the river on each side leaving a narrow outlet to net fish. All such
weirs shall be removed.
Judicial Procedure
Henry II wanted all freemen to be equally protected by one
system of law and government. So he opened his court, the Royal Court,
to all people of free tenure. A court of five justices professionally
expert in the law (rather than earls and barons), traveled with the
King, and on points of difficulty consulted with him. Justices began to
be more than presiding officers; they, instead of the lay and clerical
tenants-in-chief who attended, rendered the judgments. The chief court
was in Westminster, where the weightiest decisions were made. Other
professional itinerant justices appeared periodically in all counties
of the nation to hear certain criminal and civil cases and to hear
citizens' private civil suits [common pleas]. They came to perform many
other tasks, including promulgating and enforcing new legislation,
seeking out encroachments on royal rights, reviewing the local
communities' and officials' performance of their public duties,
imposing penalties for failure to do them or for corruption, gathering
information about outlaws and nonperformance of homage, and assessing
feudal escheats to the crown, wardships to which the king was entitled,
royal advowsons, feudal aids owed to the King, tallages of the
burgesses, and debts owed to the Jews. The decision-making of itinerant
justices on circuits begins the process which makes the custom of the
Royal Court the common law of the nation. The county courts, where the
traveling justices heard all manner of business in the counties,
adopted the doctrines of the Royal Court, which then acquired an
appellate jurisdiction. The itinerant justices came from the same small
group of royal justices who were on the Royal Court and the Exchequer,
which was headed by the justiciar. Difficult cases were decided by the
king and wise men of his council.
The Royal Court was chiefly concerned with 1) the due
regulation and supervision of the conduct of local government, 2) the
ownership and possession of land held by free tenure ("free tenement"
was decided by justices to be one held for life or one held heritably
[a fee]), and 3) the repression of serious crime, including homicide,
mayhem [injuring a limb so as to make it useless], robbery, arson, and
rape.
Henry was determined to protect lawful seisin of land and
issued assizes giving the Royal Court authority to decide land law
issues which had not been given justice in the county or lord's court.
But he did not ordain that all litigation respecting free tenements,
e.g. right of seisin, should take place in the king's court. Rather he
gave protection to mere possession of land, which could be justified
because possession was intimately associated with the maintenance of
the king's peace. These assizes included issues of novel disseisin
[recent ejectment] of a person's free tenement or of his common of
pasture which belonged to his freehold. By the assize of novel
disseisin, an ejected possessor could have a jury of recognitors decide
whether the ejectment had been just or not. Though the petty assize of
disseisin only provided a swift preliminary action to protect
possession pending the lengthy and involved grand assize on the issue
of which party had the more just claim or ultimate right of seisin, the
latter action was only infrequently invoked. The temptation of a strong
man to seize a neighbor's land to reap its profits for a long time
until the neighbor could prove and enforce his right was deterred. Any
such claim of recent dispossession [novel disseisin] had to be made
within three years of the disseisin.
An example of a writ of novel disseisin is: The king to the
sheriff, greeting. N has complained to me that R unjustly and without a
judgment has disseised him of his free tenement in [Houndsditch] since
my last voyage to Normandy. Therefore I command you that, if N gives
you security for prosecuting his claim, you are to see that the
chattels which were taken from the tenement are restored to it, and
that the tenement and the chattels remain in peace until Sunday after
Easter. And meanwhile you are to see that the tenement is viewed by
twelve free and lawful men of the neighborhood, and their names
endorsed on this writ. And summon them by good summoners to be before
me or my justices on the Sunday after Easter, ready to make the
recognition. And summon R. or his bailiff if he himself cannot be
found, on the security of gage [something given as secuxrity for
performance] and reliable securities to be there then to hear the
recognition. And have there the summoners, and this writ and the names
of the sureties. Witness etc.
Then an assize panel of recognition summoned concurrently with
the defendant and before he had pleaded, viewed the land in question
and answered, from their knowledge, these questions of fact: 1) Was the
plaintiff disseised of the freehold in question, unjustly and without
judgment? 2) Did the defendant commit the disseisin? Testimony of a
warrantor (or an attorney sent by him in his place) or a charter of
warranty served to prove seisin by gift, sale, or exchange. No
pleadings were necessary and the action could proceed and judgment
given even without the presence of the defendant. The justices amerced
the losing party with a monetary penalty. A successful plaintiff might
be awarded damages to compensate for the loss of revenue.
There was also a writ for issues of inheritance of land called
"mort d'ancestor". By the assize of mort d'ancestor, an heir of a
tenant who died and who was refused the land by the lord could have
this refusal determined to be just or unjust. For this issue, the Royal
Court used an similar assize panel of twelve men to decide whether the
ancestor was seised as of fee in his demesne, if the plaintiff was the
nearest heir, and whether the ancestor had died, gone on a crusade but
not returned, or had become a monk. Then it could give possession to
the heir. Since about 1150, heiresses divided the land of their father
if there was no son. The widow, of course, retained her dower rights.
