CP40/660: Hilary term 1426

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 045d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: Kent
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Bond; Imprisonment

Pleading: William W. claims that Richard S. owes him 113s 4d per a bond. Damages are claimed at £20. Bond shown in court. And upon this WW says that the bond was made at Hollingbourne, Kent.

Pleading: RS says that the force of the bond ought not hold because at the time of its making he was imprisoned by WW and his associates at Hollingbourne, Kent.

Pleading: WW says that RS was a free man at the time of the making of the bond and seeks inquiry upon the country, and RS seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Kent to make a jury come in Easter term 1426.

Postea text: postea 1 - the sheriff of Kent returns that he ordered John C., steward of the liberty of the archbishop of Canterbury, etc., but had nothing in return. Therefore the sheriff of Kent is again ordered to raise a jury, for Trinity term 1426, the liberty notwithstanding.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 101

Term: Hilary 1426
County: Nottinghamshire
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Bond; Imprisonment

Pleading: Thomas C. claims that John W. owes him £16 per a bond. Damages are claimed at £20. Bond shown in court. And upon this TC says that the bond was made at 'Wireton', Nottinghamshire.

Pleading: JW says that the force of the bond ought not hold because he was imprisoned by TC and other of his coven at 'Cradley, Shropshire'. [Note, Cradley was one of the manors of Halesowen, Worcestershire. Some Halesowen manors were annexed to Shropshire in the late 11th century, but the VCH Worcester vol.3 says that Cradley was not one of the manors so annexed, instead remaining in Worcestershire.]

Pleading: TC says that JW was a free man at the time of the bond's making and seeks inquiry upon the country, and JW seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Shropshire to make a jury come in Easter term 1426. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Postea text: 10 posteas - all say that the sheriff of Shropshire did not send the writ. Forwarding the case as far as Hilary term 1429.

Case notes: possibly related to CP40/650 rot.400d

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 101d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: 20m
Case type: Bond; Imprisonment

Pleading: John R. claims that Thomas H. owes him 60s per a bond. Damages are claimed at 20m. Bond shown in court. And upon this JR says that the bond was made at London, 'parish of St. Peter in Cheap Ward'.

Pleading: TH says that the force of the bond ought not hold because at the time of the bond's making he was imprisoned by JR and others of his coven at Boston, Lincolnshire.

Pleading: JR says that TH was a free man at the time of the bond's making and seeks inquiry upon the country, and TH seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Lincolnshire to make a jury come in Easter term 1426. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Postea text: postea 1 - the sheriff of Lincolnshire returns that he delivered the writ to Robert H., bailiff of the liberty of the Honour of Richmond within parts of Holland (a district of Lincolnshire), but had nothing in return. Therefore the sheriff of Lincolnshire is again ordered to make a jury come, in Trinity term 1426.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 105d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Account
Damages claimed: 100m
Case type: Contract (service/employment); Reckoning of account

Pleading: John W. claims that Nicholas T. has not rendered reasonable account concerning the time he acted as JW's receiver of monies at London, namely for one week commencing 07/01/1423, during which week NT received £37 on JW's behalf by the hands of certain William A. Damages are claimed at 100m.

Pleading: NY says that after the time aforesaid he rendered a full accounting before auditors Richard A. and Thomas K. at Bury St Edmund's, Suffolk.

Pleading: JW says that RA and TK were never his auditors of account and that NT never rendered account etc. and seeks inquiry upon the country, and NT seeks likewise. Order to the sheriff of Suffolk to make a jury come in Easter term 1426.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 107d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: Middlesex
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Detention of goods; Safe keeping

Pleading: David P. is in mercy for many defaults. Abbot Thomas Y. claims that David P. (lately archdeacon of Chester) unjustly detains a certain bible worth 10m. Abbot TY says that he gave this bible DP for safekeeping at Westminster, Middlesex, on 18/10/1423., and that DP refuses to return it. Damages are claimed at £20.

Pleading: DP defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1426.

Postea text: postea 1 - further licence to imparl as far as trinity term 1426.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 108d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £200
Case type: Bond

Pleading: Bishop Thomas L., Geoffrey L., Thomas K., John D., Nicholas D., and 'Richard Cliderowe of Romney', executors of the will of 'Richard Clyderowe esquire', claim that John G., owes them £100 as the unpaid residue of a £300 bond made between JG and the late Richard Clyderowe esquire at the staple of Westminster on 29/11/1409 concerning merchandise bought from him (Richard Clyderowe esquire) at the aforesaid staple. This bond was due in the feast of St John the Baptist 1410 (24/06/1410), but the executors have only been satisfied concerning £200 of the aforesaid £300, leaving an unpaid residue of £100. Damages are claimed at £200. Bond shown in court, as well as letters testamentary.

Pleading: JG defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1426.

Postea text: 7 posteas - all further licences to imparl, forwarding the case as far as Easter term 1428.

Case notes: It is unclear why this case is marginalized as 'London'.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 112d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: 10m
Case type: Bond

Pleading: William B. claims that John S. owes him 8m per a bond. Damages are claimed at 10. Bond shown in court. And upon this WB says that the bond was made a London [parish and ward left blank].

Pleading: JS defends and seeks to hear both WB's writ and the bond. After hearing these JS says that there is variation between the writ and the bond. JS says that in the bond he is referred to as 'John Soper Jr. of New Shoreham' and the writ contains only 'John Soper of Shoreham' without either the word 'Jr.' nor the word 'New'. Therefore, JS seeks judgement on the writ. And upon this the court makes view of the writ.

