Me ie
vy
%
dy
THE EARLY ENGLISH
COUNTY COURT
AN HISTORICAL TREATISE
WITH ILLUSTRATIVE
DOCUMENTS
BY
WILLIAM ALFRED MORRIS
i
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN
- Volume 14, No. 2, pp. 89-230.
“Issued April 9,1926 =
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY F
Lonpon, ENGLAND
ae Ly :
ane ay
ee ae
ae '
} %
, o Si,
‘
4 »
4
=
be
¢ n
era
> $
re
ops
aa :
rays
é
wi
,
4
4
‘
‘
= mh
r.
¥
>
ey
) :
rh
’
Re
77
'’ A
, ae
¥
°
3
}
yt
—
f
Ve
‘
THE EARLY ENGLISH COUNTY COURT
AN HISTORICAL TREATISE WITH
ILLUSTRATIVE DOCUMENTS
BY
WILLIAM ALFRED MORRIS
CONTENTS
PART I
THE COUNTY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH AND
FOURTEENTH CENTURIES
PAGE
1. Nerep or A New STupy OF THE COUNTY COURT...00....0.cccccccecccesscccessceseeeee 89
eee eeCUECY AND IMEETING-PLACES. «..0.0.c.......cccsccsesnsccececececescenvesccsreeveccntdacses 90
a Re YTD 5, ee cs ates chica geod eos ss satbonsnd Aodttten dev acektey cd saoein 94
4. Macnus ComITAtTus AND PLENUS COMITATUS...0..0....cccccccceccesscescesseeeseeeass 97
TM oR STE, feb cen secede ences Sees ne go sein Soap coe ranWanache obGbuke cian 100
Re re NUIT Ys COURT OAT WORK. ..c...00.:.:cc0ss0-casdecsesssscdecvescsonscactgosectevencedaceores 105
Pe DGMENT IN THE COUNTY COURT ic... ccccocscecesecssissiecststeeducletecsedesencegeseanes 107
8. OFFENSES INCLUDED IN THE SHERIFF'S PRACB..00.0.0...0...ccccccccccecceeeseeerecssaes 112
s 9. BUSINESS RELATING TO PLEAS OF THE CROWN.............ccccccccssscesesesescesseeets 113
RP artes ETE TATTOO iy oo syn casos, -vsoseed oon chosnnes andievucneoseavsnddaverasdhed st bedlacs unre 7
elias GHPRIFK AS THE KING'S JOSTUCH. co. ccsee-cccscssscosscssssecessseonselevesssssiosses 121
Se at Y A COURT PROCEDU RE....0.0c-siccs-oresecscuycdusssecesedscndyestnscseasseasesecveceatateceutds 122
MMA COU MONTS AND PINUS... ..c.0:-:.cjesss-eseseccseccecsssccicstetorecesessceuetssedstcassbisecscnss 125
eee He COUNTY COURT AS A COURT OF RECORD. ..0.0..0:..0-::8csetesessesneteeeteeens 128
“15. Tue Removat or Causes TO THE KING’S COURTS..00.cccccccccccccesceceseeseseees 130
16. ADMINISTRATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE COUNTY COURT.......00..00cccccceeeeeee 131
RT CEN TS ny chic ba dig ae ede, Beiapee eee ate ieaiounn gia ian 132
METEOR A INTN GL MP UTS opiates shocks secs os Laevantctineds noclees baduontue-oueecatuan 134
MMA TSRCUINIGTIRATTVES PUBLICITY... oo. ics. c.ccsscuen sb éste la chaswkessbfsansacahgyessessbecdghannstedeebeehics 136
ed Eg oe Os al YD SR ES ale a OP at ey Ve NCAR oA YR een SCHR ao 139
ages etl Rete
dg) Wed boas Ta
ILLUSTRATIVE DOCUMENTS
A. MISCELLANEOUS CouNnTYy CourRT DOCUMENTS
PAGE
SuccEssIVE SESSIONS OF THE CouNTY OF MIDDLESEX, 1296................ 149
SUCCESSIVE SESSIONS OF THE County Court oF LINCOLNSHIRE, 1344.. 150
MENTION OF THE SHIRE HALL AND THE RETROCOMITATUS...........0.0000000- 151
DESIGNATION OF THE PLACE FOR HOLDING THE County Court oF
SURRBY, 1202.00 iasccsecscscenseseetieiecneatinedsnecqretnayehs plier 151
RELIEF FROM Suir or County, 1254...) 0004.5.0heee 152
THE SETTING OF A DAY FOR HEARING PLAINTS, 1254.00.00 nse 152
PRESENTMENT OF ENGLISHRY IN THE County Court or Sussex
VQ8 Vin cnceccsciescdatondencscessasolavestes ernst etuanesicsh oe rrr 153
APPEALS IN THE County CourRT OF Wroroneeeam 1243.52 Scere: 153
APPEALS IN THE County Court or NOTTINGHAM, 1280...............0.00.0.0.. 155
PROCEEDINGS UPON AN APPEAL de averwis captis, tempore PROBABLY
EpwAarp I on EDWARD ID. 0.0. ccc. tissssese 156
Custom IN WESTMORELAND REGARDING APPEARANCE AND PLEDGING
OF THE ACCUSED, 1278........c.ccccssehes-sssesssshecisareou ab) as gan 158
MANUCAPTION IN THE County Court, 1895...............400)-. une 158
ORDER TO PLACE OFFENDERS ON THE EXIGENT, 1252.00.00... cect 159
ORDER TO PLACE OFFENDER ON THE EXXIGENT, 1344.00.00 ees 159
Tue Process or OuTLAWRY, 1341......000)......0.. 160
AN ILLEGAL JUDGMENT OF OUTLAWRY, 1274......c..cyee 162
ORDER FOR DECLARATION TO ANNUL OUTLAWRY, 1249...........ceececeee 163
ACTION UPON AN APPEAL IN THE COUNTY COURT CONCERNING STRIPES,
MAYHEM, AND BREACH OF THE PEACE, 1254...0......cccccceeeeeeeerereteteeee 164
ACTION UPON AN APPEAL CONCERNING OTHER OFFENSES, 1262............ 164
A Woman’s APPEAL WITH PLEDGES FOR PROSECUTION, 1382......... ear 165
AN Inquest In A County Court By JUDICIAL ORDER, BERKSHIRE
EYRE, 1274....o.:cccccscssessasisednevsssscesarsesecabss sansvanse coy teagan 165
AN INQUEST TO ASCERTAIN WHO HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENSE, 1257... 166
An INQUEST TO DETERMINE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED, 1260................0...-. 166
PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO THE GRAND ASSIZE, 1285............cccccccceeees 167
AN ORDER RESPITING ACTION UPON A CASE IN A County Court,
LOB AL oo. cccciecoctssesenssebueddzrevatecvns ouasevoeonéond+yuteuuuneitieh pclae 167
THE WRIT POND. 00.0 c0cicccsccsseéesoits vinetse.scvdgewncsee vers «eet ee 168
Writs oF CERTIORARI WITH RETURN, 1306, 1819... a 169
Inquest IN Country CoURT CONCERNING PROPERTY OF A Roya
WARD, JUNE 1258 ..0.csciccccedecscsceesess:odieness pos aan 170
INQUEST CONCERNING PAYMENT OF A DEBT DUE THE KING, 1263........ 170
INQUEST CONCERNING VARIOUS DEBTS PAID TO SHERIFFS, 1271............ iit
INSTALLATION OF BAILIFFS IN THE CoUNTY CouRT, 1278............:00000 172
[iv ]
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
An EscHEATOR’S OATH OF OFFICE IN THE County Court, 1259........ 172
An ABBOT’S APPOINTMENT IN THE County Court oF AGENTS TO
RECEIVE ESTREATS AND SUMMONSES OF THE EXCHEQUER.................. biz
READING OF A DEED IN FRENCH AND ENGLISH, 1295.......0..0.00cccccceee 173
eerepere OM AM JUIT CLAIM, L267) ccc. scccsecccarssssssksovvsatletaeesurcedestoressenecpeati 174
READING OF CHARTERS AND LETTERS OF PROTECTION, 1254.......00........... 174
PADDING OF THE GREAT CHARTER, 1256 .0............ccs:c-cccccesssssscedecesecenteseeoovtes 175
PROCLAMATION IN THE County Court AS A STEP IN ADMINISTRATION,
eae MH ay ge i eT efit ae ste hn tel vases ses asi opahlosbinte ine 175
EXAMPLES OF THE Writ de Coronatore eligendo.............cccccccccccccsecssseesenees 178
ELECTIONS OF OFFICIALS IN Country Court, 1258, 1345.00.00 179
B. County Court REcorpDs
EXTRACTS FROM THE ROLLS OF THE CouNTYy Court OF CORNWALL,
HELD AT LOSTWITHIEL ON MONDAY BEFORE THE FEAST OF ST.
THOMAS AND ON MONDAY THE MORROW OF THE DECOLLATION OF
See NTH BAPTIST. 7 HIDWARD LUD oc. occbekiegcctcseeveoeevsesssnsvovatie 181
PERQUISITES OF THE County Court oF KENT, FROM MONDAY BEFORE
THE Feast or St. JOHN THE Baptist, 48 Henry III...........0000....... 197
PROFICUUM ARISING FROM THE CounTy Courts or .ESsEX AND
HERTFORD, FROM MICHAELMAS AT THE CLOSE OF Henry III To
Pre WAIGHABLMAS NEXT FOLLOWING. .0.....cc.cc.cscccccsccsssesserssssesvecrsssnsssbevees 201
PERQUISITES OF THE County Court or DEVON, FROM THE FEAST
or St. CALIXTUS AT THE BEGINNING OF 43 Henry ITI.........0..0......... 207
AMERCEMENTS IN THE County Court oF YORKSHIRE, FROM OCTO-
BER, 42 Henry III, to Seprempmr, 43 Henry IIL... .. 223
[v]
PREFACE
This work represents an attempt to bring together from the
scattered source materials an account of the sessions and business
of the medieval county court. The period selected is the earliest
for which various types of record exist, that of the thirteenth
eentury and the earlier fourteenth. In defense of its antiquity
may be urged the slight amount of definite information concern-
ing this important body. When authorities upon the subject
declare that “‘there is less known about the actual working of
the English County Court in 1689 than of the Vehmgericht or
294
the Court of the Praetor Peregrinus,’’' surely the modern period
has little advantage over the middle ages. Whatever brings one
in immediate touch with the county court of any period is worth
while. The closer is the contact with the men of the county thus
assembled, the better is the understanding of English law and
administration and of the development of English democracy.
In the county court, participation of the local community in the
affairs of central government attained its highest point. Great
as 1ts importance was in law and in local government, strangely
enough it stands out boldest as an agency employed to further
the king’s administrative and judicial business.
The manuscripts here published as illustrations are of an
official nature. None has hitherto appeared in print, and but two
are available in calendared form. All but one are documents
preserved at the Public Record Office in London. The exception
is a St. Paul’s manuscript which the editor owes to the kindness
of Mr. H. G. Richardson. A few documents of well-known types,
1 Sidney and Beatrice Webb, English Local Government: Parish and
County, 291.
[vii ]
such as the writ Pone, the writ De Coronatore eligendo, and
proceedings illustrating the process of outlawry, have been
included for the sake of comprehensiveness or contrast in
forms of different periods, or for specific details in themselves
interesting.
These documents fall into two categories. Those printed in
division A of Part II usually throw mere casual light upon
the county court and are collected from various series. The
Coroners’ Rolls, the Assize Rolls, the Chancery Miscellanea, and
the Memoranda Rolls are most largely represented. The longer
selections appearing in division B of Part II, on the other hand,
are consciously preserved county court records. The first of
these, the county court roll of Cornwall for 1333, is practically
unique among the documents in the Publie Record Office,
inasmuch as the only other known county court rolls, the twin
rolls for Berkshire and Oxfordshire of the reign of Richard II,
do not aim to record the whole volume of judicial business.?. The
last four documents are lists of amercements imposed at various
sessions of county courts, and kept by sheriffs as a record of this
portion of the ferm of their counties. These documents convey
a considerable amount of useful information both as to the
sessions of the county courts and the business dispatched before
them.
