CP40/583: Michaelmas term 1406

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 027d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Leicestershire
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: 100m
Case type: Housebreaking; Taking of goods

Pleading: Peter B. claims that John H. used force and arms to break his close and house at Leicester, and seized and carried off his goods to the value of £40. The goods taken were namely 6 silver spoons, one 'piece of silver', one bed with all its apparatus, and other household utensils. Damages are claimed at 100m.

Pleading: Concerning the use of force and arms JH says that he is innocent and puts himself upon the country, and PB puts himself likewise. Concerning the remainder of the supposed trespass JH says that a certain Richard Brynkele, assayer general of the court of Archbishop Thomas A. of Canterbury had been directed by certain letters of the archbishop to make a commission of JH and others of the community for the 'citing' of AB, formerly the wife of John E., to make AB come before John B. official of the diocesan court of Canterbury at the church of St Mary le Bow, London, and to make her respond to assayer general RB concerning a breach of faith. AB had been appointed as administrator of the goods of her late husband JE, who died intestate, and at the time of JE's death he owed John M., master of JH, a certain sum of money. Similarly JH says that PB, at the time of the supposed trespass, (was staying) at a certain hostel open to all and singular to stay from time to time, at which JH went to the room of PB and opened the door as he had good licence to do.

Pleading: PB denies JH's counterplea and reiterates his claim that his house and close were broken with force and arms etc. and seeks inquiry upon the country, and JH seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff etc.

Postea text: 1 postea - the sheriff did not send the writ and so the case is forwarded as far as Easter term 1407.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 051

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Bond

Pleading: Robert C and John O. claim that Robert P. owes them £32 15s 6½d per a bond. Damages clamed at £20. Bond shown in court.

Pleading: RP asks that the bond and its endorsements be read in the court, and it says that: if RP or a certain John P. should pay to RC and JO £6 by the feast of St Peter ad Vincula (1 August), £6 by the feast of St Peter at Vincula next following, and £5 by the feast of St Peter ad Vincula next following that, year on year, until RC and JO are paid £32 15s 6½ d, then the bond shall be null and void. RP says that he faithfully made these payments at Coventry, Warwichskire.

Pleading: RC and JO say that RP did not make the £5 payment of 1404 and seek inquiry upon the country, and RP seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Warwichshire etc. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Postea text: postea 1 - the sheriff of Warwickshire did not send the writ and so the case is forwarded as far as Easter term 1407.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 079d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Trespass (against statute)
Damages claimed: £10
Case type: Breach of Statute; Contract (service/employment)

Pleading: Thomas K. claims that on 01/05/1405 William P. was retained by him to work 'in the service of which certain captain set out to sea (in servicio cuiusdam architenentis proficturi ad mare)' in the service of the lord king with Thomas L. brother of the lord king to the service of the same TK for a quarter of one year next following. During this period WP was to be paid 13s 4d. However on 04/05/1405, at London, he withdrew from TK's service without reasonable cause etc. in breach of the statute of labourers. Damages are claimed at £10.

Pleading: WP says that he was indeed retained by TK and that he well and faithfully served him from 01/05/1405 until 18/05/1405 when at Sandwich, Kent, TK allowed him licence to withdraw from service.

Pleading: TK reiterates hi claim that WP withdrew from his service without licence and at London etc and seeks inquiry upon the country, and WP seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Kent etc. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 101

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Case type: Bond

Pleading: John M., John A., Henry S., and William C. claim that Thomas H. owes them 200m per a bond. Damages are claimed at £100.

Pleading: TH comes and defends, and says that JM, JA, HS, and WC ought not maintain their action against him. [here ends the entry]

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 113

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Middlesex
Writ type: Trespass (against statute)
Damages claimed: £100
Case type: Bond; Embracery; Housebreaking; Maintenance; Taking of goods

Pleading: John O. claims that Edward L. and Thomas D. are guilty of breaching the statute against maintenance. JO claims that they have maintained a certain plea of trespass between JO himself on one part, and William D. with William B. on the other part. JO says that he sued out a writ of trespass concerning WD and WB, directed to the sheriff of Surrey and returnable before the kings justices. JO says that this writ claimed that WD and WB, on 25/10/1403, used force and arms to break his close at Kingston (upon Thames), Surrey, and reap/mow his corn and hay lately growing there; seizing and carrying off the said hay and grain to the value of £10 [this case appearing on CP 40/576 rot 415]. This writ of trespass is even now pending undecided in this court, and on 26/01/1405 EL and TD took 20m from WD and WB as much for the maintaining of the said case as to the bribing of diverse jurors empanelled in the said case. Damages are claimed at £100.

Pleading: EL and TD say that the action against them ought not continue. EL says that for two years prior to the day of the supposed breach of statute, he was retained by WD at Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, as his servant for the three years then next following. EL says that since this time WD has sent him diverse payments concerning WD's business, as much from London as from Westminster, for conferring with diverse sergeants at law who were retained by WD and with other counsel of WD in these parts, and also for his own expenses. Hence, EL says that it was as a servant of WD, and for the above said reasons, that he took delivery of the aforesaid money at Westminster on the day of the supposed breach of statute. TD says that the action ought not continue against him because he is the cousin of WD, 'namely the son of Thomas, son of Peter, father of Joan the mother of Isabel, mother of WD'. Further, TD says that WD and WB, in responding to JO on the aforesaid writ of trespass, alleged that on the day and year of the supposed trespass they only removed hay and grain from land which was the free tenement of WD [case appearing on CP 40/576 rot 415] In response to this counterplea JO argued that the land where the trespass took place was in fact the messuage and 46 acres of a certain John D. long before the supposed trespass. And, that the same JD had made a certain bond of Statute Staple at Westminster, payable to JO for 20m, concerning the sale of diverse merchandise. This bond went unpaid and so JO later was awarded, in court, possession of JD's lands until the debt should be cleared. It was then argued by WD, in the aforesaid trespass case, that JD had in fact enfeoffed TD and his heirs with the aforesaid land prior to the making of the bond of statute staple. Hence TD was in Westminster at the time of the supposed embracery, as WD's cousin, only to testify to this as required defending, as he had good licence to be, and not intending any other injury.

Pleading: JO comes and says that his action ought to continue against both defendants. JO says that EL is not the servant of WD and seeks inquiry upon the country, and EL seeks likewise. Jo also says that TD did receive the said 20m at Westminster, with EL, for maintenance and embracery. Upon this day is given between JO and TD in the octave of Hilary term 1407 concerning the hearing of judgement etc. And order to the sheriff to bring a jury concerning JO versus EL. Pledges are named for both defendants.

Postea text: postea 1 - case between JO and TD is forwarded as far as Easter term 1407. The jury between JO and EL is respited as far as Easter term 1407.

Postea text: postea 2 - Concerning the case between JO ad EL, some jurors come and some do not, namely Robert O. and John S. who were to be part of the jury. RO and JS were to be here under penalty of 10s each, and so their respective 10s each are forfeit to the king and the jury is placed in respite as far as Trinity term 1407. Further day is given between JO and TD to hear judgment in Trinity term 1407.

Case notes: related to trespass case on CP40/576 rot.415

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 119

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (other)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Real action / rents / damage to real estate

Pleading: Prior John B. is in mercy for many defaults. Walter R. claims that on 31/05/1400, at London, he demised to prior JB's predecessor, prior William L., 50 acres of land with appurtenances for a six years, at an annual rent of 40s at Michaelmas and Easter in equal portions. This rent had not been paid for five years prior to the making of the said writ on 20/01/1406. Damages are claimed at £20.

Pleading: Prior JB says, concerning the £8 which are supposedly in arrears for the first four years, that WR made distraint concerning these £8 at Spinney, Cambridgeshire. Prior JB says concerning the remaining £2 for the fifth year, that before the day the first payment was due, in Michaelmas 1405 (29/09/1405), WR entered the said 50 acres and displaced the said prior.