Postea text: The court makes view of and the bond and writ, and decide that WB is to have nothing for his writ. WB is in mercy for false claim. JS is without day.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 114

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: 100m
Damages awarded: 20s
Case type: Detention of goods; Safe keeping

Pleading: Robert Atte Ford claims that Walter D. unjustly detains a certain chest containing charters, writings and other muniments etc. Robert Atte Ford says that he is the son and heir of Walter A. who was long seised of certain lands and tenements with appurtenances in Willingdon (Sussex), London, Westham (Sussex), Herstmonceux (Sussex), Horse Eye (Sussex), Hailsham (Sussex), Westdean (Sussex), Litlington (Sussex), and Lullington (Sussex, ms. 'Luwynton'), possessions concerning the aforesaid chest with charters etc. Robert Atte Ford says that the late WA died seised of this chest, which then passed to his wife Matilda Atte Ford. Matilda Atte Ford then gave the aforesaid chest with charters etc on 10/05/1418, in London in the parish of St Bartholomew by the Exchange in Bread Street ward, to the defendant Walter Davy for safe keeping. However Walter Davy will not now return them to Robert Atte Ford. Damages are claimed at 100m. Documents within the chest include: a charter by which 'Richard de Horsey' (may be Jr. or Sen.) granted two acres of land in Willingdon to the late WA; a charter by which Richard Atte Ford the son and heir of John Atte Ford gave 3 acres and one rood of land in Willingdon to the late WA and Ade H.; a charter by which Richard Atte Ford the son of Simon Atte Ford gave one acre and one rod of land in Willingdon to JA with his wife Emma A. and their son Robert Atte Ford; a charter by which Thomas L. gave one acre of meadow of in Willingdon to John O., JA, and WA; a charter by which Emma who was the wife of John O. whilst a widow (this is probably EA?) gave one piece of land in Willingdon to WA; a charter by which Richard (Best) the son of John Best gave 3 acres of land and 3 rods of meadow in Willingdon to JA and his sons Richard Atte Ford and WA; a charter by which Thomas B. gave half of one acre of meadow in Willingdon to Richard Bunt and his wife Isabel Bunt; a charter by which John Piers and Richard Argentham gave 3 acres and 3 rods of land with houses and 2s annual rents, together with one piece of meadow, in Willington to WA and his wife Matilda A.; a charter by which William Bourhunte and his wife Agnes Bourhunte grants all of there lands, houses, gardens, curtilages, rents, services etc. with reversion of the same lands in Denton to Nicholas Erle and WA; a charter by which WA gave 3 acres of land and 3 rods of land with one house in Willingdon to John Piers and Richard Argentham; a charter by which John Malger gave one piece of land with part lying upon the market ('chepe') to his daughter Emma (presumably this is EA); a charter by which Richard Godwyn gave one messuage and one rod of land in Willingdonto John de Cruce; a charter by which Robert Joop gave one and a half acres of land in Willingdon to John Fillowe and Isabel de Bethum; a charter by which William Cheseman and his wife Rose gave one messuage with houses in the parish of Westham (Sussex) and borough of Pevensey to William Garslond; a writing by which Richard de Horsye (Jr.) son of Richard de Horsye (Sen.) quitclamed to WA and his wife Joan A. all claim he had in 2 acres of land in Willingdon; a writing by which Thomas le Gryk quitclaimed to Richard Carter all claim he had in one messuage with houses and gardens in the parish of Willingdon; a writing by which Nicholas (Hareward) the son of Thomas Hareward quitclaimed to Andrew Manse all claim he had in the said Nicholas Hareward had in in 1d of rent in the vill of Willingdon; a charter by which John Filloll (probably J. Fillowe as above) gave all his lands and tenements in Herstmonceux, Horse Eye, Hailsham, Westdean, Litlington, and Lullington (to whom not stated); an indenture of defeasance upon which charter of enfeoffment; one general acquittance; another special acquittance; and other charters, writings, and muniments.

Pleading: Walter Davy says that he cannot deny that he was given the aforesaid with charters etc. for safe keeping, and he says that he was always prepared to deliver it and offers it in this court.

Postea text: Robert atte Ford has livery of the aforesaid chest with charters from Walter Davy, and Robert atte Ford is awarded damages of 20s. Walter Davy is in mercy. Robert atte Ford relaxed the damages.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 119

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Abduction

Pleading: John M. claims that on 08/09/1424 Thomas R. and Thomas B., together with John G., used force and arms to abduct his apprentice, Robert G., at London. Damages are claimed at £20.

Pleading: TR and TB defend and seek licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1426.

Postea text: postea 1 - further licence to imparl as far as Trinity term 1426.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 120

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Debt (account)
Damages claimed: 10m
Case type: Reckoning of account

Pleading: John Hethe claims that John B. owes him 7m 3s 4d. John Hethe says that JB acted as receiver of monies on behalf of a certain John C., now deceased, and JC's daughter Margery whilst she was a single woman, this same Margery now being the wife of plaintiff John Hethe. John Hethe says that JB acted as receiver from Michaelmas 1417 until Christmas 1421, concerning which period, after the death of JC and Margery's marriage to John Hethe, a reckoning of account was held at London before auditors John Horsley and Henry the servant of Simon Seman. John Hethe says that this reckoning found JB to in arrears for 7m 3s 4d. Damages are claimed at 10m.

Pleading: JB says that he does not owe John Hethe the aforesaid 7m 3s 4d nor any other monies and puts himself upon the country, and John Hethe puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in Easter term 1426.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 122d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £30
Case type: Bond

Pleading: John B. claims that Henry I. owes him £25 6s 8d per a bond. Damages are claimed at £30. Bond shown in court.

Pleading: HI defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1426.

Postea text: 2 posteas - both are further licences to imparl, forwarding the case as far as Michaelmas term 1426.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 130

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £10
Damages awarded: 10s
Costs: 43s 4d
Case type: Bond

Pleading: James S. and John C. claim that Thomas B. owes them 100s per a bond. Damages are claimed at £10. Bond shown in court.

Pleading: TB defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1426.

Pleading: [further information drawn from CP40/661 rot.124] TB says that he ought not be held to the force of the bond because it is not of his making and so puts himself upon the country. James Strangways and JC put themselves likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in trinity term 1426. the bond is given to chief clerk Robert D. for safe keeping.

Postea text: postea 1 - 10/07/1426 the bond is delivered to justice John P. and clerk RD is quit of it.

Postea text: postea 2 - the jury is respited as far as the octave of Michaelmas term 1426 unless the case is first heard at the assize of St Martin le Grand before justice JP on 'Wednesday next after the feast of St Thomas the martyr (presumably the translation of, meaning 10/07/1426).

