before the justices his free tenement in Hebston by the assize of novel
disseisin against Hugh Bardolf. Against which assize Hugh said that he
had that seisin by judgment of his court for the default of the same
Ralf. And the court has recorded the summons and distraints reasonably
made on the same Ralf. And Ralf himself has acknowledged the summons and
distraints and said that he ought not hold anything from him in that
land; rather, it is of another's fee. And because neither he nor anyone
for him has complained to the justices that Hugh unjustly drew him into
a plea concerning a tenement which Ralf himself held of the fee of
another lord, it is considered that Hugh hold in peace. And let Ralf
plead by writ of right if he want and be in mercy for his false claim.
Turroc v. fitz Walter (1194, king's court): The assize came to recognize
if Clement son of Walter unjustly and without judgment disseised Matilda
of Turroc of her free tenement within the assize. Clement comes and says
that he disseised her by judgment of his court. The court is present and
records that she occupied more of her lord's land than she had in dower
by the sheriff and by order of the lord king, so that she was summoned
and distrained to come in to court, and she so responded that she
remained in mercy of 10s. by judgment, so that for that amercement and
for other complaints she made fine with her lord for 1/2 mark [7s.] and
put her land in pledge in his court and did not want to render the 1/2
mark [7s.]. And therefore by judgment of his court he seised it. Matilda
denies all word for word. And the same Clement only produces two men
from his court; and it is considered that it was no court. Judgment: let
Matilda have her seisin and let Clement be in mercy for disseisin.
Fitz Hereward v. Prior of Lecton (1195, king's court): The assize came
to recognize if the prior of Lecton unjustly and without judgment
disseised Reginald son of Hereward and Essolda his wife of his free
tenement in Clapston after the first coronation of the lord king. The
prior says that the assize ought not be taken thereof, because he seised
that land by judgment of his court for default of his service and his
rent, whereof he has his court present, which asserts the same thing. It
is considered that the prior replevy [give back] to them their land and
give them a day in his court concerning the arrears of rents and
services. And let him treat them justly by judgment of his court.
Stanfeld v. Brewes (1199, king's court): The assize comes to recognize
if Simon of Brewes and Luke cleric and Peter of Brewes unjustly and
without a judgment disseised Odo of Stanfeld and Juliana his wife of her
free tenement in Michehey within the assize. Simon says that the assize
ought not be taken thereof, because he took that land into his hand by
judgment of his court -- which he produced and which attests to this --
for default of his service. And it was testified that Odo holds that
land from the same Simon. Simon was ordered to replevy that land to Odo
as well as the chattels and to treat him rightfully in his court.
fitz William v. Amice et al. (1200, king's court): The assize comes to
recognize if Amice who was the wife of Richard earl of Clare and Hugh of
Ceriton, John of Cornherd, William of Wattevill, Alexander son of
Gilbert, Alexander son of Matthew, Bartholomew son of Alexander, Robert
of Cornherd, and Geoffrey son of Leveric unjustly and without judgment
disseised Richard son of William of Sudbury of his free tenement in
Sudbury after the feast of St Michael next before the coronation of the
lord king. The countess says that, when she was separated by papal order
from the earl of Clare her husband by reason of consanguinity, to which
husband the vill of Sudbury had been given with her as marriage portion,
she came to Sudbury and convoked her court and made the same Richard to
be summoned to come to show by what warrant he held her land. He
willingly entered into the plea and vouched the earl of Clare her former
husband to warrant and at the day given him to have [his warrantor] he
did not have him. And thus by consideration of her court she seised her
land and holds it. Which court she produced and which attests this.
Richard comes and denies that he was ever summoned or came into her
court by summons or vouched to warranty or so lost seisin by
consideration of the court of the countess. And this he offers [to
prove]. It is considered that he defend himself 12-handed that he did
not willingly enter into the plea and vouch to warranty. Let him wage
his law [prove by the 12-handed oath, thus, by compurgation]. Pledges of
the law: Hugh son of Hugh, Wido of Sudbury. Day is given them at the
quindene of St. John.