The original record Latin has been extended except where
stock abbreviations or forms of exceptional difficulty occur. -
Some abbreviations are so familiar in diplomatie documents that
they are best retained. An attempt to extend the names of the
counties would be useless, even were it clear just what spelling
the writer of a given document would have used. In a few other
cases it is impossible to determine the form which the clerk had
in mind. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the invaluable aid
os Revottion of the Oxford roll, edited by Hilary Jenkinson, appears in
the Cambridge Historical Journal, I, part 1, 1923, p. 106. The Berkshire
record is indexed as Court Rolls, portfolio 153, no. 62.
[ vill ]
rendered by Miss Dorothy M. Page in transcribing the documents
included in division B of Part II and a few of those in division
_A; also the kindness of Mr. H. G. Richardson in supplying a
copy of the document which appears in Part II as no. 34; also
the kindness of Miss Helen M. Cam in providing the writer with
a copy of the document designated as no. 3. He is further
indebted to Miss Cam for the generous communication of her
discovery of the record of the county court of Cornwall.
[ix]
PART |
THE COUNTY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH
AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES
Me™
'
,
*
et
4
a
bale
THE COUNTY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH AND
FOURTEENTH CENTURIES
1. NEED OF A NEW STUDY OF THE COUNTY COURT
The constitutional and the legal historian each from his own
point of view has dwelt upon certain aspects of the county court,
yet neither has attempted, nor have both collectively given, a
comprehensive account of this important body. The one has
treated the county assembly with the rise of parliamentary insti-
tutions primarily in view, the other has left but a partial account
of its legal business. The county court has in the main fallen
somewhere between Stubbs and Pollock and Maitland. To too
many it is familiar only because it was numbered among the folk-
motes of the Anglo-Saxon period and because later it chose two
knights who represented the shire in parliament. Well known as
the cradle of Anglo-Saxon self-rule, it is still largely unknown.
Until about the twelfth century the chief court of ordinary
resort, it occupied down to modern times a useful place as a local
forum for the trial of some civil suits. In the prosecution of
offenses against the peace until the fifteenth century it rendered to
the king’s justices constant and indispensable service which has
generally failed to gain recognition. It also bore an important
part in the king’s administrative arrangements which has not
been fully appreciated. This ancient assembly court may well
demand a new examination. Although some questions regarding
its sessions have found answer in recent years,' many other
1 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law (1899), I, 538-556.
90 University of Californa Publications in History (Vou. 14
matters still require elucidation. Not even the great mass of
thirteenth-century records yet enables the historian entirely to
dispel the darkness, but something may be attempted.
2. FREQUENCY AND MEETING-PLACES
The facts concerning the terms at which the county convened
prior to the reign of Henry III are well known. To the meetings
held twice a year in King Edgar’s time it was possible, by the
time of Canute, to add intervening assembles when these were
deemed necessary. The same rule is mentioned almost a century
later, in the reign of Henry I. This monarch forbade sheriffs
without special authority to hold sessions at other times and
places than those customary in the reign of Edward the Con-
fessor.? Similar inhibition of usage which threatened to burden
the men of the various counties with too many meetings occurs
in the Magna Charta of 1217, which, however, recognizes the
legality of monthly sessions except where a longer interval has
been customary. Such local variation presumably occurred in
the reign of Henry I* and even earlier. The county court of
Northumberland fairly late in the thirteenth century was meet-
ing every six weeks.¢ The well-known rule which in Lincoln-
shire® a half-century earlier prescribed an interval of forty days
between sessions 1s shown by fourteenth century evidence to have
meant in practice a period of exactly six weeks.° This was the
interval in Yorkshire and quite clearly that also in Lanecashire.*
That the time between the usual monthly sessions was regu-
larly measured by the lunar month of twenty-eight days is a
2 Liebermann, Gesetze der Angelsachsen, I, 524.
3 Otherwise the king’s writ (cf. note 2) would probably mention the
frequency of meetings.
4 Northumberland Assize Rolls, Surtees Soe., 315.
5 Bracton’s Note Book, ed. F. W. Maitland, III, 567; Pollock and Mait-
land, I, 538. .
6 Below, p. 223 ff.
7 Below, nos. 1, 15, and Hachequer Misc. Roll, 5/40. J. J. Alexander
proves this for the four northern counties (Hnglish Historical Review, XL,
5) from evidence dating from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 91
fact which has been overlooked. This indeed is stated to be true
in the seventeenth century.* The rule may frequently be traced
in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and some lists show
thirteen sessions a year.® Unless there occurred some irregularity
not discernible in the records, a monthly session could have
meant nothing else than one every four weeks, for it continued
but one day and was always assigned to the same day of the
week.*° Thus King Henry III, in granting that the county court
of Derbyshire be held at the town of Derby, rather than at
Nottingham where the two counties had hitherto assembled,
ordered that it should meet on Wednesday, which heretofore had
been the court day.‘ Subsequently the county court of Notting-
hamshire convened at Nottingham on Monday.??
The coroners’ rolls, taken in conjunction with records of the
type published in this volume, make it possible to determine on
what day of the week most of the county courts met.'** Evidently
a conscious effort was made to prevent these monthly meetings
in adjacent counties from falling on the same day, just as there
was a similar effort to prevent weekly market days in neighboring
towns from falling together. The Statute of Wales, in providing
for the establishment of county courts in the six Welsh counties
which existed in 1284, specified that they were to be held from
month to month in such place as the king should ordain, upon
Monday in one county, Tuesday in another, Wednesday in a
third, Thursday in a fourth, and not upon any other days."*
8 Greenwood, County Judicatures (ed. 3, 1668), p. 5.
9 Below, pp. 197 ff., 201 ff.
10 The Suffolk sessions of 1369-70 form an exception. They were held
usually on Tuesdays or Saturday, but also on other days (Hachequer L. T.
R. Misc. Roll 6/11), once on Sunday.
11 Placita de Quo Warranto, 159. The date of the grant was May 15,
1256, and not as indicated in Annales Monastici, III, 199.
120. T. R. Miscellaneous Rolls, bundle 5, no. 79.
12a The fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth century list of county days
appears in Bulletin of Institute of Historical Research, III, no. 8, 93.
13 Statutes.of the Realm, I, 56. Cf. J. J. Alexander in English Histor.
wev., +l, Jan. 1925.
92 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14
To the duty of assembling at the usual period the county was
held in the thirteenth century, as in the seventeenth,’* by the
requirement that offenders who did not duly appear be demanded
at successive sessions and outlawed if they were not present at
the fifth. If a session was postponed to a time later than that
required by custom the fugitive could not be properly demanded,
and the king’s justices might mulct the county heavily for the
irregularity." But some allowance was made to provide for
emergencies. The records show that meetings might occur a week
earlier or a week later than usual, the subsequent meeting return-
ing to the regular: schedule as it stood before this temporary
disturbance. When in the early fourteenth century the king’s
justices in eyre sat in the county they might order that no
regular sessions of the county court be held except by reason of
land cases under the writ of right or for appeals of felony.*’®
The session of the county before the justices seems even to have
been sufficient for carrying out the process of outlawry. When
the king was present in person in the county one of his officials
might hold pleas to the exclusion of other business.
The rule laid down early in the twelfth century, that counties
should convene at the same places where they met in the time of
King Edward, implies the impossibility of changing the place of
assembly without the king’s consent.*’ In the reign of Henry II]
such changes are thus authorized. Not only was Derby desig-
nated by royal grant as a county town but so also was Guildford
in Surrey.'® In 1278 the king’s letters close ordered proclamation
to be made that the county court of Somerset, hitherto held at
Ilchester, should henceforth be convened at Somerton.'® The
14 Dalton, Office and Authority of Sheriffs, 405.
15 Northumberland Assize Rolls, Surtees Soe., 315.
. anaes Eyre of Kent, 1313-14 (Selden Soc.), pp. xviii, 7. See below,
17 According to an expression in a case recorded in Bracton’s Note Book
(no. 1730) this was a function of the king and the magnates of the realm.
18 Below, p. 151.
19 Cal. Close Rolls, 1272-79, p. 460.
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 93
eounty court of Sussex was drawn to Chichester before the
Barons’ War upon the initiative of Richard, Karl of Cornwall,?°
but this action subsequently received the king’s sanction.
The designation of a county town was of interest not only to
suitors who were bound to travel hither, but also to tradesmen
who derived profit from this fact. Local rivalry, possibly also
the absence of an outstanding center of population, seems to
account for a peculiar arrangement by which in three or four
counties the monthly assembly of the thirteenth century alter-
nated between towns. That for Sussex was held at Shoreham
as well as at Lewes.7!. In the reign of Edward I Chichester
became a third meeting-place, and in the time of Edward III it
seems to have had as many meetings as both of the others.?? In
Essex sessions were held at Langthorn, occasionally at Writeley,
and in Middlesex, at Brainford and Stony Cross.?* In Cornwall
in 1331 and 1332 nearly all the sessions were held at Lostwithiel,
but there was an occasional one at Launceston.”*
The belief that the courts of shire and hundred anciently met
out of doors?® finds support in the usage which sometimes named
hundreds for stones or trees? and which in the Norman period
convened others at Fliteham Birch ;** also in that which anciently
20 Rotult Hundredorum, II, 202; Pollock and Maitland, Hist. Eng. Law,
I, 555, and n. 6.
21 Rotult Hundredorum, I, 215.
22 Coroners’ Rolls, 256, m. 2. Subsequently Chichester became the sole
meeting-place until the well-known statute of 19 Henry VII, cap. 29, pre-
scribed that, in view of the hardship involved upon those who had to travel
to the extreme end of the county, its court should meet alternately here and
at Lewes.
23 Below, pp. 148, 173, 201-203; Coroners’ Rolls, 256, m. 2.
24 Huchequer L. T. R. Miscellaneous Rolls, bundle 5, no. 21. For a similar
irregularity in Herefordshire see below, p. 205.
25 Pollock and Maitland, I, 555, note 5.
26 E.g., hundred of Kirkwardstone, Wilts; hundred of Leightonstone,
Hunts; hundred of Burbeech, Surrey; hundred of Appletree, Derbyshire.
27 Ramsey Chartulary, I, 236: apud Flictehamburch.
94 University of California Publications in History |Vou. 14
convened shiremotes at a stone or on a heath”® or, as late as the
time of Edward I, in a green place.*® But in the thirteenth cen-
tury gatherings in the open air, like those in obscure places, must
have been unusual. By Bracton’s time the proverbial place for
the county court to meet is the ecastle.*® Sessions in the castle
are mentioned at Oxford*! and York,*? and the county court of
Lincolnshire in the earlier years of Henry III is represented as
meeting indoors.** Since in more than half of the counties the
sheriff held the castle of one of the towns, usually the chief town,
along with the county, Bracton’s assumption carries conviction.
Only in a minority of cases could the question of the meeting-
place have raised special questions. But in the latter half of the
thirteenth century the county court was in some eases forsaking
the castle for the shire hall. At Lostwithiel,** to be sure, the
change to the hall could hardly have been made from a castle,
but at Oxford this was true. There by 1275 meetings were
regularly held in the hall of the manor of Oxford.*® The county
court which met at Stafford also held its sessions in a hall.**
3. SPECIAL SESSIONS
Assurance that the county court should not be called together
more frequently than once a month, and not so often if the custom
of the county prescribed a longer interval, was afforded by a
28 In Cnut’s time a shire gemot convened at Agelnothe’s stone (Codex
Diplomaticus, no. 755; Hssays in Anglo-Saxon Law, by Henry Adams and
others, 865). For the meeting of the county of Kent in the time of William
the Conqueror, see Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normannica, 4-6; Domesday
Book, I, 1.