Postea text: postea 3 - case is heard at the assize of St Martin le Grand before justice JP and associate justice John Segefeld on 'Wednesday next after the feast of St Thomas the martyr (presumably the translation of, meaning 10/07/1426). A jury comes and says on oath that the bond is of TB's making, just as the plaintiffs alleged. Therefore, James Strangways and JC are to recover the aforesaid debt plus 10s damages and 26s 8d costs. Also, the justices award James Strangways and JC an additional 16s 8d for costs at their request. Therefore, James Strangways and JC are to recover the debt plus a total of 4m.

Case notes: further information drawn from CP40/661 rot.124; different attorneys in later entry

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 134

Term: Hilary 1426
County: Surrey
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £40
Case type: Taking of goods; Trespass (chattels)

Pleading: John M. is in mercy for many defaults. Thomas S. claims that on 06/06/1421 John M., John S., John R., and Thomas P. used force and arms, in TS's the free fishery at Imworth, Surrey, to take 3,000 roach, 2,000 pike (dentricm'), 1,000 barbel/carp, and 300 trout worth £10. TS also says that JM, JS, TP, and JR fixed stakes and piles across the water-course which runs to his mill, blocking the ancient water-course so that the mill was not able to run and TS was without the mill's profits from the aforesaid 06/06/1421 until Michaelmas 1423 (29/09/1423). Damages are claimed at £40.

Pleading: JM, JS, JR, and TP defend and seek licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1426.

Postea text: 4 posteas - all further licences to imparl, forwarding the case as far as Michaelmas term 1427.

Case notes: related to CP40/665 rot.124

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 136

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £10
Damages awarded: £4
Costs: 3m
Case type: Assault; Taking of goods

Pleading: William P. claims that John C. used force and arms to assault him at London, and also to seize and carry off his goods and chattels to the value of 40s. The goods taken were namely: one girdle; one purse of gold cloth; and one silver bound baselard. Damages are claimed at £10.

Pleading: JC says that he is innocent and puts himself on the country, and WP puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in Easter term 1426. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Postea text: postea 1 - the sheriff of London did not send the writ and so the case is forwarded as far as trinity term 1426

Postea text: postea 2 - plaintiff WP comes but defendant JC does not. Therefore a jury is to be taken against JC in default. The sheriff of London did not send the writ and so the case is forwarded as far as Michaelmas term 1426.

Postea text: postea 3 - continuance between the parties as far as Michaelmas term 1427, unless the case should first be heard at the assize of St Martin le Grand before justice James S. on 09/07/1427.

Postea text: postea 4 - the case is heard at the assize of St Martin le Grand before justice James S. and associate justice Thomas B. on 09/07/1427. A jury comes and says on oath that JC is guilty of the aforesaid trespass. 'WP's damages are assessed at £4, and WP's costs surrounding the suit are apportioned at 13s 4d beyond the aforesaid £4, which damages in total equal exactly £5 13s 4d' (note that there is an error here in the sum!). Therefore the decision is that WP is to recover the aforesaid £5 13s 4d assessed by the jury and also 26s 8d at the request of WP for further costs. JC is to be arrested.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 139

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Debt (account)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Reckoning of account

Pleading: Thomas Bernewell, administrator of the goods and chattels of Walter C. who died intestate, claims that Thomas Bemestur owes him £10, as determined by a reckoning of the account between Thomas Bemestur and the late WC before auditors John H. and John B. This reckoning found that Thomas Bemestur was £10 in arrears to the late WC concerning 'diverse sums of money', which Thomas Bemestur did not thereafter pay to the late WC and has not paid to plaintiff Thomas Bernewell since his being named WC's administrator by David P. official of bishop John K. of London in the parish of St Mildred, Bread Street Ward. Letters of administration are shown to the court, granted 08/07/1424. Damages are claimed at £20.

Pleading: Thomas Bemestur defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1426.

Postea text: postea 1 - further licence to imparl as far as Trinity term 1426.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 139d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Debt (account)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Reckoning of account

Pleading: Thomas Bernewell, administrator of the goods and chattels of Walter C. who died intestate, claims that John J. owes him 100s, as determined by a reckoning of the account between JJ and the late WC before auditors John H. and John B. This reckoning found that JJ was 100s in arrears to the late WC concerning 'diverse sums of money', which JJ did not thereafter pay to the late WC and has not paid to plaintiff Thomas Bernewell since his being named WC's administrator by David P. official of bishop John K. of London in the parish of St Mildred, Bread Street Ward. Letters of administration are shown to the court, granted 08/07/1424. Damages are claimed at £20.

Pleading: JJ defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1426.

Postea text: 3 posteas - all are further licences to imparl, forwarding the case as far as Hilary term 1427

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 194

Term: Hilary 1426
County: Sussex
Writ type: Debt (account)
Damages claimed: £10
Case type: Reckoning of account

Pleading: Bishop John K., lately prebendary of South Malling, claims that Thomas D. owes him 68s 4¾d as determined by a reckoning of account between them before auditors Thomas E. and Henry H. concerning diverse fines and monies of bishop JK which were received by TD. Damages are claimed at £10.

Pleading: TD says that he did not have an accounting with bishop JK before the aforesaid auditors and puts himself upon the country, and bishop JK puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of Sussex to make a jury come in Easter term 1426. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 194

Term: Hilary 1426
County: Kent
Writ type: Debt (sale of goods)
Damages claimed: 40s
Case type: Sale of goods

Pleading: Richard G. claims that John V. owes him 40s arising from the sale of on pipe pf red wine which JV bought but did not pay for. Damages are claimed at 40s.

Pleading: JV says that he does not owe RG the aforesaid 40s nor any other monies and puts himself upon the country. Order to the sheriff of Kent to make a jury come in Easter term 1426.

Postea text: postea 1 - the sheriff of Kent returns that the writ reached him too late. The case is forwarded as far as trinity term 1426.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 279

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Debt (sale of goods)
Damages claimed: 5m
Damages awarded: 6s 8d
Costs: 33s 4d
Case type: Sale of goods

Pleading: Walter M. claims that John Halpeny owes him £6 arising from the sale of 400 stockfish which John Halpeny bought but did not pay for. Damages are claimed at 5m.

Pleading: John Halpeny says that he does not owe WM the aforesaid £6 nor any other monies and puts himself upon the country, and John Halpeny puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in Easter term 1426.