As of 1176, the widow held her dower from the heir instead of from the
husband's lord. If the heir was a minor, the guardian lord would be in
actual control of the land. A national policy was implemented that in
the case of the death of a freeholder, the rights of the family, his
will, and his debts were to be provided for before relief was paid to
his lord.
Eventually royal justices acquired authority to decide the
ultimate question of right to land using the grand assize as an
alternative to the traditional procedures which ended in trial by
combat. Issues of the ultimate right of seisin were brought to the
Royal Court by a contestant in a local court who "put himself [or
herself] upon the King's grand assize". The assize consisted of twelve
knights from the county or neighborhood who were elected by four
knights of the same county or neighborhood (selected by the sheriff or
the suitors) and who were known as truthful men and were likely to
possess knowledge of the facts, either from personal seeing or hearing,
or from statements which their fathers had made to them from their
personal knowledge. The avenue by which a person who felt he had not
had justice in the manor court on his claim for certain freehold land
appealed to the king was by writ of right after the manor court's
decision or by a writ praecipe during the manor court's proceeding. An
example of a writ praecipe is: "The king to the sheriff greeting.
Command [praecipe] N. to render to R. justly and without delay one hide
of land in a certain vill, which the said R. complains that the
aforesaid N. is withholding from him. If he does not do so, summon him
by good summoners to be before me or my justices on the day after the
octaves of Easter, to show why he has not done so. And have the
summoners and this writ. Witness." When the parties appeared in court,
the claimant states his suit such as: "I claim against this N. the fee
of half a knight and two carucates of land in a certain vill as my
right and my inheritance, of which my father (or grandfather) was
seized in his demesne as of fee in the time of King Henry the First,
and from which he took the profits to the value of five shillings at
least, in grain and hay and other profits; and this I am ready to prove
by this freeman of mine, H., and if any evil befalls him them by this
other man or by this third man, who saw and heard it". Then the
defendant chose to deny the claim word for word with proof by combat or
to put himself upon the grand assize of the king. If he chose trial by
combat, the parties or their champions fought. The party losing,
usually by crying craven, had to pay a fine of 60s. If the grand assize
was chosen, the action was removed to the Royal Court. A writ of grand
assize was issued as follows: "The king to the sheriff, greeting.
Summon by good summoners the following twelve, namely, A. B. ..., to be
before me or my justices at a certain place on a certain day, ready to
declare on oath whether N. or R. has the greater right in one hide of
land (or other things claimed) which the aforesaid R. claims against
the aforesaid N., who is tenant, and in respect of which the aforesaid
N., who is tenant, has put himself upon my assize and has sought a
recognition to determine which of them has the greater right in the
things claimed. And meanwhile the twelve shall view the land (or
tenements [including meadows, pastures, woods, wastes, and rights of
common] from which the services are demanded). And summon by good
summoners N., who is tenant, to be there to hear the recognition.
Witness..." The claimant could object to any of the twelve knights for
just cause as determined by the court. Each of the twelve gave an oath
as to whether the plaintiff's or the defendant's position was correct.
This oath was not to speak falsehood nor conceal truth according to
knowledge gained by eyewitness or "by the words of their fathers and by
such words as they are bound to have such confidence in as if they were
their own". If any did not know the truth of the matter, others were
found until twelve agreed [the recognitors] on which party had the
greater right. Perjury was punished by forfeiture of all one's goods
and chattels to the king and at least one year's imprisonment. If the
tenant in court vouched another to warranty, such as the lord to whom
he paid homage, that warrantor would stand in his place in the
proceedings. If the warrantor lost, he would have to give to his vassal
equivalent land in exchange. Burgage tenure was not usually decided by
assize. Also, if the parties were relatives, neither the assize nor the
combat was available to them, but the matter had to be decided by the
law of inheritance.
Itinerant justices could conduct these assizes: petty and
grand. In 1198, the hundred is empowered to act on all the business of
the session, including all recognitions and petty assizes ordered by
the king's writ, where the property in dispute was worth no more than
200s. [ten pounds] a year. The four knights came to be selected by the
suitors of the county court rather than by the sheriff.
This assize procedure extended in time to all other types of
civil actions.
