Staffordshire Assize Roll, 21 E. I.

Headed, "Pleas 'de juratis et assisis' before John de Berewik, Thomas de Normanville, William de Bereford, John de Lichegrevus, and Hugh de Cave, Justices Itinerant in co. Stafford, on the Morrow of the Epiphany, 21 E. I." [7th January, 1293].

Walter de Heliun produced letters patent stating that Edmund the King's brother having gone abroad in the King's service, had appointed him and Hugh de Vyenna his attorneys, dated from Stebenheth (Stepney), 9th April 20 E. I. Walter de Heliun puts in his place William Wyther or Richard de St. Alban. m. 1.

Richard de Loges sued William de la More for the manor of Great Wyrlegh, excepting three messuages and a virgate of land, and an acre and a rood of meadow. And William defended his right to it, and put himself on a great assize. And Geoffrey de Greselegh, William Wyther, Roger de Swynnerton, and John de Herunville, four knights summoned to elect a jury, came and elected the following, viz., Nicholas de Audelegh, William de Oddygeseles, Simon Basset of Sapecote, Ralph le Botiler, Hugh de Audelegh, William de Stafford, Ralph Basset of Sapecote, Henry de Cressewelle, Geoffrey de Gresselegh, William Wyther, John de Herunville, Richard de Draycote, Thomas Corbet, Robert de Dutton, Henry de Kniveton, and Walter. . . A day was given to the parties at the Festival of St. Hillary. A postscript adds that on that day Richard appeared, and William being solemnly called on the said day, Tuesday, and on the Wednesday, did not appear, and the land was taken into the King's hands, and another day given to the parties on the following Saturday, on which day William again made default, and Richard recovered seisin. (fn. 1) m. 1.

William Poleyn produced letters patent appointing him and another attorneys for Geoffrey de Caunvill, who was abroad in the King's service. m. 1.

John Hamelyn and Matilda his wife withdraw their suit against Peter de Arderne and John his son, respecting a tenement in Elleford. m. 1.

An assize, etc., if William de Odingsele, Walter de Wynterton, and Ralph son of Simon de Thickebrome, had unjustly disseised Matilda, formerly wife of Richard de Thickebrome, of a messuage and thirty-three acres of land, three acres of heath, and six acres of meadow in Thickebrome. William stated that Simon son of Richard held the tenement of him by military service, and he had died seised of it, and after his death he had taken possession, saving the rights of others; and Walter said he had only acted in the matter as bailiff of William; and Ralph stated that the said Simon son of Richard was his father, and he had died seised of the tenement, and after his death he had entered as his son and heir.

Matilda stated she had been enfeoffed in the tenement jointly with Richard her husband, and had held it after his death until disseised by the defendants; and Ralph stated that Richard her husband was his grandfather and had died seised of the tenements, and after him Simon his father had died seised of them, and on his death he had entered as his son and heir.

The jury say one William de Wyrle had impleaded in Banco Richard formerly husband of Matilda for the tenements, and had recovered them by default of Richard, and he had afterwards enfeoffed Richard and Matilda of them conjointly, and they had held them until disseised by William and the other defendants. Verdict for Matilda: damages 10s. m. 1.

An assize, etc., if John de Heranvill and Nicholas de Peronde had unjustly disseised William de Derlaston of common of pasture in ten acres of heath and forty acres of arable land in Wednesbiri appurtenant to his free tenement in Derlaston. John denied William had any right to common, because Wednesbiri was of the ancient demesne of the Crown, and Derlaston was of the fee of Duddele.

The jury say that John was not sole tenant of the land in dispute because Henry son of William held a part of it, and Hugh de Grete another part, and that William besides had no right of common. Verdict for John de Heronville. m. 1, dorso.

Richard son of Adam de Welaston not appearing to prosecute his suit versus John Bagot of Braynton (Brinton), respecting a tenement in Little Onne, it is dismissed. His sureties, William de Welaston and Geoffrey de Welaston, are in misericordiâ. m. 1, dorso.

Alan son of Alan de Glaseley gives half a mark for license of concord with Alan de Glaseleye and Katrine his wife. m. 2.

Jordan de Flotesbrok not appearing to prosecute his suit against Ralph le Botiler and Matilda his wife respecting tenements in Northbiri (Norbury) and Nethereoldeton (Oulton), it is dismissed. m. 2.

Staff., North. Philip de Monte Gomeri acknowledged he owed John de Cave 10 marks, and found the following sureties for it: Geoffrey de Greseley, Richard de Draycote, William de Wrodesley (Wrottesley), John de Perton, Thomas de la Hyde, Henry de Prestewode, Peter de Colecestre, and Nicholas de Byrinton. m. 2, dorso.

Juliana de Colton who brought a writ de libertate suâ probandâ against Henry son of Hugh de Colton, did not appear to prosecute it, and her sureties are in misericordiâ, viz., John de Colton and John Deyns; and Henry is informed he could sue her in the county court if he pleased, and if the said Juliana brought her writ against him in the same court, it was not to be heard. m. 2, dorso.

Elizabeth the widow of Roger de Waleton sued Roger de Waleton and Margaret his wife, and Roger de Aston, for a third of a messuage, a carucate of land, 10 marks and 5s. of rent in Waleton near Stone as her dower. The defendants conceded the dower claimed. m. 3.

Elizabeth the widow of Roger de Waleton sued Roger de Pywelesdon and Joan his wife for a third of a messuage and a carucate of land and a mill in Waleton near Stone; and she sued the Prior of Stone for a third of forty acres of land in the same vill as her dower. Roger and Joan state that Roger de Waleton was never in seisin of the land from which dower was claimed when he married Elizabeth, nor afterwards, and she withdrew her writ against them, but recovered dower in the forty acres held by the Prior. m. 3.

Richard son of Hervey de Stretton sued Richard son of Richard de Stretton for a messuage, ten acres of land, and ten acres of wood in Stretton, of which Richard de Stretton his grandfather (whose heir he is) was seised as of fee when he died. Richard son of Richard denied that Richard the grandfather of Hervey was seised of the land when he died, for long before his death he had enfeoffed him of the tenements, and had put him into seisin of them, and he appealed to a jury.

The jury say that Richard the father by his deed gave the tenements to Richard his son, and put him into seisin of them, but he had re-entered after eight days; and the jury being asked if during those eight days the said Richard son of Richard had taken the produce of the tenement or had dealt with them (manuoperabatur), said he had not, and that the servants and the goods and chattels of Richard the father remained all the time within the tenements, and the servants disposed of them for the use of their lord; and being asked if Richard the father re-entered with the assent of Richard his son, the jury say he did; and that Richard the father conducted himself for the whole time he was staying in the tenement as the lord of it; and being asked for how long Richard the father stayed in the tenements after he had re-entered, they said fifteen days. And Richard his son had removed his father, who was infirm, and against his will, from the tenements, the father himself objecting (ipso Ricardo patre reclamante); and Richard the father died three days afterwards; and being asked if Richard the son had taken any produce within those three days, the jury said he had not, nor had dealt in any other way with the tenements, but that the servants of Richard the father and his goods and chattels remained there, and the executors of the will of Richard the father administered and disposed of the goods and chattels after the death of Richard, and they say therefore that Richard the father died seised of the tenements. Richard son of Hervey is therefore to recover seisin, and his damages are taxed at £20. m. 3, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Richard de Draycote of Tene had unjustly disseised Robert le Venur of his food and clothing, to which he was entitled under the provisions of a deed made by the said Richard in 7 E. I., and which he produced, and which showed that Richard had granted to him certain food and clothing specified for his life, and a messuage and two acres to Alice wife of Robert, for which concession Robert had released to the said Richard and to Lettice his wife all the lands and tenements he held in Thene. Richard admitted the deed and stated he was ready to carry out its provisions, but Robert had left his service and was living with his wife, and he claimed the sustenance and clothing whilst he lived with his wife, which was against the tenor of the deed. The jury find in favour of Robert: damages 100s. A postscript adds that Richard gave half a mark to have a jury of twenty-four to convict the first jury, but never appeared to prosecute the suit. He is therefore in misericordiâ. m. 3, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Steyntha de Barra the mother of John son of Ralph de Pyrylee (Perry) was seised when she died of a messuage and three acres of land in Little Barre, of which John son of Robert de Wyleye holds two parts of the messuage and land, and Adam de Acton and Milisent his wife hold the rest. The jury say Steyntha did not die seised of the land, and John son of Ralph is therefore in misericordiâ for a false claim. m. 4.

An assize, etc., if Ralph le Bret the uncle of Geoffrey son of Stephen le Bret was seised when he died of a messuage and a carucate of land, one and a half acre of meadow, and twenty acres of wood in Chasterton (Chesterton), near Newcastle-under-Lyme, and which John le Bret holds, who stated that Ralph did not die seised of the tenement, for long before his death he had enfeoffed him by a deed which he produced. Verdict for John. m. 4.

Walter de Hopton acknowledged he owed 10 marks to John Giffard of Chylynton. m. 4.

An assize, etc., if Geoffrey son of William Basset father of Thomas Basset was seised when he died of a messuage, half a virgate of land, and an acre of meadow in Bollinhull, which William son of James de Tonestal (Tunstall) and Juliana his wife hold. The jury say that William and Juliana only hold at the will of Anketell de Lisle, and Thomas is therefore in misericordiâ for a false claim. m. 4, dorso.

Otvel Porcel sued Robert le Champion for six acres of pasture in Esenyngton (Essington), of which Ralph Porcel his kinsmen, whose heir he is, had been seised as of fee when he died. Robert took exception to the writ because when Ralph died the pasture was all wood. A concord was afterwards made by which Otuel remitted his claim for 20s. m. 4, dorso.

Richard son of William de Holdich sued Roger de Bydulf for ten acres of land in Nether Bydulf, of which Henry de Holdich his great grandfather (whose heir he is) had been seised as of fee when he died, in the reign of King Henry the father of the present King, and from Henry the right descended to Robert as his son and heir, and from Robert to William as son and heir, and from William to Richard, who now sues as son and heir. Roger stated that Robert the son of Henry the great grandfather had conveyed the tenement to Roger his grandfather, and he produced Robert's deed to that effect. Richard acknowledged the deed of his grandfather, but stated he was under age when it was executed, but afterwards withdrew his writ. m. 5.

John Archbishop of Dublin sued Hugh le Blund for two carucates of land, excepting sixty-five acres of meadow, in Penkrych, which he claimed as the right of his Church of Dublin, and to hold of the King in capite; and he stated that Henry le Blund his predecessor was seised of it in the reign of King John, in right of his Church of St. Patrick of Dublin. Hugh took exception to the writ because it spoke of the Church of Dublin, and the Archbishop in his pleadings (in narratione suâ) called it the Church of St. Patrick of Dublin. The Bishop's attorney admitted the writ was defective, and the suit was dismissed. m. 5.

An assize, etc., if Philip Burnel, John Paynel and Margaret his wife, and Thomas son of Margaret, had unjustly disseised Nicholas le Archer and Alice his wife of the free tenement of Alice in Waleshale, viz., of half the manor of Waleshale.

Philip appeared by William Hillary his attorney, and denied having inflicted any injury to the plaintiffs; and Margaret stated she had entered by Philip and not by a disseisin, and that the tenements formerly belonged to her as of her inheritance, and that there had been an arrangement between her and the Lord Ralph Basset, by which the brother of Ralph should have married the said Alice her daughter, and she was to have given to them half of the manor, and the arrangement had gone so far that she had enfeoffed Alice of the tenements, but had not put her into seisin of them, and she appealed to a jury, which found in her favour. m. 5.

An assize, etc., if John son of Robert de Wyvestone and brother of Margaret the wife of Simon son of John de Eccelwall, was seised as of fee when he died of fifteen acres in Whytegreve, of which John de Crassewelle held nine acres, Richard Chapman of Whytegreve one acre, Nicholas de Barneville two acres, Thomas Gerbod of Stafford half an acre, Richard de Cotes one acre, John de Baldok one acre, and Adam de la Grene half an acre. The defendants pleaded that Whytegreve was of the ancient demesne of the King, where the close writ of right only would run, and appealed to a jury, which found in their favour. m. 5.

An assize, etc., if Philip de Monte Gomeri, John de la Burne, and Roger de Monte Gomeri had unjustly disseised Thomas Corbet of Tasseleye of eleven acres of land in Kynges Brumeley.

Philip appeared and stated the land was within the King's Forest of Canok, and Robert had obtained it by an encroachment. Thomas stated that Roger his father had held the land for more than thirty years, and he had entered as his son and heir, and had held it for more than sixteen years, until disseised by Philip and the others, and he appealed to a jury.

The jury say that King Henry, senior (Henry I.), was chasing in the Forest of Canok, and passing through the vill of Kynges Brumley he breakfasted (gentaculavit) with a certain tenant, the ancestor of the said Thomas, and the tenant prayed the King to give him a piece of land in his "Haye" adjoining his tenement, and the King gave him a certain piece estimated at eight acres, and which the tenant enclosed, and his issue, the ancestors of the said Thomas, and Thomas himself, always held the land until four years ago, when Philip and the other defendants pulled down the fence and carried it to the house of the said Philip; and they say the rest of the land is within the fee of Kynges Brumeley and outside the Haye of the King, and the ancestors of the said Thomas had held it from time out of memory. It is therefore considered that Thomas should recover seisin, and 20s. as damages. m. 5, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Adam de Wolaston the father of Richard son of Adam was seised as of fee when he died of a messuage and twenty-two acres of land in Little Onne, which John Bagot of Brinton holds. John pleaded that six acres of the land was of the ancient demesne of the King, where no writ would run but the close writ of right; and he stated besides he did not hold all the land, and that his brother William held half an acre at the date the writ was sued out, viz., on the 12th January of this year. Richard withdrew his writ. m. 5, dorso.

Robert de Bek sued the Prior of St. Thomas near Stafford for a messuage and carucate of land in Hopton near Stafford, of which Robert his grandfather (whose heir he is), was seised as of fee when he died. The Prior stated that Robert did not die seised of the land, because long before his death he had enfeoffed one William de Bek of it, and the jury find in his favour. m. 5, dorso.

Hervey son of Roger de Gaywode sued Matilda the widow of Robert de Gaywode for six acres of land and one-third of a messuage in Bromshulf (Bramshall), and he sued Roger son of Robert de Gaywode for eight acres in the same vill, of which Adam de Gaywode the grandfather of Hervey (whose heir he is) was seised as of fee when he died. Matilda called Roger to warranty, who stated that Roger the father of Hervey had remitted and quitclaimed to Robert his father all his right, etc., in the land, and he produced his deed. Verdict for the defendants. m. 5, dorso.

Idonia the widow of William Tenerey of Congrave was sued by John Tenerey the Canon of the Church of St. Michall of Pencrich for 18 marks, arrears of an annual rent of 26s. owing to him. A concord was made by which Idonia acknowledged 40s. of arrears. m. 5, dorso.

Richard son of Symon Cotyn, who is said to be of full age, sued William Cotyn for eight acres of land and an acre of pasture in Great Madeleye under Lyme, which he (Richard) had demised to him whilst under age. William stated that the tenements formerly belonged to Simon his uncle, who died seised of them, and he had entered as his heir.

The jury say that Simon the uncle had a certain concubine by whom he had issue Richard, the plaintiff, who was born before the said concubine had recovered (sic) Simon by a judgment of the Church as her husband (antequam ipsum Simonem per judicium Ecclesiæ recuperasset ut virum suum), and because the said Simon was unwilling that Richard the bastard born before his concubine had deraigned him in this way against his will should have his inheritance, when he fell ill he enjoined the sons of his brother, viz., William, who now holds the land, and Thomas his brother, to enter the tenement as his heirs immediately after his death, and take possession of it. They entered into possession and held the tenement for three weeks, until the Baron of Stafford the capital lord died, when the King's eschaetor took it into his hands, and Richard then bribed one Robert Brun the sub-eschaetor for a sum of 100s. to give him seisin of the land, and to eject William and Thomas; and William then sued Richard for the land; and Richard perceiving that he had a right to it, compromised with him and gave him half of it, for which William remitted his claim to the other half. And the jury being asked if Richard was of full age, said he was. m. 5, dorso.

Geoffrey son of Geoffrey Griffyn sued William the Provost of Clayton for a messuage, and eighteen acres of land in Clayton Griffyn, to which he had no entry except by Geoffrey Griffyn the cousin of Geoffrey, and whose heir he is, who had demised it to him for a term now expired. William stated he entered by his mother Alice and not by Geoffrey, and the jury find in his favour. m. 5, dorso.

An assize, etc., if William le Chaumberleyn, the father of Robert, was seised, etc., of a messuage and one hundred acres of land, and 13s. of rent in Marchynton near Nedewode when he died, and which Thomas le Chaumberlyn and Avice his wife hold. Thomas and Avice stated that William long before his death had given them the land and put them into seisin of it, and afterwards in 4 E. I. had levied a fine by which he had acknowledged the right of the said Thomas and Avice, and he produced the fine. Robert stated that notwithstanding the fine, William had never parted with the tenements and had died seised of them, and appealed to a jury. The jury find in favour of Thomas. m. 6.

The Abbot of St. Ebrulph sued the Abbot of Byldewas for a carucate of land in Great Onne, in which the Abbot of Byldewas had no right except by a disseisin which Nicholas formerly Abbot of Bydewas had made of Nicholas formerly Abbot of St. Ebrulph his predecessor. The Abbot of Buldewas stated the tenements were in Waleton and not in Great Onne, and the jury find in his favour. m. 6.

John de Tresyl acknowledged he owed to John son of William son of William de Benteleye 6 marks. m. 6.

John son of Edda and Emma his wife, and Henry son of Roger Hog of Newcastle-under-Lyme, sued Nicholas son of Ralph de Tykenesse of Newcastle-under-Lyme for two acres of land in Clayton Gryffyn, in which Nicholas had no entry except by Henry de Tykenesse, to whom Augustine de Bokenale brother of Emma and uncle of Henry (whose heirs they are) had demised it for a term now expired.

The jury say that Nicholas entered by Ralph his father, and not by Henry de Tykenesse. Verdict for Nicholas. m. 6, dorso.

Alice daughter of Robert le Boteler of Yoxale recovers two parts of a virgate of land in Yoxhale, as heir of her brother Ambrose le Boteler, in a suit against Thomas de Alsweyn of Yoxhale. m. 6, dorso.

Alice the widow of Robert de Wystanswyk recovers an acre of land in Mere near Newcastle-under-Lyme, in a suit against Robert de Standon, Robert her husband having conveyed it to the latter during his lifetime when she could not object. m. 6, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Dametta de Heyston the aunt of Alan son of Guy de Glaseleye was seised as of fee when she died of a messuage and a carucate of land in Heyston and Aruleye (Arley), of which Henry de Heyston holds the messuage and half a carucate, and Avelina de Heyston holds half a carucate. Henry called Avelina to warranty, who warranted his tenement to him, and stated that both tenements formerly belonged to one Robert de Gloucester, who gave them to the said Dametta to hold for her life, and after her death to remain to Avelina and her heirs. The jury find in favour of Avelina. Philip de Lutele, Warine de Penne, Richard de Beckebury, William Purcel, Hervey de Hampton, and Geoffrey de Bilston, recognitors, never appeared, and are in misericordiâ. m. 7.

Agnes the widow of John de Pendeford recovers a third part of two parts of the manor of Pendeford as dower versus the Prior of St. Thomas the Martyr near Stafford. m. 7.

Robert de Frankeville sued Thomas the Prior of Ronton for a piece of land in Frankeville, in which he had no entry except by a disseisin which Roes Doylly had unjustly made of William de Frankeville his father. The Prior stated the land was part of the waste of the manor, which had been lawfully approved by Roes, and the jury find in his favour. m. 7.

An assize, etc., if Richard son of William de Cavereswelle had unjustly disseised William de Athelaston and William de Romenhale of two messuages and two bovates of land and 40s. of rent in Quikeshull. A concord was made by which the plaintiffs are to hold the tenement for their lives. m. 7.

An assize, etc., if Richard de Harecurt and Joan his wife, Henry de Harecurt and Alianora his wife, William son of Richard, William son of Robert de Kaverswalle, William de la Doune, and four others, had unjustly raised a stank in Levedale and la Doune, to the injury of Henry de Caverswalle.

The jury say there had been a stank of old in the same place which had been broken down, and the defendants had raised it again. Henry is therefore in misericordiâ for a false claim. m. 7, dorso.

Sibilla the daughter of Geoffrey de Levedale and Juliana her sister sued William de Adeneye and Muriel his wife for a messuage and half a virgate of land in Levedale, of which Geoffrey de Levedale the grandfather of Sibilla and Juliana, whose heirs they are, had been seised as of fee when he died. William stated that Geoffrey had enfeoffed Muriel of the tenement before he died, and the jury find in his favour. m. 7, dorso.

Richard son of Hervey de Stretton sued Richard de Harrecourt and Joan his wife for a carucate of land in la Doune near Bradeley, of which Richard de Stretton his grandfather, whose heir he is, had been seised as of fee when he died. Richard son of Hervey afterwards withdrew his suit. m. 8.

William de Penne and Nicholas his wife sued Robert le Champyon of Little Sardone for a third of half of forty acres of land, and fourteen acres of waste and moor in Esnynton (Essington), and they sued William Alkene for a third of half of six acres of land and two of meadow in the same vill as the dower of Nicholaa. The defendants concede the dower claimed. m. 8.

William Wyther and Orabilla his wife give 20s. for license of concord with Reginald son of Reginald de Legh. (fn. 2) m. 8.

Richard de Lee sued Roes Trussel for a hundred acres of pasture in Fulford, in which she had no entry except by Richard Trussel, to whom William Trussel had demised them, and who had unjustly disseised William de Lee his father. Roes stated she entered by hereditary descent from William de Paunton her father, and the jury find in her favour. m. 8.

Robert son of Geoffrey de la Hyde, who is of full age, sued Robert de Bromhale for a messuage and ten acres of land in Chilinton near Brewode, which he had demised to him whilst under age. Robert de Bromhale stated the plaintiff was of full age when he conveyed the tenement to him. The jury say that Robert son of Geoffrey was under age, and he is therefore to recover seisin. m. 8.

Henry son of Henry de Pakyngton sued Magister Alan le Breton (called to warranty by William de Bugthorp) for a messuage, a mill, eight virgates, forty acres of land, and ten acres of wood in Pakyngton in co. Stafford, in which William had no entry except by Magister Alan, to whom Henry son of David de Pakyngton, father of Henry, whose heir he is, had demised the tenement for a term now expired.

Magister Alan produced a deed of Henry son of David, granting the tenement to him in fee and inheritance, and Henry then pleaded that Henry son of David was non compos when he executed the deed; but the jury find in favour of Magister Alan. m. 8, dorso.

Robert son of Robert de Esynton sued Robert de Buckyngham for a messuage, a virgate and two acres of land in Esynton, in which he had no entry except by one Robert de Buckyngham, to whom Robert de Essyngton the grandfather of Robert, whose heir he is, had demised the tenements for a term now expired.

Robert de Buckyngham, as regarded the messuage and virgate of land, called to warranty Robert de Sewallesfeld, who warranted the tenement to him, and stated that Robert de Essynton the grandfather had not demised the tenement to Robert de Bukynham, but to one Richard son of Robert de Esynton, the father of Robert de Sewallefeld. (fn. 3) The jury find in favour of Robert de Essington, both for this tenement and the two acres in question. m. 8, dorso.

Hugh son of William de Hyldelston sued Robert son of Richard de Pype for two bovates of land in Pype, of which Mabel de Pype, the cousin of Hugh, whose heir he is, was seised as of fee when she died. Robert stated that Mabel before her death had given the tenement to one John Froward, and the jury find in his favour. m. 8, dorso.

John Archbishop of Dublin sued Hugh le Blund for two carucates of land, excepting sixty acres of land and five acres of meadow in Pencrych, which he claimed as the right of his Church of Dublin, and to hold in capite of the King, and of which Henry le Blund his predecessor had been seised in the reign of King John.

Hugh stated that the tenements in question were the right of one Hugh Huse, who gave them to the said Henry le Blund, the Archbishop's predecessor, and Henry afterwards gave them to one Andrew le Blund, the father of Hugh, to hold to him and his heirs, and he appealed to a Great Assize; and Robert de Hastang, Robert de Staundon, William Wyther, and John de Heronvill, four Knights, came and elected these, viz., Robert de Staundon, William Wyther, John de Heronville, Hugh de Weston, William Trumwyne, Henry Mauveysin, William de Stafford, Geoffrey de Greselegh, William de Mere, Henry de Cressewalle, John de Wasteneys, Robert de Bromleye, Adam de Brinton, John fitz Philip, Thomas Corbet, and John son of John fitz Philip, who return a verdict in favour of Hugh le Blund. m. 9.

John de Bromhale sued the Prioress of Brewode for sixteen acres of land in Brewode, and he sued William de Brewode, Chaplain, for ten acres in the same vill, of which Ralph le Botiller (fn. 4) his great-grandfather, whose heir he is, had been seised as of fee when he died. The defendants pleaded that this form of writ was limited to the time of King Henry the King's father, and that Ralph was never seised of the land in the reign of that King; and the jury find in their favour. m. 9.

William son of William Paynel sued Margaret formerly wife of Ralph de Coven for a messuage in Coven, of which she had unjustly disseised William Paynel his father, whose heir he is. Margaret stated the messuage formerly belonged to Ralph her husband, and that Margaret, Alice, and Philippa the heirs of Ralph had assigned it to her in dower, and she appealed to a jury. The jury find in favour of William. m. 9.

Christiana formerly wife of Hamon de Onyleye sued Robert son of Hamon for a third of eight messuages, three carucates, and four bovates of land, eight acres of meadow, and ten acres of wood, a mill and half of another mill, and four marks of rent, and for one-third of a rent of six hogs, in Onyleye and Wonynton near Hales; and she sued Hamon de Onyleye for a third of a messuage and thirty acres of land in the same vill as her dower. Robert and Hamon appeared and conceded the dower claimed. m. 9, dorso.

William de Stanleye sued the Prior of Trentham for twenty-six acres of land and ten acres of meadow, and five of pasture, and twenty-three acres of wood in Over Elkeston, of which the Prior had unjustly disseised Magister John de Stanleye the uncle of William, whose heir he is. The Prior stated he had recovered the land in question before Ralph de Hengham and his fellow Justices in a suit against Magister John de Stanley; but William denied the land now in dispute was included in the land which the Prior had recovered on that occasion. The jury find in favour of the Prior. m. 9, dorso.

Alice formerly wife of Richard de Charnes sued Roger the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield for a messuage and four acres of land, 2s. 3d. of rent, and the rent of a pound of pepper in Great Suggenhull, Aspeleye, Adbaston, and Croxton, and which she claimed as the gift of Robert de Emkerdon, who had enfeoffed her in the tenements, and in which the Bishop had entry through her husband, who had demised them to him during his lifetime, when she could not object. The Bishop conceded the right of Alice. m. 9, dorso.

Thomas de Hamsted sued William le Mouner (the Miller) of Honesworth for a mill in Honesworth (Handsworth), of which Guy de Swynefen the grandfather of Thomas, whose heir he is, was seised as of fee when he died. William called to warranty Richard le Walker, who warranted the mill to him. A concord was made by which Thomas remitted his claim for 4 marks. m. 9, dorso.

John de Grendon withdrew his writ of entry against Theobald de Neville respecting tenements in Swynefen and Sheneston. m. 10.