29 Pollock and Maitland, I, 555.
30 Bracton, De Legibus, Rolls Ser., V, 360.
31 Bracton’s Note Book, ed. Maitland, case no. 212.
32 Sel. Pleas of the Crown, Selden Soe., no. 106. »
33 Bracton’s Note Book, case no. 1730.
34 Pollock and Maitland, I, 555.
35 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1272-81, p. 127. Cf. Hist. Monast. Abingdon (Rolls
Ser.), I, 119.
36 Below, no. 3.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 05
great charter of liberties. In one instance a sheriff who attempted
to retain for a second day’s session enough men to hear the causes
left over met the objection that this was a second session within
the same month. Furthermore, the king’s justices sustained the
objection.*’ Special sessions of the county court required the
king’s order. In the thirteenth century this was already an old
rule. King Henry I in his notable writ dealing with the sessions
of the local courts forbade sheriffs to assume the initiative in
calling such sessions for their own purposes. When these should
be demanded in the future by any matter pertaining to the
king’s administrative needs he undertook to give special author-
ization.** Later usage is in conformity with this order. and certainly an affair of frequent
50 As, for example, in Close Rolls, 1231-34, pp. 309-310.
51 Thus (according to Cal. Close Rolls, 1302-07, pp. 86-87) on April 16,
1303, sheriffs were ordered to have proclamations made at once in full
county court regarding military claims of the king. A response from some
sheriffs was expected by the morrow of Ascension (May 24), from others
by the morrow of Trinity (June 19).
52 Stubbs, Constitutional History, II, 239.
58 Statutes of the Realm, II, 156, cap. 15. Cf. Stubbs, Constnl. Hist., IIT,
417.
54 Foedera, I, 919.
55 Cap. 39, Statutes of the Realm, I, 90. Cf. the writer’s presentation in
English Historical Review, XXXIX (July, 1924), of the contrast between
plenus comitatus and retrocomitatus.
1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 99
occurrence, which could not be delayed for any length of time,
is said by Fleta to take place in pleno comitatu.*®
The use of the adjective plenus to describe a court is by no
means confined to the county assemblage. On the contrary it is
applied to most courts in existence in the thirteenth century,*”
not excluding parliament. In the last-named case it has been
shown in a convincing manner that the word refers to the ‘‘ pub-
licity of proceedings rather than the fullness of attendance.’’®*
So the full county court was clearly the open public session
attended by the body of those who were customarily under
obligation to attend. In it the men of the shire heard the king’s
proclamations, attended to his business as he directed, heard
accusations of crime, or witnessed the installation of local
officials. It is contrasted with inquests before the sheriff which
do not eall for the presence, or at any rate the attention, of all
of these. It is contrasted also with proceedings in a case from
participation in which some of those in attendance are excluded.
Men are mentioned as attending a session of the county, but as
appearing on the same day im pleno comitatu for a particular
purpose.*® The advantages of publication, of public procedure,
of the safeguard of a numerous body of witnesses, of the partici-
pation of the county at large, are sought by the king’s writs
56 Fleta, liber II, cap. 67, sec. 18.
57 Certain transactions take place in pleno scaccario (L. T. Rk. Memor-
anda Roll 66, m. 16), and in the eyre are said to be in plena curia (Assize
Roll 8, 4 Edward I, Bedford, m. 40). This same word is used to describe a
hundred court (Assize Roll 48, m. 40 d; Court Rolls, bundle 18, no. 7, 19
Edward I).
58 Hnglish Historical Review, XXX, 660-662.
59 In Select Coroners’ Rolls, Selden Soe., p. 4, it is apparently contrasted
with the coroner’s inquest. When inquests are in pleno comitatu this is
specified in the writ. In Pleas of the County of Gloucester, ed. Maitland,
no. 434, a man comes to the next comitatus after Christmas, but shows his
stripes in pleno comitatu. So at the county court of Berkshire on his second
appearance to make an appeal a man gives testimony in pleno comitatu
(Assize Roll 48, m. 36,.12 Edward I).
100 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14
which require action in pleno comitatu. This expression in the
thirteenth century clearly refers to one aspect of any session of
the county and not merely to the old-time semiannual meeting.®°
5. SUIT AND SUITORS
Attendance or, as it was called, suit at the county court was
a duty, a burden, resting upon certain men, or perhaps more
properly upon certain lands, of the shire. The large number of
exemptions sought and obtained from the kings of the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries show how it was regarded. Extensive
areas must have been released thus from the obligation. Suit of
counties and hundreds was a form of service due the king,
rateable in terms of financial value. Withdrawal of it, therefore,
involved loss to the monarch.®*t The sheriff enforced it by dis-
traint, on this account seizing the beasts of one man and the
money of another.®? Respite of this obligation,®* pardon for
failure to acquit it, or transfer of suit from one county to
another,®* as well as complete acquittance, might all be effected
by means of the king’s grant.
It is evident in the Hundred Rolls that many persons had
withdrawn suit without license. Just before the Barons’ War
it was believed that some had been excused without proper war-
rant, merely through arrangement with sheriffs and _ bailiffs.
Beginning in 1254, the justices in eyre regularly made inquiry
concerning this.°° This charge against sheriffs and their sub-
60 The assertion of a redactor of the Leges Edwardi Confessoris (Lieber-
mann, Gesetze, I, 656, 657) about the time of King John that certain
officials for the various counties ought to be elected in pleno folkemot at
the beginning of the Calends of October possibly preserves a tradition of
a semiannual session of the county held at this period.
61 Rotult Hundredorum, I, 34, 331. Presumably this value is based either
on the sum which would ordinarily purchase for the individual exemption
from the duty of appearing or which would pay his amercement if he were
absent.
62 Rotuli Literarum Clausarum, I, 430, 431.
63 Below, p. 152.
64 Close Rolls of Henry III, 1234-1237, p. 457.
85 Annals Monastici, I, 331; Cam, Studies in the Hundred Rolls, 92-93.
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 101
ordinates recurs in the reign of Edward I.°* The barons on their
part seem to have taken the stand that claims to suit of shire
and hundred advanced by the king’s officials were novel. Among
the baronial grievances enumerated in 1258 is that of exaction
of new suits of shires.*” One question, however, was being settled
in the interest of the landholder. Toward the end of the century
there was still some difficulty over the exaction of suit from each
of the heirs to an estate from which previously only one suit was
due.°* But the Provisions of Westminster in 1259 had set up the
general principle that heirs should render no more suit than was
originally due.®®
Certainly not all men of the shire, nor even all freeholders,
were bound to attend its session.’ The theory that they were
so required seems to be presented first by the law writers of the
Tudor and Stuart periods. But there was clearly a definite
body of suitors. These had to be summoned to each session, and
the monk of Barnwell shows that the sheriff of Cambridgeshire
kept a list of them at the castle.“ Moreover, in a legal sense
they constituted the county, and from them the sheriff collected
the amercement imposed upon it by the king’s justices for false
judgment or other fault.*? The principles upon which suit was
said to rest were so diverse’® that in its enforcement sheriffs must
have been guided entirely by the common law rule of usage. As
early as the reign of Henry I it is recorded that summons was
issued seven days in advance of the session’* except in cases of
66 As in Rot. Hund., II, 266. But see below, p. 224.
67 Stubbs, Select Charters, 385, sec. 24.
68 Rotuli Parliamentorum, I, 12.
69 Statutes of the Realm, I, 8.
70 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, I, 538, 542.
71 Memoranda de Bernewell, ed. Clark, p. 238.
72 In Close Rolls, 1227-31, p. 31, Robert le Savage and his men are not
to be distrained as participants in a misericordia if it be found that at the
time it was incurred they did not owe suit of county. Cf. Pollock and Mait-
land, History of English Law (1899), I, 549.
73 Ibid., I, 5387-545.
74 Leges Henrici, 7:4, 41:2; Liebermann, Gesetze, I, 553, 567.
102 Unversity of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14
emergency. Even at this time it is obvious that the attendance
followed two distinct requirements. Certain persons were sum-
moned by name, and certain territorial units sent representa-
tives.*° Concerning the former group the Statute of Merton”
enacted that any freeman who owed suit at the county or other
local courts might freely make his attorney do those suits for him.
The earliest theory of suit of county which is presented, that
of the writer of the Leges Henrici,” is purely feudal. In his
opinion those who attend are terraruwm domint, whether they be
lay or ecclesiastical lords. Nor does the writer shrink from
including under this designation local officials and even manorial
reeves (tungrevr). All these are present to take diligent heed so
that failure to punish the wicked, or the harm of grievances, or
the wonted ruin of judgment-finders, shall not rend the poor.
This view, which regards all suitors as landholding lords, appears
to be explained by the same writer a little farther on in a famous
passage.”* It rests upon the assumption that all the suitors are
either feudal landholders who acquit their land of this service
or else their substitutes. The king’s barons and others of the
county by their attendance, so the writer holds, perform this
service. But this may be done also if the lord is represented by
his steward; and if both lord and steward are absent, the reeve,
priest, and four better men of the vill are then to be present on
behalf of all those who have not been summoned by name.
This statement does not convince the reader for more than one
reason. As Maitland shows,*® minutc homines certainly owed
suit and served as doomsmen at this time; moreover, the theory
can account for the various small freeholders who attended the
county court in this reign, as he points out, only by a vast
amount of license in the terms used. Nor does it carry complete
To [Dt 1 tt.
76 Cap. 10.
77 Leges Henrici, 7:2.
78 [bid 127.
79 Pollock and Maitland, I, 546 and note 3.
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 103
conviction in setting up the view that the representation of the
vill through the reeve, priest, and four villains is merely a sub-
stitute for the attendance of the lord. The form of the Domes-
day inquest®® suggests a substantial administrative reason for
territorial as opposed to tenurial suit. But the Domesday inquest
was held by the kine’s special agents under special authority. It
is impossible to deny on a basis of available evidence that the
relation between the two types of suit as set forth in twelfth
century juristic style held in the thirteenth century. To be sure
the activity of four neighboring vills in judicial matters is at
least as old as the reign of Henry I.*! These sometimes appeared
upon special summons in the county court, but probably as a
rule merely at coroners’ inquests elsewhere.*? The Assize of
Clarendon** held the sheriff to make inquest for the presentment
of criminals before himself through four men of each vill and
twelve men of each hundred, a duty which might be fulfilled in
the county court no less than in the sheriff’s tourn.’* Certainly
some presentments made in the hundred court might not go to
the justices until they had come also before the county court.*°
The coroner’s presence at shiremotes also implies presentments.
It is fairly clear, however, that the reeve and four men of every
vill were not summoned to the county court except to meet the
justices in eyre. It was only before them that systematic present-
ment of all the misdeeds of the county was made. This is implied
in the fact that the hundred was not represented at the ordinary
county court by twelve men, according to the terms of the Assize
80 It is to be remembered that not only was each vill represented by the
reeve, priest and six villains, but that each hundred was represented, as
Round has shown (Feudal England, 118), by eight men.
81 Charles Gross in Sel. Coroners’ Rolls, Selden Soc., Introd., p. xxxix.
82 See below, p. 113. Bracton, Rolls Ser., II, 281; Select Coroners’ Rolls
(Selden Soc.), passim.
83 See. 1.
84 It appears that this has sometimes escaped recognition. Cf. F. M.
Powicke in Magna Charta Commemoration Essays (Royal Histor. Soc), 112.
