[633] Among the cases brought before the leet jury was that of a wager as to whether the painter of the rood-loft had been paid or not. (Records, iii. 143.)
[634] Ibid. ii. 178.
[635] Ibid. iii. 18, 20, 28, 83, 180, 499.
[636] Nottingham Records, ii. 284 et sq.
[637] Ibid. ii. 389.
[638] See Ibid. iv. 259. Similar entries become very frequent.
[639] Nottingham Records, ii. 246, 248, 254, et sq.; iii. 414, 416.
[640] Ibid. iii. 65, 68.
[641] Ibid. i. 120.
[642] In 1378 a commission was appointed to inquire into the obstructions of the Trent. Nottingham Records, i. 198. Again in 1382 the King was moved by the “clamorous relation” of the men of Nottingham and a royal proclamation was issued to forbid the raising of such tolls; while a new commission was appointed in the following year, 1383, to prevent Richard Byron, lord of Colwick, from directing the waters of the Trent to his own uses to the injury of Nottingham. (Ibid. i. 225, 227, 413.) Sir John Babington, who owned considerable land in Nottingham, seems to have quarrelled with the corporation about 1500. They appealed to Sir Thomas Lovel for help, who answered that he had written to him to demean himself as he ought to do until Lovel had examined the case and decided on it. (Ibid. iii. 402.)