Removable to the Royal Court from the county courts were issues
of a lord's claim to a person as his villein, service or relief due to
a lord, dower rights, a creditor's refusal to restore a gage [something
given as security] to a debtor who offered payment or a deposit, money
due to a lender, a seller, or a person to whom one had an obligation
under a charter, fish or harvest or cattle taken from lands unjustly
occupied, cattle taken from pasture, rights to enjoy a common, to stop
troubling someone's transport, to make restitution of land wrongfully
occupied, to make a lord's bailiff account to him for the profits of
the manor. As of 1187, pleas concerning amounts of money less than 40s.
were not heard by the Royal Court.
The Royal Court also decided disputes regarding baronies,
nuisance or encroachments on royal land or public ways or public
waterways, such as diverting waters from their right course and issues
of nuisance by the making or destroying of a ditch or the destruction
of a pond by a mill to the injury of a person's freehold. Other pleas
of the Crown were: insult to the royal dignity, treason, breaches of
safe-conducts, and injury to the King's servants.
Henry involved the Royal Court in many criminal issues, using
the agencies of the county and hundred courts. To detect crimes, he
required itinerant royal justices to form juries of presentment
{indictment] composed of usually 12 knights or other landholders of
every neighborhood and 4 respectable men of each township and ask them
if any person were suspected of any murder, robbery, theft, etc. (These
later evolved into grand juries). These assizes were an ancient
institution in many parts of the country. What Henry's assize did was
to insist upon the adoption of a standard procedure everywhere
systematically. The procedure was made more regular instead of
depending on crime waves. If indicted, the suspected persons were then
sent directly to the ordeal. Henry abolished trial by compurgation in
the Royal Courts. If determined guilty, the offender forfeited his
chattels to the king and his land reverted to his landlord. The penalty
prescribed by the assize of Clarendon of 1166 was loss of a foot and
abjuring the realm. The assize of Northhampton of 1176 added loss of
the right hand. Often, a man who had a bad reputation had to abjure the
realm even if he had successfully undergone the ordeal. The most
serious criminal matters such as killing the king or sedition or
betraying the nation or the army, fraudulent concealment of treasure
trove [finding a hoard of coins which had been buried when danger
approached], breach of the King's peace, homicide, murder (homicide for
which there were no eyewitnesses), burning (a town, house, men, animals
or other chattel for hatred or revenge), robbery, rape and falsifying
(e.g. false charters or false measures or false money) were punishable
by death or loss of limb. Murders were now punished alike because the
applicability of the murdrum fine couldn't be determined since it was
impossible to prove that the slain man had been English since he would
have been mutilated to hide his nationality.
Women did not serve on juries. Having the jury of presentment precluded
free men from being sent to the ordeal by compurgation oaths of the
villeins. As of 1194, this jury of presentment procedure applied not
only to criminal cases, but also to civil, and fiscal cases.
As before, a person could also be brought to trial by the
accusation of the person wronged by a felony ["appeal"]. If the accused
still denied the charge after the accuser testified and the matter
investigated by inquiries and interrogation and then analyzed, trial by
combat was held, unless the accuser was over the age of sixty or
maimed, in which case the accused went to the ordeal.
The procedure of Henry II's assizes was extended from case to
case as men lost faith in the older types of proof. The ordeal fell
into disuse when the church prohibited blessing of ordeals in its
Lateran Council of 1215.
Henry introduced the petty or trial jury of 12 reputable men to
provide a workable alternative to the ordeal, compurgation, and combat.
These jurors were expected to know or to find out the facts that could
lead to a decision. Gradually, witnesses had to be brought in to tesify
to facts the jurors didn't know.
Housebreaking, harboring outlaws, and interference with the royal
perquisites of shipwreck and the beasts of the sea which were stranded
on the coast [such as whales and sturgeon] were also punishable in the
Royal Court.
Trespass was a serious and forcible breach of the peace onto
land that developed from the criminal law of felony. Trespass becomes a
general term for almost all wrongful acts and defaults against a
person, land, or chattels. It covered only direct damages due to
physical contact. There are two main punishments: 1) amercement of a
sum of money deetermined by at least two peers of the offender and 2)
imprisonment in gaol redeemable by agreement to a fine after a couple
of years in gaol. Another punishment was abjuration of a town or of the
realm. In boroughs, an offending burgess may lose liberties or have to
abjure their trade or craft. Pillory and tumbrel [e.g.ducking stool]
was usual for bakers and alewives who broke the assizes of bread and
beer, which was often.
The Royal Court had grown substantially and was not always
presided over by the King. To avoid court agents from having too much
discretionary power, there was a systematic procedure for bringing
cases to the Royal Court. First, a plaintiff had to apply to the King's
Chancery for a standardized writ into which the cause had to fit. The
plaintiff had to pay a fee and provide a surety that the plea was
brought in good faith. The progress of the suit was controlled at
crucial points by precisely formulated writs to the sheriff,
instructing him for instance, to put the disputed property under royal
protection pending a decision, to impanel an assize and have it view
the property in advance of the justices' arrival, to ascertain a point
of fact material to the plea, or to summon a 'warrantor' to support a
claim by the defendant.