85 Sel. Pleas of the Crown, Selden Soe., I, no. 15.
104 University of California Publications in History |Vou. 14
of Clarendon, but often only by a reeve or some other indi-
vidual.*® Ordinarily the question whether a vill was represented
at the county court and how it was represented must have been
a mere matter of usage. |
How the men of the vills were assembled for the special busi-
ness of the royal pleas is shown by the mandates which from
the earlier years of King Henry III were sent to the sheriff
ordering him to assemble the county in an unusually full session
to meet the itinerant justices. The well-known writs issued on
these occasions*’ show that suit follows several principles. The
sheriff is to summon the prelates of his bailiwick, including
archbishops, bishops, and abbots; also the laymen who hold land
by feudal tenure, the earls, barons, and knights; also the libere
tenentes; also four law-worthy men and the reeve of each vill
and twelve law-worthy burghers of each borough. ‘It should be
added of course that the presence of twelve men from each
hundred to make presentment on such occasions was necessary.
The presence of a mixed body of knights, freeholders, and
villains at ordinary sessions of the county is today assumed.**
A lord might do suit by his steward, and presumably any free
man by his attorney, although the latter principle offers some
difficulty.®® It often seems to be taken for granted that the mag-
nates and greater personages of the county will not attend in
person. But in some counties holders of baronies actually did
suit at county court after county court.°° It was evidently this
procedure which gave to the bozones iwdiciorum their prominence
and importance.
8. OFFENSES INCLUDED IN THE SHERIFF’S PEACE
The ancient agenda of the county court appear to have had
little to do with criminal law. After the Norman Conquest there
was, apparently, more dependence upon this body for the main-
tenance of order. Glanville mentions a few minor offenses'*®
which regularly came before the sheriff. Of these certain thefts
are especially designated. At first sight this creates perplexity,
because theft appears in the assize rolls as a capital offense which
is tried before the justices. But a Gloucestershire case early in
the reign of Henry III offers a solution of the problem. But nothing in
the sheriff’s peace involved loss of life or limb, for only
pecuniary penalties followed conviction before his tribunal.
9. BUSINESS RELATING TO PLEAS OF THE CROWN
So far as pleas of the crown were concerned, proceedings in
the county court, at least from the time of Henry II, could be
only preliminary. From the year 1166 sheriffs were required to
see that presentment of serious offenses was made before them.
In the county court as well as in the tourn the sheriff might and
frequently did summon before himself the men of a hundred
and the men of four neighboring vills'*® for the purpose of this
inquest. This inquest was hardly systematic and general in the
county court as it was in the tourn of the hundreds or in the
session of the county held before the justices. Yet it is certain
that on some occasions there appeared in the county court crim-
inals, those who led them thither'*® and those who were, or
undertook to be, mainpernors for them.'*t Confessions were
sometimes made here, and suspected persons taken into custody
by the sheriff. A curious grant of King John to the county of
137 Pleas for County of Gloucester, no. 20.
138 Bracton, De Legibus, Rolls Ser., II, 540-542.
139... . cum presenctones Corone facere fuerunt in comitatu per quattuor
villas propinquiores et per quattuor homines cujuslibet ville si plenarie non
venerint amerciantur in comitatu cum solummodo deberent amerciart coram
justictis itinerantibus et sic duplicem habent penam (Rotuli Hundredorum,
II, 29). Cf. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1247-1258, pp. 607-608, and below, pp. 199, 200.
140 Rotuli Hundredorum, II, 116.
141 Sel. Coroners’ Rolls, 34. Below, pp. 158, 159.
114 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14
Devon specified that prisoners were to be admitted to pledge by
counsel of the county court, so they might not be detained any
longer through the hatred or exaction of the sheriff.14?
Crime, however, was regularly prosecuted in the county court
by the old-time process of private accusation, technically known
as appeal.'** This was a slow and troublesome procedure because
it required pledges for prosecution't and the attendance of the
accuser session by session. If the prosecution broke down he was
hable,**® but at the same time the defendant was allowed until
the fourth session to appear. In the time of the writer of Britton
the nearest of kin still prosecuted, and their right of action lasted
a year anda day. The plaintiff at the county court who wished
to begin his plaint had to find two pledges to prosecute.**® Of
the two matters for which a woman might make such appeal
against a man, a wrong or violence done her or the death of her
husband, there are many recorded instances.***7 Appeals of
felony might be sued in the county court, so it would appear,
as late as the Stuart period.‘*® Wounds were exhibited before
the assembled county**® as also before the hundred. Knights
were sometimes sent on complaint to view wounds and ascertain
the seriousness of the offense involved. Appeals of wounding
and beating, or of mayhem, arson, and theft, were made in con-
siderable numbers.?°° A man might wage duel in the county
"142 Rotuli Chartarum, I, 1382; Cartae Antiquae, Pub. Rec. Office, 10, no. 4.
143 See cases which appear below, pp. 153-156, 165.
144 Sel. Coroners’ Rolls, p. 22.
145 Britton, ed. Nichols, I, 109-110.
146 Northumberland Assize Rolls, 365. For making a false appeal one
might be imprisoned (ibid., 367). After 1285 the appellor in a felony case
was liable to a year’s imprisonment if the person he accused was acquitted
in the king’s court (Statutes of the Realm, I, 81).
147 Below, pp. 154-156, 165. See Select Coroners’ Rolls (Selden Soe.),
64-65, for the exact words of such an appeal.
148 Dalton, Office and Authority of Sheriffs (1700), p. 25.
149 Sel. Pleas of the Crown, Selden Soc., I, no. 4. Pleas for Gloucester,
no. 434; Select Bills in Eyre no. 97 (here a woman is conveyed in a eart to
the court so her injury may be seen) ; Bracton (Rolls Ser.), I1, 288-290.
150 Below, p. 155.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 1D
court against his accuser.‘°' A fair amount of detail concerning
eriminal affairs which was recorded by the coroners to be pre-
sented before the itinerant justices for final action bore on
matters that had come out in the county court.
Pleas of the crown were from the time of Richard I preserved
on the coroners’ roll. Proceedings
under the writ of right were instituted in the county court and
ordinarily continued there,'** unless the matter was settled by the
grand assize. Thus the procedure of essoins explained by Glan-
ville was effective in the county courts.18’ If a warrantor was
called in the county court, however, it had no power to summon
him without the king’s writ.18* The transfer of certain inquests
to the king’s courts was avoided as late as the first years of
Edward III by the action de frisca forcia, or fresh force, which
- was pleaded before the sheriff, but in the same form as novel
disseisin. This was permitted in the time of Edward I in some
regions because of their distance from the king’s courts and
because the tenements of many were not sufficient to Te their
seeking the usual writ.1*®
Associated also with the idea that it was the king’s affair to
protect seisin was the fact that fugitive villains were still claimed
in the county court with their goods and sequels, though only in
pursuance of the appropriate writ.’°° But if the defendant
denied his villainage and obtained the writ de libertate probanda
the case was removed to the king’s court.**t The county court
which undertook to pass upon the question of freedom might
184 Greenwood, County Judicatures (1668), 5, 39; Dalton, Office of
Sheriff (1700), 4138, 424. Cf. Glanville, IX, 9-10, for early use of this writ.
185 Bracton, De Legibus, V, 90.
186 Bracton, De Legibus, Rolls Ser., V, 96, 98.
187 [bid., V, 100.
188 [bid., 100.
189 Rotult Hundredorum, II, 28; Inquisitions Miscellaneous, I, 380-381.
Cf. Pollock and Maitland, ie 644,
190 De nativis: Glanville, I, 4; ef. V, 1.
191 Three Northumberland nate Rolls, Surtees Soc., p. 159; Britton, ed
Nichols, I, 201.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 121
be rebuked by the justices through the infliction of a collective
amercement.'?”
_By virtue of the king’s writ obtained by the injured party
the sheriff was authorized also to hear and determine many com-
plaints concerning nuisances,!®? and encroachments. Britton
shows that about 1290 various kinds of encroachments were
determined not as assizes but as nuisances by sheriffs in county
courts. He names encroachments of curtilage upon common,
weirs, watering-places for cattle, erection of gates, folds, cow-
houses, windmills, ovens, or sheepeotes.'®* Nuisances and minor
disseisins were thus disposed of under writs of Justicies.°%° By
virtue of this writ, also, sheriffs took cognizance of other personal
actions such as torts in contracts, as when a covenant was broken,
also concerning account or the enforcement of a reasonable aid
levied by the king in either of the three customary feudal cases.1%°
Some cases of distress, as shown above, were also heard in the
eounty court by writ.'%
11. THE SHERIFF AS THE KING’S JUSTICE
With some pleas held by the sheriff in the county court it is
clear that the suitors of the county generally had nothing to do.
It has been suggested that when land cases were tried by duel in
the time of Henry I the sheriff was regarded as sitting in a king’s
ecourt.19® In certain matters committed to him by writ he was
held in Bracton’s time’? to act vice tpsius regis, not as sheriff
192 Three Northumberland Assize Rolls, Surtees Soc., p. 197.
193 Bracton, Rolls Ser., III, 564.
194 Britton, ed. Nichols, I, 278-279. Bracton (note 178) names others.
Glanville (IX, 13) deals with encroachments upon the king’s tenements and
royal highways, all of which are pleas of the crown.
195 Britton, I, 407.
196 [bid., I, 176.
197 This might be removed by writ into the king’s bench, because it
involved breach of the peace (ibid., I, 136).
198 George B. Adams in American Historical Review, VIII, 488-489.
199 De Legibus, Rolls Ser., II, 542.
122 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14
but as justitiarius regis. In practically all these matters, how-
ever, no judgment was necessary, as when by special direction
a jury was sworn, an inquest held, an extent or a partition of
lands made. Many inquests the sheriff was specifically ordered
to take in pleno comitatu,?°° and was even charged with the duty
of determining the guilt of an accused person here by the verdict
of a jury.*°' He was held also to act ut justitiarius when he
terminated a plea concerning the taking and unjust detention of
beasts.*°? In enforcing the assize of bread and beer and that of
false measures he also acted as the king’s immediate agent,”
and this was likewise true when, along with the coroner, he took
attachments against the advent of the king’s justices. With the
exception of the plea of distress, and the possible exception of the
enforcement of the two assizes mentioned, these affairs could call
for no action on the part of the court as a whole. Publicity and
the ease of finding jurors there explain the motives for directing
that they be transacted in the monthly session.
12. COUNTY COURT PROCEDURE
The law of the county and hundred courts was based upon the
folkright which survived from Anglo-Saxon times. Process
and forms of pleading and proof in the county assembly repre-
sented archaic usage existing long before the king’s courts came
into being. The new writ process and the disposal of matters by
jury inquest were externals which appeared here only by the
king’s special order placing the sheriff temporarily in loco
qusticiari.
The normal method of instituting proceedings in the county
court, whether in a civil or a criminal matter, was by oral
200 See below, pp. 165-166. He might not cause a freeman to take oath
before him without the king’s writ (Northumberland Assizge Roll, 352).
201 Below, p. 166.
202 Above, p. 119; Bracton, De Legibus (ed. Twiss), II, 244, 248.
203 Bracton, De Legibus, II, 542.
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 128
plaint*** according to a formula including certain words, the
complainant being required to produce two sureties for his
prosecution of the ease.2°° The sheriff then set a day for him to
appear”®® and if necessary days for subsequent appearance. He
then had to come term after term prepared to prosecute. The
defendant in most matters was not in default if he appeared at
the third session of the court.?°7 There were possible, moreover,
essolns in case of the bed sickness of one of the parties, which
would postpone matters for a year and a day, and for lesser
periods in case of detention in the king’s service, or temporary
sickness in traveling to the court.?°®> The court was lenient in
granting further delays, so far as one may judge.?°° As the
greater causes disappear from the county court the rules con-
cerning default seem to be relaxed. When the defendant
appeared and was duly accused it was then incumbent on the
court, if he defended the case, to specify what proof he must
offer?’° and to fix a time when he should make such proof.
The information which Maitland collected enabled him to
picture the plaintiff and the defendant placed opposite each
other in court. The former began by taking the foreoath. He
then told his tale, making his charge according to a formula
204 For the form used in the sixteenth century see Dalton, Office and
Authority of Sheriffs (1700), p. 428.