Lucy formerly wife of Richard de Byrchulle sued Roger son of Richard de Birchull for a third of a messuage and two carucates of land in Byrchulle, and she sued William Haket for a third of three acres, and Elyas de Sheprigge for a third of two parts of a messuage and twelve acres of land, and Adam Blakethemore for a third of four acres of land in the same vill, as her dower. The defendants called Roger son of Richard to warranty, who, with his land, is in ward to the said Lucy; and Roger was present in Court and warranted their tenements to them. Lucy is to have seisin of her dower, and the defendants to be compensated from the land of Roger. m. 10.

John de Arderne sued John Fynch for two acres of meadow in Elleford, and John de Stonhale for an acre, and Peter de Colecestre for two acres, and Thomas son of Gilbert de la More for two acres of meadow in the same vill, of which Theukina his ancestress had been seised as of fee in the reign of King Richard, and from Theukina the right descended to Agnes her daughter and heir, and from Agnes to Peter her son and heir, and from Peter to John, who now sues as her son and heir.

The defendants denied the seisin of Theukina, and appealed to a Great Assize. And Robert de Hasteng, William de Mere, Roger de Swynnerton, and Robert de Dutton, four Knights, came and elected Robert de Hasteng, William de Mere, Roger de Swynnerton, John de Wasteneys, Henry de Karsewell, William de Stafford, John de Herunville, Ralph Basset of Sabecote, John titz Philip, Robert de Kygelegh, sic (Knightley), Richard de Draycote, Hugh de Weston, Roger de Pywelesdon, Henry Mauveysin, John Giffard, and Walter Beysun. Verdict for John de Arderne. m. 10.

Richard le Heyr of Knyghton sued Adam son of William de Knyghton for a messuage and a virgate of land in Knyghton in Hales-under-Lyme, in which Adam had no entry except by a demise made by William le Heir of Knyghton, grandfather of Richard (whose heir he is), to Robert son of Adam de Knyghton for a term now expired. Adam stated that William the grandfather had demised the tenement in fee to the said Robert, and not for a term, and appealed to a jury; but he afterwards made default, and a verdict was given in favour of Richard. m. 10, dorso.

John Wymer of Stafford sued William de la Pole and Wladusa his wife for the manor of Bere-Sardun, of which Nicholas le Bere (fn. 5) his kinsman (whose heir he is) had died seised in the reign of King Henry the King's father; and from Nicholas the right passed (reforciebatur) to one Wymer, brother of a certain William, father of the said Nicholas, as his kinsman and heir; and from Wymer to Thomas as his son and heir; and from Thomas to William as son and heir; and from William to John, who now sues, as son and heir; and he produced his proofs. A concord was made. m. 10, dorso.

Thomas son of Robert de Olynleye sued the Abbot of Deulacres for a toft and twenty acres of land in Westwode near Lek, of which William de Cokshete his great grandfather, whose heir he is, had been seised when he died. The Abbot stated that William had enfeoffed his daughter Flora of the land before he died, and the jury find in his favour. m. 10, dorso.

Roger Prior of Sondwell sued Richard de Marnham and Margaret his wife for seven acres of land in West Bromwych, of which they had unjustly disseised his predecessor the Prior Richard. Richard and Margaret took exception to the writ because the Prior was named Thomas and not Roger, and the suit was dismissed. m. 10, dorso.

Agnes daughter of Nicholas son of Geoffrey de Aston sued John le Coliere of Little Sutton for half an acre of meadow in Little Aston upon Colefeld, of which Geoffrey de Aston her grandfather (whose heir she is) had been seised when he died. John called to warranty Hugh de Aston, who called to warranty John son William fitz Geoffrey, who was under age and was present in Court, and being viewed by the Court was evidently under age; the suit is therefore to remain till full age of John. m. 10, dorso.

Petronilla formerly wife of Thomas de la Lee sued Urian de St. Pierre and Margaret his wife for 7s. 11½d. of rent in la Hyde in Brewode, in which they had no entry except by a disseisin which William son of Roger de la Hyde had unjustly made of the said Petronilla. Urian and Margaret called to warranty Roger Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, who warranted the tenement to them, and admitted the right of Petronilla. Petronilla is therefore to recover seisin, and Urian and Petronilla are to be compensated by the Bishop. m. 11.

John son of Robert de Lee sued Nicholas the Prior of St. Thomas near Stafford for a messuage and twenty acres of land and two acres of meadow in Drengton (Drineton), of which the Prior had unjustly disseised Agnes formerly wife of Robert de Lee the mother of John, whose heir he is. The Abbot stated he entered by a feoffment made to him by one Richard de Drengton. The jury say that the tenements with others formerly belonged to one Warin de Colton, who gave them to John de Chaveringworth in frank marriage with Margaret his daughter; and John had issue the said Agnes, and Margaret and Elena her sisters; and John demised the tenements to one Richard de Lee for a term of years; and after the death of the said John the tenements were divided between the sisters; and the tenement now in question fell to the purparty of Agnes; and she sued Richard for it as of her inheritance, because he held it beyond his term; and Richard to make peace with her married her to his son Robert; and in this way the tenements remained to Robert and Agnes, in right of Agnes; and Robert afterwards committed a felony, for which he fled; and then Richard enfeoffed in the tenement the said Prior, notwithstanding that Agnes made an outcry and raised a hue and cry (Agnete proclamante et hutesium levante); and in this way he disseised Agnes of her tenement. It is therefore considered that John should recover seisin, and the Prior is in misericordiâ. m. 11.

An assize, etc., if Richard de Pratis (Prez) and Letice his wife, Richard (sic, Roger) de Pyvelesdon and Joan his wife, and Gilbert de Croxford had unjustly disseised John son of John de Croxford of a messuage and a carucate of land in Salt. The jury say that John never was in seisin of the tenement. m. 11.

Margaret daughter of Christiana de Weford and Agnes her sister sued William de Oddyngseles and Richard le Wodeward of Weford for a messuage and half a virgate of land in Weford, in which they had no entry except through a disseisin made of their mother by William de Oddyngseles. Richard stated he held the tenement by virtue of a deed of Joan de Oddyngseles the mother of William, whose heir he is, and he called him to warranty, and William warranted it to him. Margaret and Agnes stated the deed was not made by his mother, and her seal was not appended to it, and appealed to a jury; and the Sheriff is ordered to summon the witnesses named in the deed, viz., Henry de Pakynton, Peter de Colecestre, Robert de Freyford, Richard Bagod, and Hugh de Aston; but they afterwards acknowledged the validity of the deed, and are in misericordiâ for a false claim. m. 11, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Henry de Wiverestone had unjustly disseised Henry son of Henry de Wiverestone of a messuage and a carucate of land and a water mill in Wiverestone (Worstone). Henry stated that Henry son of Henry never was in seisin of the tenements, but the jury find that he was in seisin of all the tenements except the mill. He is therefore to recover seisin of the messuage and land, and is in misericordiâ for a false claim for the mill. m. 12.

Lucy formerly wife of Richard de Birchull sued William Haket for a third of three acres in Birchull, and she sued William son of Hugh de Draycote of Fulford for a third of half a virgate, and John son of Hugh de Draycote for a third of a messuage in the same vill as her dower.

The defendants appeared, and William Haket and William son of Hugh stated they held the land from which she claimed dower for a term of years by the demise of John de Brok, and called him to warranty, and John warranted the land to them, and called to warranty Roger son of Richard (de Birchull), who is under age and in ward to Lucy the plaintiff; and John son of Hugh called to warranty Richard de Cavereswell, who came and warranted the messuage to him, and called to warranty John de Brok, who called to warranty Roger son of Richard, who was present in Court, and by permission of the Court surrendered the dower claimed; the tenants to be compensated from the land of the heir. m. 12.

Thomas le Wodeward recovers a messuage in Newcastle-under-Lyme by writ of novel disseisin against William Bydulf and Philippa his wife. m. 12.

Robert Elyot of Chilinton sued John Giffard of Chilynton and Ada his wife for a messuage, eighteen acres of land, an acre of meadow, and 8d. of rent in Chilinton, which he had demised to them when he was non compos mentis sue. John and Ada stated he was of good mind and memory when he made the demise to them, and the jury find in their favour. m. 12, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Richard son of Robert de Weston, the brother of Juliana, wife of Richard le Priour, and of Joan daughter of Robert de Weston, was seised as of fee when he died of a rent of 16d. in Waverton, which William de Stafford and Walter his brother hold. The jury say that Richard did not die seised of the rent, and Julia and Joan are therefore in misericordiâ for a false claim. m. 12, dorso.

William son of Peter Corbisun sued John Giffarde of Chilinton for the manor of Chilinton, of which Margaret daughter of Peter Corbisun, his kinswoman, and whose heir he is, was seised in demesne as of fee when she died, in the reign of King Henry the father (sic) of the present King; and from Margaret, who died without issue, the fee descended to one William, as her brother and heir, and from William to Peter, as son and heir, and from Peter to William, who now sues as son and heir.

John Giffard took exception to the writ, because he did not hold the whole manor claimed at the date it was sued out, and he stated that Alice daughter of Odred held in it a messuage and half a virgate of land, Thomas le Neweman a messuage and three acres, Richard de Tonge a messuage and half an acre, Juliana, formerly wife of Roger Edmay, a messuage, William at the New Spring a messuage and an acre, Richard the Miller a messuage and two acres, John son of John of the White Moor (Alba Mora) two acres, William Little (parvus) one acre, John son of Geoffrey and Petronilla his grandmother half an acre, Urian de St. Pierre a messuage and forty acres, Nicholas de Panynton a messuage and twenty acres, William de Engleton a messuage and half a virgate, John son of Hugh a messuage and ten acres, Robert de Chirchehous a messuage and ten acres, William Dawe a messuage and four acres, Robert de Alba Mora (Whitemoor) a messuage and six acres. As William could not deny this, the suit is dismissed. m. 12, dorso.

William de Camera (Chamber) of Arley sued Edmund de Mortimer for a messuage and carucate of land in Arleye, which he claimed to hold to himself and the heirs of his body, and he produced proofs that he had formerly held the tenement. Edmund took exception to the writ because William had lost the tenement in a suit in a court of law by his own default, and pleaded the Statute. William stated one Roger de Cruce had recovered the tenement against him by default before the date of the Statute in question. Verdict for Edmund. m. 12, dorso.

Robert son of Robert de Esnyton (Essington) sued Robert de Sewalleford (sic, Sewallefeld) for a messuage and half a virgate of land and an acre of meadow in Bisshebury, in which he had no entry except by a demise made for a term now expired by Robert de Essington his grandfather to one William de Snoddon.

Robert de Sewalleford called to warranty Ralph de Bissebury, who appeared and prayed it might be shown why he should warrant the tenement to him. And Robert de Sewalleford stated he held it of him by homage and the service of 18d. annually, and that Ralph was in seisin of the said service and homage, and that when his father Richard died he (Robert) was at that time under age and in ward to the said Ralph. Ralph acknowledged he had taken the homage of Richard the father of Robert, but denied that that gave any claim to warranty; and he stated he had taken the homage of Richard the father of Robert as the true heir of the said Robert, by whose seisin, etc. (the plaintiff claimed), inasmuch as Robert at that time had no other heir apparent, and he knew of no other. And because Robert de Sewalefeld did not deny that Ralph had taken the homage of Richard father of Robert as heir of Robert, from whose seisin the claim is made, and gave no other reason why Ralph should warrant the tenement to him, it is considered that Robert son of Robert (de Essington) should recover seisin, and Robert de Sewallefeld is in misericordiâ. m. 13.

Alice daughter of Thomas Oweyn, and Agnes, Joan, and Matilda her sisters, sued Richard Oweyn and Henry his brother for a mill and two hundred acres of land in Uttokeshather (Uttoxeter), which Robert de Ferars gave to Henry Oweyn and heirs of his body, and which after his death should descend to them as his cousins and heirs by the form of the gift. The defendants took exception to the writ because they held only a portion of the land claimed, and the suit is dismissed. m. 13.

An assize, etc., if Richard de Marnham and Walter Deireys (sic, Devereux) had unjustly disseised the Abbot of Hales of common of pasture in seventy acres of arable land after the corn was carried, in Bromwych near Walshall. Richard pleaded he only held in right of his wife Margaret, who was not named in the writ, and Richard and Walter state they did not hold the whole of the land in question, inasmuch as William son of Richard le Serjant of Bromwych held thirty acres, Philip de Lyndene five acres, Richard de Rushaker six acres, Richard Basset ten acres, Richard Bude ten acres, William Mustrell six acres, Ralph Swetecok six acres, and Walter Bonde three acres; and as the Abbot could not contradict this, the suit is dismissed. m. 13, dorso.

Theobald de Verdun was summoned by the Abbot of Crokesdene in a plea that he should render to him £8, the arrears of an annual rent of 40s. owing to him; and he stated that one Roes the grandmother of Theobald, whose heir he is, had granted to the Abbot and St. Mary of Crokesdene and monks 40s. to be rendered yearly from her mills of Alveton, and he produced the deed of Roes to that effect.

Theobald admitted the deed, but stated that the Abbot was bound to him in a bond for £40 for the confirmation of a waste (sic) which he held of his fee. A concord was afterwards made, by which Theobald paid the arrears. m. 13, dorso.

Richard le Heyr of Knyghton sued Alan Wigan for a messuage and a bovate of land in Knyghton in Hales-under-Lyme, in which Alan had no entry except by a demise made by William le Heyr, grandfather of Richard, for a term now expired, to Robert son of Adam de Knyghton. Alan pleaded that William had made a grant of the tenement in fee and inheritance to Robert, but the jury find in favour of Richard. m. 13, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Richard de Barton, Hugh son of Richard de Tunstal, and ten others named, had unjustly disseised Richard Gerveys of Wolvernehampton of an acre of wood in Tunstal. The defendants, with the exception of Hugh, disclaimed all right, and Hugh stated that Tunstal was of the ancient demesne of the King, and that he had impleaded the said Richard in the Court of Robert Burnel, formerly Bishop of Bath and Wells, for the said tenement by writ of right, and had recovered it, and he had entered by a verdict of the Manor Court and not by a disseisin. The jury say that Hugh impleaded Richard in the Bishop's Court of Tunstall, and Richard had appeared in Court and pleaded he ought not to answer to the writ, because the tenement was not of the nature of sokemanship, but a free fee, and that the Steward of the Bishop had taken an inquisition in the absence of Richard respecting the said tenement, and on the verdict of this inquisition had ejected him from it unjustly. Richard is therefore to recover seisin. m. 13, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Walter de Cokeseye, Thomas Prior of Sandewall, and five others, had unjustly disseised Richard de Marnham and Margaret his wife of three acres of waste in West Bromwych. The defendants, with the exception of the Prior, disclaimed all right; and the Prior stated that the manor of West Bromwych formerly belonged to one Richard, and was divided between Sarra and the said Margaret his daughters and heirs, and that the land in question was of the purparty of Sarra, and Sarra had issue Walter Deverus, by whose concession he holds it. The jury find that the land in dispute was part of the purparty of Margaret. Richard and Margaret are therefore to recover seisin. m. 14.

An assize, etc., of Ralph le Botiller and Matilda his wife had unjustly disseised Jordan de Flossebrok of an acre of land and an acre of heather in Nether Oldynton (Oulton). Ralph and Matilda state that Jordan had newly enclosed four acres of pasture within the vill of Nether Oldynton of which Ralph is capital lord, in right of Matilda his wife, and that the soil of the said pasture belonged to him and Matilda, and he had therefore lawfully pulled down the fence. The jury say that Jordan had enclosed the said land and pasture, of which the soil belonged to him. He is therefore to recover seisin. m. 14.

Alice formerly wife of Henry de Coudre sued Benedict de Coudre for a third of a messuage and a carucate of land in Lek as her dower. Benedict stated he held the tenement by a demise of the Abbot of Deulacres, and that Henry her husband had received other land from the Abbot in exchange for the land from which she now claimed dower, and that she had been endowed already from the land given in exchange. The jury find in favour of Benedict. m. 14.

Hugh son of Robert de Levedale sued Roger de Caverswalle for a messuage and fifty acres of land in Levedale, and he sued Adam Mile of Pencrich for five acres in the same vill, in which they have no entry except by Thomas de Etherlarton (Ellerton), who had unjustly disseised his father Robert of the tenements. Adam stated he entered by Henry de Caverswalle, and Hugh withdrew the writ against him. Roger stated that Hugh had remitted and quitclaimed to him all his right in the tenement by a deed which he produced. Hugh acknowledged the deed but pleaded at the time he executed it he was in the King's prison of Brugges (Bridgenorth). Roger denied the deed was executed whilst Hugh was in prison, and appealed to a jury, who stated that the deed was executed six months after Hugh had been released from prison. Verdict for Roger. m. 14, dorso.

An assize, etc., if William de Senkeworth and two others named had unjustly disseised Richard son of Geoffrey de Gnoushale of common of pasture in four acres in Gnoushale. William stated he was lord of the vill of Gnoushale and could approve in it as he pleased, and that Richard had sufficient pasturage elsewhere. The jury state that Richard had not sufficient pasture elsewhere, and he is therefore to recover seisin. m. 14, dorso.

A deed of convention enrolled between Sir Robert de Benteley Rector of the Church of Rademore on the one part, and John son of William son of William de Benteley, which states that contentions having arisen between them owing to sundry trespasses committed during the wardship of the lands of the inheritance of the said John at Benteley, and which Sir Robert held by the demise of Magister Adam de Botyngdon who had custody of the same by grant of the King, by the intervention of friends the said Sir Robert conceded and quitclaimed to John all his right in the said custody from the day of Carniprivium (fn. 6) 21 E. I., and for this concession John de Benteley, who is under age, and John de Cave and Richard de Benteley, who are of full age, concede that during the said custody they will pay to the said Sir Robert either at Benteley or Norton annually 40s., etc.

Walter de Beysin was summoned to answer the plea of Robert de Bromlegh that on the Thursday before Pentecost 20 E. I. he had taken the cattle of Robert, viz., fourteen oxen, in the vill of Asscheleg (Ashley) and had impounded them in his park there, and for which he claimed 100s. as damages.

Walter stated he had impounded the cattle lawfully, because the place from whence he took them is a common pasture of Robert and of him, Walter, and of one John de Eyton, and the said Robert had agisted on it strange cattle without his assent. Robert produced a deed to which Walter, John, and Robert were parties, by which it was conceded that either of them for themselves and heirs might approve, and assart and build on their purparties of the waste of Esselegh without any impediment by the others; and he stated that the place where the cattle were found was his several pasture assigned to him as his share of the waste. Walter denied this, but on an adjournment failed to appear. The assize was therefore taken in his absence, and the jury returned a verdict in favour of Robert. m. 15.

An assize, etc. if Warine de Beycyn the father of Robert de Beycyn was seised, etc., as of fee, of twelve acres of land and twelve acres of pasture in Shuston when he died, and which Matilda formerly wife of Adam de Beycyn holds. Matilda stated she held the tenement in dower of the inheritance of Walter de Beycyn, and called him to warranty; but she now withdrew her claim of warranty, and the assize proceeded. The jury say that Warine did not die seised of the tenements, and Robert is therefore in misericordiâ for a false claim. m. 15, dorso.

An assize of last presentation to the Church of Hopton near Stafford, the advowson of which Robert de Bek claimed against the Dean and Chapter of St. Mary of Stafford, and he pleaded that Alice de Bek his great grandmother, whose heir he is, who held the manor of Hopton temp. King John, had presented to the Church one Geoffrey de Bek, who had been admitted and instituted, and afterwards one Alienora de Bek, formerly wife of Gilbert de Bek, son and heir of the said Alice, and which Alienora held the capital messuage and one-third of the said manor with the advowson in dower of the inheritance of Robert de Bek grandfather of the said Robert, whose heir he is, in the reign of King Henry the King's father had presented one William de Bek, who had been admitted and instituted, and by whose death the Church is now vacant. The Dean and Chapter stated they held the Church by the gift of the King as appurtenant to their Church of St. Mary, and they cannot answer without the King (Rege inconsulto). Robert de Bek was informed he must sue the King. m. 16.

An assize if John de Conyngston the Prior of Trentham, William de Stafford, Henry de Colton, and William Coyne had unjustly disseised Adam Basset of a messuage, twenty-two acres of land, seventeen acres of meadow, twenty-three acres of pasture, and twenty-nine acres of wood in Over Helkesdon (Elkstone). The jury say that the Abbot had alone disseised him. Adam is therefore to recover seisin, but is in misericordiâ for a false claim against the others. m. 16, dorso.

Richard son of Hervey de Stretton sued Hugh de Weston for three virgates and a half of land, and six acres of meadow and two parts of a mill in Stretton, of which Richard de Stretton his grandfather, whose heir he is, had been seised as of fee when he died. Hugh pleaded he was enfeoffed conjointly with Sarra his wife, who was not named in the writ; and as Richard did not deny this, the suit was dismissed. m. 16, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Theobald de Verdun, Adam de Ravenesdale, and two others, had unjustly disseised the Prior of Calewiz (Colewich) of common of pasture in one hundred acres of wood in Wotton under Wever appurtenant to his free tenement of Athelaxton (Ellaston) near Calewyz. Theobald pleaded that Calewyz was a cell of Kenilleworth, and that the Prior was removable at the will of the Prior of Kenilleworth. The Prior stated he was perpetual and not removable at the will of the Prior of Kenilleworth. The jury found in favour of Theobald on this point, and the suit was dismissed. m. 16, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Richard son of William and twenty-one others named, had unjustly disseised John son of Reginald de Norton and Alice his wife, and Richard de Norton and Matilda his wife, of twenty acres of waste and four acres of moor in Norton upon Canok. Richard and Matilda his wife appeared and stated that the writ had not been sued out with their consent, and they disavowed it entirely (omnino deadvocaverunt).

The defendants stated the tenements were the inheritance of the said Matilda and Alice her sister, and that Alice when she was unmarried had remitted and quitclaimed to her sister Matilda all her right in them, and this grant had been confirmed by John son of Reginald after he married her. The jury found in favour of Richard and the other defendants. m. 17.

An assize, etc., if Henry son of Roger de Careswelle had unjustly disseised Hugh son of Robert de Levedale of common of pasture in two acres of land in Levedale. The jury found in favour of Henry. m. 17.

Adam de Pencryz sued Isolda formerly wife of Hugh de Levedale for a third of a messuage and half a virgate of land in Levedale, in which she had no entry except by Hugh de Levedale, to whom Robert son of Richard de Levedale the uncle of Adam, whose heir he is, had demised the tenement for a term now expired. Isolda stated she held the tenement for her life, and the reversion of it belonged to John son of William de Pykestok, who was present and joined Isolda in her plea, and they stated that Robert son of Richard had remitted and quitclaimed to Hugh de Levedale all his right in the said tenement, and they produced his deed. Adam denied the validity of the deed, but the jury found in favour of Isolda. m. 17, dorso.

William son of William de Couelee sued Richard son of Philip de Couelee for half a virgate of land excepting nine acres in Eyton, of which Philip de Couelee the grandfather of William, whose heir he is, had been seised as of fee when he died. Richard appeared and took exception to the writ because there were two vills in the county, one called Chirche Eyton and the other Wode Eyton, but none which was called Eyton by itself. As William could not controvert this, the suit was dismissed. m. 17, dorso.

Robert son of Robert de Meleburn was attached to answer the plea of John Brun that against the statute he constrained him to do service to his court of la Horecros; and he stated that Robert de Meleburn the ancestor of Robert, whose heir he is, had given to one Adam the carpenter of Barr the ancestor of John, and whose heir he is, twenty acres of land to be held by homage and the service of 5s. annually in lieu of all service, and for that reason he was not bound to do suit at the court of the said Robert, and that he had served on Robert a King's writ de prohibitione; but Robert spurning the prohibition had distrained the said John to perform the suit against the form of the statute, and for which he claimed £10 as damages.

Robert stated that the ancestors of John had performed suit to his court before the first journey of the King into Gascony, (fn. 7) and he had a right to distrain him for it.

John denied his ancestors had performed suit of court before the above date, and appealed to a jury; but he afterwards withdrew his writ. m. 18.

An assize, etc., if Adam de Merleston, Philip son of Philip de Draycote, Reginald de Legh, Roes formerly wife of Henry Brun, Margaret formerly wife of Nicholas de Legh, Juliana de Paynelowe, Robert de Legh, and twelve others named, had unjustly disseised Robert de Stapleton and Matilda his wife of the third part of two parts of forty-four and a half acres of land in Legh.

The defendants with the exception of Adam disclaimed all title to the land, and Adam answered as tenant aud stated he entered through Richard de Sotbache (Sandbach). The jury found in favour of Robert and Matilda. m. 18.

Agnes formerly wife of Thomas de Ferrars sued Matilda Steynolf for a third of nine acres of land in Great Lockesley as her dower. Matilda appeared and conceded the dower. m. 18.

William de Foulford gives half a mark for license of concord with Hugh de Draycote of Foulford and Dionisia his wife in a plea of convention. Hugh and Dionisia put in their place John their son. (fn. 8) m. 18.

An assize, etc., if Richard de Pres and Lettice his wife, Roger de Pyweleston and Joan his wife, John de Poleton (Pulton), Robert de Mulewych, John son of John de Salte and Juliana his wife, and Roger Coynee had unjustly disseised Alice formerly wife of Nicholas de Mutton of the third part of a messuage and carucate of land in Salte. Roger and Joan answered as tenants of the land, and stated they entered by Richard and Lettice; and Richard and Lettice stated the tenements formerly belonged to Nicholas de Mutton husband of Alice, who had enfeoffed them in them long before he married her; and after he had married Alice he disseised them of the tenements and alienated them to one Gilbert de Crokesford, and Richard and Lettice had recovered them by an assize of novel disseisin against the said Gilbert, before Reginald de Legh and Hugh de Cave. John, Robert, and John stated they claimed nothing in the land, but were recognitors of the above assize, (fn. 9) and Roger de Coynee stated he was the King's bailiff who had put Richard and Lettice into seisin.

Alice pleaded she had recovered her dower in the said tenements before the Justices of the Bench, and prayed for judgment on this ground. The jury say that Nicholas her husband never was seised of the tenements after his marriage with her, and that before the marriage he had enfeoffed Richard and Lettice in them, and had afterwards disseised them and alienated the tenements to Gilbert, and that Gilbert by collusion had conceded dower in them to Alice in the suit at Westminster. It is therefore considered that Richard and Lettice should recover seisin. m. 18, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Theobald de Verdoun and Roger Plane had unjustly disseised the Abbot of Roucestre of half of forty acres of moor and heath in Staunton near Swyneskorn. Theobald answered as tenant, and stated that one William le March, lord of half the vill, had enfeoffed him of the half three years ago, and the Abbot stated, that one Lucian son of Simon, who was lord of the other half of the vill, had given half the moor and heath to one of his predecessors.

The jury say that the Abbot was in seisin of ten acres of the moor by the feoffment of Lucian until Roger Plane, in the name of Theobald, had disseised him. He is therefore to recover seisin of these ten acres, and is in misericordiâ for a false claim for the residue. m. 18, dorso.

William son of Griffin and Wladusa his wife give half a mark for license of concord with Robert de Staundon in a plea of land. (fn. 10) m. 18, dorso.

Roger son of John le Eyr not appearing to prosecute his suit against Robert de Hugford for two carucates of land and 19 marks of rent in Hildeston, the suit is dismissed. m. 19.

John son of Geoffrey de Longedon sued Brankeleon le Limbard (sic), Canon of the Church St. Cedde of Lichfield, for a messuage and forty acres of land in Longedon, of which Reyner son of Oviet his kinsman, whose heir he is, had been seised as of fee when he died, etc. Brankaleon called to warranty Roger the Bishop, who appeared and warranted the tenement to him. A concord was made by which the Bishop acknowledged the tenement, excepting the great Grange on it and a small piece of land near the entrance of the Grange, to be the right of John. m. 19.