This is the suit of Richard of Sudbury: [there follow the names, but
only of 10 men] against the countess Amice who was the countess of
Clare, concerning whom he had complained concerning a novel disseisin of
his free tenement in Sudbury. She said that by judgment of her court for
default of warranty which he had vouched did she make the [dis]seisin
and thereof did she produce suit. And he denied against her and against
the suit, and law was adjudged. And he comes with his law and makes it
with the abovesaid suit. Therefore it is considered that he recover
thereof his seisin; let the countess be in mercy for unjust disseisin
and also her men, of whom the same Richard has complained. And let the
same countess return to him the damages done thereof by a jury of
law-worthy men of the vicinity. The names of the men of the countess are
in the writ.
A sample of crown pleas in several hundreds or wapentakes [Danish name
for a hundred] from 1201 to 1203 are:
1. Denise, who was wife to Anthony, appeals Nicholas Kam of the death
of Anthony, her husband, for that he wickedly slew her husband; and this
she offers to prove against him under award of the court. And Nicholas
defends all of it. It is considered that Denise's appeal is null, for in
it she does not say that she saw the deed. The jurors being asked, say
that they suspect him of it; the whole county likewise suspects him. Let
him purge himself by water [ordeal] under the Assize. He has waged his
law.
2. William de Ros appeals Ailward Bere, Roger Bald, Robert Merchant,
and Nicholas Parmenter, for that they came to his house and wickedly in
the king's peace took away from him a certain villein of his whom he
kept in chains because he wished to run away, and led him off, and in
robbery carried away his wife's coffer with one mark of silver and other
chattels; and this he offers to prove by his son, Robert de Ros, who saw
it. And Ailward and the others have come and defended the felony,
robbery, and breach of the king's peace, and say that (as the custom is
in Cornwall) Roger of Prideaux, by the sheriff's orders, caused twelve
men to come together and make oath about the said villein, whether he
was the king's villein or William's and it was found that he was the
king's villein, so the said Roger the serjeant demanded that [William]
should surrender him, and he refused, so [Roger] sent to the sheriff,
who then sent to deliver [the villein], who, however, had escaped and
was not to be found, and William makes this appeal because he wishes
to keep the chattels of Thomas [the villein], to wit, two oxen, one cow,
one mare, two pigs, nine sheep, eleven goats. And that this is so
the jurors testify. Judgment: William and Robert in mercy for the false
claim. William's amercement, a half-mark. Robert's amercement, a
half-mark. Pledge for the mark, Warin, Robert's son. Let the king have
his chattels from William. Pledge for the chattels, Richard, Hervey's
son.
3. Serlo of Ennis-Caven appeals Osbert of Dimiliock and Jordan,
Walter's son, for that they in the king's peace wickedly assaulted, beat
and seriously wounded him, so that by reason of the beating three bones
were extracted from his head; and this he offers to prove against him
under the court's award as a man maimed by that mayhem. And it is
testified by the coroners that the wounds when fresh were shown in the
county [court], and that [the bones were broken] as aforesaid. And
Osbert and Jordan come and defend word by word. It is considered that
Osbert do purge himself by ordeal of iron on account of the appeal, for
Serlo betook himself against Osbert in the first instance. And let
Jordan be in custody until it be known how Osbert shall fare. And the
other persons who are appealed as accessories are to be under pledge
until [Osbert's fate] be known.
4. The jurors say that they suspect William Fisman of the death of
Agnes of Chilleu, for the day before he had threatened her body and
goods. And the four neighboring townships being sworn, suspect him of
it. It is considered that he purge himself by water under the Assize.
5. William Burnell and Luke of the Well are suspected of the burglary
at the house of Richard Palmer by the jurors of the hundred, and by the
four neighboring townships, which are sworn. Let them purge themselves
by water under the Assize.
6. Malot Crawe appeals Robert, Godfrey's son, of rape. He comes and
defends. It is testified that he thus raped her and that she was seen
bleeding. By leave of the justices they made concord on the terms of his
espousing her.
7. Walter Wifin was burgled, and of his chattels taken from his house
in the burglary certain boots were found in the house of Lefchild of
Ranam, and the said Walter pursues those boots as his. And Lefchild
said that he bought them in Bodmin market for 2 1/2 pence, but he knows
not from whom. And besides Walter says that eleven ells of linen cloth,
part of the stolen goods, were sold in Lefchild's house, and all the
other proceeds of the burglary, and that Lefchild was the receiver of
the burglars, namely, Robert of Hideford and Alan the Foresters, whom
he [Walter] had appealed of the crime. And Lefchild defends. The jurors
on being asked, say that they suspect Lefchild of the said receipt. So
let him purge himself by water under the Assize.
