Plea Rolls for Staffordshire
15 Edward II

Sponsor

Institute of Historical Research

Publication

Author

Major-General Hon. G. Wrottesley (editor)

Year published

1889

Pages

40-43

Citation Show another format:

'Plea Rolls for Staffordshire: 15 Edward II', Staffordshire Historical Collections, vol. 10, part 1 (1889), pp. 40-43. URL: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=52341 Date accessed: 23 August 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Coram Rege. Mich., 15 E. II.

Staff. William Poutrel of Waterfale, and Henry his brother, William de Moselegh and Robert son of the said William, and ten others, were attached to answer the plea of John de Staunton, that they had broken into his close at Waterfale, vi et armis, on the Monday before Trinity Day, 12 E. II., and had destroyed his growing hay to the value of £10, by depasturing on it cows and horses, and for which he claimed £20 as damages. The defendants appeared by attorney and denied the trespass and appealed to a jury which is to be summoned for the Quindene of Hillary. m. 35. dorso.

Coram Rege. Hillary, 15 E. II.

Salop. A precept was sent to the Sheriff, that whereas Roger Corbet, the lord of Chaddesleie had acknowledged before Roger Borrey and Robert de Buckenhale, at that time Clerks to take recognizances of debts at Salop, that he owed 18 marks to Geoffrey, the Goldsmith and Merchant of Lodelowe, now defunct; of which 10 marks should have been paid on the day of the Annunciation, 16 E. I., and 8 marks on the Octaves of St. John the Baptist following, and which had not yet been paid, he was to apprehend the said Roger if he was a layman, and retain him in safe custody until the debt to the executors of the said Geoffrey had been fully satisfied. And the Sheriff now returned that the said Roger was dead, and he was therefore commanded to deliver all the lands and tenements of the said Roger to the said executors according to the Statute, etc. m. 2.

Assizes taken before the King at Salop on the Thursday after the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, 15 E. II.

Salop. An assize, etc., if Edmund, son of William de Morton had unjustly disseised Geoffrey Rondulf, of Salop, of three messuages, a water mill, a virgate and a half, and thirty acres of land, and a piece of land 300 perches in length and 200 in width in Wodecote, near Hethhulle.

And the said Edmund answered as tenant, and stated the assize would not lie, because his father William had recovered from the said Geoffrey two parts of the manor of Wodecote by an assize of novel disseisin before William de Mortimer and his Fellow Justices, and that the tenements claimed formed a part of the two-thirds of the manor which he had recovered at that time. The said Geoffrey denied that the tenements he now claimed formed any part of the two-thirds of the manor recovered by William, and appealed to a jury. The jury found that a portion of the tenements now claimed were contained in the two-thirds of the manor recovered by William, the father of Edmund, but that two messuages, the mill, and a virgate, and thirty acres of land, and the piece of land in question were not so contained. Geoffrey is therefore to recover seisin of this portion, but is in miscricordiâ for his claim for the remainder. m. 19.

Staff. The essoin of John de Dene appeared against Walter le Fevre of Croukwall, Roger le Flemyng of Tetenhale, William son of Andrew of Tetenhale, Roger Lutesone, John Henry, Roger de Stretton of Totenhale, and John de Holygrove for breaking forcibly into his house at Totenhale and carrying away timber worth £10, and for treading down and consuming with their beasts his growing grass to the value of 100s. None of the defendants appeared, and the Sheriff returned the writ reached him too late. He was therefore ordered to attach them for three weeks from Easter. m. 78.

Gaol Delivery of the town of Salop before the King on the Wednesday before the Feast of the Purification, 15 E. II.

John de Rossale taken for the death of Richard son of Geoffrey de Berewyk, of which he had been indicted before the Coroner, being asked how he wished to be acquitted of the felony, would not answer and pretended to be a mute, and it was testified that the said John had spoken in prison and elsewhere. He was therefore remitted to prison "ad dietam." He had no chattels.