Postea text: postea 1 - continuance between the parties as far as Hilary term 1427.

Postea text: postea 2 - to this day (octave of the purification of St Mary 1427) comes plaintiff WM by his attorney. And, the chief justice has sent this record: postea, day and place aforesaid (assize of St Martin le Grand?), the case was heard before chief justice William B. and associate justice John D. Plaintiff WM came in his own person and defendant John Halpeny did not come. Therefore a jury was taken against John Halpeny per default. The jury says upon oath that John Halpeny owes WM the aforesaid £4 15½d of the supposed £6 debt. And the same jury says on oath that John Halpeny does not owe WM the other 38s 9½ (note there is a problem with the maths here, an extra pence!). Therefore WM is to recover a debt of £4 15½d plus damages of 6s 8d and 13s 4d in costs. And upon this WM seeks that the justices increase his award for costs. Therefore the justices award WM an additional 20s in costs. WM is in mercy for false claim concerning 38s 9½d of the supposed £6 debt.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 302

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £40
Damages awarded: 20s
Case type: Bond

Pleading: John C. claims that John G. owes him £20 by way of four bonds of £5 each. All four of these bonds were made on 01/11/1420, and they were payable at: Easter 1421 (23/03/1421); Michaelmas 1421 (29/09/1421); Easter 1422 (12/04/1422); and Michaelmas 1422 (29/09/1422). Bonds shown in court. Damages are claimed at 340. And upon this JC says that the bonds were made at London [parish and ward left blank].

Pleading: JG defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1426. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Postea text: postea 1 -plaintiff JC comes but defendant JG does not come, and so JC is to recover the aforesaid £20 debt plus damages of 40s.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 302d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Account
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Contract (service/employment); Reckoning of account

Pleading: William R. claims that John W. has not rendered reasonable account for the time when he acted as WR's receiver. WR says that JW acted as his receiver from 5 October 1422 for a quarter of a year, during which time JW received 5m on WR's behalf from a certain Ralph Marke in London, parish of Holy Trinity the Less, Queenhithe ward. Damages claimed at £20.

Pleading: JW says that he was never the receiver of WR concerning the aforesaid monies by the hands of RM for the time aforesaid etc. and puts himself upon the country, and WR puts himself likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in Easter term 1426. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Postea text: Process continued, jury in respite to the octave of St John the Baptist, nisi prius they come before William Babyngton, CJCP, at St Martin le Grand on 17 June 1426. On this day, before William B. and John Drayton, WR came by attorney, JW in person, jury says that JW did act as WR's receiver for the time aforesaid. Order that JW render account, and is amerced.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 306

Term: Hilary 1426
County: Middlesex
Writ type: Disseisin
Case type: Real action / rents / damage to real estate

Pleading: The assize came to recognise whether Robert Hore and his wife Alice unjustly disseised William Soneman of his free tenement in the parishes of St Andrew Holborn and St Giles in the Fields. William Soneman states that they have disseised him of 13 messuages, 20 acres of land and 4 acres of meadow with appurtenances, etc.

Pleading: Robert Hore and his wife Alice state that of the 20 acres of arable land and 4 acres of meadow included in William Soneman (Jr.)'s writ, that these lands, the arable as much as the meadow, from time immemorial, lie [fallow] and are accustomed to lie [fallow] (adeo cort' pro terra arrabili quam pro prato a tempore quo non extat memoria coginta fuerunt iacuerunt et iacere consuenerunt). And, concerning the 13 messuages, 6 of which are under one roof (tecto), 5 of which are under another roof, and also one certain messuage called ''Le Cok' adjoining a place for shops (this being a second messuage, see counter-plea), which messuages on the day of the making of WS (Jr.)'s writ, RH and AH say that they held these by right of AH. RH and AH say that there ought not be an assize between them concerning the five messuages or shops under one roof because long before WS (Jr.) or anyone else had them a certain Robert M. and his wife Isabel M. who had been the wife of Reginald W. were formerly seised of them, and enfeoffed them to William S. (Sen.) - to whom WS (Jr.) is heir - and John A. By the force of this enfeoffment WS (Sen.) and JA were seised of the aforesaid 5 messuages or shops with appurtenances, which they in turn enfeoffed to John C., Roger P., and John S. The same JC, RP, and JS were seised of the aforesaid 5 messuages or shops and allowed WS (Sen.) to hold (tenere) and occupy (occupare) them at their will (tenancy at will). And, by which certain JC, RP and JS, the defendants RH and AH say that they have estate in the same messuages or shops as in right of AH as a free tenement. However, when WS (Sen.) later died WS (Jr.) claimed the aforesaid messuages or shops as the son and heir of WS (Sen.), supposing that WS (Sen.) had been seised of them in his demesne and as of simple fee. Upon which a certain Alice A. entered into the property and in turn (super quam) RH and AH entered into the aforesaid property. RH and RA seek judgement (concerning these 5 messuages or shops) if William Soneman (Jr.) continues with the assize etc. And, concerning the messuage called 'Le Cok' and another messuage or shop adjoining (contiguum) 'Le Cok', a parcel of the aforesaid 13 messuages; and 2½ acres of meadow, on the day of the making of WS (Jr.)'s original writ, for meadow pertaining to (iacent) the aforesaid parcels of 20 acres of land and 4 acres of meadow, RH and AH say that a certain William H. and Robert C. were formerly seised of this messuage and meadow. RH and AH say that WH and RC enfeoffed this messuage and meadow to WS (Sen.) and JA, who then enfeoffed the same aforesaid JC, RP and JS, these latter men being seised of the property in demesne and as of fee. The same JC, RP and JS then allowed WS (Sen.) to hold and occupy this messuage and meadow at will (tenancy at will). And by which certain JC, RP and JS, the defendants RH and AH have estate in the property as right of AH, as a free tenement. However, when WS (Sen.) later died WS (Jr.) claimed the aforesaid messuages or shops as the son and heir of WS (Sen.), supposing that WS (Sen.) had been seised of them in his demesne and as of simple fee. Upon which a certain Alice A. entered into the property and in turn (super quam) RH and AH entered into the aforesaid property. RH and RA seek judgement continues with the assize etc. Concerning the remaining tenements RH and AH say that a certain Matilda (G.) who was the wife of Geoffrey Goldbeter was seised of these properties, by the name of 'all her lands and tenements with meadows, pasture (pastura), and graze-land (pascuis) in the parishes of St Andrew Holborn, St Giles in the Fields, St Pancras, and Shoreditch or elsewhere in Middlesex, excepting three shops with appurtenances in the parish of St Andrew Holborn which were of John 'Paternoster'. And MG, by way of a certain charter-indenture given at Holborn (Middlesex) on 24/03/1385, granted these lands to her son John H. for the term of his life with reversion to WS (Sen.), 'his wife Ellen S. the daughter of MG', and their heirs in perpetuity. As a result of this grant JH was seised of the aforesaid property in his demesne and as of fee. ES then later died, after which time WS (Sen.) made at charter in the parish of St Andrew Holborn in Middlesex on 17/02/1403 granting reversion of the aforesaid property (by the name of all that property 'which MG had granted to JH etc.) to the same aforesaid JC, RP and JS, obliging himself and his heirs to warrant JC, RP and JS against all men etc. As a result of this grant JC, RP, and JS were attorned of the property. 'He' (presumably JH who was holding for life) then later died, after whose death the reversion of the property, by pretext of the latter charter, should have passed to JC, RP, and JS. And, by which certain JC, RP and JS the defendants RH and AH have estate in the aforesaid property as of right of AH, as of free tenement. RH and AH present both of the aforesaid charters to the court and seek judgement if WS (Jr.) continues his suit contrary to the aforesaid charter which contains the warrant of WS (Sen.)

