Calendar of Early Mayor's Court Rolls: 1298-1307
Calendar: Roll F, 12 May 1303 - 13 January 1305
Calendar of Early Mayor's Court Rolls: 1298-1307. Originally published by His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1924.
ROLL F
Membr. 1 2 May 1303
Court of John de Blunt on Thursday the morrow of the Apostles Philip and James [1 May] A° 31 Edw. [1303]
Friday after the Feast of St John before the Latin Gate [6 May]
Thursday before the Feast of Pentecost [26 May]
Membr. 1 b 10 June 1303
On Monday the Vigil of St Barnabas the Apostle [11 June]
Friday after the Feast of St Peter ad Vincula [1 Aug.]
Monday after the Feast of St Laurence [10 Aug.]
Membr. 2 19 Aug. 1303
Monday after the Feast of the Assumption [15 Aug.]
Monday after the Feast of the Nativity B.M. [8 Sept.]
Saturday before the Feast of St Matthew the Apostle [21 Sept.]
Membr. 2 b 24 Sept. 1303
Tuesday after the Feast of St Matthew the Apostle [21 Sept.], before Nicholas Pycot
Wednesday after the above Feast
Thursday the Vigil of All Saints [1 Nov.]
Membr. 3 9 Nov. 1303
Saturday before the Feast of St Martin [11 Nov.]
Friday after the Feast of St Martin [11 Nov.]
Saturday the Feast of St Clement [23 Nov.] A° 32 Edw. [1303]
Membr. 3 b 12 Dec. 1303
Thursday after the Feast of St Nicholas [6 Dec.]
Monday after the Feast of St Lucia Virgin [13 Dec.]
Membr. 4 21 Jan. 1303-4
Tuesday after the Octave of St Hilary [13 Jan.] A° 32 Edw. [1303-4]
22 Jan. 1303-4
Wednesday before the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul [25 Jan.]
Membr. 4 b
Wednesday after the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul [25 Jan.], by the Mayor and John de Wengrave and other Aldermen
4 March 1303-4
Wednesday after the Octave of St Mathias the Apostle [24 Feb.]
Friday before the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul [25 Jan.]
Membr. 5 b 5 Feb. 1303-4
Wednesday after the Feast of the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.]
Membr. 6 26 Feb. 1303-4
Wednesday after the Feast of St Mathias the Apostle [24 Feb.]
Membr. 6 b 18 March 1303-4
Wednesday after the Feast of St Gregory [12 March]
Tuesday the Vigil of the Annunciation [25 March]
Membr. 7 15 April 1304
Wednesday after the Quinzime of Easter [29 March]
Friday after the Quinzime of Easter [29 March]
Saturday the morrow of the Apostles Philip and James [1 May]
Saturday after the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul [29 June]
Saturday after the Feast of St Thomas the Martyr [7 July] A° 32 Edw. [1304]
Saturday after the Feast of St Margaret Virgin [20 July]
Membr. 8 27 July 1304
Monday after the Feast of St James [25 July] before John de Wengrave , deputy of the Mayor
Saturday after the Feast of the Nativity [8 Sept.]
Membr. 8 b 28 Nov. 1304
Court of J. Blound, Mayor, held by him and John de Wangrave on Saturday before the Feast of St Andrew the Apostle [30 Nov.] at the beginning of the 33rd year of King Edward
Friday after the Feast of St Lucia Virgin [13 Dec.]
Wednesday the Feast of SS. Fabian and Sebastian [20 Jan.] A° 33 Edw. [1304-5]
Tuesday the morrow of the Conversion of St Paul [25 Jan.]
Wednesday after the above Feast.
5 Feb. 1304-5
Friday after the Purification B.M. [2 Feb.]
Court held on Tuesday before the Feast of St Hilary [13 Jan.]
Nigel le Brun (fn. 1), executor of Robert de Bree of Dublin, offered himself by Geoffrey de Morton, his attorney, against James le Reve in a plea of account, and produced a letter close under the seal of the Commonalty of Dublin, and a letter patent under that of Cragfergus, and a letter of Richard (?) de Bereford, the King's Treasurer in Ireland, testifying that the above James was in Ireland, during the twentieth and twenty-first years of King Edward till Pentecost, trading with the goods of Robert de Bree, deceased. The plaintiff did not come, and did not certify in any Court as regards the robbery upon him and his imprisonment on the coast of Brittany during the above twentieth year. Judgment that he and his pledges be in mercy. Simon de Paris, Sheriff, was ordered to execute the judgment given in the Court of Peter de Bosenho, late Sheriff.
Elias Russell offered himself against Robert de Rummesseye in a plea that the latter acquit him of five marks, which he undertook to pay on his behalf, against Andrew de Sakevile, groom of the Prince of Wales, for a horse which Robert had of Andrew. And Robert came and acknowledged that he had received the horse, and showed no reason why he should not acquit him. Judgment that he be distrained to acquit him.
A jury of the venue without Bisshopesgate was summoned for Monday to say on oath whether John le Hornere had made a malicious error in proving the will of William le Hornere, which he said was made on Thursday before the Feast of the Ascension, whereas he acknowledged before the Mayor that it was made on the Wednesday preceding, as was alleged by Walter Osekin, or had merely erred from simplicity, as he himself pleaded. The defendant was mainprised by William Poyntel and William le Hornere to come on Monday to hear the verdict.
A jury of the venue next to the Friars of the Cross (fn. 2) was summoned to say whether Walter at Waye, John Scot, "gaunter" (fn. 3), and Henry atte Stufhous made an assault on Juwecta Wenge, by beating her doors and windows with sticks and other arms on Sunday night.
Simon de Paris, Sheriff, was summoned to answer Geoffrey de Morton, attorney of Nigel le Brun, executor of the will of Robert de Bree, for his delay in making execution of the judgment in the Court of Peter de Bosenho, Sheriff. The defendant answered that the defendant in that action, James le Reve, had been mainprised by John le Benere to render account of £74, and as John had not produced the defendant, he had distrained him by goods, value 20s, either to produce him or to render account for him, and the said John had declared that he was not willing either to render an account, or to give satisfaction for the above money.
Guydo Bonaventure was attached to answer Thomas atte Velle (fn. 4), serjeant of the Sheriff, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that when he went by precept of the Mayor to Guydo's house in Langeburne Ward to distrain (fn. 5) him for money owed to the Commonalty, and had put his seal on his door, the defendant took the seal away, threw it in the street and assaulted him. The defendant denied the charge, and put himself on his country, and the plaintiff also. A jury of the venue was summoned against Wednesday.