The Royal Court kept a record on its cases on parchment kept
rolled up: its "rolls". The oldest roll of 1194 is almost completely
comprised of land cases.
Anyone could appoint an agent, an "attorney", to appear in
court on his behalf, it being assumed that the principal could not be
present and royal authorization given. A wife could represent her
husband. The principal was then bound by the actions of his agent.
Gradually men appeared who made a business of representing whoever
would employ them. The common law system became committed to the
"adversary system" with the parties struggling judicially against each
other.
The Royal Court took jurisdiction over issues of whether
certain land was civil or ecclesiastical [assize utrum], and therefore
whether the land owed services or payment to the Crown or not. It also
heard issues of disturbance of advowson, a complex of rights to income
from a church and to the selection of a parson for the church [assize
of darrein [last] presentment]. By this assize, the identity of the
patron who last presented an incumbent to a particular church could be
discovered. Many churches had been built by a lord on his manor for his
villeins. The lord had then appointed a parson and provided for his
upkeep out of the income of the church. In later times, the lord's
chosen parson was formally appointed by the bishop. By the 1100s, many
lords had given their advowsons to abbeys. This procedure used twelve
recognitors selected by the sheriff.
As before, the land of any person who had been outlawed or
convicted of a felony escheated to his lord. His personal property,
goods, and chattels became the King's. If he was executed, his heirs
received nothing because they were of the same blood as the felon,
which was corrupt: "corruption of the blood". The loss of civil rights
and capacities after a sentence of death for felony or treason, which
resulted in forfeiture of property and corruption of the blood, was
called "attainder".
There were two courts of the sheriff: the shire court for civil
and criminal matters and the sheriff's tourn for petty crime only. The
shire and borough courts heard cases of felonies, accusations against
freemen, tort, and debts. The knights made the county courts work as
legal and administrative agencies of the Crown.
The manor court heard cases arising out of the unfree tenures
of the lord's vassals. It also heard distraint, also called "distress",
issues. Distraint was a landlord's method of forcing a tenant to
perform the services of his fief. To distrain by the fief, a lord first
obtained a judgment of his court. Otherwise, he distrained only by
goods and chattels without judgment of his court. A distraint was
merely a security to secure a person's services, if he agreed he owed
them, or his attendance in court, if he did not agree that he owed
them. Law and custom restricted the type of goods and chattels
distrainable, and the time and manner of distraint. For instance,
neither clothes, household utensils, nor a riding horse was
distrainable. The lord could not use the chattels taken while they were
in his custody. If cattle in custody were not accessible to the tenant,
the lord had to feed them at his expense. The lord, if he were not the
King, could not sell the chattel. This court also determined
inheritance and dower issues.
The court of the vill enforced the village ordinances. The
hundred court met twice a month and dealt with the petty crimes of
lowly men in the neighborhood of a few vills.
Franchise courts had jurisdiction given by special royal grant,
such as the Courts of the Chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge
Universities.
The peace of the sheriff still exists for his county. The
King's peace may still be specially given, but it will cease upon the
death of the King. Law required every good and lawful man to be bound
to follow the hue and cry when it was raised against an offender who
was fleeing. The village reeve was expected to lead the chase to the
boundary of the next jurisdiction, which would then take the
responsibility to catch the man.
Before Henry's reign, the church, with the pope's backing, had
become more powerful and asserted more authority. Henry tried to return
to the concept of the king being appointed by God and as the head of
the church as well as of the state, as in Henry I's time, and to
include the church in his reform of the legal system, which would make
the spiritual jurisdiction and temporal jurisdiction conform to a
common justice. Toward this end, he published the Constitutions of
Clarendon. But the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, refused to
agree to them, although as Chancellor he had seen the beneficial
effects on the kingdom of Henry's legal measures. The disagreement came
to a head in Henry's attempt to establish the principle of "one law to
all" by having church clerics punished by the civil courts as before,
instead of having "benefit of clergy" to be tried and punished only in
ecclesiastical courts, even for secular crimes. Clerics composed about
one-sixth the population. The church courts had characteristically
punished with spiritual penalties of a fine or a penance, and at most
defrocking. It could not impose a death penalty, even for murder. When
Archbishop Becket was murdered and became a martyr, "benefit of clergy"
became a standard right, except for offenses in the king's forests.
Appeals could be made to the pope without the king's permission. The
king could take a criminal cleric's chattels, but not his life.
However, though theoretically bishops were elected by the body of
bishops with the approval of the king, as a practical matter, the king
chose the bishops and the abbots. It was a constant matter of dispute,
in which the pope would sometimes involve himself. Selection of
archbishops was also a frequent matter of contention between king and
pope.