Pleading: WS (Jr.) says concerning the first 5 messuages or shops that it is true that RM and his wife IM enfeoffed this property to WS (Sen.) and JA, who were seised of it in their demesne etc. WS (Jr.) says that JA later died, and that WS (Sen.) later died, at which time he (WS [Jr.]) entered the property, prior to which entry JA never had anything in the aforesaid 5 shops or messuages. Hence, WS (Jr.) says that he was seised of the aforesaid shops or messuages as a free tenement, of which he was disseised by the defendants RH and AH. WS (Jr.) is prepared to verify this and seeks judgement. Concerning the messuage called 'Le Cok', another messuage adjoining it, and 2½ acres of meadow, WS (Jr.) says that it is true that WH and RC enfeoffed this property to WS (Sen.) and JA who were seised of it in their demesne etc. as RH and AH Have claimed. WS (Jr.) says that JA later died, and that WS (Sen.) later died, at which time he (WS [Jr.]) entered the property, prior to which entry JA never had anything in the aforesaid messuages and meadow. Hence, WS (Jr.) says that he was seised of the aforesaid shops or messuages as a free tenement, of which he was disseised by the defendants RH and AH. WS (Jr.) is prepared to verify this and seeks judgement. Concerning the remaining tenements WS (Jr.) says that long before MG demised the remaining property to her son JH, she had granted the same property to WS (Sen.) and his wife ES, who were seised of if in their demesne and as of fee in tale, and they had set forth between them WS (Jr.) who is the plaintiff (haburtunt exitum se videlit' ipsum Will' qui modo queritur). Afterwards MG demised the same remaining tenements with appurtenances to JH for the term of his life, with the remainder after the death of JH to WS (Sen.), his wife ES, their heirs and assigns in perpetuity. Through this process (per quod), WS (Sen.) entered into the aforesaid property with appurtenances and later, at the request of MG (ad supplicationem) allowed JH to hold and occupy the property at the will of WS (Sen.). WS (Sen.) and ES then later died, and JH similarly dies, after which time WS (Jr.) entered the aforesaid property and was thence seised of it as his free tenement until disseised by the defendants RH and AH and seeks judgement etc.

Pleading: Concerning the 5 messuages or shops under one roof, the messuage called 'Le Cok', the messuage adjoining 'Le Cok' with 2½ acres of meadow RH and AH say that WS (Sen.) and JA were seised of these properties, but enfeoffed them to JC, RP, and JS as pleaded above. Concerning this RH with AH put themselves upon the assize, and WS (Jr.) puts himself likewise. Concerning the remaining properties RH and AH say that MG demised these directly to JH for the term of his life with the remainder to WS (Sen.) and his wife ES, by the force of with demise JH was seised as of his free tenement, after which time ES died, and after her death WS (Sen.) granted the same properties to JC, RP, and JS by his charter so that after the death of JH the remainder of the property in its entirety ought to have passed to JC, RP, and JS with warrantee etc. RH and AH say that they are prepared to verify this.

Pleading: WS (Jr.) reiterated his claim concerning the remaining property, that long before MG granted the property to JH for a life term she had in fact granted it to WS (Sen.) and his wife ES who were seised of it etc. and seeks inquiry upon the assize. RH and AH seek likewise. But the assize remains un-taken due to default of recognitors (assize jurors) and is forwarded to Easter term 1426.

Postea text: postea 1 - due to default of recognitors the case is forwarded to Trinity term 1426 and the sheriff of Middlesex is to supply jurors (decem tales).

Case notes: Related to CP 40/665, rot 307.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 315d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Debt (other); Debt (sale of goods)
Damages claimed: 100s
Case type: Arbitration; Contract (general); Sale of goods

Pleading: Richard B. claims that Nicholas A. owes him 40s arising from the sale of one silver chalice for 33s 4d which NA bought but did not pay for, and also 6s 8d labour costs which NA agreed to pay RB for making two gold rings and decorating one silver-bound horn. Damages claimed at 100s.

Pleading: NA says that the action against him ought not continue because on 19 June 1424 he and RB undertook arbitration at Tresham, Gloucestershire, before arbiters John Joye on the part of NA, and Richard Panter on the part of RB. NA says that these arbiters decided he ought to pay RB 16s 8d in full satisfaction of all debts between them, which he paid to RB in accordance with their decision.

Pleading: RB, protesting that he never submitted himself to the arbitration of JJ and RP etc., says that that he never had any such arbitration and seeks inquiry upon the country; NA likewise. Order to the sheriff of Gloucestershire to have jury of Tresham here at Easter one month.