Vivian son of Thomas de Bydulf sued Theobald de Verdun for two messuages, a toft, three bovates and sixteen acres of land, two acres of meadow, three acres of wood, and 7s. rent in Fenton Culvert, in which Theobald had no entry except by John de Verdun, who had unjustly disseised him of the tenements. Theobald stated that John had entered by a feoffment of Thomas son of Thomas de Bydulf, and not by a disseisin, and the jury found in his favour. m. 19, dorso.

William son of Thomas de Bydulf sued Theobald de Verdun for two messuages, a toft, three bovates, sixteen acres of land, etc. (as before), in Fenton Culvert. (Same pleadings as in last suit, and same verdict.) m. 19, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Theobald de Verdun and Adam de Ravenenesdale had unjustly disseised John de Prestwode of common of pasture in Wotton-underWever appurtenant to his free tenement in Prestwode, viz., in one hundred acres of wood, where he used to common with all cattle except goats throughout the year except for six weeks between the Feasts of St. Michael and St. Martin. John Cheynel answered for Theobald as his bailiff, and stated that Theobald is lord of the vill of Wotton, which has a great waste appurtenant to it, and he had approved the wood, as was lawful so long as John had sufficient common of pasture elsewhere. John denied he had sufficient pasture besides the wood; but the jury found in favour of Theobald. John then offered a mark for a jury of twenty-four to convict the last jury, and the Sheriff was ordered to summon twenty-four for the Wednesday after the Purification. A postscript adds that John then withdrew from the prosecution, and was put into prison. m. 19, dorso.

Christiana the widow of Hamon de Onyleye recovers dower against Hamon de Onyleye in a messuage and thirty acres of land in Onyleye and Wonyngton near Hales-under-Lyme and from other tenants in the same vills. m. 19, dorso.

Alice formerly wife of Henry Oweyn sued Emma formerly wife of Thoma. Owayn for a third of a messuage and fifty-two acres of lands in Uttokeshather as her dower; and Emma called to warranty Alina, Matilda, Joan, and Agnes, daughters and heirs of the said Thomas Owayn, who are under age and in ward to her; and they were present in Court, and in conjunction with Emma by permission of the Court conceded the dower claimed. m. 19, dorso.

Thomas de Engleton sued Richard le Champyun of Engelton for two parts of a messuage and a virgate of land in Engelton; and he sued Roger Jurdan and Edith his wife for a messuage, a third of a messuage, a virgate, and a third of a virgate of land excepting one acre in the same vill; and he sued Roger Gadybon for an acre in the same vill, in which they had no entry except by William de Somerford, to whom William de Engelton the grandfather of Thomas, whose heir he is, had demised the tenements for a term now expired. Thomas afterwards withdrew his plea. m. 20.

Roger son of Roger le Joeuene of Waleton sued John the Prior of Stanes for twenty-six acres and a rood of land in Waleton near Stanes, which Ivo de Waleton had given to Roger de Waleton and heirs of his body, and which by the form of donation (per formam donationis) (fn. 11) after the death of Roger should descend to the said Roger son of Roger, the cousin and heir of the said Roger de Waleton. The Prior stated Roger had no right to the tenements because Ivo de Waleton, had given them to the Canons of Stanes in free alms, and the said Roger de Waleton, on whose seisin Roger based his claim, had remitted and quitclaimed the tenements to the same Canons, and he produced his deed. As Roger son of Roger was under age he could not acknowledge the deed, and the suit is adjourned till he comes of age. m. 20.

An assize, etc., if Richard de Budewell the father of Thomas was seised, etc., as of fee of a messuage and half a virgate of land in Couleye when he died, which Richard le Lord of Couleye and Robert his son hold. Robert stated he held all the tenements, and called Richard le Lord to warranty, and he took exception to the writ because the tenement was within the manor of Pencriz, where no writ would run except the small writ of right. The jury say that the tenements are of ancient demesne of the King, and the suit is dismissed. m. 20.

Petronilla formerly wife of Richard de Morton sued Robert son of John de Grendon for a messuage in Melewych (Milwich) as her right and maritagium, in which Robert had no entry except by a demise which Richard her husband had made to Robert de Grendon during his lifetime, when she could not object. Robert called to warranty John de Grendon, who came and warranted the tenement to him, and denied that Petronilla was ever in seisin of it as her maritagium. Petronilla afterwards withdrew her plea. m. 20, dorso.

Simon son of Hugh de Fossebrock sued Richard son of William de Cavereswalle for four acres of land and an acre of meadow in Fossebrock (Forsbrook); and he sued Ralph Basset of Chedlee (Cheadle) for four acres of land and half an acre of meadow in the same vill, of which Simon son of Hugh his grandfather, whose heir he is, was seised as of fee when he died. Richard stated he held the tenement claimed from him in purparty with Richard son of Richard de Karsewalle and Roger son of Henry de Caverswalle of the inheritance of one Ralph the grandfather (avi) of the said Richard son of William, and great-grandfather (proavi) of Richard son of Richard and of Roger, whose heirs they are, and he could not answer without them, and they were under age. Simon pleaded that Richard son of William ought to answer without the said Richard son of Richard and Roger, because Simon from whom he claimed died seised of the tenements as of fee, and after his death the said William the father of the said Richard had taken them into his hands as capital lord of the fee, by reason of the minority of Hugh the father of Simon who now sues, and he had held them all his life, and after his death the said Richard son of William had entered into them and had held them up to this date.

Richard son of William stated that the tenements were divided between Mary the mother of the said Richard son of William, and Sibilla the mother of the said Richard son of Richard, and Mary the mother of the said Roger as coheiresses of the said Ralph the father of the said Mary mother of Richard and grandfather of the said Sibilla, and of Mary mother of Roger, and he prayed for judgment whether he could answer without his coparceners. Simon denied that the tenements in question were ever divided between the said Mary, Sibilla, and Mary as between coheiresses of their ancestor Ralph, and appealed to a jury; but he afterwards withdrew his plea. Ralph Basset stated that as regards the tenement claimed from him he held it only for his life by the courtesy of England of the inheritance of the said Richard son of Richard, without whom he cannot answer, and he is under age. Simon stated Richard was of full age, and requested he might be viewed; and the Sheriff was ordered to produce him; and he was viewed by the Court, and was evidently under age. The suit is therefore to remain till he is of full age. m. 21. (fn. 12)

Robert de Halghton sued Roger the Bishop of Coventry and Lychefeld for the advowson of the Church of Heye de Offeleye (sic, High Offley), and stated a certain Thomas his ancestor was seised of it in the time of King John, and had presented to the Church Robert his Clerk, who was admitted and instituted on his presentation; and from Thomas the right descended to Ralph his son and heir; and from Ralph, who left no issue, to Robert as his brother and heir; and from Robert to Thomas as son and heir; and from Thomas to Robert, who now sues as his son and heir.

The Bishop appeared by attorney and denied the seisin of the said Thomas, and offered to defend his right by the body of his freeman Thomas son of William, who was present, etc.; and Robert offered to deraign his right by the body of his freeman Robert son of William, who was present, etc. It is therefore considered that a duel should be fought between them, and the sureties of Thomas (the Bishop's champion) are Henry Mauveysin and Roger de Swynnerton, and the sureties of Robert (Robert de Haughton's champion) are Thomas Corbet and William Wyther. A day is given to the parties before the Justices at Westminster, on the Tuesday next after a month from Easter, when the champions are to come in arms. m. 21.

Robert de Fraunkevell, William, Philip, and Roger, his brothers, were attached to answer the plea of Thomas the Prior of Ranton that they had broken down his fences vi et armis on the Monday after the close of Easter, 17 E. I., by which he had been damaged to the amount of 100s. The defendants stated the Prior had raised a fence in a place where their cattle were accustomed to pass, and they had pulled it down lawfully, and they appealed to a jury. The Prior afterwards withdrew his plea, and he and his sureties are in misericordiâ. m. 21.

The Prior of Stanes gives half a mark for license of concord with Roger de Pywelesdon and Joan his wife. (fn. 13) m. 21.

Ala formerly wife of William de Hondeshaker sued Richard le Charpenter of Hondesaker for a third of a messuage and four acres in Hondesaker (Handsacre) as her dower. Richard called to warranty William son and heir of William de Hondesaker, who is under age and in ward with a part of his lands to Geoffrey de Greselee, and another part of his lands is in the custody of Henry de Lacy Earl of Lincoln, and another part in the custody of Walter de Beauchamp, by reason of the custody of William brother and heir of Gawan le Botiler, which he held by a demise of John de Bretagne (Brytannia), to whom the King had demised it. The custodians are therefore to be summoned to be at Westminster at three weeks from Easter. Geoffrey to be summoned in Staffordshire, the Earl in co. Derby, and Walter in co. Worcester. m. 21, dorso.

An assize, etc. if Richard Balle, the father of Edelina and of Petronilla was seised in demesne as of fee when he died, of eight acres of land and an acre of meadow in Cotes near Stafford, of which Robert le Mouner of Stafford holds five acres, and Hugh son of Ralph de Cotes two acres and an acre of meadow, and Robert son of Ralph de Cotes an acre of land. The jury say that the mother of Edelina and Petronilla had held the land after the death of her husband Richard, and had given it to Robert and the other defendants. Eddina (sic) and Petronilla are therefore to recover seisin. m. 21, dorso.

An assize, etc., if John de Heronvile had unjustly disseised William son of Robert and Adam de Walton and Alice his wife of the third part of a messuage and of a vivary in Tybinton (Tipton). John stated he claimed nothing but the custody of the tenement by reason of the minority of one Henry de Heronvile, who was not named in the writ, and the suit was dismissed. m. 22.

An assize, etc., if William de Boeles, senior, and Robert and John the sons of William, had unjustly disseised Thomas the son of William Illari of Rusale (Rushall) of half a messuage, a carucate of land, and six acres of meadow and moor in Rushale. William stated he claimed nothing but the lordship (dominium) of the land, and that Thomas is now in seisin of it, and he likewise stated that one William Illari had held the tenements of him and wished to enfeoff in them Thomas his son to hold of him (William Illari) against the form of the statute, (fn. 14) wishing to hold a mesne tenure between him (William de Boeles) and Thomas his son, and he had taken possession as capital lord. Thomas stated that William Illari had enfeoffed him of the tenements, to hold them of the capital lords, and he was in seisin till William de Boeles had ejected him.

The jury say that William Illari had enfeoffed the said Thomas of the tenements, and had put him into seisin of them on the Saturday about the ninth hour, and he was in seisin for all that day, the following night, and the day after till the third hour of the day, when William de Boeles and the other defendants had ejected him. And the jury being asked as to who was now in seisin of the tenements, stated that William de Boeles on the Sunday following had put one of his servants in possession, who had held them up to the present time in the name of William de Boeles. It is therefore considered that Thomas should recover seisin, and William and the other defendants are committed to gaol. m. 22.

Edmund the King's brother gives half a mark for license of concord with Geoffrey Gryffyn. (fn. 15) m. 22.

Richard son of Thomas de Couleye sued Bertram son of Bertram de Burgh for a messuage and a carucate of land in Couleye, in which he had no entry except by Bertram de Burgo, to whom Thomas de Couleye his father (whose heir he is), had demised the tenement for a term now expired Bertram stated that Thomas had given him the land in fee by a charter, which he produced. Richard acknowledged the deed, but pleaded that it was given when Thomas was in prison at Neugate in London. Bertram stated that the deed was executed at Burgh (Burgum) in this county, and appealed to a jury. A concord was afterwards made, by which Richard acknowledged the right of Bertram, and for which acknowledgment Bertram conceded to him and to his heirs two royal acres of land (acras terræ regales) in the said vill. m. 22.

Richard de Prez and Lettice his wife give a mark for license of concord with Roger de Pyulesdon and Joan his wife. (fn. 16) m. 22.

The Prior of Stanes sued Henry de Verdun for a messuage and ten acres of land in Derlaston, in which he had no entry except by Roger son of Henry, to whom the Prior had demised the tenement for a term now expired. The suit was dismissed, because Henry was not in seisin of the whole tenement, John son of Roger holding a part of it. m. 22.

William son of Peter de Gnoushale sued Bertram de Burgo for a messuage and thirty acres of land in Wilbrighton, and he sued Michael de Morton for five acres and a half of land in the same vill, of which Alice de Cowalle his kinswoman, whose heir he is, was seised as of fee when she died. Michael called to warranty Bertram de Burgo, who warranted the tenement to him, and pleaded that Alice did not die seised as of fee of either tenement, because before her death she had enfeoffed her son Henry in them by a deed, which he produced.

William stated that notwithstanding the deed Alice had died seised of the tenements, and appealed to a jury, who found in favour of Bertram. m. 22, dorso.

Robert de Somerford withdrew his suit against Roger the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield for reasonable estovers in Brewode. m. 22, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Alianora de Ferrars and John her son had unjustly disseised Thomas Grym of Little Heywode of reasonable estovers for enclosing and building in one hundred acres of wood in Charteleye by view of the bailiff. Thomas stated that his father and grandfather and great grandfather had taken estovers as specified.

The defendants pleaded that Robert de Ferrars the father of John and formerly husband of Alianora had held the wood in severalty, and afterward the King had held it in the same way, and after the death of Robert it had been assigned to Alianora as part of her dower. Thomas afterwards withdrew his plea. m. 22, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Robert Scridup the father of Nicholaa the wife of Richard son of Osbert de Northcote was seised as of fee when he died of 14s. of rent and half a virgate of land in Blockeswych (Bloxwich), of which Roger de Mortayn had deforced him of 7s. of rent, and John Paynel and Margaret his wife had deforced him of 7s. of rent and half a virgate of land. The defendants pleaded that the tenements were held in sokemanship (sokemaneria) of the manor of Walshalle, which is of ancient demesne of the King, and as a jury stated this to be the case, the suit was dismissed. m. 22, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Roger de Swynnerton, Reginald de Snockestones, Richard de Swynnerton, and John de Trentham had unjustly disseised John son of Philip de Blakelowe of common of pasture and moor in Swynnerton appurtenant to his free tenement in Blakelowe. Roger stated he had approved the pasture and moo and that John son of Philip had sufficient pasture for his tenement, and the jury found in his favour. m. 22, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Thedisius de Camilla the Dean of the Church of St. Peter of Wolverhampton, and Andrew de Grene and Simon le Bedel had unjustly disseised the Abbot of Crokesdene of four acres of wood in Ake (Oaken). The Dean appeared by the said Andrew his bailiff, and took exception to the writ because there was no vill in Staffordshire called Ake, and he appealed to a jury. The jury stated the vill was called Oke, and not Ake, and the suit was dismissed. m. 23.

John de Prestewode not appearing to prosecute his writ against Theobald de Verdun respecting common of pasture in Athelaxton (Ellaston), it is dismissed. His sureties, John Bagot of Bromley and John de Prestwode, Clerk, are in misericordiâ. m. 23.

An assize, etc., if Philip de Montegomeri and three others named had unjustly disseised Robert le Champyon of twenty acres of land and thirty acres of heath in Otherton and Hatherdene. Philip stated that the tenement is in Hatherdon, which is ancient demesne of the King, where no writ would run but the close writ of right; and he afterwards pleaded he had entered by Thedise the Dean of Wolverhampton, and not by a disseisin, and that Robert had wished to enclose the land by a fence and ditch, and the land was within the King's forest, between two Hayes, and he had prevented him from making the fence by orders of the Capital Justice of the forest.

Robert admitted that Hetherdone was of ancient demesne, but he stated that Hatherdone (sic) belonged to the Dean, and that the heath in question was part of the Dean's demesne, and that Moyses the Dean's Proctor had given it to him to hold to him and his heirs for the service of 4d. annually, and he had held it until disseised by Philip and the other defendants; and as regards the land, it formerly belonged to Ralph his uncle, who had enfeoffed him in it, and he appealed to a jury. The jury find in favour of Robert: damages 2 marks. m. 23.

An assize, etc., if Roger son of Jordan de Peulesdon, Richard his brother, and another, had unjustly disseised Thomas the Prior of Raunton of twenty acres of heath in Flosbrok (Flashbrook). The Prior stated that the heath formerly belonged to one Hugh de Flossebrok, who had given it to one of his predecessors to hold in severalty, and that Roger and the other defendants had driven their cattle into it. The jury find in his favour; and Roger afterwards offered 10s. for a jury of twenty-four to convict the last jury: his sureties being Roger de Pyuelesdon (fn. 17) and Henry de Verdon; but he afterwards withdrew his writ and was committed to prison. A concord was eventually made, by which Roger son of Jordan admitted the right of the Prior to approve the heath and reduce it to cultivation, saving to him and his heirs common of pasture in it during the open season. m. 23.

William son of Peter Corbison sued John Giffard of Chylynton for the manor of Chilinton excepting fifteen messuages, etc. (as before), of which Margaret the daughter of Peter Corbison his kinswoman, and whose heir he is, was seised in demesne, etc., in the time of King Henry father of the present King; and from Margaret, who died without leaving issue, the right descended to William her brother and heir; and from William to Peter as son and heir; and from Peter to William, who now sues as son and heir. John denied that Margaret was seised of the manor in the reign of the King's father, and the jury found in his favour. m. 23.

Alice formerly wife of John Meverel of Fredeswell (Fradswell) sued Simon Pare and Cecilia his wife for a messuage and twenty acres of land in Gretewych (Gratwich), in which they had no entry except through John her husband, who had demised the tenement to them during his lifetime when she could not object. Simon called to warranty Nicholas son of John Meverel, who appeared and warranted the tenement to him and admitted the claim of Alice. Alice is therefore to recover seisin, and Simon is to be compensated by Nicholas. m. 23, dorso.

Robert le Champyon and Agnes his wife sued Adam Attelaneslon for a third of an acre and a half of land in Stretton which Agnes claimed as dower of the dotation of Richard de Stretton her first husband. Adam did not appear, and the land had been taken into the King's hands. He now made default again, and it is therefore considered that Robert and Agnes should recover seisin. m. 23, dorso.

Robert son of Geoffrey de la Hyde, who is stated to be of full age, sued John son of Geoffrey de la Hyde for ten acres of land in Chylinton, near Brewode, and recovered them by default of appearance of John. m. 23, dorso.

Thomas son of Thomas de Bydulf was summoned by Theobald son of John de Verdun in a plea that he should warrant to him four messuages, two tofts, six bovates, and twenty-six acres of land, four acres of meadow, fifty-three acres of wood, and 14s. of rent in Fenton Culverd, which he claimed to hold of him by virtue of a deed of Thomas the father of Thomas, of whom he (Thomas) is the heir, and who gave the tenements to John his father with a clause of warranty, and he produced the deed, and he claimed the warranty of Thomas, because one William the son of Thomas de Bidulf and Vivian his brother had impleaded him for the said tenements, and Thomas had been called to warranty several times and refused to warrant the tenements to him, to his great loss and damage, and for which he claimed £20 as damages. Thomas son of Thomas appeared in Court, and was evidently under age. The suit is therefore to remain till he comes of age. m. 23, dorso.

Petronilla formerly wife of Richard de Morton sued Robert son of John de Grendon for a carucate and a half of land and 40s. of rent in Melewych (Milwich) and two other tenants for two messuages in the same vill, which she claimed as her right and maritagium and in which they had no entry except by a demise which Richard de Morton formerly her husband had made to Robert de Grendon during his lifetime, when she could not object. Robert called to warranty John de Grendon, who appeared and warranted the tenements to him excepting two acres. And John called to warranty Ralph de Grendon, who appeared and warranted the tenements, and denied the right of Petronilla, and stated that the tenements belonged to Richard de Morton, and were not the maritagium of Petronilla, and appealed to a jury. A concord was afterwards made, by which Petronilla acknowledged the right of Ralph and for which Ralph gave her £10, and John de Grendon conceded to her a messuage and a virgate of land in Melewych, to be held by her for her life, and to revert after her death to him and to his heirs. And, with respect to the two acres excepted, John called to warranty Robert son of Walter Orme of Mylewych, who appeared and warranted them to him, and Petronilla obtained permission to withdraw her claim to them. m. 23, dorso.

Nicholas de Aldelegh (Audley) gives half a mark for license of concord with William Shirard and Petronilla his wife. (fn. 18)

Robert de Stapleton and Matilda his wife were summoned by Thomas de Rydeware Hamstal in a plea that they caused waste and destruction in the houses, woods, etc., which they held of his inheritance in Rydeware Hamstal. And he stated they held a messuage and carucate of land, forty acres of wood, and six villains in the said vill, as dower of Matilda, and had cut down sixty oak trees, each worth 3s., and allowed a grange, worth 100s., and a stable, worth 60s., to fall to pieces through defect of repair, and had cut down thirty pear trees, worth 2s. each, and had wasted and destroyed the land of one Giles his villain, etc., for which he claimed £20 as damages.

Robert and Matilda denied the damage and waste, and appealed to a jury, which found in their favour. m. 24.

Thomas de Arderne and Elena his wife were sued by Thomas de Rydeware Hamstal for waste and destruction in the woods they hold of his inheritance in Rydeware Hamstal. And he stated that the said Thomas and Elena held sixty acres of wood in the said vill of his inheritance as dower of Elena, and they had cut down thirty oak trees, each worth 2s., forty ash trees, worth each 12d., and twelve arablas, worth each 6d. Thomas de Arderne and Elena denied the damage and waste, and the jury found in their favour. m. 24.

Ralph de Burgo and Agnes his wife were sued by Thomas de Rydeware Hamstal for waste and destruction in the woods which they hold as dower of Agnes of the inheritance of Thomas in Rydeware Hamstal. And he complained that whereas they held the third part of two carucates of land and sixty acres of wood in the said vill as the dower of Agnes, they had cut down forty oak trees, each worth 3s., ten arablas, worth 6d. each, twelve ash trees, worth 6d. each, and thirty apple trees, worth 6d. each, and for which he claimed £20 as damages. Ralph and Agnes denied the waste and destruction and a jury found in their favour. m. 24.

Adam de Brymton and Margaret his wife not appearing to prosecute their plea against the Abbot of St. Ebrulph, respecting a tenement in Church Eyton, the suit is dismissed, and their sureties, Richard son of Robert de Brymton and Philip Banastre, are in misericordiâ. m. 24.

John Paynel and Margaret his wife sued the Abbot of Hales for a messuage and seven acres of land and an acre and a half of meadow in Waleshale, which Henry de Walwenhalle formerly held, and which should revert to them as their eschaet, inasmuch as Henry, who had been hanged for felony, held the tenement of them for a service of 18d. annually and a pound of cummin.

The Abbot stated that at the date when Henry committed the felony for which he had been hanged, he (the Abbot) was in possession of the tenement, and appealed to a jury, which found in his favour. And John Giffard of Chilynton, William de Wrottesleye and Reyner de Neuport, jurors, did not appear, and are in misericordiâ. m. 24.

An assize, etc., if Richard de Huntebache the father of William son of Richard de Huntenbache was seised as of fee, etc., of a messuage and four acres of land in Huntenbache when he died, and which Richard son of Richard de Huntenbache and Alice formerly wife of Richard de Huntenbache held. The jury say that Richard the father of William did not die seised of the land, because before his death he had enfeoffed the said Richard son of Richard of it. m. 24, dorso.

Nicholas de Audeleye withdrew his assize of mort d'ancestor against Roger de Swynnerton respecting a tenement in Coldemorton (Coldnorton) m. 24, dorso.

An assize, etc., if William de Stanlegh had unjustly disseised William de Bakenholt of an acre of land in Bakenholt (Bagnall). William de Stanlegh pleaded he was enfeoffed of the land conjointly with Joan his wife, who was not named in the writ, and the suit was dismissed. m. 24, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Richard de Marnham and Margaret his wife, and William the son of Richard, had unjustly disseised the Prior of Sandwell of common of pasture in forty acres of land in Bromewych (West Bromwich), viz., every two years in the open season and every third year for the whole year with all kind of cattle. The jury found in favour of the Prior. m. 24, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Richard de Blythefeld had unjustly disseised John de Styvynton of common of pasture in Blythefeld appurtenant to his free tenement at Styvynton, viz., in sixty acres of wood with all kind of cattle except goats, and excepting six weeks between the Feast of St. Michael and St. Martin, and in thirty acres of heath, with all kind of cattle for all the year. Richard stated he was capital lord of Blythefeld, and it was lawful for him to approve according to the Statute, and that John had sufficient pasturage for the tenement he held in Styvynton. The jury found in favour of Richard. m. 24, dorso.

An assize, etc., if William de Bagenholt, Geoffrey his son, and John son of Amice, had unjustly disseised William de Stanleye of common of pasture in one hundred acres of wood in Bagenholt (Bagnall) appurtenant to his free tenement in Stanleye. William de Bagenholt stated he had conceded to William de Stanleye a certain piece of land for the purpose of building a mill on it, and for this concession William de Stanleye had permitted him to enclose and hold the wood in severalty.

The jury say that William de Stanleye had permitted William de Bagenholt to enclose twenty acres of the wood for the grant of the site of the mill, and that William de Bagenholt had disseised him of common of pasture in the remainder. m. 24, dorso.

Simon son of Hugh de Fossebrok recovers three and a half acres of land in Fossebrok (Forsbrook) from Roger son of Richard de Draycote, through default of the defendant. m. 25.

An assize, etc., if Walter de Ebroicis (Devereux) and Richard de Marnham and Margaret his wife had unjustly disseised the Abbot of Hales of common of pasture in West Bromwych, viz., in three hundred and ten acres of land in the open season with six hundred sheep. The defendants admitted that the Abbot had right of common in the waste of West Bromwych, but stated that the manor of West Bromwych formerly belonged to Richard the father of Margaret, and of Sarra the mother of Walter, and that Richard had held the manor in severalty all his life, and after his death the defendants held it in the same way, and they appealed to a jury. The jury say that the Abbot never was seised of common of pasture in the said vill as appurtenant to his free tenement. m. 25.

An assize, etc., if William Wyther and Orabel his wife, Anketine de la Warde, Phillip de Draycote, Richard de Wytmore, Richard de Bokenhale, and fifteen others named, had unjustly disseised John de Underwode of Kyngesleghe Bothes of common of pasture in one hundred acres of heath in Kyngesleghe Bothes. The defendants pleaded that Kyngesleghe Bothes is neither a vill, a borough, nor a hamlet, and they stated that the said Anketine de la Warde and Philip de Draycote are the lords of the manor of Kyngelegh, and had approved the heath according to the Statute, and as was lawful, and they appealed to a jury. The jury found that the defendants had disseised John of common of pasture in sixty acres of the heath. m. 25.

An assize, etc., if John Giffard of Chylinton had unjustly disseised William de Onecote of common of pasture in twenty acres of waste in Walton appurtenant to his tenement in the same vill.

John stated he was capital lord of Walton, and had lawfully approved the heath and waste according to the Statute, and that William had sufficient pasturage for his tenement, and he appealed to a jury, which found in his favour. m. 25, dorso.

Henry de Waleton sued Roger de Verdun for a messuage and a virgate of land, and 4s. of rent in Aston near Stanes, which Henry de Verdun junior had given to Geoffrey de Waleton and Petronilla his wife and heirs of their bodies, and which after the deaths of Geoffrey and Petronilla should have descended to him as their son and heir, per formam donationis.

Roger defended his right, and stated that the writ in question which had been provided by the last Statute of Westminster, (fn. 19) referred only to alienations made after the date of the Statute, and that Geoffrey and Petronilla had died long before the making of the Statute. Henry admitted this to be true, but stated that they had never alienated the land, and the Statute therefore applied. Judgment was given in favour of Roger on the point of law, because the writ was framed to recover lands alienated, and Henry acknowledged that Geoffrey and Petronilla were never in seisin of the tenements after the passing of the Statute. m. 25, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Edith formerly wife of William le Ken and William son of William le Ken had unjustly disseised William son of Robert de Caverswell of his common of pasture in five acres of moor in Caverswell. A concord was made by which the common of pasture was conceded to William son of Robert. m. 25, dorso.

