The doctrine of tenure applied universally to the land law formed the basis for judicial procedure in determining land rights. Those who held lands "in fee" from the king in turn subinfeudated their land to men of lesser rank. The concept of tenure covered the earl, the knight (knight's service), the church (frank-almoin [free alms]), the tenant who performed labor services, and the tenant who paid a rent (socage). Other tenures were: serjeanty [providing an implement of war or performing a nonmilitary office] and burgage. All hold the land of some lord and ultimately of the King.
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. 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 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 law the tenure of a person who died seised of a tenure in a lord's demesne which was hereditary [seisin of fee] returned to the lord, who had to give it to the heir of the decedent. If the lord refused and kept it for himself or gave it to someone else, the heir could sue in the Royal Court, which 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 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.
Also removable to the Royal Court from the county courts were issues of a lord's claim to a person as his villein (combat not available), 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.
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 royal justices to routinely ask selected representatives: knights or other landholders, of every neighborhood if any person were suspected of any murder, robbery, theft, etc. A traveling royal justice or a sheriff would then hold an inquest, in which the representatives answered by oath what people were reputed to have done certain crimes. They made such inquiries through assizes of presentment, usually composed of twelve men from each hundred and the four best men of each township. (These later evolved into grand juries). These assizes were an ancient institution in many parts of the country. They consisted of representatives of the hundreds, usually knights, and villages who testified under oath to all crimes committed in their neighborhood, and indicted those they suspected as responsible and those harboring them. 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 to the ordeal. There was no trial by compurgation in the Royal Courts, which was abolished by Henry. If determined guilty, he forfeited his chattels to the king and his land reverted to his landlord. If he passed the ordeal but was ill-famed in the community, he could be banished from the community. The ordeal was abolished by the Lateran Council of 1215.
As before, a person could also be brought to trial by the accusation of the person wronged. 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.
If a man failed at the ordeal, 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. Under the former assize, a man who had a bad reputation had to abjure the realm even if he had successfully undergone the ordeal.
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. All murders were now punished alike because the applicability of the murdrum couldn't be determined since it was impossible to prove that the slain man had been English.
Trespass was a serious and forcible breach of the peace onto land that developed from the criminal law of felony. One found guilty of it could be fined and imprisoned as well as amerced.
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.
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]. 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 moveable 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".
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. The county and borough courts heard cases of felonies, accusations against freemen, tort, and debts. The knights make the county courts work as legal and administrative agencies of the Crown.
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.
Admiralty issues (since no assize could be summoned on the high seas), and tenement issues of land held in frankalmoin ["free alms" for the poor to relieve the king of this burden], where the tenant was a cleric were heard in the ecclesiastical courts.
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. Trial was still 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 rock. 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. This splits into two actions. The detinue award is for the specific chattel 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. 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 [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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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].
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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].
- 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.
- 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.
- 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].
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.