Pleading: WR said that he did not levy distraint concerning the first £8, nor did he make entry into the said property prior to Michaelmas of the fifth year. WR seeks inquiry upon the country, and prior JB seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Cambridgeshire to make view at Spinney etc.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 120

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Essex
Writ type: Disseisin
Damages claimed: -
Case type: Real action / rents / damage to real estate

Pleading: William Hankeford and his fellow justices insert this record concerning an assize of novel disseisin which John Walcote citizen of London brought against John Tittesbury of London skinner with his wife Margaret and Giles Fraunceys of Essex, concerning a tenement in Barking, Essex, in these words. The lord king commissioned justices WH, John S., Stephen I., and William WS. to hear a case of novel disseisin between the said parties. A writ was issued at Westminster on 02/02/1406 ordering all parties, plaintiff John Walcote with defendants John Tittesbury, MT, and GF, to come before justices at Barking on Monday 29/03/1406. The sheriff of Essex made execution of this writ and plaintiff John Walcote put in his place attorney Edmund W. The case was heard in the presence of justices WS and JS on 29/03/1406 to decide if John Walcote had been unjustly disseised by John Tittesbury, MT, and GF of 1 messuage 190 acres of land, 20 acres of meadow, 20 acres of pasture, 30 acres of wood, and 24s 10d in rents; and it is said that the rents are servile.

Pleading: The defendants John Tittesbury, MT, and GF come in person. John Tittesbury with MT say that they hold the said lands placed in view and as proctors of the rents by right of MT. They say that the a certain Robert A. and his wife Agnes A. were seised of the said properties and rents, in their entirety and in fee etc. And, RA with his wife AA granted the same lands to the plaintiff JW, William O., and John L. The nature of this grant was that John Walcote and WO were seised as of free tenure (ten'), and JL was seised in fee, under the condition that if he should die without legitimate heirs of his body that his lands would pass to his sister (defendant) MT. In summary, MT argues that JL later granted to her and husband John Tittesbury, in London (parish of St Lawrence Pountney, Dowgate ward), half of the said lands and rents. MT likewise argues that on another occasion JL granted to her and her husband John Tittesbury, at Southwark (Surrey), the other half of the said lands. Hence MT and John Tittesbury seek judgment.

Pleading: John Walcote says that he has no knowledge of the supposed condition of enfeoffment by RA and AA as has been separately argued by MT with John Tittesbury, and GF. He says that he was seised of the said lands as his own free tenement and in his demesne until the defendants unjustly disseised him of it. Further, he says that after the said disseisin certain persons unknown to him have conspired with the defendants to defraud him of the said lands and rents. John Walcote says that this has continued from the time of the said disseisin as far as the day of the making of the original writ, and that the defendants have taken the profits of the same lands and rents etc.

Pleading: John Walcote reiterates his claim that he was seised of the said lands and rents as his own free tenement until he was disseised of them by the defendants. Further he said that the defendants have colluded with diverse unknown persons to defraud him and seeks inquiry upon the country, and the defendants MT, John Tittesbury, and EF seek likewise. However, the jury is in default. A jury is to be brought between the parties at Stratford Langethorn, Essex on 30/04/1406 to hear judgement before justices WH and SI.

Pleading: John Tittesbury and MT say that they were the sole tenants of the said lands and rents for years and days prior to the making of the original writ etc. And because JW is not responding to their claim at the bar of the assize, and they seek judgement. GF likewise says that he was holding the said tenement and rents prior to the day of the making of the original writ and that likewise seeks judgement.

Pleading: The parties come to the assize of Stratford Langethorne, Essex, on 30/04/1406, except defendant JT who does not come. The defendants seek to respond to JW even though John Tittesbury is not present. MT and GF argue that RA and AA were lately seised of the said lands and rents, and then offer to the court a certain final concord, made before the court of the lord king Richard II at Westminster in Easter term 1391 before justices Robert C., William T., William R., John Wadham and Richard S and afterwards granted and recorded before the same justices and other faithful men in Hilary term 1392 then there present. It says that it is a concord between then plaintiffs John Walcore, WO and JL, and defendants RA and AA concerning one messuage, 180 acres of land, 20 acres of meadow, 20 acres of pasture, 100 acres of wood, and 50s rents with appurtenances at Barking and Chigwell, Essex. The concord says that it was agreed between the then litigants that RA with AA would recognise the aforesaid lands and rents to be the right of JL, and grant to John Walcote, WO, and JL 26s rents with appurtenances together with the homage and all the services of the abbess of Barking, John Thurkyld, John Stowe, John Brook, John Portere, William Palyere, William Bene, William Younge, Thomas Motewell, Thomas Atta Wode, Richard Frend, John Atte Hell, Richard Messager, and all their heirs. These things were granted to John Walcoe, WO and JL and the heirs of JL in fee. And RA with AA reserve to themselves 24s rents which were lately of Joan Spark, widow of Henry Spark for a term of life out of the inheritance of AA in the aforesaid vill, reverting upon the death of Joan Spark to AA and RA, they ought to remain to John Walcote, WO, JL and to the heirs of JL. And for this recognizance and final concord John Walcote, WO, and JL give to RA and AA 100m. Thereafter John Walcote, WO, and JL were seised of the property, and JL seised in fee. [There then follows another recounting of the manner in which JL granted each half of the said lands and rents to MT separately, except this time it is explained that in each instance following the JL's grant of the said lands and rents to MT and John Tittesbury, there followed a subsequent granting of the same by MT and John Tittesbury to a certain William F. who in each instance immediately granted them back to MT, John Tittesbury, and co-defendant GF.]

Pleading: John Walcote again says that he was unjustly disseised of the said property etc. and seeks judgement, if the defence of MT ought to be admitted, John Tittesbury not being present. Further day is given between the parties at the assize of Stratford Langethorne, Essex, at Easter three weeks 1406.

Pleading: Case continued at the assize of Stratford Langethorne, Essex, at Easter three weeks 1406. Upon this it is decided that the defence of MT shall be admitted, despite the absence of John Tittesbury. Upon this day is given between the parties at the assize of Stratford Langthorne, Essex, on Saturday 22/05/1406.

Pleading: Case continued at the assize of Stratford Langthorne, Essex on Saturday on 22/05/1406 before justices SI and John Scardeburgh. John Walcote argues that at the time of the making of the aforesaid final concord RA and AA had nothing of the reversion of the aforesaid lands and rents. John Walcote argues that in fact a certain Alex W. and others held the right of reversion both before and after the making of the aforesaid final concord. Further, after the time of the making of the aforesaid final concord the same Joan Spark named in the concord was in fact seised of the aforesaid lands and rents in her demesne and as her free tenement. And that she was then married to a certain John H. who in turn demised the said lands and rents with appurtenances to John Walcote, WO, and JL; holding for the term of the life of Joan Spark 17m per annum payable to Joan Spark and John H. John Walcote says that this was the manner of the holding of the said lands and rents for the whole of the remainder of JL's life. However, immediately upon the death of JL, John Tittesbury, MT, and EF unjustly disseised him, just as they disseised WO until the end of his life. John Walcote claims that the defendants then colluded with certain unknown parties to make a certain fraudulent enfeoffment to secure their claims etc.

Pleading: MT says that John Walcote has not denied the material which MT brought before the bar, and argues that such material as she presented is sufficient in law to preclude John Walcote's action. Upon this day is given between the parties at Westminster on 27/05/1406 to hear judgement.

Pleading: The parties come to Westminster on 27/05/1406 then further day again on 18/06/1406, then further day again on 25/06/1406 and further day again on 26/06/1406, then further day again on 01/07/1406, then further day again on 02/07/1406, then further day again at the quindene of Michaelmas 1406.

Postea text: postea 1 - further day given between the parties at Westminster in Hilary term 1407.

