Calendar of assize rolls
Roll AA

Sponsor

Centre for Metropolitan History

Publication

Author

Helena M. Chew (editor)

Year published

1965

Supporting documents

Pages

1-45

Citation Show another format:

'Calendar of assize rolls: Roll AA', London Possessory Assizes: a calendar (1965), pp. 1-45. URL: http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64181 Date accessed: 20 September 2014.


Highlight

(Min 3 characters)

Contents

ROLL AA

[m.1 Blank.] (fn. 1)

[m.2] Sat. 18 Nov. 1340. Assizes of novel disseisin and mort d'ancestor. Adam Lucas and Bartholomew Deumars, sheriffs, John de Shirbourne, coroner .

1. John son of Nicholas de Totenham complains that on Mon. 6 Nov. 1340 Adam de Gloucestre, Roger Prat, baker, William son of Nicholas de Totenham and Maud and Mary, William's sisters, disseised him of a messuage and a shop in the par. of All Hallows Stanyngcherche. Roger and Mary make default. The other defs., in person, deny the disseisin. The assize comes by Alexander Manshipe and others. Verdict for the pl. Damages 12d. Defs. in mercy. (fn. 2)

2. Isabel Godchep complains that on Mon. 13 Nov. 1340 Felicia relict of John Godchep, William de Brampton and John de Dallyngg, sen., disseised her of two shops in the par. of St. Mary atte Bowe. Felicia, by John le Daunser, says that the pl., after the raising of the plaint, entered upon the two shops and is seised of them, or alternatively she denies the disseisin. William, by the same John, says that he holds one of the two shops of the demise of John Godchep for six years. John de Dallyngg, in person, answers as tenant of one room which is parcel of the two shops and says that the assize does not lie because John Godchep, Isabel's brother, granted him the room and John bound himself and his heirs to warrant the same, by deed. The pl. says that she did not enter upon the shops after the raising of the plaint and that John Godchep had no estate in the same save for the term of his life. As to the room she says that it is not parcel of the tenements in view. The assize comes by Thomas de Cantebrigg, mercer, and others. The jurors say that the pl. did not enter upon the shops after the raising of the plaint and that Felicia and William disseised her of them; John de Dallyngg was not implicated. Damages 40d. Felicia and William in mercy and the pl. in mercy for her false plaint as regards John de Dallyngg. (fn. 2)

3. Thomas Sewell, bureller (burler), (fn. 3) and Alice his wife complain that on Wed. 20 Sep. 1340 Robert de Farnham, spicer, and Agnes his wife disseised them of four shops and a third part of a messuage in the par. of St. Mary Abbechirche. The defs., by Thomas de Ware, say that they recently recovered the tenements in view under a writ of dower brought in the Guildhall against Alexander de Thunderlee and Joan his wife and therefore they deny the disseisin. The pls. say that Alexander and Joan never had any estate in the tenements aforesaid. Assize respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 4)

4. Henry Wymond complains that on Sat. 4 Nov. 1340 John Ruddok, Simon Shayl, Alan Ruddok and Cecily his wife disseised him of an annual rent of 33s. 4d. in the par. of St. Michael Bassieshaw. John Ruddok, in person, as tenant of the tenement from which the rent issues says that the assize does not lie, because according to the custom of the City of London no assize of novel disseisin may be taken concerning any rents within the City. The pl. says the assize ought not on that account to be delayed, for on Sat. 21 Feb. 1338 William de Hedersete entered into a recognisance under the Statute of merchants (fn. 5) to repay him £20 at a certain term and because William did not observe the day of payment the rent of 33s. 4d. of which he was seised at the date of the recognisance was delivered by William de Thorneye, formerly sheriff, to the pl. to hold as his free tenement in satisfaction of the debt, for which reason he may lawfully bring an assize of novel disseisin concerning it. (fn. 6) [m.2d.] John Ruddok says that at the date of the recognisance William was not seised of the rent of 33s. 4d. Afterwards, on Sat. 2 Dec. 1340, the assize comes by John de Dallyngg and others. The jurors say that William de Hedersete was seised of the rent at the date of the recognisance and that the defs. disseised the pl. Damages 2 marks. Defs. in mercy.

[m.3] Sat. 13 Oct. 1341. Richard de Berkyng and John Rokele, sheriffs, John de Foxtone, coroner .

5. Nicholas Crane complains (fn. 7) that on Mon. 27 Aug. 1341 John son of John Spray disseised him of the third part of two solars in the par. of St. Nicholas Shambles. The def. says that his father's name was Ralph and not John, as in the plaint. Therefore the pl. is in mercy and the def. sine die .

6. Thomas le Hert complains that on Thurs. 8 Feb. 1341 John de Molyns, kt., John Marreys, tailor, Geoffrey Swele of Aultoun, collier (colyer), and Roger le Dighere of Istelworthe disseised him of a messuage in the par. of St. Andrew Castle Baynard. The defs. appear by Thomas de Ware. William de Iford, in the king's name, produces a writ of nullatenus procedatis (fn. 8) dated 15 Jul. 1341 forbidding the assize to proceed because the tenement concerned is in the king's hand, as is testified by Henry de Greystok, king's clerk. Assize adjourned and the pl. advised to make suit to the Crown in the meantime. (fn. 9)

7. John de Oxon', vintner, complains that on Wed. 28 Mar. 1341 Walter de Wyncestre, cordwainer, and Sabine his wife disseised him of three shops in the par. of St. Sepulchre. The defs., by Thomas de Ware, deny the disseisin. On Sat. 28 Apr. 1341 the assize comes by Robert le Mareschal of Holbourne, goldsmith, and others. Verdict for the pl. but no damages are awarded because of improvements effected by Walter after the disseisin. Defs. in mercy.

Sat. 10 Nov. 1341 .

8. John le Wodere complains that on Wed. 26 Sep. 1341 Hugh Joye and Richard atte Clay disseised him of a messuage in the par. of St. Mary Abbechurche. Richard, by John de Alegate, denies the disseisin. Hugh as tenant of the tenement in view says that the assize does not lie, for the tenement was formerly in the possession of Robert le Wodere, kinsman of the pl., and the same Robert in his will (fn. 10) devised it to John his brother for life, with remainder to Richard Wyntner and Agnes his wife, John's daughter, who afterwards enfeoffed Richard de Hoperton and Margery his wife, by whom, after the death of Margery, it was granted to him, the def. The pl. admits the devise to Richard Wynter and Agnes his wife but says that they made no grant to Richard de Hopereton as the def. alleges, but held the premises for the term of their lives without making any demise. After the death of Agnes, Margery wife of Richard atte Cley, entered upon the tenement as daughter and heir of Richard Wynter and after her decease Richard atte Cley held it by the courtesy of England in right of Alice, Margery's daughter. Alice died without issue, whereupon it descended to Evelyn and Juliana, sisters of Robert le Wodere, the pl.'s ancestor, and on the death of Juliana without heirs both pourparties passed to Evelyn, from whom they descended to Thomas her son and from him to the present pl. (fn. 11) Assize respited.

9. [m.3d.] The master (fn. 12) of the hospital of St. Bartholomew Smethefeld complains that on Mon. 6 Aug. 1341 Nicholas le Girdelere, armourer, disseised him of a third part of a seld in the par. of St. Mary le Bow. The def. says that the premises were at one time in the possession of Joan de Stokes, abbess of the minoresses without Algate. She demised them to Nicholas for a term of years and thereafter quitclaimed to him all her rights in them so that he entered upon the premises without doing any injury or disseisin to the pl. Assize respited for lack of recognitors.

Sat. 9 Feb. 1342 .

10. Geoffrey Aleyn and Maud his wife complain that on Thurs. 3 Jan. 1342 William de Stanesfeld, parson of St. Stephen Walbrok, William de Hacford and Adam son of Adam de Bury disseised them of a piece of land measuring 5 × 4 ft. in the par. of St. Stephen Walebrok. William de Stanesfeld, in person, and the other defs., by Thomas de Ware, deny the disseisin. Assize respited in default of the bishop's licence to proceed during Lent.

11. John son of Ralph Spray complains that on Wed. 30 Jan. 1342 Nicholas Crane disseised him of a solar and the half of a sewer (cloaca), measuring 20 × 16 ft. in the par. of St. Nicholas Shambles. The def., in person, says that the premises in view comprise a plot of ground measuring 12 × 10 ft., annexed to his free tenement, and that in entering upon it he was guilty of no disseisin. Assize respited because the letters of the bishop of London licensing the holding of the assize are addressed to the sheriffs and the coroner, and the latter is not present.

Sat. 27 Apr. 1342 .

12. Richard de Loxton, hatter, and Amy his wife and Thomas son of Amy complain that on Tues. 6 Nov. 1341 Geoffrey atte Gate, haberdasher, and Joan his wife and John atte Gate, haberdasher, disseised them of three parts of a kitchen (coquina) in the par. of St. Vedast. John and Joan, by Alan de Horewode, deny the disseisin. Geoffrey, in person, as tenant of the tenement in view, says that it, together with others, was at one time in the possession of Thomas Rys, goldsmith, who, in his will (fn. 13) devised the same to Amy and Thomas her son and William son of Thomas; William granted three parts of the kitchen to Geoffrey, who thus holds it of his feoffment. Afterwards, on Sat. 17 Aug. 1342 the pls. failed to prosecute their plaint. Therefore they are in mercy and the defs. sine die . (fn. 14)

[m.4] Sat. 17 Aug. 1342 .

13. Roger le Graunt, barber, complains that on Sat. 18 May 1342 Nicholas Poure and Katherine his wife, Amice daughter of William de Neuport, William, chaplain of Nicholas and Katherine, Henry le Keu, Richard atte Ponde, John Gerveys, Simon le Taverner, Simon atte Gate and Roger le Bedel disseised him of two messuages in the par. of St. Nicholas Shambles. Nicholas, Katherine and Amice come in person and the other defs. by Alan de Horwode. Nicholas and Katherine say that the two messuages are in reality but one, for half of which they answer as tenants; and they say that the assize does not lie because, by his deed enrolled in the Husting (fn. 15) in 4 Edward II, Roger granted it in perpetuity to Nicholas Crane, who in his will (fn. 16) devised half of it to Katherine, then his wife, for life; and if Katherine and Nicholas Poure, her present husband, are impleaded in respect of it by any stranger, the pl. is bound to warrant them. Amice, daughter of William de Neuport, answers as tenant of the other half of the messuage and says that Nicholas Crane devised it to her in tail. The pl. admits that the aforementioned deed was his but says that afterwards Nicholas Crane re-enfeoffed him and Cecily his wife with the messuage, by deed dated 5 Sep. 1342 which he produces in court; and that he was seised thereof until the defs. dispossessed him. Assize respited for lack of recognitors.

14. John de Daltone, kt., (fn. 17) complains that on Mon. 12 Nov. 1341 Solomon son of John de Wynton', Robert his brother, John de Drayton, tailor, and Agnes his wife, John son of Henry Gubbe and Joan his wife, Alice relict of Robert de Gedeleston, Edmund Spirecok, Robert de Stratford, John de Neuport, John de Asshendene, Walter de Lyndwode, James le Shereman and John le Chaundeler disseised him of two messuages in the par. of St. Edmund the King in Lumbardstrete. Robert de Stratford, John de Neuport, John de Asshendene, Walter de Lyndwode, James le Sherman and John le Chaundeler, by Adam de Hyworth, deny the disseisin. Solomon, by the same Adam, as tenant of a fifth of two-thirds of the two tenements in view, says that the messuages were formerly in the possession of John de Wynton', barber, who in his will (fn. 18) devised them to Joan his wife for life, with remainder in equal portions to his children, Robert, Francis and Isabel, in fee tail. Joan afterwards married as her second husband Robert de Holewelle. Francis and Isabel died without issue in their mother's lifetime. On the death of Joan, Solomon, as one of the surviving children of John de Wynton', entered upon a fifth part of two-thirds of the tenements in view under the terms of his father's will which provided that, in the event of the death without issue of any of the three above-named, the pourparty of the deceased should be apportioned among the testator's remaining children. Afterwards, Robert de Holewelle, claiming to hold the messuages by the courtesy of England, ejected Solomon and by collusive agreement with the pl., enfeoffed him with Solomon's share. Whereupon Solomon justly ejected him. Adam de Heyworth, on behalf of Robert brother of Solomon, denies the disseisin; and for John de Drayton and Agnes his wife, tenants in right of Agnes daughter of the testator, of a fifth of two-thirds of the tenements; and for John son of Henry Gubbe and Joan his wife, tenants in right of Joan of another fifth of the same; and for Alice relict of Robert de Gedelstone, tenant of a further fifth, he answers as in the case of Solomon. Edmund Spircok, a minor, appears in person. (fn. 19) Assize respited. (fn. 20) [m.4d. Blank.]

[m.5] Sat. 16 Nov. 1342. John Lovekyn and Richard de Kyslyngbery, sheriffs, John de Foxton, coroner .

Respites: 14, 18, for lack of recognitors.

15. John de Cressingham and Alice his wife complain that on Wed. 24 Jul. 1342, Richard de Rothyngg, vintner, and John his son disseised them of a messuage in the par. of St. James Garlekhethe. The defs., by Alan de Gillingham, say that the tenement in view was formerly in the possession of Simon de Creppyngg, who was bound to Richard in a recognisance of £80; and because Simon did not observe the day of payment the tenement was delivered to Richard to hold as his freehold pending settlement of the debt. After the death of Simon, Philip his son released and quitclaimed to the def. all his rights in the premises. The pls. say that they were seised of the messuage until disseised by the defs. Assize respited for lack of recognitors.

Letters patent on behalf of John de Dalton, kt., appointing as his attorneys Robert de Holewell and John de Wynewyk, or either of them, to represent him in any action or plaint brought by or against him during his absence overseas, dated 8 Oct. 1342. (fn. 21) ( See 14. )

16. Thomas Katremayns complains that on Sat. 18 May 1342 William de Westwyk, chaplain, John son of Henry de Ardern, Richard le Rous and Thomas Curteys disseised him of a messuage in the pars. of St. Michael Queenhithe and St. Nicholas Oloff. John, Richard and Thomas, by Alan de Horwode, deny the disseisin. William, in person, says that the tenement in view was at one time in the possession of Eustace de Esthalle [?] and Maud his sister, who granted it to Henry de Fre[ ] and Cecily his wife in fee tail, with remainder to the right heirs of Cecily. (fn. 22) Defs. sine die .

[m.5d.] Sat. 8 Mar. 1343 .

17. Robert son of Boydun Fader, butcher, complains that on Sun. 2 Mar. 1343 Gerard de Beaume and Ellen his wife and Henry le Hattere and Alice his wife disseised him of a messuage and a shop in the par. of St. Leonard Estchep. The defs., by John de Alegate, deny the charge. Assize respited for lack of recognitors.

18. William le Pynnere and Margery his wife complain that on Mon. 1 Apr. 1342 Joan de Fulham, prioress of St. Mary Clerkenewelle, Geoffrey Cook, chaplain, Ralph the renter, jun., Walter the prioress's porter, and Robert de Kelleseye, chandler, disseised them of a messuage in the par. of St. Sepulchre without Neugate. The defs., by Thomas de Ware, say that the name of the wife of William le Pynnere is Margaret and not Margery, as stated in the plaint, and further they deny the disseisin. The prioress, as tenant of the tenement in view, by Thomas de Ware her attorney, says that Joan de Leukenore, sometime prioress, on 24 Jun. 1328 demised it to the pls. to hold for ten years, as is attested by an indenture sealed with William's seal. The pls. deny that the tenement in view is included in the lease. Assize respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 23)

19. Stephen son of Stephen de Asshewy complains that on Fri. 21 Feb. 1343 William de Carleton, William de Blanford, saddler, William le Yonge and Peter le Frensh disseised him of two shops, two cellars and four solars in the par. of St. Peter Wodestrete. William de Blanford, William le Yonge and Peter le Freynshe, by Thomas de Ware, deny the charge. William de Carleton, as tenant of the tenement in view, by the same Thomas his attorney, says that the tenement was formerly a vacant plot of land called the White Seld, and was granted to him by Stephen father of the pl., as is attested by the deed of the said Stephen, who is bound to warrant the def.'s title should he be impleaded by a stranger. The pl. says that he is under age and can neither recognise nor repudiate the deed, but he says that the premises were in his possession until he was disseised by the defs. Licence having been obtained from the bishop of London to proceed during Lent the recognitors came by Robert de Shordich and others. (fn. 24)

[m.6] Sat. 19 Jul. 1343 .