Postea text: Sheriff did not send writ, to quindene of Trinity 1426.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 317d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Trespass (force and arms)
Damages claimed: £10
Case type: Housebreaking; Taking of goods

Pleading: Thomas G. comes in his own person and claims that William W. used force and arms to break his house at London whereupon WW seized and carried off goods and chattels to the value of 100s. The goods and chattels taken were namely 6 frying pans and one anvil [appears in CP40/661 rot.108d as two anvils]. Damages are claimed at £10.

Pleading: WW comes in his own person, defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1426.

Pleading: [further information drawn from CP40/661 rot.108d] Parson WW defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Trinity term 1426. [In this entry it is stated that both parties come by attorney but neither name is recorded; blank spaced appearing on the manuscript.]

Case notes: further information drawn from CP40/661 rot.108d

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 317d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Account
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Contract (service/employment); Reckoning of account

Pleading: Thomas F. claims that John P. has not rendered reasonable account concerning the time when he acted as TF's receiver of monies. TF says that he appointed JP to act as his receiver on 29/11/1411, for the two days then next following. During this time JP received on behalf of TF £14 7s 1d by the hands of a certain Robert W. at London in the parish of St Stephen Coleman Street, Colman Street Ward. Damages are claimed at £20.

Pleading: JP defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1426.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 321d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Detention of goods; Safe keeping

Pleading: John W. claims that on 24/08/1424 he delivered to John G., for safe keeping, goods and chattels to the value of 100s. JW says that JG will not return these goods and claims damages of £20. The goods and chattels were namely: one outer-garment (togam) of Musterddevillers lined (furratur) with byss (bisso); one silver girdle; and one cloak (capicum) of black Lyre.

Pleading: JG defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1426.

Pleading: [further information drawn from CP40/661 rot.121d] JG says that he does not detain the chattels of JW and offers his law, to be made in Trinity term 1426. Pledges of law are named.

Postea text: postea 1 - process continued as far as Michaelmas term 1426, to which day defendant JW did not come. Therefore, JW and his pledges of the prosecution are in mercy and JG is without day.

Case notes: further information drawn from CP40/661 rot.121d

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 322d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: Essex
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £400
Case type: Bond

Pleading: Richard W. claims that John D., John W., and Peter H., executors of the will of John B., together with their co-executor Thomas B., owe him 300m per a bond made between RW and the late JB. Damages are claimed at £400. Bond shown in court.

Pleading: Executors JD, JW, and PH ask the bond and its endorsements be read aloud. The condition on the bond is: if JB should have paid or made to be paid to RW annually, 20m in Christmas and 20 marks in Easter, commencing in Christmas 1418, until JB should have paid RW 200m, then the bond should be null and void. Upon hearing this JD, JW, and PH say that Margaret, who was the wife of JB and lately an executor of JB's will, paid these monies to RW at Langenhoe (Essex), all and singular, in accordance with the bond's endorsement.

Pleading: RW says that MB did not pay him the aforesaid monies as specified in the bond's endorsement. RW says that MB did not make the 20m payment of Easter 1421 (23/03/1421) and seeks inquiry upon the country, and the executors (JD, JW, and PH) seek likewise. Order to the sheriff of Essex to make a jury come in Easter term 1426.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 325d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Debt (account)
Damages claimed: £20
Case type: Reckoning of account

Pleading: Thomas Bernewell, administrator of the goods and chattels of Walter C. who died intestate, claims that John Herbyn owes him 100s, as determined by a reckoning of the account between John Herbyn and the late WC before auditors John Hettesbury and John Bole. This reckoning found that John Herbyn was 100s in arrears to the late WC concerning diverse sums of money, which John Herbyn did not thereafter pay to the late WC and has not paid to plaintiff Thomas Bernewell since his being named WC's administrator by David P., official of bishop John K. of London, in the parish of St Mildred, Bread Street ward. Letters of administration are shown to the court, granted 08/07/1424. Damages are claimed at £20.

Pleading: John Herbyn defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1426.

Pleading: [further information drawn from CP40/662 rot.403d.] John Herbyn says that the late WC, immediately before his death, was living at East Lulworth, Dorset, and had diverse goods and chattels, namely horses, saddles, and bridles; and WC made his will, naming John Hoop and John Bone as his executors. After the death of WC John Hoop and John Bone brought the will of WC before John Hasard, official of John Makworth, then archdeacon of the archdeaconry of Dorset, because East Lulworth in within that archdeaconry and the archdeacon of Dorset and all of his predecessors have had jurisdiction over probate there from time immemorial. Thereupon, John Hoop and John Bone were granted executry over the goods and chattels of the late WC. John Herbyn seeks judgement if TB should continue his case, supposing to the administrator of the late WC.

Pleading: TB, not acknowledging which John Harbyn alleges says that the material presented by John Herbyn is not a sufficient response in law and seeks judgement on the debt and damages.

Pleading: John Herbyn says that his pleading is sufficient in law and that TB has not denied the material he presented. John Herbyn seeks judgement. And because this justice wished himself to be advised upon aforesaid pleading before giving judgement further day is given between the parties in Michaelmas term 1426.

Postea text: postea 1 - further licence to imparl as far as trinity term 1426.

Postea text: 2 posteas - both say tat the justice has not yet been advised and so the case is forwarded as far as Easter term 1427.

Case notes: further information drawn from CP40/662 rot.403d.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 328

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: £100
Case type: Bond; Imprisonment

Pleading: Nicholas Bowet claims that Robert N. executor of the will of William B., Henry I., and HI's wife Anne (I.) who was lately the wife and then executor of WB, together with prior Geoffrey L. co-executor of RN and AI concerning WB, owe him 80m per a bond made between NB and the late WB. Damages are claimed at £100. Bond shown in court.

Pleading: RN, HI, and AI defend and seek licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1426.

Pleading: [further information drawn from CP40/661 rot.329d, Easter 1426] RN, HI, and AI say that the force of the bond ought not hold because at the time of its making NB and others of his coven had placed the late WB in great fear of life and limb at North Walsham, Norfolk, forcing him to make the bond under duress.

Pleading: NB says that the late WB made the bond of his own free will and seeks inquiry upon the country; RN, HI, and AI seek likewise. Order to the sheriff of Norfolk to make a jury come in Trinity term 1426.