Ralph son of Robert de Pendeford was summoned by Adam son of Adam Dilbard of Hattone to warrant to him an acre of meadow in Covene, for which he holds his deed, and for which one William son of Nicholas was suing him. Ralph appeared and warranted the meadow to him. m. 25, dorso.

Roger de Peulesdon and Joan his wife sued the Prior of Stanes for ten acres of meadow in Stanes, as the right and purparty of Joan, and they say that one Robert her ancestor was seised of the tenement in the time of King Richard, and from Robert the right descended to one Ivo as son and heir, and from Ivo to Robert as son and heir, and from Robert to Joan, who now sues as his daughter and heir. The Prior denied the seisin of Robert the ancestor, and put himself on a Great Assize, and gave half a mark for mention of the date of seisin, and William Trumwine, William de Stafford, Robert de Standon, and John de Herunvile, four Knights, came and elected the following (to form the jury), viz., Robert de Hastang. Robert de Knytheleye, Ralph Basset of Sapecote, John Gyffard of Chelinton, Hugh de Weston, Henry de Cressewalle, John fitz Philip, John Douly (D'Oilli), Adam de Brumton, Henry Mauveysin, Robert de Dutton, and Geoffrey de Gresseleye, Knights. A concord was afterwards made. m. 26.

The Sheriff of York had been commanded to summon for this day, viz., the Octaves of the Purification, Edmund de Percy and Joan his wife, to sue, together with Richard de Goldisburgh and Alesia his wife, if they wished, John Doyli, in a plea that he should render to them a messuage, two caru cates, and fourteen virgates and a half of land, four acres of meadow, and twenty acres of wood in Ronton, Milmes, and Little Wyrleye, in this county, of which Roes Doyly the grandmother of the said Alesia and Joan, whose heirs they are, was seised as of fee, etc., when she died, and the Sheriff had done nothing in the matter. He is therefore commanded as before, and to summon them to be at Westminster at three weeks from Easter. m. 26.

Reginald son of John de Charneres (Charnes) recovers ten acres in Chavernes and Whytinton from Robert de Whytinton by a writ of mort d'ancestor. m 26.

An assize, etc., if the Prior of Stanes and three others named had unjustly disseised Roger de Peulesdon and Joan his wife of common of pasture in eight acres of heath in Waleton. The defendants stated that Roger and Joan never had common of pasture in the heath, but only a right of way for their cattle; but the jury found in favour of Roger and Joan. The Prior afterwards gave 20s. for a jury of twenty-four to convict the last jury of a false verdict. m. 26.

Ralph de Wasteneys and Beatrice his wife sued Robert le Champion for a third of twelve acres of land in Little Sardon as the dower of Beatrice, of the dotation of Robert de Whyston formerly her husband. Robert called to warranty Robert de Wyston, who warranted the land to him, and acknowledged the right of Beatrice to dower. Beatrice is therefore to be compensated by Robert de Whyston. m. 26, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Roger le Fevere the father of Alda the daughter of Roger le Fevere of Ronton was seised, etc., of a messuage and eighteen acres of land in Ronton when he died, which Emma formerly wife of Bertram de Burgo and Lucas le Hore hold. Emma stated she alone held the tenement in dower of Bertram son of Bertram de Burgo, and she called Bertram to warranty, who came and warranted the tenement to her, and stated that Roger was not seised of it when he died. The jury find in favour of Alda, who recovers seisin, and Emma is to be compensated from other land belonging to Bertram. m. 26, dorso.

Geoffrey Griffin sued Nicholas de Thyknes for twenty acres of land in Clayton Gryffin, and Felicia formerly wife of William Swan for three acres in the same vill, in which they had no entry except by Ralph de Thyknes to whom Edmund the King's brother had demised the tenements, and who had unjustly disseised Geoffrey Gryffin the father of Geoffrey whose heir he is. Nicholas and Felicia called to warranty Edmund the King's brother, who appeared by attorney and warranted their tenements to them. A concord was made, and Edmund gave half a mark for license of concord and had a chyrograph. m. 26, dorso.

John the Prior of Stanes sued the Dean and Chapter of Saint Mary of Stafford for a carucate of land and four acres of meadow in the vill of Castle (Castello) near Stafford, in which they had no entry except by Henry de Wengham, junior, who had unjustly disseised Humphrey formerly Prior of Stanes, his predecessor. The Dean and Chapter defended their right and stated that Simon de Ofhani formerly Dean of the said Church had demised the tenements to the said Henry for the term of his (Henry's) life, and they had reverted to the Chapter after Henry's death. The jury say that King Henry the father of the present King by his attorney Adam Wymer had recovered the advowson of the Church of Castle as the right of his free Chapel of St. Mary of Stafford against Humphrey the predecessor of the Prior, for which the said Simon de Ofhani then Dean of the Chapel conceded the fruits of one year to the said Adam for his labours; and Simon afterwards demised the tenements to Henry de Wengham, junior, to hold, etc. (for his life), and after his death they had reverted to the said Chapter. Verdict for the Dean and Chapter. m. 26, dorso.

John de Tresel sued Richard de la Grene, Henry his son, Richard de Brok, Robert de Gravenovere, Roger of the same, Richard the Provost of Claverley, and fifty-three others named, for breaking down his fences at Tresseleye (Trysull) vi et armis, and for which he claimed £10 as damages. None of the defendants appeared, and the Sheriff returned they were not resident in his county, but in co. Salop. The Sheriff of Salop is therefore commanded to arrest them and produce them at Westminster on the Morrow of the Ascension. m. 26, dorso.

An assize, etc., if Thedisius de Camill Dean of the Church of St. Peter of Wolverehampton, Andrew de Gevene, and another, had unjustly disseised the Abbot of Crokesdene of four acres of wood in Ocke (Oaken). Andrew de Gevene the Bailiff of the Dean appeared for him and the other defendant, and stated that the tenements were in Clodeshale (Codsall), which is a member of Wolverehampton, and not in Oke; and if they were in Oke, he had found his Church seised of them, and he appealed to a jury. The Abbot stated he was in seisin of the tenements until ejected vi et armis by the defendants. The jury say the tenements are a certain place (placea) called Stryvesmore, in Oke and not in Codeshale, and the Dean and the others had unjustly disseised the Abbot of them. The Abbot is therefore to recover seisin and 10s. as damages. m. 27.

An assize, etc., if Theobald de Verdun, Henry de Verdun, and Amice formerly wife of Henry de Verdun, had unjustly disseised Richard de Caverswall and William Coyne (Coyney) of thirteen and a half acres of heath in Holm under Kevermund. Richard and William afterwards withdrew their writ, and an agreement was made by which Theobald and Henry conceded to the said Richard and William and their heirs twenty royal acres (acras regales) of the waste between Hulm Weston and Bukenhale, of which ten acres lie between the field of Robert Serle and the field of Richard de Adderdele, etc., and for which concession Richard and William remitted their claim to the heath in question. m. 27.

An assize, etc., if Robert son of Ivo the father of Joan the wife of Roger de Pywelesdon was seised as of fee, etc., of twenty acres of land in Aston near Stanes when he died, and which the Dean and Chapter of St. Mary of Stafford hold. The Dean and Chapter stated that one Magister Ralph of Oxford, Sub-Dean of their Church, held the tenements in question for term of his life, annexed to his Prebend of Wytegreve belonging to the said Church, and that one Magister Adam de Philiby, the predecessor of the said Sub-Dean during his time had held the same tenements annexed to the same Prebend. As Roger and Joan could not deny these facts, the suit was dismissed. m. 27.

Agnes formerly wife of Thomas de Ferrars sued Roger de Vernay for a third of twenty-one acres of land in Great Lockesleye, and she sued Margaret de Ferrars for a third of a messuage and four bovates and thirteen acres of land, and Robert de Caverswall and Margaret his wife for a third of three bovates and nineteen acres of land, and sixteen other tenants for a third of their holdings in the same vill as her dower. And she sued Magister John de Verney for a third of three acres of meadow in Uttokeshather (Uttoxeter), and Robert de Warilowe for a third of four acres in Little Lockesleye, and William de Leyes and Agnes his wife for a third of a messuage and two bovates of land in the same vill as her dower. Some of the tenants concede the claim, and others called to warranty Thomas the son and heir of Thomas de Ferars, who is under age and in ward to Agnes the plaintiff, and part of whose land in this county and in co. Derby is in the custody of Robert le Venur by the demise of Edmund the King's brother. And Robert de Cavereswell and Margaret his wife state that Thomas de Ferars had given to the said Margaret three bovates and six acres of land to be held by the said Margaret and heirs of her body, and if she should die without leaving issue, to revert to the said Thomas and his heirs; and William de Leyes and Agnes his wife state that the said Thomas de Ferars had given the land they held to one Richard son of Philip de Milnehus, the first husband of the said Agnes, and to the heirs of their bodies; and if they should die without such heirs, then to revert to Thomas and his heirs; and they called to warranty the heir of the said Thomas. The jury found in favour of Agnes. m. 27, dorso.

Geoffrey de Chanvill had sued elsewhere Richard de Vernun for two acres of meadow in Clifton-Chanville of which Geoffrey his grandfather had been seised in the time of King Henry the King's father; and from Geoffrey the right descended to one William as son and heir; and from William to Geoffrey who now sues as son and heir. Richard denied that Geoffrey the grandfather had died seised of the tenement, and appealed to a jury, who had found a verdict in his favour, 20 E. I., before the Justices assigned to take the assize at Lichfield. And the parties were summoned to this Iter (to hear judgment); and now the said Geoffrey appeared, and Richard did not appear; and it was testified that he was in prison. The suit is therefore to remain till he is released. m. 28.

Henry de Verdun and Philip de Braal sued the Abbot of Cumbermere for the manor of Erlyde (Yarlet). The Abbot appeared, and a concord was made by which the said Henry and Philip acknowledged the manor to be the right of the Abbot and his Church of St. Mary and St. Michael of Cumbermere, and the Abbot acknowledged he owed the said Henry 100 marks. m. 29.

William son of Griffyn acknowledged he owed Robert de Staunton Standon) £33. (fn. 20) m. 29.

Alan de Glaseleye and Henry de Haggeley were summoned by Thomas Corbet of Tasseleye in a plea that they should give up to him a certain obligatory writing which they unjustly detained; and he stated that it had been agreed between him and John de Wanton on one part, and John son of John fitz Philip on the other, on the day of St. Cecilia, 15 E. I., that the said John fitz John by the arbitrament of Sir Roger Lestrange should give security to the said Thomas and John de Wanton that he would not alienate any of the lands and tenements of which he was then seised, and which should descend in their integrity to the said Thomas and John de Wanton his kinsmen and heirs; and the said Roger Lestrange afterwards ordained that the said John fitz John should fully enfeoff the said Thomas and John de Wanton of all the lands and tenements of which he was seised at that date, and that the same Thomas and John de Wanton after their seisin should conjointly re-enfeoff the said John fitz John of the same tenements to hold for his life, and after his death to descend to Thomas and John de Wanton and their heirs. And the said John son of John by this arbitrament had bound himself in a sum of £40 to be paid to the said Thomas unless he carried out this agreement before the following Easter; and the deed was given into the custody of the said Alan and Henry to be delivered to the said Thomas unless John son of John carried out the engagement; and the said Alan and Henry now detained the deed against the terms of the said agreement, and for which they claimed £40 as damages.

And Thomas produced the deeds of John son of John fitz Philip and of Roger Lestrange which testified to the said convention, etc.

Alan and Henry acknowledged the deed had been handed to them as stated, and they were ready to give it up if the Court decided to that effect; but John son of John appeared and objected on the ground that he had enfeoffed the said Thomas of a part of certain tenements belonging to him according to the tenor of the convention, but he held other tenements of the King in capite, and without the King's permission he could not make further feoffments to Thomas; and being asked by the Court if he had any other reason to give why the scriptum obligatorium should not be delivered to Thomas, replied he had not. It was therefore considered that it should be given up to Thomas. A postscript states a writ was received from the Lord the King commanding the record and writ together with the original writ to be sent to him. m. 29.

Ralph de Bisseburi appeared before the Justices and acknowledged that he claimed nothing as regarded the wardship of Richard son and heir of Richard de Bures by reason of the tenements which descended to the said Richard by the death of his father Richard de Bures in Penne, saving to himself at any other time any action he may have in the same (salva sibi alias actione si quam habeat in eâdem). m. 29.

An assize, etc., if Geoffrey de Waleton and Geoffrey his son, Gilbert de Aston, Henry de Aston, Hugh de Wendoure, and Adam de Burgheston, had unjustly disseised Joan the wife of Roger de Pywelesdon of her common of pasture in three acres in Aston near Stanes appurtenant to her free tenement in the same vill. Gilbert only appeared, and the assize was taken in the absence of the other defendants; and Gilbert stated that a certain Geoffrey his grandfather held the said meadow in severalty all his life, and after his death Geoffrey his son father of Gilbert held it, and he appealed to a jury. The jury say that Joan was in seisin of common of pasture in the land in question until Adam de Burgheston had unjustly disseised her. m. 29, dorso.

N.B.—The next eight membranes of this Roll contain the Quo Warranto Pleas, which have been printed in full by the Record Commission. It is proposed therefore to give an abstract only of these pleas, which will serve as an index to them, and likewise to correct a few misreadings of names of persons and places which occur on the printed Rolls.

Alianora Countess of Ferars was summoned to show her warrant for holding pleas of the Crown in Yoxhale and Certele (Chartley), and for a fair, free warren, market, gallows, and wayf in the same places. The Countess stated she held the manors in dower of the inheritance of John de Ferrars, who is under age and in ward to the King. The suit to remain till full age of John. m. 30.

The Abbot of St. Ebrulf being summoned, stated he claimed no franchises within his manor of Great Onne. m. 30.

The Prior of Tuttebury claimed free warren in Tuttebury by Charter of King Henry III., and view of frankpledge of his tenants twice a year, and disavowed all claim to any other franchises. m. 30.

Geoffrey de Graselegh (Gresley) claimed two free courts annually in Kingston, and the right to hear the same pleas in them as the Sheriff heard in his tourns, and to have gallows. The King's attorney disputed his right to these franchises; and Geoffrey appealed to a jury, which stated that his ancestors from time out of memory had held them. m. 30.

The Prior of Trentham was summoned to show his right to the manor and advowson of Trentham, and produced a charter of King Henry II., granting to John his predecessor the Church of Trentham, and appealed to a jury respecting his right to the manor. The jury found in his favour. m. 30.

John fitz Philip claimed to have in Kynefare two free courts annually and to hear in them the same pleas as the Sheriff heard at his tourns, and to have wayf and gallows; and he produced a charter of King Richard confirming to his ancestor Philip fitz Holegod the vill of Kynefare and the custody of the forest for £9 annually; and he stated that he and his ancestors had held the said franchises ever since, and appealed to a jury, which found in his favour. He also claimed a fair and market by a grant of King Henry III., which he produced, and they were allowed. m. 30.

Angnes de Somery was summoned to show her right to hold pleas of the Crown, and to have free warren, fair, market, gallows, and wayf in her manors of Honeworth (Handsworth) and Roulegh (Rowley Regis); and stated that as regards the first manor she held it in dower of the inheritance of John son and heir of Roger de Somery, who was under age and in ward to the King, and that Roger de Somery her husband had held the manor of Roulegh by a demise made to him for a term of sixteen years by one William de Eclingge, and Roger had left his interest in it to her by will. m. 30.

Roger the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield was summoned to show his right to the manors of Canokburi and Ruggele, but the suit was transferred to be heard before the King. m. 31.

The same Bishop was sued by the King for the advowson of the Church of Alrewas and the Chapel of Brumle. A jury found in favour of the Bishop. m. 31.

Richard de Loges was sued by the King for the manor of Great Wyrleye, excepting three messuages and a virgate of land, and an acre and a rood of meadow. The jury to whom Richard had appealed stated that Hugh de Loges the father of Richard held the manor of Great Wyrleye and the Forest of Canoc, and that Hugh had been imprisoned in London for taking venison within the forest, for which cause the King had taken the forest into his hands; and afterwards at the intercession of William formerly Earl of Warwick, Hugh was released on bail till the next Parliament; and at that Parliament Hugh gave up to the King the said bailiwick together with the wood of Gaueley, and subsequently made a fine with the King of £100 for his transgression, for which the King gave him back the said manor, but retained in his hands the bailiwick and forest; but whether there was any judgment against Hugh in the King's Court they are ignorant. The King's attorney asked for the case to be referred coram Rege for an inspection of the Rolls of Parliament. m. 31.

The King sued John the Archbishop of Dublin for the advowson of the Church of Pencryz. The Archbishop asked for an inspection of the Chancellor's Rolls of 17 John, which would show his title, and the suit was adjourned to Westminster. m. 31.

The Dean and Chapter of Pencryz were summoned to show by what warrant they claimed to hold pleas of the Crown and other franchises in Pencryz and Mere, and stated they claimed no franchises in Mere, but they claimed in Pencriz view of frankpledge, fines for infractions of the assize of bread and beer, and infongenthef with the mainour (cum manuopere). (fn. 21) Adjourned to be heard coram Rege. m. 31.

The Prior of Stanes (Stone) on being summoned stated he claimed to hold no pleas of the Crown in Stanes, Stokes, and Stalinton, but he produced a charter of King Henry III. granting his predecessor and his successors free warren in Stanes and Stalinton, and a weekly market and a yearly fair in Stanes; and as regarded gallows, he stated that his Church of Stanes is a cell of the Priory of Kelynworthe, and that King Henry the great grandfather (proavus) of the King had conceded to the Church and Canons of St. Mary of Kelyngworth that they should hold the manors of Stanes, Stoke, and Stalinton with soc and sac, tol, theam, and infongenthef, and they produced the King's charter to that effect; and as regarded wayf, they stated they made no claim to it. m. 31.

Richard de Loges puts in his place Richard his son or Thomas de Benteley versus the Lord the King in a plea of land. m. 31.

The King by his attorney Hugh de Louther recovered the bailiwick of the Hundred of Pyrehull from Geoffrey Gryffin, Geoffrey not being able to produce a grant which made it hereditary in his family. m. 31, dorso.

The Prior of St. Thomas near Stafford disclaimed any franchises in his manors of Cotes, Orberton, Hopton, Frodeswall, Drengeton (Drineton), Heywode, La Lee, Colton, Whytegreve, Mere, Drayton, Stolben, Acton, Pendeford and Scradecote, excepting free warren, for which he produced a charter of the present King. m. 31, dorso.

The Prior of Trentham claimed free warren in Elkedon, Trentham, and Le Wal, and two courts yearly in them, in which all pleas might be heard which the Sheriff heard in his tourns; and he claimed to have gallows and wayf in the manor of Trentham. The King's attorney disputed his right to gallows and wayf, but a jury found in favour of the Prior, stating his predecessors had held those franchises in Trentham from time out of memory. m. 31, dorso.

Geoffrey de Camville claimed view of frankpledge, and to hold the same pleas in them as the Sheriffs heard twice yearly in his tourns, and free warren, gallows, and wayf in the manor of Clyfton. The King's attorney disputed his right to these franchises, but a jury found in his favour. m. 31, dorso.

Walter de Beysyn disclaimed any right to hold pleas of the Crown or other royal franchises in Scuston (Shuston) and Asselegh (Ashley). m. 31, dorso.

The King sued John son of John fitz Philip for the advowson of the Church of Kynefare; but the case was adjourned to the next Parliament. m. 32.

The King sued the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield for the advowson of the Church of Gnoushall, but a jury found in favour of the Bishop. m. 32.

Nicholas de Audithele claimed free warren in the manors of Enedon, Aldythele (Audley), Bettelegh, Tunstall, Cesterton (Chesterton), Horton, and Alstanfeld by a charter of the King's father to James de Aldythele his ancestor; and he claimed to have in Enedon (Endon), Aldythele and Bettelegh view of frankpledge, assize of bread and beer, (fn. 22) wayf and infangenthef. The King's attorney disputed the latter franchises, but a jury found that he and his ancestors had held them from time out of memory.

He also claimed to hold the same franchises in Horton, because Hervey de Stafford, whose status he held in the manor, and from whom he derived his title, formerly held them; and he called to warranty Edmund the son of Nicholas de Stafford, the heir of the said Hervey, who was under age. Adjourned to the full age of the heir.

He also claimed view of frankpledge, assize of bread and beer, and wayf in Tunstall, and stated that Engenulph de Greseley and Edelina his wife had given the manor to one Adam de Aldythele his ancestor, and that Engenulph and Aelina his wife had held those franchises from time out of memory. The King's attorney disputed his right, but a jury found in his favour.

He also claimed a fair and market in Bettelegh (Betley) by a grant made to his ancestor Henry de Audelegh by King Henry III., and it was allowed him. And as regarded the manor of Chesterton he stated that Ela formerly wife of James de Aldithelegh held it in dower. m. 32.

Roger the Bishop of Coventry and Lychfeld produced a charter of King Henry III., granting him and his successors free warren in all his demesne lands in the manors of Lychfeld, Heywode, Langedon (Longdon), Ruggele, Berteleswych, Canokeburi (Cannock), Ecclishale, and Brewode, and a fair every year at Ecclishale, and a weekly market and a yearly fair at Brewode; also a weekly market at, and yearly fairs at Ruggele and at Canokburi.

He also produced a charter of King Richard granting to Bishop Hugh his predecessor a weekly market every Sunday at Eccleshale, and likewise tol and Them, sok and sak and infangenthef, and the ordeals of water and fire and duel. He also produced another charter of the same King, granting to his predecessor the vills of Ruggele and Kanock with their Churches and Hundreds, and all liberties, and with sok and sak, thol, Them, and infangenthef. All the above franchises were conceded to the Bishop by the King's attorney, except the weekly market at Eccleshall, where the Bishop claimed a market on a week day, and the King's grant specified Sunday for it.

The Bishop also claimed a weekly market and yearly fair at Lichfield, and view of frankpledge, infangenthef, wayf, and pleas of forbidden distress (de vetito namio) in Lichfield, Brewode, and Heywode, without a King's writ (i.e., by prescription); and he stated that Langedon (Longdon), Fyshereswyke, Horton, Wytinton, Pakynton, Hyntes, Typinton (Tipton), Weford, Freford, Honeswych (Hammerwich), and Pype, Little Wyrle, Hondesacre (Handsacre), Haselouere (Haslor), Stottesfeld (Statfold), Tamenore (Tamhorn), and Horeburne (Harbourne), appear yearly at the said view of frankpledge; and he claimed to have in Canok and Ruggele, wayf, and pleas of forbidden distress by prescription (sine breve); and he produced a charter of King Richard, in which was recited the tenor of a charter of King Henry the King's great grandfather, by which King Henry conceded that Walter the Bishop of Coventry his predecessor should have soc and sac, tolm, them, and infangenthef, and halimote in all his lands, as fully and as peaceably as his Church had held the same liberties in the time of King Edward and Earl Leoric, and the same as the charter of King Henry the grandfather of the said King Henry testified that Robert the Bishop had deraigned in the Curia Regis at Portesmund. And he produced another charter of King Richard granting to his predecessor Hugh and to his successors that all his manors men (i.e., tenants), of his Churches, should be for ever free, and quit of fines for murder or larceny, and from suit to County or Hundred, and from the Sheriff's aid, and from Forest Pleas, and from all works for the King's castles, vivaries, etc.

The King's attorney disputed the Bishop's claim to wayf; and as regarded the other liberties stated they had been usurped by the Bishops since the reign of King Richard, and appealed to a jury. The jury found in favour of the Bishop, except for pleas of forbidden distress, and the questions of wayf and market at Eccleshall (being a question of law), were referred to be argued coram Rege. m. 32, dorso.

The King sued the Dean and Chapter of Lychfeld for the advowson of the Church of Arnle (Arley). The Chapter produced a fine levied 44 Henry III., by which the King had remitted his claim to it. m. 33.

The King sued William Russel by writ of right for the manor of Bradewall, excepting seven bovates of land and six of meadow; and he sued Thomas le Forester for four bovates of land in the same vill, and John de Knotton for three bovates, and Nicholas de Alvidelegh (sic) Audley for six acres of meadow in the same vill, of which King Henry the King's great grandfather had died seised. Thomas and John called to warranty William Russel, who appeared and warranted their tenements to them; and William Russel called Nicholas de Aldythelegh to warranty for all the land claimed, who warranted it to him, and appealed to a Great Assize, which found in his favour. m. 33.

Walter de Hopton was summoned to make good his claim to hold pleas of the Crown and other franchises in Tyrle (Tirley), Alkmynton (Almington), Blore, Hales (Sheriff Hales), and Knolles, but pleaded he only held the manors for his life by the courtesy of England (fn. 23) of the inheritance of William, brother and heir of Gawen le Botiler, who was under age and in ward to the King. m. 33.

The King sued Edmund brother of the King for the advowson of Stoke near Newcastle-under-Lyme, and stated that King Henry the King's father had been seised of it. Prince Edmund admitted this, but stated that Stoke was within the manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and that King Henry had given that manor to him, with the castle and all advowsons appurtenant to it, and he appealed to the Chancellor's Rolls of 56 H. III. Adjourned to be heard coram Rege. m. 33.

The King also sued his brother Edmund for the advowson of the Church of Wolstaneston. Prince Edmund made the same statement as in the case of Stoke, and the decision is the same. m. 23, dorso.

Theobald de Verdun was summoned to show by what warrant he claimed to hold pleas of the Crown, and to have free warren, fair, market, gallows, toll and wayf, in Chetelton, Alveton, Bredeleye, and Kyngesle. Theobald stated that Bredley (Bradley on the Moors), and Kyngesle were members of his manor of Alveton, in which manor and its members he claimed view of frankpledge, infangenthef, gallows, market, fair, warren, and wayf by prescription, and that the vills of Bredelee, and half of Knyghtelee (sic, Kingsley) appeared at his view of frankpledge at Alveton, and he claimed no liberties in the vill of Chetelton. The King's attorney disputed Theobald's claim, and appealed to a jury, which stated that Berdele (sic, Bradley) and half of Kyngele were members of the manor of Alveton, and that Theobald and his ancestors from time out of memory had held the above franchises. m. 33, dorso.

Adam de Brynton and Mary his wife were summoned to show by what warrant they claimed to hold pleas of the Crown and other franchises in Chirche-Eyton and Wode-Eyton. Adam stated that Mary claimed nothing except as his wife, and he claimed none of the liberties specified. They therefore remain to the King. m. 33, dorso.

Thomas Corbet was summoned to show by what warrant he claimed to hold pleas of the Crown, and to have free warren and wayf in his manor of Kynges Bromlegh. Thomas stated he made no claim to hold pleas of the Crown or to warren, but he claimed assize of bread and beer, and view of frankpledge and wayf, and that King John had given and conceded the whole manor of Bromlegh to one Cecilia de Hedlegh and her heirs (whose heir he is), to be held with the same liberties as he or any of his ancestors had held it. The King's attorney stated that the liberties claimed could not be held unless special mention was made of them in the deed of gift, and the case is adjourned to be heard coram Rege. m. 34.

Richard de Vernon was summoned to answer by what warrant he claimed to hold pleas of the Crown, and to have free warren, gallows, and wayf in his manor of Herleweston (Harlaston); Richard did not appear, and it was testified that he was in the King's prison in co. Cumberland, and that all his goods and chattels were in the King's hands. m. 34.

Richard de Pyrye was summoned to answer by that warrant he claimed the same franchises in Pyrie (Perry Barr). Richard appeared and stated he claimed none of them. m. 34.

