Appeals: 22 Henry II - 27 Henry III (nos 181-193)

The London Eyre of 1244. Originally published by London Record Society, London, 1970.

Citation:

'Appeals: 22 Henry II - 27 Henry III (nos 181-193)', in The London Eyre of 1244, ed. Helena M Chew, Martin Weinbaum( London, 1970), British History Online https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol6/pp72-80 [accessed 23 November 2024].

22 Henry II - 27 Henry III (nos 181–193)

De Appellis.

181. Anno vicesimo secundo. Thomas de Fowestone appellavit Petrum de Herges de pace domini regis fracta et non venit. Ideo ipse et plegii sui de prosequendo in misericordia, scilicet Willelmus de Braunchesfeld, et alius plegius obiit.

Of Appeals.

In the twenty-second year [1237–8]: Thomas of Folkestone appealed Peter of Harrow of a breach of the king's peace, but he does not come. Therefore he and his pledges to prosecute are in mercy, viz. William de Braunchesfeld. The other pledge has died.

182. Anno vicesimo tercio, Matheus Bukerel appellavit Johannem Viel juniorem et alios de pace domini regis fracta. Et nunc venit et non sequitur. Ideo ipse et plegii sui de prosequendo in misericordia, scilicet Simon filius Marie et Walterus Bukerel. Et Matheus custodiatur. Post venit Matheus et finem fecit per j marcam per plegium Johannis Viel junioris et Alani le Wayder.

In the twenty-third year [1238–9]: Matthew Bukerel appealed John Viel, junior and others of a breach of the king's peace. Now he comes and does not prosecute. Therefore he and his pledges to prosecute are in mercy, viz. Simon fitz Mary and Walter Bukerel. Matthew is to be taken into custody. Afterwards he came and made fine in 1 mark, with John Viel junior and Alan le Wayder as his sureties.

183. Anno vicesimo tercio Jordanus de Amiens appellavit Egidium le Neyr de pace domini regis fracta et roberia et modo venit et non vult sequi. Ideo custodiatur et plegii sui in misericordia, scilicet Reginaldus de Bungeye et Simon filius Marie; post venit et finem fecit pro se et plegiis suis per c s. per plegium Ade de Basingges et Johannis Adrien.

In the twenty-third year [1238–9] Jordan of Amiens appealed Giles le Neyr of a breach of the king's peace and robbery, and now he comes and does not wish to prosecute. Therefore he is to be taken into custody; and his pledges are in mercy, viz. Reginald of Bungay and Simon fitz Mary. Afterwards he came and made fine for himself and his pledges in 100s., with Adam of Basing and John Adrien as his sureties.

184. Cristiana que fuit uxor Joscei le Espicer appellavit Simonem filium Marie et Robertum de Herbintun, quod ipsi die Sabbati proxima post Invencionem Sancte Crucis anno vicesimo quinto, circa horam terciam, venerunt ad ecclesiam Omnium Sanctorum in Bredstrate et vi intraverunt ecclesiam illam, et Willelmum filium Willelmi qui fuit infra etatem et in custodia sua, ceperunt et de loco in locum abduxerunt, et ipsum in prisona detinuerunt usque ad festum Sancte Lucie proximum sequens, ita quod in prisona sua obiit. Et quod hoc fecerunt nequiter et in felonia, et contra pacem domini regis, offert disracionare secundum quod curia etc. Et unde dicit quod deteriorata est ad valenciam cc li. etc. Et Simon et Robertus veniunt et defendunt vim et iniuriam, feloniam et quicquid est contra pacem domini regis et totum etc. Et bene cognoscunt quod habuerunt predictum Willelmum, et quod obiit in custodia predicti Roberti de recta morte sua, et non in prisona. Et quod predictum Willelmum non extraxerunt ab ecclesia nec abduxerunt vi et armis contra pacem domini regis, parati sunt defendere se per legem Civitatis si lex ibi iaceat vel ponere se super veredictum maioris et civium, vel alio modo sicut curia domini regis consideraverit etc. Et quia custodia predicti Willelmi legata fuit predicto Josceo cum sex marcis et quatuor solidatis redditus cum pertinenciis in Civitate Londoniarum ad ponendum in usus et comodum predicti pueri usque ad etatem suam, quesitum fuit per justiciarios de huiusmodi legatis in testamento, ad quos post mortem patris et matris custodia puerorum suorum pertinere debeat. Qui dicunt, quod bene licet cuilibet de Civitate in testamento suo legare cuicunque voluerit custodiam pueri sui, cum bonis et hereditate ipsius filii. Ita quod idem custos omnia bona que provenient ex hereditate sua usque ad etatem suam, ponet in usus et comodum ipsius pueri. Si autem non legaverit, et hereditas ex parte patris provenerit, tunc mater ipsius pueri vel propinquiores ex parte matris habebunt custodiam, cum omnibus bonis suis in forma predicta. Si autem hereditas provenerit ex parte matris, tunc propinquiores ex parte patris habebunt custodiam in forma predicta. (fn. 1) Ita quod custodes tenentur respondere predicto heredi cum ad etatem pervenerit, de omnibus exitibus predicte hereditatis.