Postea text: postea 2 - further day given between the parties at Westminster in Easter term 1407.

Postea text: postea 3 - Easter term 1407. The justices have the record read, and decide that John Walcote ought have nothing for his writ. John Walcote is amerced for false claim.

Case notes: No marginal heading specified, but evidently an Essex case.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 126d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (other)
Damages claimed: 100s
Case type: Real action / rents / damage to real estate

Pleading: Bishop John S. Claims that Hugh B. owes him 40s in rent for two rooms which bishop John S. demised to HB for one full year commencing in Michaelmas 1402 (29.09.1402). Damages are claimed at 100s.

Pleading: HB says that bishop John S. did not demise two rooms to him in the form claimed and places himself upon the country, and bishop John S. places himself likewise. Order to the sheriff etc. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 129

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: 40s
Case type: Bond

Pleading: William S. claims that Henry L. owes him 60s on a bond. Damages are claimed at 40s. Bond shown in court. It is noted that the bond does not say where it was made, but WS says it was made at London, parish of St Dunstan, 'ward of Fleet Street'.

Pleading: HL says that the bond is not of his making and puts himself upon the country, and WS puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff etc. The bond is put into the safe keeping of clerk William P.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 129d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Surrey
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £40
Case type: Housebreaking; Taking of goods

Pleading: The prioress of Kilburn claims that Richard B. and William B. used force and arms to break her close and house at Milton ('Middleton'), Surrey, as well as to fell and remove trees and underwood lately growing there to the value of £20. Damages claimed at £40.

Pleading: RB and WB come and defend, and day given between the parties in Hilary term 1407.

Postea text: postea 1 - further day is given between the parties in Easter term 1407.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 139

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: 40m
Case type: Bond

Pleading: Thomas F. claims that Roger R. owes him 10m per a bond. Damages are claimed at 40m. Bond shown in court. Noted that the bond does not say where it was made, but TF says it was made at London etc.

Pleading: RR says that the force of the bond ought not hold because TF has since given him a release, acknowledging receipt of the said 10m. This release was given at Ruston, Yorkshire, on 01/03/1405. RR offers this release to the court and seeks judgement.

Pleading: TF says that the release is not of his making and seeks inquiry upon the country, and RR seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Yorkshire etc. Pledges are named for the defendant. The release is put into the safe keeping of clerk William P.

Postea text: postea 1 - the release is delivered to chief justice William G. for consideration by a jury and WP is quit of it.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 168d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Surrey
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Assault; Housebreaking; Imprisonment; Taking of goods

Pleading: Henry B. claims that William T. used force and arms to break his close and house at Southwark, Surrey, imprison him for seven days, assault him, and carry off his goods and chattels to the value of 100s. The goods taken were namely: 3 doors ('hostia'), 2 windows, locks keys with all the apparatus and timber, namely the door-posts, puncheons, spars, 6 supports ('sportas' could be 'baskets'), 6 [blank space], and 3 trunks. Damages are claimed ay £20.

Pleading: WT says that he is not to blame and puts himself upon the country, and HB puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of Surrey etc.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 193

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (account)
Damages claimed: 100s
Case type: Reckoning of account

Pleading: Richard A. claims that John A. owes him 60s as determined by a reckoning of the account between them before auditors John C. and Richard G. Damages are claimed at 100s.

Pleading: JA says that he did not have an accounting before the said auditors and puts himself upon the country, and RA puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff etc.

Postea text: postea 1 - the sheriff did not send the writ and so the case is forwarded as far as Easter term 1407.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 193d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Trespass (against statute)
Damages claimed: £10
Case type: Breach of Statute; Contract (service/employment)

Pleading: John Sylk claims that on Christmas 1405 (25/12/1405) he retained a certain Robert S. to work for him as a carter for one full year, but that RS withdrew from his service prematurely on 24/07/1406 and was received into the service of John Stafast, in breach of the statute of labourers. Damages are claimed at £10.

Pleading: John Stafast says that on the date of RS's supposed withdrawal from service he himself spoke to John Sylk, and that John Sylk granted permission for RS to enter the service of John Stafast. Hence RS withdrew from the service of John Sylk and entered the service of John Stafast with good licence.

Pleading: John Sylk denies that he ever gave RS permission to leave his service and seeks inquiry upon the country, and John Stafast seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff etc.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 211

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (other)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Contract (general)

Pleading: Thomas E. claims that Walter B. owes him £10 19s, because on 24/09/1398 WB set forth his servant John T., at TE's table (as a boarder) whilst JT was going about WB's business in the city. TE says that it was agreed that this JT's room should be provisioned with food and drink in exchange for 2s a week. JT then proceeded to stay 'at the table' of TE for 109 weeks [note, 2s per week over 109 weeks equals £10 18s as opposed tot e £10 19s sought]. Walter has not paid for this period and damages are claimed at £20.

Pleading: WB says that he does not owe TE the said monies nor any other monies 'and is prepared immediately to make his law thence, if his twelve hands etc.'

Pleading: TE then reiterates his claim that WB's servant JT was hosted at his table for a long time, and that WB was the person who entered into the said agreement. TE seeks judgement.

Pleading: WB comes forward to make his law in the manner and form aforesaid (law of 12 hands) and seeks judgement, and that the aforesaid action should have been excluded.

Postea text: The decision is that TE is to have nothing for his writ, and is in mercy for false claim. WB is without day.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 212

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Essex
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £100
Damages awarded: 13s 4d
Costs: 26s 8d
Case type: Taking of goods

Pleading: Prior Robert E. claims that John A., together with John W., used force and arms to fell and carry off five oak trees of the said prior worth £10, which were lately growing at Broomfield, Essex, as well as other nuisances upon his soil so that prior RE was ejected from his land for one year. Damages are claimed at £100.

Pleading: JA says that he is not to blame and puts himself upon the country, and prior RE puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of Essex etc. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Postea text: postea 1 - continuance between the parties as far as the octave of Trinity term 1407.

Postea text: postea 2 - a jury comes and says on oath that JA is guilty of the said trespass and award prior RE damages, beyond his costs surrounding the said suit, 13s 4d; plus costs of 13s 4d. And upon this prior RE asks the justices to increase his damages for costs. It is then decided to increase prior RE's costs by another 13s 4d. Prior RE is to recover a total or 40s. JA should be arrested.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 232d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Abduction; Housebreaking

Pleading: William B. claims that Thomas F. used force and arms to break his house and close at London and abduct his servant John P., so that he was without JP's service for one year. Damages claimed at £20.

Pleading: TF says that he is not innocent and puts himself upon the country, and WB puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff etc. And upon this TF puts in his place concerning this case a certain William W.

Postea text: 3 posteas - all say that the sheriff did not send the writ, forwarding the case as far as Hilary term 1408.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 235

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Norfolk
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: 20m
Case type: Housebreaking

Pleading: Hervey R. claims that John Monie (Mome?) and John Monols; together with William A., John B., and Richard F.; used force and arms to break his close at Heckingham (Norfolk), and cut and remove his trees and underwood to the value of 100s; and also to trample and consume his grain and hay at Norton and Raveningham (Norfok) to the value of 100s with certain horses, pigs, and sheep, from 16/09/1405 until 29/09/1405. Damages are claimed at 20m.

Pleading: John Monie and John Monols say that they are innocent and put themselves upon the country, and Hervey puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of Norfolk etc.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 245

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Account
Damages claimed: £100
Case type: Contract (service/employment); Reckoning of account

Pleading: John C. claims that Robert A. has not rendered to him reasonable account concerning the time when RA was receiver of his monies, namely from 29/09/1402 until 01/11/1402. JC claims that during this period RA received £100 per the hands of a certain John Deken, concerning he has not rendered account. Damages claimed at £100.