20. Richard de Rothyng, vintner, complains (fn. 25) that on Sun. 13 Jul. 1343 John de Cressyngham and Alice his wife, Gilbert atte Lee, joiner, and Philip de Shobyndon disseised him of a messuage in the par. of St. James Garlekhithe. Philip de Shobyndon, in person, says that his name is Shobdon, and not Shobyndon, as entered in the plaint, and moreover he denies the disseisin. Gilbert, by Thomas de Ware, likewise denies the disseisin. John and Alice, in person, say that the assize does not lie, for Simon de Creppyng of New Wyndesore, citizen, who was formerly seised of the premises, entered into a recognisance in the Exchequer on 31 Jul. 1325 to repay the pl. the sum of £80 13s. 4d. in which he was indebted to him; and because Simon did not observe the day of repayment the premises were delivered to the pl. on Wed. 27 May 1327 under a writ of elegit addressed to Roger Chauntecler and Richard de Rothyngg, sheriffs, to hold until the debt should have been paid. They say further that in 6 Edward III [1332–3] Simon granted the reversion of the premises to them by deed enrolled in the Husting, (fn. 26) and thereafter in the Husting of Pleas of Land on Mon. 22 Apr. 1336 the pl. Richard acknowledged that he had no right in the premises save in virtue of the debt, and after it had been collected John and Alice duly entered upon the premises in pursuance of Simon's grant. The pl. says that after he brought his plaint of intrusion against the defs. they demised the tenement in view to Henry, their servant, who has continued in possession until the present time, and he asks judgment whether the plea put forward by the defs. is permissible. The defs. say that they were tenants of the tenement when the plaint was raised and still are. Assize respited for lack of recognitors.

Sat. 2 Aug. 1343 .

21. John de Glaston', clerk, complains (fn. 25) that on Tues. 1 Jul. 1343 William son of Peter de Huntyngdon, Roger Cros, William de Lincoln and John le Northerne disseised him of a messuage and four shops in the par. of St. Giles without Crepulgate. Roger, William de Lincoln and John, by Thomas de Ware, deny the disseisin. William son of Peter de Huntyngdon, in person, as tenant of the tenements in view, says that they were formerly in the possession of Peter de Huntyngdon, his father, from whom they descended to him. Afterwards he went in the king's train to Brittany and in his absence Emma his father's relict intruded upon the premises and enfeoffed the pl. with them. The def. on his return re-entered as he was entitled to do. The assize comes by Robert de Hary[ ]e and others but because the pl. failed to prosecute his plaint he is in mercy and the defs. sine die . (fn. 27)

[m.6d.] Sat. [28 Feb. ?] 1344 . (fn. 28) John de Aylesham and John Siward, sheriffs, John de Foxton, coroner .

22. John Lyghtfot of Horndon and Simon de Leuesham, taverner and citizen, complain that on Wed. 4 Feb. 1344 William de Salesbury, fishmonger, and Juliana his wife disseised them of the third part of a cellar and solar in the par. of St. Mary Wolchurchawe. The defs., by Christian de Bury, deny the disseisin. Licence having been obtained from the bishop of London to proceed during Lent, the recognitors come by William de Hodesdon and others. Verdict for the pls. Damages 10s. Defs. in mercy.

23. Stephen de Hodesdon, citizen and cook, and Alice his wife complain that on Wed. 4 Feb. 1344 William de Salesbury, fishmonger, and Juliana his wife disseised them of the third part of a shop and solar in the par. of St. Mary Wlchurchehagh. The defs., by Christian de Bury, deny the disseisin. Licence having been obtained to proceed during Lent the recognitors come by William de Hodesdon and others and find for the pls. Damages 10s. Defs. in mercy.

24. Avice atte Holte complains that on Wed. 4 Feb. 1344 William de Salesbury, fishmonger, and Juliana his wife disseised her of the third part of a messuage in the par. of St. Mary Wlchirchehagh. The defs., by Christian de Bury, and as guardians of Stephen son of Wluin Cote, ask judgment concerning the plaint and, moreover, deny the disseisin. Assize respited for lack of recognitors.

25. Margaret relict of Richard de Betoigne complains that on Sat. 20 Dec. 1343 William de Elsyngge, sen., mercer, disseised her of 8s. 10½d. annual rent in the par. of St. Martin Pomer in Ismongereslane. The def., by John de Guldeford, denies the disseisin. Assize respited for lack of recognitors.

[m.7] Sat. 23 Jul. 1345. Geoffrey de Wychyngham and Thomas Leggy, sheriffs, John de Foxton, coroner .

26. Nicholas Hotot complains that on Mon. 8 Nov. 1344 John Bengeho disseised him of a plot of ground measuring 7 × 7 ft. in the par. of St. Dunstan Est. The def., in person, denies the disseisin. The assize comes by Peter atte Vigne and others. (fn. 29)

27. Matthew son of Thomas le Barbour of Bredstrete and Ellen his wife complain that on Mon. 4 Apr. 1345 Robert le Mareschal, goldsmith, and Ralph Fraunceys, clerk, disseised him of a plot of ground measuring 140 × 4 ft. in the par. of St. Dunstan West. The defs., by Richard de Someresford, deny the charge. Assize respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 30) The pls. appoint Thomas de Ware their attorney.

28. Nicholas de Braye and Alice his wife complain that on Mon. 7 Feb. 1345 Juliana daughter of Nicholas de Braye, late citizen and woolman, Andrew Turk, Thomas le Barber, Geoffrey de Wynterton, Edmund de Saunford, Richard de Swyneford and Robert de Hakeneye disseised them of a messuage in the par. of St. Margaret atte Patyns. Juliana and Andrew appear in person and the other defs. by Simon de Kelleshull. Andrew says that the def. Juliana is under age and that her father, Nicholas, appointed as her guardian Juliana, her mother, now his wife, who is not named in the plaint. Juliana, jun., as tenant of the tenement in view, says that the assize does not lie, because the tenement formerly was in the possession of William de Braye, sen., citizen and woolman, who in his will (fn. 31) devised it to Alice his wife, now the wife of the pl., to hold for life or as long as she lived chastely in widowhood, with reversion to William his son in fee tail, or, in the event of his death without issue, to the next heirs of the testator. After the testator's death Alice duly entered upon the premises. During her tenure William died without issue and Nicholas, brother and next heir of the testator, likewise died. Meanwhile Alice had married Nicholas de Braye the pl., whereupon Juliana, as kinswoman and next heir of William, entered upon the premises and ejected Alice and Nicholas as was her right. [m.7d.] Assize respited because the court desires to be further advised. Subsequently (fn. 32) the pls. failed to prosecute their plaint. Therefore they and their pledges are in mercy, and the defs. sine die .

Sat. 30 Jul. 1345 .

Respites: 6, by reason of the non-delivery of the royal writ de procedendo . (fn. 33) 27.

Amercement: 28, pls. and their pledges for not prosecuting their plaint.

[m.8 Entries as on m.7.]

[m.9] Sat. 22 Oct. 1345. John de Gloucestre and Edmund de Hemenhale, sheriffs, John de Foxton, coroner .

29. John atte Sole, citizen, complains that on Wed. 23 Feb. 1345 Robert son of Robert Motoun disseised him of two-thirds of a messuage in the par. of St. Mildred de la Poletrie. The def., by Simon de Kelleshull, says that he demised the tenement in view to the pl. for life, at an annual rent of £6, payable quarterly at the terms usual in the City; reserving the right to re-enter in the event of the rent falling into arrears. After two years the pl. refused payment, whereupon the def. took possession as he was entitled to do. Assize respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 34)

30. Nicholas de Bokhurst and Alice his wife complain that on Mon. 7 Feb. 1345 Andrew Turk and Juliana his wife, Juliana daughter of Nicholas de Braye, Geoffrey de Wynterton, Richard de Swyneford, Robert de Hakeneye, Thomas atte Vyne, woolmonger, and Roger atte Ponde disseised them of a messuage in the par. of St. Margaret atte Patyns. Andrew and Juliana, Geoffrey, Richard, Robert, Thomas and Roger, by John de Haselwod, deny the disseisin. Juliana, daughter of Nicholas de Braye, who is under age, answers as tenant of the tenement in view, and says that the assize does not lie, because William de Braye, sen., in his will devised the messuage to Alice his wife for life or as long as she remained a widow, with reversion to William his son in fee tail, or if he died without issue, to his next heirs. On William's death Alice entered upon the premises in accordance with the devise and while she held them William de Braye, jun., died without issue, and Nicholas, brother of the testator and father of the def., also died. (fn. 35) Alice having in the meantime married as her second husband Nicholas de Brokhurst, Juliana ejected her as she was entitled to do. The pls., protesting, say that they do not acknowledge the devise or agree that the messuage is held in virtue of the will of William de Braye, sen.; for they say that Isabel, daughter of Cecily de la More, granted it to William de Braye and Alice his wife, now the wife of Nicholas de Brokehurst, in fee simple; in virtue of which grant Alice and William were lawfully seised of it, and, after William's death, Alice and Nicholas, until disseised by the defs. Juliana says that William, at the time of the devise, was the sole tenant of the premises and that Alice did not challenge the will when it was proved. After respite the assize comes and because the pls. do not prosecute their plaint they and their pledges are in mercy and the defs. sine die .

[m.9d.] Sat. 22 Oct.; Sat. 12 Nov.; and Sat. 19 Nov. 1345 .

Respite: 27, for lack of recognitors.

Sat. 26 Nov. 1345 .

Amercements: 27, 29, pls. and their pledges for not prosecuting their plaints.

[m.10] Amercements: as above.

31. John de Podenhale, kt., and Cecily his wife complain that on Sun. 30 Oct. 1345 William de Schireborn, abbot of Wynchecombe, and Alexander de la Stable disseised them of a messuage and 4d. rent in the par. of St. Bride. Alexander, by John Bretyn, denies the disseisin. The abbot, by Henry de Sutton his attorney, as tenant of the messuage and rent in view, says that the assize does not lie, because they were formerly in the possession of Richard, his predecessor, who demised them to the pls. to hold as of the right of his church of St. Kenelm for the terms of their lives, and to their executors for three years following the death of the last survivor, at an annual rent of 13s. 4d., saving to the abbot and monks and their household (familia) the use of the buildings whenever any of them should happen to pass that way, and on condition that in the event of the rent falling into arrears, or the lessees defaulting in any particular, the lessors should have the right of re-entry. He says further that for three years the rent has remained unpaid and the pls. have disturbed him in the enjoyment of the easements reserved to him in the lease and, contrary to the terms of the demise, have granted a third of the messuage and rent to Simon atte Gate, and a third to Thomas Seymor, kt., and the remainder to Richard de Podenhale, without his licence; wherefore he entered upon the messuage and rent, as he was entitled to do. The pls. deny his allegations. The assize comes by John Burre and others. Verdict for the defs. Pls. in mercy.

32. [m.10d.] Richard de Maydeston, loriner, and Agnes his wife and John le Keu, loriner, complain that on Sun. 20 Nov. 1345 Henry son of Robert de Norhamton, cordwainer, and Alice his wife, John le Keu, saddler, Adam Walpol, Robert de Sutton, loriner, Robert de Norhamton, cordwainer, and William de Brystowe, cordwainer, disseised them of a kitchen and a plot of land measuring 120 × 80 ft. in the par. of St. Alban Wodestrete. John, Adam, Robert, Robert and William, by John de Salesbury, deny the disseisin. Henry son of Robert de Norhamton does not appear but in his default Alice his wife is admitted to plead as tenant of the premises in view. She says that the assize does not lie, because Hugh, sometime abbot of St. Albans, granted by deed to Amabel, relict of Gregory le Botener, two tenements, to hold for life, with remainder to Cecily, Gregory's daughter, the same to revert on Cecily's death to the abbot and convent; but afterwards the abbot and convent granted to Walter le Keu, loriner, and Christine his wife the reversion of one of the two tenements, of which the kitchen and plot of land are parcel, to remain to Alice daughter of Walter and Christine, for life, and granted the other, comprising three shops, to John their son and Agnes his sister now the wife of Richard de Maydeston, the pl. In virtue of this grant Walter and Christine were duly seised of the two tenements after the death of Amabel and Cecily and thereafter she, the def., and Henry son of Robert de Norhamton her husband, entered upon the tenement of which the kitchen and plot of land are parcel, and John, Agnes and Richard de Maydeston her husband were seised of the other tenement. The pls. say that the premises named in the plaint are not parcel of Alice's tenement but of theirs and that they were in possession of them until disseised by the defs. The assize comes by John de Wynchestre and others and finds that Alice and John le Keu disseised the pls. Damages 40s. Alice and John in mercy and the pls. for a false plaint as regards the other defs.

[m.11] Sat. 17 Dec. 1345 .

33. Assize between Philip Draper, cook (keu), pl., and John de Totenham, carpenter, def., respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 36)

34. Loveday appointed between Nicholas de Braye and Sibyl his wife, pls., and Thomas son of Robert de Ware and Juliana his wife, defs. (fn. 37)

35. Matthew son of Thomas le Barber of Bredestrete complains that on Mon. 4 Apr. 1345 Robert Mareschal, goldsmith, William de Bolyngbrok, John de Neweport, bookbinder, and John Flaunden disseised him of a plot of land measuring 200 × 6 ft. in the par. of St. Dunstan West. William, John and John, defs., by Thomas de Ware, deny the disseisin. Robert, in person, as tenant of the tenement in view, says that the assize does not lie, because before the plaint was raised, he and the pl. agreed together; and he produces in court an indenture (fn. 38) dated 29 Oct. 1345 and witnessed by Richard Lacer, mayor, John de Gloucestre and Esmon de Hemenhale, sheriffs, John de Tyffeld, spicer, John Tornegold, Gilbert le Palmere, Reginald Thorp, Andrew le Hornere, John Helys and Thomas Giles, in which he, Robert, undertakes, as successor of John le Bret, to receive and convey away the water draining from the houses built by Matthew, successor of Reginald le Heymongere, on the site aforesaid, at his own cost. The pl. cannot deny that the indenture is his deed. Therefore he is in mercy and the def. sine die .

[m.11d.] Sat. 11 Feb. 1346 .

36. William de Iford and Margaret his wife complain that on Sun. 5 Feb. 1346 John son of Alexander le Goldbetere and Isabel his daughter disseised them of two messuages in the par. of St. Margaret Lothebury. John, in person, denies the disseisin and Isabel as tenant of the tenement in view likewise denies it. The assize comes by John Gentyl and others. Verdict for the pls. Damages 100s. Defs. in mercy.

37. Robert de Brystowe, dyer, complains that on Mon. 11 Apr. 1345 Simon son of John le Kyng of Colemanstrete, John son of Ralph de Berkyng, Thomas atte Longehepe, Stephen de Amyas, Henry de Ware, David de Kyngeston, John Deynes and William de Brompton, girdler, disseised him of a messuage and two shops in the par. of St. Olave Colemanstrete. Simon, in person, and the other defs., by Thomas de Ware, deny the disseisin. Simon, as tenant of the tenement in view, craves judgment concerning the plaint on the ground that, according to the custom of the City, a plaint of intrusion must be raised within forty weeks of the alleged disseisin; and the pl. has exceeded that term by fifteen days and more. Judgment that the pl. be in mercy and the defs. sine die .