8. Eadmer of Penwithen appeals Martin, Robert and Thomas of Penwithen,
for that Robert wounded him in the head so that twenty-eight pieces of
bone were extracted, and meanwhile Martin and Thomas held him; and
this he offers to deraign against the said Robert as a man thereby
maimed, under the court's award. And Robert comes and defends all of it
word by word. It is considered that he purge himself by ordeal of
iron. Let the others be in custody until it be known how Robert shall
fare. Afterwards Eadmer came and withdrew himself, and submitted to an
amercement of one mark.Pledges, Reinfrid, Gill's son, and Philip his
brother. Let the other appellees go quit.
9. Reginald le Teinus accused of the receipt and fellowship of Robert
the outlaw comes and defends. The jurors say that they suspect him, and
the four neighboring townships say that they suspect him of it. So
let him purge himself by water under the Assize. And there must be
inquiry as to Richard Revel, who was sheriff when the said Robert
escaped from his custody.
10. Osbert of Reterth appeals Odo Hay, for that he assaulted him as he
was returning from Bodmin market, and in the king's peace and wickedly
struck him on the hand with a stick, and afterwards struck him on the
arm with his sword so that he is maimed; and this he offers to prove as
a maimed man. And Odo defends it all. And that [Osbert] is maimed is
testified by knights sent to see him. Judgment: let [Odo] purge himself
by ordeal of iron because of this appeal.
11. Wulward of Wadebridge was burgled. And Odo Hay, Lawrence Smith,
Osbert Mediciner, and Benet his son, William Miller, Robert of
Frokemere, and Maud his sister, are suspected of the burglary by the
jurors of the hundred and by the four nearest townships, which are
sworn. Let the males purge themselves by water under the Assize, and
Maud by ordeal of iron. Roger Morand fled for that burglary, and he
was living in Bodmin, [which town is] therefore in mercy.
12. Robert, Godfrey's son, appeals Philip, William's son, for that he
came on the land of [Robert's] lord Richard Fortescue, and wickedly and
in the king's peace and in robbery took eight oxen and a mantle, cape,
and sword, and carried them off; and this he offers to prove against him
by his body under award of the court. And Philip comes and defends all
of it word by word. It is considered that the appeal is null, for the
oxen were not Robert's, but Richard's. The jurors being asked, say
that [Philip] did no robbery to [Richard]. So Richard Fortescue is in
mercy for a false appeal, and let Philip be quit.
13. Peter Burel appeals Anketil of Wingely, for that he wickedly in the
king's peace assaulted him in the field where he was pasturing his oxen,
and beat him, and gave him four wounds in the head, and in robbery
took from him an ax and a sword; and this he offers to prove against
him; but he shows no wound. And Anketil defends. And the county records
that [Peter] first appealed Roger of Tregadec of the same robbery and
of the same wounds. Therefore it is considered that the appeal is null,
and let Peter be in mercy for a false appeal. His amercement, a
half-mark; pledge for it, Ralph Giffard.
14. The jurors are in mercy for a silly presentment, for they presented
an appeal which was made in the hundred [court] and which was not
presented in the county [court].
15. Lucy of Morwinstow appeals Robert de Scaccis and Roland of Kellio
and Peter of Lancarf of robbing her of twenty shillings and eight pence,
and of a cloak, price a half-mark. And it is testified by the jurors
that they did not rob her, and that she is a hireling, and that a man
lay with her in a garden, and the boys hooted her, so that she left her
cloak, and the boys took it and pawned it for two gallons of wine. It is
considered that Robert do give her three pence in respect of the wine
and do go quit. And Roland and Peter neither come nor essoin [present an
excuse for nonappearance] themselves. And their pledges were Nicholas
brother of Alfred of Bodmin and Herbert Reeve of Bodmin, who are
therefore in mercy.