The Prior of Calewyz (Colwich) disclaimed the same franchises in his manor of Adelaxton (Ellaston). m. 34.

Ralph Basset disclaimed the same franchises in Chedele (Cheadle), except free warren, which he claimed by a charter of King Henry III. to his father Ralph, granting him free warren in all his demesne lands in Languet and Chedle; and he claimed a market and fair in Chedle by a grant of the same King, which he produced. m. 34.

Thomas de Hamsted on being summoned disavowed all claim to any of the above franchises in his manor of Hamsted. m. 34.

Robert de Melborne likewise disavowed all claim to any of the above franchises in his manor of Horecros. m. 34.

The Prior of Runton (Ronton) disavowed all claim to the same in his manor of Dulverne (Dilhorn). m. 34.

The King sued the Abbot of Deulacres for the manor of Lek, of which King Henry his great grandfather had been seised, etc. The Abbot appealed to a Great Assize, which found in his favour, the jury stating Henry the King's grandfather never was seised of the manor. m. 34.

Nicholas de Audelegh, Hugh le Despencer, William de Stafford, Roger de Littleburi, Robert de Wymynton (Wilbraham), David de Haselwell, Margaret de Hogelegh, and Robert le Grant Venur (Grosvenor), were summoned to show by what warrant they claimed free warren, fair, market, and wayf in Alstanefeld. The defendants all appeared except Robert de Wymyngton, who was dead, and they stated that they held the said manor with all its liberties conjointly with Richard the son and heir of the said Robert de Wymyngton, who was under age, and without whom they cannot answer. The suit is therefore to remain. m. 34.

The King by his attorney sued William de la More for a mill and a virgate of land in Pencriz of which King Henry his great grandfather had been seised, etc. William appealed to a Great Assize, which found in favour of the King, who recovers seisin. m. 34.

The King sued Hugh le Blund for a messuage and two carucates of land excepting sixty acres of land and six of meadow in Pencriz, of which King Henry, etc. (as before). Hugh stated that one Walter Huse had given all the land of Pencriz to his father Andrew le Blund, whose heir he is, and he called to warranty John the son and heir of John Huse, who is under age. The King's attorney stated that John son of John Huse was of full age, and the suit is adjourned to Westminster, when John is to appear before the Court. m. 34, dorso.

Hugh le Blunt was summoned to show by what warrant he claimed to hold pleas of the Crown, and to have free warren, market, fair, gallows and wayf in Pencriz. Hugh disavowed all claim to pleas of the Crown, warren, or wayf, but claimed a market by a charter of King Henry to Andrew le Blund, which he produced; and he claimed a fair, gallows, and infangenthef as annexed to the manor from time out of memory. The King's attorney disputed the claim, and the suit was adjourned to be heard coram Rege on the morrow of the Ascension. m. 34, dorso.

The Abbot of Deulacres was summoned to show his warrant to hold pleas of the Crown and to have free warren, market, fair, gallows, and wayf in Lek.

The Abbot disavowed all claim to hold pleas of the Crown, and as regarded the other franchises stated that King John had granted to Ralph the Earl of Chester and to his heirs a weekly market, and a yearly fair in Leek, and that he and his predecessors held the manor by the gift of the said Ralph; and he claimed free warren by a charter of the present King, which he produced; and as regarded infangenthef, gallows, wayf, and view of frankpledge, he stated that the said Earl had given the manor to his House with all liberties, etc., and that this gift had been confirmed by King Henry the King's father. The King's attorney disputed that such franchises could be conferred by implication in this manner, and the cause was adjourned to be heard coram Rege at the date named above. m. 34, dorso.

John de Hastingge was summoned to show his warrant to hold pleas of the Crown, and to have free warren, fair, market, gallows, and wayf in Thamewourthe and Wygynton. John stated that the manor of Tamworth and Wygynton with all franchises had been given to him in exchange for his purparty of the county of Chester, and they were allowed to him. (fn. 24) m. 34, dorso.

The Prior of Lappeleye was summoned to show his title to hold pleas of the Crown, and to have free warren, fair, gallows, and wayf in his manors of Merston (Marston), Lappeleye, Hydeslond, and Aston; and stated that he claimed no franchises in Merston except free warren by charter of the present King, which he produced; and that Hydeslond and Aston were members of the manor of Lappeleye, in which he claimed view of frankpledge and gallows from time out of memory. The King's attorney disputed this claim, and appealed to a jury. He afterwards withdrew his opposition to the claim of view of frankpledge, because it was testified by the Sheriff that he received annually 5 marks from the Prior for view of frankpledge. As regarded free warren, the Prior produced a charter of the present King, granting him and his successors free warren in all his demesne lands of Lappelee, Merston, Hudeslond, and Aston, a weekly market in Aston, and a yearly fair, and they were allowed to him. m. 34, dorso.

Robert de Somervile was summoned to show his title to hold pleas of the Crown, and to have free warren, market, fair, gallows, and wayf in his manors of Wychenovere, Sidecote (Sirescote) and Alrewas. Robert stated he claimed free warren in all the above vills by a charter of the present King, which he produced; and he claimed in Alrewas a weekly market and yearly fair by a charter of the same King, which he produced; and he claimed in the same manor two free Courts yearly, and to hear in them the same pleas which the Sheriff heard in his tourns; and he claimed also infongenthef, gallows, and wayf in the same manor, because at the time King John gave the manor to his ancestor Roger de Somerville all these franchises were appurtenant to the manor. The King's attorney stated that these franchises could not be claimed as appurtenant to a manor, and that it was necessary to show special warrant for them, and the cause was adjourned to be heard coram Rege on the morrow of the Ascension. m. 35.

The King sued Joan de Mortayn, Ralph le Botiler and Matilda his wife, and Alexander de Fryville and Joan his wife for the advowson of the Prebends of the Church of Tamewourth, of which King Henry the great grandfather of the King had been seised, etc. The defendants stated that one Philip Marmioun the common ancestor of the said Joan, Matilda, and Joan had four daughters, viz., the said Joan, Matilda, Maziria the mother of Joan wife of Alexander, and one Joan the sister of the said Joan, Matilda, and Mazera, who was a co-heir of the inheritance of Philip, and was under age and in ward to the King, and they could not answer to the writ without her. The suit is therefore to remain till full age of said Joan. m. 35.

The King sued the Prior of Trentham for a messuage and two carucates of land in Clyton Gryffyn, and Albreda formerly wife of Bertram Gryffyn for a messuage and a carucate of land in the same vill which King Henry the King's father had given to Ralph formerly Earl of Chester and heirs of his body, and which should revert to the King by the form of donation, inasmuch as the said Earl died without leaving issue.

The Prior and Albreda called to warranty Geoffrey son and heir of Bertram Griffiyn, who warranted their tenements to them, and stated that King Henry never was in seisin of them, and had never enfeoffed Earl Ralph as affirmed, and appealed to a jury. The jury find in favour of Geoffrey. m. 35.

Walter de Evereus was summoned to show his title to hold pleas of the Crown, and to have free warren, fair, market, gallows and wayf in his manor of Bromwich (West Bromwich). Walter pleaded he could not answer to the writ without Margaret the wife of Richard de Marnham his coparcener in the inheritance of Richard fitz William, and Richard and Margaret appeared and disclaimed a fair and market, but stated they claimed view of frankpledge, infongenthef, gallows, and wayf in the said manor by prescription. The King's attorney disputed their right, but a jury found in their favour. As regarded free warren, Walter stated that King Henry the King's father had granted to Walter de Evereus his father and to his heirs, free warren in all his demesne lands in Bromwich, and he produced the King's charter. The question of wayf was adjourned to be heard coram Rege. m. 35.

The King sued the Abbot of Halesoweyn for the advowson of the Church of Waleshale, and of the Chapel of Wodnesbury, of which King John had been seised, etc. The Abbot stated that King Henry the King's father had given the advowson of the Church of Waleshale to Richard the Abbot his predecessor, and that the Chapel of Wodnesbury was appurtenant to the Church of Waleshale. The King's attorney denied that Wodesbury was a chapelry of Waleshale, and appealed to a jury; which stated that Wodnesbury was a mother Church. The King is therefore to recover seisin of it. m. 35.

John de Tresel was summoned to show his title to hold pleas of the Crown, and to have free warren, fair, etc., in his manor of Tresel. John stated he claimed in the said manor a market and fair granted by a charter of King Henry the King's father to Thomas de Tresel his ancestor, and he produced the charter, and he stated he claimed to have assize of bread and beer by reason of the said market, and that he claimed no other franchises. m. 35, dorso.

John de Perton was summoned to show his title to hold pleas of the Crown, and to have free warren, fair, market, etc., in his manor of Perton. John stated he only claimed view of frankpledge twice a year and such things as appertained to it, and wayf. The King's attorney disputed his title, and stated that King Richard had been seised of the said view of frankpledge through the Sheriff as appurtenant to his Hundred of Seysdon, and appealed to a jury. The jury found that John and his ancestors before the reign of King Richard, and from time out of memory, had view of frankpledge and wayf in the said manor. The King's attorney disputed the verdict about wayf on a technical point, and it was adjourned to be heard coram Rege. (fn. 25) m. 35, dorso.

The Abbot of Roucestre was summoned to show his title to hold pleas of the Crown, and to have free warren, etc. (as before), in his manor of Roucestre. The Abbot disclaimed all title to hold pleas of the Crown, but claimed view of frankpledge, gallows, and wayf by prescription. The King's attorney disputed the Abbot's right to view of frankpledge and gallows by prescription, because King Richard had been seised of them; and as regarded wayf, he stated that it was a grossum of the integrity of the Crown, which could not be separated from the Crown without a special warrant of the King. As regarded a fair and market, the Abbot produced a charter of the present King, and they were allowed to him; the claim to the other franchises was adjourned to be heard coram Rege. As regarded the liberty of Wystanton, a jury found that the Abbot and his predecessors from time out of memory had been in seisin of view of frankpledge and other franchises appurtenant to it. m. 35, dorso.

Ralph Basset was summoned to show his title to hold pleas of the Crown and the other franchises specified above, in his manors of Drayton and Patingham. Ralph stated he claimed by prescription in both manors view of frankpledge twice a year and to hear all pleas which the Sheriff heard in his tourns; and he claimed in the same vills infongenthef, utfongenthef, gallows, and wayf, and to have free warren in Drayton. A jury found in his favour.

He also claimed free warren in Patingham by a charter of King Henry III., which he produced, and it was allowed, and he disclaimed all right to the other franchises specified.

Hugh de Louther, the King's attorney, made the same objection as in other cases to the claim to wayf, and it was referred to be heard coram Rege. m. 35, dorso.

Robert Corbet was summoned to show his claim to hold pleas of the Crown, and to have wayf, in his manor of Beseford. Robert stated he only claimed two courts annually there, and to hear the same pleas as the Sheriff heard at his tourns; and he further stated he held the manor by the gift and feoffment of Roger Pryde, and he called Richard son and heir of the said Roger to warranty. Richard is to be summoned in co. Salop to be coram Rege on the morrow of the Ascension. m. 35, dorso.

Teodisius de Camilla the Dean of Wolverenhampton was summoned to show his title to the same franchises and to have theolonum (toll) in Wolverenhampton. Teodisius stated he claimed by prescription to have view of frankpledge, gallows, infongenthef, and wayf, and he claimed in the same manor a market every Wednesday, and a fair of eight days' duration commencing on the Vigil of the Apostles Peter and Paul, by a charter of King Henry III., which he produced; and he claimed toll as appurtenant to the market and fair and it was allowed to him. The King's attorney disputed the Dean's right to the other franchises; but a jury found in his favour. m. 35, dorso.

The King sued the Abbot of Crokesdene for a toft and twenty acres of land in Hoken (Oaken) near Totenhale, of which King Henry the great grandfather of the King had been seised, etc. The Abbot defended his right, and appealed to a Great Assize, which found in his favour. m. 36.

The King sued the Prior of Trentham for the manor of Wal near Lek, of which King Henry his great grandfather had been seised, etc. The Prior defended his right, and appealed to a Great Assize, which found in his favour. m. 36.

The King sued Nicholas de Aldythelegh for two parts of the manor of Chadderlegh, and Ela formerly wife of James de Aldythelegh for a third part of the same manor. Ela called Nicholas to warranty, who came and warranted the third part to her, and defended his right to the manor, and appealed to a Great Assize, which found in his favour. m. 36.

The King sued the same Nicholas for two parts of the manor of Tunstall, and the same Ela for one-third of the same manor. The defendants made the same pleas as in the last case, and a jury found in their favour. m. 36.

Henry Wymer was summoned to show his title to have the custody of the King's fishery in the water of Kyngespole. Henry stated he held the said custody in capite by the service of rendering yearly to the Exchequer 6s. 8d. by the hands of the Sheriff; and he claimed to have in the same water when the King fished it, all kind of fish except lucum and bream, and all the fish which went out by the bayas of the said fishery; and for the maintenance of the said bayas he claimed to have all the reeds (arundinem), growing in the fishery; and he claimed all the above by prescription. The King's attorney disputed Henry's claim to hold by prescription, because King Richard held the said fishery, and appealed to a jury, which found in his favour. The King is therefore to recover seisin of the said fishery. (fn. 26) m. 36.

Hugh de Audelegh and Isolda his wife were summoned to show their title to hold pleas of the Crown, and to have free warren, fair, market, and wayf in Arlegh. Hugh and Isolda stated they held the manor for term of their lives of the inheritance of Edmund de Mortimart, without whom they cannot answer; and Edmund being summoned stated one John de Burgo had the manor with the said liberties, and John had given the manor to Robert Burnel, who conveyed it to the present King, who had given it to Latard de Heny; and Letard (sic) with the King's license had given the manor to Roger de Mortimer the father of Edmund, and that from time out of memory all the said franchises had been annexed to the manor. The King's attorney disputed the claim, and it was adjourned to be heard coram Rege. m. 36.

Edmund the King's brother was summoned to show his title to hold pleas of the Crown, and the other franchises specified above, in Totteburi, Newcastle, Assyngelegh, Ottokeshather (Uttoxeter), Merchinton, Hottokesacre, Yoxale, Adgaresle, Rolleston, and Barton. Edmund appeared by attorney and stated he claimed in Totteburi and Uttockeshather view of frankpledge, in fangenthef, gallows, wayf, free warren, and market and fair; and in Merchinton, Yoxale, Rolleston, and Barton, he claimed view of frankpledge, free warren, and wayf, and in Adgaresle he claimed view of frankpledge, free warren, market, and wayf; and in the manor of Newcastle he claimed view of frankpledge, free warren, infangenthef, gallows, and wayf, and to hold pleas of forbidden distress; and in the town of Newcastle he claimed nothing except the lordship of it, and a farm of 40 marks; and he claimed nothing in the vills of Assingelegh and Ottokesacre; and he stated that with the exception of Newcastle, one Robert de Ferars formerly Earl of Derby had held all the said manors together with the Honor of Tutteburi, and with all the said liberties they had come into the hands of King Henry the King's father by the forfeiture of the said Earl, and the same King had given them to the said Edmund and his heirs, with all liberties, etc., appurtenant to them, and he called to warranty the Chancellor's Rolls of the said King Henry of the 50th or 51st year of his reign; and as regarded the franchises claimed in Newcastle, he stated that the same King had given to him and to the heirs of his body the castle and manor of Newcastle, which was of the ancient demesne of the Crown, with all liberties and customs which the said King held in the same; and he called to warranty the Chancellor's Rolls of the 51st year of King Henry III. A day was given to the said Edmund coram Rege on the morrow of the Ascension, and the above Rolls are to be inspected in the interim. m. 36, doors.

John de la Barre was summoned to show his title to hear pleas of the Crown, and to have a fair, market, gallows, and wayf in his manor of Little Barre. John stated he claimed only two courts yearly, and to have the same pleas in them as the Sheriff heard at his tourns; and he claimed gallows and wayf as appurtenant to the said courts by prescription, and appealed to a jury. The jury stated that the ancestors of John had usurped the said liberties in the reign of King John, and they held the two courts, and had gallows and wayf by virtue of a rent of 20d. paid for them to the Prior of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem. (fn. 27) It is therefore considered that the King should recover seisin of them. m. 36, dorso.

The King sued Roger the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield and the Dean and Chapter of St. Cedde for the advowson of the Church of Cannockburi, of which King John had been seised, etc. The Bishop said the advowson belonged to him and not to the Chapter, and defended his right to it against the King, and appealed to a jury, which found in his favour. m. 37.

The same Bishop was summoned to show by what warrant he claimed a free chase in the wood of Blore and Gongles. The Bishop stated he claimed it by prescription, and appealed to a jury, which found in his favour. m. 37.

William de Boweles sued William son of Adam Trumwyne for illegally detaining a colt (jumentum), but a jury found that the colt was in the free haye of the King, where William had no right of common, and not in Blokeswyke, where he had common of pasture. m. 39.

William de Boweles appeared against Fremund le Chivauchour (the rider) of Philip de Montgomeri, William son of Adam Trumwyn, and John de Blockeswyk, for taking away the tools and implements of his workmen labouring near his curia of Russhehale in 19 E. I., to the value of 3s., and doing other damage to him, for which he claimed 100s. as damages. The defendants stated they found the men of William working in a mine (in quâdam minerâ) within the King's Forest without warrant. William withdrew his plea. m. 39.

The King by Richard de Benetleye, who sued for him, appeared against Philip de Monte Gomery who holds the Bailiwick and Stewardship of the Forest of Canok by the concession of the present King, and complained that he had maliciously and fraudulently appropriated to his own use for twelve years past 10 marks annually, which ought to have been paid into the Exchequer, viz., from the Sergeanty of Benteleye 1 mark, from William Trumwyn 1 mark, from Walter de Elmedon 2 marks, and from four bailiwicks which the same Philip held, viz., from the hayes of Alrewas, Hopewas, Uggheley (Ogley), and Gauley 6 marks.

Philip stated he held the bailiwick and stewardship of Cannok by the service owing for it, by the concession of one Thomas de Wesenham, who held it in in fee, and which concession had been confirmed by the King, who granted to him the said bailiwick and Stewardship to be held by him and his heirs: and he produced the King's charter, which stated that whereas the late King our father of celebrated memory had granted to Thomas de Wesenham and his heirs all that bailiwick, which Hugh de Loges formerly held in his Forest of Canok, together with the stewardship (senescalcia) of the same, and the said Thomas had afterwards granted the same with our leave to our beloved Philip de Monte Gomeri and to his heirs; we therefore accepting the said concession do now grant to the said Philip and his heirs the bailiwick and stewardship of Canok, rendering for the same, to us and to our heirs the services appertaining to the same, etc. Dated from Kaernarvan, 20th July, 12th year of our reign. And he claimed to hold the said bailiwick and stewardship quit from the payment of the 10 marks in question.

Richard stated that Hugh de Loges who formerly held the said bailiwick paid the 10 marks annually to the Exchequer, and afterwards Ralph de Covene in the same way, and after him, one Geoffrey fitz Warine; and that the said Thomas de Wesenham held the bailiwick charged with the said payments, and the said Philip had accepted the bailiwick from the said Thomas charged (oneratam) with the service of the 10 marks in question; and by an inquisition taken by command of the Justices, it appeared that Thomas had held the bailiwick for twenty-four years, and afterwards Philip had held the same for nine years by the feoffment of the said Thomas. It is therefore considered that the King should recover his arrears of 10 marks annually for the above period, viz., £200. Philip is therefore in misericordiâ, and judgment is to be given respecting the bailiwick.

William de Whitegreve withdrew his suit against John le Loverd. He and his sureties, viz., Gilbert de Crokesford and Robert son of Ralph de Wytegreve, are in misericordiâ.

Ala formerly wife of William de Handesacre and Thomas le Harpour of Handesacre were attached to answer the plea of William de Waleton and Alice his wife, that they had come with others unknown, on the morrow of All Saints, 6 E. I., to the house of the said Alice, and had carried away her goods and chattels to the value of £20. The defendants denied the trespass, and appealed to a jury. The jury stated that William de Handesacre formerly husband of Ala, and the said Ala and Thomas, and others unknown of the household of the said William, had come on the date named to the house of William fitz Warine in the vill of Tibeton (Tipton), formerly husband of the said Alice, immediately after the death of the said William fitz Warine, William de Handesacre claiming to be nearest heir of the said William fitz Warine for the tenements held by him in the said vill, and stayed there for some time, and William de Handesacre then went to London on business, and Ala after the departure of her husband remained there for about eight days, and then she went away taking goods and chattels to the value of £4 12s. 10d. from the house to the vill of Handesacre; and William de Handesacre came back from London and went to the house of the said William (fitz Warine) in the said vill, and asked for drink; and Alice who was there offered him drink in a certain cipho de mazere; and William de Handesacre threw away the beer, and handed the ciphum to a certain esquire whose name is unknown, and in this way he carried away the ciphum. And the jury being asked what chattels of those in dispute remained to Ala after the death of her husband William, stated she had obtained a pelium, a lotorium, a ciphum de mazere, and a brass pot, and a dish from the executors of the said William, and they estimated the damages of William and Alice at 20s. William and Alice afterwards withdrew their plea. m. 40.

John de Brokton recovered damages against Philip de Monte Gomeri and Roger de Montegomeri for an illegal distress. m. 40.

Alexander de Cotun and Sarra his wife appeared against Philip de Monte Gomeri in a plea that whereas they had held ten acres of land and an acre of meadow in Hopwas, the said Philip had so vexed and oppressed them, that they had at last given up the tenement to him on condition that he should return it to them for a service of 7s. annually in place of 3s. which they formerly paid, and after they had held it for a year paying the higher rent, he had ejected them and carried away the whole produce of the land, and for which they claimed £10 as damages.

Philip stated that he was Seneschal of the Forest of Canoc, and found the tenements in question, which are part of the Sergeanty of the Forest, alienated without the King's license, and that he had impleaded them in the King's name for the said alienation, etc., and Alexander and Sarra had then surrendered the tenements to him extra curiam.

The jury state that Alexander had demised three acres of the tenement for a term of three years, but had not made any alienation of the land as asserted by Philip, and that Philip had carried away the produce of the land to the value of 18s. It is therefore considered that the plaintiffs should recover the 18s., and Philip is committed to gaol.

Upon this Hugh de Louther the King's attorney came forward and sued for the King, and stated that the said Philip having prosecuted the said Alexander and Sarra in the King's name until they had surrendered their tenement to the King, as appeared by the statement of Philip himself, and then having afterwards returned the tenement to them, to be held at an increased rental, he had fraudulently appropriated the increment to himself. He stated also that Philip after he had taken the tenement into the King's hands, under pretext of an alienation, had built large edifices on the land, and had demised the tenement to one William de Esnyngton his forester for a term of twenty years for a rent of 10s. yearly, and this rent he had also concealed and appropriated to himself.

Philip stated that as regarded the 3s. rent he considered it as appertaining to the Bailiwick he held, and he was ready to answer for the rent of 7s. before the Justices of the Forest; that it was true he had demised the tenement to one William de Esnynton for a term of twenty years, but he had not reserved the annual rent of 10s. to be paid to himself and his heirs. William then came forward and produced the demise in question, which was in these words: "Ad festum Sancti Michaelis anno Regis nunc xvii. ita convenitur inter Philippum de Monte Gomeri, Seneschallum Forestœ de Canok ex parte unâ, et Willielmum filium Roberti de Esynton ex alterâ. Videlicet, quod ipse Philippus tradidit concessit et ad terminum viginti annorum dimisit eidem Willielmo totam terram et pratum cum pertinentiis quœ Alanus de Cotes (sic) de eodem prius tenuit. Habendum et tenendum de predicto Philippo et heredibus suis eidem Willelmo, etc., reddendo inde annuatim eidem Philippo et heredibus suis xs. argenti; videlicet, in festo Sanctœ Mariœ in Marcio vs. et ad festum Sancti Michaelis vs. pro omnibus servitiis, etc. Hiis testibus: Roberto de Freford, Hugone de Tymmor, Willelmo de Thomenhorn, Petro de Colecestre, Willelmo le Sauvage, et aliis. And as Philip could not deny this deed, and it was manifest he had demised the tenement to the said William for a term of twenty years for 10s. annually, to be paid to himself and his heirs, it was considered that he should be committed to gaol, and to be redeemed (redimatur) at the will of the King, and judgment to be given respecting his bailiwick. And the King recovered seisin of the said tenements and his arrears for it, viz., 4s. per annum, from the date aforesaid until Michaelmas, 17 E., and arrears of 10s. annually from the last date until now, i.e., 64s. altogether; and the Sheriff of Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire, as well as the Sheriff of Staffordshire, are ordered to take into the King's hands all the lands and tenements of the said Philip. m. 40, dorso.

Ralph Quintyn of Frodeleye and Richolda his wife appeared against Roger de Montgomeri the Forester for beating, illtreating, and wounding them four years before on the Wednesday before Lent (Quadragesima) at Frodeley, and by which the offspring of Richolda, which she then bore within her, had been afterwards born deficient of some of its members. And the same Roger had afterwards so beaten the said Richolda on the Saturday the Vigil of Holy Trinity following, that he had broken her arm and two of her ribs, and he had on the same occasion carried away the produce from six acres of their land.

Roger denied having done any violence to the plaintiffs; and as regarded the produce of the land, he stated he was a Bailiff of Philip de Monte Gomeri the Seneschal of the Forest of Canok, and in that capacity had lawfully carried it off, and he appealed to a jury. And Philip de Montegomeri appeared and stated that the land in question was alienated from the Sergeanty of Canok, and he had sued the said Ralph in the name of the King before the Justices of the Bench for the tenements; and Ralph had then surrendered them to him extra curiam, and he now held them in the name of the King. He admitted however he had obtained a quitclaim from the said Ralph to himself and to his heirs for the same tenements.

The jury say that Roger had beaten the said Ralph and wounded him in the head at the date named, and being asked if he had so pushed (pulsit) Richolda at the same date so that her offspring had been born deformed, stated they did not know, but it was true the child was deficient in some of its members. And they say that Roger had broken the arm of Richolda on the date named, but they cannot tell whether her ribs were broken or not, and he had carried away the produce of the land as stated. It is therefore considered that Ralph and Richolda should recover damages, which are taxed at 2 marks, and 40s. for the trespass against Richolda. And Ralph should recover his damages, which are taxed by the jury at 12s., for the produce carried away, and Roger and Philip are committed to gaol.

Hugh de Louther the King's attorney then came forward and prosecuted Philip for fraudulently appropriating to himself the tenement of Ralph by the quitclaim he had extorted from him; and he was committed to goal, and the King recovered arrears against him, viz., 7s. annually, at which the said tenements of Alrewas (sic) was valued. And the Sheriffs of Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire, and Staffordshire are ordered to take all the lands and tenements of the said Philip into the King's hands. m. 41.

Henry son of Henry de Wytinton appeared against Philip de Monte Gomeri and Roger his brother for taking and imprisoning him at Frodeleye on the Tuesday before the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, 15 E., and for detaining him a prisoner for six weeks, and for taking his goods and chattels, viz., a sword, worth 18d., and a bow and arrows, worth 12d. And he complained further that at the end of six weeks they committed him to the gaol at Stafford, where he was detained like a robber (ad modem latronis) for fifteen days, until released by a letter of the Justices of the Forest, and for which he claimed 60s. as damages.

Roger stated he was Seneschall of the Forest of Kanock, and whilst he was holding his Swanimote in the said forest on the day in question, some beasts passed by the Swanimote wounded by arrows (quœdam ferœ per predictum swanimotum transierunt sagittatœ), and he ordered Roger and other foresters to search the forest and to take up anybody they suspected of the misdeed. And the said foresters found the said Henry in a suspicious place with a bow and arrows against the assize of the Forest, and they had arrested him according to law, and he appealed to a jury. The jury say that Roger and the other foresters did not find the said Henry within the Forest, but they had taken him outside the limits of the Forest, (fn. 28) and they assessed his damages at 11s. 6d. It is therefore considered that Henry should recover damages, and Philip and Roger were committed to gaol. m. 41, dorso.