Gilbert Payn was summoned to answer the Mayor and Commonalty and Nicholas Pikot, guardian of John and Thomas, sons of Walter Hauteyn, being under age, in a plea of trespass. Order was given to distrain him against the next Court.
Robert de Molton came and acknowledged that he covered his house, and that he laboured in it in the Parish of St Benedict Shorhogge, against the Mayor's prohibition. A day was given on Monday to hear judgment.
Simon de Paris, Sheriff, was summoned to answer Nigel le Brun, executor of the will of Robert de Bree, in a plea of error, in that he gave judgment that James le Reve, defendant in a plea of account, should acquit himself as regards £30 by his law. Also he complained that the Sheriff would not make execution of the judgment against the above James as regard £74, but delayed it till James and his mainpernor had withdrawn from his jurisdiction, to the plaintiff's damage £80. The Sheriff said that the plaintiff had not prosecuted his suit, and he claimed judgment. Geoffrey de Morton pleaded that the plaintiff had not made default, because he, Geoffrey, was Nigel's attorney in the principal plea in the Court of Peter de Bosenho, late Sheriff, and was accepted as such in the Court of Simon himself, and that his present action was accessory and dependent on the principal plea, and therefore he demanded judgment. The Sheriff pleaded that the action was a new one, and as Nigel had not appeared himself or appointed Geoffrey as his attorney in this action, he demanded judgment precisely whether he need answer him therein. A day was given on Friday to hear judgment.
Roger de Lincoln, draper, was attached to answer Hugh Pourte, Sheriff of London, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that when he went into Thames Street opposite the house of Katherine de Lincoln to attach the defendant to answer Katherine in a plea of trespass, Roger would not allow himself to be attached by the Sheriff and bailiff of the King, but laid violent hands on him, seized him by the chest and tore his clothes in contempt of the King and to his damage £20; and as he would not find pledges, the plaintiff had sent him to prison. The defendant denied the charges of unwillingness and put himself on a jury. As regards the assault he demanded to acquit himself by his law. The plaintiff pleaded that as the offence was one against the King and his bailiffs, the defendant was not entitled to make his law (fn. 6). This contention was upheld by the Court on Monday, when Roger was mainprised by Thomas de Frowyk, goldsmith, Thomas de Staundon, goldsmith, John le Amayler, goldsmith, Ralph de la Bare, goldsmith, Walter de Walepol, goldsmith, Richard de Burdeus, John Walsheman, "fevere," Manekyn le Heumer, Henry de Faveresham, cordwainer, Richard Bullok, taverner, John de Luttegreshale, goldsmith, and Walter Conestable, goldsmith, for his appearance in Court to hear the verdict of the jury, and for keeping the peace between himself and his following, and Hugh Pourte and Adam de Foleham, alderman, and the above Katherine. A jury was also summoned to say whether the defendant broke the sequestration made upon him by Thomas atte Welle, Serjeant of the Sheriff, for his arrears of the present tallage of £1100. Afterwards, on Monday after the Feast of St Bartholomew, a jury of Gilbert de Mordone and others found the defendant guilty of the charges against him, but was unwilling to undertake the matter of the sequestration, on which another inquest was ordered. Judgment that he go to prison.
Richard de Luda, tailor, was attached to answer Hugh Pourte, Sheriff of London, on similar charges. The same jury found that the defendant allowed himself to be attached, but would not find pledges, for which reason the Sheriff had committed him to prison.
Geoffrey Hubertyn of Lucca, plaintiff, appointed Nicholas Teste his attorney against the Abbot of Tylteye in a plea of debt.
Peter Berneval was summoned to answer the Mayor for lack of respect to him, and because he said in the presence of Sir Ralph de Sandwich that he wished to God that the latter was still Warden of the City as he used to be, because business was dealt with speedily under him, and; this he said out of disrespect to the Mayor. The defendant waged his law that he was not guilty. He was permitted to make his law on the Octave.
The same Peter was summoned to answer William, clerk of the Chamber, for saying that the latter received money from the executors of Simon Godard to support unjustly their side in the action between them and Peter, and that the Commonalty had lost 200 marks and more through him. On being asked how he wished to acquit himself, the defendant admitted that he had spoken thus, and that he believed it. The plaintiff denied that he had received anything or that the Commonalty had suffered any loss through him. He was adjudged to make his law on the Quinzime. Afterwards the plaintiff appeared to make his law, and Alice, relict of Simon Godard, and Richard Costantyn, executors of Simon Godard's will, Roger de Linton, Robert le Convers, goldsmith, Robert de Pipehirst, Richard de Shordich, William de Harewe, Thomas de Farndon, . . . . Jordan, "paternosterer" (fn. 7), William de Pelham, and Gilbert le Bole, cordwainers, Mark le Draper and Richard Anesty came likewise, and offered themselves to make the law for him and acquit him of the charge against him. The Mayor and Aldermen condoned the law. The above Peter did not come. Judgment was given that William be acquitted (fn. 8).
Two posnets, one small basin, two coverlets (chalones), and one new saddle-bow (arzoun) taken on John de Waledene, saddler, for 10s owed to John de Nony, were valued by oath of William de Stebenhethe, "batour," Roger le Batour, and Thomas le Taillour of St Lawrence Lane, at 22d for the posnets and basin, 20d for the coverlets and 6d for the saddle-bow. A day was given till to-morrow to John de Waledene to acquit them; otherwise they would be sold. As he failed to do so, they were given to the above John de Nony on Thursday in part payment of his debt-also a screen (scrinea).
On Saturday the morrow of St Luke the Evangelist, John de Tynerval constituted John le Fauchor his attorney by a letter, which the Mayor sealed for him with the Mayoralty seal. This document appointed John le Faucheur and Roger le Graunt to receive debts owed to him in France, and especially to obtain from the executors of Margaret, late Queen of France, £100 Parisian (fn. 9), due to him partly in payment of a debt and partly as a legacy from the above Queen. Dated 15 Oct. 1303.
