CP40/667: Michaelmas term 1427

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 102

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: £200
Case type: Detention of goods; Safe keeping

Pleading: William D. claims that Robert F. unjustly detains a certain bond which WD gave to the same RF at London [parish and ward left blank] on 13/02/1425 for safe keeping. WD says that this bond shows that Hugh A. is held to WD and a certain late John O. in £190, payable to WD or the late JO in St Paul's cathedral at certain terms contained therein. WD says that RF refuses to return this bond and claims damages of £200.

Pleading: RF presents this bond to the court and says that he is prepared to deliver it with the court's decision. However, RF says that the bond was given to him by WD, the late JO, and HA, only to be returned to all or any one of them under certain conditions. RF says that he is ignorant as to whether these conditions have been met on the part of HA, and seeks that HA be forewarned. Therefore, the decision is that the sheriff of London is to make it known to HA by good and honest men that he is to be at this court in Hilary term 1428 if he wishes to object to WD having delivery of the aforesaid bond. RF and WD are given day in the same term.

Postea text: postea 1 - the sheriff of London returns that HA has nothing in his bailiwick. And it has been testified in this court that HA has estate in Leicestershire, and so the sheriff of Leicestershire is ordered to forewarn AH etc.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 104d

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £10
Case type: Bond; Imprisonment

Pleading: William T. claims that Thomas B. owes him 100s per a bond. Damages are claimed at £10. Bond shown in court. And upon this WT says that the bond was made at London in the parish of St Sepulchre, ward of Farringdon Within.

Pleading: TB says that the force of the bond ought not hold because at the time of the bond's making he was imprisoned by WT and others of his coven at London in the parish of St Sepulchre, ward of Farringdon Within.

Pleading: Wt says that TB was a free man at the time of the bond's making and seeks inquiry upon the country,, and TB seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come on the morrow of All Souls 1427.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 130

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Middlesex
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Detention of goods

Pleading: William C. claims that on 29/10/1427 at Kingsbury, Middlesex, in a place called 'Robert's Croft', John P. seized and now unjustly detains two horses of the aforesaid WC, contrary to JP's surety and pledge. Damages are claimed at £20.

Pleading: JP defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Hilary term 1428.

Case notes: event in same term as pleading

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 141

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Middlesex
Writ type: Trespass (against statute)
Case type: Breach of Statute; Maintenance

Pleading: Thomas N. and his wife Matilda N., citing the statute against the unlawful maintenance of legal cases, state for themselves and the king that William F. and William S. maintain and sustain John S. and his wife Joan S. in a certain quarrel between John S. with Joan S. on the one part and TN with MN on the other part concerning who ought to have livery of a certain bag with charters etc. This quarrel pertains to a writ brought in this court against former sheriffs of London John B. and Simon S. [in this database, CP40/660 rot.438]. Maintenance is claimed to have taken place at Westminster. [Entry ends here with no further detail.]

Case notes: Partial entry, apparently repeated on CP40/667 rot.580., these relate to CP40/660 rot.438

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 186

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: 10m
Case type: Bond

Pleading: John N. claims that John W. owes him £10 per a bond. Damages are claimed at 10m. Bond shown in court. And upon this JN says that the bond was made at London [parish and ward left blank].

Pleading: JW says that the bond is not of his making and puts himself upon the country, and JN puts himself likewise. Pledges are named for the defendant. The bond is given to chief clerk Robert D. for safe keeping.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 186

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: 40s
Case type: Detention of goods; Safe keeping

Pleading: Nicholas A. claims that John G. unjustly detains a certain horse worth 40s. NA says that he delivered this horse to JG for safekeeping at London on 30/12/1417, and that JG now refuses to return it. Damages are claimed at 40s.

Pleading: JG says that he does not unjustly detain the aforesaid horse and offers his law, to be made in the morrow of All Souls 1427 (late in Michaelmas term 1427). Pledges of law are named as well as pledges for future appearance.

Postea text: postea 1 - Plaintiff NA does not come and so he and his pledges of the prosecution are in mercy.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 239

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Kent
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Housebreaking; Trespass (chattels)

Pleading: Thomas S. claims that on 12/03/1426 Henry W. used force and arms to break his close at Ash next to Sandwich, Kent, where the said HW allow his beasts to depasture, trampel, and consume TS's corn and grass to the value of 100s. Damages claimed at £20.

Pleading: HW defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Hilary term 1428. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 254d

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Debt (loan)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Loan

Pleading: Alexander C., Henry T., and William U., executors of the will of the late parson John W., claim that William B. owes them 40m by way of a loan which was made from the late parson JW to WB, but which WB never repaid. Damages are claimed at £20. AC, HT, and WU present letters testamentary to the court.

Pleading: WB says that he does not owe the aforesaid executors 40m nor any other monies and offers his law, to be made at the octave of Martinmas 1427. Pledges of law are named.

Case notes: related to CP40/671 ro.114d

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 254d

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond); Debt (loan)
Damages claimed: 40s
Case type: Bond; Loan

Pleading: John M. claims that John N. owes him £4 by way of a 40s loan made at London 06/12/1423 and due at the feast of the Purification 1424, and 40s bond made on 06/12/1423 and due in Michaelmas 1426. Damages are claimed at 40s. Bond shown in court. And upon this JM says that the bond was made at London etc.

Pleading: JN defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Hilary term 1428.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 302

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: 20m
Case type: Bond

Pleading: Henry G. claims that William W. owes him £6 per a bond. Damages are claimed at 20m. Bond shown in court. And upon this HG says that the bond was made at London etc.

Pleading: WW defends in his own person and cites the terms of the statute of additions of 1 Henry V [no further pleading].

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 303

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Gloucestershire
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £10
Case type: Bond

Pleading: William B. claims that William C. owes him 20m as the unpaid residue of a 100m bond. WB acknowledges satisfaction concerning 80m of the original 100m debt, thus leaving the aforesaid unpaid residue of 20m. Damages are claimed at £10. Bond shown in court. And upon this WB says that the bond was made at Newent, Gloucestershire.

Pleading: WC says that the force of the bond ought not hold because since the bond was made WB, by the name of 'WB son and heir of John B' issued him a release at London [parish and ward not given] on 05/12/1423.

Pleading: WB says that the release is not of his making and seeks inquiry upon the country, and WC seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in Hilary term 1428. The release is given to clerk Robert D. for safe keeping.

Postea text: postea 1 - 10/05/1429 the bond is returned to WC because process has been discontinued. Clerk RD is quit of it.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 305d

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Sussex
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: 40m
Case type: Imprisonment

Pleading: Countess of Arundell and Surrey Beatrice F., of London, widow, is in mercy for many defaults. William S. claims that Countess BF, JK, and William W. used force and arms to imprison him at Lewes, Sussex, from 01/10/1426 until 12/04/1427. Damages are claimed at 40m.

Pleading: Countess BF, JK and WW defend, and countess BF says that plaintiff WS is a villein of her manor of Peckham, Sussex. Countess BF says that she and all those holding the manor before her have been seised of WS and all of his predecessors, as villeins of the same manor, from time immemorial. Countess BF offers to verify this. JK and WW say that they are innocent of the use of force and arms and put themselves upon the country, and WS puts himself likewise. Concerning the remainder of the trespass JK and WW say that WS was a villein and rebel of countess BF's manor of Peckham, and that countess BF wished WS to be arrested, imprisoned, and detained in prison. Therefore, JK and WW, acting as servants of countess BF, imprisoned WS for countess BF just as they had good licence to do. This they offer to verify.

Pleading: WS says that his action ought not be excluded because he is a free man of free condition and not a villein of countess BF, as regards the manor of Peckham etc. WS seeks inquiry upon the country, and defendants countess BF, JK, and WW, seek likewise. Order to the sheriff of Sussex to make a jury come in the morrow of the Purification 1428.

Postea text: postea 1 - continuance between the parties as far as Michaelmas term in one month 1431 (10 Henry VI) unless the case is first at the assize of East Grinstead, Sussex, in the feast of St Margaret the Virgin next (20/07/1430).