Philip Hodynet for a felony which he had committed elsewhere had fled to the Church of Melebracy and had there abjured the Kingdom, before the Coroner, and the port of Dover had been given to him for his departure. And he had been afterwards apprehended out of the high road and taken to prison, and being asked what he had to say against judgment, he stated that on his journey towards Dover he had been taken by force out of the high road, beyond the vill of Melebracy, against his will, and he appealed to a jury. And a jury of the vicinage of Melebracy stated that the said Philip had been taken by force out of the high road by one Jukynn Lawe, the Bailiff of the town of Salop, who had brought him back to prison. The Sheriff was therefore commanded to take the said Philip back again to the high road, under safe conduct and replace him again in his journey towards the said port. m. 5, Rex. (fn. 1)

Coram Rege Roll. Easter, 15 E. II.

Staff. An exemplication of the process against Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, which had been carried on before the King at Pontefract, was ordered to be publicly read and recorded, by writ dated from York, 6th May, 15 E. II. The process at Pontefract was taken on the Monday before the Annunciation of the Blessed Mary, 15 E. II., and details the proceedings at full length of the confederation and their correspondence with Robert Bruce, and judgment on the Earl of Lancaster that he should be beheaded, and that Warine de l'Isle, William Tuchet, Thomas Mauduit, Henry de Bradburn, (fn. 2) William fitzWilliam, and William Cheyney should be hanged. m. 69.

Coram Rege. Trinity, 15 E. II.

Staff. John son of William le Say of Dunston appeared in person against Gilbert de Aston, Robert son of Gerard de Brocton, Richard Cradock, and nine others named, for entering by force his close at Dunston and cutting down his trees. None of the defendants appeared, and the Sheriff was ordered to exact them at the County Court, and if they did not appear to outlaw them. m. 37, dorso.

Staff. In the appeal of Lettice, formerly wife of Alexander de Swynnerton, against William de Chetelton and others for the death of her husband: the Sheriff returned that at the County Court held at Stafford on the Thursday the morrow of the Epiphany, 15 E. II., the defendants had been exacted and had not appeared. That at the Court held at Stafford on the Thursday after the Feast of the Purification, they were exacted and had not appeared. At the Court held on the Thursday after St. Chad they had been exacted and had not appeared. That at the Court held on the Thursday after the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Mary they had not appeared, but that one Robert de Hampton had appeared as bail for them all, except John Godard who was dead. That at the Court held at Stafford on the Thursday after the Feast of St. Mark, William de Chetelton, James son of the said William, John brother of James, John de Staundon, Henry de Cressewall, Richard le Hore, Thomas son of Thomas Gerveys, and Roger his brother, John Fox, and Thomas Rogersman of Podemore had appeared and surrendered themselves prisoners, and that James son of William de Stafford, junior, John his brother, William son of Thomas Pare, and William son of William Parent had not appeared. They are therefore to be outlawed, and the Sheriff was ordered to make a return of their goods and chattels; and William de Chetilton, John de Staundon, Henry de Cressewalle, Richard le Hore, Thomas son of Thomas Gerveys, John Fox and Thomas Rogersman being brought up by the Sheriff were committed to the Marshalsea, and it was testified that Roger brother of Thomas Gerveys had died in the King's Castle at York; and the said Lettice being solemnly called up to the fourth day of the plea did not appear to prosecute it. She is therefore to be arrested, and the defendants were admitted to bail pending a scrutiny of the Coroner's Rolls. The Sheriff afterwards returned that no appeal or indictment could be found against the defendants on the Rolls of the Coroners of the County, and they were therefore dismissed from the suit. m. Rex, 8.

Footnotes

1 The above two cases form no part of Staffordshire annals, but have been extracted on account of their illustration of ancient criminal law.
2 Probably a Derbyshire tenant of the Earl: for on the same Roll, Matilda, formerly wife of Bartholomew de Sudle (one of the King's Barons), sued in person John de Bradburn, Henry de Bradburn, and William his brother, for robbery and breach of the King's peace, and by another writ she sued John de Bradburn for a rape committed on her in Derbyshire.