William de Pelham, Robert de Frowyk, John de Wynton, John de Laufare, William de Singham, Thomas de Derby, and other master cordwainers of London were summoned to answer William, called "Cok," de Laufare, John de Bristol, William de Walthom, John de Paris, Andrew Scot, Roger Monkessone, John de Kent, and John de Bechesworthe, and others their companions, being journeymen workers of "Cordwanerye" (fn. 10), in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the above masters compelled and bound by an oath other masters, to lower, by common consent of all the master cordwainers, the wages of the journeymen cordwainers, viz. 1d for the making of a dozen pairs of shoes, and ½d for each pair of top-boots (ocrearum), and ½d for each pair of ankle-boots (botorum), against the ordinance and custom of the trade of immemorial usage, and to the impoverishment of the same journeymen. The masters of the cordwainers came and said that the custom of the trade, before the circulation of the "cokedonii" (fn. 11) and crocards, was to give for the repair of 12 pairs of shoes not more than 5d, and for one pair of top-boots 1d, and one pair of ankle-boots 1d; but on account of the high price of food and the decreased value of money, they had increased these amounts by 1d for the shoes and ½d for the top- and ankle-boots, until the money should be improved and there should be a greater abundance of food; and they asked that a jury should be called on the matter. And the journeymen likewise. A jury consisting of Roger de Lintone and others said that the masters, before the coming of the "cokedeni" and crocards, used to pay 5d, 1d and 1d, as they said, for the above classes of work, but they could not find out among themselves about the alleged oath. Accordingly the journeymen were told to work well and faithfully, and serve their masters and the people, and that they should not demand more than the above amounts, and that they were in mercy for their false claim.
Margaret atte Blakeloft was summoned to answer John le Botoner in a plea that she restore to him £7, which she owed him of the goods of Adam and Margery, children of John de Storteford, to whom he was appointed guardian by the Mayor and Aldermen. Margaret came and said she had a husband John who was not mentioned in the plaint, and she demanded judgment [as to whether she need answer without him]. Judgment that he be summoned against the next Court.
William de Spersholt was summoned to answer Alice de Sutton in a plea of estrepement (fn. 12), wherein she complained that William removed and carried away a cistern, three handmills, and a lead receptacle [alveum] from her house in Lothebury, which house she had recovered against him- against the prohibition of the Mayor in the Husting. The defendant admitted that he moved the cistern and other utensils as being his own goods, and demanded judgment. The plaintiff said that the cistern &c. were fixed with nails, and had been put in position by her father and belonged to her house, and she put herself on a jury. Afterwards a jury of Thomas Eylmere and others gave a verdict in her favour and fixed the damages at 20s. Judgment for that amount.
Richard de Wetherbe, bailiff of Queenhithe, was summoned to answer John de Brinkele, Roger le Palmere, Roger Husbonde and other cornmongers of London in a plea that the above Richard did not allow any of the cornmongers to measure their corn before they had paid 1d the quarter for the Hithe; and although before dinner they paid this 1d, nevertheless after dinner he compelled them to pay another penny the quarter, unjustly and against the liberty of the City of London, and to the damage of the cornmongers £20. The above Richard said he only took the penny which his predecessors had taken, and thereof he found the King was seised. The plaintiffs said that he and his predecessors took the 1d before dinner and after, unjustly. Richard answered that he found the King seised of this custom, and that it was not his business to determine the King's seisin. The plaintiffs and the other cornmongers said that the custom was never applied to the King's benefit, and that he took it unjustly, and they asked for an inquiry by a jury. Afterwards the parties came on Wednesday after the Feast of St Katherine [25 Nov.], when the defendant declared that he was the servant and attorney of William de Combe Martin and John de Burreford, Sheriffs of London, and that he collected the said custom in their name and by their authority. The Sheriffs came also and acknowledged him as their servant, and the taking of the penny as just, because they found their predecessors had taken it for a long time, and that the King and their bailiwick were seised of it. The plaintiffs again declared that both they and their predecessors had taken it unjustly, and demanded an inquiry by a jury. A day was given, and the Sheriffs were ordered to produce all customs relating to Queenhithe. Subsequently at a Court held on Tuesday after the Octave of St Hilary [13 Jan.], before the Mayor, Aldermen, and four men from each Ward summoned for the purpose, the parties came. And since the Sheriffs did not produce their customs, the Mayor and Aldermen delivered to them certain customs (fn. 13), which they were not to transgress.
Richard de Wolchirchhawe and Olive his wife, relict of William de Wolchirche and executrix of the latter's will, were summoned to answer Sir Thomas, Rector of the Church of St Mary de Wolchirch, and John atte Gate, her co-executor, in a plea that the defendants return to them and the Commonalty of London £256, which they had in their custody by delivery of the executors of the goods of the testator, from which sum 120 marks were assigned by agreement of the executors for constructing the pavement of Bishopsgate Within, as far as the money would go, and for the good of the testator's soul. For this sum of £256, the above Richard had given to the executors a bond which had been put in the hands of Thomas Perceval as common friend, and now they detained this sum to the damage of the plaintiffs. The defendants admitted that they had £89 of the testator's goods, which he wished to be expended on the repair of the above road, by direction of the Mayor and Aldermen and the executors, but the remainder they had paid to the use and profit of the testator; and this they were ready to prove by an acquittance. Walter de Wanlok, one of the executors, did not come, and order was given to distrain him. The Bailiff was also ordered to warn Thomas Perceval to come on the morrow with the bond. A day was subsequently given at the request of William de Braye, Official of the Bishop of London, and other adjournments took place. Meanwhile the defendants were ordered by the Mayor to keep safely the £89 which they admitted having in hand.
James Ponchinus was summoned to answer John de Burreford, Sheriff of London, in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the defendant struck a certain Henry de Lobiere, in his Court in the Guildhall.
Precept was given to Peter de Bosenho, late Sheriff, to be here on Tuesday with his clerks and rolls, in order to render account of his receipt of the Queen's Gold (fn. 14).
A jury of the venue of St Clement's Lane, consisting of Thomas de Wynton and others, said on oath that Stephen de Wynton did not make the brown bread (panem bissum) which was seized in the bakehouse of Thomas de Wrotham in St Clement's Lane, for which he was arrested on the ground that the bread weighed 20s 8d less than it ought to do, but that a certain Thomas de Bedeford, oven-man (furnator) of Thomas de Wrotham, made it and sealed it with the seal belonging to the house of his master, to his master's profit. Judgment that Stephen go quit, and that Thomas de Wrotham be distrained to answer concerning what may be charged against him.