Postea text: postea 2 - And in this manner, on this day come both the plaintiff and defendants and insert this record in these words. The case was herd at the assize of East Grinstead, Sussex, on 20/07/1431, before justices John J. and William P. To which assize both the plaintiff and defendants came, but only some of the jurors came. Three jurors appearing, namely John Bredon, William Stopham, and John atte Nore, are jurors of the rape of Lewes, within which the trespass is supposed to have taken place, and WS claims that the residue of the jurors appearing are not of the rape of Lewes, nor do they have any free tenement there, nor do they reside there. Defendants JK, WW, and countess BF say that all the men of the jury have free tenements in the rape of Lewes or reside there, which (men) have a sufficient income of at least 40s per annum in the county of Sussex, being tenants of countess BF under her jurisdiction of the rapes of Bramber and Pevensey which adjoin and contain the rape of Lewes (Bramber to the west and Pevensey to the east). And upon this the aforesaid John Bredon, William Scopham and John Atte Nore are examined and say on upon oath that all men (of the jury) have a free tenement in the rape of Lewes, or reside in the same rape, and are worth 40s a year or more within the county of Sussex; further testifying that they are tenants of countess BF, of the rapes of Bramber and Pevensey, which adjoin and contain the rape of Lewes. Upon which, William Delve, John Walsser, Thomas Gramford, William Telgherst, John Basset, Richard Dene, and John Woghere of the rapes of Bramber and Pevensey are set forth in the jury, similarly with John Bredon, William Scopham and John atte Nore. The remaining jurors appearing in this manner, namely John Erlegh, Robert Joop, Thomas Podeye, Henry Compton, Richard Cosoydell, and Edward Merynden have been removed from the jury because they are suspect. Therefore, the jury is placed in respite as far as Hilary term 1432 and the sheriff of Sussex is ordered to place ‘decem tales’ (supply jurors).

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 307

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Suffolk
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £40
Case type: Assault; Housebreaking; Real action / rents / damage to real estate; Taking of goods

Pleading: Elizabeth, widow of John Dale, states that on 18 March 1427, William Maltby forcibly broke her close and houses in Ipswich, and took and carried off goods and chattels worth £10, namely 4 doors, 6 windows, 8 pairs of iron hinges, 2 dining tables, 2 pair of trestles, 6 stools and other household utensils, and also threatened her tenants so that she was without their rents and service from that day until the day of her original writ on 12 April 1427, these tenants being Gerard Ducheman and Arnold Taillour, who hold one messuage and two shops at the will of ED for an annual rent of 50s payable to ED at Michaelmas and Easter in equal portions, and service of finding one man for the reaping of ED's corn each autumn. Damages claimed at £40

Pleading: WM denies force and arms, and the taking of the goods. Parties on country. Concerning the remainder, WM says that long before the day of the supposed trespass a certain Simon Hereward was seised of a messuage and two shops in Ipswich, of which the place of the alleged trespass was a parcel, in his demesne as of fee, and thus seised he intended to make a charter of enfeoffment to ED, but never carried this out. WM states that by the custom of the ancient borough of Ipswich, property may be transferred by will, both that inherited and purchased, and that in his will SH left the messuage and shops to his daughter and heir, Margaret, and her heirs; if Margaret should die without heirs, then the messuage and shops should then be sold by SH's executors WM and [omitted], with the money arising from the sale to be distributed in pious uses for the salvation of SH's soul. SH later died, after which time his daughter MH was seised of the property in her demesne as of fee-tail, but she then died without heirs, whereupon ED, by pretence of the aforesaid charter, entered the property. WM then re-entered the property, as he had good licence to do. Concerning the alleged threats against ED's tenants, WM says that upon his entry into the aforesaid messuage and shops he prohibited the payments of rents to ED or anyone else except himself, and that he would legally distrain them if they did, this being the alleged threats.

Pleading: ED says that WM did use force and arms to threaten her tenants so that they withdrew their rents and services. Enquiry on country. Concerning the breaking of the close and houses, ED says that long before SH had anything in the property a certain William Baynyard and William Dey were seised of them in their demesne as of fee, and thus seised gave them to John Dale, her late husband, and ED herself, to hold for the term of their lives, with remainder to SH, his wife Margery and the heirs of their bodies, under the condition that if SH and Margery H. should die without heirs the messuage and shops should then revert to the heirs of JD. By virtue of this she and JD were seised of the said messuage and shops in their demesne as their free tenement, and JD later died seised, leaving ED seised until SH entered the property and left it to his daughter Margaret in the form aforesaid. ED then re-entered the property, following which SH and his wife Margery both later died without heirs of their bodies [sic], after which WM, claiming the messuage and shops as executor of the will of SH, entered the property upon ED's possession.

Pleading: WM, not acknowledging that the property was granted to JD and ED by Baynyard and Dey with remainders as claimed by ED, states that JD, after his marriage to ED, and after the enfeoffment to them, enfeoffed the property SH, to him and his heirs in perpetuity, and thus seised made the will as claimed.

Pleading: ED says that JD never enfeoffed SH with the said property as claimed. Enquiry on country, jury here at octave of Hilary 1428.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 310

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Worcestershire
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £10
Damages awarded: 30s
Costs: 20s
Case type: Housebreaking; Trespass (chattels)

Pleading: Thomas R. claims that Margery S. and John S. used force and arms to break his close at 'Moreton', Worcestershire, where they allows their horses, oxen, cows, pigs, and sheep to trample and consume his grass to the value of 100s. Damages are claimed at £10.

Pleading: MS and JS say that in the county of Worcestershire there are diverse places called 'Moreton', namely: Britsmorton, Castlemorton, Abbots Morton, 'Moreton juxta Bredon' (modern: 'Moreton's Farm') and Morton Underhill; but that there is not vill known simply as 'Moreton' and so seek judgement un the writ.

Pleading: TR says that there is a vill in Worcestershire known simply as 'Moreton' and seeks inquiry upon the country, and the defendants, MS and JS, seek likewise. Order to the sheriff of Worcestershire to make a jury come in Hilary term 1428.

Postea text: postea 1 - continuance between the parties as far as Michaelmas term 1429 unless the case is first heard at the assize of Worcester on 25/07/1429.

Postea text: postea 2 - the case is heard at the assize of Worcester on 25/07/1429 before justices John H. and Thomas R. Defendants MS and JS don't come and so a jury is to be taken against them in default. The jury comes and says that the county of Worcestershire has such as place as 'Moreton'. Therefore, TR is awarded damages on the trespass to the value of 30s, and costs of 20s. Therefore the decision is that TR is to recover 50s in costs and damages, and the defendants, MS and JS, are to be arrested.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 311d

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: 100s
Case type: Bond

Pleading: John G. claims that William C. owes him £10 on a bond for merchandise bought in the Westminster staple. Damages are claimed at 100s. Bond shown in court. And upon this JG says that the bond was made at London [parish and ward left blank].

Pleading: WC defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Hilary term 1428. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Postea text: 2 posteas - both further licences to imparl as far as trinity term 1428.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 313

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: 100s
Case type: Bond

Pleading: William S. claims that John W. owes him £7 6s 8d on a bond. Damages are claimed at 100s. Bond shown in court. And upon this WS says that the bond was made at London [parish and ward left blank].

Pleading: JW defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Hilary term 1428.

Postea text: 1 postea - further licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1428.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 313

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: 100s
Case type: Bond

Pleading: William S. claims that Robert S. owes him £7 6s 8d on a bond. Damages are claimed at 100s. Bond shown in court. And upon this WS says that the bond was made at London [parish and ward left blank].

Pleading: RS defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as s Hilary term 1428.

Postea text: 3 posteas - all further licence to imparl, forwarding the case as far as Hilary term 1429.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 319d

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Account
Damages claimed: 100m
Case type: Contract (service/employment); Reckoning of account

Pleading: Richard K. claims that Thomas B. has not rendered reasonable account concerning the time when TB acted as RK's receiver of monies. RK claims that TB acted as his receiver of monies from the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross 1413 for the three years then next following, and during this period TB received on his behalf, at Westminster, £24 by the hands of John A., concerning which TB has not rendered reasonable account. Damages claimed at 100m.