Respite: 33, for lack of recognitors.

Loveday: 34.

[m.12] Sat. 18 Mar. 1346 .

Essoins: 39, pl. by John West. 41, pl. by John Blaket.

Respite: 33, for lack of recognitors.

Loveday: 34.

Sat. 1 Apr. 1346 .

38. Thomas son of Adam atte Churche and Felicia his wife and Thomas le Maister of Stebbenheth complain that on Thurs. 16 Mar. John son of John Hauk of Stratford and Thomas Hoke, butcher, disseised them of a messuage in the par. of St. Botolph without Allegate. Defs. make default. Assize respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 39)

39. Adam le Traiere (fn. 40) complains that on Tues. 22 Nov. 1345 John Lovekyn and Mabel his wife disseised him of 4 marks rent in the par. of St. Mary atte Hulle. The defs., as tenants of the tenement from which the rent in question is payable, say that the tenement, which comprises a messuage and a quay, is outside the pl.'s fee and that the assize cannot lie unless the pl. produces a special deed in support of his title. Afterwards the pl. failed to prosecute his suit. Therefore he and his pledges are in mercy and the defs. sine die .

40. [m.12d.] (fn. 41) Richard son of Ralph de Elsyngham complains that on Mon. 27 Feb. 1346 John Lovelyf, draper, John de Brendewode, Ralph de Cauntebrigge, William de Cauntebrigge, Stephen atte Holt, Richard de Farnebarewe, Robert de Manhale, John Barbour, William Cordewaner, John Manhale, Andrew de Redyng, John de Wodehous, Thomas le Northren, Peter de Blithe, John de Clifton, Ralph le Chaundeler, Peter de Grenstede, Adam de Wodehous, Peter Daubeneye, Simon Daubeneye, Alan de Aspal, John de Banham, Walter Mohaut, Adam Parlepot, Robert de Benstede, Ralph Shep, Walter de Bampton, Thomas de Waldene, cordwainer, Edmund Levelif, Reginald Seincher, John Owayn, Robert de Cauntebrugge and John de Pebenham disseised him of a messuage, ten shops and nine solars in the par. of St. Michael upon Cornhull. The defs., by Thomas de Ware, deny the disseisin. Assize respited for lack of recognitors.

41. Alice relict of Gregory atte Schire (fn. 40) complains that on Fri. 10 Feb. 1346 John Osekyn and Isabel his wife disseised her of a messuage, two shops, two solars and a plot of land measuring 100 × 80 ft. in the pars. of St. Mary Wolnoth and St. Mary Wolchirchehawe. The defs., by Thomas de Ware their attorney, deny the disseisin as far as concerns the plot of land and one shop without a solar; and as far as concerns the remaining messuage, shop and solars they say that the assize does not lie, because William de Wolchirchehawe was seised of them and by his will (fn. 42) devised them to his daughter Joan and Geoffrey de Norton her husband in fee tail, whose right descended to their son Gregory de Norton, called atte Shire, and from him to Isabel his daughter, wife of John Osekyn. Immediately after Gregory's death John and Isabel entered upon the premises; and when Alice, Isabel's mother, claiming under the will of her husband, intruded upon the same, they ejected her as they were entitled to do. The pl. refuses to recognise the devise above alleged or to admit that Isabel is the daughter and heiress of Gregory. She says, however, that William de Wolchirchehawe devised two shops and a small shop to William his son in fee simple; upon whose death without issue the premises passed to Joan, William's sister, and from her to Gregory atte Shyre her son, who devised them to the pl., his wife, for life. She denies that the premises are parcel of those devised to Geoffrey and Joan de Norton and alleges that she was seised of them until ejected by the defs. She claims the messuage as her free bench, on the ground that it was her husband's capital mansion and belongs to her during widowhood in accordance with the custom of the City. The defs. say that Alice was executrix of her husband's will and personally had it proved in the Husting and that she claimed the messuage in virtue of the will and not as her free bench. Afterwards the assize came and the def. John Osekyn departed before judgment had been given, in contempt of the court. His wife Isabel was admitted to plead in his default. The assize came by Nicholas Godwyne and others. Verdict for the defs. Pl. in mercy.

[m.13] Sat. 1 Jul. 1346 .

42. Geoffrey de Rokyngham, cordwainer, pl., (fn. 43) v. John Lovekyn and Mabel his wife and Robert Swote, defs., essoined by William West. Juliana wife of the said Geoffrey, pl. in the same suit essoined by the same William. (fn. 44)

43. Loveday appointed between William le Palmere, tapicer, pl., and Agnes daughter of Paul le Potter, jun., def. (fn. 45)

44. Loveday appointed between Richard de Carleton, skinner, (fn. 46) and Katherine his wife, pls., (fn. 43) and William de Weston, carpenter, and Joan his wife, defs. (fn. 47)

Respites: 38, for lack of recognitors.

45. Assize between Adam le Traiere, pl., and John Lovekyn and Mabel his wife, defs., respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 45)

46. John de Kyngeston, clerk, complains that on Sun. 29 Jan. 1346 John Nicol, merchant, disseised him of a messuage in the par. of All Hallows Berkyngchirch. The def., by Thomas de Ware, says that he was not the tenant of the tenement in view when the plaint was raised, or alternatively, that he entered by deed and feoffment of John son of Walter le Meleward and was recently ejected by the pl. Afterwards the recognitors came by Peter de Talworth and others. Verdict for the pl. Damages 40s. Because the disseisin was made by force and arms it is ordered that the def. be taken.

[m.13d.] Sat. 29 Jul. 1346 .

Attorneys: 42, Thomas de Ware for the pls. 44, the same for the pls.

Amercements: 43, 45, pls. and their pledges for not prosecuting their suits.

Respite: 38, for lack of recognitors.

[mm.14–17 Entries as on mm.9–10, 12–13, except that there are no entries for 26 Nov. 1345 on m.14d.]

[m.18] Sat. 28 Jul. 1347. John de Croydon and William Claptus, sheriffs, John de Foxton, coroner .

47. The prioress (fn. 48) of St. Mary Clerkewell complains that on Tues. 3 Jul. 1347 Simon le Armurer of Fletestrete and Roger le Garlekmongere disseised her of 2s. rent in the par. of St. Sepulchre without Neugate. Roger, by Alan de Gyllyngham, denies the disseisin. Simon, in person, says that the assize does not lie because, according to the custom of the City, an assize of novel disseisin cannot be taken concerning a rent. The pl. says that it was recently ordained by the mayor, aldermen and commonalty that where a person is prevented from distraining for rent in arrears he shall be entitled to an assize of novel disseisin, (fn. 49) and that John de Tuttebury, her collector, was so prevented by the def., Simon, who shut the door upon him. Afterwards the recognitors came by Richard Dymenel and others and returned that the pl. was disseised of the rent by Roger and that Simon had no part in the disseisin. Damages 50s. Roger in mercy and the pl. for a false plaint as regards Simon.

48. The prioress of St. Mary Clerkenewell complains that on Tues. 3 Jul. 1347 John Monkoy, fishmonger, and John le Coroner disseised her of 32s. rent in the par. of St. Michael Queenhithe. John le Coroner, by Alan de Gillyngham, denies the disseisin. John Monkoy, in person, says that the assize does not lie, pleading as in 47. The pl. answers as in 47 and says that the defs. closed the door upon her collector when he went to collect the arrears of rent. Afterwards the pl. appeared by Thomas de Ware her attorney and the defs., in person, and the assize came by Richard de Stanford and others. The jury returned that the pl. was disseised of the rent by John Monkoy and his servants. Damages £10. The jurors say that John le Coroner was not a party to the disseisin which was done by force and arms. It is ordered that John Monkoy be taken. Pl. in mercy for a false plaint as regards John le Coroner. (fn. 50) [m.18d. Blank.]

[m.19] Sat. 3 Mar. 1347 .

49. Richard de Toppesfeld, cutler, and his pledges in mercy for not prosecuting his plaint against William de Tudenham, mercer, and Alice Perceval.

Respites: 42, 56, by consent of the parties. 44, for lack of recognitors.

50. John Russel, girdler, complains that on Mon. 19 Feb. 1347 Hugh de Stafford, skinner, and Joan his wife, John de Stafford, skinner, Nicholas de Stafford and William atte Halle, brewer, disseised him of a messuage in London. John, Nicholas and William, defs., by Alan de Horewode, deny the disseisin. Hugh makes default but Joan his wife is admitted to plead in his stead. She says that Roger Buntyng, brewer, her late husband, and she, under the name of Joan late the wife of John Botoner, by an indenture produced in court, leased the messuage in view to the pl., under the description of the brewhouse formerly held by John Russel of the demise of John Botoner, to hold for a term of seven years to run from Christmas 1344, before the expiration of which term Roger Buntyng, her second husband, died, and she remained in sole possession of the premises (ipsa Johanna est infra messuagium in visu positum). The pl. agrees that he originally held the messuage by the demise of John Botoner, but afterwards Roger Buntyng, by a deed which he produces in court, confirmed him in possession for the life of Joan his wife and bound himself and his heirs to warrant his tenure. Afterwards the assize proceeded by licence of the bishop of London, and the recognitors, viz. Peter Walkelyn and others, returned that the estate of the pl. in the messuage was in virtue of the grant and confirmation of Roger Buntyng and not of the lease as claimed by the def., and that the pl. had been unlawfully disseised. Damages 40s. Defs. in mercy.

[m.19d.] Sat. 28 Apr. 1347 .

Respite: 44, for lack of recognitors.

51. Assize between John atte Barnet, mercer, pl., and Christine relict of Peter atte Corner, def., respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 51)

52. Assize between Geoffrey de Rokyngham, cordwainer, and Juliana his wife, pls., and John Lovekyn, sen., late sheriff, and Mabel his wife, Robert Swote and John Ruddok, ironmonger, and Mabel his wife, defs., respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 52)

53. Assize between Thomas son of Robert de Algate, pl., and Austin le Waleys of Woxebrugg, clerk, and Maud his wife and Robert de Brome, chaplain, defs., respited by assent of the parties. (fn. 53)

Attorneys: 53, Simon de Kelleshull or Richard de Olneye for the defs.

54. John Russel, customer (custumer), complains that on Sun. 4 Feb. 1347 Richard de Skegnesse and Basilia his wife disseised him of a messuage, two shops and a garden in the par. of St. Giles without Crepulgate. The defs., in person, deny the disseisin. Afterwards the assize came by Robert de Haryngeye and others. Verdict for the pl. Damages 35s. Defs. in mercy.

55. Richard de Grenestede, citizen and cordwainer, complains that on Mon. 9 Apr. 1347 John de Shordich, shipwright, Robert atte Wose and Maud his wife disseised him of a messuage in the par. of All Hallows Berkynggecherch. The defs. make default. Assize respited for lack of recognitors.

56. William de Briklesworth, citizen, and John his son complain that on Sun. 23 Jul. 1346 John de Kyngeston, clerk, Richard Ballard, Peter de Talleworth, John Micche, William de Bedeford, Thomas le Carpenter, Solomon Brounyng, William Farman, John Codeland, Francis le Shippewrighte, William atte Stone and John Phippe disseised them of a messuage in the par. of All Hallows Berkyngchirche. (fn. 54)

57. [m.20] William de Newenham son of John Osbern of Newenham complains that on Tues. 17 Apr. 1347 John Maryns, tailor, William de Stanhope, broker, and William le Daubere disseised him of a solar in the par. of St. Gregory beside St. Paul's. William de Stanhope and William le Daubere, by Alan de Horwode, deny the disseisin. John Maryns, in person, as tenant of the solar in view, says that the assize does not lie, because Richard de Neuport, sometime bishop of London, was seised of two adjoining tenements, one of which the pl. now holds, while the other is held by the def. In accordance with Richard's will (fn. 55) John de Colcestre, canon of St. Paul's, and Simon Flambard, his executors, sold one of the two tenements to Richard de Notyngham, whose estate the pl. now enjoys, and the other to master William de Melleford, whose estate John Maryns now enjoys. According to the division made at the time of the sale, the solar is included in the tenement of the def. and not in that of the pl. (fn. 56)

[m.20d.] Sat. 28 Jul. 1347 .

Amercement: 53, pl. and his pledges for not prosecuting his suit.

58. Joan relict of John Frossh and her pledges in mercy for not prosecuting her suit against Maud relict of Thomas atte Grene and John Chaumberleyn of Magna Hallyngbury.

Respites: 44, 51, 52, 57, for lack of recognitors.

Attorneys: 63, Alan de Horwod for Nicholas Poure and Katherine his wife. 59, Richard de Olneye for the def. 60, Alan de Horwod for the defs.

59. The prior of the hospital of St. John of Jerusalem in England complains that on Mon. 16 Jul. 1347 Michael, abbot of St. Albans, disseised him of 23s. rent in the par. of St. Benet atte Wodewharf. The def. appears by Richard de Olneye his attorney. (fn. 57)

[m.21 Entries as on m.18.]

[m.21d.] Sat. 28 Jul. 1347 .

60. John son of Robert Bole, skinner, complains that on Tues. 26 Jun. 1347 Giles le Spencer and Sarah his wife disseised him of a messuage and three shops in the par. of St. Antholin. The defs., by Alan de Horwod their attorney, say that the assize does not lie, because the premises in view consist of a messuage, two shops and two solars sometime in the possession of Simon Godard, who in his will devised them to Roger de Wyndesore and Katherine his wife, daughter of the testator, in fee tail, with remainder to his other children. On the death of Roger and Katherine without issue the premises were partitioned between Simon, jun., and Margery and Joan, the hall with two solars being apportioned to Margery, the close within the gate with a solar and cellar annexed thereto to Joan, and two shops and solars outside the gate to Simon. Simon, jun., had issue a son Simon, who married Isabel, daughter of William de Hales, but died without heirs; whereupon Margery, together with Thomas, son of Joan, who had meanwhile died, entered upon the pourparty of Simon son of Simon, jun., assigning a third part to his widow, Isabel, as dower. Thomas and Margery, separately, enfeoffed with their respective pourparties, according to the original partition of the premises, Thomas Horwold; and after Margery's death John her son enfeoffed with his share of the inheritance of Simon son of Simon, jun., the same Thomas Horwold, who enfeoffed Hugh atte Boure, who re-enfeoffed Thomas Horwold and Margery his wife, who enfeoffed the defs. And Thomas son of Joan enfeoffed with his pourparty John son of Robert Bole, the pl., to whom he also granted the reversion of his share of the third part assigned to Isabel as dower. They say, therefore, that the pl. is seised only of the portion with which he was enfeoffed by Thomas and crave judgment whether he ought to have an assize concerning the remainder. The pl. says that the parties have no concern with the above partition (quod ad illam participacionem partes predicte ex utraque parte sunt extranee persone et extranei perquisitores) and that the defs. neither allege nor produce a deed of partition, nor have they said anything to exclude him from the assize. Afterwards the assize came by William de Hanampsted and others and returned that the parties were seised of the premises in question in common and that the pl. was disseised by the defs. of two-thirds of the third part of the messuage and shops aforesaid. It is adjudged that he recover seisin of the same to hold in severalty. Damages 2 marks. Defs. in mercy.

[m.22] Sat. 8 Mar. 1348. Adam Brabasoun and Richard de Basyngstok, sheriffs, John de Foxton, coroner .

61. Henry de Lutterworth, chaplain, pl., v. Mary de Hungrie, William de Halow, Richard Rose and William Beauner, defs. Attorneys: Thomas de Ware for the pl. and Richard de Olneye for the defs.