Pleading: RA says that, since the time in question, he rendered full account to JC at Yarmouth, Norfolk, on 01/10/1403.

Pleading: JC says that he did not have an accounting with RA at Yarmouth and seeks inquiry upon the country, and RA seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Norfolk to make view of Yarmouth etc.

Postea text: postea 1 - the sheriff of Norfolk does not send the writ and so the case is forwarded as far as Easter term 1407.

Postea text: postea 2 - continuance between the parties as far as the octave of St John the Baptist 1407, so that a jury may be placed etc.

Postea text: postea 3 - RA does not come and so is in default. A jury is to be taken against him in Michaelmas term 1407 unless the case is heard before the justices of the assize of Norfolk on 18/07/1407.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 253

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £40
Case type: Bond

Pleading: John R. claims that John S. owes him £10 per a bond. Damages are claimed at £40.

Pleading: JS, per his attorney [missing] … [entry ends here]

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 265

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Hertfordshire
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: 100s
Case type: Taking of goods

Pleading: Thomas M. claims that Henry T. used force and arms to seize his piece of silver worth 40s at Barnet, Hertfordshire. Damages are claimed at 100s.

Pleading: HT says that he is innocent and puts himself upon the country, and TM puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of Hertfordshire etc. HT puts William W in his place.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 274

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: 20m
Case type: Assault

Pleading: Agnes W. claims that Hugh T.; together with John Brond, Hawise Brond, John Brewer, and John M.; used force and arms to assault her in London. Damages are claimed at 20m.

Pleading: HT says that he is innocent and puts himself upon the country, and AW puts herself likewise. Order to the sheriff etc. [Noted below, that AW also offers herself versus John Brond, Hawise Brond, John Brewer, and John M, but that they do not come. Hence further order to the sheriff etc.]

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 320

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Worcestershire
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £300
Damages awarded: £100
Case type: Bond; Contract (marriage)

Pleading: John K. claims that parson John Pynnore, Philip M., and Thomas R., executors of the will of William H; together with co-executors chaplain John Pyttenay, Henry T. and Elizabeth H. the widow of WH.; owe him 1000m per a bond, payable in St Paul's Cathedral, London. Damages are claimed at £300. Bond shown in court. Noted that the bond does not say where it was made but JK says it was made at Pershore, Worcestershire.

Pleading: Parson John Pynnore and TR come in their own persons, whilst co-defendant PM comes per his attorney, and all deny the charge against them. Parson John Pynnore and PM say that they were never the administrators of the goods and chattels of the late WH and seek judgement. TR seeks that the bond and its endorsements be read in to the court. The bond says that if (the late) WH should marry Elizabeth (H.) daughter of Thomas B. before 24/06/1403 and enfeoff himself with EH, and the legitimate heirs of their bodies, with manors, lands, and rents to the value of 100m per annum within three months of the wedding that then the bond shall be null and void. Also, in the case that WH and EH should die without issue, then the said manors, lands, and rents would revert to the remaining heirs of WH. Hearing and understanding this TR says that the force of the bond ought not hold, because WH did indeed marry the said Elizabeth (H.) prior to 24/06/1403. And similarly (TR says) that chaplains Roger B. and William M. at t the instance and ordination of WH, within the three months allotted, granted to WH with EH and their heirs: the castle and manor of Eshott ('Eshet' - Northumb.); the castle of Twizell (Northumb.); a quarter part of the vill of Tilmouth with a quarter part of the mill the agnatic manors of Hartside (Durham) and East Duddo (Northumb.), and also certain lands and tenements in Clifton (Northumb.), Coldwell (Northumb.), Whittingham (Northumb.), Thornton (Northumb.), and in the vill and territory of Glanton (Northumb.); and also all the rents and services which WH had in the vill and territory of Thornton, Northumberland, the manor of Eppleton ('Applynden' - Durham), and the manor of Hart (Durham); all lands and tenements which chaplains RB and WM had in Houghton le Spring (Huton' - Durham); with advowson of the churches and of the chantries, the services of all the free and bond tenants with their progeny, the fishing, and all other things pertaining to the aforesaid castles, manors, lands, tenements, rents, and services. Which same things have an annual value in excess of 40m annually. Further, (TR says) that John Pebelowe and vicar Philip N. at the instance and ordination of WH, within the three months allotted, granted to WH with EH and their heirs: the manors of Hamsey ('Hammys') and Buxted, Sussex, with fiefs, warrens, fishing, parks, woods, liberties and free customs which are valued in excess of £40 per annum. In both instances all the lands granted were granted in such a manner so as that should the couple die without legitimate issue, the said lands etc. would revert to WH's remaining heirs.

Pleading: JK says that John Pynnore and PM were administrators of the goods and chattels of the late WH just as they were executors of his will at Pershore, Worcestershire, and seeks inquiry upon the country and John Pynnore and PM seek likewise. Order to the sheriff (of Worcestershire) etc. Concerning the plea of TR, JK says that John Pebelowe and PN did not give the manors of Hamsey and Buxted, Sussex, to WH with EH within three months of their wedding and that these lands etc. are worth only £20 per annum. He also says that RB and WM did not give to WH with EH: the said castle and manor of Eshott; the castle of Twizell; a quarter part of the vill of Tilmouth with a quarter part of the mill the manors of Hartside and East Duddo; the lands and tenements in Clifton, Coldwell, Whittington, Thornton or in the vill and territory of Glanton; nor the rents and services of the vill and territory of Thornton in Northumberland. And upon this JK seeks inquiry upon the country, and TR seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Northamptonshire to make view of the above said places etc.

Postea text: 3 posteas - all say concerning John Pynnore and PM claiming not to be administrators, that the sheriff of Worcestershire does not send the writ and so the case is forwarded as far as Michaelmas term 1407. Also, a continuance between JK and TR as far as Michaelmas term 1407 unless the case is first heard at the assize of Newcastle Upon Tyne before chief justice William G. on 26/07/1407.

Postea text: postea 4 - the case between JK and TR is heard at the assize of Newcastle Upon Tyne before chief justice WG and associate justice Thomas T. on 26/07/1407. TR does not come. A jury is taken. And upon this, a certain John S. presents to chief justice WG letters patent given at Westminster on 14/07/1407 saying that TR is in the service of the king in Picardy (France) under the command of the king's brother John earl of Somerset, at Calais, for one whole year. JK says that these letters of protection ought not stop his action because they refer to TR as 'Thomas Remys one of the executors of...' whilst the original writ refers to TR as 'Thomas Remys executor of the will of...'. Further, the letters of protections say '...of the will of William Heron' whilst the original writ says '...of the will of William Heroun'. JK says that the Thomas Remys who is suing did not come, and the letters of protection are irrelevant. Upon this the jurors, as first empanelled, say on oath that RB and WM did not give the aforesaid manors, castles, etc. to WH and EH, as JK argued. The jury assesses the damages of JK concerning the detention of the said (1000m) debt at £100, which certain record is read and understood by the full court, and JK seeks judgement. Upon this a certain Thomas J. (attorney), comes on the part of TR and offers royal letters of protection and seeks (licence?) to imparl upon pretext of these same letters, and that the case ought to remain without day. Upon this the attorney of JK offers certain others letters patent revoking the letters of protection, effective 21/07/1407. These second letters having been read JK's attorney seeks that the record be read back to the court, and it is decided that JK is to recover the said 1000m plus £100 damages, as the jury assesses that the executors have sufficient among them from the goods and chattels of the late WH to satisfy the said debt and damages. And, if JK does not get satisfaction from the goods and chattels of the late WH he ought have it from TR. JK does not wish to prosecute the co-executors of TR. JK does seek execution (of the decision) versus TR.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 372

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Bond; Imprisonment

Pleading: John M. and Thomas S. claim that Robert S. owes them £21 13s 4d per a bond. Damages are claimed at £20. Bond shown in court. Noted that the bond does not say where it was made but JM and TS say it was made at London [parish and ward left blank].

