| 13 |
See p. 43n. Mich., 31–32 Edw. I. (1303). Richard de Baunfeld, Parson of the church of Stivelingflet, v. Henry fitz Conan of Kelkefeld, Petronilla de Coyners, Nicholas Warde, Thomas le Provost, Roger Gulle, John de Salleye, John le Tuler, John son of Walter le Serjaunt, Conan son of Henry, and Thomas his brother, about three acres of meadow in Kelkefeld by Styvelingflet. The jurors find that the Abbot of Seleby, Henry fitz Conan of Kelkefeld and Walter de Hamerton, are the chief lords of the vill of Kelkefeld, and that the predecessors of the present abbot and of the said Henry and Walter unanimously granted to a certain vicar of Styvelingflet and the church of the same vill, the crop (vesturam) of a certain plot of land in Kelkefeld, for making a certain chantry three days in the week (pro quadam cantaria per tres dies in ebdomeda facienda) in a free chapel, which the said Henry holds in the vill of Kelkefeld, so that the vicar ought to have and take the profit of the meadow from the time meadows are enclosed (ponuntur in defenso) to the time of reaping the same plot and carrying away the hay; after which time the vicar ought to have no common or anything else in the same until the time meadows are enclosed the following year, and so from year to year. The jurors further say that the said vicarage was afterwards joined to the parsonage of the church of Styvelingflet, now held by Richard de Baunfeld. And since it was testified by the jury that not the soil was given, but the crop, which is not a freehold, but rather a certain profit issuing from the said meadow, the vicar lost the action (Coram Rege. No. 174, m. 53). Another suit of rather an earlier date, Michaelmas, 1297, brought by Stephenle Teuler against Petronilla de Kelkefeld, William de Kelkefeld clerk, Henry le Charecter, and others for an assault at Kelkefeld on Saturday in Easterweek, 25 Edw. I. (April 20th, 1297), gives a curious picture of the country life of the times. The verdict of the jury, returned in Easter Term, 27 Edw. I. (1299), finds that the plaintiff had placed in the stocks (in ceppis) a
man in his court, and that the man's
wife went to the said Petronilla, lady
of the vill, asking her to free him, in
consequence of which Petronilla ordered
William de Kelkefeld and the others
to go to Stephen to bail out (ad replegiandum) the man. Stephen and his
son saw them coming armed (cum manu
armata), and thinking that they were
coming to free the man, rushed out of
the house to hinder them; whereupon
strife rose between them, and Stephen
was beaten and wounded, but not by
the order or wish of the said Petronilla.
The jury also found that a certain
stranger, not named in this plaint, cut
the pin of the stocks (kivillam
cepporum) and freed the man. No
case against Petronilla, 10li damages
against the other defendants (Coram
Rege. No. 152, m. 27d). |