62. William son of William de Braye, late citizen and stockfishmonger, complains that on Fri. 30 Nov. 1347 Robert Frunt of Codrede, stockfishmonger, Simon de Mordon, Henry Olyver, John Olyver and Joan his wife and Adam de Lymbergh disseised him of a messuage, two shops and two solars in the par. of St. Michael by Candelwykstrete. Robert, Simon and Henry, by Thomas de Ware, deny the disseisin. The other defs., by Thomas de Ware their attorney, as tenants of the tenements in view, say that they hold the same jointly with Richard de Hecham, who is not named in the plaint. Therefore the defs. are sine die and the pl. in mercy.

Amercement: 51, pl. and his pledges, for not prosecuting his plaint.

63. John Smart, brewer, and his pledges in mercy for not prosecuting his plaint against Hugh de Lancastre and Denise his wife, Nicholas Pouuere and Katherine his wife (fn. 58) and Henry de Langeton, clerk.

Respite: 56.

Sat. 24 May 1348 .

64. William de Fynchyngfeld complains that on Fri. 9 May 1348 Simon Cok, weaver, and Isabel his wife disseised him of 17s. rent in the par. of St. Sepulchre without Neugate. The defs. appear in person. (fn. 59)

Respites: 44, 52, 57, 59, (fn. 60) by consent of the parties.

[m.22d.] Sat. 28 Jun. 1348 .

Respites: 52, 57, 59, by consent of the parties.

65. William son of William de Braye complains that on Fri. 30 Nov. 1347 Robert Frunt, Simon de Mordon, Henry Olyver, John Oliver and Joan his wife, Adam de Lymbergh and Richard de Hecham disseised him as in 62. Robert, Simon and Henry, by Thomas de Ware, deny the disseisin. The other defs., in person, as tenants of the tenements in view, say that they entered in virtue of the deed and feoffment of Simon de Mordon and Henry Olyver and committed no disseisin. Assize respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 61)

Sat. 16 Aug. 1348 .

Respites: 52, 57, 59, 65, by consent of the parties.

Sat . [ 28 Jun . ?] 1348 . (fn. 62)

Respites: 52, 57, 59, 65, by consent of the parties.

[m.23] Sat. 7 Nov. 1349. Adam de Bury and Ralph de Lenne, sheriffs, Henry de Sutton, coroner .

66. Alan de Gillyngham, attorney of Nigel son of Richard de Hakeneye, pl., v. John Chaucer, vintner, and Agnes his wife, essoined by John de Middelton. (fn. 63)

Amercements: 42, 57, 65, pls. and their pledges for not prosecuting their suits.

67. Philip de Herlawe son of Thomas de Herlawe complains that on Mon. 25 May 1349 Robert de Hatfeld, bureller (burler), Nicholas Hotoft, woolman, Solomon Faunt and Roger Hotot disseised him of two messuages in the pars. of St. Mary Wolnoth and St. Swythin. Solomon and Roger, by Alan de Horwod, deny the disseisin. Nicholas, in person, as tenant of the tenements in view, says that he holds the same under a charter of feoffment, which he produces in court, vouching to warranty Robert Hatfeld, who is present and acknowledges it as his deed. He says that the assize does not lie, because the premises were sometime in the possession of Warin Mynggy, who in his will (fn. 64) devised them, with other tenements in London, to his children Robert, John and Margery in fee tail, to be equally divided between them. Margery married Richard Teste and had a daughter Alice. After her death, her husband held her share of the premises by the courtesy of England, subsequently demising them to the pl. and his father to hold pending the settlement of a debt of £31, together with the wardship of his daughter Alice. Alice afterwards died without issue, and Robert de Hatfeld, son of Agnes daughter of Margery, Warin's mother, entered upon her tenements as kinsman and heir of Warin, and upon the tenements of Robert and John, who likewise died without issue. The pl. says, on the contrary, that Richard Teste and Margery his wife jointly granted in fee during her lifetime to Thomas de Herlawe the messuages in question, by two separate deeds which he produces in court, and that he, as son and heir of Thomas, entered upon them on his father's death and held them until disseised by the defs. Afterwards the assize came, but the pl. did not prosecute his plaint. Therefore he and his pledges are in mercy and the defs. sine die .

68. Robert de Walcote complains that on Mon. 23 Feb. 1349 Henry Spark called Walden, Richard Bacon, Adam de Walden, Thomas son of William de Staneford and Geoffrey de Ditton disseised him of three messuages in the par. of St. Lawrence in Candelwykestrete. The defs. make default but through lack of recognitors the assize is respited. Afterwards the pl. comes in person and likewise Henry Spark, who is a minor; and he says that the assize does not lie because the premises formerly belonged to Robert Nichole, son and heir of John Nichole, who demised them to William Spark for the term of 28 [?] years with remainder to Robert, son of the lessor, in fee tail, or if Robert son of Robert should die without issue, to Robert son of William Spark, or in failure of issue to him, to Eleanor his sister, or in failure of issue to her, to Robert son of John Nichole. He says further that Eleanor died without issue and that, in virtue of the entail, he, the def., inherited the tenements on the death of Robert son of William, and that only the reversion belongs to the pl. as next heir of Robert son of John Nichole. (fn. 65) [m.23d.] The pl. says that John Nichole, ancestor of the def., had no rights in the premises save in virtue of the entail granted to him and Katherine his wife and their issue, by master William de Luda, clerk, and after the death of John and Katherine, Robert their son being then still a minor entered upon the tenements, John de Pulteneye and William de Stanford, his friends, acting for him. Later he died without issue and Thomas de Walcote entered as his kinsman and heir, being the son of Eleanor, sister of the deceased. Afterwards, on the death of Thomas, also without issue, the pl. entered as his brother and next heir and remained in possession until disseised by the def. He has no cognisance of the alleged lease by Robert son of John Nichole to William Spark. Afterwards on Sat. 8 May 1350 the assize comes and the parties appear in person. Verdict for the pl. Damages 100s. And because the disseisin was made by force and arms, it is ordered that the defs. be taken. (fn. 66)

Sat. 14 Nov. 1349 .

Loveday: 66. (fn. 67)

[m.24] Sat. 21 Nov. 1349 .

Amercement: 66, pl. and his pledges for not prosecuting his suit.

69. John son of John atte Pole complains that on Sun. 15 Nov. 1349 William Tythynglomb, poulter, Roger atte Tour, John Nasard and Roger Tidi disseised him of a messuage in the par. of St. Mary Wolchurchehawe. William de Tythynglomb, in person, as tenant of the tenement in view, admits the disseisin. The other defs., by John de Middelton, deny that they had any part in it. Judgment that the pl. recover seisin and 10s. damages but that he be in mercy for a false plaint against Roger, John and Roger. The pl., present in court, remits to William the 10s. damages.

70. Adam Fraunceys and John Pyel complain that on Sun. 15 Nov. 1349 William Tythynglomb, poulter, Roger atte Tour, John Nasard and Roger Tydy disseised them of four messuages, six shops and 10 marks rent in the pars. of St. Mildred in Poultry, St. Mary Magdalene in Milkstrete and All Hallows Bredstrete. John Nasard and Roger Tydy, by John Dauncere, and Roger atte Tour, by John Middelton, deny the disseisin. Roger atte Tour says that the tenements in view were at one time in the possession of John Anketyl, citizen, and are now held by his kinsman and heir, Nicholas, who is not named in the plaint. William Tydynglomb, by John de Middelton, says that whereas the pls. allege that they have been disseised of four messuages, six shops and 10 marks rent, only 6s. rent is actually in question, and the four messuages, six shops and 6s. rent were formerly in the possession of Robert Tolesane, citizen, who, on Sat. 16 Mar. 1336 before Reginald de Conduit, mayor, and William de Carleton, clerk of the City, recognised a debt of £60 repayable to William at Michaelmas next following; and on his failure to pay at the specified term the def. sued out a writ de capiendo returnable in the court of Common Pleas. Afterwards, by a writ of extendi facias , there were delivered to him a messuage, six shops and 6s. rent belonging to Robert, to hold until satisfaction should have been made him for the sum due. By another recognisance entered into on Sat. 18 Jan. 1337 before Henry Darcy, mayor, and William de Carleton, clerk, Robert bound himself to pay £60 to the def. at Easter following and on his default the def., by a like process, obtained seisin of the remaining three messuages to be held pending satisfaction of the debt aforesaid. Thus the def. claims to hold the tenements and rent in view in virtue of two writs under the Statute of merchants, without any injury or disseisin of the pls. Afterwards the assize came by Robert de Herlawe and others and returned that Nicholas Anketil was not the tenant of the tenements in view but that the pls. were disseised by the defs. and that William Tydynglomb was tenant in virtue of the disseisin. Damages £20. Defs. in mercy.

[m.24d.] Sat. 12 Dec. 1349 .

71. John de Middelton, guardian of John (fn. 68) son of Edmund Fitz Simond, kt., pl., v. Thomas Perle and Isabel his wife, Lucy de Conduit and Edmund Fitz Simond, kt., and Agnes his wife, essoined by John Philoche. (fn. 69)

72. John le Wayte and Alice his wife complain that on Wed. 30 Sep. 1349 William de Wappenham, spurrier, sen., and Isabel his wife, Nicholas le Peutrer and John le Beste, horner, disseised them of a messuage and shop in the par. of St. Martin without Ludegate. William, by Richard de Somerford, and Isabel, in person, deny the disseisin. Nicholas and John likewise, by Richard de Somerford, deny the charge. Assize respited for lack of recognitors.

[m.25] Sat. 20 Feb. 1350 .

Amercement: 71, pl. and his pledges for not prosecuting his plaint.

73. Assize between Robert de Walcote, pl., and Henry Sparke called Walden, Richard Bacon, Adam de Walden, Thomas son of William de Staneford and Geoffrey de Ditton, defs., respited for lack of recognitors.

74. Assize between Walter atte Nassh, pl., and Walter Wodeland, kt., def., respited by consent of the parties.

75. John de Somersham, woolmonger, and Alice his wife complain that on Thurs. 13 May 1350 Thomas Lambard, Anthony de Grenewych, Robert Pategrys and William Hardel disseised them of a messuage in the par. of St. Mary Fanchurch. (fn. 70)

76. Thomas de Ware, baker, complains that on Sat. 9 Jan. 1350 John son of Margery de Lyndeseye, Thomas Fighter of Herlaston, Simon Carpenter and Agnes his wife and John le Mason disseised him of a messuage in the par. of St. Nicholas Shambles. The defs. make default. Afterwards the assize comes by John le Plomer and others and the pl. appears in person. The jury finds that the pl. was disseised of the tenement in view by the defs. to his damage 100s., that the disseisin was done by force and arms, and that all the defs. were implicated save Thomas Fighter. Subsequently Alan Gylle and John de Hardyngham, wardens of London Bridge, testified that the premises belonged to the bridge and were in the hands of the City, whereupon the mayor and aldermen prohibited the sheriffs and coroner from proceeding to judgment without consulting them. Afterwards the assize came, and the counsel and advice of the mayor and aldermen having been taken, it was adjudged that the pl. recover seisin and 100s. damages. Pl. in mercy for a false plaint as regards Thomas Fyghter. (fn. 71) [m.25d. Blank.]

77. [m.26] William de Iford complains that on Mon. 4 Oct. 1350 Nicholas de Cantilupe, kt., disseised him of 13s. 4d. rent and the annual render of a furred gown or 20s. due to him for life from the lands rents and tenements which belonged to Roger Lestraunge in the par. of St. Andrew Holbourn and concerning which he produces a deed of annual pension. The def. makes default. Afterwards the assize comes by Roger Costantyn and others and the pl. appears in person. The jurors say that during the lifetime of Roger Lestraunge, for the year following the date of the above-mentioned deed, the pl. was seised of the rent and gown but was disseised by the def. to his damage 35½ marks. They say that after the lands etc. of the late Roger Lestraunge came into the possession of the def., the pl. distrained for the arrears of his pension but was obstructed by the def. who utterly refused to pay. Judgment for pl.; def. in mercy. (fn. 72) [m.26d. Blank.]

[m.27 Entries as on m.23, but 68 incomplete.]

[m.28] Sat. 20 Feb. 1350 .

78. William de Greyngham and Avice his wife complain that on Thurs. 30 Apr. 1349 William son of John le Kyng of Colmanstrete disseised them of three messuages, a garden and six shops and 10s. 4d. rent in the pars. of All Hallows beside London Wall and St. Stephen Colmanstrete. The def., who is under age, appears in person and says that the assize does not lie, because John le Kyng, his father, in his will (fn. 73) devised the tenements and rent in view in fee tail to Andrew and Simon his sons and Margery his daughter, with reversion to his right heirs on condition that, should any of the beneficiaries die without issue, the share of the deceased should be apportioned among the survivors. Subsequently both Andrew and Margery died without issue and the whole of the property passed to Simon as sole survivor. On his death, likewise without issue, the def. entered as right heir of John le Kyng and peacefully occupied the premises until the intrusion of the pl., Avice claiming as John's daughter and heiress. Thereafter he, the def., ejected her as he was entitled to do. The pls. say that John le Kyng was twice married. By his first wife Parnel he had issue Andrew, Simon and Margery and also the pl., Avice. By his second wife Agnes, he had issue William, the def. On the death of Simon, the premises passed as fee simple to Avice his sister and next heir and she entered and held them until unjustly disseised by the def. William, protesting, says that he does not admit that his father was twice married and maintains that his entry was lawful and not a disseisin of the pl. Avice says that the entail terminated by reason of the failure of issue to Andrew, Margery and Simon and that Simon, as son and heir of John le Kyng, was seised of the premises in fee simple at the time of his death. She says further that the inheritance belongs to her as Simon's sister and next heir and not to the def. who is not of Simon's blood but is a total stranger to him. Adjourned that the court may take further counsel. Afterwards the parties came, and because the def. is under age and his admission that the pls. were in possession of the premises and were ejected by him cannot be allowed either to benefit the pls. or to prejudice his own case, it is ordered that the assize be taken. Henry de Ware and the others on the panel give a verdict for the pls. Damages £20; subsequently remitted by the pls. Def. in mercy. (fn. 74)

79. [m.28d.] John de Strode, chandler, and Alice his wife complain that on Mon. 14 Dec. 1349 William Cosyn, William de Okebourn, clerk, and John Geffray, fishmonger, disseised them of two messuages in the par. of St. Botolph without Algate. Defs. make default. Assize respited for lack of recognitors.

80. John de Pounfreyt, cornmonger, complains that on Fri. 19 Feb. 1350 Nicholas Thomasyn and Agnes his wife disseised him of a messuage and a shop in the par. of St. Mary Magdalene Milkstrete. The defs., in person, say that the assize does not lie because the tenements in view were sometime in the possession of William de Pontefract and the claim of Agnes to them, as grand-daughter of William, is better than that of the pl. who is his nephew (sister's son). The pl. says that William de Pontefract in his will proved and enrolled in the Husting (fn. 75) devised the premises to him, in virtue of which bequest he entered and held them until unjustly disseised by the defs. The defs. say that the premises in view, described as a tenement with a shop in which John de Drayton and Adam Chaumberleyn formerly lived, were excepted in the will. Adjourned that the court may be more fully informed concerning the contents of the will. Afterwards the parties come and the defs. produce in court the will as enrolled by Thomas de Waldene, chamberlain, and because it sufficiently appears that the tenement of which the pl. claims to have been disseised is there excepted and is not devised to him, as he alleges, it is adjudged that he take nothing for his bill but be in mercy for a false plaint.

[m.29 Entries as on m.24. (fn. 76) m.29d. Entries as on m.24d.]

[m.30] Sat. 26 Nov. 1351. Gilbert de Steyndrop and John Wroth, sheriffs, Henry de Sutton, coroner .