Pleading: RS says that the force of the bond ought not hold because he was imprisoned by JM and TS at the time of its making.

Pleading: JM and TS say that RS was a free man at the time of the making of the said bond and seek inquiry upon the country, and RS seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff (of Norfolk) to make view of Yarmouth etc. RS puts in his place, versus JM and TS, a certain John A.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 375

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: 20m
Case type: Bond; Imprisonment

Pleading: Nicholas P. claims that John M. owes him £17 10s per a bond, payable at the residence (habitacionis) of William T. in London. Damages are claimed at 20m. Bond shown in court. It is noted that the bond does not say where it was made but NP says it was made at London etc.

Pleading: JM says that the force of the bond ought not hold because at the time of its making he was imprisoned by NP and others of his coven at Oundle, Northamptonshire.

Pleading: NP says that JM was a free man at the time of the making of the said bond and seeks inquiry upon the country, and JM seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Northamptonshire (writ returnable later in Michaelmas term 1406) etc. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 375d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: 20m
Case type: Bond; Imprisonment

Pleading: Nicholas P. claims that William H. owes him £17 10s on a bond, payable at the residence of William T. in London. Damages are claimed at 20m. Bond shown in court. It is noted that the bond does not say where it was made but NP says it was made at London etc.

Pleading: WH says that the force of the bond ought not hold because at the time of its making he was imprisoned by NP and his associates at Oundle, Northamptonshire.

Pleading: NP says that WH was a free man at the time of the making of the said bond and seeks inquiry upon the country, and WH seeks likewise. Pledges are named for the defendant. Order to the sheriff of Northamptonshire to have jury here at octave of Martinmas.

Postea text: postea 1 - the sheriff did not send the writ, to octave of Hilary 1407.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 407

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £10
Case type: Bond; Real action / rents / damage to real estate

Pleading: John G. claims that Richard W. owes him £20 on a bond. Damages claimed at £10. Bond shown in court. Noted that the bond does not say where it was made but JG says it was made in London etc.

Pleading: RW says that JG ought not have his action, as on the day after the making of the bond, namely on 18 February 1395, by an indenture between RW and JG which RW shows in court, whereas RW was bound to JG in the said £20, JG granted for himself and his heirs etc that as long as neither JG nor his heirs should suffer any loss on account of the sale of lands and tenements by JG to a certain Richard Cangeham, these lands lying in Maytham in Rolvenden parish in Kent, by reason of RW's warranty, or should JG should suffer loss through any lawsuit concerning the said sale, then if RW makes payment and satisfaction to JG within 40 days next following, then the bond should be in abeyance; otherwise it should remain in force. He says that JG suffered no loss through the sale of this land, or through any legal action.

Pleading: JG says that his action should continue, as Richard Stephene and his wife Joan, Thomas Lynot and John Lynot sued out a writ of cosinage against RC in the king's court returnable at the quindene of Easter 1397, whereby they sought from the aforesaid RC one messuage and 6 acres of land in Rolvenden, and against Alice P, widow of Roger Potyn, one messuage and two acres in Rolvenden, alleging in the writ that a certain Thomas, son of Alan Wheghelere, kinsman of JS, TL and JL, them being his heir, had died seised of these said lands. On that day in Easter term 1397, RS, JS, TL, and JL came by attorney, Thomas Oxenbregge, but RC and AP made essoin to the octave of Michaelmas. On that day, RS, JS, TL and JL came, as did RC by his attorney Robert Surynden; AP did not come, so sheriff of Kent ordered to take the lands sought from her into the king's hands, and she is summoned to be here at the octave of Hilary. RC then called to warrant JG, and the same day in Hilary term given. In that term, essoin was made, to the octave of Trinity 1398. Meanwhile AP did not come at the octave of Hilary 1398, and the sheriff returned that he had taken the property into the king's hands, and so RS, JS, TL, and JL seek seisin by default. At this point RC claimed that these tenements were his, and AP had no right in them except for the term of her life, and the reversion to the said property was his. The plaintiffs did not want RC to be admitted to the defence of the properties they sought from AP, but the court allowed it, and so RC again called JG to warrant. Day was given between the parties at the same term (octave of Trinity 1398). The parties came to this day, and RC was warranted by JG. RS, JS, TL, and JL sought all the said properties (both those initially sought from RC, and those from AP), and JG warranted that the late TW (kinsman of the plaintiffs) did not die seised of the said lands. Parties on country, day given between the parties at the octave of Michaelmas 1399. However, before this day, on [omitted] November 1399, RS, JS, TL and JL seek a writ to re-summon JG to hear the jury, and to summon the jury first empanelled; granted, returnable at the octave of Hilary 1400. Process continued, jury in respite to morrow of All Souls 1400, before which time JS died and the writ was discontinued. On account of this warranty, JG was troubled by many labours and expenses, and has suffered damage [entry ends here]

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 410

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Kent
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £40
Case type: Assault; Taking of goods; Trespass (chattels)

Pleading: John E. claims that Hugh L. and Edward L. used force and arms to break his close and house at St Mary Cray, Kent, kill a horse worth 100s, carry off goods and chattels worth £10, and assault his men and servants so that they did not go about their business for fifteen days. The persons assaulted were John R. Nicholas A, and Thomas S. The goods taken were namely: one bed, one copper/brass and pewter/tin dish, woollen and linen cloth, and timber. Damages are claimed at £40.

Pleading: HL and EL come per their attorney, Richard B., and defend. And upon this day is given between the parties in Hilary term 1407.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 418d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Trespass (against statute)
Damages claimed: £40
Case type: Breach of Statute; Contract (service/employment)

Pleading: William A. claims that on 24/08/1404 he retained a certain Robert Cook (servant) to work as a spicer for thee years next following. Parson Robert Cook of Little Shelford, Cambridgeshire, took Robert Cook servant into his own service on 23/08/1405 in breach of the statute of labourers. Damages are claimed at £40.

Pleading: WA says that Robert Cook servant was not already in the service of parson Robert Cook when he retained him at London and seeks inquiry upon the country, and parson Robert Cook seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Cambridgeshire etc.

Pleading: Parson Robert Cook says that the action against him ought not continue because prior to the time when WA supposedly retained Robert Cook servant, he had already retained Robert Cook, namely on 03/05/1404 at little Shelford, Cambridgeshire, to work for him as a cook for the three years next following.

Postea text: 4 posteas - all say that the sheriff of Cambridgeshire did not send the writ, forwarding the case as far as Easter term 1408.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 436

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Cambridgeshire
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £100
Case type: Bond

Pleading: Stephen S., Thomas Brampton, John Smyth, and John H. claim that William W. and Thomas F., executors of the will of William Castellacre (together with co-executors Thomas Bradefeld, John Stucle, William Clipston, and Elizabeth the widow of William Castellacre), owe them £400 per a bond made between the late William Castellacre on the one part and SS, Thomas Brampton, John Smyth and JH on the other part. Damages are claimed at £100.

Pleading: WW and TF say that they did not administrate any of the goods of the late William Castellacre which William Castellacre had at the time of his death, or as his executors.

Pleading: SS, Thomas Brampton, John Smyth and JH say that WW and TF made administration of the goods and chattels of William Castellacre at the time of his death or as his executors, namely at Great Eversden, Cambridgeshire, and seek enquiry upon the country, and WW with TF seek likewise. Order to the sheriff of Cambridgeshire etc.

Postea text: 4 posteas - all say that the sheriff did not send the writ, forwarding the case as far as Hilary term 1408.

Case notes: related to case against the here-named co-executor Thomas Bradefeld on CP40/585 rot.314d.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 451

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Huntingdonshire
Writ type: Debt (sale of goods)
Damages claimed: 100s
Case type: Sale of goods

Pleading: John B. and John H. claim that Roger C. owes them 70s arising from the sale of three barrels of rumney (sweet wine) which RC bought but did not pay for. Damages are claimed at 100s.