The church copied the assize procedure developed by the Royal
Court to detect ecclesiastical offenses though it retained trial by
compurgation. Bishops could request the Chancery to imprison an
offender who had remained excommunicant for forty days, until he made
amends. Chancery complied as a matter of course. This went on for six
centuries.
The delineations of jurisdiction among these courts were
confused and there was much competing and overlapping of jurisdictions.
However, the court could appoint arbitrators or suggest to the parties
to compromise to avoid the harshness of a decisive judgment which might
drive the losing party to violent self-help.
The office of coroner was established about 1194 to supplement
the judicial investigations of crimes with local officers prior to the
arrival of the itinerant justices. Four knights who were residents of
the county and possessed sufficient land were elected by the county
court for life. Sometimes they had county and royal connections
instead. They received no pay. They determined if sudden deaths were
accidental or due to murder and the cause of death of prisoners. They
also held inquests on other crime such as bodily injury, rape, and
prison break. They attached [arrested] the accused and evaluated and
guarded his chattels until after the trial. If the accused was found
guilty, his possessions went to the King. The coroner sat with the
sheriff at every county court and went with him on his turns. This
office and the forbidding of sheriffs to act as justices in their own
counties reduced the power of the sheriffs. The responsibility of
receiving the oath of the peace is changed from the sheriff to knights,
the duty of the sheriffs being only to receive and keep the criminals
taken by these knights until the justices came to try them.
Also, at this time, the constitution of the grand jury of the
county was defined. First, four knights were to be chosen in the county
court. These were to select on oath two knights from each hundred.
These two, also on oath, are to add by co-optation ten more for the
jury of the hundred.
In London, if one of two witnesses for the defense died while
an action was pending, the survivor, after offering his oath, could
proceed to the grave of the dead witness, and there offer oath as to
what the dead man would have sworn if he had been alive. If a foreigner
was bound to make oath for debt or any misdeed, he could make it with
six others, his own oath being the seventh; but if could not find six
supporters, he alone could make the oath and take it in the six nearest
churches.
In London, the method of capital punishment was being confined
to hanging, instead of also being in the form of beheading, burning,
drowning, stoning, or hurling from a cliff. In cases of drowning, the
offender was first sewn up in a sack with a snake, a dog, an ape, and a
cock.
Chief Justiciar Ranulph Glanvill wrote a treatise on the writs
which could be brought in the Royal Court and the way they could be
used. It was a practical manual of procedure and of the law
administered in the Royal Court.
There are personal actions such as "debt" for specific chattel
or specific sum of money. The action for debt splits into two actions.
The "detinue" action is for wrongful detention of personal property
which originally was rightfully acquired as by loan, rent, or left for
safe-keeping and its award is for the specific chattel detained or its
value. The action of "replevin" is available to the tenant to recover
personal property which had been wrongly distrained, usually cattle;
the goods are "repledged" pending action. Also, but rarely used, are
"covenant" to protect termors for leases of land for terms of years,
and "trespass": a semi-criminal action brought by a private party for
an offense punishable by death (or in the 1100s by mutilation) such as
murder, rape, robbery, or mayhem, that is done with force of arms and
against the peace of the king. The use of trespass grew as private
actions for felony were supplanted by public indictment. It occasioned
outlawry in default of appearance. About 1200, outlawry was not used
for crimes falling short of felony. These personal actions were
initiated in common law courts by their respective writs.
These are some of the cases of novel disseisin brought to the
king's court:
Woodbridge v. Bardolf (1194, king's court): Ralf of Woodbridge seeks
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 and put her land in pledge in his court and did
not want to render the 1/2 mark. 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.
28. The twelve jurors presented in their verdict that Austin, Rumfar's
son, appealed Ralph Gille of the death of his brother, so that [Ralph]
fled, and that William, Rumfar's son, appealed Benet Carter of the same
death, and Ranulf, Ralph's son, appealed Hugh of Hyckham of the same
death and Baldwin of Elsham and Ralph Hoth and Colegrim as accessories.
And the coroners by their rolls testify this also. But the county
records otherwise, namely, that the said Ralph Gille, Benet, Hugh,
Baldwin, Ralph [Hoth] and Gocegrim were all appealed by Ranulf, Ralph's
son, and by no one else, so that four of them, to wit, Ralph Gille,
Hugh, Benet and Colegrim, were outlawed at the suit of the said Ranulf,
and that the said persons were not appealed by anyone other than the
said Ranulf. And for that the county could not [be heard to] contradict
the coroners and the said jurors who have said their say upon oath, it
is considered etc. Thereupon the county forestalled the judgment and
before judgment was pronounced made fine with 200 pounds [4,000s.] [to
be collected throughout the county], franchises excepted.