81. Assize between Nicholas Marchaunt, pl., and Thomas Broun and Margery his wife and John Molle of Grantham, defs., respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 77)

82. Assize between Agnes relict of [Walter de] (fn. 78) Waltham, late citizen and fishmonger, pl., and Robert Whyte, fishmonger, Walter, rector of St. George beside Estchep, and Thomas de Holond, chaplain, defs., respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 79)

83. Assize between Isabel atte Grene, pl., and Richard son of Geoffrey Sterre, def., respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 80)

84. Assize between William de Aqura, (fn. 81) goldsmith, and William de Ippegrave, goldsmith, pls., and Richard Turk, sen., and Margaret his wife and Thomas le Barber, beadle, defs., respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 80)

Respite of judgment: 76.

Admission of guardian (custos): 86. Alan de Horwod for Nicholas son of John de Mokkyngg.

85. Alice la Cotelere complains that on Sat. 12 Nov. 1351 John de Berkhampsted of Fletestrete, Henry le Taverner his servant, John le Sadelere of Fletestrete and William le Fourbour of Fletestrete disseised him of a messuage in the par. of St. Bride. (fn. 82)

86. Nigel de Hakeneye complains that on Sat. 4 Jun. 1351 John Maleweyn and Nicholas (fn. 83) son of John de Mokkyngg disseised him of a messuage and six shops in the par. of All Hallows Berkyngecherche. (fn. 84)

[m.30d.] Sat. 3 Dec. 1351 .

Respites: 81, 82, 83, 84, for lack of recognitors.

87. Thomas de Fagham rector of St. Vedast, William Pykerel, William de Ippegrave, Geoffrey atte Gate and Robert de Herlawe, parishioners, complain that on Mon. 18 Apr. 1351 Thomas Frembaud, kt., and Alice his wife and Henry son of Henry de Secheford disseised them of 110s. rent in the pars. of St. Michael atte Corne, St. Alphege and St. Botolph without Aldresgate. The defs., by Alan de Horwod, deny the disseisin. The pls. say that Andrew de Seccheford in his will (fn. 85) devised to Henry de Seccheford in fee tail a brewhouse belonging to Hugh de Oxon' and Maud his wife in the par. of St. Michael le Querne; and a rent of 2 marks 7s. 4d. purchased of the lady of Dovedale and Edmund her son and issuing from the tenement of Thomas Frembaud; and a rent of 1 mark from a tenement sometime belonging to Alan Ballard of Sutton in Felyppeslane, purchased of Peter son of Peter de Herlyng, sometime taverner of London, and seven shops purchased of Isabel relict of Richard de Rothyng, carpenter, in the par. of St. Botolph without Aldresgate and 5s. quit-rent from a brewhouse sometime belonging to Richard in the same par.; subject to the maintenance by Henry and his issue of a chantry in the church of St. Vedast for the souls of the testator and Margery and Sarah his wives and of Aubin and Joan his parents and of Gilbert and Henry his brothers, John de Chelmesford, jun., formerly rector of the church of Rouspere, and John de Chelmesford, sen.; paying yearly to the chaplain of the chantry a stipend of 7 marks, together with 6s. 8d. to keep a lamp burning before the crucifix in the church, 6s. 8d. as a recompense to the rector and four parishioners for their trouble in executing the terms of the bequest, and 40d. for the celebration of the testator's anniversary. The pls. say that they continued in enjoyment of the rent until disseised by the defs. Verdict for the pls. Damages 10 marks which are at once remitted. Defs. in mercy.

[m.31] Sat. 3 Mar. 1352 .

Respites: 81, 82, 83, 84, for lack of recognitors.

88. The master (fn. 86) of the hospital of St. James near Westminster complains that Richard Carlel, tailor, on Mon. 6 Feb. 1352 disseised him of a messuage in the par. of St. Mary Magdalene in Milkstrete. (fn. 87) [m.31d. Blank.]

[m.32] Sat. 28 Apr. 1352 .

Respites: 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, for lack of recognitors.

89. Assize between William Causton, sen., mercer, pl., and John de Cauntebrugg, fishmonger, and Elizabeth his wife, defs., respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 88)

90. Assize between John de Cauntebrugg, fishmonger, and Elizabeth his wife, [pls., and William de Causton, sen., mercer, def.,] (fn. 89) respited by consent of the parties. (fn. 88)

Sat. 12 May 1352 .

Respites: 81, 83, 84, 86, 89, for lack of recognitors. 90, by consent of the parties.

[m.32d.] Sat. 16 Jun. 1352 .

Respites: 83, 84, 86, for lack of recognitors.

91. William atte Welle complains that on Wed. 30 May 1352 William de Leyton, woolworker (wollewirchere), John Bradmede, John atte Harpe and John Pottere disseised him of a messuage in the par. of St. Olave in Tower ward. John Bradmede, John atte Harpe and John Pottere, by William de Gillyngham, say that they have no interest in the tenement in view. William de Leyton says that the assize does not lie because Edith daughter of John le Mazerer, who was the wife of John de Chikewelle, late citizen and moneyer, and mother of Margaret the pl's. mother, enfeoffed with the tenement, by her deed, Richard atte Welle, who in his will (fn. 90) devised it to him, William de Leyton, the def. (fn. 91)

92. Simon de Kyngeston complains that on Wed. 9 May 1352 Adam atte Ram, William de Markeworth, cordwainer, John de Oxenford, marshal, Richard Chaundeler, Robert de Guldeford, draper, John Tarent, draper, Simon de Godestowe, John de Kyrkeby, draper, John Brid, brewer, and Hugh de Brumptone disseised him of his free tenement in the par. of St. Augustine in Bread Street ward. William, John, Richard, Robert, John, Simon, John and John say that they claim nothing in the premises and made no disseisin. Adam says that William de Nottele in his will, proved and enrolled in the Husting in 24 Edward III, (fn. 92) devised the tenements in view to Margery and Joan his daughters, in fee tail, and that Margery and Joan were subsequently seised of them in virtue of the same bequest. Margery, who, on the death of Joan without issue, succeeded to the entire property, married John de Gylot, brewer, and the def. is her son and heir. Margery and John demised the tenement by deed to John de Kyngeston for ten years, and seisin was duly delivered to him in virtue of the said lease; but since the term has now expired, he, the def., entered upon the premises as Margery's son and heir as he was entitled to do and without committing any disseisin. (fn. 93)

[m.33] Sat. 21 Jul. 1352 .

Respites: 81, 83, 84, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, for lack of recognitors.

93. Assize between William de St. Albans, chandler, pl., and brother Thomas de Berkhamstede, master of St. Thomas of Acon, and Lawrence atte Barnet, Robert de Berkhamsted, Thomas Sallowe, Thomas Rakedale and John de Waldene, his brethren, defs., respited by consent of the parties.

Attorney: 95, John Dauncere for the pls.

Admission of guardian: 94, William de Southam, clerk, for the pl.

94. Thomas son of John Iwayn complains that on Mon. 25 Jun. 1352 John Bullok, tapicer, and Sibyl his wife, Richard son of William le Clerc, late citizen and tapicer, and Thomas le Fruyter disseised him of two messuages and four shops in the par. of St. Dunstan in Fletestrete. The defs., by John de Bryklesworth, deny the disseisin. The pl. appears by William de Southam, his guardian. (fn. 94) The assize comes by John de Laughton, saddler, and others. Verdict for the pl. Damages 20s. Defs. in mercy.

95. Katherine de Garthorpe, Robert Aunsel and Denise his wife and Robert Poterel and Emma his wife (fn. 95) complain that Thomas de Brakenebergh and Joan his wife, John son of John Poterel, Thomas de Bartone of Humbre and Alice his wife and John, parson of St. Martin by Candelwekstrete, disseised them of a messuage and two shops, in the par. of St. Leonard Estchepe. Verdict for pls. Defs. in mercy. (fn. 96)

[m.33d.] Sat. 21 Jul. 1352 .

96. Adam le Eyr and Denise his wife complain that on Wed. 30 Nov. 1351 Robert de Assch, John Wegayn, John Lodelowe, skinner, William Andrew, chandler, William de Messyngham and Roger Torold disseised them of two messuages in the par. of St. Andrew Holbourne. John, John, William, William and Roger, by Thomas de Lyllyngston, deny the disseisin. Robert de Assch as tenant of the tenements in view says that the assize does not lie, because on that day he recovered the tenements against the pls. by an assize of novel disseisin. The pls. say that the tenements in view are not included in the record of the above recovery but are different altogether. The assize comes by Richard Syward and others. The jurors say that one of the tenements in view, viz. one with a 'couhous' and garden, was not among those recovered by the def. in the action aforesaid but was in the possession of the pls. until they were disseised by Robert, the def.; but that of the other they were not disseised. Damages £10. They say that Robert alone was implicated in the disseisin and that it was done by force and arms. It is accordingly ordered that Robert be taken and that the pls. be in mercy, etc.

97. Nicholas Hotot complains that on Tues. 26 Jun. 1352 Philip de Herlawe, Robert Warderober, Simon de Rasen, William de Okham and Henry Lorchoun disseised him of three messuages, four shops and a cellar in the pars. of St. Mary Wolnoth and St. Swithin Candelwykstrete. Robert, Simon, William and Henry, by John de Bridde, deny the disseisin. Philip, in person, as tenant of the tenements in view, says that the assize does not lie, because Warin Myngy was seised of the tenements, with others, and in his will (fn. 97) devised them for life to his wife, Margery, with remainder to Robert and John his sons and Margery his daughter in fee tail, on condition that, should any of his children die without issue, the share of the deceased should be apportioned among the survivors. In the event of the failure of issue to all three, the tenements to be sold by Warin's executors, and the proceeds devoted to the maintenance of a chantry. Upon the death of the testator's widow, Robert, John and Margery entered upon the premises under the terms of the devise, Margery being then the wife of Richard Pageman, alias Teste, one of the executors. Robert, John and Margery all died without issue, whereupon Richard enfeoffed with the tenements in view Thomas Herlawe, father of Philip, named in the plaint and after the death of Thomas, Philip entered as his son and heir, and was seised thereof until disseised by the pl. (fn. 98) [m.34] After adjournment the pl. failed to prosecute his suit. Therefore he and his pledges are in mercy and the defs. sine die .

William de Iford asks that Nicholas de Cantilupe, kt., be warned to appear at the next assize to show cause why the judgment in 77 should not be put in execution. Richard de Merston, serjeant, is ordered to instruct him to appear at the Guildhall.

98. Richard Broune, ironmonger, complains that on Thurs. 17 May 1352 Gregory Bonacours and Francis Bonacours, lombards, disseised him of two messuages in the par. of St. Benet Shorhog. Francis Bonacours, by John Dauncere, denies the disseisin. Gregory, in person, as tenant of the tenements in view, says that the assize does not lie, because William Broune, who was formerly seised of the tenements, provided in his will (fn. 99) that Gregory, who was then living in a rent belonging to the testator, should continue to occupy it as long as he wanted, paying therefrom what was due. He says, further, that the pl. is William's executor and as such ought not to be allowed the assize unless he shows his title. The pl. says that he claims to have been disseised of his free tenement and that the def. makes no pretensions to any interest in it and therefore he ought not to be excluded from the assize. As regards his title he says that William Broune in his will directed that, after the death of his wife and in the event of the demise of his children without issue, his tenements should be sold by his executors; in pursuance of which injunction he, the pl., under the name of Richard Petigru, sold them to Walter de Somersham, who afterwards enfeoffed him therewith and he produces the deeds in court. He says, further, that the def. Gregory refused to pay any rent and thus he and the above-named Francis disseised him. (fn. 100) [m.34d. Blank.]

[m.35] Sat. 15 Oct. 1351 .

99. Thomas de Morle, pl., v. John de Triple and William de Ware, fishmonger, essoined by Adam Pye. Idonea, wife of Thomas, pl. in the same suit, essoined by the same Adam. (fn. 101)

100. Thomas de Morlee, pl., v. Thomas de Baldeswell, goldsmith, and Joan his wife and John Coby, jun., essoined by Adam Pye. Idonea wife of Thomas, pl. in the same suit, essoined by the same Adam. (fn. 101)

[m.35d.] Sat. 26 Nov. 1351 .

Adjournments: 99, 100.

101. Assize between Nicholas son of John de Horwode and Joan his wife, pls., and William de Welde, draper, William de Iford, Henry de Ware, William de Grengham and Avice his wife, parishioners of St. Margaret Lothebury, Thomas Leggy, John Pecche, sen., draper, Thomas Morys, Thomas abbot of St. Albans, John de Beseville, tailor, Richard de Wynchecoumbe, armourer, and Agnes his wife, defs., adjourned by consent of the parties. (fn. 102)

102. Assize between John Botiller, draper, pl., and William de Kelm, rector of St. Peter Wodestrete, Geoffrey de Rokyngham, cordwainer, William de Berkyng, goldsmith, and John Sterre, parishioners, defs., adjourned by consent of the parties. (fn. 102)

103. Assize between William de Fulbourne, chaplain, and John Bengeo, respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 103)

104. William de Iford, citizen, and his pledges, in mercy for not prosecuting his plaint against Richard de Wynchecombe and Agnes his wife.

[m.36] Sat. 3 Dec. 1351 .

Adjournments: 99, 100, 101, 102, by consent of the parties.

Respite: 103, for lack of recognitors. [m.36d. Blank.]

[m.37] Sat. 3 Mar. 1352 .

105. Thomas Arnald and Margery his wife and Muriel daughter of Roger de Hegham Ferers complain that on Mon. 11 Jul. 1351 Thomas de Oxenford, goldsmith, John Prat and Hamon le Shereman disseised them of a messuage in the par. of St. Mary Aldermanbury. John and Hamon, by John Dauncere, deny the disseisin. Thomas de Oxenford as tenant of the tenement in view says that the assize does not lie, because Ralph de Hegham, called the beadle of Crepelgate ward within, was seised of the messuage and in his will (fn. 104) devised it to Sarah his wife for life and thereafter to Emma his daughter in fee tail. Emma married Thomas de Oxenford, father of the def., and with him demised the premises to John de Hegham of London, clerk, uncle of the pls., Margery and Muriel, for six years. After the death of Thomas and Emma and the expiration of the lease, the def. entered as son and heir of Emma and was seised of the tenement until disseised by Margery and Muriel, claiming as kinswomen of John de Hegham. Thereafter, since John had no interest in the tenement save for the term of six years, the def. ejected Margery and Muriel, as he was entitled to do. The pls., protesting, say that Thomas and Emma, by their deed dated Sun. 6 Nov. 1345 and enrolled in the Husting of Pleas of Land on Mon. 7 Nov., (fn. 105) granted the tenement in view to John de Hegham in fee simple, and after his death the pls. Margery and Muriel entered as his kinswomen and heiresses, and peacefully enjoyed it until disseised by the defs. And because the def. Thomas answers nothing concerning the alleged enfeoffment, the assize comes by John Sterre and others. The jurors return that Ralph de Hegham devised the tenement, as alleged by the def. Thomas, to Sarah his wife for life, with remainder in fee tail to Emma his daughter, who married Thomas de Oxenford; but that afterwards Thomas and Emma enfeoffed therewith in fee simple John de Hegham, upon whose death Margery and Muriel entered as his kinswomen and heiresses, and thereafter the def. Thomas, claiming as son and heir of Thomas de Oxenford, ejected them. They say that John Prat and Hamon le Shereman were not guilty of any disseisin and that if the ejectment is adjudged a disseisin, the damages amount to 6s. 8d. It is held that in law the ejectment must be held to constitute a disseisin and the court gives judgment accordingly for the pls. with the proviso that they be in mercy for a false plaint as regards John and Hamon. The pls. assign the damages to the clerks of the court. [m.37d. Blank.]

[m.38] Sat. 17 Mar. 1352 .

106. Katherine de Garthorp, pl., appears in a plea of novel disseisin against Thomas de Brakenbergh and Joan his wife and John son of John Poterel. The defs. come by Alan de Horewode. Robert Aunsel and Denise his wife and Robert Poutrel and Emma his wife, pls., do not appear, and at the request of Katherine it is ordered that they be summoned to prosecute the plaint together with her. (fn. 106)

Adjournments: 99, 100, 101, 102, by consent of the parties.