Pleading: RC says that he does not owe JB and JH the said 70s nor any other money and puts himself upon the country, and JB with JH put themselves likewise. Order to the sheriff of London etc.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 451d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Middlesex
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £30
Damages awarded: 20s
Costs: 60s
Case type: Bond

Pleading: John B. claims that Andrew E. owes him £30 per a bond. Bond shown in court. Noted that the bond does not say where it was made but JB says it was made at Westminster. Damages claimed at £30.

Pleading: AE says that the bond is not of his making and puts himself upon the country, and JB puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of Middlesex etc. The bond is put into the safe keeping of clerk William P.

Postea text: postea 1 - continuance between the parties as far as Michaelmas term 1407.

Postea text: postea 2 - to this cay comes JB per his attorney aforesaid, and AE comes per his attorney Robert C. A jury comes and says on oath that the bond is indeed of AE's making, and so JB is to recover the said debt plus 20s damages for the detention of the said monies and 20s for his costs. Upon this AE asks the justices to increase the amount he has been awarded for costs, and the justices decide that JB is to recover the 40s assessed by the jury plus an additional 40s for costs. Hence JB is to recover the debt plus 80s. AE ought to be arrested.

Postea text: postea 3 - 14/02/1412 JB comes and acknowledges that AE has made satisfaction concerning the said debt and damages. AE is quit.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 454d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Surrey
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Taking of goods

Pleading: Robert D. claims that William M. used force and arms to seize and carry off from Dulwich, surrey, his goods and chattels to the value of 20m. The goods taken were namely 20,000 tiles, and timber. Damages claimed at £20.

Pleading: Concerning the use of force and arms WM says that he is innocent and puts himself upon the country, and RD puts himself likewise. Concerning the remainder of the supposed trespass WM says that he is a tiler who makes tiles and tiles houses. He says that on the day of the supposed trespass RD had diverse ruinous houses in London, parish of St Martin Vintry, Vintry ward, and that RC made livery of the said tiles and timbers to him for the repairing and roofing of the said houses. WM says that under this pretext he took the said tiles and timber, as he had good licence to do.

Pleading: RD reiterates that force and arms were used to take the said materials and seeks inquiry upon the country, and WM seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Surrey etc.

Postea text: postea 1 - the sheriff of Surrey returns that the writ reached him too late, and so the case is forwarded as far as Hilary term 1407.

Postea text: postea 2 - case respited as far as Easter term in three weeks 1407 so that a jury may be placed.

Postea text: postea 3 - the sheriff returns the names of eight jurors of new appointment, among whom he returned William A. and Thomas B. who were first empanelled to Hilary term (1407). And, as the writ was for the appointing of eight tales (new impartial jurors) the sheriff, Thomas S., is amerced 6s 8d. Case respited for lack of jury until Easter term in five weeks. Just as before eight tales are to be empanelled.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 503

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (sale of goods)
Damages claimed: 40s
Case type: Sale of goods

Pleading: John B. claims that John C. owes him 40s arising from the sale of sale of cloth which JC bought but did not pay for. Damages are claimed at 40s. The cloth was namely, 4 ells of cloth called murre and half an ell of scarlet cloth.

Pleading: JC comes in his own person and defends. And upon this day is given between the parties in Hilary term 1407. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 503d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (account)
Damages claimed: 40s
Case type: Reckoning of account

Pleading: John W. claims that Ralph C. owes him 40s as determined by a reckoning of account held between them before JW himself, concerning various merchandise and receipts. Damages are claimed at 40s.

Pleading: RC says that he does not owe JW the aforesaid 40s nor any other monies and offers his law. Pledges of law are named.

Postea text: postea 1 - JW does not come and so he and his pledges are in mercy. JW is in default and RC is without day.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 511

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £40
Damages awarded: 100s
Case type: Bond; Real action / rents / damage to real estate

Pleading: William Wedon claims that Stephen D. Sen. owes him £40 on a bond, payable in the church of St Leonard Eastcheap, London. Damages are claimed at £40.

Pleading: SD (Sen.) says that on the day after the making of the first bond, an indenture was made at Plymouth, Devon, which same writing SD (Sen.) presents to the court. The indenture says that it is made between SD (Sen.) on one part, and William Wedon on the other part; and also between SD (Sen.) on one part, and William Wedon, Henry N, and Joan N. (wife of HN and daughter of William J.). The conditions were that William Wedon, HN, and JN should quitclaim to SD (Sen.): the manor and demesne of Rame (Cornwall); the advowson of Rame; and of all lands of tenements with all their appurtenances of Rame, Wringford, Wiggle, and Treninnow, inclusive of all rents and services etc. And also, William Wedon, HN and JN obligated themselves to SD (Sen.) in £200 silver - and further William Wedon granted - that if HN and JN should raise sufficient fine before the justices for the quitclaim prior to Christmas 1392, and as long as SD (Sen.) or his heirs should have secure possession of the property undisturbed disturbed by JN or any other heirs of John G., then the £200 bond payable to SD (Sen.) should remain null and void, and the force of the £40 bond payable to William Wedon should hold. But, should sufficient fine not be raised or should the secure possession of William Wedon or his heirs be disturbed then the £200 bond should become payable to SD (Sen.) and the £40 bond should be null and void. However, SD (Sen.) says that on 08/08/1392, before Christmas 1392, he asked that HN and JN raise the aforesaid fine before the king's justice at Plymouth concerning the demesne manor, lands, etc. and they refused to raise the fine, of 100s, so that SD (Sen.) had to pay it. SD (Sen.) further says that a certain Alfonus G. and a certain Walter C., kinsmen of the late John G., made separate claims to the aforesaid manor lands and tenements with appurtenances, upon which certain ancient title it was ordained by the counsel of SD (Sen.) at Plymouth on the aforesaid 08/08/1392 that William Wedon ought recognize that he is held to SD (Sen.) in the aforesaid £200 by means of a certain statute merchant before the mayor of Exeter. This was because his secure possession of the aforesaid lands was disturbed by claimants AG and WC. Hence, on the same 08/08/1392, SD (Sen.) requested that William Wedon recognize, before the same statute (merchant), that he was held to SD (Sen.) in the aforesaid £200, but William Wedon refused.

Pleading: William Wedon says that himself, as much as HN and JN, before the said Christmas 1392, namely on 29/08/1392 at Guildford, Surrey, went before justice William R. and with the counsel of SD (Sen.)'s son John D. and others learned of the law as set forth by SD (Sen.) ; and by way of the order and consent of SD (Sen.) withdrew from the above agreement (tractaverunt pacem de fine predicto l..[damage]) and recognized that they would raise a certain entry fine between SD (Sen.) with Cecily, then wife of SD (Sen.), and themselves, concerning the aforesaid lands, referred to as: 22 messuages, 1 mill, 4... [damage] acres of land, 3 acres of meadow, and 8s rents with appurtenances in Rame, Wiggle, P…[damage], 'Rame Hill', 'Hamne', and the avowson of the church of Rame. These lands were to be held by SD (Sen.) and CD for their lives, and after their lives they were to be held by SD's son Stephen D. (Jr.) and his heirs; and if SD (Jr.) should die without heirs then the aforesaid lands (etc.) should pass to SD (Jr.)'s brother JD. and the heirs of his body; and if JD should die without heirs then the aforesaid lands (etc.) should pass to JD's sister Isold D. and her heirs; and if ID should die without heirs the aforesaid lands (etc.) should pass to the widow of SD (Jr.). On the pretext of this recognizance William Wedon, HN, and JN then later travelled to Westminster in the octave of Trinity term 1393 where the fine was raised and engrossed before justice Robert C. and his fellow justices. Beyond this William Wedon, HN, and JN say that there were no other kin of the late JG (beyond JN herself) reported or proved as of Christmas 1392. They say that through the making of their fine at Westminster SD (Sen.) has been made secure in said lands (etc.). William Wedon says that it is not necessary, according to the law of the land, for him to answer any of the other allegations against him.