29. Hereward, William's son, appeals Walter, Hugh's son, for that he in
the king's peace assaulted him and wounded him in -the arm with an iron
fork and gave him another wound in the head; and this he offers to
prove by his body as the court shall consider. And Walter defends all
of it by his body. And it is testified by the coroners and by the whole
county that Hereward showed his wounds at the proper time and has made
sufficient suit. Therefore it is considered that there be battle.
Walter's pledges, Peter of Gosberton church, and Richard Hereward's
son. Hereward's pledges, William his father and the Prior of Pinchbeck.
Let them come armed in the quindene of St. Swithin at Leicester.
30. William Gering appeals William Cook of imprisonment, to wit, that
he with his force in the king's peace and wickedly, while [Gering] was
in the service of his lord Guy at the forge, took him and led him to
Freiston to the house of William Longchamp, and there kept him in
prison so that his lord could not get him replevied; and this he offers
to prove as the court shall consider. And William Cook comes and
defends the felony and imprisonment, but confesses that whereas he had
sent his lord's servants to seize the beasts of the said Guy on account
of a certain amercement which [Guy] had incurred in the court of
[Cook's] lord [Longchamp], and which though often summoned he had
refused to pay, [Gering] came and rescued the beasts that had been
seized and wounded a servant of [Cook's] lord, who had been sent to
seize them, whereupon [Cook] arrested [Gering] until -he should find
pledges to stand to right touching both the wounding and the rescue,
and when [Gering's] lord [Guy] came -for him, [Cook] offered to let him
be replevied, but this [Guy] refused, and afterwards he repeated the
offer before the king's serjeant, but even then it was refused, and
then [Cook] let [Gering] go without taking security. And Guy says that
he puts himself upon the wapentake, whether the imprisonment took place
in manner aforesaid, and whether he [Guy] at once showed the matter to
the king's serjeant, or no. And William Cook does the same. And the
wapentake says that the alleged [imprisonment] took place in Lent, and
Guy did not show the matter to the wapentake until a fortnight before
St. Botulph's day. And the county together with the coroners says that
they never heard the suit in their court. Therefore it is considered
that the appeal is null, and Guy is in mercy. And let William and those
who are appealed as accessories go quit.
31. The jurors say that Andrew, sureman's son, appealed Peter,
Leofwin's son, Thomas Squire and William Oildene of robbery. And he
does not prosecute. So he and Stephen Despine and Baldwin Long are in
mercy, and the appellees go without day. Afterwards comes Andrew and
says that [the appellees] imprisoned him by the order of William
Malesoures in the said William's house, so that he sent to the sheriff
that the sheriff might deliver him, whereupon the sheriff sent his
serjeant and others thither, who on coming there found him imprisoned
and delivered him and he produces witnesses, to wit, Nicholas Portehors
and Hugh, Thurkill's son, who testify that they found him imprisoned,
and he vouches the sheriff to warrant this. And the sheriff, on being
questioned, says that in truth he sent thither four lawful men with the
serjeant on a complaint made by Nicholas Portehors on Andrew's behalf.
And those who were sent thither by the sheriff testify that they found
him at liberty and disporting himself in William's house. Therefore it
is considered that the appeal is null [and Andrew is in mercy] for his
false complaint and Nicholas Portehors and Hugh, Thurkill's son, are in
mercy for false testimony. Andrew and Hugh are to be in custody until
they have found pledges [for their amercement].
32. The jurors say that Geoffrey Cardun has levied new customs other
than he ought and other than have been usual, to wit, in taking from
every cart crossing his land at Winwick with eels, one stick of eels,
and from a cart with greenfish, one greenfish, and from a cart with
salmon, half a salmon, and from a cart with herrings, five herrings,
whereas he ought to take no custom for anything save for salt crossing
his land, to wit, for a cartload, one bole of salt, and in that case
the salter ought to have a loaf in return for the salt, and also if the
salter's cart breaks down, the salter's horses ought to have pasture on
Geoffrey's land without challenge while he repairs his cart. And
Geoffrey comes and confesses that he takes the said customs, and ought
to take them, for he and his ancestors have taken them from the
conquest of England, and he puts himself on the grand assize of our
lord the king, and craves that a recognition be made whether he ought
to take those customs or no. And afterwards he offers the king twenty
shillings that this action may be put before Sir Geoffrey FitzPeter
[the Justiciar]. Pledge for the twenty shillings, Richard of Hinton.