Alan de Sutton, called "Ballard," saddler, was summoned to answer Manekin le Heumer and his fellows, collectors of the tallage of £1000, for the Ward of Cordewanerstrete, and John Juvenal, Serjeant of the Commonalty, for contempt of the King and the Mayor and Commonalty, in that he violently snatched away from the plaintiffs a woman's supertunic of green furred with squirrel, which they had taken from him by way of distraint for the 10s which he owed to the tallage. The defendant denied that he snatched it away violently, as they complained, and put himself on his country. A day was given to hear the verdict.
A jury was summoned from the venue of St Clement's Lane by Candelwykstrete to say whether Thomas de Wrotham made a certain brown loaf &c. The defendant was mainprised by John de Brynkele, Roger atte Vine, Roger Hosebonde, and Adam Wade to hear the verdict and receive &c. The case was subsequently postponed owing to the absence of Aldermen, and the defendant was again mainprised by John Baunber, Thomas le Maderman, Edmund Lambyn, Paul le Potter, Robert Box and John de Shaftesbiry. Finally a jury consisting of Stephen le Potter and others said on oath that the above Thomas had no profit from bread made in his bakehouse, except 4d the quarter, which was the rent for the use of the bakehouse and utensils, and that a certain Thomas de Bedeford made the bread and sustained judgment for the same. Judgment that the defendant be acquitted.
As it was testified by good and faithful men, and by Sir William de Bereforth, King's Justice (fn. 15), that Thomas de Saleford, goldsmith, had threatened Adam de Warwick and Edward his son in their lives and limbs, the Sheriff was ordered to keep the above Thomas in custody till he found twelve pledges for keeping the King's Peace.
Since Geoffrey de Notingham, skinner, admitted that he had struck William de Prestwod, skinner, who had accused him of agreeing to a confederacy of journeymen skinners [familiorum peletrie], and of paying money into their box, he was committed to prison, &c.
A jury of the venue of London Bridge was summoned to say on oath whether Richard le Schethere, Stephen his son, Roger de Warewyk, cobbler (sutor), John his son, Richard Hagyn, Gunnora his wife, John de Sandwich, cobbler, Robert, apprentice of Robert le Fourbur, William his mate, and Richard his mate assaulted the Watch in the above Ward on the eve of the Epiphany [6 Jan.]. Afterwards on Wednesday after the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul [25 Jan.], a jury consisting of Henry le Blund and others found that the defendants assaulted John de Berking, William le Wite and Walter, the servant of Henry Bod. They were fined 8d each for damages; and for breaking the peace at night-time to the terror of the neighbours and the scandal of the City they were sent to prison.
Simon de Canterbury, skinner, was summoned to answer Geoffrey le Lacer in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that he had bought from the defendant five dozen lambskins for 10s, of which eleven were false and counterfeited out of old skins, being newly sheared again. The defendant denied the fraud and said that he bought the skins at St Botulph's Fair in their present condition and sold them as such, and thereon he put himself on his country. And Geoffrey said he bought them as lambskins, and that the defendant, knowing they were false, deceived him, and he also demanded a jury. A jury of Walebrok was summoned for the morrow.
The Sheriffs were ordered to bring before the Mayor on Friday twelve bakers from each side of Walebrok, to say on oath how many men hired their bakehouses for 4d the quarter. The jury of Roger de Derby and others presented the names of twenty-six bakers of tourte-bread (fn. 16) who hired bakehouses, and six who owned their own, and twenty bakers of white bread who hired, and one who owned bakehouses. [The rents varied from 1 mark to 11 marks per annum, and from 2d the quarter baked to 4d, with or without utensils. Among the places mentioned were the Parish of St Mary atte Hull, opposite the King's former Wardrobe, Ebbegate, Sivethestrete, Kironlane, the Church of St Tauntellin (fn. 17), Basingelane, and St Clement's Lane. The lessors included William le Micere, Alfred le Weyder, Juliana Aubyn, Gautrinus le Fraunceis, the Rector of the Church of St Werburg, and the Brothers of the House of St John.]
Wednesday after the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul [25 Jan.], by the Mayor and John de Wengrave (fn. 18) and other Aldermen
The Sheriffs were ordered to be present on that day to say, and also to do, whatever the Mayor and Aldermen should enjoin upon them for keeping the King's Peace. And they did not come.
A jury of the Venue of Alegate consisting of Robert Lorchon and others said on oath that John Sampson came on Thursday night, the morrow of the Circumcision [1 Jan.], and joined the Watch and Ward in Alegate, and went with them till he arrived between Alegate Gate and the House of the Brothers of the Cross (fn. 19), where he entered into the house of a certain imbecile [fatue] woman, who raised the hue and cry, and when the men of Sir John de Sandale, who were coming from the house of Roger de Frowyk with a light in front of them, heard the noise and entered the house of the above woman, the defendant assaulted Giles Peche, John de Sandale, junior, and William le Reve, to their damage half a mark each. They said also that the above John is a regular nightwalker who goes out to do harm, and has been three times indicted by the Wardmote for the same. Judgment that he be delivered to the Sheriff for safe custody until &c.
A jury from the venue of Walebrok were summoned to say whether Reginald de Holcote, currier, was a dealer in skins and other things belonging to peltry, against the ordinance and rights of that trade.
William de Wautham was attached to answer the Mayor &c. for prosecuting a plea in the Court Christian relating to rents and tenements, which plea belongs to the King's Court, and especially concerning certain rents devised in his will by John de Export for the provision of a chaplain to pray for his soul in the Church of St Mary le Bow-which will was not enrolled in the Husting of London as it ought to have been (fn. 20). The defendant said that he had sued no plea in the Court Christian relating to a lay fee, and he put himself on his country. A jury was summoned against the next Court of Common Pleas after Hokeday, and the same day was given to the defendant to hear the verdict.
A jury of Castle Baynard Ward, consisting of Adam Absolon and others, declared that the two quarters of wheat which were attached from Thomas atte Loke for 13s 4d, being his fifteenth due to the Queen's Gold, were the property of Robert atte Loke, and that the above Thomas had no interest in them to the value of 4d. They said also that Robert did not trade with any goods of Thomas nor avow them, as was charged against him. Robert now mainprised Thomas to appear in Court at Easter to satisfy the Commonalty as regards the mark claimed from him.