Christine, relict of Joce le Espicer appealed Simon fitz Mary and Robert de Herbintun that on Saturday after the feast of the Invention of the Holy Cross, in the twenty-fifth year [4 May 1241], about the third hour, they came to the church of All Hallows, Bread Street, and entered it by force, and seized William son of William, who was under age and in her wardship, and carried him off from place to place, keeping him imprisoned until the feast of St. Lucy [13 Dec. 1241], when he died in his prison. And that they did this wickedly and feloniously against the king's peace, she offers to prove according as the court etc. And she says that she has suffered damage to the value of £200 etc. Simon and Robert come and deny the force and injury, and the felony and whatever is against the king's peace and all etc. They freely acknowledge that they had possession of the said William; but aver that he died a lawful death in Robert's custody, and not in prison. They say that they are ready to defend themselves against the charge that they dragged him from the church, and carried him off with force and arms against the king's peace, by the law of the City, if the law lies in such a case, or to put themselves upon the verdict of the mayor and citizens, or in any other way that the king's court may determine etc. And because the guardianship of William was devised to the aforesaid Joce, with 6 marks and 4 shillings of rent and its appurtenances in the City of London, to be laid out to the use and advantage of the boy until he came of age, [the mayor and citizens] were asked by the justices about bequests of this kind in wills, and to whom, after the death of the father and mother, the guardianship of their children should belong. They answered that any citizen was free to leave by will to anyone he chose the guardianship of his child, with his goods and inheritance, the guardian being bound to apply to the use and advantage of the child all the proceeds of the same until he came of age. If, however, he made no such devise and the inheritance came from the father's side, the mother or the next of kin on the mother's side were entitled to the guardianship, with all the goods, in the form aforesaid. If the inheritance came from the mother's side, then the next of kin on the father's side was entitled to the guardianship in the form aforesaid, the guardians being bound to answer to the heir when he attained his majority, for all the issues of his inheritance.

185. Willelmus films Galfridi Aurifabri appellat Alanum le Weyder et Alanum nepotem suum de plagis quas ei fecerunt contra pacem domini regis. Et quia nunquam ipsos ante appellavit nec aliquid inde ostendit camerario nec vicecomitibus nec levavit huthesium nec clamorem, ideo consideratum est quod appellum sit nullum, et Willelmus custodiatur. Et pro pace domini regis custodienda, inquiratur de facto; omnes interim custodiantur. Post venit Alanus et pro habenda inquisicione pro se et manupastu suo, offert domino regi xl s. Et admittitur. Et ideo inde fiat inquisicio, super quo veniunt maior et cives dicunt super sacramentum (fn. 2) quod fecerunt domino regi et in fide qua ei tenentur, quod predictus Alanus nec aliquis de manupastu suo, culpabilis est de plagis illis, nec sciunt quis vel qui fecerunt ei plagas illas, quia plagatus fuit in Suthwerk extra Civitatem Londoniarum. Ideo consideratum est quod Alanus et manupastus suus, sint inde quieti, et Willelmus custodiatur. Postea finem fecit per dimidiam marcam quia pauper per plegium Willelmi de Berkingges.