Respite: 103, for lack of recognitors.

[m.38d.] Sat. 28 Apr. 1352 .

It is ordered sicut alias that Robert Aunsel and Denise his wife and Robert Poutrel and Emma his wife be summoned to prosecute their plaint with Katherine de Garthorpe. ( See 106. )

Adjournments: 99, 100, 101, 102, by consent of the parties.

William de Fulbourne, chaplain, pl., appears by William de Hockele, his attorney, to prosecute his plaint against John Bengeo who makes default. It is ordered that the assize be taken in eight days. ( See 103. )

[m.39] Sat. 5 May 1352 .

Adjournments: 99, 100, 101, 102, by consent of the parties.

107. Assize between the master of the hospital of St. Giles without the Bar of the Old Temple, pl., and John son of William Bonere and Geoffrey Boner adjourned by consent of the parties. (fn. 107)

103. [As on m.38d.]

Amercement: 106, pls. and their pledges for not prosecuting their plaint. [m.39d. Blank.]

[m.40] Sat. 16 Jun. 1352 .

Attorney: 110, William de Gylyngham for the pls.

108. Robert atte Brome, clerk, complains that on Mon. 14 May 1352 Walter Burgate of Wodeford and Maud his wife disseised him of a messuage in the par. of St. Botolph without Algate. The defs., by John de Briklesworth, deny the disseisin. The assize comes by John de Norton and others. Verdict for the pl. Damages 20s. Defs. in mercy.

109. Simon de Mordon, stockfishmonger, complains that on Wed. 23 May 1352 Richard de Kent, freshfishmonger, disseised him of 7s. rent in the par. of St. Magnus the Martyr. The def., by Nicholas de Horewode, denies the disseisin. Assize respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 108)

110. Adam de Rothele rector of St. Mary atte Hulle, John de Causton and John de Wyrhale, parishioners, complain that on Wed. 7 Mar. 1352 Thomas de Snodilond, clerk, disseised them of 2s. 6d. rent in the par. of St. Mary aforesaid. The def., by John Dauncere, asks that the pls. show in what manner the alleged disseisin was done. The pls., by William de Gylyngham their attorney, (fn. 109) say that when they attempted to distrain for the rent the def. obstructed them. The def. denies the allegation. Assize respited for lack of recognitors. (fn. 108)

[m.40d.] Adjournments: 99, 100, 101, 102, 107, by consent of the parties.

103. [As on m.38d.]

[m.41] Sat. 21 Jul. 1352 .

Adjournments: 99, 100, 101, 102, 107, by consent of the parties.

111. Assize between brother John de Arderne, prior of the Austin Friars in London, pl., and Thomas de Bakwell, def., adjourned by consent of the parties. (fn. 110)

Respites: 109, 110, for lack of recognitors.

103. [As on m.38d.]

112. Robert de Assh complains that on Mon. 5 Dec. 1351 Adam le Taillour and Denise his wife disseised him of three messuages and a garden in the par. of St. Andrew Holbourne. Adam makes default, but Denise appears in person and is admitted to plead. She says that the def. is seised at present of one of the messuages and the garden and that Robert de Wyght and Ellen his wife were formerly seised of the remaining two messuages. Ellen survived her husband and during her widowhood enfeoffed with the two messuages John de Holbourne, the former husband of the def., in fee simple. In his will (fn. 111) he devised them to Denise, the def., for life; and upon his death she duly entered and was seised thereof until ejected by the pl. Afterwards she, in her turn, ejected him as she was entitled to do. The pl. says that Ellen de Wyght did not enfeoff John de Holbourne with the two messuages, as alleged by the def., but enfeoffed him, the pl., with the three messuages and garden mentioned in the plaint, and he enfeoffed therewith William de Pakynton and William his son, who enfeoffed Thomas de Thorp, clerk, who re-enfeoffed him the pl., who remained in peaceful possession until disseised by the defs. The assize comes by John de Wygayn and others who say that Adam and Denise disseised the pl. of two messuages, to his damage 40s., but that the pl. is still seised of the third messuage and garden. Therefore the defs. are in mercy for their disseisin and the pl. for his false plaint as regards the third messuage and garden. Afterwards, on Sat. 28 Jul. the pl. complained that he had not yet obtained seisin of the two messuages in accordance with the judgment of the court. The defs., in person, said that the pl. ought not to have seisin of the tenements in question, because after judgment had been given in his favour, he released and quitclaimed them to the defs., under the name of Adam le Eyr and Denise his wife; and they produce in court the deed dated Mon. 23 Jul. 1352 and enrolled in the Husting of Pleas of Land. (fn. 112) [m.41d.] The pl. is unable to deny that the deed is his and it is therefore adjudged that execution of judgment against Adam and Denise cease entirely.

[m.42] Sat. 28 Jul. 1352 .

Adjournments: 99, 100, 101, 102, 107, 111, by consent of the parties.

113. Assize between Maud relict of John Baudry, pl., and Richard Turk, sen., Richard Turk, jun., Andrew Turk, Lambert Iperlyng and Agnes his wife, defs., adjourned by consent of the parties.

Respites: 109, 110, for lack of recognitors.

103. [As on m.38d.] [m.42d. Blank.]

[m.43] 1355. Court for foreigners held before Richard Smelt, sheriff .

114. Geoffrey de Botelston, skinner, and John de Dalton are attached to answer Joan atte Lye in a plea of trespass. Pledges to prosecute: John de Horwode, jun., and William Pippe. Thomas de Guldeford, serjeant of the court, is ordered to take surety and pledges of Geoffrey and John to appear to answer at the next court for foreigners.

On Wed. 29 Jul. 1355 Joan, pl., appears in person. John does not come, and the serjeant returns that he has nothing in London whereby he can be attached. He is ordered to take him and produce him at the next court. Of Geoffrey the serjeant returns that he has been attached by William de Okham and William Musard and he now comes. The pl. says that on Mon. 9 Jun. 1354 Geoffrey, together with John, assaulted her in Westchepe in the Goldsmithery with force and arms, viz. with swords, bows and arrows, beating, wounding and otherwise maltreating her, and carrying off a box with divers muniments and a letter sealed with the bishop of Winchester's seal and committing other enormities, viz. tearing her clothes; to her damage £10. Geoffrey, in person, pleads not guilty, and thereof he wages his law as a citizen of London. Asked at the suit of the pl. how he is free, he says by redemption, whereupon the pl. asks that he have his record, and a day is given him accordingly. On Wed. 12 Aug. 1355 Geoffrey essoins himself by John de Ware until the next court. John de Dalton does not come, and the serjeant returns that he cannot be found. Therefore he is ordered, as before, to take him, etc. On Fri. 28 Aug. 1355, [as on Wed. 12 Aug. 1355]. On Fri. 4 Sep. 1355 the pl. comes in person, but Geoffrey, previously essoined by reason of the king's service, does not appear, nor does he produce the record of his freedom. Therefore let him be convicted of the trespass alleged. And because John still does not come, it is again ordered that he be taken, etc. On Fri. 11 Sep. 1355 the pl. appears in person, and Geoffrey, having been taken, also comes. Asked whether she wishes to prosecute her suit against John, the pl. says no. The court is adjourned in order that it may seek further information concerning the damages for which, according to the custom of the City, Geoffrey is liable. William de Okham, cordwainer, and William Sherman, cook, are mainpernors for Geoffrey. [m.43d.] On Fri. 18 Sep. 1355 the pl. and def. appear in person, and the damages are assessed at 66s. 8d. Geoffrey is committed to prison until he shall have satisfied the pl. for the 5 marks in question. (fn. 113)

[m.44 Sat. 4 Jul. 1355. Richard Smelt and William de Tudenham, sheriffs, Henry de Sutton, coroner ].

115. In a congregation of the mayor and aldermen on Wed. 1 Jul. 1355 the prior of St. Bartholomew Smythefeld, London, brings a plaint of intrusion (fn. 114) against John de Harpesfeld, spicer, and Christine his wife, Thomas Vyvion, Richard de Depham, John Pope, tailor, Robert de Somersete, tailor, and Thomas atte Bowe, cordwainer, concerning a tenement in the par. of All Hallows Honylane. Thomas de Guldeford, serjeant of the court, is ordered to summon twelve good and lawful men of the neighbourhood to appear before the sheriffs and coroner on Sat. next following, and to view the tenement in the meantime.

Accordingly, on Sat. 4 Jul. the parties come. Thomas Vyvion, John and Robert, by Thomas de Rustyngton, say that Richard de Depham, named in the plaint, was already dead at the time of the suing-out of the bill, wherefore they crave judgment. They say further that the pl. is incorrectly described and should be described as the prior of St. Bartholomew Westsmythefeld, in the suburbs of London, because Estsmethefeld is also in the suburbs. Alternatively they deny the disseisin. Richard de Depham and Thomas atte Bowe make default. John de Harpesfeld, in person, and Christine, by Thomas de Rustyngton, her attorney, say that brother Edmund de Braughyng, late prior, and the convent of St. Bartholomew, by an indenture dated Wed. 14 Sep. 1351 which they produce in court, demised the tenement for ten years to Christine, after the death of her former husband, John de Hurlee, citizen and apothecary, at a rent of 10 marks. The pl. asks that the deed be read, and afterwards says that in the half of the indenture which he holds, sealed with Christine's seal, it states that whenever the lessors shall find anyone willing to rebuild the premises for their own accommodation, the lessee shall vacate them after reasonable notice given; and John de Suthcote covenanted with the late prior Edmund to rebuild them as a dwelling for himself, paying therefrom a yearly rent of 20 marks. Accordingly on Mon. 8 Dec. 1354 the late prior, in the presence of Adam Brabasoun, John Blaunche, John Osekyn and others of the neighbourhood, gave warning to John de Harpesfeld and Christine to vacate the premises at midsummer but, when on Thurs. 25 Jun. the same prior with John de Suthcote went to the tenement with ladders and other implements to remove the old structure and begin the building of the new, the defs. obstructed them with force and arms, and thus disseised the pl. The defs. say that they have no cognisance of the covenant alleged to have been made between the prior and John de Suthcote, unless it was made fraudulently to deprive them of their term. After respite for lack of recognitors the parties appeared and the assize came by John de Bovyndon, Walter de Tiffeld, John de Buksted, carpenter, Simon de Shordych, William de Ippegrave, Robert de Chaumpaigne, Thomas de [ ]brigg, Thomas de Ippegrave, Philip Draper, cook, Richard Brunne, John de Flaundres and Geoffrey atte Gate, hatter. The jurors say that Richard de Depham was alive at the time of the suing-out of the bill and still is; that the pl. is properly described as prior of St. Bartholomew Smethefeld, London; and that John de Suthcote covenanted with the late prior, as alleged, without fraud, to build a dwelling house on the premises in view, and live there; that the defs. were duly warned to vacate the tenement, but that they disseised the pl. by force and arms in the manner described above. Judgment for pl. Damages £50. It is ordered that the defs. be taken. (fn. 115) [m.44d. Blank.]

[m.45] Sat. 14 Feb. 1355 .

116. By a plaint of intrusion in the Husting of Pleas of Land, on Mon. 12 May 1354. John Bole and Herlewyn de Honyngton, summoners.

Thomas de Passele and Katherine his wife complain that on Wed. 30 Apr. 1354 John Burstall and Eleanor his wife and Joan sister of Eleanor disseised them of a messuage and eight shops in the pars. of St. Edmund beside Grascherche and St. Nicholas Hacon. John does not come, but Eleanor his wife and Joan her sister appear in person and Eleanor is admitted to plead as tenant of the tenements in view. She says that she is not obliged to answer the pl., because he was outlawed by John de Molyns and other the king's justices of oyer and terminer in Sussex. Joan says that the assize does not lie, because in the Husting on Mon. 2 Dec. 1353 she, with John and Eleanor, instituted proceedings against the pls. Thomas and Katherine by writ of ex gravi querela (fn. 116) for the recovery of a messuage, the tenement now in view, in execution of the will of Philip le Taillour, late citizen, her great-grandfather, and duly recovered seisin thereof. The pls. ask judgment because Eleanor does not show the court any record of the outlawry alleged, nor for what trespass or felony, nor on what day it was pronounced. As regards the allegations of Joan, they say that the tenement recovered in the Husting is not the same as, or parcel of, the tenements in view. The assize comes by Robert de Stratford, John de Neuport, John de Tame, William de Northtoft, John B[ ], Thomas Levelyf, Adam de Carlel, draper, Adam de Colkyrk, John de Beverle, Henry Foot, Thomas Spray and William Gerard. The jurors say that the tenements in view are not the same as, or parcel of, the tenement recovered against the pl. in the Husting, but the defs. disseised Thomas and Katherine by force and arms. Damages 200 marks. It is ordered that the defs. be taken. (fn. 117) [m.45d. Blank.]

[m.46] Sat. 21 Nov. 1355. Walter Forester and Thomas de Brandon, sheriffs, Henry de Sutton, coroner .

117. By a plaint of intrusion in the Husting of Common Pleas on Mon. 16 Nov. 1355. John Osekyn and John [ ], summoners.

William bishop of Winchester complains that on Mon. 4 May William prior of the new hospital of St. Mary without Bysshopesgate, Nicholas de Loveyne, kt., and Margaret his wife, Thomas de Swanlond and Elizabeth his wife, Cecily relict of Bartholomew Deumars, John de Weston and Idonea his wife, Thomas Peytevyn and Sarah his wife disseised him of £6 6s. 4d. rent in the pars. of All Hallows the Great and All Hallows the Less. The prior, by John Neuport, answers as tenant of a parcel of the tenements from which the rent is due. Nicholas and Margaret, by John Dauncere, answer as tenants of another parcel of the same tenement and deny the disseisin. Thomas and Elizabeth, by Alan de Gillyngham, likewise deny the disseisin, as also do Thomas and Sarah, by William de Hockele. John de Weston, in person, and Idonea his wife, by William de Hockele, similarly deny the disseisin, and so does Cecily, in person. The assize comes by John de Horsford, Tideman Confot (?), Thomas atte Wych, Walter Page, Henry Foot, William de Asshe, Richard de Carleton, Solomon Faunt, John de Tame, Robert de Stratford and Thomas de Saham. Verdict for the pl. The jurors say that the bishop and his predecessors have been seised of the rent in view time out of mind. Of the defs. named the prior holds of the bishop a messuage and divers tenements in Grenewychlane in the par. of All Hallows the Great for an annual rent of 20s.; Nicholas de Lovayne and Margaret his wife hold a messuage called Coldeherberwe, together with all the tenements on either side of the same lane sometime belonging to Robert de Hereford, paying therefor 26s. 8d. yearly; Thomas de Swanlond and Elizabeth his wife hold a messuage with other tenements in the par. of All Hallows the Less for a yearly rent of 26s. 8d.; Thomas Peytevyn and Sarah his wife hold a messuage with adjoining shops sometime belonging to Nicholas de Farendon in the same par. for a rent of 10s.; and Cecily two messuages sometime belonging to John de Armynters; John and Idonea hold one of the two messuages held by Cecily, for which she pays 40s. yearly. They assess the damages of the pl. at £33 11s. 8d. Defs. in mercy. (fn. 118) [m.46d. Blank.]

[m.50] (fn. 119) Sat. 12 Jan. 1353. John Stodeye and John Pecche, sheriffs, Henry de Suttone, coroner .

118. By a plaint of intrusion in a congregation of the mayor and aldermen on Mon. 7 Jan. 1353.

The serjeant of the court reports that he caused a jury of twelve good and lawful men of the neighbourhood to view the tenement in question and that the defs. have been duly summoned by Thomas de Staundon and William de Okham.

