester, John Beaufrount had
not returned the bond or fulfilled the conditions. [French]
The defendant was summoned by John Harewell, the
mayor's serjeant, and made default. Thereupon order was
given to sequestrate him, by way of distress, by locking and
sealing one door of his house, according to the custom of
the city. On a second default another door was locked and
sealed. On a third all the doors were locked and sealed. The
defendant having failed to appear on a fourth summons, the
plaintiff demanded judgment and damages, and in further
proof of his action produced the following documents.
(1) Bond of William Berkham and Stephen Brune to pay
£200 to John Beaufrount, woolman of London, and William
de Lubbenham of co. Northampton. Dated 28 Oct. 1374.
[French]
(2) Covenant of 4 Oct. 1375. [French]
(3) Testimonial letter of John Bette, mayor of Winchester,
that in the presence of himself, John Moryne and John
Broun, bailiffs of the same city, Thomas Warner, Richard
le Frye, John atte zerd and Water Hogyn, clerk, and other
neighbours, William Berkham of London had delivered 51½
cloths of divers colours to John Beaufrount, partner of William
Lobbenham, of which cloths 27 were of Bristol, 2 of Winchester, one was blanket and the remainder were in dozens
(en doseynes) (fn. 23) , with which John Beaufrount acknowledged
himself satisfied, the delivery taking place outside Stephen
Haym's house. Dated at Winchester 30 April 1376. [French]
(4) Testimonial letter of John Chamberlayn, mayor of
Winchester, Thomas Smyth and John Peverell, bailiffs, and
John Craan, clerk, confirming the above. Dated at Winchester 18 May 1388. [French]
(5) A letter of administration under the seal of the President (fn. 24) of London to Stephen Brunne of the goods of William
Berkham. Dated at London 10 Nov. 1382.
Membr. 12 b
Before judgment could be given a writ of supersedeatis was
received reciting that John Beaufrount and William de Lubbenham were suing Stephen Brunne, pepperer, before the
justices of the Bench at Westminster for £400 due on a
bond, and that the said John Beaufrount had complained
that the proceedings before the Mayor and Aldermen were
merely intended to hinder the plaintiffs in their action and
defraud them of their debt. The king, thinking it not consonant with reason that, where an action was pending for
judgment before the justices of the Bench, the matter of that
action or anything touching it should be dealt with in an
inferior court, ordered the Mayor and Aldermen to supersede proceedings on the bill of Stephen Brunne. Dated at
Westminster 20 Jan. 1389.
Afterwards on 8 July 1389 Stephen Brunne brought a writ
of procedendo to the effect that John Beaufrount and William
de Lubbenham had made default before the justices of the
Bench, wherefore the Mayor and Aldermen were ordered to
proceed. Dated 7 July 1389.
Accordingly John Beaufrount was summoned to show
cause why judgment should not be given, but did not come.
It was considered that the plaintiff recover the bond. A jury
of the venue of St Thomas the Apostle, where the abovementioned covenant was made, taxed the plaintiff's damages
at £10. Thereupon the plaintiff alleged in full court that too
small a sum for damages had been allowed, since he had spent
more than £40 in the action, and he prayed that the sum for
damages might be increased in accordance with custom and
the law merchant. The Mayor and Aldermen raised the
damages to a further 5 marks, and gave judgment for the
return of the bond and the damages. The plaintiff prayed
that the defendant be taken and committed to prison until
he paid, which was granted under condition that if the
defendant appeared within a year and a day to submit to
justice, he should be admitted to answer.
16 Aug. 1389
Letter of attorney from John de Mauernec, merchant of
Bayon, to Arnald Brokas, Richard Wedon, stockfishmonger
of London, John Newark and Arnald Gillyam of Cesze, to
sue for and receive from Domyngo...de Valence the sum
of £60 and damages. Dated at London 16 Aug. 1389.
Membr. 13
12 July 1389
Alice (fn. 25) , widow of William de Wyndesore, knight, brings
a plaint of intrusion against John Wyndesore, squyer, John
Elmeshall and William Preston, touching her free tenement
in the parish of All Hallows the Less.