Roger de Derby and others said on oath that certain persons hired bakehouses &c. [Note. The list is identical with that on Membr. 4. See p. 155.]
Gerard le Fruter, John Oki, William de Writele, Richard de Bermingham, Robert le Skynnere, Terry de Dudlee, William de Meleforthe, Robert de Meleforthe, Geoffrey Trentemars, Adam Knith, Stephen atte Losue, Richard Treuchappman, Henry Pride, Walter de Aldresgate, and other "fruters" were summoned to answer the Mayor and Aldermen for having made a confederacy between them, strengthened by an oath, that none of them would buy the fruit of any garden within London or without before the Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist [24 June], so that they might then have their fruit as it were for nothing- and this they did without the King's warrant and in contempt of him, and to the great loss and hardship of the people. William de Writele, fruiterer, came and said that the above Gerard came to him soon after Easter last, saying that the fruiterers were all poor and captives on account of their own simplicity, and if they would act on his advice they would be rich and powerful, namely, if they would bind themselves by an oath not to buy before the Nativity of St John the Baptist, when they could buy and sell all fruits according to their will. He himself agreed, and took a book in his bosom to the meeting of fruiterers, whereupon they all took their corporal oath as above; but afterwards, reflecting that the confederacy was not good, lawful, or to be advocated, he repented of his oath, and bought his fruit as he was wont to do. As regards his trespass he puts himself on the mercy of the Court. A day was given to him at the next Husting of Common Pleas to hear judgment.
And as regards the accusation made against him that he bought and forestalled fruit to the damage and scarcity of the King and his people, he demanded a jury.
And the above Gerard, John Oky, Richard de Bermingham and the others demanded a day to answer the charges, which was granted to them. But on the day given the Mayor and Aldermen could not find time to deal with the case, and another day was given.
Adam de Benetele was attached to answer William de Fridaystrete and Philip de Merdele, Serjeants of John de Burreforthe, for slandering them, calling them thieves and robbers, and raising the hue against them in contempt of the King and to their damage 100s, when they distrained him by a small maser-cup for his arrears due to the 2000 marks and the Queen's Gold, which distraint they were ordered to make by the Mayor and Aldermen in accordance with the record submitted by the Chamberlain. The defendant denied the charge and demanded a jury. A jury from the venue of Friday Street was summoned against the Friday.
Philip le Cotiller was summoned to answer Richard Edward, butcher, in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that Philip apprenticed his brother Walter to him for seven years, and became surety and principal debtor for Walter's faithful service as an apprentice, and that the latter had left him without permission and carried away £4 16s of his goods, and though he claimed that sum from the defendant Philip, as surety, the defendant refused to pay it. Philip pleaded that Richard committed the goods to Walter on the arrangement that he give an account within the first half year, and this before the apprentice had any knowledge of the business, and against the defendant's wish; and he demanded judgment whether he ought to answer for goods so committed, and a jury to say whether Walter carried away the goods. A jury was summoned for Wednesday after Hokeday. Afterwards at a Court held on Friday after the Quinzime of Easter, a jury of Richard Sharp and others said on oath that the above Richard committed his money to Walter the apprentice to trade therewith, before the latter had learnt the business, and that Walter, having lost them to the value of 20s, took fright and fled. Judgment that the plaintiff recover nothing and be in mercy, and that Philip go thence without a day.
John de Madefrey was attached to answer the Mayor and Commonalty because, when William de Fridaystrete and John Juvenal, Serjeants of the Commonalty and of the Sheriffs, distrained him by a piece of cloth for his arrears of his fifteenth due to the Queen's Gold, he snatched the pledge away. The defendant admitted that he would not let them take it away, because it seemed to him unjust. As it was found from the Chamberlain's Record that the distraint was just, judgment was given that the defendant go to prison &c. Afterwards he was mainprised by Gilbert Cros and Adam "de villa Sancti Johannis" (fn. 21), tailor, to appear on Friday to hear judgment and to receive and do what the Court should consider.
A jury of the venue of Vintry, consisting of John de Salisbiry, cordwainer, and others, said on oath that Garsias de Sanetere is not a nightwalker and evildoer, as indicted by the Inquest de officio taken by the Mayor and Sheriffs with regard to nightwalkers and evildoers, on account of which indictment he had been imprisoned. Judgment that Garsias be acquitted; and he was enjoined to stay within doors after curfew so long as he remained in the City, and forbidden to do any harm to anyone either by night or day, under penalty of imprisonment.
. . . . . was found armed with iron corset and cap and a sword in the Guildhall in the presence of the Mayor, Aldermen, and many citizens. He was adjudged to forfeit his arms and be committed to prison.
A jury of the venue of Vintry was summoned against Wednesday after the Quinzime of Easter, to say on oath whether Gylenzon de Genue weighed any merchandise or mercery in the City of London between citizens and strangers by the beam produced in Court, as he was accused of doing.
The jury between Reymon Momace of Gascony, plaintiff, and Philip Burgy de More was respited till Saturday for lack of jurors. Afterwards, on Monday before the Annunciation B.M. [25 March], a jury of Roger le Ferrour and others said on oath that the two horses, whereof one was black and the other "baustan" (fn. 22), which were attached from Philip Burgy, merchant of the Society of the Mosi (fn. 23), at the suit of Reymon Momace of Gascony, belonged to the said Philip on the Saturday after the Feast of St Gregory Pope [12 March], and not to Master Walter de Ipre or any other man of Flanders, as Reymon alleged. Judgment that Philip have his two horses.
Gydo Bonaventure appointed John Tyle his attorney against John le Engleys, Serjeant (fn. 24) of the Fair of Champenoise Brie and attorney of the same, in a plea of debt.
Letters of attorney and recommendation, addressed to all justices and justiciars, ecclesiastical and lay, to the effect that Hugh de Calvomonte and John Cayn of St Manehuld, Wardens of the Fair of Champenoise Brie, had appointed John the Englishman to do certain business on behalf of the Fair; and on behalf of Philip, King of France and Navarre and Lord of Champenoise Brie, they pray that the above John may be well treated on his journeys by the justices &c., as they would wish their own servants to be treated. Sealed with the Seal of the Fair, January, 1303. R. de Monte Calvulo.