205 Above, p. 113; also p. 154. See Bracton, De Legibus (Rolls Ser.), II,
425, for appeals in criminal cases. In the Hyre of Kent, 1313-14 (Selden
Soc.), I, 107, a county was amerced because by award of the county court
a married woman was to find sureties for herself alone apart from her
husband.
206 Bracton’s Note Book, ed. Maitland, no. 445; ef. Hssays in Anglo-
Saxon Law (Boston, 1876), p. 284.
207 Even when appealed of breach of king’s peace (Northumberland
Assize Rolls, 104-105).
208 Glanville, I, 19-29. For instances in the county court, Bracton’s
Note Book, nos. 1019, 1052. According to the Provisions of Westminster
(cap. 20: Statutes of the Realm, I, 10) no man was to be obliged to swear
in the county court or elsewhere for the warranting of his essoin.
209 Thus a case concerning the taking of horses as gage was before the
county court a year and a half before an accusation of crime was made
(Pleas of Crown for Gloucester, ed. Maitland, no. 99).
210 Pollock and Maitland, Hist. of English Law, II, 610.
124 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14
which required him to pay strict heed to the words he used.”"
If he complained of a felony he had to do so in specific words.
If he used words declaring that the offense was a breach of the
king’s peace, the preliminary hearing might continue, but the
disposal of the matter rested with the king’s justices.7‘? Simi-
larly the use of the word bloodwite in some pleadings in a
manorial court concerning wounds and bloodshed would remove
the cause into the county court.?!* Again, if the complainant
omitted certain words the prosecution broke down.?!4 To make
it effective he had to produce a number of witnesses (secta) who
would by a formularistie oath support what he said.?*®
The defendant then entered a denial of the charge, unless he
wished to confess, and offered to defend the case in such manner
as the court might direct. If the case was triable in the county
and he was permitted to make wager of law, he usually had to
produce a certain number of oath helpers to swear with him.?"®
Thus the primary method of offering proof in old English law,
that of providing the required number of persons of a specified
quality to support the principal’s oath, still existed in local
courts.*‘* Ordeals probably were not employed very generally
in the county court which had so little to do with criminal
offenses, but the ordeals of hot and cold water necessarily dis-
appeared from local, as well as from the king’s courts as a result
of the decree of the Lateran Council of 1215. The Norman
211 [bid., II, 604-605.
212 Bracton, De Legibus, II, 540.
213 Pollock and Maitland, I, 580, note 1.
214 [bid., I, 605.
215 [bid., II, 605-607. In criminal cases in which the hue had been
raised the plaintiff might depend upon the bailiff or the coroners to support
his charges (Bracton, De Legibus, II, 425).
216 Pollock and Maitland, II, 600-601, 607-609.
217 When an action was brought against a man upon a simple contract
without deed or record, the defendant swore in presence of his compurgators
that he owed nothing (Northumberland Assize Rolls, 429). The Norman
rule was that the Frenchman accused by the Englishman made oath se sexto
(Libermann, Gesetze, I, 559).
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 125
method of proof by duel still flourished.*'* The showing of one’s
wounds in the presence of the coroner in the county court would
establish the commission of a manifest crime and would probably
deprive the accused of the advantage of proof by compurgation
when the case came to be tried by the justices. In 1280 King Edward and his council decreed
that when the men of Westmoreland ought to be amerced the
amercement should be taxed in full county by good and lawful
men as ought to be done by the Statute and not at the will of
the sheriff and his bailiffs.224 The enactment to which allusion
is made is part of the first Statute of Westminster. This pro-
vides that certain amercements imposed in the king’s courts are
no longer to be assessed unjustly by sheriffs, but are to be
assessed before the justices by the oath of knights and other |
honest men.?”° In the county court as at the eyre it thus appears
that a special board of affeerers was appointed. Glanville**® says
that there is no fixed schedule of amercements in the county
court, but that in some counties the amount is greater and in
others less.
The few records of such amercements which have been pre-
served??? throw a valuable sidelight on occurrences in the county
court. The specific cases are in many instances the same as those
for which the justices impose amercement. They suggest that
the latter adopted much of the law which had been enforced in
the local tribunals. The person who fails to come, the person
who does not prosecute the claim he has made or prosecutes a
claim shown to be false, the person who withdraws himself or
does not produce the one he has pledged, all are amereed. So is
the hundred which fails to present crime,?** or makes false pre-
222 Stubbs, Select Charters, 384.
223 Register of Worcester Priory, Camden Soe., p. 161b.
224 Cal. Close Rolls, 1279-88, p. 109.
225 Anno 1275, cap. 18.
- 226 TX, 10.
227 Below, pp. 197-228.
228 Below, pp. 198, 200.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 127
sentment, and the vill which fails to appear when required. In
this last instance the four men and the reeve have apparently
been delinquent. In some instances sheriffs unjustly amerced
vills which did not turn out generally for a coroner’s inquest
or similar business even when a sufficient number did attend.?*°
Sums were also levied for default in a given cause, for refusal
to accept the law wagered, for debt, or contempt or trespass, for
the withdrawal of one’s essoiner sine die, for failure to come
to an inquest as summoned, for causing unjust distraint or
unjust detention or unjustly seizing animals, for raising the hue
wrongfully. Bailiffs who failed in their duty were also amereed.
The sheriff like the justices also granted privileges in return
for fines which were promised. Sums are thus recorded as due
for having respite, for relaxation of law waged, for having
inquest, for license to make concord, to be placed at bail, to have
warrant of essoin, to have grace or a dies amoris, and even for
having an attorney or relaxation of essoins or for suit of county.
Jews also agreed to make payments pro besantio,”*° that is to say
a poundage to the crown of ten per cent on property which they
recovered in the king’s courts.
These perquisites of the county court from Anglo-Saxon times
formed an important element in royal finance, for along with
those of the hundred they constituted an integral part of the
revenues for which the sheriff paid his annual ferm of the shire.
When it is seen that for a single session of the county court of
Yorkshire in 1258 and 1259 the amounts levied range from six
to twenty pounds,?*! an idea may be gained of the considerable
sums thus derived. Presumably the money thus levied was due
immediately, for in the decade between 1280 and 1290 the day
after the county court, otherwise called the retrocomitatus, 1s
mentioned as a time for the:collection of the denarw Regis.?*°
229 Stubbs, Charters, 385; Cam, Studies in the Hundred Rolls, 161.
230 Below, p. 228.
231 See below, pp. 224-229.
232 Second Statute of Westminster, cap. 39, Statutes of the Realm, I, 90;
Fleta, liber II, cap. 67, sec. 18; also below, no. 3.
128 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14
14. THE COUNTY COURT AS A COURT OF RECORD
The county assembly was of course much older than the use
of judicial records. Proceedings were normally instituted by
plaint and not by writ. Dependence was placed upon the memory
of the suitors who were present to attest the validity of what was
done. In the technical sense the county court in this popular
aspect could be no court of record. But from the standpoint of
the king’s business the situation was different. The distinetion
between the people’s county court and the king’s county court
was so clear to Bracton that for some purposes he regarded the
sheriff presiding over the assembled county as the king’s justice.
Fleta, following this distinction, set up a curiously inconsistent
theory regarding record of proceedings held at the king’s
instance. Although from one point of view, so he held, the
sheriff was merely the king’s bailiff who presided over his court
baron for the county, yet he also acted as justice, jurisdiction
being delegated to him by writs through which there was
record.”°? The chancery writ was obviously an official record of
what the sheriff was told to do, not of proceedings in the county
eourt. The earliest case in which proceedings here were actually
embodied in a record for use by the king’s agents was the well-
known one under which, as a preliminary to a review in the
king’s courts of action taken in the county assembly, the sheriff
was ordered to have a recordum made. This in the beginning
was of course merely an oral account agreed to by the suitors as
a correct version of proceedings formerly held in their pres-
ence.?** It was transmitted by four or six knights of the shire
deputed for the purpose?*®> who recited before the justices the
233 Fleta, II, cap. 43.
234 Cf. Rigg, Cal. Plea Rolls Exchequer of the Jews, II, 125 126.
235 Glanville, VIII, 10; Sel. Pleas of the Crown (Selden Soce.), no. 115.
According to Bracton (De Legibus, II, 504) twelve men besides representa-
tives of the four neighboring vills were employed in transmitting the record
when one man accused another of crime.
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 129
story as the suitors had agreed upon it. But by the time of
Bracton, the recordwm in some instances was a written account.
The writ ordering the sheriff to have it taken might now direct
that it be sent up under the sheriff’s seal?** and that of the
coroners by two men who had a part in making it. As a matter
of fact the roll kept by the coroner which recorded appeals in
the county court and other matters relating to pleas of the
crown was considerably older than Bracton’s time. As early as
the reign of King John it was regarded by the king’s justices
as having authority superior to that of the word of the men of
the county.*°* The memoranda made by the sheriff for his own
use had no official standing. Though he was required by the
second Statute of Westminster to keep a roll which paralleled
that of the coroners, their record, so it has been shown,?** had
superior validity. The notes which the sheriff was keeping in
the thirteenth century concerning amercements in the county
court’** were of course merely to aid him in collection. It seems
probable that this was the origin of the county court roll now
known to have been kept in some instances in the fourteenth
eentury,”*° but which so far as the judges or other royal officials
were concerned had no legal standing. So in the seventeenth
century, despite the obvious activity of a county clerk, the county
court was held by lawyers to be a court of record only from the
point of view of the time-worn methods for acquainting the
king’s justices with what went on there.*** The county court
from the thirteenth century on labored under some obvious dis-
abilities in civil suits because it was not a court of record.?*”
236 Bracton, De Legibus, Rolls Ser., II, 504. Bracton’s Note Book, case
no. 243, shows a recordum reduced to writing as early as 1227.
237 Select Pleas of the Crown, Selden Soe., no. 62.
238 Gross, Select Coroners’ Rolls, Selden Soc., pp. XxXvi-xxvii.
239 Below, pp. 197-228.
240 Below, pp. 181-197.
241 Dalton (Office of Sheriff, ed. 1700, p. 407) holds that the sheriff’s
court by writs of Justicies and De Nativo habendo does not become a court
of record but for matters relating to outlawry it does (ibid., 405; ef. p. 442).
242 See Statutes of the Realm, I, 72, cap. 2.
130 Unversity of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14
15. THE REMOVAL OF CAUSES TO THE KING’S COURTS
It is a maxim of Britton?** that whatsoever may be pleaded
in the county court may also be pleaded in the eyre of the jus-
tices. It need hardly be added that many causes also found
their way to Westminster. When a defendant placed himself
on the grand assize, trial in the county court of course became
impossible, but a day was given and the matter was called in due
course at the next session. Proceedings in the county formally
ended when the tenant produced a writ of peace which in form
prohibited the sheriff from holding the plea in the county
court.*** If the suitors of the county awarded battle and it was
joined contrary to the common law and the common usages of
the realm, the folly of the award was reason for removal of the
plea,?*° and the amercement of the suitors before the justices in
such cases followed as a matter of course. But aside from special
cases, there was a regular procedure by which causes might be
removed from the jurisdiction of the sheriff and into that of the
justices. This was sometimes done on petition of the plaintiff
without assigning any reason.?*°
The best known process for the attainment of this end was
through the writ Pone, by which the sheriff was directed to place
before the justices at a given time a matter already before him
by writ.247 No cause was stated in the body of the writ, but
according to Britton cause ought not to be allowed the tenant
until it had been tried in full county court by his oath and that
of two cojurors.248 In some cases the writ seems to have been
243 Britton, Nichols ed., I, 133.
244 Bracton, De Legibus, Rolls Ser., V, 102-104; Britton, ed. Nichols, I,
335.
245 Britton, ed. Nichols, I, 338.
246 [bid., I, 336; ef. the writ below, p. 168.