Pleading: SD (Sen.) says that William Wedon did deny the material of the allegations against him, which certain material is sufficient in law etc. and seeks judgement. Upon this day is given between the parties in Easter term 1407, to come and hear judgement.

Postea text: postea 1 - further day is given between the parties in Trinity term 1407.

Postea text: postea 2 - it is decided that William Wedon is to recover his £40 debt per the bond plus 100s damages. SD (Sen.) is in mercy.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 514

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: £100
Case type: Detention of goods; Safe keeping

Pleading: John H. is in mercy for many defaults. William W. claims that JH detains from him a certain bond which was given to him for safe keeping. WW says that this bond shows that a certain Richard G. is held to WW and a certain John B. in £40. Damages are claimed at £100.

Pleading: JH says that he does not detain the said bond and offers his law. Pledges of law are named. It is decided that JH's attorney, John W., ought have his master here to make his law in Hilary term 1407 etc.

Postea text: postea 1 - JH comes in his own person but WW does not come. Therefore, WW and his pledges of the prosecution are in mercy, and JH is without day.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 515

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Essex
Writ type: Debt (other)
Damages claimed: -
Case type: Debt; Real action / rents / damage to real estate

Pleading: John, abbot of Beeleigh by Maldon, Essex, is in mercy for many defaults. The Dean and Chapter of St Paul's Cathedral, London, claim that abbot John owes them £17 17s 9½d arrears arising from an annual rent of 18m 5s. And upon this day is given between the parties in Hilary term 1407.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 516

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Surrey
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: £100
Case type: Detention of goods; Real action / rents / damage to real estate

Pleading: The Dean and Chapter of St Paul's Cathedral, London, claim that John C. Richard P., John H., and William M., unjustly detain 6 horses and 12 oxen which they took from a field in Barnes, Surrey, called 'Homefield'. Damages are claimed at £100.

Pleading: JC, RP, JH, and WM come and defend. RP says that he is bailiff of the manor of Wimbledon for the archbishop of Canterbury, and acknowledges taking the said beasts. RP says that the Dean and Chapter were seised, in fee and demesne, of 8 hides of land with appurtenances in Barnes, which 8 hides were part of the manor of Barnes and held of the archbishop of Canterbury as of his manor of Wimbledon, and of the right of the archbishop's church at Canterbury, in exchange for: fealty and suit of court at the archbishop's manor of Wimbledon every three weeks; 2s 8d annual rents payable at the Nativity of St John the Baptist; for ploughing 6 acres of the archbishop's lands at Wimbledon in the winter and sowing wheat in the same; ploughing 6 acres of the archbishop's lands at Wimbledon in lent and sowing oats in the same; for a service called the 'great boon-work' (magnam precariam) of finding eighteen men for reaping the archbishop's grain at Wimbledon in the autumn and a sheriff or bailiff for the same eighteen men; and finally for the service that the aforesaid Dean and Chapter, and all other tenants holding of the Archbishop in the same manor, should nominate three men to the office of reeve for the manor of Wimbledon from among whom one is chosen at the will of the archbishop, his deputy or bailiff, to act as reeve for one year, and if the person chosen from the three nominated is not sufficient to satisfy the archbishop concerning the profits and output of manor then the same reeve ought to be fully accountable etc. RP says that it was according to these customs that the late archbishop of Canterbury William C. was seised of the aforesaid lands in Barnes per the hands of former Dean of St Paul's John A. And concerning the reeveship, the late Archbishop WC was seised of this per the hands of the Master of the Hospital of St Thomas (Southwark) Robert D. and Robert F., separately; the manor of Wimbledon being the archbishop's from time immemorial. RP claims that according to the custom of the manor Dean of St Paul's Thomas M. was nominated and chosen to be reeve of the manor of Wimbledon, but refused. Further the fealty for the said lands in Barnes has not been made and suit of court at Wimbledon was not been made on 16/03/1406 compelling RP, as the archbishop's bailiff, to make distraint against Dean TM by way of one horse, and later the second horse and 12 oxen aforesaid. RP says that JC, JH, and WM were simply working as his servants in this matter and that no other injury was intended.

Pleading: The Dean and chapter of St Paul's deny that the archbishop WC was seised of the said 8 hides per the hands of former Dean JA, and deny that WC was seised of the office of reeve of Wimbledon per the hands of RD and RF. The Dean and Chapter claim that King Athelstan granted the said 8 hides of land to St Paul's. They say that the place from which the said horses and oxen were taken by RP is a place outside of the fee and demesne of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Pleading: RP, JC, JH, and WM say that the place in question is within the demesne and fee of the archbishop of Canterbury and put themselves upon the country, and the Dean and Chapter put themselves likewise.

Postea text: postea 1 - continuance between the parties so that a jury may be placed, as far as Trinity term 1407.

Postea text: postea 2 - the Dean and Chapter do not come and so they and their pledges of the prosecution are in mercy. JC, RP, JH, and WM are without day. And upon this JC, RP, JH, and WM seek the returns of the year (reeve's returns). The justice says concerning this and day is given between the parties in the octave of St John the Baptist (1407).

Case notes: Related to Patent Roll entry 11 Nov. 1408

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 527

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Trespass (against statute)
Damages claimed: 10m
Case type: Breach of Statute; Contract (service/employment)

Pleading: Edward P. claims that on 15/08/1408 he hired John N. to work for him as a labourer for one whole year next following, however JN left his service prematurely and without reasonable cause on 20/09/1406 in breach of the statute of labourers. Damages are claimed at 10m.

Pleading: JN says that he was not retained by EP and puts himself upon the country, and EP puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff etc. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 528

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Oxfordshire
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: £200
Case type: Detention of goods; Real action / rents / damage to real estate; Safe keeping

Pleading: John T. is in mercy for many defaults. John B. with his wife Elizabeth B. claim that JT detains a certain chest containing charters, writings and other muniments. JB and EB say that a certain Roger L. (Sen.) lately seised of one messuage, one toft and one croft called 'Crokescroft', and 60 acres of land in Tetsworth, Oxfordshire, which Roger L. (Sen.) granted to Thomas L. and Richard K. by way of a certain charter. TL and RK then granted the same lands to Roger L. (Sen.)'s sons, Bartholomew L., Richard L., and Thomas L. (by way of another charter). This all took place within the lifetime of the said Roger L. (Sen.), TL, and RK., with the unanimous of whom those charters along with documents relating to the aforesaid lands at Tetsworth were put into a certain chest. This chest was then, on 26/09/1356, delivered into the custody of Roger L. (Jr.). Later Richard L. and BL died, and Roger L. (Jr.) delivered the said chest with charters etc., as pertained (ad visum) to TL, into the keeping of a certain Nicholas T. at Tetworth on 23/08/1362. When NT died the chest passed to his widow Rose T., who in turn delivered the said chest with charters etc., as pertained to TL or his heirs, to the present defendant JT at Tetsworth on 23/06/1376. JT has since refused to deliver the said chest to the plaintiffs JB and EB. Damages are claimed at £200.

Pleading: JT says that he does not detain the said chest with charters etc. and puts himself upon the country, and JB with EB put themselves likewise. Order to the sheriff of Oxfordshire etc.

Postea text: 5 posteas - all say that the sheriff of Oxfordshire did not send the writ, forwarding the case as far as Easter term 1408.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 584

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (loan)
Damages claimed: 40s
Case type: Loan

Pleading: Thomas T. claims that John W. owes him 46s 8d per a loan. Damages claimed at 40s.

Pleading: JW says that he does not owe TT the said 46s 8d nor any other monies and offers his law. Pledges of law are named as well as pledges for future appearance.