William son of Geoffrey the Goldsmith appealed Alan le Weyder and Alan his nephew of wounding him in breach of the king's peace. And because he had never appealed them before, nor reported the matter to the chamberlain and sheriffs, nor raised the hue and cry, the appeal was adjudged null, and William is to be taken into custody. And for the safeguarding of the king's peace, it is ordered that enquiry be made, everyone in the meantime being kept in custody. Afterwards Alan comes and offers the king 40s. to have an inquest for himself and his household, and it is allowed, and an inquest is ordered to be held. Thereupon the mayor and citizens come and say upon the oath which they made to the king, and in the faith in which they are bound to him, that neither Alan nor any member of his household is guilty of the wounds in question, nor do they know who dealt them, because William was wounded in Southwark, outside the City of London. Therefore it is adjudged that Alan and his household be quit, and that William remain in custody. Afterwards he made fine in ½ mark, because he is poor, with William of Barking as surety.

186. Eustachius Aurifaber appellavit Ricardum de Tottenesse quod verberavit ipsum in domo sua et maletractavit contra pacem domini regis. Et quia nunquam appellavit ipsum ante nec aliquid ostendit camerario nec vicecomitibus nec hutesium levavit vel clamorem, ideo consideratum est quod appellum nullum et Eustachius custodiatur.

Eustace the Goldsmith appealed Richard of Totnes of beating and illtreating him in his house, in breach of the king's peace; but because he had never appealed him before, nor reported anything to the chamberlain and sheriffs, nor raised the hue and cry, it is adjudged that the appeal be null, and that Eustace be taken into custody.

187. [m. 5] Cristiana que fuit uxor Joscei Lespicer appellavit Ricardum le Bounter de pace domini regis fracta et modo venit et non sequitur versus eum. Ideo ipsa et plegii sui in misericordia, Willelmus le Mareschal et Robertus Bateman.

Christine, relict of Joce Lespicer appealed Richard le Bounter of a breach of the king's peace. Now she comes, but does not prosecute him. Therefore she and her pledges are in mercy, viz. William the Marshal and Robert Bateman.

188. Maior et cives dicunt quod justiciarii non possunt nec debent aliquod placitum tenere de aliqua intrusione, nisi placitum illud prius fuerit coram eis in hustengo et tunc, si ipsi defecerint eis de justicia in hustengo facienda, tunc bene pertinet placitum illud de intrusione ad justiciarios. Et preterea dicunt quod, quamcito aliquis conquestus fuerit eis de intrusione, homini querenti plenariam incontinenti habebunt justiciam et deforciantem attachiabunt coram justiciariis per xij plegios ut dominus rex ibidem iusticiam capiat de ipsa intrusione quod penitus reprobatur, sicut alibi patebit in placitis de intrusione. (fn. 3)

The mayor and citizens say that the justices cannot and ought not to hold any plea of intrusion, unless it has first come before them in the husting; but if they fail to do justice in the husting, then the plea of intrusion rightly belongs to the justices. They say, further, that as soon as anyone complains to them of an intrusion, the plaintiff ought at once to receive full justice, and the deforciant be attached by twelve pledges to appear before the justices, so that the king may there do justice concerning the intrusion—a claim that was completely rejected, as appears elsewhere in the pleas of intrusion.

189. Simon filius Marie appellat Robertum filium Salomonis, Petrum de Basingge, Ricardum le Chaucer, Petrum filium Rogeri, Ricardum filium Baldewini, Matheum Bukerel, Johannem Clericum de Sacolelane, Vincentium de Baketone et Matildem de Kantuaria, quod ipsi die Assumptionis Beate Marie anno regni regis Henrici filii regis Johannis xxvij circa horam nonam venerunt (fn. 4) ad domum suam et insultum fecerunt in eum. Et postea in vigilia Sancti Edwardi iterum venerunt ad domum suam et ipsum inde eiecerunt, et quasdam cartas de feoffamento suo ei robbaverunt et asportaverunt, et xl scuta in domo sua inventa, precium ix marce, in roberia asportaverunt. Et quod hoc fecerunt nequiter et in felonia et contra pacem domini regis, offert disracionare secundum quod curia etc. Postea venit Simon filius Marie et retraxit se de appello suo. Ideo ipse et plegii sui de prosequendo in misericordia, scilicet Hamo filius Constancie et Willelmus Fort. Et Simon custodiatur.