247 Below, p. 168; cf. Glanville, VI, 7, and Bracton, De Legibus, Rolls
Ser... Viel10,
248 Britton, ed Nichols, I, 338.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 131
accompanied by another requiring that record of the proceedings
in the county court be made and sent before the justices.?4° But
the writ de recordo was issued after a party to a case had pro-
cured a writ de falso iudicio and came to be regarded itself as
a means of calling up matters from the county court.?°° The
chancery records by the time of Edward I show also a kindred
process under the writ certiorari by which the sheriff is ordered
to certify super recordo proceedings in a certain matter and does
so as a return endorsed upon the writ.?°! A person against whom
a criminal accusation was lodged in the county court might at the
next session have the matter transferred to the court of king’s
bench upon presentation of a writ of venire facias.?*?
When the defendant in a civil issue was in the king’s service
it was possible to obtain a writ somewhat like the writ of peace,
postponing action in the county court to a specified date.?°*
There also appears in the earlier years of the reign of Henry III
a writ form used still earlier, prohibiting the sheriff within a
specified time from holding certain pleas, which during that
period may be heard only before the king or his chief justiciar.?°*
16. ADMINISTRATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE COUNTY COURT
When compared with the judicial side of county activity
the administrative is more intangible. Unlike the former it is
not treated in legal works, and precise knowledge of it must rest
on specific cases often hidden away in obscure recesses. More-
249 Bracton, Note Book, no. 445: breve Domini Regis de ponenda loquela
in bancum et de recordo ibidem faciendo.
250 In the seventeenth century the writ Pone was used to bring up pro-
ceedings before the sheriff under writ of Justicies, the writ de Recordo
to call up matters brought into the county court originally by plaint only
and not by writ (Greenwood, Bouletherion or County Judicatures, ed. 3,
London, 1668), pp. 56—59.
251 Below, p. 169.
252 Inquisitions Miscellaneous, Chancery I, no. 1423.
253 As in Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III, 1227-1231, p. 535.
254 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, I, 428; ef. 431. .
132 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14
over, its bearing upon government was often but indirect, and its
significance secondary and auxiliary. Its initiative, again, was
usually strictly circumscribed. In the matter of electing officials
and representatives of the shire the sheriff called upon the
assembled suitors to act only when the king’s writ commanded
him to do so. The medieval English king looked with disfavor
upon any project to raise money in a community without the
royal authority, unless such levy were of direct advantage to the
erown. With extremely few exceptions the known eases of
administrative action in the medieval county court rest upon
the specific warrant of royal writ. Yet this body was of
immense service in administration. Popular interest in the
announcements, enactments, and proclamations here given pub-
heity must have been far keener than that in all the judicial
proceedings of any given session. Finally, the electoral practice
and procedure here evolved, as occasional demand arose, is of
enormous importance in Anglo-Saxon institutional life.
17. FISCAL BUSINESS
The function of the county court in relation to taxation
always appears in the records as an auxiliary one. Never did
the kings of England, like those of France in the fourteenth cen-
tury, raise revenues by the sanction of provincial assemblies.
The work of the county court had to do with the details of the
levies enforced by central assemblies. In the reign of Henry I
prelates were permitted to give pledge in the county court of
Berkshire regarding their lands which were exempt from Dane-
geld.25> The most important activity of the thirteenth-century
county court bearing on taxation was the choice of taxors and
the completion of other arrangements directed by writ to effect
the levy and collection of the grant made the king by the council
or the parliament. It has already been shown that in the earlier
255 Chronicon Monasterti de Abingdon, Rolls Series, II, 160.
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 133
decades of the century such business sometimes required the
assembling of the county in special session.?°® Direct levies of
revenue at the instance of the court seem to have been of very
rare occurrence. A levy to repair certain bridges is mentioned
as resting upon the county even in the time of Edward I,?*" but
it is very doubtful if at that time such a levy could be made
without authority conveyed by writ. The case discovered by
Maitland, in which an abbot was authorized, apparently by a
county court, to build a bridge and to take tolls in return,?*®
belongs to the reign of John.
Yet action taken in the county court might indirectly
authorize levies upon the county. When the county of Cornwall
agreed to pay King John a fine for disafforesting the county,?°°
and when this and some other counties of the southwest agreed
to pay this king or his son sums for the privilege of choosing
their own sheriffs,?°° they were really authorizing a levy upon
the lands of the suitors of their respective county courts. All
amercements levied upon the county and fines made by the
county with the king for any purpose7*! of course had the same
effect. So had an error in the fulfillment of their judicial duties,
except that the sum levied in this case was in the nature of a
penalty and not the result of a voluntary grant.
Another occurrence in the county court of advantage to
the king’s exchequer was the holding by the sheriff of inquests
to provide information concerning the king’s fiscal interests.
This of course was done only in obedience to royal writ. The
usage, aS old as Domesday Book, is perpetuated throughout the
period of the present study.”** In the strict sense it represents
256 Above, p. 96.
257 Assize Roll 664, m. 51.
258 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, I, 555.
259 Lit. Claus., I, 478.
260 Madox, Hachequer, I, 508 note (n).
261 As in Close Rolls, 1234-37, p. 83; 1247-51, p. 447; Pollock and Mait-
land, Hist. of English Law (1899), I, 536.
262 See below, p. 170.
134 Unwersity of California Publications in History [Vou.14
a function of the sheriff rather than of the county. But since he
was directed to hold such inquests in the county court because
of the obvious advantage both of publicity and of ease in finding
jurors who knew the facts, it is apparent that the assemblage in
a real sense contributed to the end in view.
18. THE ORDAINING IMPULSE
It seems that the county court of the middle ages tended to
assume a power, like that sometimes exercised later by the court
leet,?°* of making certain general regulations through present-
ment on the part of a representative jury. Counties, moreover,
followed shghtly different customs in matters like presentment
of Englshry, the amount of amercements to be levied in certain
instances,”** and the length of the interval between their sessions.
A famous instance of a peculiar usage respecting amercements
had grown up in Herefordshire in Norman days.*® Any popular
body which enforced law might thus follow peculiar usages
which had all the effect of small-scale legislation. Thus, when
women brewers were permitted to brew and sell contrary to assize
for but one amercement a year, the county court was in effect
leensing such conduct. In 1280 the king and his council forbade
that this be permitted any longer by the county court of West-
moreland.?°°
Another instance which occurred in 1269 shows a county
court going much farther than the enforcement of peculiar local
usage or what might be termed a rule of the court. In that year
it was deemed necessary to make local regulations for the pro-
tection of salmon in the county of Northumberland. The inci-
263 Cf. the writer’s Frankpledge System, 166, note 1.
264 Glanville, IX, 10.
265 William Fitz Osbern made a rule that no knight was to incur an
amercement of more than seven shillings although elsewhere the amount was
twenty and twenty-five shillings (Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, Rolls Ser., II,
314).
266'Cal. Close Rolls, 1279-80, p. 110.
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 135
dent is well known,?* though some of its attendant circumstances
have escaped attention. How the matter was initiated is not
stated, but the process of enactment was upon presentment before
the itinerant justices of articles made by the jury of twelve which
on such occasions represented the county as a whole.?** This
piece of legislation established a closed season for the fish and
nominated wardens of the waters of the county who in ease
vacancies occurred were to be replaced by others selected by and
sworn in before the sheriff. A penalty of a mark was established
for violation of the provisions of the ordinance establishing a
closed season for salmon, and those who remained delinquent
after conviction were to be sent to the king’s prison and not
replevied except by consent of the wardens. These arrangements
made by unanimous consent of the knights and freemen of the
county were to be binding until the next eyre when they might
be altered with the consent of the county court.
This whole transaction shows the county court greatly desir-
ing legislation in this particular matter, but not permitted to
enact it without the consent of the justices. Theirs it was to
enforce the existing usage of the county. Infraction would be
brought to their attention by jury presentment and visited with
amercement. So long as the general eyre was continued it seems
clear that the enactment or virtual enactment of new by-laws or
ordinances in the county court could take place only through
their participation and cognizance. Their influence checked the
earlier trend toward a diversity in county usage which might
have grown into a local legislative power and which in some ways
seems to illustrate the rise at an earlier time of the legislative
function of the tribal assembly. Just what happened in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries it would be interesting to
know. It is notable that the justices of the peace exercised such
a quasi-legislative power in the eighteenth century.?®
267 Pollock and Maitland, Hist. of English Law, I, 555.
268 Northumberland Assize Rolls, Surtees Soc., p. 208-209.
269 Webb, English Local Government: Parish and County, 533-550.
136 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14
19. ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLICITY
A very important purpose attained through the county
assembly was to convey to the suitors necessary information con-
cerning public affairs. This function was an ancient one, dating
from before the Norman conquest. Not only did the men of the
county thus become familiar with new enactment and new obliga-
tion as fixed by statute or proclamation, but they gained much
information concerning local as well as royal business. The
educative effect of inquests, of presentments concerning crown
interests and of arrangements to aid in taxation were by no means
confined to those who were designated as jurors or taxors. In
some sense all who heard even the reading of the king’s writs
were initiated into the mysteries of public affairs. Especially
was this true when the royal mandate was fulfilled by some
specific act on the part of the whole body. Publicity attained
through the county assembly familiarized people generally with
the methods and requirements of the king’s government. More-
over, it served as a safeguard against maladministration by
acquainting the men of the county with orders issued to the
sheriffs, with writs to be executed, with the exact detail as to
taxes to be levied, military service to be performed, or other
requirements to be met.
The protection of popular interests was in some measure
furthered also through the installation in. the county court of
certain officials. A statute of Edward II declares that writs are
to be served only by hundredors sworn and known of all in the
county ecourt.?”° This practice of administering the oath of office
publicly to the bailiffs appointed by the sheriff is mentioned still
earlier, in the reign of Edward I.*' Bailiffs of franchises, whose
duty it was to collect estreats or serve writs sent them by the
270 Statutes of the Realm, I, 175.
271 Assize Roll 982, mm. 22, 23, shows this usage in 1280.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 137
sheriff, were sometimes sworn here.?7?. This was done also in the
case of some officials elected in the county court, particularly
coroners*’* and escheators.?** The abbot of Evesham in the reign
of Henry III entered into an agreement with a sheriff by which
he was to designate in the county court those who collected
within his liberty the estreats and summonses of the exchequer.?”®
The king’s writs often directed sheriffs to have a specific act
of government read in pleno comitatu. These documents included
various charters and royal grants.?"° Charters of feoffment seem
to fall among these, in conformity with a usage older than
Domesday Book?" by which seisin of lands granted by the king
was made before the men of the county. The charter of liberties
issued by Henry I?7® as well as the Magna Charta of 1217?°
and some of its successors**° were read in the county courts. At
least two statutes of Edward I were promulgated in the same
way.”*! In 1300 sheriffs were ordered to have the Charter of
Liberties and the Charter of the Forest read four times a year in
pleno comitatu.**? The Statute of Carlisle, passed in 1307, con-
tains a provision requiring that it be recited in all its articles
in two county courts. This method of placing new legislation in
272 Below, p. 172. In Gloucestershire (Feudal Aids, II, 23) the earl had
a bailiff juratum vicecomiti who responded for certain summonses. In the
seventeenth century it was the duty of the sheriff to nominate an under-
sheriff and deputies in the first county after he assumed office: Dalton, The
Office and Authority of Sheriffs (1700), p. 19.
273 Sel. Coroners’ Rolls, Selden Soc., p. xx.
274 Close Roll 65, m. 17, Public Record Office. So apparently verderers
(Close Rolls, 1231-34, p. 50).
275 Below, p. 172.
276 As in Close Rolls, 1227-31, p. 392.
277 Domesday Book, I, 36.
278 Proceedings of Royal Historical Society, n.s., VIII, 22; English
Histor. Rev., XXVIII, 444-445.
279 Foedera, I, 147; English Histor. Rev., XVIII, 449-450. Mr. Poole
believes the document was proclaimed, not read.
