Numerous statutes protect the integrity of the courts and King's offices by double and treble damages and imprisonment for offenses such as bribery, false informers, conspiracy to falsely move or maintain pleas, champerty [giving an interest in the outcome of a case to a person for his assistance in litigating it], conflict of interest by court officers by having a part in the business or thing at issue. There had been many abuses, the most common of which was extortion by sheriffs, who jailed people without cause to make them pay to be released.
The King reserved to himself and his council in its judicial capacity the correction of all breaches of the law which the lower courts had failed to remedy, whether from weakness, partiality, or corruption, and especially when the powerful barons defied the courts.
The Court of Hustings in London is empowered to award landlords their tenements for which rent or services are in arrears if the landlord could not distrain enough tenant possessions to cover the arrearages.
Wills are proven in the Court of Husting, the oldest court in
London, which went back to the times of Edward the Confessor.
One such proven will is:
"Tour (John de La) - To Robert his eldest son his capital messuage and wharf in the parish of Berchingechurch near the land called 'Berewardesland`. To Agnes his wife his house called 'Wyvelattestone', together with rents, reversions, etc. in the parish of S. Dunstan towards the Tower, for life; remainder to Stephen his son. To Peter and Edmund his sons lands and rents in the parish of All Hallows de Berhyngechurch; remainders over in default of heirs. To Agnes, wife of John le Keu, fishmonger, a house situate in the same parish of Berhyng, at a peppercorn [nominal] rent."
The Court of the Mayor of London heard diverse cases, including disputes over goods, faulty goods, enhancing the price of goods, using unlawful weighing beams, debts, theft, distraints, tavern-brawling, bullying, and gambling. The following four cases pertain to customs, bad grain, surgery, and apprenticeship, respectively.
"John le Paumer was summoned to answer Richer de Refham, Sheriff, in a plea that, whereas the defendant and his Society of Bermen [carriers] in the City were sworn not to carry any wine, by land or water, for the use of citizens or others, without the Sheriff's mark, nor lead nor cause it to be led, whereby the Sheriff might be defrauded of his customs, nevertheless he caused four casks of wine belonging to Ralph le Mazun of Westminster to be carried from the City of Westminster without the Sheriff's mark, thus defrauding the latter of his customs in contempt of the King etc. The defendant acknowledged the trespass. Judgment that he remain in the custody of the Sheriff till he satisfy the King and the Court for offense."
"Walter atte Belhaus, William atte Belhous, Robert le Barber dwelling at Ewelleshalle, John de Lewes, Gilbert le Gras, John his son, Roger le Mortimer, William Ballard atte Hole, Peter de Sheperton, John Brun and the wife of Thomas the pelterer, Stephen de Haddeham, William de Goryngg, Margery de Frydaiestrate, Mariot, who dwells in the house of William de Harwe, and William de Hendone were attached to answer for forestalling all kinds of grain and exposing it, together with putrid grain, on the pavement, for sale by the bushel, through their men and women servants; and for buying their own grain from their own servants in deception of the people. The defendants denied that they were guilty and put themselves on their country. A jury of Richard de Hockeleye and others brought in a verdict of guilty, and the defendants were committed to prison til the next Parliament."
"Peter the Surgeon acknowledged himself bound to Ralph de Mortimer, by Richard atte Hill his attorney, in the sum of 20s., payable at certain terms, the said Ralph undertaking to give Peter a letter of acquittance [release from a debt]. This Recognizance arose out of a covenant between them with regard to the effecting of a cure. Both were amerced for coming to an agreement out of Court. A precept was issued to summon all the surgeons of the City for Friday, that an enquiry might be made as to whether the above Peter was fitted to enjoy the profession of a surgeon."
"Thomas de Kydemenstre, shoemaker, was summoned to answer William de Beverlee, because he did not clothe, feed and instruct his apprentice Thomas, William's son, but drove him away. The defendant said that the apprentice lent his master's goods to others and promised to restore them or their value, but went away against his wish; and he demanded a jury. Subsequently, a jury of William de Upton and others said the apprentice lent two pairs of shoes belonging to his master and was told to restore them, but, frightened by the beating which he received, ran away; further that the master did not feed and clothe his apprentice as he ought, being unable to do so, to the apprentice's damage 40d., but that he was now in a position to look after his apprentice. Thereupon Thomas de Kydemenstre said he was willing to have the apprentice back and provide for him, and the father agreed. Judgment that the master take back the apprentice and feed and instruct him, or that he repay to the father, the money paid to the latter, and that he pay the father the 40d. and be in mercy."