Simon fitz Mary appealed Robert fitz Solomon, Peter of Basing, Richard le Chaucer, Peter fitz Roger, Richard son of Baldwin, Matthew Bukerel, John Clerk of Seacoal Lane, Vincent of Bacton and Maud of Canterbury, that on the feast of the Assumption of Our Lady, 27 Henry III [15 Aug. 1243], about noon, they came to his house and assaulted him, and afterwards, on the vigil of the feast of St. Edward [? 12 Oct. 1243] they came again to his house and ejected him, and stole and carried off divers charters of feoffment and forty shields which they found there, worth 9 marks. And that they did this wickedly and feloniously and against the king's peace he is ready to prove according as the court etc. Afterwards Simon fitz Mary came and withdrew from his appeal. Therefore he and his pledges to prosecute are in mercy, viz. Hamo fitz Constance and William Fort. Simon is to be taken into custody.

190. Aluredus de Pincebrecke (fn. 5) queritur quod Johannes de Coudres tunc vicecomes percussit ipsum quodam cnipulo in capite et ipsum male vulneravit et ipsum cepit et diu imprisonavit et postea a prisona sine waranto deliberavit contra pacem domini regis, unde dicit quod deterioratus est et dampnum habet ad valenciam c marcarum. Et inde producit sectam. Et Johannes venit et defendit vim et iniuriam, plagas et quicquid est contra pacem domini regis, set dicit quod ipsum imprisonavit turn quia extraxit knipulum suum ad ipsum percutiendum qui fuit ballivus domini regis, turn quia noluit ei invenire plegios pro quodam facto quod accidit in domo sua quando absens fuerat. Et quod cnipulum extraxit, producit sectam. Et Albredus venit, defendit contra ipsum et sectam suam. Ideo consideratum est quod vadiet legem suam et defendat se septima manu sua, veniat cras cum lege; plegius legis Robertus filius Johannis. In crastino venit Albredus et bene fecit legem suam. Et ideo consideratum est quod Johannes tanquam convictus de plagis et de isto inprisonamento, committitur gaole. Postea ad peticionem maioris et civium traditur eis per ballivam ad habendum ipsum coram domino rege. Et interim idem Johannes satisfaciat eidem Albredo de plagis, inprisonamento et dampnis; finem fecit versus predictum Albredum per xx s. unde solvet x s. ad festum Sancti Johannis Baptiste hoc anno, et x s. ad festum Sancti Michaelis proximum sequens. (fn. 6)

Alfred de Pincebrecke complains that John de Coudres, when sheriff, struck him on the head with a knife, severely wounding him, and arrested and imprisoned him for a long while, afterwards releasing him without a warrant against the king's peace, as a result of which he was injured and has suffered damage to the value of 100 marks. He produces witnesses thereto. John comes and denies the force and injury, the wounds and whatever is against the king's peace; but he says that he imprisoned Alfred, both because he drew his knife upon him, the king's bailiff, and because he would not find pledges for a deed committed in his house when he was absent. He produces witnesses that Alfred drew his knife. And Alfred comes and defends himself against John and his witnesses. Therefore it is adjudged that he wage his law and defend himself seven-handed, coming on the morrow with his law. Pledge of the law Robert fitz John. Next day Alfred came and successfully waged his law. Therefore it is adjudged that John, as convicted of the wounding and the imprisonment, be committed to gaol. Afterwards, on petition of the mayor and citizens, he was handed over to them on bail to appear before the king. Meanwhile, he was to give Alfred satisfaction for the wounds, imprisonment and damages, making fine in 20s., of which 10s. were to be paid on the feast of St. John the Baptist this year [24 June 1244] and 10s. at the following Michaelmas [29 Sept.].