7 Sept. 1389
Quitclaim from John Southereye, tapicer, and Cecilia his
wife to Neapolinus de Spinula, merchant of Venice.
1 Oct. 1389
Simon Rede was exonerated from his apprenticeship to
John Wenborn, ironmonger, on the ground that the latter
had not enrolled him and had fled the city for debt. Evidence
was given by John Faukoner and Roger Parys, masters of
the mistery of Ironmongers, that the said John Wenborn had
no shop in the city and had not transferred the apprentice
to any one else.
2 Oct. 1389
Membr. 13 b
In an action for debt at the suit of John Frankeleyn,
draper, against Edmund Peyton, mercer, for the sum of £90
due on a bond, the defendant made four defaults and fled
to the liberty of St Martin le Grand, whereupon the goods
whereby he had been distrained were valued as a foreign
attachment by oath of Thomas Prudaunce and Simon
Casteleyn, mercers, Thomas Bacheler and John Hunte,
drapers, John Wilyngham and Thomas Kirton, vintners, and
John Lorymer and John Osby, as follows:
One dosser, one coster
(fn. 26) , 3 bankers and 2 quisshyns, 8s;
2 pieces of kanevas, 12d; one stuffed jakke
(fn. 27) , 3s 4d; one
stauntys
(fn. 28) , 2d; ridelrynges
(fn. 29) and countours, 2d; 5½ yards of
black "fustian, 3s 4d; 14 yards of syndon
(fn. 30) , 9s 8d; 4 lbs of
wax, 16d; one curtain of kanevas, 6d; 2 launternes, 4d; six
stools, 3s; one yard of white worsted, 2d; one box, 3s 4d;
one grate, 6d; one candlestick and one brandyre
(fn. 31) , 4d; 2 bows,
6d; one polhax, 8d; one sword, 4d; one pound of yarn and
one reell, 2d; one piece of wardemol
(fn. 32) , 2d; one kanevas, 12d;
one sarse
(fn. 33) , 8d; one mosefalle
(fn. 34) , 1d; one remnant of kanevas,
12d; earthenware pots, 4d; vessels (vesselementa) of wood, 4d;
one risshbolt
(fn. 35) , 2d; one wooden bowl, 2d; talwode
(fn. 36) , 20d; one
chair, 4d; one table with trestells, 16d; one large watertankard,
2s; one mortar with two pestles, 20d; one tub, 2d; one
little form (formula) and one table with trestills, 6d; coal,
12d; one hogshead, 4d; one kemelyn
(fn. 37) , 2d; 7 empty tuns and
one pipe, 10s; two kanevas in the cellar, 8d; three little
forms, 12d; one quartpot of pewter, 8d; 6 tuns and one pipe
of red wine, £13; 10 dozens of woollen cloth, £4; 2¾ yards
of fustyan of Naples, 3s 8d; 9 ells of linen cloth, 6s 4½d;
5 yards of karde
(fn. 38) , 20d; 10 ells of linen cloth of Brabant,
5s 10d; 2 ells of bulters
(fn. 39) , 16d; one piece of bukerham, 8s 4d;
one quylte, 3s 4d; one materas, 5s 6d; 2 lbs of lyure
(fn. 40) , 12d;
92½ yards of sengle worsted, 23s 1½d; one volaunt
(fn. 41) of red
worsted, 2s; 60 ostrich feathers, 20s; one breastplate, 2s;
grapes (uvas), 3s 4d; total, £24 10s 1d.
Out of this sum was deducted £4 due to Peter Wotton for
house-rent, 40s due to William Sele for the same, and 18s 4d
due to William Hawe for the rent of a cellar, leaving £17 11s 9d.
As the court was informed that a certain Richard Langele,
tymbermongere, owed the defendant £14 6s 8d, he was summoned. He proved by a deed that the money was not yet
due. Accordingly judgment was given that the plaintiff receive the above-mentioned goods to the value of £17 11s 9d
and the sum of £14 6s 8d when it fell due, under security
of Richard Cornewaill, tailor, and Terry Trepston, broudurer,
to answer therefor etc.