Postea text: postea 1 - the sheriff of Norfolk did not return the writ, and so the case is forwarded as far as Michaelmas term 1426.

Postea text: postea 2 - the sheriff of Norfolk returns that the writ reached him late, and so the case is forwarded as far as Hilary term 1427.

Postea text: postea 3 - the sheriff of Norfolk did not return the writ and so the case is forwarded as far as Easter term 1427.

Case notes: further information drawn from CP40/661 rot.329d

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 329d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: Essex
Writ type: Debt (sale of goods)
Damages claimed: £40
Case type: Sale of goods

Pleading: Thomas M. claims that Walter T. owes him £34 arising from the sale of 3 bales and 10 quarters of woad which WT bought but did not pay for. Damages are claimed at £40.

Pleading: WT says that he does not owe TM the aforesaid £34 nor any other monies and offers his law, to be made in Easter term 1426. Pledges of law are named. And it is decided that WT's attorney, Adam S., is to have his master here to make his law in the aforesaid term.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 329d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Debt (sale of goods)
Damages claimed: 100s.
Case type: Sale of goods

Pleading: William S. claims that Thomas H. owes him 40s arising from the sale of 10 cades (cados) of ale/beer which TH bought but did not pay for. Damages are claimed at 100s.

Pleading: TH says that he does not owe WS the aforesaid 40s nor any other monies and offers his law, to be made in Easter term 1426. Pledges of law are named, as well as pledges for future appearance.

Postea text: postea 1 - defendant TH comes, but plaintiff WS does not come to prosecute his writ. Therefore, WS and his pledges of the prosecution are in mercy. TH is without day.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 397

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Debt (bond)
Damages claimed: 40s
Case type: Bond

Pleading: John B. and John R. claim that Robert F. owes them 50s per a bond. Damages are claimed at 40s. Bond shown in court. And, JB and JR say that the bond was made at London in the parish of St Mary Colechurch [ward not given].

Pleading: RF defends and seeks licence to imparl as far as Easter term 1426. Pledges are named for the defendant.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 414

Term: Hilary 1426
County: Surrey
Writ type: Debt (sale of goods)
Damages claimed: 40s
Case type: Sale of goods

Pleading: Roger S. claims that John T. owes him 40s arising from the sale of three cows (boves) which JT bought but did not pay for. Damages are claimed at 40s.

Pleading: JT says that he does not owe RS the aforesaid 40s nor any other monies and offers his law, to be made in Easter term 1426. Pledges of law are named. And, it is ordered that JT's attorney, William B., is to have his master to this court to make his law in the term aforesaid.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 438

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: £200
Case type: Detention of goods; Safe keeping

Pleading: John Stacy and his wife Joan Stacy claim that former sheriff of London John B. and Simon S., together with John Stafford, unjustly detain a certain bag containing charters, writings, and other muniments. John Stacy and Joan Stacy say that a certain Edward D., cousin of Joan Stacy to whom she is heir, 'Joan Stacy being the daughter of John (D.) the brother William (D.) the father of ED', was seised of certain lands and tenements with appurtenances in Chertsey, Addlestone, and Shere in Surrey, as well as Little Marlow, Buckinghamshire, in his demesne as of fee. ED, by right and inheritance, was also in possession of a certain bag containing charters, writings, and other muniments relating to the same lands and tenements which he delivered to Richard W. at London on 20/05/1419 for safe-keeping. ED and RW later died, and after their deaths the sealed bag with charters, at London on 10/07/1423, passed into the possession of former sheriffs of London JB and SS, with John Stafford. John Stacy and Joan Stacy say that JB and SS refuse to return the aforesaid bag with charters etc. and claim damages of £200.

Pleading: Former sheriffs of London JB and SS, and John Stafford defend. John Stafford says that he does not detain the aforesaid bag with charters etc. and puts himself upon the country, and John Stacy with Joan Stacy put themselves likewise. Order to the sheriff of London to make a jury come in Easter term 1426. And, former sheriffs of London JB and SS present the aforesaid bag with charters etc. to the court and say that they are prepared to deliver it with the court's decision. JB and SS say that the bag was given to themselves and John Stafford on the aforesaid 10/07/1423 for safe keeping by John Stacy, Joan Stacy, Thomas N., TN's wife Matilda N., and Thomas P. on the one part, and the executors of RW - namely John Coventre, John Carpenter, and William G. - on the other part. JB, SS, and John Stafford say that the bag was given to them, to be returned to either John Stacy and Joan Stacy or (vel) TN and MN, or (vel) TP, or (aut) the aforesaid executors of RW; only under certain conditions. JB, SS, and John Stafford claim that they are ignorant as to whether these conditions have been fulfilled and seek that TN and MN, TP, and the executors of RW be warned etc. Therefore the sheriff of London is ordered to make it known, by good and honest men, to TN and MN, TP, and the executors of RW to be to this court in Easter term 1426 if they wish to object to the bag being delivered to John Stacy and Joan Stacy etc. Day is given between the plaintiffs and defendants in the same term.

Pleading: [further information drawn from CP40/662 rot.314 - Trinity 1426] John Stacy and Joan Stacy, as much as TN and MN by their attorney, and TP in the custody of the warden of the Fleet prison, all come before the court. And upon this John Stacy and Joan Stacy seek livery of the bag with charters etc.