191. Thomas de Elylaunde appellavit Johannem de Chesewike quod die Veneris in ebdomada Pasche anno xxvij° in Fyshstrete, ei fecit quamdam plagam in manu sinistra quodam cultello, et quamdam plagam in facie, et abstulit ei quendam anulum aureum precii trium solidorum et tres solidos argenti. Et quod hoc fecit nequiter et in felonia et roberia et contra pacem domini regis, offert etc. secundum quod curia consideraverit et secundum libertatem Civitatis. Et Johannes venit et defendit feloniam, roberiam et totum etc. Et dicit quod non debet ei respondere ad appellum istud donec idem Thomas respondent ei ad appellum suum quod prius fecerat versus ipsum Thomam de quodam mahemio quod fecerat ei in manu sinistra in eodem conflictu unde mahemiatus est. Et quod hoc fecerat ei in eadem die et in eodem conflictu offert etc. Post veniunt Johannes et Thomas et retraxerunt se de appellis. Ideo custodiantur. Thomas finem fecit per j marcam per plegium Johannis Elinaunt, misericordia Johannis perdonatur quia pauper.

Thomas de Elylaunde appealed John of Chiswick that on Friday in Easter week, in the twenty-seventh year [17 April 1243], in [?Old] Fish Street he wounded him with a knife in the left hand and face, and took from him a gold ring worth 3s. and 3s. in silver; and that he did this wickedly and feloniously and with robbery against the king's peace he offers etc. according as the court shall decide and in accordance with the liberty of the City. John comes and denies the felony, robbery and all, etc. He says that he is not bound to answer to the appeal until Thomas has answered the appeal he had previously made against him concerning the maiming of his left hand in the same fight in which Thomas was wounded; and that it was done on the same day and in the same fight he offers etc. Afterwards both John and Thomas come and withdraw from their appeals. Therefore they are to be taken into custody. Thomas made fine in 1 mark, with John Elinaunt as his surety. John's amercement was pardoned, because he is poor.

192. Johannes de Coudres, Alanus de Shordiche, Johannes films Ivonis, Hugo filius Ricardi et Martinus filius Aylweri appellaverunt Jordanum le Cutiller de tribus bobus furatis qui fuerunt ipsius Johannis et in custodia predictorum. [Johannes de Coudres] plegius de prosequendo hic versus predictum Jordanum etc. Ideo dictum est vicecomitibus quod faciant eos venire cras. Et quia Hugo le Blund et Adam de Basingge vicecomites ipsum Jordanum spoliaverunt (fn. 7) de latrocinio predicto et predictos boves quos furatos esse dicebant, ab eodem Jordano separaverunt antequam convictum fuit latrocinium de predictis bobus et boves illos penes se retinuerunt, cum nullus de latrocinio suo spoliandus sit antequam per iudicium convincatur vel deliberetur, ideo predicti vicecomites in gravi misericordia. Et Jordanus statim reseysetur de predictis bobus, et Jordanus venit cras et remanet sub eadem plevina sub qua prius fuit, et omnes alii similiter. In crastino veniunt omnes, Johannes filius Ivonis, Hugo filius Ricardi, Ricardus filius Hugonis [sic], nolunt prosequi appellum versus Jordanum. Ideo committantur gaole. Et Johannes de Coudres plegius eorum de prosequendo sit in misericordia; finem fecerunt per dimidiam marcam, quia pauperes, per plegium eiusdem Johannis de Coudres. Et Johannes de Coudres queritur de predicto Jordano, quod cum emisset tres boves de predicto Alano pro decem et octo solidis de quibus pacavit ei xij solidos premanibus et eos posuisset in pastura sua apud Edelmetone ad impinguandum, venit predictus Jordanus et predictos boves abduxit et apud Londonias fugavit ad dampnum suum etc. Et quesitum est a predicto Alano qui presens est, si vendidisset predictos boves eidem Johanni, dicit quod sic, quesitum est etiam ab eo quomodo venit ad predictos boves, dicit quod revera predictus Jordanus tradidit ei predictos boves ad impinguendum. Et postea circiter octo dies vendidit eidem Alano predictos boves pro xviij s. Et Jordanus venit et defendit vim et iniuriam et totum et bene concedit quod abduxit predictos boves de communa pasture de Edelmetone, ubi eos invenit, et eos tanquam suos, fugavit apud Londonias, et bene cognovit quod predictos boves eidem Alano tradidit ad impinguandum, set bene defendit quod nunquam predictos boves eidem Alano vendidit, contra ipsum et sectam suam si quam habet. Et quia idem Jordanus et Alanus satis concordant in hoc quod predicti boves eidem Alano traditi fuerunt ad impinguandum, et quia predictus Alanus nullam habet sectam quod predictus Jordanus predictos boves eidem vendidit, consideratum est quod boves remaneant penes ipsum Jordanum et Alanus in misericordia pro gravi transgressione sua. Et satisfaciat predicto Johanni de Coudres de xij s. quos ab eo recepit pro predictis bobus. Et Johannes inde quietus. Post venit Alanus et finem fecit per j m. per plegium Johannis de Coudres.