Simon de Graham was attached to answer John de Burreforth, Sheriff, that whereas he was a foreigner, and not of the Liberty of the City, he bought much merchandise, such as spicery and other things, from certain foreign merchants and especially from . . . . Durand who was dwelling in the house of William Servat, through the instrumentality of Henry de Farnham, spicer, hired by Simon for the purpose, thus defrauding the King and his bailiffs of the customs due. The defendant denied that he bought merchandise except from a freeman of the City, and this he was prepared to prove in such manner as the Court adjudged. A jury was summoned from the venue round Bokerelesbury for Friday.
Richard de Houndeslowe was summoned to answer the Prior and Brothers of the Order of St Augustine for killing horses and burying their carcasses within the Walls of London against the ordinance of the citizens, thus corrupting the air to the danger of the Brethren and citizens dwelling around. The defendant did not deny killing and skinning the horses &c., but said that the men of his trade had always been accustomed to do so and had never been prohibited. He was mainprised by John Baudry and John Note, tanners (fn. 25) of the Moor, for his appearance on Friday to hear judgment. Afterwards, on Friday after the Quinzime of Easter, he came before the Mayor and Aldermen and swore on the Gospels that he would not henceforth skin any carcasses within the City or bury them within the City or cast them in the ditches either within or outside the City, and if he knew of any one else doing so he would inform the Mayor and Chamberlain (fn. 26).
Thomas le Palmere offered himself against William de Fridaistrete, late clerk of Peter de Bosenho, Sheriff, in a plea that whereas the above William was charged by Peter to collect the Queen's Gold, and received 16s from the plaintiff, he only acquitted him against the Mayor and Chamberlain for 13s, so that the plaintiff was wrongfully distrained for 3s. The above William, who had this day, did not come. The Court ordered that the Sheriff be distrained to attend on Monday to show cause &c.
John le Barber, plaintiff, and John de Laufare, cordwainer, defendant in a plea of trespass, made agreement by permission of Court, on terms that the latter pay the former one silver mark.
A jury of the venue of Billingesgate, consisting of John de Romeneye and others, said on oath that the ship of William Clayssone called the "Pelerim," which was attached at the suit of Henry de Lincoln, burgess of Gernemue (fn. 27), belonged to Durdrich in Holland, and not to Almaine. Judgment that the ship remain attached till Henry receive satisfaction for his damages in Friseland.
William Smert, "shippewrith," was attached to answer Adam de Foleham, alderman, for claiming to be free of the City.
Walter de Wanlok was attached to answer Jordan Moraunt and the bailiffs of the City in a plea of trespass, wherein they complained that when John Juvenal went to distrain him for £20, which he acknowledged as owing to Jordan in the Paper of the Guildhall (fn. 28), the defendant would not permit the distraint, and removed the distraint made on him and the sequestrated goods, in contempt of the King. The defendant admitted that he would not allow the Serjeant to make a sequestration upon him. Judgment that he go to prison. He denied that he broke the sequestration or carried away the goods, and claimed a jury. Afterwards a jury, consisting of William de Cantebrig and others, said that he removed the sealed door from the hinges, and carried away sequestrated goods to the value of 20s. Judgment that he go to prison till he satisfy Jurdan for the goods removed. At a subsequent Court a day was given him, at the instance of Gilbert, son of Thomas de Clare, to appear in Court and satisfy Master Jurdan for the 20s, and the King for his contempt.
A jury of the venue of Bradestret by the Church of St Bartholomew the Less was summoned to say on oath whether David the clerk, Gocelyn, and Thomas de Kent received from Richard le Clerk 6s 8d, Queen's Gold, as he avers, or 4s, as they say.
John le Wyttawyere skinned a black horse (fn. 29) in the week before the Feast of the Invention of the Holy Cross. To be distrained.
Monday after the Feast of St James [25 July] before John de Wengrave (fn. 30), deputy of the Mayor
Robert de la Bourse de Brugges who was distrained by 6 tuns of woad, and Eustace Liene de . . . ., who was distrained by 17 tuns of woad, by the King's writ at the suit of Remund de la Bruwe, offered themselves against the latter, and demanded return of the distraints in accordance with another writ which they produced. The Sheriff gave evidence that Remund was not in town and could not be warned. He was ordered to warn him to come on Friday to hear verification of the above goods.
Writ, dated at Strivelyn 22 July A° 32 Edw. [1304], to the effect that Adam de Fulham had complained that Robert, son of Walter le . . . ., had entered his chamber by night, broken open his chests and carried away rolls and memoranda relating to his Aldermanry, charters, writings obligatory, tallies, jewels and other chattels, and that the Mayor and Aldermen had delayed giving him a remedy, and had allowed the above Robert to wander about the City consuming the above goods. The Mayor &c. were ordered to make amends to the above Adam and do justice in the matter.
In accordance with the above writ, Robert was attached to answer Adam in a plea of trespass, wherein the plaintiff claimed damages £300. The defendant pleaded not guilty and demanded a jury. A jury of the venue of London Bridge was summoned for Thursday, and the defendant was mainprised by Henry le Blound, "stokfihsmongere," and Peter Berneval to hear the verdict. Afterwards the parties came, and another day was given them.
Beringer Aulyn, Matthew de Corbins and many companions were attached to answer John de Burreforth (fn. 31), for selling dates and several kinds of spices to citizens and foreigners by their own measures against the Liberty of the City. The defendants denied the charge and demanded a jury. A jury of the venue of the Ryole was summoned for Tuesday.
Bartholomew de Fihsbourne, Thomas de Meles, Henry de Melingg, Peter de Somersete, Roger de Raby, Geoffrey de St Cross, Robert de la Marche, Simon FitzWarin, and "Adinettus" of Gascony were attached to answer John le Blound, Mayor, John de Lincoln and Roger de Paris, Sheriffs, for assaulting them with bows and arrows on Friday night after the Feast of All Souls [1 Nov.]. They denied the charge and put themselves on their country. A jury of the venue of Cheap between the Church of St Mary le Bow and Friday Street was summoned, and the defendants were mainprised by Hugh de Oxford, Peter le Hireys, and Roger de Redingge. Afterwards the jury, consisting of William de Wyncestre and others, brought a verdict of not guilty, and they were acquitted.
On this day judgment was given by the Mayor and Aldermen that the two casks of new wine which John le Botoner, junior, admitted having harboured [hospitasse] among his old wines be forfeited.