Alice relict of John de Colewell complains that on Sun. 23 Dec. 1352 Robert de Tame, Walter de Pavely, kt., Edmund Temese, John son of Thomas de Betoigne and John son of John de Betoigne disseised her of a messuage in the par. of St. Pancras Sopereslane. The defs., by John de Asshewell, say that the tenement in view, of which the above-named Walter and Edmund were tenants, is now in the king's hand and produce letters close (fn. 120) addressed to the mayor and sheriffs enjoining them to proceed no further until the king is more fully informed on the matter. Therefore the defs. are sine die , and the pl. is advised to make suit to the king. Later, by further letters close, (fn. 121) the mayor and sheriffs are ordered to proceed to do justice between the parties, notwithstanding that the king is seised of the premises. Thereupon, at the suit of the pl., it is ordered that the defs. be re-attached, and the proceedings resumed. Accordingly, on Sat. 23 Feb. 1353 the pl. comes in person. Walter, by John de Asshewell his attorney, Robert, John and John, by the same John, and Edmund, in person, ask judgment concerning the plaint, on the ground that both in the writ de supersedendo and in the writ de procedendo the king is said to be seised of the tenement of which the pl. alleges that she has been disseised; for which reason, they argue, her plaint falls wholly to the ground, and even though the king, on her petition, remove his hand from the tenement, her suit cannot be upheld without a new plaint or the king's writ. The court adjudges the original plaint to be sufficient, whereupon John de Asshewell on behalf of Robert, John and John, denies the disseisin. Walter and Edmund, as tenants of the tenement in view, say that the assize does not lie, because Richard de Betoigne, who was formerly seised of the premises, devised them in his will proved and enrolled in the Husting (fn. 122) under the description of a tavern with a chamber, shops and solars, to Joan his daughter for life, with remainder to Thomas his son in special tail male, or in failure of male issue to him, to the issue of Thomas and John, brothers of the testator. Thomas, the testator's brother, had at that time two sons, John and Richard, and John, the other brother, had a son likewise called John. After the death of the testator Joan was duly seised of the tenement in view and she demised it to John de Colwell, the former husband of the pl., to hold for life; the which John (Thomas, son of the testator, having meanwhile died without male issue) alienated it in fee, in disinheritance of John, Richard and John, the testator's nephews, to Thomas Horn and Thomas Coterel, who immediately afterwards re-granted it to John de Colwell and Alice his wife. Subsequently John, Richard and John (Richard being then still a minor) entered upon the premises and ejected the pl., enfeoffing the defs., Walter and Edmund, with their estate in them. The pl., protesting, denies categorically the allegations of the defs. and says no such will exists as is alleged by them to have been made and enrolled. [m.50d.] Thereupon the defs. vouch the record of the will of Richard de Betoigne to warranty. On the day appointed the parties appear, and the defs. proffer the will which is read at the suit of the pl., who having heard it, says that whereas Walter and Edmund allege that the testator devised the premises to Joan his daughter for life, with remainder to Thomas his son in special tail male, it is manifest from the terms of the will that after the death of Joan they were to remain to Thomas and Isabel his wife and their male issue. She therefore asks that, in accordance with the Statute (fn. 123) thereupon provided, Walter and Edmund shall be held to be the disseisors, and that the jury proceed to the assessment of her damages. The defs. say that their reply agrees sufficiently in substance and effect with the record, and that it would have been necessary for them to name Isabel only if the pl. had alleged her to be still alive, or had claimed to enjoy her estate. They say further that the right and fee simple of the premises is clearly proved to have resided in John, Richard and John at the time of their entry upon the same, and therefore they ask judgment. They are adjudged by the court, however, to have failed of their record. Thereafter, letters having been read from the bishop of London authorizing the assize to proceed during Lent, the jury comes by Richard [Broune, William] de St. Albans, John Beste, John de Haukeshale, Richard Spicer, Michael de Hakeneye, William Coterel, [William de Hanhamp]stede, Thomas de Cauntebrigge, Walter Bowyere, John atte Castel and Ralph Swon. The jurors return that the pl. was disseised by Walter, Edmund and the other defs. named, to her damage 200 marks, and they award her another 200 marks against Walter and Edmund in accordance with the Statute aforesaid. And because the disseisin was done by force and arms it is ordered that the defs. be taken etc. (fn. 124)

[m.47–48] (fn. 125) Reply of John de Stodeye and John Pecchee, late sheriffs, to the order of the court of Husting to them to return into the court the full record of 118, making no omissions. They say that a full and complete return has already been made, not omitting any of the pleadings of either of the parties, and they deny that any such arguments were then advanced as are set forth by the pl. in a schedule delivered to the addressees.

[m.49] Schedule submitted by the pl. to the court of Husting during proceedings on writ of error, setting forth (as the allegation of the pl. in 118 ) that, whereas the defs. alleged that Richard de Betoygne devised the messuage in view to Joan his daughter for life, with remainder to Thomas his son in special tail male, it appears from the will, of which the defs. vouched the record to warranty, that he devised the premises to Joan for life, with remainder to his right heirs; and the rest of his rents and tenements he devised to Margaret his wife for life, or for the term of her widowhood, the same to remain to Thomas his son and his wife Isabel, in special tail male, or, in failure of male issue to them, to the male children of John and Thomas, brothers of the testator, in fee simple, as strangers and not as the heirs of the testator. [m.49d. Blank.]

[m.51] (fn. 126) Statement of errors alleged by the defs. to have been made in 118, as presented by Edmund Ippegrave, their attorney, in the court of Husting. First they say that the court erred in that no explanation having been given in the writ de supersedendo of the seizure of the tenement into the king's hand, for which reason it had to be presumed to be the king's free tenement, the plaint fell to the ground; and in that the court, notwithstanding, proceeded with the case on a second royal writ sued out by false suggestion, and likewise omitting any mention of the cause of the seizure. Secondly, they say that it erred in its judgment that the defs. failed of their record, and that the pl. was entitled to recover her seisin, since the pl. did not allege that Thomas, son of Richard, or Isabel his wife, or any issue of theirs, was alive at the time of her ejection by Richard's nephews, for which reason they argue that their entry was good and avowable (advocabilis). Thirdly, they accuse the court of error in that it adjudged Walter and Edmund to be the disseisors because they failed of their record, and without the recognition of the assize as prescribed by the custom of the City. Fourthly, they say that in assessing the pl.'s damages the court acted contrary to both custom and statute, since the Statute to which the pl. appealed does not extend to pleas of assize held before others than the king's justices, or initiated by plaint and not by royal writ. Finally, they say that the court erred in giving judgment against all the defs. named, whereas Robert, John and John claimed no interest in the tenement in view. On all the above grounds they ask that the record of the plea be reversed and annulled. (fn. 127) [m.51d. Blank.]

[m.52] Sat. 9 Dec. 1357. Bartholomew de Frestlyng and Stephen Cavendissh, sheriffs, Henry de Sutton, coroner .

119. By a plaint of intrusion in the Husting of Pleas of Land on Mon. 4 Dec. 1357. Robert de Kayton, sheriffs's serjeant, is ordered to summon the defs. to appear on Sat. next following and also to summon twelve good and lawful men of the par. On the appointed day the serjeant answers that the defs. have been summoned by William de Kelshull and James Palmere and he names the recognitors [see below].

Simon atte Gate, butcher, complains that on Fri. 24 Nov. 1357 Mariota atte More, Robert atte Grene, butcher, Robert de Huntyngdon, butcher, John de Asshedon, clerk, William de Southam, clerk, William Mareschal, butcher, and William Sowdan, butcher, disseised him of a shop in the par. of St. Nicholas Shambles. Mariota, in person, and the other defs., by John de Asshewell, deny the disseisin. Mariota, as tenant of the tenement in view, says that the assize does not lie, because on 9 Nov. 1356 she brought an action in the Husting by writ of right against Simon for the recovery of a shop, of which the tenement in view is parcel; and, her action succeeding, she was duly put in seisin of the premises by the sheriffs. Simon says that the shop in view is not the same as, or parcel of, that recovered against him by the def. After adjournment the parties appear, and the jury comes by Adam de Langele, John atte Stone, William Ryf, John atte Felde, Robert de Manyfeld, Henry Dymenel, John de Depham, Stephen atte Pye, John Peyntour, Lapyn de Kyngham, Thomas de Sutton and John Sunday. The jurors say that the shop in view is not parcel of the shop recovered by Mariota against the pl., but that she disseised the pl. of his free tenement to his damage £10. None of the other defs. named was implicated and therefore the pl. is in mercy for a false plaint against them. Because the disseisin was done by force and arms it is ordered that Mariota be taken. (fn. 128) [m.52d. Blank.]

Sat. 14 Aug. 1367. John Ward and Thomas atte Leye, sheriffs, Henry de Sutton, coroner .

120. [m.53] (fn. 129) In a congregation of the mayor and aldermen on Mon. 9 Aug. 1367 Thomas son of Thomas de Farndon, late citizen, brings a plaint of intrusion against Richard de Weston, goldsmith, and Rose his wife, William Courtray, broderer, and Margaret his wife, Richard de Totyng, brewer, William Pyebakere, John Wytoft, saddler, and Thomas Sewele concerning a tenement in the pars. of St. Peter Westchepe, St. Michael Wodestret and St. Botolph without Bisshopesgate. (fn. 130) Note that the assize concerned two messuages, eighteen shops and a garden containing two acres. [m.53d.] William Waldern, draper, and Eudo Purchase, draper, summoners.

[m.55] (fn. 131) The pl. complains that on Fri. 6 Aug. the defs. disseised him of the premises in view. Richard de Weston makes default and the other defs. appear by Robert Creswyk. William and Margaret and Richard de Toting say that the pl. was never seised of the tenements in view, or alternatively they deny the disseisin. William, John and Thomas likewise deny the disseisin. Rose wife of Richard de Weston, in person, says that she and her husband are tenants of the tenement in view in her right. She is admitted to plead and says that the assize does not lie, because in 38 Edward III [1364–5] the pl. instituted proceedings in the Husting against her and her husband by writ of right patent for the recovery of the tenements in view, and they are not bound to answer to a lesser writ. The pl. says that when the above writ was pending he was under age. Afterwards, Rose having been called did not come, and was adjudged to be in default. Thereupon the assize comes and the jurors return that Richard and Rose are the tenants of all the tenements in view, and were, at the time of the suing-out of the assize. The pl., by reason of the right and title which he had to the tenements, took possession of them and remained seised thereof until disseised by the defs. to his damage 100s. They say, further, that William de Farndon, late citizen, was seised of the tenements, with others, and in his will (fn. 132) devised them for life to his widow Isabel, with remainder to Nicholas his son-in-law and Isabel his daughter, wife of Nicholas, and Isabel's issue. On the testator's death his widow was duly seised of the premises, which passed at her decease to Nicholas and Isabel, from whom they descended to Rose their daughter, who afterwards married Robert Convers and had issue Nicholas and Katherine. Nicholas had issue Robert, and Katherine had issue Rose, afterwards the wife of Richard de Weston, the def. After the death of Robert Convers his widow married David de Cotisbrok by whom she had issue Thomas de Farndon, of whom the present pl. is the son. After the death of David and Rose daughter of Isabel, Rose's son Nicholas was seised of the tenements under the terms of William's will, and he was succeeded by his son Robert who died without issue. Thereupon Rose wife of Richard de Weston, after the death of Katherine her mother, supposing Thomas son of David to be a bastard, entered upon the premises as kinswoman and heiress of Robert son of Nicholas; but Thomas son of the above-named Thomas knowing his father to have been born in wedlock, entered as kinsman and heir of the same Robert, according to the form of the bequest and remained in possession until disseised by the defs. It is therefore adjudged that the pl. recover his seisin. Defs. in mercy. [m.55d. Blank.]

[m.54] Panel of the pars. of St. Peter Westchep, St. Michael Wodestret and St. Botolph without Bisshopesgate in 120. John Coraunt, Robert Payn, William Kyng, Robert Launde, John Bukstede, Richard Lambe, Thomas Reynham, John Fifhyde, John Worstede, John Dovy, Adam Carlill, draper, Henry Sudbury, John Drayton, Gilbert Prynce, William Plomer, (fn. 140) John Wardon, (fn. 140) Thomas atte Hale, (fn. 140) John Payn, (fn. 140) Thomas atte Crouche, (fn. 140) Adam Fermer, (fn. 140) John Kirkeby, draper, (fn. 140) Andrew Cornwaill, John Itelcote, Walter Rede, (fn. 140) Richard Gillyng, (fn. 140) Henry Bretford, William Bisshop, (fn. 140) Thomas Mildenhale, Gilbert atte Stone, (fn. 140) John Aylmer, (fn. 140) Thomas de Kent, Adam Gille, Thomas Kyngeston. The jury returns a verdict for the pl. Damages 100s., of which 20s. are given to the clerks and half a mark to the serjeants. [m.54d. Blank.]

m.56] Sat. 17 Oct. 1366 .

121. Robert Wodhull, fishmonger, and Agnes his wife complain that on Sat. 10 Oct. John Pope, waxchandler, and Joan his wife and Robert Beauchamp, plumber, disseised them of a messuage, shop, cellar and solar in the par. of St. Clement by Candelwikestrete. The defs., by William de Gillyngham, deny the disseisin. After adjournment Robert Beauchamp comes in person and Joan is admitted to plead instead of her husband who does not appear. She says that they are joint tenants of the tenements in view but that the assize does not lie because John Benstede who was formerly seised of the premises devised them to Thomas and John his sons in fee tail. Of the two brothers, John still survives and Agnes is the daughter of the other. The pls. say that they have no cognisance of the alleged devise, and that, according to the custom of the City, no will devising lands is valid unless proved and enrolled in the Guildhall. They say, further, that the above-named Thomas was the elder son and after the death of John his father he entered upon the tenements in view as the right heir and was succeeded by Agnes his daughter and Robert her husband, while Agnes was still a minor. The def. Joan does not admit cognisance of the custom alleged by the pls., and since they do not deny the devise, nor that Thomas was survived by John, who is still living, and whose estate the def. and her husband hold, she asks judgment. The pls. likewise ask judgment on the ground that the def. does not deny the custom nor the matters alleged by them. After further adjournment the parties come and it is adjudged that the pls. recover seisin. Damages remitted. Defs. in mercy.

Sat. 24 Oct. 1366 .

122. Ralph de Wynchestre complains that on Wed. 23 Sep. 1366 Beatrice, wife of John Bryd, late citizen, John Dryffeld, tailor, and Roger Brunne and Lucy his wife disseised him of a messuage, shops and a garden in the par. of St. Botolph without Bisshopesgate. Roger and Lucy, by William de Gillyngham, and Beatrice and John, in person, deny the disseisin. The assize comes and returns a verdict for the pl. against Beatrice and Lucy, but the jurors say that John and Roger were not implicated. The pl. remits the damages. Because the disseisin was done by force and arms it is ordered that Beatrice and Lucy be taken; but that the pl. be in mercy for a false plaint as regards John and Roger. (fn. 133)

[m.56d.] Sat. 14 Nov. 1366 .

123. John Fitz Simond of Essex complains that on Thurs. 6 Aug. 1366 Thomas Perle, woolman, and Isabel his wife, Michael Skynnere, Nicholas Audenere, William Assheford, Thomas Snetesham and Thomas Appelby, clerk, disseised him of seven messuages and ten shops in the pars. of St. Margaret Patyns, St. Mary Fanchurch and St. Dunstan Tourstrete. The defs. appear by William de Hockele, and all save Thomas and Isabel say that no tenant of the tenement in view is named in the bill and they ask judgment concerning the bill. Alternatively they deny the disseisin. A similar plea is advanced on behalf of Thomas and Isabel, but alternatively they say that Reginald Conduit was seised of the tenement in view which, at the suit of John Malewayn, was extended by writ returnable into the Exchequer and delivered to John to hold until he should have levied therefrom £100 in which Reginald was indebted to him. John Malewayn afterwards granted his estate in the premises to Reginald Perle, brother of Thomas Perle, who occupies the tenement as Reginald's bailiff; and because the debt has not yet been levied they are not guilty of any disseisin. After adjournments the jury comes by Roger atte Basket, John de Somersham, Richard Dicoun, Lawrence Silkeston, Richard Dyk, John Lyly, Thomas Moraunt, Geoffrey Wokkyng, Richard atte Seler, Thomas Croucheman, Robert Rydere and Robert Lyndewyk. The jurors say that Thomas Perle is tenant of the tenement in view, and was at the date of the suing-out of the bill, and that he disseised the pl. Damages £268. Thomas Perle in mercy. The other defs. were not implicated and the pl. is therefore in mercy for a false plaint as regards them. (fn. 134)

Sat. 27 Mar. 1367 .