Postea text: postea 1 - TT does not come and so in in default. TT and his pledges of the prosecution are in mercy. JW is without day.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 629d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: £40
Case type: Detention of goods; Safe keeping

Pleading: Robert, abbot of Rocester, claims that Philip, bishop of Lincoln, unjustly detains two bonds. The abbot states that on 3 February 1404, at the Greyfriars in London, he delivered two bonds into the custody of the bishop, one bond recording that William de la Pole was bound to the abbot in 100m, and the other recording that the abbot was bound to William in the same 100m. Damages claimed at £40.

Pleading: The bishop presents the two bonds to the court and says that he is ready to deliver them with the court's decision. However, he says that the two bonds were given to him with the mutual assent of the abbot and William, and that he was to deliver them to either the abbot or William only under certain conditions. However, he does not know whether those conditions have been met on the part of William, and asks that he be forewarned. This is granted, and order to the sheriff to inform William to be here, at the octave of Hilary next [1406]. Same day given to the parties.

Pleading: [continued at Easter 1407] [Pleadings re-enrolled] On this day, parties come by attorney, William de la Pole in person. Sheriff returns that WP was made aware by John Holbeche and John Beaugraunt. The abbot seeks delivery of the bonds. Day given at the octave of Trinity 1407.

Postea text: [on CP 40/ 583, rot 629d] Parties came by attorneys, sheriff did not send the writ, to quindene of Easter 1408.

Case notes: Continued on CP 40/585, rot 418.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 646d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Middlesex
Writ type: Debt (other)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Contract (general)

Pleading: John P. and John A., administrators of the goods of Stephen R. (died intestate), claim that Angelo C. owes them £40. JP and JA say that the late SR, per the hands of John C., delivered £40 to AC in exchange for conducting the business of SR at the Roman Curia, the same £40 to be either used in this manner or repaid. However, AC did not spend the said £40 in the Roman Curia, nor did he repay it to SR. Damages are claimed at £20. JP and JA present 'letters president' from the consistory of London, showing that they are administrators of the goods and chattels of SR.

Pleading: AC says that he does not detain the aforesaid £40 nor any other monies and offers his law. Pledges of law are named.

Postea text: postea 1 - administrators JP and JA do not come and so are in default. They and their pledges of the prosecution are in mercy. AC is without day.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 653

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: 100s
Case type: Bond

Pleading: Richard A. is in mercy for many defaults. John D. claims that RA owes him 63s 4d per a bond made on 26/02/1405 and repayable: 15s 10d in the Nativity of St John the Baptist 1405 (24/06/1405); another 15s 10d in Michaelmas 1405 (29/09/1405); another 15s 10s in Christmas 1405 (25/12/1405); and the final 15s 10d in Easter 1406 (11/04/1406). Damages are claimed at 100s. Bond shown in court. Noted that the bond does not say where it was made but JD says it was made at London etc.

Pleading: RA says that the bond is not of his making and puts himself upon the country, and JD puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff etc. The bond is put into the safe keeping of chief clerk William P.

Postea text: 2 posteas - both say that the writ was not sent, forwarding the case as far as Michaelmas term 1407.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 653d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: -
Case type: Detention of goods

Pleading: Thomas C. claims that John S. detains from his a certain chest containing diverse bonds, among which is a bond showing that Geoffrey S. is held to Thomas F., sheriff of London, in 40m. Also contained in the said chest is a bond showing that John S. is held to sheriff TF in £20. [entry ends here]

Pleading: [No counterplea entered.]

Case notes: probably an incomplete version of CP40/583 rot.654d.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 654

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £40
Case type: Bond

Pleading: Thomas M. claims that John H. owes him £40 per a bond. Damages are claimed at £40. Bond shown in court. Noted that the bond does not say where it was made but TM says it was made at London etc.

Pleading: JH says that the action against him ought not continue because after the making of the said bond he and TM made an indenture, the other part of which he presents to the court. It says that if a certain John F. should pay TM of 4m in Easter 1405 (19/04/1405) and 4m in Michaelmas 1405 (29/09/1405) then the bond shall be null and void, and that TM would indemnify this against the king (i.e. vouch before the court that it had been paid, if necessary). JH says that the same JF paid the aforesaid monies from Easter 1405 and that TM indemnified this against the king.

Pleading: TH says that JF did not pay him the said monies, and that he did not indemnify this against the king. TH says that JF did not make the 4m payment of Michaelmas 1405.

Pleading: JH says that JF paid TM the said 4m in Michaelmas 1405 at Warwick, Warwickshire, and puts himself upon the country, and TM puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of Warwickshire etc. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Postea text: 2 posteas - both say that the sheriff of Warwickshire did not send the writ, forwarding the case as far as Michaelmas 1407.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 654d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: £100
Case type: Detention of goods

Pleading: Thomas C. claims that he gave John S. a certain chest containing charters, writings and other muniments for safe keeping, which JS now refuses to return. Damages are claimed at £100.

Pleading: TC brings the said chest to the court and says that he is prepared to deliver it with the court's decision. TC says that the chest was given to him by JS and a certain Adam C., to be returned only under certain conditions. TC says that he is ignorant as to whether these conditions have been met according to AC. Hence a writ of scire facias is issued to the sheriff of London concerning AC, and the parties are to return in Hilary term 1407.

Postea text: postea 1 - the sheriff of London returns that AC has nothing in his bailiwick and so a writ is issued to the Sheriff of Norfolk, returnable in Easter term 1307.

Case notes: probably a fuller version of CP40/583 rot.653d.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 669d

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: London
Writ type: Debt (account)
Damages claimed: 100s
Case type: Reckoning of account

Pleading: Thomas H. claims that John V. owes him £4 as determined by a reckoning of the account between them before auditors Henry B. and John H. This account concerned diverse linen and woollen cloth, and diverse sums of money. Damages are claimed at 100s.

Pleading: JV comes and defends. And upon this day is given between the parties in Hilary term 1407.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/583, rot. 683

Term: Michaelmas 1406
County: Kent
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: 100m
Case type: Detention of goods

Pleading: Thomas B. (Jr.) claims that Nicholas S. and Agatha S. detain one chest from him, which contains various charters, writings, and muniments. Thomas B. (Jr.) says that his father Thomas B. (Sen.) gave the said chest and contents to AS (prior to her marriage to NS)…[damage]… on …[damage] of December 1404 (for safe keeping) at Northfleet, Kent, but that she and NS refuse to give it back. Thomas B. (Jr.) says that it contains, among other things: a charter where by Alice E. …[damage]… to Thomas B. (Sen.) one messuage with appurtenances in Northfleet; a charter whereby John P. granted …[damage]… in Northfleet; (a charter) …[damage]… granted to Thomas B. (Sen.) 3 virgates of land with appurtenances in Northfleet; a charter whereby …[damage]…...hill granted to Thomas B. (Sen.) 2 acres of land with appurtenances in Northfleet; a charter whereby Roger S. granted to Thomas B. (Sen.) ½ acre of land in Northfleet with appurtenances; a charter whereby John S. granted to Thomas B. (Sen.) 3 virgates of lands in Northfleet with appurtenances; a charter whereby Stephen S. granted to Thomas B. (Sen.) one messuage with appurtenances in Northfleet; and an indenture between Thomas B. (Sen.), Thomas B. (Jr.), and John G. concerning a certain agreement for safe keeping. Thomas B. (Jr.) says that he requested the said chest from As after the death of his father, but that she would not return it when a woman alone nor after her marriage to 'Henry' (recte Nicholas). Damages are claimed at 100m.

Pleading: NS and As come and say that they do not detain the said chest with contents from Thomas B. (Jr.) and put themselves upon the country, and Thomas B. (Jr.) puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff etc.

Case notes: Record badly damaged and incomplete.