A jury of the venue of Wodestrete around St Alban's Church was summoned to say whether Gregory le Botoner and John de Wynton, "fuster" (fn. 32), hindered William de Carletone, Serjeant of the Sheriff, from making a distraint on John for a debt acknowledged in the Sheriff's Court.
Thomas de Kydemenstre, "chaucer" (fn. 33), 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 by the latter, and that he pay the father the 40d and be in mercy.
Philip Hodde appointed William de Toulouse his attorney against Remund Geraundon, Remund de Vile Fraunk, Peter Fanne, and Donan de Ponte in a plea of debt.
Philip Hodde offered himself against Remund Geraundon, plaintiff, in a plea of covenant. The latter did not prosecute his plaint (fn. 34). He and his pledges in mercy. And the Sheriff brought his record.
Bernard de la Rochele was attached to answer Arnold de Teler of Gascony in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that Bernard bought from him five casks of wine for £10 in London, and took him to a tavern and paid him 20s in part payment, and while they were sitting in the tavern, caused the casks to be loaded on carts and taken away from his custody against his will, to his damage £10. The defendant said he was a broker to a certain Adam le Brocher as regards the five casks, and that the latter paid him 20s in part payment, and that Arnold himself made delivery of the wine to Adam. Afterwards a jury of Vintry, consisting of Alan de Suffolk and others, said that the plaintiff delivered the wine to Adam and not to the defendant. Judgment that Arnold gain nothing by his plaint and Bernard be acquitted.
A jury of the venue of the Conduit, consisting of Ralph Godchep and others, said that a certain boy carrying water in a tankard came on Saturday last opposite the shop of Adam de Boctone, "cofferer" (fn. 35), and there came also a cook and a clerk called William de Radendene,. both then unknown, and ill-treated the boy, so that the neighbours thought he would be killed. Thereupon a certain Adam de St Albans, fearing this would happen, asked the cook and the clerk why they were beating the boy so maliciously. And the clerk replied that they would beat him as they liked in spite of Adam. And when Adam took the boy from their hands, the clerk bit Adam, and Adam took the clerk by the hood and tore it. And the cook struck Adam, who struck him back. They said further that several foreigners unknown to them were round them; and if the cook and the clerk received any harm, they had no cause of complaint.
Alan de Suffolch and other jurors said that Bernard de la Rochele, broker and citizen of London, was host to foreign merchants dealing in woad &c., but did not trade with them. Bernard admitted that he had charge of the wines and the wife (fn. 36) of Gerard de Orgoyl, who was then abroad. And because the use and custom of the City do not allow a broker to be a host or a merchant, the said Bernard was mainprised by Alan de Suffolch and Henry le Gaugeour to come on Wednesday to receive judgment.
Hugh de Strubbi was summoned to answer Nicholas Beaubelet in a plea of trespass, wherein the latter complained that the defendant took away the plaintiff's apprentice, Robert le Fraunceys of Malteby, and detained him in his service. The defendant denied the charge, and said that Hugh drove the apprentice away, and that he, the defendant, often asked him to take the apprentice back, but the plaintiff refused, whereupon he took the apprentice into his service lest he should perish of hunger; and he demanded a jury. A jury of the venue of Fletestrete was summoned against Wednesday.
[Record and process of an action in the Sheriff's Court.]
Philip Hudde, master of the ship called "le Messager" of Lym, was attached to answer Reymund Gerardoun in a plea of covenant, wherein the latter complained that he and other merchants freighted the above ship from Bordeaux to the Pool of London, and put on board 134 casks of wine, so that the ship should go directly from Bordeaux to the Pool, as appears in an indenture dated at Bordeaux 15 Oct. A° 33 (fn. 37) Edw. between the parties. The said Philip, however, on his journey perceiving certain casks of wine floating in the sea and being moved by cupidity, made a delay and got together part of the casks, and overloaded his ship with them knowingly and maliciously, and when he came to Portesmeuwe (fn. 38), he tied [applicuit] up there, and wickedly remained six weeks, whereas he ought to have gone direct to London; and afterwards when he came to London and ought to have tied up in the Pool, he maliciously grounded his ship on a sandbank, whereby the plaintiff lost two casks on the voyage and also the sale of his wines. The defendant denied the charges, or that he did any of the matters alleged knowingly and maliciously, and said he was ready to defend himself by his law according to the custom of the City. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant ought not to be admitted to his law, because he charged him with certain matters touching a covenant contained in a deed, and if the defendant was unwilling to answer otherwise, he claimed judgment as in an undefended action. The defendant pleaded that he had done none of the things the plaintiff alleged, and as he had handed over the wine, he demanded judgment as to how he ought to defend himself. A day was given at the next Court for judgment. Afterwards the parties came and added nothing to their pleadings. And since the plaintiff did not deny that he had received the wine, which he had consigned at Bordeaux, and since the defendant was ready to defend himself by his law in the matter touching the covenant, and as the Court had no power to summon any jury by which the truth of the matter could be better or more safely investigated than by the defendant's law, which law the plaintiff refused to admit, judgment was given that Reymund gain nothing by his plaint, and be in mercy, and that the said Philip go thence without a day.
1. For earlier proceedings in this action see pp. 130, 132, 135. See also pp. 143, 144.
2. The House of the Crutched Friars, and not the street, appears to be meant.
3. Glover.
4. Otherwise Thomas atte Welle.
5. No clear rules are given in the City Custumals with regard to the taking of distresses or distraining. Both City officials and private persons are shown in these actions as actually taking and removing articles of value to compel the appearance in Court of a debtor, or to secure the payment of rents. But as regards private persons, distraining exposed them to the danger of an action of trespass by the distrained person, in which the sympathies of juries were often with the latter. An action also lay in the Husting of Common Pleas, called Replegiare for distresses unjustly taken (Lib. Alb. 1, p. 188), and in the Sheriff's Court "de Placito capcionis et detencionis catallorum." In the present case a distraint was taken in the manner of a sequestration. By the later custom of London, on an action of debt being entered, the officer of the Court went to the house or warehouse of the defendant and hung a padlock on the door, which he sealed. On the fifth Court day following, the plaintiff might have judgment to open the door to have the goods appraised, unless the defendant put in bail to have the sequestration dissolved (Jacob's Law Dict.: Sequestration in London). At this period, however, sequestration appears to have been used principally for the collection of arrears due to tallages.