124. John Cory, rector of All Hallows Stanyngcherche, Roger atte Basket, John Broke, John Oxewyk and Robert [ ], parishioners and churchwardens, complain that on Sat. 7 Mar. Simon Setele and Felicia his wife disseised them of a messuage in the par. of All Hallows aforesaid. The defs. in person, answer as tenants of the tenement in view in Felicia's right and say that the assize does not lie, because long before the pls. had any interest in the premises Gilbert son of John de Storteford, citizen, was seised of them, and in his will (fn. 135) devised them together with other tenements in the City to Laurencia his mother for life, with remainder to his sisters Cecily and Margaret. (fn. 136)

[m.57 Entries as on m.11; m.58 contains 57 and 59 as on m.20; m.58d. contains 50 as on m.19 but incomplete.]

[m.59] Sat. 31 Jul. 1344. John Syward and John de Aylesham, sheriffs, John de Foxton, coroner .

125. By a plaint of intrusion in the Husting of Common Pleas on Mon. 26 Jul. 1344. Thomas de Ware attorney for the pl.

Joan de Fulham, prioress of St. Mary Clerkenewelle, complains that on Thurs. 1 Apr. 1344 William le Pynnere and Margery his wife, Simon son of the same William, Henry de Pyrle, master of the hospital of St. James, Nicholas de Spaldyngge, clerk, Robert le Mareschal, goldsmith, Simon le Heaumer and John de Messyngham, barber, disseised her of a messuage in the par. of St. Sepulchre. William le Pynnere, by Henry de Sutton his attorney, Margery his wife and Henry de Pyrle, in person, and the rest of the defs., by Henry de Sutton, deny the disseisin. William and Margery, as tenants of the tenements in view, say that Robert de Holden, sometime master of the hospital of St. James, demised the premises to them jointly for twenty years, binding himself and his successors to warrant the tenement to the lessees against all men during the term aforesaid; and they produce in court an indenture dated in the chapter of the hospital on Thurs. 19 Mar. 1327. They say, further, that the reversion of the messuage belongs to Henry de Pyrle, the present master of the hospital, whom they vouch to warranty. Henry, present in court, thereupon freely warrants to them the messuage aforesaid. He says that the assize does not lie, because a predecessor of his in 18 Edward I, raised a plaint de namo against a former prioress of Clerkenewelle in the Husting of Common Pleas on Mon. 6 Feb. 1290 before Ralph de Sandwich, warden of the City, and Solomon le Cutiller and Fulk de St. Edmunds, sheriffs; (fn. 137) and the parties agreed in court as follows: viz. the then prioress granted for herself and her successors that the messuage in question should remain to the then master and his successors in consideration of the payment by them of an annual quit-rent of 5s. The prioress says that afterwards the premises were in the possession of Henry de Enefeld, goldbeater (orbatour), who in his will (fn. 138) devised them to Denise his sister, a nun of Clerkenewelle, with remainder in perpetual alms to the convent; and that from the time of the bequest the prioresses of St. Mary Clerkenewelle have been seised of the same until dispossessed by the defs. Henry de Pyrle says that Henry de Enefeld was not seised of the premises at the time of the bequest, and so the devise is invalid. After adjournment for lack of recognitors the parties come, and the jury comes by John de Neuport, James le Clerk, Lawrence de Chipstede, John Tany, John de Whitefeld, Walter de Mushacche, William Slynge, Gilbert le Tylere, John de Samewelle, Andrew le Hornere, Richard le Heymongere and John atte Belle. The jurors say that Henry de Enefeld was seised of the tenement in question at the time of the devise, and that, in virtue thereof, Denise his sister was seised of the premises during her lifetime, and after her death the prioresses were so seised until Joan de Fulham, the pl., was disseised by William le Pynnere and Margery his wife, Simon, William's son, and Nicholas de Spaldyngge, clerk. Damages 60s. They say that none of the other defs. was implicated in the disseisin which was done by force and arms. It is therefore adjudged that William and Margery recover against Henry de Pyrle and his successors, masters of the hospital, the value of the messuage in view; and that the disseisors be taken, and that the pl. be in mercy for a false plaint as regards the other defs. (fn. 139) [m.59d. Blank.]

Footnotes

1 Most of the membranes in this roll bear an earlier numeration as follows: mm.6–20 formerly 5–19; mm.23–32 formerly 22–31; mm.35–36 formerly 34–35; mm.38–45 formerly 37–44; m.52 formerly 48; mm.57–58 formerly 51–52.
2 For original text see Appendix II.
3 A middleman in the cloth trade.
4 For original text see Appendix II.
5 11 & 13 Ed. I, Statutes , I, 53, 98.
6 Lower part of membrane defaced.
7 Cal. P. & M. rolls, 1323–64 , 141.
8 Cal. C.R., Ed. III , VI, 253.
9 For further respite, see m.7d.
10 Proved 9 Mar. 1304, Cal. Wills , I, 162.
11 The rest of the pleading is illegible.
12 Thomas de Litlington, master, 1338–3 Nov. 1341; Thomas Willy was his successor, see N. Moore, History of St. Bartholomew's Hospital , I (1918), 570–3.
13 Proved 17 Oct. 1328, Cal. Wills , I, 338.
14 Lower part of membrane much defaced.
15 H.R. 39 (83, or 97).
16 Proved 27 May 1342, Cal. Wills , I, 455–6.
17 For letters patent concerning the appointment of attorneys, see m.5.
18 Proved 10 Mar. 1320, Cal. Wills , I, 286.
19 The remainder of the pleading is illegible.
20 For further respite, see m.5.
21 Not traced but see Cal. P. R., Ed. III, 1343–5 , 25.
22 The remainder of the pleading is illegible.
23 For former respite, see m.5. For the full text of this assize, see Cartulary of St. Mary Clerkenwell , ed. W. O. Hassall (R.H.S., Camden 3rd series, LXXI, 1949), 257–8. The pls. did not prosecute their plaint and were amerced.
24 Verdict illegible.
25 Cal. P. & M. rolls, 1323–64 , 162.
26 H.R. 60 (121).
27 Lower part of membrane defaced.
28 Sat. [after?] the feast of St. Matthias.
29 Entry incomplete.
30 For further respites and amercement of pl., see mm.7d.,9d.,10.
31 Proved 4 Dec. 1329, Cal. Wills , I, 353.
32 For date of amercement see below.
33 A writ was issued on 28 Sep. 1345, see Cal. C.R., Ed. III , VII, 654–5.
34 For amercement of pl., see mm.9d.,10.
35 For details of the pleading up to this point see 28.
36 For further respites, see mm.11d., 12.
37 For further lovedays, see mm. 11d., 12.
38 In French.
39 For further respites, see mm. 13, 13d.
40 For essoins, see above (p. 12).
41 Entries begun at the foot of the membrane.
42 Proved 15 Oct. 1285, Cal. Wills . I, 73.
43 For appointment of attorney, see m.13d.
44 For respite, see m.19; for amercement of pl., see m.23.
45 For amercement of pl., see m.13d.
46 Described here as 'polter' but elsewhere on the roll as 'pelter'.
47 For respites, see mm.19,19d.,20d.,22.
48 Possibly Joan de Fulham, see 125.
49 Liber albus , I, 472.
50 For writs issued in the Husting of Common Pleas in 1360 distraining the heirs and executors of Croydon and Claptus to bring in the record of this assize, see H.C.P.R.84, mm.15d.,16,19.
51 For further respite, see m.20d.; for amercement of pl., see m.22.
52 For further respites, see mm.20d.,22,22d.
53 For amercement of pl., see m.20d.
54 Entry incomplete. For respites, see mm. 19,22.
55 Proved 13 Nov. 1318, Cal. Wills , I, 281.
56 Entry incomplete. For respites, see mm.20d.,22,22d.; for amercement of pl., see m.23.
57 Entry incomplete. For respites, see mm.22,22d.
58 For appointment of attorney, see m.20d.
59 Entry incomplete.
60 Above Michael, abbot of St. Albans, appears the note 'mortuus'.
61 For further respites, see below (p. 20); for amercement of pl., see m.23.
62 Sat. [after?] the feast of the nativity of St. John the Baptist, 22 Ed. III. Lower part of membrane much defaced.
63 For loveday, see m.23d.; for amercement of pl., see m.24.
64 Proved 17 Oct. 1328, Cal. Wills , I, 337.
65 Lower part of membrane much defaced.
66 For writ of error, and error proceedings in a plea between Henry Spark, pl., and John Leycestre, kinsman and heir of Robert de Walcote, in the Husting of Common Pleas in 1369–70, see H.C.P.R. 93, mm.14d.,25,33. On Mon. 14 Jun. 1372 a writ of protection was produced by the def. and the action was respited sine die , see H.C.P.R. 96, m.16d.
67 Above the name of the pl. appears the note: 'non prosecutus'.
68 Above the name of the pl. appears the note: 'non prosecutus'.
69 For amercement of pl., see m.25.
70 Entry incomplete.
71 For respite of judgment, see m.30.
72 See also m.34.
73 Proved 19 Jul. 1339, Cal. Wills , I, 433–4.
74 For writ of error, and error proceedings, see H.C.P.R. 92, mm.24d.,25d.,29. In the Husting of Common Pleas, in 1369, William le Kyng recovered seisin of the tenements in view.
75 Proved 4 May 1349, Cal. Wills , I, 550.
76 At the foot of the membrane is a heading for Sat. 8 May 1350 without entries.
77 For further respites, see mm.30d.,31,32,33.
78 Name omitted on m.30 and supplied from m.31.
79 For further respites, see mm.30d.,31.
80 For further respites, see mm. 30d.,31,32,32d.,33.
81 The name appears as Aucra on m.33.
82 Entry incomplete. For respite, see m.32.
83 For admission of guardian, see above (p. 25).
84 Entry incomplete. For respites, see mm.32,32d.,33.
85 Proved 20 Jul. 1349, Cal. Wills , I, 589.
86 After the Black Death, William de Weston, the sole survivor of the house, was appointed master but was deposed in 1351. According to F. A. Gasquet the house was still without inmates in 1353, The Great Pestilence (1893), 97.
87 Entry incomplete.
88 For further respites, see below and m.33.
89 Name of def. omitted; supplied from m.33.
90 Proved 21 May 1352, Cal. Wills , I, 659.
91 Entry incomplete. For respite, see m.33.
92 ? rectius 16 Ed. II, proved 19 Jul. 1322, Cal. Wills , I, 295.
93 Entry incomplete and much defaced. For respite, see m.33.
94 For appointment, see above.
95 For appointment of attorney, see above.
96 Entry much defaced.
97 Proved 17 Oct. 1328, Cal. Wills , I, 337. See 67 for contents of will.
98 The rest of the pleading on this membrane is illegible.
99 Proved 24 May 1339, Cal. Wills , I, 432.
100 Entry incomplete.
101 For adjournments, see mm.35d.,36,38,38d.,39,40d.,41,42.
102 For further adjournments, see mm.36,38,38d.,39,40d.,41,42.
103 For further respites, see mm.36,38,38d.,39,40d.,41,42.
104 Proved and enrolled in the Husting on Mon. before the feast of SS. Simon and Jude, 17 Ed. II, rectius Mon. after the feast of the translation of St. Edward, i.e. 17 Oct. 1323, Cal. Wills , I, 304.
105 H.R. 72 (106, 107).
106 See also m.38d. For amercement of pls., see m.39.
107 For further adjournments, see mm.40d.,41,42.
108 For further respites, see mm.41,42.
109 For appointment, see above (p. 32).
110 For further adjournment, see m.42.
111 Proved 22 Oct. 1347, Cal. Wills , I, 497.
112 H.R. 80 (126).
113 This membrane is not filed up with the rest of the roll, but is on a modern guard. However, holes at the head indicate that it once formed part of a roll and the original membrane number shows that it is still in the position initially assigned to it.
114 Cal. P. & M. rolls, 1323–64 , 254.
115 For an error action brought in the Husting of Common Pleas on Mon. 20 Jul. 1355, see H.C.P.R. 79, mm.20,20d., where the judgment was upheld. For other references to this action, see H.C.P.R. 79, mm.21,25d.; 80, mm.9d.,12,15; judgment was respited for the last time on Mon. 14 Nov. 1356. For writ appointing commissioners to sit in error upon this plea, see Cal. Letter book G , 83–4, 86.
116 H.C.P.R. 77, m.20d.
117 For writ of error and writs distraining the sheriffs to bring in the record of the assize, see H.C.P.R. 79, mm.7,10d. In the Husting of Common Pleas on Mon. 27 Jul. 1355 Thomas de Passele and Katherine his wife, by attorney, produce a writ of protection and the action is respited sine die, ibid ., m.17.
118 Parts of the membrane are defaced. For error proceedings in the Husting of Common Pleas on Mon. 14 Dec. 1355 in which the judgment was affirmed, see H.C.P.R. 79, m.28.
119 mm.47–49 have been calendared after m.50d. for the sake of clarity. mm.47–50 are not filed up with the rest of the roll.
120 Cal. C.R. Ed. III , IX, 524.
121 Ibid ., 526.
122 On 21 May 1341, Cal. Wills , I, 445.
123 Statute of Westminster II, c.25, Statutes , I, 84–5.
124 The record of this plea is much defaced. It has been reconstructed from the copy in H.C.P.R. 77, mm.6–7. On Mon. 22 Apr. 1353 in the Husting of Common Pleas proceedings were instituted by the defs. upon a writ of error. The last mention of the action occurs on Mon. 11 Jun. 1358 when judgment was respited; a marginal note states that the judgment was affirmed. See H.C.P.R. 77, mm.8–18d. passim ; 79, mm.3–21d. passim ; 80, mm.1d.–15 passim ; 81, mm.1–19 passim ; 82, mm.7, 12.
125 m.47–48 is a single slip of parchment the dorse of which is blank.
126 m.50 is printed out of sequence (following m.46) for the sake of clarity.
127 See p. 39 n.2.
128 For error proceedings in the Husting of Common Pleas on Mon. 14 May 1358 and related documents, see H.C.P.R. 82, mm.8d.,9,10d.,11,12d.,15,22.
129 mm.53–55 are not filed up with the rest of the roll.
130 Cal. P. & M. rolls, 1364–81 , 201.
131 m.54 is printed after m.55.
132 Proved 15 Mar. 1294, Cal. Wills , I, 112.
133 Lower part of membrane much defaced.
134 Parts of membrane defaced and mutilated.
135 Proved 6 Dec. 1322, Cal. Wills , I, 298.
136 The rest of the pleading is illegible.
137 H.C.P.R. 18, m.3.
138 Proved 21 May 1291, Cal. Wills , I, 98. For full text of will see Cartulary of St. Mary Clerkenwell , ed. W. O. Hassall (R.H.S., Camden 3rd series, LXXI, 1949), 256–7.
139 For writ distraining the sheriffs to bring the record of this assize into the Husting, and other documents concerning an error action in the Husting of Common Pleas in 1345, see H.C.P.R. 69, mm.6d.,13d.,23.
140 Sworn.