Alice formerly wife of William Huberd of Bromleye Regis appeared against Philip de Monte Gomeri for taking her mare, worth 5s., and two foals, worth 7s. 6d., within the Haye of Alrewas on the day of St. Edith, 18 E. I., and refusing to return them to her.

Philip stated that the mare was found within the Haye of Alrewas, and detained for a year and a day within his pound; after which it became his property as a wayf, by reason of his stewardship of the King's Forest, and he had taken no foals of the said Alice. Alice stated she had frequently demanded her mare, and offered to pay for any damage which it had done to the Haye, but Philip always refused to give it up, and she appealed to a jury. The jury say that Alice within a month of the taking of the mare had sent William Dynoc and Henry le Paumer, the executors of the will of William (her husband) to Philip to replevy the mare, and that Philip had not taken any foals belonging to her, but whilst the mare was in the custody of Philip she had produced a foal. It is therefore considered that Alice should recover damages, which were taxed by the jury at 20s. m. 41, dorso.

Richard de Benetleye appeared against Philip de Mont Gomeri, Roger his brother, and Alexander the Clerk of Philip, in a plea that on the Thursday before the Feast of St. Andrew, 10 E. I., when he was acting as a custos Pacis, and with others had raised the hue and cry against certain malefactors, and had followed them in order to attach them, according to the custom of the Kingdom, as far as the Forest of Canok, between Sondleye and Shelfhul the said Philip, Roger, and Alexander had insulted and beaten him and thrown him from his horse, and taken away his sword and his horn and a bow and arrows, which were carried by one of his servants, and for which he claimed 20s. damages. The jury found in favour of Richard, who recovered damages, and Philip and the other defendants were committed to gaol. (fn. 29) m. 41, dorso.

William son of Robert de Cote obtained 2s. as damages in a plea against one Robert for taking turf in a place called le Mosse, in Cherleton (Chorlton). m. 43, dorso.

Robert Corbet and Petronilla his wife, and Alice daughter of Robert, appeared against Ralph brother of John de Wyntenor and William Baldewyn the Parker of Maddeleye for illegally carrying away their chattels (no place named). The jury find in favour of Ralph and William. m. 43, dorso.

Kalendare Comitatûs Staffordle. m. 47.

Hundred of Cuthelston. Nicholas de Byriton, Chief Bailiff.

Jury:—Adam de Brumpton and Richard Spygornel (Electors).
Simon de Busenhull.
Robert de Wyston.
William de Penne.
Robert de Weston.
William de Puz.
Roger de Kavereswell.
Thomas de Engelton.
Thomas de Onne.
Ralph de Covene.
Stephen de Wullaston.

Hundred of Offelowe. Thomas Yllori, Chief Bailiff.

Jury:—Henry Mauveysin and Stephen Cursun (Electors).
Richard le Clerc of Barton.
Geoffrey de Stratton.
Henry le Ku.
Henry le Fletcher.
William de Wyrleye.
William de Allerwys.
Henry de Alrewas.
Thomas de Abenhale.
Robert de Meleburn.
John de Horninglowe.

Hundred of Seisdon. Roger de Asheleye, Chief Bailiff.

Jury:—John de Tresel and Philip de Lutteleye (Electors).
Richard de Beckebury.
William de la Lude.
Hervey de Hampton.
Warine de Penne.
Thomas de Lutteleye.
William de la Brok of Bisseburi.
Geoffrey de Bylleston.
Henry de Heyston.
William de Whytinton.
Robert Buffari.

Hundred of Pyrhull. John de Norton, Chief Bailiff.

Jury:—Henry de Crassewalle and John de Wasteneys (Electors).
Henry de Verdun.
Robert Gerveys.
Thomas Grym.
Thomas de Tytteneshore.
John Deyli (D'Oilli).
Henry de Hexstall.
Richard de Verney of Maddelee.
Nicholas de Meverel.
Henry de Colton.
Richard de Blithefeld.

Hundred of Tatemanslowe. William Coingge, Chief Bailiff.

Jury:—Ralph Basset of Chele (sic) and John Coyne of Weston (Electors).
Robert de Cavereswell.
Richard de Berdemor.
Adam le Kyng of Runhale.
Thomas de Dene, Clerk.
William fitz Philip de Tene.
William Clerk of Blakelee.
William de Beveresford.
William son of Robert de Cavereswell.
John de Flamstude.
John de Casterne.

Borough of Stafford. William Reyner, Robert Phelip, and William Coming, Chief Bailiffs.

Jury:—Roger de Neuport and Nicholas (fn. 30) de Neuport (Electors).
Robert le Barbor.
William Umfrey.
John Betun.
Johe Byck.
John de Wenlok.
Ralph Dyer (Tinctor).
Henry Groucok.
Roger de Medwe.
Thomas Gorbold.
William Gilberde.

The following places also appeared by twelve jurymen, whose names are given in full, viz.:—

The Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme; the Liberty of Newcastle; the Liberties of Eccleshale, Bradelegh, Penchrych-under-Lyme, Meyre (Meertown), and Alveton.

The Boroughs of Tutteburi and Lichfield.

The Manors of Alrewas and Bromlegh Regis.

The Liberties of Burton, Tamworth and Wygynton, Swyneford, Kynefare, Wolvernehampton, Tettenhale, and Seggesle.

These have been Sheriffs since the last Iter, viz., Hugh de Mortimer, Ralph de Mortimer, Lyon son of Lyon, Walter de Hopton, Bogo de Knoville, Roger Springehose, and Robert Corbet, who survive and answer for their terms, and William de Tyttenlegh, who is now Sheriff.

These have been Coroners since the last Iter, viz., Bertram de Burgo, who died, and for whom Bertram his son and heir answers; Geoffrey de Bromlegh, who died, and for whom Robert de Bromlegh answers; William Bagot of Bromlegh, who died, and for whom John Bagot his heir answers; Robert Shirard, who died, and for whom Richard Shirard his heir answers; Thomas de Ferars, who died, and for whom Thomas his son and heir answers; Hugh de Tymmor, who died, and for whom William his son and heir answers; Hugh de Weston, Philip de Mutton, William Wyther, Robert de Staundon, Reginald de Charnes, Robert de Knightele, Roger de Burghton, Richard de Draycote, and Ralph de Byssheburi, who now survive and answer for their terms.

All the County records that Engleschery is presented in this county by one on the side of the father and one on the side of the mother, and by males of the age of twelve years and upwards, and the same of felonies.

The Roll is endorsed: Isti remanent coronatores in Comitatu isto, videlicet, Henricus de Craswell, Rogerus de Swynnerton, Henry Clericus de Alrewas, et Willelmus de Wrotteslee. (fn. 31)

Pleas of the Crown before John de Berewyk and his Fellow Justices Itinerant in co. Stafford, on the Morrow of the Epiphany, in the Twenty-First Year of the Reign of King Edward Son of King Henry.

Extracts.

The manor of Bromleygh Regis appeared by twelve jurymen, who presented that Thomas Corbet of Tasselee holds the manor at fee farm from the King for £4 annually, and it is worth 100s.; it is not known by what warrant. Thomas Corbet afterwards appeared and stated he and his ancestors had held the said manor from time out of memory, rendering £4 yearly to the Exchequer by the hands of the Sheriff, and the Sheriff testified that he is liable for the said sum.

The jury present that Philip de Monte Gomery the Seneschall of the King took distraints on the land of the said Thomas, and which land is outside the metes of the forest, and no other Seneschall but Philip had done so; but Thomas Corbet the lord of the manor acknowledged that the whole manor was within the metes and bounds of the forest. The twelve jurymen therefore are in misericordiâ for a false presentment. m. 2, dorso.

The jury present that the watercourse which is between Yoxhale Bridge and Yoxhale Mill which used to flow through the King's land had been diverted from its course, so that it now runs through the land of Edmund the King's brother, and this was done by Margaret Countess of Ferrars, who is dead. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon the said Edmund. Thomas Corbet of Tassele the lord of the manor afterwards appeared and stated that he had a writ out against the said Edmund respecting the same watercourse. m. 2, dorso.

The manor of Alrewas appeared by twelve, and presented that Urian de St. Pierre when he was Sheriff had levied by extortion 40s. from the vill when it was not amerced. Urian was summoned, and not being able to disprove it, was find 5 marks, for which William de Tytneleye and Robert de Pype are his sureties. m. 3.

Of defaults they say that Robert de Somervill did not appear on the first day, and as the twelve jurymen concealed this default at first, they are in misericordiâ. m. 3.

The Liberty of Kynefare presented that Walter son of Roger Tugge, aged seven years, had been killed by a bite of a horse, for which a deodand was owing of 12d., and the vill of Kynefare buried the boy without view of the Coroner; it is therefore in misericordiâ. And Robert de Knyghtelee the Coroner sent Roger de Bruyton his clerk, who died whilst holding the inquest.

And they presented that John son of John fitz Philip of Bobynton holds the manor (of Kinfare) together with the advowson of the Church (which is worth £26 annually) at fee farm of the King, rendering annually to the Exchequer by the hands of the Sheriff £9, and it is worth £9 6s. 8d. And he claims to hold in the same manor, assize of bread and beer, gallows, pillory, and infongenthef, but they are ignorant by what warrant; and Hugh de Louther stated that he had a writ out against the said John respecting the said liberties. m. 3.

The jury of Tuttebury presented that William de Tissynton, Clerk, had struck William de Lenton the janitor of Totteburi with a certain axe (hachia denesch) on the head in the borough of Tutteburi, and had killed him; and William de Tyssynton took refuge in the Church of St. Mary of Tutteburi, and stayed there for three weeks; and afterwards he gave himself up, and was conducted to the Castle of Bruges (Bridgenorth), in the time of Bevis (Bogo) de Knovill, the Sheriff, who is answerable for him, and it was testified that William was now living in co. Derby, and the Sheriff of Derbyshire was therefore ordered to arrest him. William appeared and pleaded that he had been already acquitted of the said death before Odo de Hodynet and his fellow Justices, and be appealed to the records of the said Justices; and the record being examined contained these words: William Clerk of Tyssington taken and imprisoned for the death of William le Porter of Totteburi, appealed to a jury, who stated that a certain robber imprisoned within the Castle of Totteburi had escaped from prison, and William le Porter hearing of it, went to the Church in order to prevent him entering it, and William the Clerk of Tissynton went to the Church for the same purpose; and William le Porter seeing William the Clerk (fn. 32) approaching the Church, took him for the thief who had escaped, and struck him with his sword under the ear on the left jaw; and William le Clerc being thus assaulted and grievously wounded, believed that William le Porter was the thief who had escaped, and immediately struck back and hit William le Porter on the head with an axe and killed him; but he lived long enough to receive the rites of the Church (jura Ecclesiœ), and he was buried by Hugh de Weston the Coroner. And William was sent back to prison to await the pardon of the King. And Bogo could not deny that he had the custody of the said William de Tyssingtone, nor could show any warrant for his release. He is therefore ad judicium. Afterwards the King sent for the record, and it was sent to him. m. 3, dorso.

The jury of the Liberty of Tettenhale presented (inter alia) that the Church of Tettenhale with five prebends annexed to it, is the free chapel of the King, and is worth 100 marks yearly, and the King has the donation of the Deanery, and the Dean confers the five prebends. William Burnel now holds the Deanery by the collation of the present King.

Respecting encroachments, they say that John fitz Philip had made an encroachment upon the King in the manor of Tettenhale by appropriating to himself five acres of land of the King's demesne which he had enclosed four years ago. And John on being summoned stated the land never was in Tettenhale, but was appurtenant to his manor of Kynefare, and he appealed to a jury, which found in his favour. (fn. 33) m. 5.

And they say that the manor of Tettenhale is a demesne manor of the King, and is worth £8 10s. yearly.

The jury of the Liberty of Braddele presented (inter alia) that a deodand of 3s. was owing for a mare from which Richard Wyther fell into the water of Showe (Sowe) and was drowned; and a deodand was owing for a horse from which Richard de Solyhull fell, and Joan formerly wife of William de Caverswall had taken the deodand without warrant. She is therefore in misericordiâ.

And they say that Nicholas Baron of Stafford held the Castle of Stafford with the liberty of Bradele in capite of the King by the service of three and a half knights' fees, and the Castle with the Liberty was worth £31 14s.; and he claimed to have assize of bread and beer, but it is not known by what warrant. And William Garlaund holds the said Castle and Liberty in the name of the wardship of Edmund son and heir of the said Nicholas, but they do not know by what warrant. He is therefore to be summoned; and William Garlaund afterwards appeared and stated that the King had given him the custody of the Castle and Liberty till the full age of the heir. m. 5.

The Liberty of Penkryz appeared by twelve jurymen. John de Cungreve one of the jury never appeared, and he is therefore in misericordiâ. m. 5, dorso.

The jury presented that Hugh le Blund holds in capite of the King two parts of the manor of Pencriz, which are worth £20, and he holds by homage and the service of finding two armed horsemen (duos equites armatos), viz., one with a caparisoned horse and the other with a horse without caparisons whenever the King should go with an army into Wales, for forty days at his own cost. And Hugh appeared and stated that as regards the two parts of the manor his ancestors had died seised of them, and he had done his homage to the King and had performed his service for the land, as would appear from the Marshall's Rolls; and Hugh de Louther was told to take out a writ (of Quo Warranto) against the said Hugh respecting the two parts of the manor.

The jury presented that John the Archbishop of Dublin holds the third part of the manor of Penkriz with the advowson of the Church, which is worth 70 marks yearly, and he confers nine prebends which are annexed to the said Church, it is not known by what warrant. And Hugh de Louther stated there was a writ out against the Archbishop respecting the third part of the manor and the advowson of the Church. m. 5, dorso.

The Liberty of Wolvernehampton appeared by twelve jurymen, who presented inter alia that John de la Brok of Bysseburi (Bushbury) and Roger de la Lowe of the same went together from a tavern in the fields (campo) of Wolverhampton, and a dispute arising between them, John struck Roger on the head with an axe and killed him, and John immediately fled; he is therefore to be outlawed. His chattels were worth 6s. 9d., for which the Sheriff is answerable, and he held land of which the year and waste is worth 41s. 6d., for which the same Sheriff is answerable, and of the issues of the land for half the time, £6 12s., for which the Sheriff is answerable, and Ralph de Bysseburi took the said issues without warrant. He is therefore in misericordiâ. The first finder is dead. Ralph afterwards came and fined for the year and waste and half the time, and for his misericordiâ £10, for which William de Wrottesle and Peter de Colecestre of Wytinton are his sureties. m. 6.

Margery formerly wife of Robert Purcel of Byssburi, who is now dead, appealed in the County, Roger Peye of Snoddon for robbery and breach of the peace, and she appealed Ralph Lord of Busseburi of being accessory (vi et auxilio) to the said robbery and of the reception of the said Roger; and Roger and Ralph did not appear, and were not attached, because at the second Court of the County Margery withdrew her appeal, and as they were living in the county they are to be arrested. And Roger Peye being prosecuted at the suit of the King, and asked how he wished to acquit himself of the said robbery, etc., put himself on the country; and the jury of the Hundred, together with the four nearest vills, stated on their oath that he is not guilty; and Roger then stated he had been maliciously appealed by the said Margaret, and asked that inquiry might be made into her abettors; and the jury said that Roger had been maliciously appealed by the abetment of Magister Robert Rector of the Church of Cotteshale and Richard his servant. The Sheriff is ordered therefore to arrest them; but Roger Peye afterwards withdrew from the prosecution.

Of indictments the jury say that John Weynot of Rushale and Adam de la Pole formerly a servant of William de la Pole at Sardon had withdrawn themselves for a burglary committed at the house of John Derkyn at Fevereston (Featherstone), and John Donsowel of Cheshire for a robbery of Roger Carles and the society of Stephen de Bagenholt (fn. 34) and many larcenies. They are therefore to be outlawed. They had no chattels because they were vagrants, but Adam de la Pole was of the household (de manupastu) of William de la Pole, who is therefore in misericordiâ. m. 6, dorso.

The Jury of the Hundred of Seysdone presented inter alia that a deodand of 40s. 6d. had been paid to the Sheriff for a cart and horse from which Nicholas son of Richard de Wrotteslee had fallen into a marl pit, where he was drowned; and the jury concealed a part of the deodand, for which they are in misericordiâ; and Philip de Mutton the Coroner made no mention in his Rolls of the said deodand. He is therefore to be judged for the same. And Adam de Whethale the Clerk acted as Coroner when he was not a Coroner. He is therefore to be judged for the same; and the vill of Wrottesle buried the said Nicholas without view of the Coroner, and is therefore in misericordiâ.

The jury presented that Ralph le Northerne of Overpenne and Walter le Paumer (the Palmer) of Humelele (Himley) quarrelled in the vill of Kydeminynstre in co. Wygorn, and Ralph struck Walter with a knife so that he died three days after in this Hundred, and Ralph fled and is suspected. He is therefore to be outlawed. His chattels were worth 5s. 5d., for which the Sheriff answers; and Ralph held land of which the year and waste is worth 2s. 6d., and the produce of the land for the half time was 21s., for which the Sheriff answers. And Edith formerly wife of Robert de Bysseburi took of it 14s., and Ralph de Fonte of Overpenne 7s., for which they are in misericordiâ.

The jury presented that Roger de Somery held of the King in capite £100 of land in Seggesle, Swynford, and Clent, and John his son, is under age and in ward to the King; and John de St. John has the custody of the said heir by the concession of the present King, and he holds the said vills. m. 7, dorso.

Of Dames (Dominabus), they say that Margaret formerly wife of Ralph de Perton holds £4 6s. 8d. of land in Perton, and is at the King's disposal, and is maritanda. And Joan formerly wife of William de Perton holds £4 of land in Perton, and is at the King's disposal, and is maritanda. And Matilda formerly wife of William de Eclynges, who is not yet dowered, is at the King's disposal, and is maritanda. m. 7, dorso.

Stephen de Bagenholte with others unknown entered the park of Etyngeshale this year while it was in the King's custody, and took game from it, and the said Stephen is now in prison, and ad penam statuti because he will not put himself on the country. (fn. 35) m. 7, dorso.

The jury present that the manor of Kynefare used to be of ancient demesne of the Crown, and it is worth annually £14, and John fitz Philip holds it, and claims to have gallows, and assize of bread and beer within it. And Hugh de Lothre stated the King had a writ (of Quo warranto) against the said John, and they say that the manor of Rouleye (Rowley Regis) which is worth £10 annually, was of ancient demesne of the Crown, and Agnes de Somery holds it, and claims to have in it gallows, and assize of bread and beer, it is not known by what warrant; Agnes is therefore to be summoned. Afterwards Hugh de Lothre stated the King had a writ (of Quo warranto) against the said Agnes. m. 8.

The jury present that the manor of Arnlee (Arley) is worth £20 annually, and it used to be held in capite of the King for the service of half a Knight's fee; and Hugh de Audeleye and Isabella his wife hold it of the Lord Edmund de Mortimer, and claim to have in it gallows, and assize of bread and beer; but it is not known by what warrant. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon them. Hugh de Luthre afterwards came and stated the King was suing them by a writ of Quo warranto. m. 8.

Of land subtracted they say that the manor of Terdebygge, which was within the precincts of this county, and used to appear twice annually at the Sheriff's tourn at this Hundred in the time of the King's father until fifteen years ago, when the Abbot of Bordesle acquired the manor, and had drawn it out of the county into co. Warwick, and it is not known by what warrant. The Abbot of Bordesle afterwards appeared and stated that King Henry the King's father had conceded to the Abbot that he and his successors and his men of the said manor of Terdybigge in co. Stafford should answer in future to the Sheriff of Warwickshire, and appear before the Justices and other Bailiffs of the King in the co. of Warwick to answer for all matters for which they formerly appeared to answer to the Sheriff of Staffordshire or before the Justices in co. Stafford, and he produced the King's charter to that effect. m. 8.

Of franchises claimed they stated that the Dean of Wolvernehampton claimed in his prebend, gallows, and assize of bread and beer; and Ralph Basset claimed in his manor of Patyngham gallows, and assize of bread and beer; and John de Perton claimed in the manor of Perton assize of bread and beer; and the Abbot of Crokesdene claimed the same in the manor of Oke (Oaken); and John de Tresel claimed the same (no place named), and they do not know by what warrant these franchises are claimed. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon those named above. Afterwards Hugh de Lothre stated that the King was suing by writ of Quo warranto all of them except the Abbot of Crokesdene. The Abbot was therefore summoned alone, and stated that he and his predecessors had had view of frankpledge and those things appurtenant to it from time out of memory; and he claimed the assize of bread and beer as appurtenant to the view of frankpledge, and he appealed to a jury. The jury stated that the Prior and his predecessors had had view of frankpledge in the manor of Oke from time out of memory. m. 8.

The jury presented that John de Pendeford had given his lands in the vill of Pendeford to the Prior and Convent of St. Thomas, but they afterwards testified that John held the tenements of Roger de Somery and not of the King, and that the Prior had acquired them before the Statute (of Mortmain).

Of Valets (de Valettis) they say that Ralph de Bysseburi and John de Tresel and William de Overtone hold full Knight's fees, and are of full age, and not yet Knights. They are therefore in misericordiâ.

Agatha formerly wife of Roger de la Lowe appealed in the County Court John son of William de Bysseburi for the death of Roger her husband; and it was shown by the Coroner's Rolls that she prosecuted her appeal for three Courts, and at the fourth County Court she withdrew it; and the Rolls also showed that at the fourth County Court the said John had been exactus at the suit of the King, and bailed to appeal at the fifth Court, at which Court he was outlawed both at the suit of Agatha and of the King. And because it appeared from the Coroner's Rolls that Agatha had withdrawn her appeal at the fourth Court, and that at the same Court John had been exactus at the suit of the King, and that afterwards at the fifth Court Agatha's appeal had been re-admitted, so that the said John had been outlawed both at the King's suit and at the suit of Agatha, it is considered that the outlawry was null, but because the jury suspect the said John of the death of Roger, he is to be exacted again and outlawed. m. 8.

The jury of the Liberty of Eccleshale presented (inter alia) that two women unknown were taken as guests (hospitatœ) into the house of Margaret the widow of Suggenhull; (fn. 36) and they got up during the night and opened the doors of the house and admitted five unknown malefactors, who killed Avice the daughter of the said Margaret, and carried away many goods and chattels belonging to her. It is not known who they were, nor what became of them. The first finder is dead, and the vills of Offeleve and Tonstal did not appear in full at the Coroner's Inquest. They are therefore in misericordiâ. m. 8, dorso.

A deodand of 7s. 7d. was paid for a cart which fell upon Roger son of Bertram de Burghton and killed him. The Sheriff returned 7s. 2d. as the value of the chattels of Hugh de Dokeseye, a fugitive, and the jury suspect him of many robberies. He is therefore to be outlawed. m. 8, dorso.

Robert le Swon and Roger Purt broke into the house of Hugh de Badenhale during the night time and killed the said Hugh, and carried away his goods and chattels; and they fled and were pursued and were beheaded fleeing from the King's peace (defugiendo de pace). They had no chattels, and were in no tything (decenna), because they were vagrants. Petronilla the daughter of the said Hugh was the first finder, but is not suspected. m. 8, dorso.

John de Pessale, and Thomas and Robert his brothers, disputing with Geoffrey del Wal and Hugh the groom of the Constable of Eccleshale in the fields of Chychefeld, a quarrel ensued, and John killed the said Geoffrey, and immediately afterwards fled. His chattels are therefore confiscated for his flight. He had no chattels, but was in the decenna of Robert son of Walter de Pessale. It is therefore in misericordiâ. It afterwards appeared from the Coroner's Rolls that one Adam del Wal appealed in the County Court the said John, Thomas, and Robert for the death of the said Geoffrey his uncle, and had prosecuted his appeal against them to the fourth County Court, and at the fourth Court John neither came nor was bailed, so that he was outlawed at the suit of Adam. And at the same court Adam withdrew his appeal against Thomas and Robert. And Adam did not appear (at the present Iter); he is therefore to be arrested, and his sureties are in misericordiâ. The jury afterwards testified that Thomas and Robert were dead, and that Hugh had also died. m. 9.

Robert son of Roger Orm of Eccleshale, Richard Horhod, William son of Stephen le Oneyede, and William de Wytegreve were disputing together in the vill of Wytegreve, and Robert struck William de Wytegreve on the head with a tenello, so that he died the same day; and Robert immediately fled, and is suspected. He is therefore to be outlawed. He had no chattels, and was in no decenna, because he was a clericus; and Richard Horhod likewise fled, therefore his chattels are confiscated; but the jury say they do not suspect him, and he may return if he pleases (ideo redeat si voluerit). It afterwards appeared from the Coroner's Rolls that one Alice de Longedon formerly wife of the said William de Wytegreve appealed in the County Court, Henry Gilbert, Robert de Bykeford, Stephen de Ulleshale, Reginald de Huntenbach, and four others, for the death of her husband, and all the above are now dead. And she appealed also the said Robert son of Roger Orm, William son of Stephen le Oneyede, John and Hugh brothers of the said William, Adam the Bedel of Eccleshale, Richard de Maddeleye, Hugh de Hakedene, William Meverel, and fourteen others named, for the death of William her husband. And she prosecuted her appeal against them at two Courts, and at the third Court she withdrew it. And the said Alice now did not appear; she is therefore to be arrested; and the defendants, with the exception of William son of Stephen le Oneyede, and Roger the Smith, all appeared, and appealed to a jury. And the jury of the Hundred of Pyrhull, together with the jury of the Liberty, say they are not guilty of the death of William, nor of any connivance with it (de vi et auxilio). And as the said felony took place in the vill of Wytegreve, and John and the others did not apprehend the felon, they are therefore to be committed to prison; they were afterwards fined 40s. A postscript adds that the said Robert afterwards appeared, and was acquitted of the death of William, as appears from the Roll of Gaol Delivery, and they say that Robert son of Richard de Ellesmere killed William de Wytegreve. He is therefore to be outlawed; he had no chattels. m. 9.

Thomas de Flossebrok (Flashbrook) was found killed in the high road outside the vill of Eccleshale by unknown malefactors, and it is not known what became of them; the first finder is dead. No Engleschery was presented, therefore murdrum upon the Liberty.

The jury presented that Hillaria formerly wife of William de Harecurt holds £20 of land in Ellynhale, and was of the King's donation (i.e., her marriage), and she is married to Robert de Frankeville, it is not known by what warrant. And Robert appeared and stated that King Henry the King's father had given to Hugh de Beaumys the marriage of the said Hillaria, and also the forfeiture belonging to the King if she married without the permission of the said Hugh, and he produced the King's Letters Patent to that effect; and he stated further that the said Hugh had conceded to him the marriage of the said Hillaria for a fine of 93 marks, which he had paid to him, and he produced a deed of Hugh which testified to this. (fn. 37) m. 9, dorso.

Respecting Warrens they say that the Bishop of Coventry and Lychfeld claimed free warren in all his demesne lands within the manor of Eccleshale, and Robert de Frankeville claimed the same within the manor of Elynhale, it is not known by what warrant. The Bishop appeared by attorney and stated he found his Church seised of the said franchise, and Hugh de Louther is told by the Court to sue for it (by writ of Quo Warranto).

Robert came and stated he claimed nothing except in the name of the dower of Hillaria formerly wife of William de Harecourt of the inheritance of Richard de Harecourt, and without whom he cannot answer. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon the said Hillaria and Richard. A postscript adds that Richard afterwards appeared, and the cause was terminated under the Hundred of Pyrehull. (See further on.) m. 9, dorso.