33. The jurors say that Hugh, son of Walter Priest, was outlawed for
the death of Roger Rombald at the suit of Robert Rombald, and
afterwards returned under the [protection of the] king's writ, and
afterwards was outlawed for the same death on the appeal of Geoffrey,
Thurstan's son. The county therefore is asked by what warrant they
outlawed the same man twice for the same death, and says that of a
truth in King Richard's time the said Hugh was - - outlawed at the suit
of one Lucy, sister of the said Roger, so that for a long time
afterwards he hid himself; and at length he came into the county
[court] and produced letters of Sir Geoffrey FitzPeter in the form
following: "G. FitzPeter etc. to the sheriff of Northamptonshire,
greeting, Know thou that the king hath pardoned to Hugh, son of the
priest of Grafton, his flight and the outlawry adjudged to him for the
death of a certain slain man, and hath signified to us by his letters
that we be aiding to the said Hugh in reestablishing the peace between
him and the kinsfolk of the slain; wherefore we command thee that thou
be aiding to the said Hugh in making the peace aforesaid, and do us to
wit by thy letters under seal what thou hast done in this matter, since
we are bound to signify the same to the king. In witness etc. by the
king's writ from beyond seas." And the said letters being read in full
county [court] the county told the said Hugh that he must find pledges
that he would be in the king's peace, and he went away to find pledges,
and afterwards did not appear. But the kinsfolk of the slain, having
heard that Hugh had returned after his outlawry, came to the next
county [court] and Robert Rombald produced Geoffrey, Thurstan's son,
who said that if he saw the said Hugh he would sue against him the
death of the said Roger, who was [his kinsman]. And the county showed
him how Hugh had brought the Justiciar's letters pardoning him the
flight and outlawry, and that he was to find pledges to stand to the
king's peace, but had not returned. Whereupon the king's serjeant was
ordered to seek Hugh and bring him to a later county [court]. And at a
later county [court] Geoffrey offered himself against Hugh, and Hugh
did not appear; whereupon the king's serjeant being questioned said
that he had not found him, and the county advised [Geoffrey] to come to
another county [court], because if in the meantime Hugh could be found,
he would be brought to the county [court]. Then at the third county
[court] the said Geoffrey offered himself, and it was testified by the
serjeant that Hugh had not yet been found, wherefore the county said
that as Hugh would not appear to the king's peace, he must bear the
wolf's head as he had done before. To judgment against the coroners and
the twelve jurors.
34. Robert of Herthale, arrested for having in self-defense slain
Roger, Swein's son, who had slain five men in a fit of madness, is
committed to the sheriff that he may be in custody as before, for the
king must be consulted about this matter. The chattels of him who
killed the five men were worth two shillings, for which Richard [the
sheriff must account].
35. Sibil, Engelard's daughter, appeals Ralph of Sandford, for that he
in the king's peace and wickedly and in breach of the peace given to
her in the county [court] by the sheriff, came to the house of her lord
[or husband] and broke her chests and carried off the chattels, and so
treated her that he slew the child that was living in her womb.
Afterwards she came and said that they had made a compromise and she
withdrew herself, for they have agreed that Ralph shall satisfy her for
the loss of the chattels upon the view and by the appraisement of
lawful men; and Ralph has assented to this.
36. William Pipin slew William [or John] Guldeneman and fled. He had no
chattels. Let him be exacted. And Hugh Fuller was taken for this death
and put in gaol because the said John [or William] was slain in his
house. And Hugh gives to the king his chattels which were taken with
him, that he may have an inquest [to find] whether he be guilty thereof
or no. The jurors say that he is not guilty, and so let him go quit
thereof. And William Picot is in mercy for having sold Hugh's chattels
before he was convicted of the death, and for having sold them at an
undervalue, for he sold them, as he says, for three shillings, and the
jurors - - say that they were worth seventeen shillings, for which
William Picot and those who were his fellows ought to account. And
William says that the chattels were sold by the advice of his fellows,
and his fellows deny this.
37. Robert White slew Walter of Hugeford and fled. The jurors say that
he was outlawed for the death, and the county and the coroners say that
he was not outlawed, because no one sued against him. And because the
jurors cannot [be heard to] contradict the county and the coroners,
therefore they are in mercy, and let Robert be exacted. His chattels
were [worth] fifteen shillings, for which R. of Ambresleigh, the
sheriff, must account.
38. Elyas of Lilleshall fled to church for the death of a woman slain
at Lilleshall. He had no chattels. He confessed the death and abjured
the realm. Alice Crithecreche and Eva of Lilleshall and Aldith and
Mabel, Geoffrey and Robert of Lilleshall, and Peter of Hopton were
taken for the death of the said woman slain at Lilleshall. And Alice,
at once after the death, fled to the county of Stafford with some of
the chattels of the slain, so it is said, and was taken in that county
and brought back into Shropshire and there, as the king's serjeant and
many knights and lawful men of the county testify, in their presence
she said, that at night - - she heard a tumult in the house of the
slain; whereupon she came to the door and looked in, and saw through
the middle of the doorway four men in the house, and they came out and
- - caught her, and threatened to kill her unless she would conceal
them; and so they gave her the pelf [booty] that she had. And when she
came before the [itinerant] justices she denied all this. Therefore she
has deserved death, but by way of dispensation [the sentence is
mitigated, so] let her -eyes be torn out. The others are not suspected,
therefore let them be under pledges.