Pleading: TB says that he never acted as RK's receiver concerning the aforesaid monies or any other monies during the time aforesaid. Parties on country, jury here at octave of Martinmas.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 327

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: £1000
Case type: Detention of goods

Pleading: William Belverge (the plaintiff) claims that John D. unjustly detains a certain chest containing charters, writings, and other muniments. William Belverge (plaintiff) says that a certain Henry A. was seised of 16 acres of land with appurtenances in Sharpenhoe, Bedfordshire, and that by way of a certain charter HA granted that land to William Belverge of Knebworth (Sen.) and Agnes (B.) the wife of William Belverge of Knebworth (Sen.), and the heirs of their bodies; so that if William Belverge of Knebworth (Sen.) and AB the wife of William Belverge of Knebworth should die without heirs of their bodies the same 16 acres would pass to the heirs of William Belverge of Knebworth (Sen.). William Belverge (the plaintiff) says that the this charter was delivered to William Belverge of Knebworth (Sen.), and by the force of that charter William Belverge of Knebworth (Sen.) and AB the wife of William Belverge of Knebworth (Sen.) were seised of the said 16 acres in their demesne and as of fee tail. And to William Belverge of Knebworth (Sen.) and AB the wife of William Belverge of Knebworth (Sen.), so seised, a certain John A. quitclaimed to William Belverge of Knebworh (Sen.) and his heirs all his right and claim to the aforesaid 16 acres , by way of a certain writing which was given to William Belverge of Knebworth (Sen.). AB then later died, as did William Belverge of Knebworth (Sen.), without producing an heir by their bodies but in possession of the aforesaid charter (by HA), writing (by JA), and other muniments relating to the aforesaid 16 acres, contained within the chest which plaintiff William Belverge (the plaintiff) now seeks. William Belverge (the plaintiff) claims that at the death of William Belverge of Knebworth (Sen.) the right to the aforesaid 16 acres descended to him as great-grandson of William Belverge of Knebworth; the present plaintiff William Belverge claiming to be 'the son of Stephen B. the son of William Belverge (Jr.) the son of William Belverge of Knebworth (Sen.). William Belverge (the plaintiff) says that after the death of William Belverge of Knebworth (Sen.) the aforesaid chest with charters etc. passed into the hands of JD at London, on 02/10/1410, but that JD refuses to give the it to him. Damages are claimed at £1000.

Pleading: JA says that he does not detain the aforesaid chest with charters and puts himself upon the country, and William Belverge (plaintiff) puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in Hilary term 1428. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Postea text: 3 posteas - all say that the sheriff did not send the writ, forwarding the case as far as Michaelmas term 1428.

Case notes: related to CP40/664 rot127d and CP40/664 rot.437d

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 327d

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Surrey
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: £10
Case type: Detention of goods; Real action / rents / damage to real estate

Pleading: John M. claims that Nicholas C. unjustly detains JM's beasts contrary to his surety and pledge. JM says that on 01/08/1427 at Nutfield, Surrey, NC seized two of JM's oxen ('boves') contrary to NC's surety and pledge. Damages are claimed at £10.

Pleading: NC says that plaintiff JM and his wife Margaret M. held 220 acres of land, 100 acres of pasture, 34 acres of meadow, and 50 acres of wood from him for the term of MM's life, at Nutfield, Surrey, for fealty and an annual rent of 32s 10½d to be paid annually at the nativity of St John and the feast of St Andrew in equal portions. Concerning which services, 'NC was seised per the hands of a certain Nicholas W. lately tenant of the aforesaid tenement as per the hands of his true tenant'; which certain NW enfeoffed the same tenement to Richard W., by the force of which latter enfeoffment RW was seised of the aforesaid tenement in his demesne and as of fee and tenant of NC. RW then gave and granted the tenement to the aforesaid MM, who was then the wife of NW, for the term of her life, in such a manner so as that after the death of MM the tenement would revert to Cecily the daughter of NW and the heirs of her body; that same Cecily now being the wide of William S. NC says that by the force of this latter gift MM and her husband JM were seised of the aforesaid tenement in their demesne and as of free tenement by right of MM and as tenants of NC. NC says that JM and MM did not pay the rent due on the property in the nativity of St John 1427 (24/06/1427) and so were 10s 11½ d in arrears, for which arrears NC took the aforesaid beasts as he had good licence to do.

Pleading: JM says that he has nothing in the aforesaid property unless by right of his wife MM for the term of her life, after whose life it is to revert to the aforesaid Cecily the wife of WS and Cecily's heirs. Hence, JM says that he is not able to respond without MM, CS, and WS, and seeks their help. Therefore the decision is that JM is to have day in Hilary term 1428 and the sheriff of London is to summon MM and WS, by good and honest men, so that they may be here to respond with JM.

Postea text: postea 1 - MM, CS, and WS come by their attorney and are not able to deny that they are tenants of the tenement of NC in the form aforesaid, nor that the rent was in arrears in the form aforesaid. Therefore JM is to have nothing per his writ and NC is to have the aforesaid beasts.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 334

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Hertfordshire
Writ type: Disseisin
Case type: Real action / rents / damage to real estate

Pleading: Robert L. seeks from prior William Coventre 3 messuages, 143 acres of land, 5 acres of meadow, 1½ acres of pasture 18 acres of wood, and 10s ½d rents with appurtenances in Tewin, Datchworth, and Lockleys (all Hertfordshire) which Walter F. gave to Roger (Luda [Sen.]) the son of William de Luda, Roger Luda (Sen.) 's wife Joan Luda, and the heirs of Roger Luda (Sen.) by the body of Joan Luda. Robert Louthe says that this property should have descended to him after the death of Roger Luda (Sen.), Joan Luda, and Roger Luda (Jr.) the son and bodily heir of Roger Luda (Sen.) and Joan Luda, as well as the death of John Luda the son and heir of Roger Luda (Jr.) and Robert Luda brother of the same Roger Luda (Jr.). Robert Louthe says that he is entitled to this property because he is the son of Robert Luda the borther of Roger Luda (Jr.), and cousin of the late John Luda. Robert Louth says that WF gave the property to Roger Luda (Sen.) and his wife Joan Luda in this manner, and that they were seised of it in their demesne and as of fee in the Reign of Edward II, and Robert Louthe claims to be their heir in the manner aforesaid.

Pleading: Prior William Coventre defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Hilary term 1428, with the assent of Robert Louthe.