280 Close Rolls, 1234-37, pp. 421, 541.
281 Close Rolls, 1288-96, p. 380; Stats. of the Realm, I, 152.
282 Foedera, I, 919.
138 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14
effect was probably more regular and systematic than the scat-
tered references would imply, for it dated from the Anglo-Saxon
period.?*?
Proclamations were also made before the county assembly,
although these were in many instances made by eriers in other
public places. Among the proclamations announced before the
assembled counties were those calling out the tenants-in-chief for
military service*** or requiring persons holding forty librates of
land in fee to receive knighthood.?*> An order that certain
persons be summoned to appear before the king’s council was
sometimes announced in the same way.?**® Proclamations in the
county court regarding the coinage and matters bearing upon
the collection of the king’s debts?** show how the process was
employed as an essential step in administration. In the Angevin
period the sheriff was required to perform some acts publicly
in the county court to escape personal lability. Thus he was
lable if the summoners whom he appointed failed to execute the
king’s writ unless he had publicly enjoined them to do so in the
county court.?** He was also required before he permitted the
tenant-in-chief to settle directly with the exchequer to receive
here his pledge that he would make due satisfaction for the debt
he owed the king.?°? |
Publicity attained through the county court was also ex-
tremely useful in the transaction of judicial preliminaries and
affairs of private concern. A person who had sued out a writ at
the exchequer sometimes presented it to the sheriff to be read
out.*°° The second statute of Westminster specified that the
283 English Historical Review, XXVIII, 425.
284 As in Report on Dignity of a Peer, III, 10.
285 Parliamentary Writs, I, 257.
286 Dugdale, Summons of the Nobility, 3.
287 Below, pp. 175-177.
288 Glanville, I, 30.
289 Dialogus de Scaccario, Oxford ed., p. 151.
290 K. R. Memoranda Roll 74, m. 27, records proceedings in the exchequer
in the case of a false writ presented to the sheriff in full county court.
1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 139
trickery of sheriffs might be overcome by the presentation of
writs in pleno comitatu.?®! Before the writ of mesne became
effective the sheriff was required by the same statute to cause it
to be proclaimed solemnly in two sessions so that the mesne lord
might come at the day set in the writ to answer his tenants.”
The sheriff of Westmoreland in 1254 was ordered to have read
in the county court the letters of protection obtained by an
abbot.?°? Furthermore, the execution of a private grant of land?
and the reading of a deed?’ are mentioned as items in the agenda
of this body. ._In John’s time a law writer says that he who
wishes to free his serf is to hand him by the right hand to the
sheriff in pleno comitatu.2°°
20. ELECTIONS
Upon the sheriff in the county court was enjoined by writ the
duty of holding various elections. To a few counties John and
Henry III granted as a special privilege the right of electing the
sheriff, and Edward I made this optional for a brief period by a
provision of the Articula supra Cartas. Directions concerning
the election of sheriffs in the time of King Edward were sent to
the coroners of the county. But when other officers were con-
cerned the regular procedeure was by writ to the sheriff ordering
him to cause election to be made. One of the earliest forms of
election in the county court was that of four knights of the
county who designated in each hundred two knights to fill up the
list of jurors to make presentments before the itinerant justices.
291 Cap. 39.
292 Stat. of the Realm, I, 78 (cap. 9). This is described as a judicial
writ directed to the sheriff ordering him to distrain the mesne to acquit the
tenant and to appear in court to show cause why he had not done so before.
(Year Books, Edward II, Selden Soc., XVI, 77, and note 4.)
293 See below, p. 174.
294 Ancient Charters, Pipe Roll Soc., X, 73.
295 See below, p. 174.
296 Liebermann, Gesetze, I, 491 (15:1).
140 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14
Dating from 1194,?*" this procedure was continued throughout
the next century, although the election in the time of Britton
is Shown to be nothing but presentment by the bailiff.2°* Accord-
ing to the Magna Charta of 1215?°° four knights of each county
were to be chosen per comitatum to aid assigned justices in
taking the possessory assizes, and twelve knights were to be chosen
in each county per probos homines ejusdem comitatus to inquire
into the evil usages of local officials. Moreover, the sheriff caused
to be chosen reguarders, twelve in each reguard,*°° who per-
formed the function of presentment jurors before the justices of
the forest. The verderers, assigned to guard the king’s venison
in each forest, were regularly thus elected, at least after 1219.*°*
Stubbs shows®” also that conservators of the peace were some-
times elected, and in the years just before the Barons’ War the
election of an escheator in pleno comitatu is occasionally ordered
by the king’s writ.°°°
The election of coroners in the county court is far better
known. When this is first mentioned, in 1194, four were to be
chosen in each county.*°* After 1219 vacancies in the office as
they occurred were filled by the king’s writ to the sheriff direct-
ing that he cause election to be made in full county court by
assent of the whole county.*°® King Edward I, who insisted that
coroners must have lands in the county,*** in letters close of the
297 Stubbs, Sel. Charters, 259.
298 As in Assize Rolls, 135, m. 1; 669, m. 16; 600, m. 13; 915, m. 1; 982,
m. 29.
299 Sees. 18, 48.
300 Royal Letters of Henry III, Rolls Ser., I, 345.
301 Lit. Claus., I, 409, 493, 529; Close Rolls, 1231-34, p. 50; ibid., 1272—
79, p. 145.
302 Constnl. Hist., II, 239.
303 Below, p. 179.
304 Stubbs, Sel. Charters, 260, sec. 20.
305 Lit. Claus., I, 402, 409, 414; Close Rolls, 1231-34, p. 7. Apparently
this was sometimes done before the king’s justices (Sel. Coroners’ Rolls,
PwAXEVIL)s . .
306 Cal. Close Rolls, 1279-88, p. 443.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 141
year 1304 to the sheriff of Northumberland complains of a report
that he has spared the rich men who have lands and elected as
coroner a certain William of Tynemouth who has none. Because
the king regards William as insufficient for the office he orders
the sheriff, if William has no lands, to remove him from office
without delay and cause another to be elected in his place.*°”? The
incident, like the contested election of sheriff for Shropshire and
Staffordshire, which oceurred at practically the same time, seems
to show the attitude of the chancery in this period toward county
elections.
Interest in the election of the knights of the shire, which
appears later than the other forms, has tended to obscure these,
and the influence which they must have had in determining the
method by which the county representatives in parliament should
be chosen. There is no definite reference to elections in the
county court in John’s time, if allowance be made for the rather
obvious exception of the selection of a sheriff of Devon. The
principle was already known. The various groups of persons
whom the king desired to convene, however, including the four
disereet men from each county in 1213, he merely directed the
sheriff to send. The first clear case of the choice of men in
county courts to speak for the county at large in any matter is
a well-known one which was ordered in 1226°°° and carried out
the next year. A contention having arisen over the interpre-
tation of the charter of liberties between the men of some of the
counties and their sheriffs in matters relating to the replevin of
averia, the magnates of the realm at Winchester petitioned the
king to terminate the matter. The sheriffs of the counties in
question were accordingly commanded by the king’s writ to
cause the animals to be replevined for the time being and in the
next county court speak to the knights and probit homines of
307 [bid., 1302-07, 226.
308 Cf. Stubbs, Constitutional History, II, 218; Rot. Litt. Claus., II, 212,
213.
142 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14
the bailiwick that they choose from among themselves four law-
worthy and discreet knights who at an appointed day should
appear pro toto comitatu to set forth their differences with the
sheriff.°°° All this certainly implies that sheriffs did not control
elections in county courts at the time and that there was an
expression of the wishes of the assembled suitors.*4° But the
selection of the coroner on some occasions seems to have been
dominated by the sheriff, and the aim in electing the four knights
who controlled the nomination of presentment juries for the
eyre was presumably to remove the matter from his hands.
The election for the first time in 1254 of knights in all the
shires to appear in parliament at Westminster and make a grant
to the king was a more general application of the procedure and
principles of 1226. It is possible that for a time sheriffs desig-
nated the parliamentary knights. Except in 1264%" there is no
conclusive proof that they were again elected to any parlia-
ment*!? prior to the second parliament of the year 1275. The
knights who came pro conmunitatibus with full power??® to the
parliaments of January 1283 were probably so chosen. Election
to successive parliaments was of course the rule.
309 Report on Dignity of a Peer, App. I, p. 4; Stubbs, Sel. Charters, 357.
310 The Magna Charta of 1215 (sec. 48) directs the election per probos
homines comitatus of twelve knights to inquire into evil customs to be
abolished. Among these were customs of the sheriffs. Cf. Rot. Litt. Pat.,
I, 145.
311 Stubbs, Sel. Charters, 412; Rymer, Foedera, I, 442.
312 For the writs of 1261 and 1265, Report on the Dignity of a Peer,
App. I, 23, 34; Stubbs, Sel. Charters, 405, 415. The words in the writ for
the Easter parliament of 1275 are venire facias instead of elegi facias (Eng.
Hist. Rev., XXV, 234, 236). For the summons to the autumn parliament of
1275 calling for election de assensu ejusdem mesh Stubbs, Constnl.
Hist. 11, 234, n. 15.
313 Report on Dignity of a Peer, App. I, 46; Stubbs, Sel. Charters, 465.
1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 143
21. CONCLUSION
The Anglo-Saxon shiremote was in a very real sense the
cornerstone of the English legal system. Both before and for a
long time after the Norman conquest it was the most important
court of general jurisdiction, thé great channel through which
flowed the stream of folkright descending from the past. Its
main function is usually supposed to have been the determination
of right in civil causes, yet its retention of outlawry and of a
minor criminal jurisdiction in Glanville’s day, after the more
important causes had gone to the king’s court, is a reminder
that the criminal causes heard before the sheriff at an earlier
time were far from unimportant, and included pleas of the
erown.*'4 The employment of the county assembly as a regular
forum for private accusation in criminal causes comes naturally
out of its past history. Its use thus as an accessory to the
work of the king’s justices after 1166 was apparently the main
factor in making the monthly rather than the semiannual session
the regular order. Presentment of Englishry must have been
made before the sheriff in this tribunal in the Norman period
no less than in the thirteenth century. The infliction of the
murdrum upon the hundred must originally have occurred here.
This seems to be the only appropriate body for the purpose, and
the eyre of the justices at which it occurred in the days of written
records was held as a session of the county. The same facts
appear to associate the Norman sheriff in the county court with
the enforcement of the duties of the frankpledge tithing. Even
in the thirteenth century the county assembly might inflict
amercement on lesser units of the county, the hundred or the
814 In the reign of Henry I certain of the later pleas of the crown were
obviously tried before this body. It was important to the maintenance of the
king’s peace (Liebermann, Gesetze, I, 524, sec. 4). Moreover obstructions
upon certain highways and waters were offenses sub lege comitatus (Leges
Edwardi Confessoris, 12.9 ff.).
144 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14
vill, for failure to appear and fulfill their duties. But although
it continues to be an important accessory to the work of the
king’s justices, from the time of Henry II to that of Edward I
they took over its actual judicial business with the exception of
that which belonged to its civil jurisdiction in minor causes.
This remnant, despite the assurance of various writers concern-
ing its insignificance, was carefully preserved until almost our
own day. It might be enlarged by the simple process of procur-
ing at the chancery certain writs of course.
The administrative importance of the county court has been
quite as much underestimated as has its legal importance. Its
administrative functions have usually been subordinated to the
concept of its importance in the history of democracy. More- |
over, administrative data bearing upon it are widely scattered in
the records, and a single case does not create the impression
made by the multiplicity of cases which may be traced in legal
records. But a study of the administrative work of the county
court in the thirteenth century shows an initiative practically
limited to those cases in which a chancery writ authorized the
sheriff to take action. If this assembly aided in the details of
taxation when so directed only after the parliament or the great
council had voted the tax, yet in the county court resided the
power to make engagements which had the effect of imposing
levies upon the lands of the county. To be sure, this appears
more frequently in the time of King John than in that of King
Edward. One may still entertain suspicions as to what went on
in the time of Flambard and William Rufus. Yet, so far as law
and usage go, the county court was not a body which possessed
powers of taxation. Furthermore, despite occasional instances
of legislative activity on the part of local assemblies in the Anglo-
Saxon period, the county court of the thirteenth century might
enact by-laws only by indirect methods and with the assent of
the king’s justices. As a medium of publicity for the king’s
1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 145
acts and proclamations this body had greater administrative
importance than constitutional history has taken into account.