6. By the Statute of Wales, A.D. 1284, c. 11, it was enacted that men should no longer wage their law in the King's court by way of answer to a charge of breaking his peace. The King took the opportunity in 1285, when the City was in his hands, of abolishing the wager of law in cases of trespass where there was bloodshed or battery, except by consent of the plaintiff. Lib. Alb. 1, p. 294. In this case we have a further limitation apparently made by the City authorities in support of their officers. The previous year a trial took place at Leadenhall before John Botetourte and other Justices, of Elias Russel and others for an assault upon John le Chaucer. The defendants claimed to clear themselves in a simple trespass by wager of law, but their claim was not allowed as being contrary to the law of England. Chron. Edw. I and Edw. II, Rolls Series, 1, pp. 127-8. Nevertheless wager of law still continued to be allowed in the City courts in cases of trespass where there was no bloodshed and battery, and even in trespasses alleged to be against the peace. Lib. Alb. 1, p. 204.
7. A maker of paternosters or rosaries.
8. The King's court at this time and long afterwards gave no action for defamation, which was usually dealt with in the ecclesiastical courts, though actions for defamation were common in the manorial and other local courts. The defendant here alleged that his words were true on the principle veritas non est defamatio, and the Court threw on the plaintiff the onus of disproving them. He was "acquitted" because the defendant absented himself, but apparently no damages were awarded to him. See Pollock and Maitland, Hist. Eng. Law, 11, pp. 536-8.
9. The livre Parisis was worth about 4s 8½d. Cf. pp. 128, 193.
10. Servientibus Cordwanerye operariis (famulis crossed out).
11. Sc. cocodones, a kind of base French money, like the pollards and crocards.
12. An action of waste against a tenant.
13. These customs are not set out in any of the City books.
14. The Queen's Gold was a percentage of one mark of gold to every hundred marks of silver paid by the City to the King by way of grant or fine. It was unpopular in the City, and in the reign of Henry III a dispute on the subject was carried before the King and his Council, with the result that on 23 December, 1255, Queen Eleanour issued a charter quitclaiming the Queen's Gold on all fines during her lifetime, saving the rights of her successors (Lib. Cust. I, pp. 38, 39). The matter arose again in 1342, when the Exchequer claimed Queen's Gold, which should have been paid to Queen Philippa on a composition of £2000 for the twentieth granted by Parliament to Edward I in 1306. The City pleaded that Queen's Gold was due only on fines, and that the £2000 was a matter of liberality and goodwill. On the Rolls and Memoranda of the Exchequer being searched, it was found that the Queens had received their Gold on all grants as well as fines whatsoever. The City had no further argument to offer and precept was issued for levying the money (Cal. of Letter Book F, pp. 68-72). A month later, however, in connection with another claim for Queen's Gold, the City reiterated its objection, but was forced to raise the money. (Ibid. pp. 85-6, 90; City's Plea and Memoranda Rolls A4, membr. 6).
15. D.N.B., Chief-Justice of the Common Bench, A.D. 1309.
16. Bakers of tourte, a coarse brown bread.
17. St Antholin.
18. Cf. p. 164.
19. The Crutched Friars.
20. The claim of the City to the probate or enrolment of wills in the Husting probably goes back to the early thirteenth century. Already in 1193 deeds were so enrolled (Page, London, its Origin and Early Development, p. 112). A document in the City's Liber Ordinationum, fo. 173, which is dated by Miss Bateson (Borough Customs, II, p. cxxxix) as of A.D. 1300, but from internal evidence is clearly circa 1230, lays down that no one could be secure of a tenement devised, unless the will were enrolled. In 1268 the Bishop of London's deputy endeavoured to deprive the City of its right of probate, but the case was taken to the King, who decided in the City's favour (Lib. de Ant. Leg. fos. 110 b, 111). Ultimately a compromise seems to have come into force, whereby wills of lands were taken first before the Ordinary of the Archdeacon of London, and then proved in the Husting. This was already an old custom by A.D. 1357 (Cal. of Letter Book G, pp. 88-9), though there is little in the wills enrolled in the Court of Husting to show that they had already been before the Ordinary, and, on the other hand, many wills proved before the Ordinary never came to the Husting. But the City never varied from its contention that all wills ought to be so enrolled, and a method of compulsion was adopted, whereby any beneficiary under a testament within the City could cause the same to be enrolled in the Husting by writ of ex gravi querela to the Mayor (Fitzherbert, New Natura Brevium, 1794, p. 199). Cf. Sharpe, Cal. of Wills enrolled in Court of Husting, 1, pp. xlii, xliii.
21. Perth.
22. O.E.D.: having white spots on a black or bay ground.
23. The Mozze, or Mozzi, were a rich trading company of Florence. Archaeologia, XXVIII, pp. 221, 243; Cal. Close Rolls, passim.
24. Serviens, used indiscriminately in the City Records for a Serjeant of the Court, a journeyman workman, and the beadle of a Ward.
25. Tanning was extensively carried on in Moorfields, as may be seen from the masses of leather cuttings exposed during excavations. Archaeologia, vol. LXXI, iii. "Some Recent Excavations in London," Frank Lambert, M.A., F.S.A.
26. The Chamberlain was responsible during the Middle Ages for such sanitary and "Public Health" measures as were undertaken by the City.
27. Yarmouth.
28. Refers to the Rolls of Recognizances on vellum. Papera is used generally of a register. The above Rolls have survived for the period A.D. 1285-1392.
29. I.e. within the City. Cf. p. 161.
30. John de Wangrave, Alderman, was sworn on Monday after the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul (25 January) A° 32 Edw. [1303-4], to render all judgments in the Husting well and truly after the Mayor and Aldermen have come from consultation and have arrived at an agreement, and also all other judgments touching the Commonalty of London, and to set in order and cause to be enrolled all pleas in the Husting. Cal. of Letter Book C, pp. 132-3 and note.
31. Sheriff, A.D. 1303-4. This was an action against foreigners for trading retail.
32. Saddle-bow maker. Cf. Cal. of Letter Book C, p. 167, n.
33. Shoemaker.
34. This was a plea of error made in the Sheriff's Court. See p. 168.
35. Maker of coffers or chests.
36. The defendant seems to have pleaded that the wines and the wife were merely chattels deposited in his charge. The Court considered that the wife was her husband's agent.
37. An error for A° 32 Edw., i.e. 15 Oct. 1304. Cf. p. 166, where the case came up on appeal.
38. Portsmouth.