39. William, John's son, appeals Walter, son of Ralph Hose, for that
when [William's] lord Guy of Shawbury and [William] had come from
attending the pleas of our lord the king in the county court of
Shropshire, there came five men in the forest of Haughmond and there in
the king's peace and wickedly assaulted his lord Guy, and so that
[Walter], who was the fourth among those five, wounded Guy and was
accessory with the others in force as aid so that Guy his lord was
killed, and after having wounded his lord he [Walter] came to William
and held him so that he could not aid his lord; and this he offers to
deraign [determine by - - personal combat] against him as the court
shall consider. And Walter comes and defends all of it word by word as
the court etc. It is considered that there be battle [combat] between
them. The battle [combat] is waged. Day is given them, at Oxford on the
morrow of the octave of All Saints, and then let them come armed. And
Ralph [Walter's father] gives the king a half-mark that he may have the
custody of his son, [for which sum] the pledges are John of Knighton
and Reiner of Acton, and he is committed to the custody of Ralph Hose,
Reiner of Acton, John of Knighton, Reginald of Leigh, Adam of
Mcuklestone, William of Bromley, Stephen of Ackleton, Eudo of Mark.
40. Robert, son of Robert of Ferrers, appeals Ranulf of Tattesworth,
for that he came into Robert's garden and wickedly and in the king's
peace assaulted Robert's man Roger, and beat and wounded him so that
his life was despaired of, and robbed him [Roger?] of a cloak, a sword,
a bow and arrows: and the said Roger offers to prove this by his body
as the court shall consider. And Ranulf comes and defends the whole of
it, word by word, and offers the king one mark of silver that he may
have an inquest of lawful knights [to say] whether he be guilty thereof
or no. Also he says that Roger has never until now appealed him of
this, and prays that this be allowed in his favor. [Ranulf's] offering
is accepted. The jurors say that in truth there was some quarrel
between Robert's gardener, Osmund, and some footboys, but Ranulf was
not there, and they do not suspect him of any robbery or any tort done
to Robert or to Osmund. Also the county records that the knights who on
Robert's complaint were sent to view Osmund's wounds found him
unwounded and found no one else complaining, and that Robert in his
plaint spoke of Osmund his gardener and never of Roger, and that Roger
never came to the county [court] to make this appeal. Therefore it is
considered that Ranulf be quit, and Robert and Roger in mercy. Pledge
for Ranulf's mark, Philip of Draycot. Pledges for the amercement, Henry
of Hungerhill, and Richard Meverell. Pledge for Roger, the said Robert.
41. One L. is suspected by the jurors of being present when Reinild of
Hemchurch was slain, and of having aided and counseled her death. And
she defends. Therefore let her purge herself by the ordeal of iron; but
as she is ill, the ordeal is respited until her recovery.
42. Andrew of Burwarton is suspected by the jurors of the death of one
Hervey, for that he concealed himself because of that death. Therefore
let him purge himself by ordeal of water.
43. Godith, formerly wife of Walter Palmer, appeals Richard of Stonall,
for that he in the king's peace wickedly and by night with his force
came to her house and bound her and her husband, and afterwards slew
the said Walter her husband; and this she offers to prove against him
as wife of the slain as the court shall consider. And he defends all of
it. And the jurors and the whole neighborhood suspect him of that
death. And so it is considered that he purge himself by ordeal of iron
for he has elected to bear the iron.
44. The jurors of Oflow hundred say that the bailiffs of Tamworth have
unjustly taken toll from the knights of Staffordshire, to wit, for
their oxen and other beasts. And the men of Lichfield complain that
likewise they have taken toll from them, more especially in
Staffordshire. And the bailiffs deny that they take anything from the
knights in Staffordshire. And for that they cannot [be heard to]
contradict the jurors, the bailiffs are in mercy. As to the men of
Lichfield, [the Tamworth bailiffs] say that they ought to have, and in
King Henry's time had, toll of them, more especially of the merchants,
as well in Staffordshire as in Warwickshire. And the burgesses of
Lichfield offer the king a half-mark for an inquest by the county. And
the county records that in King Henry's time the men of - - Lichfield
did not pay toll in Staffordshire. Therefore the bailiffs are in mercy.