The jury presented that the Bishop of Coventry and Lychfeld holds the manor of Eccleshale in capite of the King, and it is worth £60 a year; and he claims to have in it assize of bread and beer, it is not known by what warrant; and Hugh de Luthre stated the King was suing the Bishop (by writ of Quo Warranto). m. 9, dorso.

Of Franchises they say that Robert de Frankeville and Hillaria his wife claim to have in the manor of Elynhale gallows and assize of bread and beer, and two free courts annually, and it is not known by what warrant. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon them before the Court. A postscript adds this was settled under the Hundred of Pyrhull. m. 9, dorso.

The Hundred of Totmonslowe appeared by twelve jurymen and presented (inter alia):—

Hugh the Miller of Robert de Accovere, Hugh son of Nicholas the carter of Roucestre, and Agnes, a servant of Robert de Accovere, were together in the house of Robert de Accovere at Denston, and a quarrel arising between them, Hugh the Miller struck the said Hugh with an iron rod on the head, so that he died the next day. And Hugh the Miller fled, and is suspected. He is therefore to be outlawed. He had no chattels, and was in no tything, because he was of the manupastu of Robert de Accovere. And the said Agnes had died. m. 13.

The jury present that Ralph Basset of Weledon held the manor of Maddele in capite of the King, and it was worth £40 a year; and Richard son and heir of the said Ralph is under age and in ward to Alianora Basset, it is not known by what warrant. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon her. Alianora afterwards appeared and stated that the King had granted to Hugh de Courtenay the marriage of the said Richard the heir of Ralph, and in the event of Richard dying before he was married by Hugh, he was to have the marriage of Henry the brother of Richard, and so on from heir to heir until the said Hugh had in this way obtained the benefit of the marriage of the heir (effectum maritagii heredis hujusmodi fuerit assecutus). And she produced the King's letters to this effect, and she stated she had purchased the marriage of the said Richard for 40 marks from Alianora formerly wife of Hugh de Courtenay and the other executors of the said Hugh, and she had acknowledged this debt of 40 marks before the Barons of the Exchequer; and as regarded the manor of Maddele, she stated she claimed nothing in it except in the name of dower of the inheritance of the said Richard son of Ralph.

And of Dames (Dominabus) the jury say that Alianora Basset holds the manor of Maddele, which is worth £40 annually, of the King in capite, and is maritanda.

Of defaults, they say that Edmund the King's brother, Hugh le Despencer, Robert de Wynenton, Robert le Grosvenor, David de Haselwell, Henry de Pathewell, Magister John de Vernay, Nicholas Osbernet of Crakemersh, Philip de Barynton, and Margaret de Huxelegh did not appear on the first day. They are therefore in misericordiâ.

Of Indictments they say that Robert de Bagenholt (Bagnall), Adam de Bagenholt, John de Bagenholt, and Henry Pendecrowe of Lec had withdrawn themselves (subtraxerunt se) for many robberies and larcenies. And they are suspected. They are therefore to be outlawed. They had no chattels, but Hemy Pundecrowe held land of which the year and waste is worth half a mark, for which the Sheriff answers, and he was not in a tything (decennâ), because he was a freeholder (quia liber). And the others are not in decennâ because they were vagrants. It afterwards appeared that Robert (de Bagenholt) had chattles worth 16s., for which the Sheriff answers, and he was not in decennâ because he was a freeholder.

The jury present that John de Chaunsy the son of the lady of Tene, Robert Maulovel, William de Wrotshull, and Robert the Chaplain, who formerly was with Richard the lord of Tene, Alexander the Palefreur of the said Richard, and Blaunson the baker of Richard, had entered the park of Richard de Cavereswell at Cavereswall in the present year, and had taken a buck and carried it away. And William de Wroxhull was captured and delivered to William de Tittenleye, who answers for him. And the said John and the others were taken; and William appeared and stated that the deed would appear to have been committed in the past summer, and he prayed for judgment on the indictment; and as it appeared that the year was not over, the case is to remain. m. 13.

The jury present that this Hundred is the King's, and is worth 20 marks annually, and William Wyther holds it for 20 marks at the will of the King. m. 13.

Of Franchises they say that Edmund the King's brother claimed to have gallows and assize of bread and beer in his manors of Uttuckeshall, Alveton, Rocestre, Mathelfeld, Kyngeston, Alstonesfeld, Leyk, and Enedon, and it is not known by what warrant, and Hugh de Louther stated that the King was suing the said Edmund for the above liberties. m. 13.

Of Warrens they say that Theobald de Verdun, Simon Basset, Nicholas de Audeleye, and the Abbot of Deulacres, claimed warren in all their demesne lands; it is not known by what warrant. And Hugh de Louther stated that the King was suing them for the above liberties. m. 13.

The jury of an inquisition had elsewhere (fn. 38) presented that the men of the manor of Chedle (Cheadle) used to come twice yearly to the Sheriff's tourns until twenty years ago, when a certain Abbot of Crokesdone had withdrawn their suit. And in the same way the manor of Caldon used to do suit to this Hundred every three weeks, and to be geldable with the Hundred until fifty years ago, when one of the Abbots of Crokesdene had acquired the third part of the manor, and had withdrawn the suit and the geldability of the third part. And the Abbot came and stated that as regarded the suit of the manor to the Hundred, that Henry de Lacy Earl of Lincoln holds one part of the manor (of Caldon), and does suit to the Hundred, and the Sheriff acknowledged this to be true, and he denied that the manor was not geldable; and as regarded the appearance at the Sheriff's tourn of two men, he prayed that it might be commuted at 6d. per annum, and this was conceded to him. m. 13, dorso.

The same jury had presented that the tenants of the lands of William de Whythalk, Henry de Sharpeclif, William de Padewyk, Robert de Sharpeclif, and Thomas de Padewyk used to do suit to the Hundred every three weeks, and to be geldable in all things with the Hundred until sixty years ago, when they were transferred to the Liberty of Nicholas de Verdon of Alveton, and which Theobald de Verdun now holds. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon the said tenants and Theobald. And they appeared, viz., William son of Henry de Sharpcliff, John son of William Padewyk, Thomas son of Robert de Sharpclyf, and Thomas de Padewyk the tenants of the said lands, and they said that they and their ancestors had never performed suit to the Hundred, nor had they been geldable, and they appealed to a jury. The jury stated that one William de Ypstanes had acquired the said lands from William de Chetelton forty years before, who had held them as waste appurtenant to his manor of Chetelton; and William used to do suit to this Hundred every three weeks for the said manor, which is geldable with the Hundred. And they say that the same William de Ypstanes afterwards put inhabitants upon the land, but neither the said William nor any other tenants of the land ever did suit to the Hundred, for ever since the land had been inhabited the tenants had answered with the manor of Alveton, which is entirely extra geldabile. And the said Theobald stated that his ancestors had died seised of the suit of the said tenants, and he demurred to the form of the writ. Hugh de Loutre afterwards appeared and stated that the King was suing the said Theobald (by writ of Quo Warranto). m. 13, dorso.

The jury presented that Magister Henry de Bray together with William Tyson of Fudelegh, Henry Tyrry, and others, had come to Westwode with many others of whose names they are ignorant, in order to take seisin of certain land which William de Westwode had given to him, and which was of the fee of the Abbot of Deulacres, and they had entered into it against the will of the said Abbot, and Thomas de Bernardscroft and Henry Canoc of Lek, Robert the Miller and others had come up to prevent their entry, and a quarrel arising, Henry Tyrry had shot an arrow and killed Robert the Miller. Henry and the others therefore are to be apprehended. Thomas de Bernardescroft and Henry Canoc surrendered and were acquitted by a jury of the Hundred and four neighbouring vills, and the Sheriff returned that William Tyson and the others could not be found, but they were not suspected of the death of Robert, and that Magister Henry de Bray was in prison in the Tower of London by judgment of the King. (fn. 39) m. 13, dorso.

The Liberty of Newcastle-under-Lyme appeared by twelve jurymen, who presented (inter alia):—

That Ralph de Beyvill held the manor of Langeton in capite of the King by the sergeanty of finding a horseman with an iron cap, gambyson, and lance for the custody of Newcastle for forty days in time of war at his own cost, and for the service of escorting the King in time of war when the King goes into Wales from Newcastle as far as Wrymesford, and in returning from Wrymesford to Newcastle, and it is worth 2 marks yearly. And the Prior of Trentham holds of the said sergeanty a piece of land which is worth 18d. yearly, and a meadow which is worth 12d., and similarly John Felipe of Longeton holds of it four bovates of land which are worth 4s. yearly and Thomas Brun holds of the same sergeanty in Newcastle an assart which is worth 2s. yearly, and Margaret de Bagenholt holds four bovates of land worth 4s. yearly; Roger Meyron two bovates worth 2s. yearly; Richard de Adderleg six acres worth 12d. annually; Thomas de la Mere a place which is worth 12d. yearly, and Eva de Hurtwall two bovates of land worth 2s. yearly, and it is not known by what warrant. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon them; and they all appeared except Richard de Adderlegh; and the Sheriff is ordered to take his land into the King's hands. And the said Margaret stated she held the four bovates of land for a term of ten years of William de Bagenholt her son, who appeared and answered for her, and he and the Prior and the others stated that the sergeanty had been dismembered in the time of King Henry the King's father, and that one Philip Lovel (fn. 40) assigned by the King's writ for that purpose, had commuted the dismemberment, and they appealed to the record of the King's Exchequer. A day was given to them to produce the record coram Rege on the morrow of the Ascension. m. 16.

Of Franchises they say that Edmund the King's brother holds the manor of Newcastle of the gift of King Henry the King's father, and he claimed in the same, view of frankpledge, assize of bread and beer, gallows, pillory, tumbrell, pleas of forbidden distress, and the return of writs; and similarly Nicholas de Aldythelegh claimed to have view of frankpledge and warren in his manor of Tunstall; and the Prior of Trentham claimed to have view of frankpledge, gallows, pillory, and warren in his manor of Trentham. Hugh de Lothre stated that the King had a writ against the above for the said Liberties.

And the jury say that the Master of the Knight Templars in England claimed to have view of frankpledge, assize of bread and beer, and Theng in Keel, it is not known by what warrant. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon him. And the Master appeared by attorney, and stated that King Henry the father of the present King had conceded to God, the Blessed Mary, and the Brethren of the Militia of the Temple of Solomon (fratribus militiœ Templi Salomonis) all the reasonable gifts of lands, and of men and alms given by his predecessors, or acquired by them in any other way, and he produced the King's charter of confirmation, and stated that he and his predecessors had held these franchises from time out of memory in the manor of Leek. A jury testified to the same, and they were allowed. m. 16, dorso.

Of Churches they say that Edmund the King's brother has the advowson of the Church of Stokes near Newcastle, which is worth 160 marks annually, and similarly the advowson of the Church of Wolstanstone, which is worth 100 marks annually, and which were formerly of the donation of the King, and it is not known by what warrant Edmund holds them; and Edmund appeared by his attorney, and stated that Wulstantone is a Chapelry pertaining to the Church of Stoke, and that King Henry the King's father had given to him the manor of Newcastle-under-Lime with the advowsons of the churches and all things appertaining to it. Hugh de Louthre stated that the King was suing the said Edmund for the advowsons in question. m. 16, dorso.

The jury of an inquisition taken elsewhere had presented that the Abbot of Deulacres in his manor of Leek, and likewise Theobald de Verdun in his manor of Alveton, took travers from those driving wagons and carts within the said manors, viz., from every waggon ( ), and from every cart 1d., and it is not known by what warrant. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon them; and Theobald stated that he never took "travers," (fn. 41) and made no claim to take them; and the Abbot stated he had only been Abbot for three months, and he had never taken "travers," and made no claim to take it, and they both appealed to a jury. A jury elected ad hoc stated that Theobald had never taken "travers" in his manor, but they say that the Abbot had taken "travers" in his manor of Lek, and his predecessors also had taken it. The Abbot therefore is in misericordiâ, and it is forbidden to him to take "travers" in future, and the Sheriff is ordered not to permit him to take it. m. 16, dorso.

The jury of the Borough of Stafford presented (inter alia) that Henry de Boyleston and Sibilla de Assheburn his wife, at the suit of Richard son of Henry de Merston, took refuge within the Church of St. Bertelin of Stafford and acknowledged various robberies and larcenies before the Coroner and abjured the Kingdom. They had no chattels, and he was in no tything because he was a stranger; and because this happened during the daytime and the borough did not apprehend them, it is in misericordiâ. m. 17.

The same jury presented that Vivian de Aston formerly gaoler of the King's prison of Stafford had approvers in his custody, and made them appeal faithful and innocent persons for the sake of lucre and to extort money. He is therefore to be apprehended. The said Vivian did not appear, but John de Norton the Bailiff of Pyrhull came and paid a fine of one mark for him. m. 17.

Adam le Notyere of Talk apprehended for a robbery and taken before William Bagod and his fellow Justices assigned to deliver the gaol, turned approver and accused William Budde of Talk of having robbed in company with him (de societate et roberiâ) two merchants in the park of Aldelegh; and the said William before the Justices offered to defend himself by his body against the said Adam: and a duel was waged and fought between them, and the said William conquered the approver Adam, who was immediately hanged. He had no chattels, and the said William was bailed by Thomas Budde and ten others named, who mainprized to have him here on the first day, and he did not appear. They are therefore in misericordiâ; and as the said William had absented himself, and the jury suspect him, he is to be outlawed. He had no chattels, and was in no tything because he was a vagrant. m. 17.

The Hundred of Offelowe appeared by twelve jurymen, who inter alia presented that:—

John Mist who was hanged, with other robbers who are unknown, had killed Richard the Clerk, son of the Rector of Barre, in the fields of Barre. The first finder is dead, and no Engleschery was presented, therefore murdrum on the Hundred. m. 18.

The Sheriff returned 5s. 6d. as deodand for a cart under which William de Strethay was crushed in the vill of Strethay. m. 18.

William son of William the Clerk of Tymmor and James his brother killed Agnes the daughter of John the Clerk of Wyrle in the fields of Wyrle, and immediately fled, and they afterwards came back, and were apprehended and taken before the Justices of Gaol Delivery and were hanged. The chattels of William were worth 12d., and James had no chattels, and they were both in the tything of Wyrle, which is in misericordiâ. m. 18, dorso.

Brother Robert de Parko, probationary monk (conversus) of Hales, dipping a skin in the ditch of Bromwych, fell into the water and was drowned. The first finder did not appear, and is not suspected, nor any one else. Value of the skin is 2s. m. 19.

The jury presented that certain cross bowmen (Balistarii) of Gascony were passing through the vill of Longedon, and one of them wounded John de Hundesacre with a quarrel so that he died, and none of the neighbourhood ventured to pursue the said Balisters in consequence of their great number (propter multitudinem eorundem Balistariorum). Alditha formerly wife of William de Tattunhill was the first finder, and did not appear, and is not suspected. Her sureties are in misericordiâ. m. 19.

The jury presented that Margaret la Rouse held half the manor of Walsale of the King in capite, which is worth £15 annually, and she was of the King's donation (i.e., her marriage), and she is married to John Paynel, it is not known by what warrant. The Sheriff is therefore commanded to produce her. She and her husband John afterwards appeared, and could not show the King's permission for the marriage, and they were fined 10 marks. Their sureties are John de Herunville, William de Alrewych, William Illory, and Richard Diryday. m. 19, dorso.

John de Brotherfeld killed himself in his own house in the vill of Homerswych (sic, Handsworth). Judgment: Felonia de se. His chattels were worth 21s. 11d., for which the Sheriff answers. The first finder appeared and is not suspected. The jury and the vill of Honeswurth valued the chattels falsely, and are in misericordiâ; and the vills of Russale and Brumwych did not fully appear at the inquest before the Coroner. They are therefore in misericordiâ.

The Sheriff accounts for 11s. 8d. the value of the chattels of Ralph le Levesone a robber and a fugitive who was beheaded; (fn. 42) and for the chattels of Thomas Hardheved and Geoffrey de la Lynde, robbers and fugitives beheaded, 10s. 2d.

The jury presented that William le Syur, called le Gos of Tamenhorn, and Alan his brother withdrew themselves (subtraxerunt se) for many robberies and burglaries and larcenies, and it was testified that they were in prison at Warwick. The Sheriff of Warwickshire is therefore commanded to produce them at Stafford on the Quindene of Hillary. The chattels of William are worth 18s. 6d., for which the Sheriff answers, and he was in the tything of Richard Catebal in Tamenhorn. It is therefore in misericordiâ. The Sheriff of Warwickshire afterwards sent Alan Gos, and stated William le Siour called le Gos had turned approver before Walter de Beauchamp, the King's Seneschall, and John Buteturt, Justices of Warwick. He is therefore to remain there; and Alan Gos being asked how he wished to acquit himself (qualiter se velit acquietare), denied the robbery, etc., and appealed to a jury. And the jury of this Hundred and the neighbouring vills say he is guilty. He is therefore to be hanged. m. 20.

The jury say that this Hundred (Offlow) is the King's, and is worth 16 marks yearly.

Richard Tyrel gives half a mark that he may be under plevin from day to day. His sureties are Robert de Barre and William le Freman. m. 20.

Of Indictments they say that John son of Thomas le Champiun of Mercynton withdrew himself for many larcenies and burglaries. His chattels were worth 19s. 4d., for which the Sheriff answers. He was not in decennâ because he was a clericus.

Of Warrens they say that Edmund the King's brother claimed free warren in all his demesne lands in Tuttebury; and the Abbot of Burton claimed free warren in all his demesne lands in Burton, and Robert de Somerville the same in Wychenovere, John de Arderne in Elleford, Geoffrey de Camville in Clyfton, Roger the Bishop of Coventry and Lychfeld in Langedon (Longdon), Agnes de Somery in Honesworth, and Ralph Basset in Drayton; and it is not known by what warrant. And the Abbot of Burton appeared and stated he claimed free warren by a charter of King John, which he produced, and which stated that the King granted to the Abbot and monks of Burton free warren in all their land (per totam terram suam). And Hugh de Louther, the King's attorney, objected that no place was named in the charter, and therefore the Abbot could not claim free warren in Burton by virtue of it (left unfinished).

And similarly Adam de Brompton claimed free warren in all his demesne lands in Eyton, and a market on every Monday, and a yearly fair of two days' duration by charter of King Henry the King's father, which he produced, and they were allowed.

And similarly Roger de Morteyn claimed free warren in his demesne lands in Walesale by a charter of the present King, which he produced, and it was allowed. And Geoffrey de Canvill appeared and answered elsewhere amongst the Pleas of Quo Warranto. m. 20.

Of Franchises they say that the Abbot of Burton claimed to have gallows, and assize of bread and beer in his manor of Burton; and Robert de Somerville claimed the same in his manor of Alrewas; and Thomas Corbet claimed the same in his manor of Brumle; and John de Hastyng claimed to have gallows and assize of bread and beer, pillory, and tumbrell in his manor of Tameworth and Wyginton; and Ralph Basset of Drayton claimed the same liberties in his manor of Drayton; and Ralph de Grendone claimed the same in his manor of Scheneston; and Agnes de Somery, formerly wife of Roger de Somery, claimed the same in her manor of Honesworth (Handsworth); and Walter Devereus and Richard de Marnham claimed the same in the manor of Brumwych (West Bromwich); and John de Herunvile claimed to have assize of bread and beer in his manor of Wednesburi; and Roger de Mortayn, John Paynel, and Margaret his wife claimed gallows and assize of bread and beer, pillory, and tumbrell in their manor of Waleshalle; and Geoffrey de Camvile claimed to have view of frankpledge, assize of bread and beer, Infongenethef, and wayf in his manor of Clifton; and Richard de Wernon (sic) claimed gallows, view of frankpledge, tumbrell, and thew (sic) in his manor of Herlaston, and it is not known by what warrant. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon them, and writs (of Quo Warranto) to be issued. m. 20, dorso.

Of Sergeanties they say that William Trumwyne holds the Haye of Chistelyn of the King in capite by sergeanty, rendering to the Chief Seneschall of the Forest 1 mark yearly, and it is worth 100s. yearly; and similarly Walter de Elmedon holds the Haye of Teddesle in capite of the King by sergeanty, rendering 2 marks yearly to the same Seneschall, and it is worth £8 yearly. And William son of William de Bentle held the Haye of Bentle in capite of the King by sergeanty, rendering yearly to the Seneschall 1 mark, and it is worth £4 yearly; and John son and heir of the said William son of William is under age, and Robert de Bentle has the custody of the lands of the said John; and John de Cave had married the said John son of William, it is not known by what warrant; and Robert de Bentle appeared and stated he held the custody of the said John by a demise of Magister Adam de Botyndon, who held it by the concession of the present King, and he appealed to the Rolls of the Chancery. And John de Cave appeared and stated that he had the marriage of the heir by the demise of one Hugh de Mandle, and by the concession which the present King had made to the said Magister Adam de Botindon, and he appealed to the records of the Rolls of the Chancery. And a day was given to them coram Rege on the morrow of the Ascension. m. 20, dorso.

The Hundred of Cudleston appeared by twelve jurymen, who presented inter alia that:—

William son of Hugh de Levedale and Robert Geoffray quarrelled one night in the vill of Levedale, and William struck Robert with an axe on the head and killed him; and William immediately fled, and is suspected; therefore he is to be outlawed. His chattels are worth 58s. 2d., for which the Sheriff answers; and he had certain land, of which the year and waste is worth 76s. 8d; and the issue of his land for half the time (per medium tempus) is £16, for which the same Sheriff answers. The first finder is dead, and no Engleschery was presented; therefore murdrum on the Hundred. And Hugh son of Robert de Levedale, Robert le Mareschall of Aston, and Roger de Caverswalle took the half time without warrant. They are therefore in misericordiâ. m. 21.

John Medicus of Stafford disputing with William de Draycote in the vill of Stretton, a quarrel arose between them; and John struck William with a sword on the head, so that he died on the third day; and John immediately fled to the Church of Stretton and acknowledged the deed, and abjured the Kingdom before the Coroner. His chattels were worth 37s. and a farthing, for which the Sheriff answers. And it was testified that the said John was now living in the town of Stafford. He is therefore to be apprehended, and as this took place in the daytime, and the vill of Stretton did not take him, it is in misericordiâ, and because the vill of Bradelegh had falsely valued the chattels before the Coroner, it is in misericordiâ. It was afterwards testified that Adam le Especer of Bermyngham was present when John Medicus killed William de Draycote, and had absented himself in consequence. The jury do not suspect him, and he may return if he pleases, but his chattels are confiscated for his flight; they are worth 15s. 6d., for which the Sheriff answers. William le Leche (fn. 43) afterwards appeared, and being asked how he wished to acquit himself of the said death, stated the King had pardoned him for it, and he produced the King's Letters Patent, dated from Siliavetum in France, 21st July, 17 E. I., and which stated that: Whereas we have learned by inquisition that John le Leche, taken and detained in the prison of Leominstre for the death of William de Draycote, killed him in self defence, etc., and that, fearing death, he had fled to a church and abjured our land of England, we hereby pardon him the suit of our peace and the adjuring of our land for the said death, etc. And upon this proclamation being solemnly made, and nobody appearing to sue the said John, firm peace is conceded to him. m. 21, dorso.

Richard de la More of Brocton, and Richard his son and Lettice the wife of the said Richard, were disputing with John Carbonel their lord in the wood of Canoc; and a quarrel arising between them the said Richard struck John with a staff on the head, and Richard son of Richard struck the same John with a rail (repagulo) on the right side; and Lettice struck him with a staff on the legs, and John died immediately afterwards. And Richard and Lettice his wife were apprehended at once and conducted to the prison at Stafford; and the said Richard de la More was taken before the Justices for the Gaol Delivery at Stafford and was hanged. His chattels were worth 70s. 8¼d., and he held land of which the year and waste was worth 34s., and from the issues of the same land for the half time (per medium tempus) 40s., for which the Sheriff answers. Roger the Bishop of Coventry and Lychfeld took a part of the issues without warrant, and is in misericordiâ. And similarly Ralph Nythingale took a part, and is in misericordiâ. And the said Richard son of Richard fled and is suspected. He is therefore to be outlawed. He had no chattels, and was not in a tything, because he was a freeholder (quia liber). And as it was not clear that Lettice had been acquitted of the said death, she is to be apprehended. And Roger de Burghton the Coroner had sold and rased (stroppavit) the houses of the said Richard de la More without warrant. He is therefore to be called up for judgment. m. 21, dorso.

Of Indictments they say that Oliver son of Agnes de Stretton, John Wernod of Shareweshulf (Shareshill), and Adam, a servant of William de la Pole, had fled for a burglary in the house of John Derkyn of Ferestan (Featherstone), and for several other robberies. They are therefore to be outlawed.

They say that Richard de Stretton used to do suit to this Hundred for his tenement in Stretton every three weeks, until eighteen years ago, when Richard son of Richard withdrew the suit, to the loss of the King of 2s. annually; and Richard son of Hervey now holds the said suit withheld. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon him. And he appeared and could not deny that the suit had been withdrawn as stated for the above time. It is therefore considered that the King should recover the said suit (to the Hundred Court) and the arrears of it, which are taxed at 36s; and Richard is in misericordiâ.

The jury present that this Hundred belongs to the King, and is worth 16 marks annually.

Of Encroachments they say that Magister Ralph de Chaddesdon, the predecessor of Magister William de Abyndon, the Canon of Knoshale (Gnoshall), had diverted the course of the water under Flagemulle to the injury of the whole country, and the said Magister William now holds the said course so diverted since the last (Iter). The Sheriff was therefore ordered to summon him; and he did not appear, and the Sheriff is therefore commanded to restore the watercourse to its original state. m. 22.

The Sheriff returned 1 mark for deodand for a horse from which Richard de Hulton fell and was killed.

Vill of Lychfeld.

A certain mendicant Thomas de Sestreshire (Cheshire) together with a multitude of other paupers came to the house of Magister Adam de Waleton within the close of Lychfeld to receive alms; and the door of the said Adam being opened, Thomas hastened to enter with the other paupers, and owing to the great pressure John le Wryere (claviger) of the said Magister Adam struck him with a stick on the head in order to repel him, and the said Thomas fell and being trodden under the multitude of the other paupers was suffocated; and the jury together with the jury of the Hundred of Offlowe being asked if the said John had struck Thomas feloniously, said no, and that the blow was not the cause of his death, because he had been suffocated by the pressure of the crowd. m. 23.

Nicholas le Blunt of Bannebury, Chaplain, and Walter de Langedon, Chaplain, quarrelled in the house of Rose the bakeress of Lichfeld, and Nicholas killed the said Walter, and fled immediately through the middle of the close of the Canons of Lychfeld, entering by one gate and issuing by another, and he was followed immediately by the hue and cry, and Lawrence the watchman (vigilator) of the close shut the gates at once, thus preventing the pursuit of a felon. He is therefore to be apprehended. And Nicholas le Blunt had fled and was suspected, and is therefore to be outlawed. His lay chattels were worth 28s. 2d., for which the Sheriff answers, and Agnes the daughter of Rose, the first finder, appeared, and is not suspected; no Engleschery was presented, therefore judgment of murdrum upon the vill of Lichefeld. Laurence afterwards appeared and stated that the affair took place in the dusk of the evening, and that he always shut the gates at that hour, and that at that time robbers were concealed about the country (latrones latitabant per patriam), and through fear of robbers, who threatened to enter the said close to rob the Canons, he had shut the gates. He was fined half a mark. m. 23.