Pleading: [Further information drawn from CP40/675 rot.617 - Michaelmas 1429] Prior William Coventre says that the aforesaid land, meadow, pasture, and wood are completely in the vills of Tewin and Datchworth, and that the aforesaid rent pertains to one messuage and 40 acres of land with appurtenances which are entirely in the vill of Lockleys. Concerning (quoad) the aforesaid 143 acres of land, meadow, pasture, and wood, the same prior William Coventre says that a certain Henry de Luda, uncle (avunculus) of Robert Louthe, namely brother of the aforesaid Robert Luda the father of Robert Louthe, by way of a certain writing given at Tewin on 21/07/1352 which prior William Coventre presents to the court, released and quitclaimed possession of the aforesaid property to Edward de Grymysby clerk of the chancellor of the lord king, master Roger de Kemple, and master Walter de Luda. This documents describes the property as ‘all of the lands and tenements, rents and services, with all their appurtenances which Henry de Luda ought to have come into after the death of Joan Luda the wife of Roger Luda (Sen.) his father (que post mortem Johanne de Luda juris sue uxoris quondam Roger de Luda patris sui sibi accedere deberent), in the vills of Tewin, Welwyn (Welewes), Knebworth, and Datchworth; excepting the lands and tenement of a certain John Weylond in Tewin'. And by the same writing, neither Henry Luda nor his heirs nor anyone else by his name ought to have any right or claim to the same property in perpetuity, and the same Henry Luda warranted Edward de Grymysby, Roger de Kemples, and Walter de Luda in perpetuity etc. Prior William Coventre says that the same Edward de Grymysby and Walter de Luda later died, and the so aforesaid Roger de Kemple became solely seised of the aforesaid 143 acres of land, meadow, pasture, and wood in his demesne and as of fee. This same Roger de Kemple, then, by way of a certain charter which prior William Coventre presents to the court, given at London on 05/12/1360, gave and granted the same property to a lord David de Wollore, Richard rector of the church of Tewin, Hugh atte More, John Quenyld, and John Batte. This document describes the property as all lands and tenements, rents and services, as in the houses gardens, curtilages, arable lands, rents, woods, meadows, wards, marriages etc. which were had of the gift and enfeoffment of Joan who was the wife of Roger de Luda (Sen.) in the vills of Tewin, Welwyn, Knebworth, and Datchworth. And, by the same writing, Roger de Kemple warranted the same lands in perpetuity etc. By the force of this gift and grant David de Wollore, Richard rector of the church of Tewin, Hugh atte More, John Quenyld, and John Batte were seised of the same property in their demesne and as of fee. Prior William Coventre says that the same David de Wollore, Richard rector of the church of Tewin, John Quenyld, and John Batte later died, and so the aforesaid Hugh atte More became solely seised of the aforesaid property. This same Hugh atte More then, by way of a certain charter which prior William Coventre presents to the court, given at Tewin on 02/11/1365, gave and granted the same aforesaid property to Robert Quyty (described just as in the previous charter). And, by the same writing, Hugh atte More warranted the same lands in perpetuity etc. This same Robert Quyty then, by way of a certain charter which prior William Coventre presents to the court, made at Tewin on 19/01/1366, gave and granted the same aforesaid property, which he had of the gift and enfeoffment of Hugh atte More, to a certain John Chisille (described just as in the previous charter). And, by the same writing, Robert Quyty warranted the same lands in perpetuity etc. This same John Chisille, seised in his demesne and as of fee, then procured letters patent of then king Edward III, which prior William Coventre presents to the court, given at Westminster on 27/05/1377, allowing him to alienate in mortmain the aforesaid 143 acres of land, meadow, pasture, and wood, along with other lands and tenements, to the prior and convent of St Bartholomew in Smithfield. This document describes the property involved as 162½ acres of land, 9 acres of pasture, 15 acres of wood and 5d in rents in Tewin, Welwyn, Datchworth, and Knebworth. The same John Chisille then, by way of his charter, which prior William Coventre presents to the court, made at Tewin on 24/01/1377 (ms. 24 January 51 Edward III; this day does not exist, the regnal years of Edward III begin on 24 January, and Edward III's last day was 21 June 1377. It is likely a mistake for 24/01/1377), granted the aforesaid 143 acres of land etc., among other lands, to the prior and convent of St Bartholomew in Smithfield. This documents describes the property involved as 162½ acres of land etc (as in the letters patent). Prior William Coventre says that, by way of this later charter, he then prior and convent of St Bartholomew in Smithfield (prior Thomas de Watford) was seised of the aforesaid property in his demesne and as of fee. Lastly, prior WS says that he himself, being current prior of St Bartholomew's in Smithfield in seised of the same 143 acres etc., and seeks judgement if Robert Louthe continues his action against the aforesaid writing/quitclaim of his Henry Luda, whose heir Robert Louthe is, and who warranted the property etc. Concerning (quoad) the aforesaid 10s ½d in rents, prior William Coventre says that the aforesaid Walter Flamestede did not give/grant the aforesaid 10s ½d in rents to Roger Luda (Sen.), his wife Joan Luda and their heirs, as Robert Louthe has supposed. Concerning these rents prior William Coventre puts himself upon the country, and Robert louthe puts himself likewise.

Pleading: Robert Louthe says that the quitclaim of the aforesaid 143 acres etc. made by the aforesaid Henry Luda ought not hold because the Henry Luda, the grandson of William and brother to Robert de Luda was senior brother to the aforesaid Robert, father of plaintiff Robert Louth, who now seeks the other son of the same Roger son of William etc. Robert Louthe seeks judgement.

Pleading: Prior William Coventre says that the aforesaid Henry Luda was the younger brother of Robert Luda (junior pradicto Roberto etc.), the father of Robert Louthe, and puts himself upon the country, and Robert Louthe puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of Hertfordshire to make a jury come in Hilary term 1430.

Postea text: 2 posteas - further licences to imparl, given with the assent of Robert Louthe, forwarding the case as far as Michaelmas term 1428.

Postea text: postea 3 - prior William Coventre says that in the writ, concerning making view for the same prior (de visu eidem priori faciend'), made an omission concerning 3 acres of the aforesaid lands, for which prior William Coventre seeks view concerning the messuages, lands, meadows, pasture, wood and rents aforesaid so as to determine the true estate involved etc. Therefore the prior is to have view. Day is given between the parties in Hilary term 1429.

Postea text: [Further information drawn from CP40/674 rot.544d (photo:2248) - Trinity 1429] Prior William Coventre defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Michaelmas term 1429, with the assent of Robert Louthe.

Postea text: [further information drawn from CP40/675 rot.617 (photo: 1287) - Michaelmas 1429] The jury is placed in respite as far as Trinity term 1430 unless the case is first heard before chief justice William Babyngton at the assize of St Albans (Hertfordshire) on 01/05/1430.

Postea text: To this day (Trinity 1430) comes prior William Coventre, and chief justice William Babyngton sends record of the case as heard at the assize of St Albans on 01/05/1430 before chief justice William Babyngton himself and associate justice William Croston. To that assize came both plaintiff Robert Louthe and defendant prior William Coventre, as well as a jury of the country. This jury said on oath that the aforesaid Walter Flamestede did not grant the aforesaid 10½s in rents to Roger Luda (Sen.) and his wife Joan Luda, just as prior William Coventry alleged. And concerning the 143 acres of land, meadow, pasture, and wood, the same jury says on oath Henry Luda was the younger son of Roger Luda (Sen.), junior to Robert Luda the father of plaintiff Robert Louthe and the other sons of Roger Luda (Sen.). Thus Henry Luda was not senior to Robert Luda the father of Robert Louthe., just as prior William Coventre alleged. Therefore the decision is that Robert Louthe is to have nothing for his writ, and is in mercy for false claim. Prior William Coventre is without day.

Case notes: Partial re-entry of this case, with no new details, appears on CP40/671 rot.122.; Further information drawn from CP40/674 rot.544d (photo:2248); further information drawn from CP40/675 rot.617 (photo: 1287)

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 337

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Essex
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £60
Case type: Housebreaking; Taking of goods

Pleading: John Dogge claims that on 30/10/1422 William P. used force and arms to break his close at East Tilbury, Essex, where WP reaped his corn, mowed his grass for hay, and allowed his beasts to trample and consume yet more grass. John Dogge says that WP mowed 20 cart-loads of hay, and reaped barley, beans, peas, and oats. The total value of this corn and hay was £30. The value of that grass trampled and consumed was an additional £10. The beasts which trampled John Dogge's grass were namely horses, oxen, draught animals (affris), cows, sheep. and pigs. Damages are claimed at £60.

Pleading: Concerning the use of force and arms WP says that he is innocent and puts himself upon the country, and John Dogge outs himself likewise. Protesting that the value of the hay and grain involved was not as great as has been alleged, WP says concerning the remainder of the trespass that hay and grain was growing on his own soil and free tenement. WP says that he entered his own close and reaped and mowed his own corn and grass, as he had good licence to do, and not intend any other injury.

Pleading: John Dogge says that the location where the said corn and grass was growing is a parcel of land pertaining to the free chapel of St Margaret in East Tilbury (also known as the Hospital of East Tilbury), whence James Butler earl of Ormond is patron; which same earl and his ancestors have been seised of the advowson of the chapel from time immemorial. John Dogge says that the said chapel was vacant and earl James Butler presented a certain William D. to the vacancy, which same WD was put in corporal possession of the chapel, and long maintained it. This same WD then took as his wife a certain Joan (D.) and vacated the said chapel. Earl James Butler then by his letters patent which John Dogge presents to this court, given at London, on 12/01/1418, then presented plaintiff John Dogge to the said chapel and placed him in possession of it; until such time as the aforesaid WD, claiming procuratorshp, conferred the chapel on defendant WP. It is on the pretext of this latter collation that WP intruded upon John Dogge's possession of the chapel and ejected him. The same John Dogge then later re-entered the said chapel and ejected WP. John Dogge says that the trespass took place at the time when WP claimed possession of the aforesaid free chapel on pretext of the supposed collation of WD etc.