John de Coudres, Alan of Shoreditch, John son of Ivo, Hugh son of Richard, and Martin son of Aylwer appealed Jordan le Cutiller of the theft of three oxen, which belonged to the aforesaid John [de Coudres], and were in the custody of the others. John de Coudres is the pledge to prosecute the said Jordan etc. and the sheriffs are accordingly ordered to cause him to appear on the morrow. And because Hugh le Blund and Adam of Basing, the sheriffs, despoiled Jordan of the stolen property, and took from him the oxen which they said had been stolen before he had been convicted of the theft, and detained them, when no one ought to be deprived of stolen goods until he has been convicted or released after judgment, they are to be heavily amerced. The oxen are to be restored forthwith to Jordan, who comes next day, and remains under the same pledge, and all the others likewise. Next day John son of Ivo, Hugh son of Richard, and Richard son of Hugh [sic] all come, but do not wish to prosecute the appeal against Jordan. Therefore they are committed to gaol and John de Coudres, their pledge to prosecute, is in mercy. They made fine in ½ mark, because they are poor, with John de Coudres as their surety. John complains of Jordan that when he bought three oxen from the above-named Alan of Shoreditch for 18s., of which he paid 12s. down, and put them in his pasture at Edmonton to fatten them, Jordan came and took them away and drove them to London, to his damage etc. Alan, who is present, is asked if he sold the oxen to John, and he says that he did. Asked further, how he came by them, he says that, as a matter of fact, Jordan handed them over to him to fatten, but about eight days later sold them to him for 18s. Jordan comes and denies the force and injury and all [etc.], and freely admits that he took the oxen from the common pasture at Edmonton, where he found them, and drove them, as his own, to London. He acknowledges that he handed them over to Alan to fatten, but expressly denies, against him and his witnesses, if he has any, that he ever sold them to him. And because Jordan and Alan are sufficiently agreed that the oxen were handed over to Alan to be fattened, but Alan has no witnesses to prove that Jordan sold them to him, it is adjudged that they remain with Jordan, and that Alan be in mercy for a grave offence, and satisfy John de Coudres for the 12s. which he received from him for the oxen. John is quit. Afterwards Alan came and made fine in 1 mark, with John de Coudres as his surety.

193. Matheus Bukerel (fn. 8) cognovit quod tenet de Editha filia Terrici Blound (fn. 8) quinque messuagia et unam domum lapideam cum pertinenciis in parochia Sancte Marie de Apescherche per servicium xxj s. per annum ad quatuor terminos. (fn. 9) Ita quod si deficiat ei in predicto redditu, bene liceat ei distringere ipsum per tenuras forinsecas. Et pro hac [sic] etc. eadem Editha remittit ei omnia arreragia sua usque ad xxxj s. quos solvet ei ad festum Sancti Michaelis hoc anno. Et nisi fecerit concedit quod vicecomites forinseci faciant et catalla etc.

Matthew Bukerel acknowledges that he holds of Edith, daughter of Terry Blound, five messuages and a stone house with its appurtenances in the parish of St. Mary Abchurch, for the service of 21s. a year, payable quarterly; on the understanding that if he fails to pay the rent, she may distrain him on his forinsec tenures. In return etc. Edith remits to him all arrears save for the 31s. he is due to pay at the coming Michaelmas; and if he fails to pay, the sheriffs outside London are to do so, and [recover the same from] his chattels etc.