16. Osbert Church accused of the death of Roland, son of Reginald of
Kennel, on the appeal of the said Reginald, was detained in gaol and
defends word by word. And Reginald offers proof by the body of a
certain freeman, Arkald, who has his [Reginald's] daughter to wife, who
is to prove in his stead, since he has passed the age of sixty. Osbert
Church defends all of it. The knights of the hundred of Penwith say that
they suspect him of the said death. The knights of kerrier [hundred]
say the same. The knights of Penwith [hundred] say the same. The knights
of Pyder [hundred] say the same. Judgment: let him purge himself by
water, and Reginald is in mercy, for he does not allege sight and
hearing, and because he has withdrawn himself, and put another in his
place, who neither saw nor heard and yet offered to prove it, and so
let both Reginald and Arkald be in mercy. Osbert is purged by the water.
Osbert's pledges: Henry Little, Henry of Penant, Ossulf Black, Roger of
Trevithow, John of Glin, Ralph of Trelew.
17. Roger of Wick [was] appealed of the death of Brictmer by the appeal
of Hawise, Brictmer's wife, and was captured in flight, as say John of
Winielton and Ralph of Mertherin, but the flight is not testified by the
hundred. Kerier [hundred] says the same. Penwith [hundred] says the
same. So is considered that he purge himself by water. He is purged.
Roger's pledges: Ralph of Trelew, Ogier of Kurnick, Richard, Simon's
son, Alfred Malvoisin, Everwin of Lande, John of Kewerion, Warin of
Tiwardeni, Baldwin Tirel, Roger of Trevithow, John of Glin, William
of Dunham, Thomas, Osbert's son.
18. Richard, William's son, appealed Luke, Richard's son, and William,
the servant of Alan Clerk, of robbery and of binding him. The appellees
have not come nor essoined themselves. The county together with the
wapentake says that they were appealed, not of the king's peace, but of
the sheriff's peace, so that the suit was and is in the county [court],
and therefore they were not attached to come before the justices.
Therefore the jurors are in mercy for presenting what they ought not to
have presented.
19. William, Hawise's son, appeals Richard, son of Robert of Somercotes,
for that he came in the king's peace to his house at Somercotes, and
broke his house and robbed him of.[an abrasion] shillings, and a cape
and surcoat, and twenty-five fowls, and twenty shillings worth of corn
[grain], and wounded him in the head with the wound that he shows; and
this he offers to prove against him as the court shall consider etc. And
Richard comes and defends the breach of the king's peace and the
housebreaking, wounding and robbery, but confesses that he came to a
certain house, which William asserts to be his [William's], as to his
[Richard's] own proper house, which escheated into his hand on the death
of Roger his villein, and there he took certain chattels which were his
villein's and which on his villein's death were his [Richard's] own:
to wit, five thraves of oats, thirteen sheaves of barley, and
twenty-five fowls; and he offers the king twenty shillings for an
inquest [to find] whether this be so or no. And William says that
Richard says this unjustly, for the said Roger never had that house nor
dwelt therein, nor were those chattels Roger's, but he [William] held
that house as his own, and the chattels there seized were his. The
jurors being questioned whether Roger did thus hold the house of Richard
in villeinage, say, Yes. Also the coroners and the whole county testify
that [William] never showed any wound until now; and the wound that he
now shows is of recent date. Therefore it is considered that the appeal
is null, and let Richard go quit, and William be in mercy for his false
claim. Pledges for the amercement, Gilbert, Robert's son, and Richard,
Haldeng's son.
20. Astin of Wispington appeals Simon of Edlington, for that he wickedly
and in the king's peace assaulted him in his meadows and put out his
eye, so that he is maimed of that eye; and this he offers to prove etc.
Simon comes and defends all of it word by word. And the coroners and the
county testify that hitherto the appeal has been duly sued, at first by
[Astin's] wife, and then by [Astin himself]. Judgment: let law be made,
and let it be in the election of the appellee whether he or Astin shall
carry the iron. He has chosen that Astin shall carry it. Astin has waged
the law. Simon's pledges, William of Land and his frankpledge and Ralph
of Stures. Astin's pledges, Roger Thorpe, Osgot of Wispington, and
William, Joel's brother. Afterwards came [the appellor and appellee] and
both put themselves in mercy.
21. Gilbert of Willingham appeals Gilbert, Geoffrey's son, for that he
in the king's peace and wickedly set fire to his house and burned it, so
that after the setting fire [the appellor] went forth and raised hue and
cry so that his neighbors and the township of Willingham came thither,
and he showed them [the appellee] in flight and therefore they pursued
him with the cry; and this he offers etc. And the appellee defends all
of it word by word etc. And the neighbors and the township of
Willingham being questioned, say that they never saw him in flight, and
that [the appellor] never showed him to them. Likewise the jurors say
that in their belief he appeals him out of spite rather than for just
cause. Therefore it is considered that the appeal is null, and the
appellee is in mercy for a half-mark [7s.]. Pledge for the amercement,
Robert Walo.