Pleading: WP, protesting that earl James Butler did not present plaintiff John Dogge to the said chapel by his letters patent, says that earl James Butler and his ancestors indeed held the advowson of the chapel of St Margaret from time immemorial, to which earl James Butler presented the aforesaid WD. However, WP says that after presenting WD to the said chapel earl James Butler then later gave and granted to advowson of the chapel WD for the term of his life. WD was thus seised of the advowson of the chapel of St Margaret when he took a wife and vacated the chapel. WD then presented a certain John Standulf to the chapel, who was placed in corporal possession. JS then later resigned, whence WD presented a certain John Barton to the chapel, who was placed in corporal possession. John Barton then later resigned, whence WD presented defendant WP to the chapel, who was placed in corporal possession and continued there until John Dogge claimed the chapel on the pretext of his supposed collation by earl James Butler. This is in spite of earl James Butler having already granted the advowson of the chapel to WD. John Dogge then intruded upon WP's possession of the chapel, after which WP re-entered the chapel at the time of the supposed trespass. All this WP is prepared to verify etc.

Pleading: John Dogge, not acknowledging anything alleged by WP, says that earl James Butler presented him to the vacant chapel in the form aforesaid, whence he was placed in corporal possession of it. John Dogge says that after his collation earl James Butler on 01/03/1418 at London, by way of a certain writing - which John Dogge presents to the court, and which recites by the same – on the 12th day of January then last proceeding, by his letters patent, granted John Dogge the chapel for the term of his life, or until his resignation; as it was held by WD.

Pleading: WP reiterates his claim that the advowson of the chapel was granted to WD prior to earl James Butler presented John Dogge to the same chapel and puts himself upon the country, and John Dogge puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of Essex to make a jury come in Hilary term 1428.

Case notes: Related to CP40/667 rot.563 (counter-suit).

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 390

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: 20m
Case type: Assault; Housebreaking; Taking of goods

Pleading: John H. claims that Henry C. used force and arms to break his house at London, where HC assaulted his servant and took goods and chattels to the value of £10. The goods taken were namely: one silver bound mazer; 12 dozen silver spoons; 6 pair of sheets; blankets; 3 bed cover (cooportoria lectilia); napkins (mappas - number not given); towls (number not given); and other household utensils. The servant assaulted was Joan H., who as a result of the assault was out of John H.'s service of half of one year then next following. Damages are claimed at 20m.

Pleading: HC says that he is completely innocent and puts himself upon the country, and John H. puts himself likewise. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 390d

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Trespass (against statute)
Damages claimed: 10m
Case type: Breach of Statute; Contract (service/employment)

Pleading: John L. claims that in the feast of St Peter ad Vincula 1427 (01/08/1427) he retained Richard S. to work for him as a butcher until the feast of the Purification 1428 (02/02/1428). However, RS left his service without reasonable cause, and in breach of the statute of labourers, on the morrow of the feast of St Peter (ad Vincula). Damages are claimed at 10m.

Pleading: RS says that on 01/08/1427 he put himself into the service of JL as a butcher for the two weeks next following, on the condition that JL should pay him 4s which JL owed him concerning his salary of the previous year but had thus far refused to pay.

Pleading: JL says that he retained RS in the manner he claimed above and seeks inquiry upon the country, and RS seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in Hilary term 1428. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 474

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Bond

Pleading: William O. claims that Robert N., executor of the will of Robert H., together with co-executors Hilbrand E., Stephen F., William T., and Thomas M., owe him £17 on two bonds £8 10s each, made between WO and the late RH. WO says that he made both of these bonds with the late RH at London (parish and ward left blank) on 01/10/1423, one being due on 31/10/1423 and the other being due on 01/02/1424. Damages are claimed at £20.

Pleading: RN defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Hilary term 1428, with the assent of WO.

Postea text: 2 posteas - both further licences to imparl, forwarding the case as far as Trinity term 1428, with the assent of WO.

Case notes: related to CP40/671 rot.309

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 477

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Norfolk
Writ type: Disseisin
Case type: Real action / rents / damage to real estate

Pleading: Robert P. and his wife Margaret P. seek from Thomas C. and his wife Katherine C. 9s 5d rents with appurtenances in Deophan (Norfolk) which Richard U. and William T. vicar of Deopham together gave to John M., Thomas M., Robert Hawe, Richard M., and the heirs of Robert Hawe. RP and MP say that after the death of JM, TM, Robert Hawe, and RM, as well as Robert Hawe's son and heir William H., the aforesaid rents descended to plaintiff MP as the daughter and heir of WH.

Pleading: TC and KC say that a certain Richard Hawe as kinsman of MP, Richard Hawe being the brother of MP's grandfather Robert Hawe, after the time of the supposed gift of rents aforesaid, by way of a certain writing presented to the court by Thomas Caus (Jr.) and KC, quitclaimed to Thomas le Caus (Sen.) father of plaintiff Thomas Cause (Jr.), his heirs and assigns, the aforesaid rents among other lands and tenements, by the name of 'all lands, tenements, rents, and services, which Thomas le Cause (Sen.) lately purchased from WH the son and heir of Robert Hawe in the vill of Deopham', so that neither Richard Hawe, nor his heirs, nor anyone else of his name should have any claim to them, warranting them against all persons in perpetuity.

Pleading: RP and MP say that they are not able to deny either the validity of the quitclaim, nor that Thomas le Cause (Sen.) was in possession the aforesaid rents at the time the quitclaim was made. Therefore, the decision is that RP and MP are to have nothing for their writ and are in mercy for false claim. Thomas Cause and KC are without day.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 491d

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £10
Damages awarded: 6s 8d
Costs: 26s 8d
Case type: Bond

Pleading: Walter C., Ralph V., John M., and John V. claim that John S. owes them £10 on a bond. Damages are claimed at £10. Bond shown in court. And upon this the plaintiffs say that the bond was made at London etc.

Pleading: JS says that the bond is not of his making and puts himself upon the country, and the plaintiffs, WC, RV, JM, and JV put themselves likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in Hilary term 1428. Pledges are named for the defendant. The bond is given to clerk Robert D. for safe keeping.

Postea text: postea 1 - the bond is delivered to chief justice William B. for consideration by a jury and clerk RD is quit of it.

Postea text: postea 2 - chief justice WB returns the bond to clerk RD and so is quit of it.

Postea text: postea 3 - in Hilary term 1428 a continuance was given between the parties as far as Easter five weeks, 1428, unless the case should be heard before justice WB at the assize at St Martin le Grand on 6 May 1428. The case is heard at this before chief justice WB and associate justice John D. To this day come the plaintiffs, but defendant JS does not come. Therefore the jury is to be taken against him by default. The jury comes and says on oath that the bond is of JS's making and so the plaintiffs are to recover the aforesaid £10 debt plus damages of 6s 8d and costs of 20s. Upon this the plaintiffs seek that the justices increase their award for costs, which the justices then increase by an additional 6s 8d. Therefore the plaintiffs are to recover a total of 26s 8d as assessed by the jury and 6s 8d as awarded by the justices. JS is in mercy.

Postea text: postea 4 - the bond is delivered to William K., attorney for the plaintiffs, and so clerk RD is quit.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 496

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Trespass (against statute)
Case type: Breach of Statute

Pleading: Thomas A. was arrested to respond as much to the lord king as to William L. in a plea that WL retained TA's servant, John G., whilst JG was in TA's service at London, thereby breaching the statute of labourers. [entry ends here.]

Case notes: partial entry

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 498

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Middlesex
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £40
Case type: Housebreaking; Taking of goods; Trespass (chattels)

Pleading: John Ely of London yeoman is in mercy for many defaults. William E. claims that on 13/08/1427 JE used force and arms to reap and remove WE's corn to the value of 20m, and allowed various beasts to depasture WE's corn and grass to the value of 10m, at Acton, Middlesex. The corn reaped and taken was namely, 20 cart-loads of oats in haycocks ('avenarum in tassis'). Damages are claimed at £40.