The jury present that William Griffyn of Colton who was apprehended and delivered to the charge of William Tytnelegh the Coroner had escaped from custody. The Sheriff is therefore to be called up for judgment on the said evasion. And the said William Griffin had fled, and was suspected of many robberies; he is therefore to be outlawed. His chattels were worth 47s., and he held land of which the year and waste was worth 26s., for both of which the Sheriff answers. And John de Wasteneys afterwards appeared and made fine for the year and waste (except for an acre and a half which are of the fee of the Prior of Canewell) for 26s. 4d., and which he paid on the spot (in continenti). m. 23.

The Hundred of Pyrhull appeared by twelve jurymen and presented inter alia:—

Some unknown malefactors quarrelled with Richard son of Thomas de Bromleygh at Brodhok in the forest of Canok, and killed him, and immediately fled. It is not known who they were, nor what became of them; no Engleschery was presented, therefore judgment of murdrum on the Hundred. The first finder was dead; and the vills of Alementon (Almington), Asshelee, and Tittenesovere (Tittensor) did not fully appear at the inquest before the Coroner, and are in misericordiâ.

The Sheriff returned 12d. deodand for an oak by which Thomas son of Richard de Chetewynde was crushed so that he died. m. 23, dorso.

Some unknown malefactors broke open the mill of Staundon and killed Roger de Dereslowe; and they immediately fled, and it is not known who they were. Afterwards a hue and cry was raised and they were pursued by the men of Eccleshale, so that one of them, by name Robert le Porcher, fleeing from the King's peace was beheaded. He had no chattels, and Philip son of Hamon the first finder did not appear, but is not suspected, and he was attached by John son of Robert de Swynnerton and Robert Overey of Waleford. They are therefore in misericordiâ. m. 24.

The value of the chattels of Robert son of John de Mere a robber and fugitive, who was beheaded, is 103s. 4d. The same held land of which the year and waste is worth 15s. 10d., and the issues for the half time are £9 6s. 8d., and which William de Mere took without warrant. He is therefore in misericordiâ. m. 24.

William Trumwyn is in misericordiâ for contempt. John Giffard of Chillington is in misericordiâ for the same. m. 24.

Nicholas de Longedone and Alice his wife were quarrelling in their house in the vill of Betlegh, and one Cecilia the mother of Alice coming up to appease the quarrel, the said Nicholas struck her with a knife on the head, so that she died on the fourth day afterwards. Nicholas immediately fled, and is suspected; therefore he is to be outlawed. His chattels are worth 53s., for which the Sheriff answers. He was in the tything of Adam le Blake of Bettele, which is therefore in misericordiâ. m. 24, dorso.

John son of Robert Joce of Bissopeston (Bishton) came by night to the house of Margaret de Byssopeston in the same vill, and looking in at the window to see what was going on in the house, one William the Dean, the brother of Margaret, perceiving him, came out of the house, and a quarrel arising between them, the said William struck John with a knife, so that he died immediately, and William immediately fled, and it was testified he was living at Stretton in the Hundred of Cutheleston. He is therefore to be arrested, and his chattels confiscated for his flight. His chattels are worth £4 11s., for which the Sheriff answers. William afterwards appeared, and being asked how he wished to acquit himself, stated he was a Clerk; and upon this Walter de Elmedon, acting for the Bishop (gerens vices Episcopi), came and claimed him as a Clerk; and in order to determine the status in which he should be delivered, the truth has to be inquired into by the country. The jury say that the said William is not guilty of the said death, and that one Robert Morcok, who is since dead, killed the said John. m. 24, dorso.

Four grooms leading four horses belonging to the King towards Heywode ad pendinandum, and whose names are unknown, quarrelled with Madoc le Waleys (the Welshman) outside the vill of Morton, and wounded him so that he died, and they immediately fled, and Wenciliana the wife of Madoc, the first finder, did not come, but is not suspected, and she was attached by Geoffrey Godwyne of Coltone and John the brother of the lord of Blithefeld. They are therefore in misericordiâ. The jury afterwards stated that Robert Short, John le Grant, and William le Charman of the Queen killed the said Madoc, and they withdrew themselves and are suspected; they are therefore to be outlawed. They had no chattels, and were in no tything, because they were of the King's household. m. 25.

Thomas de Derplaus son of Stephen Siward of Bidolf, Henry Pym and Robert his brother were quarrelling in the wood of Bidolf, and Thomas struck Robert in the stomach with a knife and killed him, and immediately fled; he is therefore to be outlawed. His chattels are worth 62s. 1d., for which the Sheriff answers; and the said Henry never withdrew himself, and the jury do not suspect him, but as he was present and did not take the said Thomas, and raised no hue and cry, he is in misericordiâ; and Robert de Staundon the Coroner did not attach the said Henry; he is therefore to be called up for judgment. m. 25, dorso.

Thomas de Wyshawe and Alexander his groom coming from the market of Newcastle overtook Ralph le Frend and John his groom, and a quarrel arising between them, the said Thomas struck Ralph with a sword on the side, so that he died on the following day; and Thomas and Alexander returned to the manor of Maddeleye and were apprehended there by Robert de Staundon the Coroner and John de Norton the King's bailiff, and were delivered into the custody of the vill of Maddeleye in order to be taken to the King's prison of Bruges (Bridgenorth), when a number of footmen and horsemen from co. Chester, whose names are unknown, rescued the said Thomas and Alexander from the hands of the said vill and beheaded them, and they carried their heads into Cheshire. The chattels of the said Thomas were worth 16s., for which the Sheriff answers. It afterwards appeared by the Coroner's Rolls that Margaret de Whyshawe the sister of Thomas had appealed in the county court Adam Brun, Richard his brother, and Thomas Coty of Maddeleye for the death of her brother; and the said Margaret did not appear before this court. She and her sureties, viz., Philip de Mutton and Robert Teverey, are therefore in misericordiâ, and Adam Brun and Thomas Coty appeared and appealed to a jury; and the jury of the Hundred and four neighbouring vills say they are not guilty, and they do not suspect Richard Brun; and the jury testify that William Frend living at Hunstreton in co. Chester, John son of William Frend, Robert de Lee and Roger his son, and thirteen others named, had rescued the said Thomas and Alexander from the hands of Adam Brun and others of the vill of Maddeleye who were conducting them to prison, and had beheaded them. The Justiciary of Chester is therefore commanded to arrest them and produce them before this court on the Octaves of the Purification. A postscript states that three of the accused appeared before the court and appealed to a jury, which acquitted them, and the Justice of Chester returned that the others could not be found, they are therefore to be outlawed. It was afterwards testified that Robert de Lee and two others named were dead. m. 25, dorso.

Thomas son of Reyner de Colton disputing with William son of William the smith of Colton outside the gate of John le Wasteneys in the vill of Colton, a quarrel arose between them, and the said Thomas struck William with a knife on the head and killed him; and Thomas immediately fled, and is suspected. He is therefore to be outlawed. He had no chattels, and was not in a tything because he was a Clerk. m. 26.

Sibilla the widow of William de la Forde coming from Newcastle by the fields of Burwardeslyme (Burslem) fell into a pit full of water from which coal had been dug and was drowned. Agnes daughter of Richard de Norton the first finder did not come, and is not suspected, nor any one else. Agnes is in misericordiâ. m. 26.

Thomas son of John Meverel of Tredeswalle (sic) Fradswell, and William de Salford quarrelled, and Thomas struck William on the head with an axe so that he died the next day; and Thomas immediately fled, and is suspected; he is therefore to be outlawed. His chattels were worth 13s., and he was not in decenna because he was a freeholder. m. 26, dorso.

Juliana de Kyngton on the suit of the King's bailiff fled to the Church of Asselegh and acknowledged herself to have been guilty of several robberies, and abjured the Kingdom before the Coroner. Her chattels were worth 2s., and as this took place in the daytime, and the vill of Asselegh did not apprehend her, it is in misericordiâ. And Roger de Burgton the Coroner allowed her clothing and shoes to abjure the kingdom. He is therefore to be called up for judgment. m. 26, dorso.

Richard son of John Hawys of Bromlegh Abbatis came to the house of Hugh de Dunstalle in the vill of Bromlegh Bagot, and whilst embracing (amplectando) Agnes the daughter of Hugh, Hugh the brother of the said Agnes, five years of age, came up and struck Richard with a knife in the thigh, from which cause he died at the end of six months; and because the said Hugh was only five years of age, he could not commit a felony, and the jury say he was entirely ignorant of felony. m. 27.

Philip the Forester of Stone and Robert Fletyng with others unknown abused Robert Musberd of Eneston (Enstone) outside the vill of Enestone, and stripped (spoliaverunt) and killed him; and the said Philip immediately put himself into the Church of Enestone and acknowledged the deed before the Coroner, and abjured the Kingdom. He had no chattels; and the said Robert Fletyng was captured immediately and conducted to the King's prison of Bridgenorth, and he was hanged there by the Justices of Gaol Delivery. He had no chattels. m. 27.

The jury present that Edmund son and heir of Nicholas the Baron of Stafford is under age and in ward to the King, and Ralph Basset of Drayton has the marriage of the said Edmund, and Henry de St. Lambert holds the manor of Maddele-under-Lyme of the inheritance of the said Edmund, which is worth by the year £50, and it is not known by what warrant. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon them. The said Ralph afterwards appeared and stated that the King had conceded to him the marriage of the son and heir of Nicholas Baron of Stafford, and he produced the King's Letters Patent. And the said Henry did not appear, and the Sheriff is ordered to take the manor into the King's hands. He afterwards appeared by attorney and replevied the tenement, and stated that the King by his Letters Patent had granted to him the custody of the first lands of which the custody should fall to him of the value of £50 per annum for a term of eight years, and that when the manor of Madelegh fell into the hands of the King, he obtained a writ addressed to Magister Henry de Bray the King's eschaetor to grant him seisin of it for eight years, and he produced the King's Letters Patent. m. 28.

They say that Alianora Countess of Ferrars holds the manor of Chartele of the King in capite, and is maritanda; and Illaria formerly wife of William de Harecurt holds the manor of Elenhale in dower in capite of the King of the heir of Richard de Harecurt, and she being at the disposal of the King, is married to Robert de Fraunkeville, it is not known by what warrant. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon them. Robert afterwards appeared and stated that the King had given the said marriage of Hillaria to Hugh de Beaumes for his laudable service, and the said Hugh had conceded the marriage to him, as appears more fully under the Liberty of Eccleshale. m. 28.

Of Churches of the King's donation they say that the Church of St. Mary of Stafford is a free chapel of the King, and that Bogo (Bevis) de Clare holds it by the collation of the King, and it is worth 50 marks per annum. m. 28.

The jury say that Geoffrey Griffyn holds the Hundred of Pirehill of the King in fee farm for 6½ marks annually, and it is worth 40 marks, it is not known by what warrant. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon him. Geoffrey afterwards appeared and answered elsewhere to a writ of Quo warranto. m. 28.

Of Sergeanties they say that Robert de Bromlegh, Walter Beysyn, and John de Eyton hold the vill of Asshele of the inheritance of Philip de Burwardesle by the serjeanty of finding a horseman for the King's army in Wales, at their own costs, whenever the King was present with his arm, and they hold the sergeanty in purparty, and it is not dismembered, and it is worth £20 per annum. And they are ignorant whether the service was performed or not. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to summon the said Robert, Walter, and John. They afterwards appeared, and Robert stated he had performed the said service in the King's wars, and he called to warranty the Rolls of the King's Marshall; and a day was given to him at Westminster in Parliament on the morrow of the Ascension. And Walter de Beysyn stated that at the time of the war he was under age and in ward to the King, and John de Eyton stated at that time John his father was alive and had performed the service, and the jury testified to the truth of this. m. 28.

The jury present that Geoffrey de Grysle (Gresley) had two villeins in the vill of Morton, who held of him in villeinage, and were accustomed to come to the Sheriff's Tourn twice annually until twenty-four years ago, when Roger Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield attracted the said tenements to the view of frankpledge of his manor of Heywode, by which the King had lost 8d. yearly. The Sheriff is therefore ordered to produce the said Bishop and Geoffrey. Afterwards the Bishop appeared by attorney and Geoffrey appeared in person, and the Bishop admitted that the two villeins in question came to his view of frankpledge of Heywode, but it was by distraint of Geoffrey, and not by his distraint. And Geoffrey denied this to be true, and appealed to a jury. The jury stated that the said Geoffrey ought to find two men for the Bishop's view of frankpledge for his other tenants in the same vill, and that Geoffrey had distrained the two villeins in question to come to the Bishop's view, when they were formerly geldable or used to come to the Sheriff's Tourn twice a year, and this first occurred sixteen years ago, and the King had lost by it 8d. annually. It is therefore considered that the King should recover the said suit to the Sheriff's Tourn and the arrears of it, valued at 12s., and the said Geoffrey is in misericordiâ. m. 28.

Of Defaults they say that Thomas Meverel of Gayton, Ralph de Mungoye, Thomas de Syngelton, John de Houton, Simon de Heghstal, Ralph de Rocheford, Thomas de Stouch Lord of Botyndon, Roger de Sutton, William le Hore of Frodeswell (Fradswell), Nicholas le Hore of the same, Thomas, lord of Mere, Roger de Fenton, and nine others named, did not appear on the first day. They are therefore in misericordiâ.

Of Warrens they say that Robert de Staundon claimed to have free warren in his demesne lands of Staundon; Robert de Halghton claimed the same in Offeley; Roger the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield claimed the same in Eccleshale; Robert de Fraunkville in Elenhale, Robert de Hasteng in Chebbeshey; the Prior of Trentham in Trentham; John fitz Philip in Berlaston; Roes Trussel in Cublesdon; the Prior of Stone in Stone; William Trumwyne claimed the same ab antiquo in Sondone (Sandon); William de Stafford in Sondone; the Countess of Ferrars in Chartelegh; John de Gastenays in Colton; the Abbot of Burton in Bromlegh, ab antiquo; Richard de Draycote in Hopton; the Prior of St. Thomas in Orbython (Orberton), Colton, Pendeford, and Frodeswall (Fradswell). Nicholas de Audelegh claimed the same in Audelegh, Horton, Helegh, Norton, Tunstall, Thoresfeld, Colde Norton, and Bettelegh. Henry (sic) Baron Stafford claimed the same in Maddelegh; Richard de Harecurt (who had died) the same in Elenhale; Theobald de Verdun claimed the same in Bokenhale (Bucknall). Afterwards the Prior of Trentham and Theobald de Verdon appeared, and the Prior stated that King Henry the father of the present King had granted to him and his successors free warren in his demesne lands in Trentham, le Wal, and Elkesdon; and Theobald stated that the same King had given to John de Verdon, whose heir he is, free warren in his demesne lands of Crakemerse and Bockenhale, and they produced the King's Charters.

Robert de Staundon appeared and produced a Charter by the present King granting him free warren in Staundon, Fenton—Wyvien (Vivian), and Bukenhale; and Roger the Bishop produced Charters of King Henry III., granting to him and his successors free warren in his demesne lands of Lychfeld, Heywode, Langedon, Ruggele, Kanocburi, Berkewyz (Baswich), Eccleshale, Brewode, and Beaudesert, and a yearly fair in Eccleshale, a market and fair in Brewode, a fair at Ruggele, a weekly market at Kanocburi, and a yearly fair in Monte Tumba in this county. And John de Wasteneys appeared and stated that King Henry had granted to one William de Wasteneys, whose heir he is, free warren in his demesne lands in Colton and a weekly market in the same by two Charters which he produced. The Prior of Stone was sued by writ of Quo warranto elsewhere.

Roes Trussel stated that her ancestors had had free warren in Cublesdon for time out of memory, and appealed to a jury, which found in her favour. The Abbot of Burton and the Prior of St. Thomas answered elsewhere. And Richard de Draycote stated that he holds the manor of Hopton as a perquisite (ex perquisito suo), and that the lords of the manor had free warren annexed to their lands before the reign of King Richard. (fn. 44) Hugh de Louther the King's attorney disputed this fact, and Richard appealed to a jury, which stated that the holders of the manor had first assumed free warren in the reign of King Henry the King's father. It is therefore considered that the land should be dewarrened (dewarrenetur), and Richard is in misericordiâ.

Robert de Halgton stated that King Henry III. had granted to Robert de Halghton and his heirs, and whose heir he is, free warren in all his demesne lands in Halgton, Alverston, Offelega, Shebbedon, Hull, Tunstall, and le Lee in this county by a charter which he produced; and the Countess of Ferrars appeared by attorney and stated she held the manor of Chartelegh in dower of the inheritance of John de Ferrars, who is under age, and in ward to the King. The suit is therefore to remain, and John fitz Philip answered elsewhere. m. 28, dorso.

Of Franchises they say that Roes Trussel claimed view of frankpledge, assize of bread and beer, Infongthef and gallows in her manor of Cublesdon, it is not known by what warrant; and Roes appeared by attorney and claimed the above liberties by prescription. Hugh de Louther disputed her right to them, and appealed to a jury; which stated that Roes and her ancestors before the time of King Richard and ever since had used and enjoyed the above franchises without interruption. It was presented that Richard de Lee claimed pleas of forbidden distress, assize of bread and beer, view of frankpledge and gallows in his manor of Folford (Fulford), it was not known by what warrant. Richard appeared and stated he made no claim to hear pleas of forbidden distress, and as regarded the other liberties his ancestors had held them from time out of memory. Hugh de Louther disputed the claim, and asked that it might be determined by a jury. The jury say that the ancestors of the said Richard obtained the said manor from the Prior of Great Malvern in the time of King John, and that he and his ancestors had held the said franchises from that time; and as Richard had claimed the said franchises from time out of memory, and it appeared that his ancestors had only held them from the time of King John, and he could show no other title to them, it is considered that they should remain to the lord the King; and they were valued at 12 farthings yearly, and the said Richard is in misericordiâ. Richard afterwards appeared in court and prayed that he might be allowed to commute (arentare) the said liberties at 2s. 3d. yearly, and they were conceded to him and to his heirs, dum Regi placuerit. m. 28, dorso.

Of Valets they say that John Bagod of Bromlegh, Richard de Cavereswall, Geoffrey de Wasteneys, Philip de Chetwynde, Ralph de Dokeshay, and John Grym, hold full Knights' fees, and are of full age, and are not yet Knights. They are therefore in misericordiâ, and the twelve jurymen concealed these facts, and are therefore in misericordiâ. m. 28, dorso.

Of Indictments they say that Geoffrey de Freford, Robert Drabel, Richard de Halghton, and Richard de Weston, and five others named, had withdrawn themselves on account of various robberies and homicides, and Gylemin formerly a servant of Geoffrey de Grisele (Gresley), and Robert son of Geoffrey de Grisele for the homicide of John son of Hugh de Wasteneys of Huccesdon (Hixon), and for the robbery of oxen, cows, and horses.

Agnes formerly wife of Richard de Draycote, had withdrawn herself for the death of Richard formerly her husband. (fn. 45) Robert de Bagenholt, John his brother, and Adam brother of the same John, for many larcenies and robberies. William de Erdington of Colton for a burglary in the house of Nicholas son of Richard de Colton, etc. (sixteen others named as having withdrawn themselves for various crimes). The men are to be outlawed, and the women to be wayviata. m. 28, dorso.

William Puddyng appealed in the County Court John son of Simon de Cherleton for maheem and breach of the King's peace; and he did not appear, and his sureties are therefore in misericordiâ; and the said John appeared and was prosecuted at the suit of the King, and appealed to a jury. The jury said that John was Constable of the vill of Cherleton (Chorlton), and found the said William making a disturbance there (facientem medletam), and when he tried to approach him, William struck him on the head with his bow and knocked him down; and when he got up William attempted to strike him again, and John in defending himself cut off two of the fingers of William with his sword; John is therefore acquitted. m. 29.

John de Brok, Ivo de Titnesover, Roger de Walton, and John de Badenhale are in misericordiâ because they did not produce Roger, formerly Prior of Staines, whom they had bailed. m. 29.

The jury say that Ralph de Burgo had taken five marks from the vill of Wulstaneston for the chattels of a felon who was unknown; and the Sheriff was ordered to produce Ralph, who denied the accusation and appealed to a jury. The jury of this Hundred together with the jury of Newcastle said that he had taken the five marks, and appropriated them to his own use. He is therefore sent to prison, and the Sheriff is ordered to levy five marks from his goods and chattels for the use of the King. Ralph was afterwards released for a fine of 20s. m. 29.

Footnotes

1	A prosecution for felony was pending at this date against William de la More, and he had probably absented himself in consequence. See the Pleas of the Crown of this year further on.
2	By this fine Reginald de Legh grants a messuage and six bovates of land in Calton to William and Orabel for their joint lives. ("Staffordshire Fines, temp. E. I.")
3	Sewallefeld in Essington; now Seawall. It passed in later days to the possession of Huntbach the antiquary.
4	No doubt the same as Ralph Dapifer, to whom Bishop Walter Duredent gave Bromhall circa A.D. 1150. This deed is printed at p. 183, Vol. III., "Staff. Coll."
5	Le Bere or le Boer, Bere-Sardon, being sometimes written as Boer-Sardon on the Rolls. We have here the origin of the name. By the fine levied on this occasion, John Wymer acknowledged the right of Wladusa, for which William and Wladusa gave him £10. (Staffordshire Fines, temp. E. I.)
6	Carniprivium, Septuagesima Sunday; so called from the practice observed by Ecclesiastics and other religious persons of abstaining from meat at that time. (Bond's "Handybook of Dates.")
7	See the Introduction to the Plea Rolls of this reign, p. 40 of this volume.
8	William de Fulford acknowledged a messuage, half a virgate of land, and 28d. of rent in Fulford to be the right of Dionisia, for which Hugh and Dionisia granted the tenement to him for his life. Staffordshire Fines, temp. E. I.
9	The plaintiffs in a real suit, if successful, were put into possession of the freehold by view of the recognitors.
10	This is the termination of the long-standing suit respecting Bere Sardon. Robert de Staundon remitted all claim, for which William and Wladusa gave him a sore sparrowhawk.
11	A very early instance of the writ of formedon. See Introduction, p. 44.
12	This is a most important suit for the history of Dilhorn and Caverswall, clearing up many obscure points. Sir William de Careswall, head of the house of Careswall, who died 20 E. I., appears to have married Mary the eldest daughter of the last Ralph de Dulverne, and two members of the same family of Carerswall appear to have married the eventual representatives of the other coheiresses. The pedigree given in the suit is as follows:—
13	By this fine Roger and Joan acknowledged certain tenements specified in Walton, Stanes, Stoke, and Aston to be the right of the Prior; for which acknowledgment the Prior received them into the benefits and prayers which should henceforth be offered in his Church, and agreed to find at his own costs a Canon who should perform daily service at the altar of the Holy Cross for the souls of Roger and Joan, and for the soul of Thomas de Venables formerly husband of Joan. Staffordshire Fines, temp. E. I.
14	i.e., of the Statute of Quia emptores. See Introduction, p. 45.
15	By this fine Geoffrey Griffin acknowledged certain tenements in Clayton Griffith held by eighteen tenants specified, to be the right of Edmund the King's brother. Staffordshire Fines, temp. E. 1.
16	By this fine Roger and Joan acknowledged a messuage and carucate of land and 5s. rent in Salt to be the right of Lettice, for which Richard and Lettice gave them 20 marks. (Staffordshire Fines, temp. E. I.)
17	There were two cotemporary Rogers de Puleston at this date.
18	By this fine William and Petronilla remit their claim to a third part of a mill in Gretton which they claimed as the dower of Petronilla, proceeding from a freehold formerly held by Ralph de Gretton her first husband. Staffordshire Fines, temp. E. I.
19	See Introduction, p. 44, of this volume.
20	This no doubt represents the compromise respecting the manor of Bere Sardon.
21	i.e., flagrante delicto. See p. 130, Part I., of Vol. V., "Staff. Coll."
22	By assize of bread and beer is meant the fines for the infraction of the assize of bread and beer; the words in the original are, "emendas assisæ panis et cervisiæ fractæ."
23	Walter had married Matilda Pantulf, the Baroness of Wem. See ante, p. 197, and Eyton's "Shropshire."
24	The Staffordshire portion of Tamworth formed part of the royal manor of Wigginton, and must not be confounded with the Tamworth of the Marmions.
25	The King's attorney pleaded wayf was a grossum Coronæ; meaning. I conclude, it was a part of the prerogative of the Crown. See the next case.
26	William fitz Wimare, the ancestor of William, obtained a grant of the custody of the King's pools at Stafford, to be held by himself and heirs, in 10 Ric. I. See Pipe Rolls, Vol. II., p. 75, of these Collections. William Wymer had apparently no title deed to show; and in place of appealing to the records of the Chancery, denied the seisin of King Richard, and thus lost his cause. The reign of King Richard was the limit of legal memory.
27	Meaning probably that John de Barr's only title to the franchise was derived from the Prior, to whom he paid a chief rent.
28	The complainant stated he had been taken within the wood of Fisherwyke and within the Liberty of the Bishop of Chester.
29	This probably gives the clue to the action taken by Richard de Bentley against Philip for appropriating the chief rents of the Bailiwicks of the forest. See ante, p. 251.
30	The duplicate roll has Richard.
31	By this is meant probably that these four had been coroners before the previous Iter, or before the Statute of 3 E. I., which ordained that none but Knights should be elected coroners. William de Wrottesley was not knighted till between 22 and 25 E. I. Henry the Clerk of Alrewas was, I think, a Somerville, his surname, le Clerc, being a sobriquet.
32	It appears from another presentment that William de Tissington was Clerk to Thomas de Bray, the Seneschall of the castle of Tuttebury, and who was answerable for the safe custody of the prisoner.
33	A part of Tettenhall called Kingesley, was manorially subject to Kinfare, but the name is now extinct.
34	This Stephen de Bagenholt (Bagnall) appears, from the number of presentments respecting him, to have been a noted leader of a band of robbers.
35	i.e., la peine forte et dure, because he would not stand to his trial; the ultimate fate of this notorious robber is doubtful; one presentment states he was hanged, and another that he had abjured the kingdom. He was son of William de Bagenholt or Bagnall, the lord of Bagenholt, who was living 7 E. I.; see p. 140 of this volume.
36	Meaning the widow of the Lord of Suggenhull.
37	See the suit of Hugh de Beaumes versus Robert and Hillaria, Michaelmas, 12 E. I., p. 138 of this volume. I was unable to find any conclusion to this suit in the Banco Rolls, and the entry above proves it was compromised. It shows also, what I long suspected, that when a compromise is made out of court, no termination of the suit will be found on the Rolls.
38	See the Hundred Roll for Totmonslow, printed in Part 1, Vol. V.
39	Henry de Bray was one of the judges who had been imprisoned and heavily fined for malversation of office. The Dunstaple Chronicle says, under date of A.D. 1289: "De Magistro Henrico de Bray, Eschaetore et Justiciario Judœorum, dicebantur enormia, sed per redemptionem pacem fecit." It seems however from the entry in the text that he was still in prison in 1293.
40	It was a rule that Sergeanties could not be alienated. The inquiries into the alienations of Sergeanties took place 32 Henry III.; the object being the replenishing of the King's exchequer. They were carried out with great harshness against a class of tenants (in capite) who could least afford to pay the fines, and were no doubt one of the causes of the general discontent against that sovereign. (Pipe Rolls, 32, 33, 34 H. III.)
41	"Toll traverse, is when a man pays certain toll for passing over the soil of another by a way not a high street." (Cunningham's Law Dictionary.)
42	When a robber fled and resisted capture he was killed by the pursuers, and his head brought in as a means of identifying him.
43	i.e., William Medicus. The reader will observe here the origin of the modern surname Leach.
44	The reign of King Richard was the limit of legal memory.
45	This sentence is scored out, and above the line is written: "quia postea acquietata est ideo nichil de exigenda de ea, prout in deliberatione gaolæ."