22. William burel appeals Walter Morcock, for that he in the king's
peace so struck and beat Margery, [William's] wife, that he killed the
child in her womb, and besides this beat her and drew blood. And William
of Manby, the beadle, testifies that he saw the wound while fresh and
the blood in the wapentake [court]. And the serjeant of the riding and
the coroners and the twelve knights testify that they never saw wound
nor blood. And so it is considered that the appeal is null, for one part
of the appeal being quashed, it is quashed altogether, and William Burel
is in mercy. Let him be in custody. And William Manby is in mercy for
false testimony. Pledges for William's amercement, Richard of Bilsby,
Elias of Welton.
23. William Marshall fled for the death of Sigerid, Denis' mother,
whereof Denis appeals him; and he was in the Prior of Sixhills'
frankpledge of Sixhills, which is in mercy, and his chattels were two
cows and one bullock. Afterwards came the Prior of Sixhills and
undertook to have William to right before the justices. And he came, and
then Denis, Sigerid's son, came and appealed him of his mother's death.
And it was testified that [Denis] had an elder brother, and that nine
years are past since [Sigerid] died, and that she lived almost a year
after she was wounded, and that Denis never appealed [William] before
now. Therefore it is considered that the appeal is null and that
Denis be in mercy. Pledge for the amercement, his father, Ralph, son of
Denis.
24. Alice, wife of Geoffrey of Carlby, appealed William, Roger's son,
and William his son and Roger his son of the death of William her
brother. And Alice does not prosecute.Therefore let her be in mercy and
let her be arrested. To judgment against the sheriff who did not
imprison the said persons who were attached, whereas they are appealed
of homicide, and to judgment also as to a writ which he ought to
produce.
25. Hawise, Thurstan's daughter, appeals Walter of Croxby and William
Miller of the death of her father and of a wound given to herself. And
she has a husband, Robert Franchenay, who will not stir in the
matter. Therefore it is considered that the appeal is null, for a woman
has no appeal against anyone save for the death of her husband or for
rape. And let Robert be in mercy on his wife's account, for a
half-mark [7s.], and let the appellees be quit. Pledge for Robert's
amercement, Richard Dean of Mareham, who has lay property. Wapentake of
Aswardhurn.
26. Juliana of Creeton appeals Adam of Merle of battery and robbery. And
Adam does not come, but essoins himself as being in the king's service
beyond seas. And for that it is not allowed to anyone appealed of the
king's peace to leave the land without a warrant before he has been
before justices learned in the law, his pledges are in mercy: to wit,
Segar of Arceles, Alan of Renington, and Robert of Searby. Adam himself
is excused from the plea by the essoin that he has cast.
27. Thomas, Leofwin's son, appeals Alan Harvester, for that he in the
king's peace assaulted him as he went on the highway, and with his force
carried him into Alan's house, and struck him on the arm so that he
broke a small bone of his arm, whereby he is maimed, and robbed him of
his cape and his knife, and held him while Eimma, [Alan's] wife, cut off
one of his testicles and Ralph Pilate the other, and when he was thus
dismembered and ill-treated, the said Alan with his force carried him
back into the road, whereupon as soon as might be he raised the cry, and
the neighbors came to the cry, and saw him thus ill-treated, and then at
once he sent to the king's serjeant, who came and found, so [Thomas]
says, the robbed things in Alan's house and then as soon as might be
[Thomas] went to the wapentake [court] and to the county [court] and
showed all this. So inquiry is made of the king's sergeant, who
testifies that he came to Alan's house and there found the knife and the
testicles in a little cup, but found not the cape. Also the whole county
testifies that [Thomas] never before now appealed Alan of breaking a
bone. And so it is considered that the appeal is null, and that [Thomas]
be in mercy, and that the other appellees be quit. Thomas also appeals
Emma, Alan's wife, for that she in the peace aforesaid after he was
placed in her lord's house cut off one of his testicles. He also appeals
Ralph Pilate, for that he cut off the other of his testicles.