Pleading: Concerning the use of force and arms, and the taking of all but one of the aforesaid cart-loads of corn, JE says that he is innocent and puts himself upon the country, and WE puts himself likewise. Regarding the taking of one cart-load of corn, and the trampling and consuming of corn and grass, JE protests that the grass in question was not of as great a value as claimed in the plaintiff's writ. JE further says that at the time of the supposed trespass WE was a tenant of Reginald, dean of St Paul's Cathedral, London, pertaining to RK's manor of Acton by right of RK's deanery; this certain close containing within it one-half acre of land with appurtenances in the vill of Acton, where the aforesaid trespass is supposed to have taken place. JE says that WE held this land of dean RK for fealty and rents of 3s 4d due at Christmas, Easter, the nativity of St John, and Michaelmas in equal portions, as well as suit of court every three weeks at the dean's court at Acton. JE says that he is the bailiff and servant of dean RK, and that WE is in arrears to dean RK concerning 3s 4d rents for the year 9 Henry V (1421-22). Therefore JE, as bailiff of dean RK, made distraint of the aforesaid cart-load of corn as he had good licence to do. Concerning the trampling and consuming of grass, JE says that WE, his ancestors, and all who have had estate in the aforesaid close from time immemorial have been responsible for adequately enclosing the said property. However, at the time of the supposed trespass, the enclosure was defective in various places and so the said close was lying open. Thus beasts were able to enter the said close, where they trampled and consumed WE's grass and corn due to the defective enclosure.

Pleading: Concerning the taking of his corn, WE says that he is dean RK's tenant, but concerning a one-acre close where the trespass took place, which he holds for rents of 10½d per annum at the feasts aforesaid for all services. WE says that he has always been prepared to pay dean RK this rent. WE is prepared to verify this, and since JE has acknowledged taking the said corn WE seeks judgement and damages. Concerning the trampling and consuming of his hay and corn by JE's beasts, WE says that at the time of the trespass his enclosure was good and sufficient, and that JE used force and arms to break it etc. just as he claimed above. WE seeks judgement and damages on this etc.

Pleading: Concerning the taking of WE's corn, JE reiterates his claim that WE is held of dean RK in the manner, and for the rents and services, first stated above. Regarding this JE puts himself upon the country, and WE puts himself likewise. Concerning the trampling and consuming of WE's grass and corn, JE says that WE's close was broken and lying open in diverse places as he claimed above, and seeks judgement.

Pleading: WE says that JE broke is close with force and arms as clamed above and seeks inquiry upon the country, and JE seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Middlesex to make a jury come in Hilary term 1428.

Postea text: postea 1 - continuance between the parties as far as the octave of Martinmas 1428 (late in Michaelmas term 1428).

Postea text: postea 2 - a jury comes and says on oath that JE is innocent concerning the taking 19 of the 20 aforesaid cart-loads of oath. The jury also says that WE is indeed a tenant of dean RK in the manner claimed by JE. And finally, the jury says that JE did not break WE's close with force and arms. WE is to have noting per his writ and is in mercy for false claim. JE is without day.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 500

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Lincolnshire
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: 100m
Case type: Arbitration; Housebreaking; Taking of goods

Pleading: Godfrey H. claims that on 01/05/1426 RB used force and arms to break his close at Irnham, Lincolnshire, from which RB seized and carried off goods and chattels to the value of £40. The goods taken were namely: 2 gold chains with two gold clasps ('seris'); 4 apparatus called 'attires' with 12 diamonds, 112 rubies, pearls, and other precious [stones] set in the same; a silk girdle ornamented around with pearls; 2 silver goblets; 2 silver spoons; and a trussing coffer. Damages are claimed at 100m.

Pleading: Concerning the use of force and arms RB says that he is innocent and puts himself upon the country and GH puts himself likewise. Protesting that the goods in question were not of such great value as claimed in GH's writ, RB says that the action against him ought not continue because after the date of the supposed trespass he and GH submitted to arbitration at London, parish of St Michael Crooked Lane, Bridge ward, on 02/05/1427 before arbiters William C. and Thomas J. RB says that, considering all quarrels between himself and GH, the arbiters ordained that GH ought to pay him 24m for the aforesaid goods, and that he ought to then deliver the goods to GH. RB says that GH did pay him this 24m and that immediately upon receiving payment he delivered the aforesaid goods to GH in the same parish and ward aforesaid.

Pleading: GH, protesting that he never submitted to arbitration, says that he never had any such arbitration before the arbiters aforesaid etc. and seeks inquiry upon the country, and RB seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in Hilary term 1428. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in Hilary term 1428.

Case notes: related to CP40/667 rot.500.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 500d

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Lincolnshire
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: £40
Case type: Arbitration; Detention of goods; Loan

Pleading: Godfrey H. claims that on 20/05/1425 he delivered Robert B. an outer garment of plane velvet furred with marten and a certain doublet of gold cloth as security for a loan of 24m, which same goods RB receiver from GH at Irnham, Lincolnshire. GH says that although he has often offered RB satisfaction concerning this sum of money, RB refuses to return them. Damages are claimed at £40.

Pleading: RB says that the action against him ought not continue because after the aforesaid 20/05/1425 he and GH submitted to arbitration at London, parish of St Michael Crooked Lane, Bridge ward, on 02/05/1427 before arbiters William C. and Thomas J. RB says that, considering all quarrels between himself and GH, the arbiters ordained that GH ought to pay him 24m for the aforesaid goods, and that he ought to then deliver the goods to GH. RB says that GH did pay him this 24m and that immediately upon receiving payment he delivered the aforesaid goods to GH in the same parish and ward aforesaid.

Pleading: GH, protesting that he never submitted to arbitration, says that he never had any such arbitration before the arbiters aforesaid etc. and seeks inquiry upon the country, and RB seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in Hilary term 1428.

Postea text: 9 posteas - all say that the sheriff of London did not send the writ, forwarding the case as far as Easter term 1430.

Case notes: related to CP40/667 rot.500d

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 512

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Arbitration; Assault

Pleading: Henry C. and his wife Emma C. claim that on 10/12/1419 William E. assaulted EC, then a single woman, at London with force and arms. Damages are claimed at £20.

Pleading: WE says that HC and EC ought not continue their action against him because after the day of the supposed trespass he and EC, whilst still a single woman, submitted to arbitration at Bristol, on 09/03/1422, before arbitrators Walter P. and David R. WE says that upon considering all quarrels between himself and EC, the arbitrators decreed that WE ought to give EC two gallons of wine to settle their disputes etc. WE says that he gave EC these two gallons of wine in keeping with the arbitrators' decision.

Pleading: HC and EC say that EC never had any such arbitration with WE and seek inquiry upon the country, and WE seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Bristol to make a jury come in Hilary term 1428.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 512d

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: 40m
Case type: Detention of goods; Safe keeping

Pleading: Thomas L. claims that William F. unjustly detains a certain bond which TL gave to WF for safe keeping at London on 01/01/1424, and which same bond WF now refuses to return. TL says that this bond shows that a certain John F. and Thomas F. are held to him in £20 a certain terms within-written. Damages are claimed at 40m.

Pleading: WF presents the said bond to the court and says that he is prepared to deliver it with the court's decision. However, WF says that the bond was given to him with the mutual assent of TL on the one part, and JF with TF on the other part, only to be returned to either TL, or JF and TF, under certain conditions. WF says that he is ignorant, on the part of JF and TF, as to whether or not these conditions have been met, and seeks that JF and TF be forewarned. Therefore the sheriff of London is ordered to make it known to JF and TF by good and honest men that they are to be at this court in Hilary term 1428 if they wish to object to TL having livery of the bond etc. Day is given between WF and TL in the same term.

Postea text: postea 1 - the sheriff of London returns that JF and TF have nothing in his bailiwick. And upon this it is testified that JF and TF have estate in the country of Essex. Therefore the sheriff of Essex is ordered to make it known to TF and JF etc. that they are to be here in Easter term 1428 etc.

Postea text: postea 2 - the sheriff of Essex returns that the writ reached him too late and so the he is again ordered to make it know etc. to be to this court in Trinity term 1428.