Pleading: TN and MN say that neither John and Joan Stacy, nor TP ought have livery of the bag. TN says that long before the aforesaid 20/05/1419 when the bag is supposed to have been delivered to the late RW a certain William Duke (presumably the same WD as above) the father of MN, to whom MN is heir, was seised of one toft 18 acres of lands and 8 acres of meadow with appurtenances in Chertsey (Surrey) to which the charters , writings, and muniments contained in the aforesaid bag pertain. TN says that a fine was later raised in the common pleas during Easter term 1408 before William T. and his associate justices between WD, Richard M., and Thomas S. on the one part, and John Stapenhull with his wife Joan Stapenhull on the other part; by which fine John and Joan Stapenhull recognized the aforesaid tenement with appurtenances to be the right of WD. Also, John and Joan Stapenhull remised and quitclaimed the property to WD, RM, TS, and the heirs of WD in perpetuity, John and Joan Stapenhull warrenting the property against all men etc. Hence, WD, RM, and TS were seised of the property, WD in his demesne and as of fee; RM and TS as of free tenement. Afterwards, WD died, and following the death of TS this property descended to MN as daughter and heir of WD. Then seised of the property MN alienated it to William Atte Wode, William Atte Wall, and their heirs and assigns in perpetuity. And TN and MN, to make that alienation secure from the heirs of MN, entered the same tenement by the right of MN and were made to be seised in the form aforesaid. They say that WD, prior to raising the aforesaid fine concerning the said property before Common Pleas in 1408, as well as afterwards, was in possession of the aforesaid bag with charters etc., and died possessed of it, after which time the bag passed into the hands of former sheriffs of London JB and SS, and John Stratford. TN and MN say that they ought to have livery of the bag by right of MN. They also deny that ED has the bag and gave it to RW for safe keeping etc. They also deny that the charters, writings, and muniments in the bag pertain to any lands or tenements of which ED was seised. This TN and MN say they are prepared to verify and seek judgement and livery of the bag.

Pleading: TP protests that it is he, and neither John with Joan Stacy nor TN with MN, who ought to have livery of the bag. TP says that long before the aforesaid 20/05/1419 WD, also called William Wynter, was seised of the lands aforesaid in his demesne and as of fee, and in possession of the bag with charters, writings, and muniments pertaining to the right and inheritance of William to the same lands. And, just as WD was seised of these lands, he enfeoffed them to the aforesaid RM and a certain William Asshurst, for they and their heirs to hold in perpetuity. As a result of this enfeoffment RM and William Asshurst were seised of the property in their demesne and as of fee. RM and William Asshurst then re-enfeoffed the property to WD, WD's wide Isabel D., and their heirs and assigns in perpetuity; as a result of which enfeoffment WD and ID were seised of the said property in their demesne and as of fee; and WD later died seised of the property in this manner thus leaving his widow ID in sole possession. Thus seised of the aforesaid property, ID enfeoffed the property to TP, Bishop Thomas L., James Strangways, and the heirs of TP; as a result of which enfeoffment TP, bishop TL, and James Strangways were seised of the property, TP in his demesne and as of fee, and bishop TL and James Strangways as of free tenement. TP says that upon enfeoffing him with the aforesaid property, ID gave him livery of the aforesaid bag, which he later gave to RW for safe keeping. Thus TP ought to have livery of the bag. TP denies ED was in possession of the bag, or that ED gave the bag to RW for safe keeping. He also denies that ED was ever seised of the aforesaid property, or that John Stacy, Joan Stact, TN, MN, and ED's executors ever delivered the bag to JB and SS for safe keeping. All this TP is prepared to verify and seeks both judgement and livery of the bag.

Pleading: John Stacy and Joan Stacy say that the pleas of TN and MN, and TP, are not have not been held (in keeping with) the law of the land, and so John and Joan Stacy say that it is not necessary for them to respond. They seek judgement and livery of the bag.

Pleading: TN and MN say that their plea is sufficient in law to exclude both John and Joan Stacy, and TP, from having livery of the bag. They say that John Stacy and Joan Stacy, and TP, have not made sufficient response to their plea and seek both judgement and livery of the bag.

Pleading: TP says that his plea is sufficient in law to exclude TN and MN, as well as John and Joan Stacy from having livery of the bag etc. TP seeks judgement and livery of the bag. And because the justices have not been advised concerning judgement upon the plea day is given between the aforesaid parties (namely TN, MN, John Stacy, Joan Stacy, and TP) in the Michaelmas term 1426.

Postea text: postea 1 - TN and MN come by their attorney, Richard B., and TP comes in his own person in the custody of the warden of the Fleet, however the executors of RW (namely John Coventry, John Carpenter, and WG) do not come. The sheriff of London returns that he made it known to TN, MN, and the executors of RW to be at this court etc. by way of Richard T. and Henry C. Concerning TP, the sheriff returns that TP has nothing in his bailiwick. Concerning the empanelling of a jury, the sheriff did not return the writ. Therefore, just as before, the sheriff is ordered to make a jury come, in Trinity term 1426. And upon this John Stacy and Joan Stacy seek livery of the bag with charters etc. And, upon the default of the executors of RW, at the petition of John Stacy and Joan Stacy, day is given to John Stacy and Joan Stacy as much as TN, MN, and TP, in the term aforesaid.

Postea text: 18 posteas - all say that the justices have not yet been advised and give further day, forwarding the case as far as Easter term 1431.

Case notes: further information drawn from CP40/662 rot.314; related to CP40/667 rot.141.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 438d

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: £40
Case type: Detention of goods; Safe keeping

Pleading: Richard W. claims that Thomas H. unjustly detains a certain bond showing that John W. is held to RW in £20 at certain terms contained in the said bond. RW says that he gave this bond to TH for safe keeping at London on 26/05/1422, but that TH will not return it. Damages are claimed at £40.

Pleading: TH presents the bond to the court and says that he is ready to deliver it with the court's decision. However, TH says that the bond was give to him with the unanimous assent of RW and JW, only to be returned to either of them under certain conditions. TH says that he is ignorant, on the part of JW, as to whether or not these conditions have been met. TH seeks that JW be warned etc. Therefore the sheriff of London is ordered to make it known to JW to be at this court in Easter term 1426 if he wishes to object to RW having livery of the bond etc. Day is given between TH and RW in the same term.

Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/660, rot. 444

Term: Hilary 1426
County: London
Writ type: Detinue
Damages claimed: £100
Case type: Detention of goods; Safe keeping

Pleading: Thomas E. claims that Arthur O. unjustly detains a certain chest containing charters, writings and other muniments. TE says that a certain William E., on 19/03/1425 at London, delivered the aforesaid sealed chest with charters etc. to AO, but though TE has often sought its return, AO will not give it to him. Damages are claimed at £100.

Pleading: AO says that he is not able to deny TE's action, and that he has always been prepared to give him the aforesaid chest with charters etc. AO presents the chest in the court. The decision is that TE is to have livery of the chest, and AO, who came the first day when summoned (per summ'), is not amerced. And upon this the chest with charters etc. is delivered to TE's attorney, Robert H., in this court. Therefore, AO is quit of it.