Postea text: postea 3 - the sheriff of Essex returns that 'JF and TF have nothing etc.' Therefore, the sheriff of Essex is again ordered to make it known to JF and TF etc. to be at this court in the quindene of the nativity of St John 1428 (late in trinity term 1428).

Postea text: postea 4 - JF and TF do not come and the sheriff of Essex says that JF and TF were forewarned to be to this day, by way of Robert D., John H., Roger H., and John C. Therefore the decision is that TL is to have livery of the bond. WF is in mercy.

Postea text: postea 5 - 12/02/1429 WF delivers the aforesaid bond to TL before this court and so is quit of it.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 563

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Essex
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £60
Case type: Housebreaking; Real action / rents / damage to real estate; Taking of goods

Pleading: William P. claims that on 03/11/1427 Stephen J. and John Dogge, together with William Dogge and WD's wife Joan Dogge, used force and arms to break his close and houses at East Tilbury, Essex, from which they seized and carried off goods and chattels to the value of £40. The goods taken were, namely, 4 copper/brass jars, 4 plates, 2 mazers, 2 basins (cratera), 12 silver spoons, 12 chisels, 7 hoes, and 12 locks with their 12 keys. Damages are claimed at £60.

Pleading: SJ comes by his attorney, John P., and says that he is innocent of both the use of force and arms, and of taking the said goods. Concerning this SJ pots himself upon the country, and WP puts himself likewise. John Dogge comes in his own person and says that the location where the trespass is supposed to have taken place is a parcel of land pertaining to the free chapel of St Margaret in East Tilbury (also known as the Hospital of East Tilbury), whence James Butler earl of Ormond is patron; which same earl and his ancestors have been seised of the advowson of the chapel from time immemorial. John Dogge says that the said chapel was vacant and earl James Butler presented WD to the vacancy, which same WD was put in corporal possession of the chapel, and long maintained it. This same WD then took as his wife a certain Joan Dogge and vacated the said chapel. Earl James Butler then by his letters patent which John Dogge presents to this court, given at London, on 12/01/1418, then presented defendant John Dogge to the said chapel and placed him in possession of it; until such time as the aforesaid WD, claiming procuratorshp, conferred the chapel on plaintiff WP. It is on the pretext of this latter collation that WP intruded upon John Dogge's possession of the chapel and ejected him. The same John Dogge then later re-entered the said chapel and ejected WP as he had good licence to do; this re-entry having taken place at the time of the supposed trespass. SJ says that, at the time of the supposed trespass, he was acting as the servant of John Dogge and helping him to re-enter the aforesaid close and houses pertaining to the chapel, as he had good licence to do. SJ says that he did not intend any injury etc.

Pleading: WP, protesting that earl James Butler did not present plaintiff JD to the said chapel by his letters patent, says that earl James Butler and his ancestors indeed held the advowson of the chapel of St Margaret from time immemorial, to which earl James Butler presented the aforesaid WD. However, WP says that after presenting WD to the said chapel earl James Butler then later gave and granted to advowson of the chapel WD for the term of his life. WD was thus seised of the advowson of the chapel of St Margaret when he took a wife and vacated the chapel. WD then presented a certain John Standulf to the chapel, who was placed in corporal possession. JS then later resigned, whence WD presented a certain John Barton to the chapel, who was placed in corporal possession. John Barton then later resigned, whence WD presented defendant WP to the chapel, who was placed in corporal possession and continued there until John Dogge claimed the chapel on the pretext of his supposed collation by earl James Butler. This is in spite of earl James Butler having already granted the advowson of the chapel to WD. WP says that John Dogge then intruded upon his possession of the chapel; after which WP re-entered the chapel, ejecting John Dogge and thereafter retaining possession of the chapel until the time of John Dogge's trespass as per this present writ.

Pleading: SJ and John Dogge, not acknowledging anything alleged by WP, say that that earl James Butler presented John Dogge to the vacant chapel in the form aforesaid, whence he was placed in corporal possession of it. JD says that after his collation earl James Butler on 01/03/1418 at London, by way of a certain writing which recites that earl's prior letters patent, granted him the chapel for the term of his life, or until his resignation; as it was held by WD. SJ and John Doggeg deny the claim that WD was granted the advowson of the church.

Pleading: WP reiterates his claim that the present earl, prior to the collation of the aforesaid chapel to John Dogge, granted the advowson of the same chapel to WD, and puts himself upon the country, and JD puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of Essex to make a jury come in Hilary term 1428.

Case notes: Related to CP40/667 rot.337 (countersuit).

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 565

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Essex
Writ type: Debt (account)
Damages claimed: £60
Case type: Contract (service/employment); Reckoning of account

Pleading: Robert N. claims that Andrew B. has not rendered reasonable account concerning the time AB acted as his receiver, namely from Michaelmas 1409 (29/09/1429) to All Saints' 1409 (01/11/1409). RN says that during this period AB received on his behalf £42 by the hands of Agnes P. and Peter F., at Great Horkesle, Essex, which AB has not accounted for. Damages are claimed at £60.

Pleading: AB says that the action against him ought not continue because, long after the time aforesaid, he had an accounting with RN concerning the aforesaid monies, at London (date not given).

Pleading: RN says that he never had an accounting with AB concerning the monies aforesaid, and seeks inquiry upon the country, and AB seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in Hilary term 1428.

Postea text: postea 1 - continuance between the parties as far as Trinity term 1428 unless the case is first heard at the assize of St Martin le Grand before chief justice William B. on 04/05/1428.

Postea text: postea 2 - to this day (Trinity 1428) comes RN and inserts a record of the case as heard at the assize of St Marin le Grand on 04/05/1428 before chief justice WB and Associate justice John D. To that day came RN, by attorney Richard S., and Andrew B., by attorney Richard T., as well as a jury. This jury found in favour of RN, saying that AB had not had an accounting with RN concerning the monies aforesaid, just as RN claimed. Therefore, the decision was that AB ought to render account etc.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 574

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Sussex
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £40
Case type: Bond

Pleading: Beatrice (FitzAlan) countess of Arundel and Surrey, of London, widow, is in mercy for many defaults. Richard C. and his wife Isabel C., former wife and executor of John G., claim that countess BF owe them 50m per a bond made between countess BF on the one part, and the late JG on the other part. Damages are claimed at £40. Bond shown to the court, as well as letters testamentary showing IC as executor of JG. And upon this RC and IC say that the bond was made at [location left blank].

Pleading: Countess BF defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Hilary term 1428.

Postea text: postea 1 - further licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1428.

Case notes: surname as 'Cursum' in similar entry on same membrane.; Also, day is given between RC & IC and countess BF in three writs, each for 50m, on CP40/667 rot.579d. (photographed).

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 574

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Sussex
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £40
Case type: Bond

Pleading: Beatrice (Fitzalan) countess of Arundel and Surrey, of London, widow, is in mercy for many defaults. Richard C. and his wife Isabel C., former wife and executor of John G., claim that countess BF owe them 50m per a bond made between countess BF on the one part, and the late JG on the other part. Damages are claimed at £40. Bond shown to the court, as well as letters testamentary showing IC as executor of JG. And upon this RC and IC say that the bond was made at [location left blank].

Pleading: Countess BF defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Hilary term 1428.

Postea text: postea 1 - further licence to imparl as far as Hilary term 1428.

Case notes: surname as 'Cursun' in similar entry on same membrane.; Also, day is given between RC & IC and countess BF in three writs, each for 50m, on CP40/667 rot.579d. (photographed).

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 574d

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Middlesex
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: £5
Case type: Detention of goods; Real action / rents / damage to real estate

Pleading: John Penne claims that on 4 September 1426, at Kingsbury in Middlesex, in a place called 'Fayteslond', Thomas Tonnes and John Stanet seized and unjustly detained 25 sheep belonging to him, contrary to their surety and pledge.

Pleading: John Stanet comes by his attorney William A., and a certain Richard Tonne, who was summoned by the name of Thomas Tonnes in the aforesaid writ, comes in person. Richard Tonne says that his correct name is 'Richard Tonne' and not 'Thomas Tonnes', as given in the writ, and seeks judgment on the writ. Meanwhile Stanet acknowledges the seizure of the said sheep, but says that he did this justly as the bailiff of Richard Lestraunge. JS says that a certain William Page was formerly seised of one messuage, one carucate of land and three acres of meadow with appurtenances called 'Fayteslond' in Kingsbury, in his demesne as of fee, of which the location of the alleged trespass was a parcel, held of a certain Roger Lestraunge, lord of Edgware, as of his manor of Edgware, by fealty, an annual rent of 6s payable at Christmas, Easter, the Nativity of St John the Baptist and Michaelmas in equal portions, a heriot of the tenant's best beast or chattel at the time of his death, and suit of court at Roger Lestraunge's court at Edgware every three weeks. Roger later died, and the manor descended to Richard Lestraunge, as kinsman and heir of Roger Lestraunge (namely the son of John Lestraunge, brother Roger). Richard Lestraunge thus entered the said manor and was seised. However, John Penne did not perform suit of court at Richard Lestraunge's court held at Edgware on 1 June 1426, after the death of Roger Lestraunge, and also has not paid the 3s rent due at Easter and St John the Baptist 1426, the 6s for the four payments due in 5 Henry VI (1426-7, or the 18d due at Michaelmas 1427. Therefore JS, as bailiff of Richard Lestraunge, made distraint of the said animals in lieu of these arrears, from land held of Richard Lestraunge.

Pleading: John Penne says that Thomas Tonne is named Thomas, as the writ supposes. John Penne seeks enquiry on the country, and Richard Tonne, who the writ supposes to be the same Thomas Tonnes, seeks likewise. Concerning the remainder, Penne states that the said sheep were taken from land outside the fee and demesne of Richard Lestraunge, and seeks judgment and damages.

Pleading: JS repeats that the animals were taken from land within the fee and demesne of Richard Lestraunge. Parties on country, jury here at octave of Hilary 1428.

Pleading: [continued on CP 40/672, rot 458 - Hilary 1429] Thomsa Tonnes and John Stanet attached by writ of statute to answer JP concerning this same charge, that they unjustly seized and detained these animals. Stanet and Richard Tonne respond. Licence to imparl to quindene of Easter.

Pleading: [continued on CP 40/675, rot 551d - Michaelmas 1429] Initial charge re-enrolled. John Stanet and Richard Tonne come. Richard Tonne again says that he is named Richard Tonne, not Thomas Tonnes, and seeks judgment on the writ. John Stanet is granted licence to imparl to Hilary term 1430. John Penne is granted licence to imparl against Thomas Tonnes / Richard Tonne to same term.

Postea text: Process continued, jury in respite to Easter five weeks 1428. On this day, parties come, and the jury are ready to deliver their verdict, but before this JP withdraws his suit. JP and his pledges to prosecute are amerced. Defendants to have their animals returned in the name of Richard Lestraunge.

Postea text: John Penne comes before the court in person, and by the statute seeks a writ of second delivery. This is granted, returnable at the octave of St John the Baptist 1428.

Postea text: [on CP 40/672, rot 458] 3 further licences to imparl, to octave of Hilary 1430, with the assent of John Penne.

Case notes: Continued on CP 40/672, rot 458, and CP 40/675, rot 551d; related to CP 40/675, rot 555d.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 577d

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: London
Writ type: Trespass (against statute)
Damages claimed: £10
Case type: Breach of Statute; Contract (service/employment)

Pleading: William L., citing the statute of labourers, states that on 03/07/1423 he retained John G. at London to serve him as a miller/baker (pistoris) for one whole year then next following. However, on 08/09/1423 JG withdrew from his service without reasonable cause in breach of the statute and contempt of the king. Damages are claimed at £10.

Pleading: JG says that he was retained by WL for the period, and in the office, aforesaid under a certain condition; namely, the condition that if his wife Christiana should agree with the service then he should serve WL for the whole of the aforesaid term, and in the case that Christiana should not agree with the service that he should thereafter leave WL's service with good licence. Thus, JG says that his wife Christiana thoroughly disagreed with the service contract and so he withdrew from WL's service, as he had good licence to do.

Pleading: WL says that he retained JG to serve him without the aforesaid condition, and that he is prepared to verify this.

Pleading: JG says that he was retained by WL under the aforesaid condition and puts himself upon the country, and WL puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in Hilary term 1428.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 578

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Sussex
Writ type: Trespass (against statute)
Case type: Maintenance

Pleading: Thomas E. and his wife Margaret E., citing the statute against maintaining or sustaining the suits of others, claim that Roger A., at Ticehurst, Sussex, maintained and sustained certain quarrel before the king's justices of the bench by way of a writ between Paul M. and that aforesaid ME concerning a debt of £169 14s 2d which the same PM demanded from ME (quod idem Paulus a prefata Margareta exigit). [Entry ends here]

Case notes: partial entry

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 588

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Middlesex
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: 40m
Case type: Detention of goods; Safe keeping

Pleading: William W. claims that on 01/10/1426 at Uxbridge, Middlesex, he gave William A. and Robert C. a certain bond for safe keeping, and they now refuse to return it. This bond shows that a certain Richard B. is held to WW in £20 payable at certain terms contained within the same bond. Damages are claimed at 40m.

Pleading: WA and RC present this bond to the court and say that they are prepared to deliver it with the court's decision. However, they say that the bond was given to them with the mutual assent of WW and RB, to be returned to either WW or RB only under certain conditions. WA and RC say that they are unaware, on the part of RC, as to whether these conditions have been met, and seek that RB be forewarned of the bond's delivery. Therefore the sheriff of Middlesex is ordered to make it known to RB, by good and honest men, that he is to come to this court in the octave of Hilary term 1428 if he wished to object to WW having livery of the aforesaid bond. Day is given between plaintiff WW and defendants WA and RC in the term aforesaid.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 621

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Middlesex
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £10
Case type: Housebreaking; Taking of goods

Pleading: Katherine V. queen of England (widow of Henry V) claims that on 22/04/1427 Thomas H. and John T., together with Robert B., used force and arms to break her park at Enfield, Middlesex, where without licence and against queen KV's will they took and carried off two male and two female deer (duos damos et duas damas). Damages are claimed at £10.

Pleading: TH and JT say that they are innocent and put themselves upon the country, and queen KV puts herself likewise. Order to the sheriff of Middlesex to make a jury come in Hilary term 1428.

Postea text: postea 1 - the sheriff of Middlesex did not send the writ and so the case is forwarded as far as the quindene of the Purification of St Mary 1428 (late in Hilary term 1428).

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 621

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Middlesex
Writ type: Debt (other)
Damages claimed: 10m
Case type: Real action / rents / damage to real estate

Pleading: William L. claims that on 26/06/1424 he demised a certain messuage at Westminster, Middlesex, to William B. for a term of 10 years then next following. WL says that during this period WB was to pay him annual rents of 60s, due in equal payments at the feasts of Michaelmas and Easter. WL says that WB did not pay him 6s 8d of the Michaelmas 1424 rent, nor did WB pay the 60s annual rent due at the aforesaid terms in 1425, 1426, and 1427. WL says that WB is thus in arrears to him for £9 6s 8d back rent. Damages are claimed at 10m.

Pleading: WB says that WL never demised the aforesaid messuage to him and puts himself upon the country, and WL puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of Middlesex to make a jury come in Hillary term 1428.

Postea text: postea 1 - continuance between the parties as far as the quindene of Easter term 1428.

Postea text: postea 2 - WB, WL, and a jury all come. The jury says on oath that WL did not demise a messuage to WB, and so WB is without day. WL is in mercy for false claim.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/667, rot. 623

Term: Michaelmas 1427
County: Kent
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £10
Case type: Bond

Pleading: John M. claims that Stephen A. owes him £26 9s per a bond. JM says that on 01/08/1426 SA obliged himself to JM in the aforesaid £26 9s, to be paid to JM in payments of £13 4s 6d on the day of the translation of …[damage]... martyr next following and £13 4s 6d on the day of St Bartholomew next following (24/08/1426). Damages are claimed at £10. Bond shown in court. And upon this JM says that the bond was made at [blank].

Pleading: SA defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Hilary term 1428.

Postea text: postea 1 - further licence to imparl as far as quindene of ... [damage].