Such matters as the enforcement of regulations concerning the
coinage and the collection of information about sums collected,
but not acquitted at the exchequer, by sheriffs were dependent
upon the proclamation made before this body and elsewhere. Its
usefulness as a medium of publicity and a place for the instal-
lation of local officials requires attention which it has never
received, and its extensive activity and experience as an electoral
body prior to the period when it regularly chose the parlia-
mentary knights of the shire demands renewed emphasis.
Although in the treatment of the county court it has been
customary to sacrifice much to the genesis of electoral usages,
yet the actual and potential democracy of the shiremote of the
thirteenth century has not been carefully enough considered.
General acceptance of the fact that attendance was not confined
to specific social classes is recent. It demands a corresponding
enlargement of ideas concerning the influence of this body upon
the political education of Englishmen. Despite some stiff con-
temporary assertion of aristocratic principles concerning the
weight of influence of knights, freeholders, and the upper class
of suitors generally in elections and judgments in the county
court, a good many villains not only attended but so actively
participated that they shared legal responsibility for judgments
rendered. There was a commingling and at least some coopera-
tion of classes which, quite aside from questions concerning the
actual influence of knights, freeholders, and magnates, lies at the
root of Anglo-Saxon self-government. The king’s business was
transacted and his acts of government promulgated in the pres-
ence of all. To this extent all alike shared in the information
imparted and the proclamation made. The mere presence of
men of the lower classes on so important and interesting an
occasion was the greatest of all steps in their political education.
146 University of California Publications in History [Vou 14
To be sure, not all the villains of the county were in attendance,
probably only a very small number. But neither were all the
freeholders and knights in attendance. Only the demands of
nineteenth-century democracy have reached out for all and have
insisted on making electoral qualifications consistent and uni-
form. Generations before this had been accomplished English-
men of all classes had learned to work together and self-gov-
ernment had been attained. Within the limited range of its
attendance the county court was in practical effect a more demo-
cratic body than either historians have supposed or the usage of
procedure has revealed.
' PART II
ILLUSTRATIVE DOCUMENTS
A. MISCELLANEOUS CountTy CourT DOCUMENTS
1. SUCCESSIVE SESSIONS OF THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, 1295
Et ad comitatum Midd’ tentum apud Braynford die jovis
. proxima ante festum sancte Petronille virginis' anno predicti
regis nuper regis Anglie xxij?? Thoma Pouton Adam Purdy
Thoma Lyggere alias dictus Thoma Passeware et Johannes
Shepherd de Ievulchestre ad sectam Thome Gondgrome de
placito quod dicti Thoma Pouton et Adam reddant ei xvij li.
Et de placito quod dicti Thoma Lyggere et Johannes reddant
el xvij li. primo exacti fuerunt et non comparuerunt. Et ad comi-
tatum Midd’ tentum apud Crucem lapideam die jovis proxima
post festum nativitatis sancti Johannes Baptiste? anno predicti
nuper regis xxllij° predicti Thoma Adam Thoma et Johannes ad
sectam predicti Thome Gondgrome de placito predicto secundo
exacti fuerunt et non comparuerunt. Et ad comitatum Midd’
tentum apud Braynford die jovis proxima ante festum sancti
Jacobi apostoli? anno xxiij° supradicto predicte Thoma Adam
Thoma et Johannes ad sectam predicti Thome Gondgrome de
placito predicto tertio exacti fuerunt et non comparuerunt. Et
ad comitatum Midd’ tentum apud Crucem lapideam die jovis
proxima ante festum Sancti Bartholmei apostoli* anno xxuj°
supradicto predicti Thoma Adam Thoma et Johannes ad sectam
predicti Thome Gondgrome de placito predicto quarto exacti
fuerunt et non comparuerunt set manucapti fuerunt per Adam
1 May 27,1294. 2June 30,1295. 3July 21,1295. 4 Aug. 18, 1295.
150 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou 14
Tye veniendum ad proximum comitatum. Et ad comitatum
Midd’ tentum apud Braynford die jovis proxima ante festum
Sancti Mathei’ apostoli anno xxiij° supradicto predicti Thoma
Adam Thoma et Johannes ad sectam predicti Thome Gondgrome
de placito predicto quinto exacti fuerunt et non comparuerunt.
Ideo utlagati fuerunt. Coroners’ Roll 256, m. 29.
2. SUCCESSIVE SESSIONS OF THE COUNTY COURT OF
LINCOLNSHIRE,? 1345
Ad comitatum Lincoln’ tento apud Lincoln’ die lune proxima
post festum annunciationis beate Mariae* anno regni regis
Edwardi tertii post conquestum Anglie decimo nono. Johannes
atte Geldhons et ceteri primo exacti non comparuerunt.
Ad comitatum Lincoln’ tento apud Lincoln’ die lune proxima
post festum Sancti Johannis ante portam Latinam proximo
sequens secundo* exacti non comparuerunt.
Ad comitatum Lincoln’ tento apud Lincoln’ die lune proximas
[sic] post festum Sancti Botolphi’ proximo sequens tertio exacti
non comparuerunt.
Ad comitatum Lincoln’ tento apud Lincoln’ die lune proxima
post in festo Sancti Petri ad vincula® proximo sequenti quarto
exacti non comparuerunt.
Ad comitatum Lincoln’ tento apud Lincoln’ die lune proxima
post festum natale beate Marie’ proximo sequens quinto exacti
ut Supra.
Coroners’ Roll 256, m. 8.
1 Sept. 15, 1295.
2In the MS. this is a continuation of no. 14, which appears on pages
159-160.
3 Mar. 28, 1345.
4May 9.
5 June 20.
6 Aug. 1.
7 Sept. 12.
;
,
3
|
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court (teal
3. MENTION OF THE SHIRE HALL AND THE RETROCOMITATUS,
1289-1293
Thomas Spicer queritur de Roberto Corbet quondam vice-
comite Salop et Roberto de Norwyco subvicecomite eiusdem
comitatus de eo quod ipsi simul cum Nicholao de Waleshale et
Henrico de Wolverhampton post transfretationem domini Regis
nune in Vasconiam in ipsum Thomam in regia via apud Stafford’
per perceptum predicti vicecomitis insultum fecerunt et ipsum
vereberaverunt et maletractaverunt et traxerunt per capillos in
aulam ubi tenent comitatum in eadem villa et ipsum imprison-
averunt ibidem quousque deliberatus fuit per ballios eiusdem
ville contra pacem domini Regis unde dicit deterioratus est et
dampnum habet ad valentiam decem librorum ete.
Et Robertus et Robertus veniunt et Robertus de Norwyco
dicit quod cum ipsi colligerunt denarios domini Regis in retro
comitatu suo apud Stafford’ audivit utesium levatum in eadem
villa propter quod ivit ibidem et vidit predictum Thomam
extraxisse cultellum suum volendo percussisse quosdam homines et
cum idem Robertus voluit eum empedire idem Thomas iniecit in
eum manus violenter ob quam transgresionem duxit eum coram
vicecomite in predicta aula et fecit eum ibidem arestari quous-
que invenit plegios emendandi predictam transgressionem et
hoe paratus est verificare sicut curia considerabit.
' Assize Roll 541 A, m. 20.
4. DESIGNATION OF THE PLACE FOR HOLDING THE COUNTY
COURT OF SURREY, 1262
Rex vicecomiti Surr’ salutem. Cum dudum ad melioracion
ville nostre de Guldeford per cartam nostram concesserimus
probis hominibus eiusdem ville et eorum heredibus quod
comitatus noster Surr’ imperpetuum teneatur in eadem villa de
152 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14
Guldeford et quod justiciarii nostri itinerantes ad communia
placita in comitatu predicto quotiens ipsos itinerare contigerit,
sedeant et teneant placita illa in eadem villa de toto comitatu
predicto, et nos nuper iter justiciariorum nostrorum summoneri
fecimus quod esset apud Bermundiseye ad diem quem iidem
justiciarii nostri tibi scire fecerint eo quod non recolebamus con-
cessionis nostre predicte eisdem hominibus a nobis facte' volui-
mus nichilominus quod iter predictum quod coram justiciariis
nostris predictis jam summonitum est apud Bermundeseye sum-
moneatur quod sit coram eisdem apud Guldeford die predicto
et quod iidem justiciarii nostri ibidem sedeant et teneant placita
illa de toto comitatu predicto secundum tenorem carte nostre
supradicte ...
Teste Ph. Basset Justiciario Regis Anglie apud La Bruer
xxvij die Aug. Close Roll 78, m. 5 d.
5. RELIEF FROM SUIT OF COUNTY, 1254
Quia Sibilla Gifford est in servicio Regis cum hberis Regis
apud Windes[ores] mandatum est vicecomiti Berks quod ipsam
non distringat pro sectis comitatus vel hundredorum usque ad
Natale proximo venturum. Teste Ricardo comite cornubiae apud
St [rat] ford XXXll die Aug. Close Roll 67. m. 3
6. THE SETTING OF A DAY FOR HEARING PLAINTS, 1254
Inquisitio facta coram coronatoribus et vicecomite Herford’
per preceptum domini regis die Sabbati proxima ante festum
sancti hyllarii anno regni regis H[enrici| xxxix inter homines
hundredorum de Brockessesse et de Grimeswrosne ex una parte
et Willelmum de Sancto Omero ex altera per sacramentum
Rogeri de Herford?....qui dicunt per sacramentum suum
1 In the text the form is fce.
2 Eleven others are named.
1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 153
quod homines dictorum hundredorum solebant esse quietos [sic]
scilicet homines hundredi de Brockesesse pro xv marcis et
homines hundredi Grimeswroshe pro vill marcis pro omnibus
amercimentis ad turnum vicecomitis nec aliquid dare solebant
alicui vicecomiti post predictam [sic] finem communem levatam
nisi quod gratis dederunt nisi cum aliquis conqueretur de aliquo
forisfacto quod vicecomes posset placitare et tune vicecomes
solebat constituere ei diem ad comitatum et ibidem placitare.
Chancery Inquisitions Miscellaneous, file 9, number 12.
7. PRESENTMENT OF ENGLISHRY IN THE COUNTY COURT OF
SUSSEX, 1281
Totus comitatus predictus recordatur quod Engl|[ischeria]
presentatur in comitatu ista per unum ex parte patris et alium
ex parte matris et tantum de masculis occisis per feloniam et de
aliis qui sunt aetatis xii annorum et ultra et hoe in pleno
comitatu coram coronatoribus. Masse Rol 786, ma 1.
8. APPEALS IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WESTMORELAND, 1278
Westmerland anno septimo W. de Saram.
Placita corone apud appleby in comitatu Westmerl’ coram
J. de Vallibus et Willelmo de Saham et sociis suis ibidem itiner-
antibus in erastino Sancte Lucie Virginis anno Regni Regis
Edwardo Septimo.
Willelmus filius Rogeri de Thirneby occidit Johannem
Molendinarium de Heppe et statim fugit et malecreditur. Ideo
exigatur et utlagatur. Catalla ejus xxxiij s.ixd. Unde Rogerus
de Clifford et Rogerus de Leyburne heres Rogeri de Leyburn
respondent. Et quia predictus Rogerus superstes est et perdictus
Rogerus similiter et ceperunt predicta catalla sine warranto Ideo
in misericordia. Postea testatum est per rotulos coronatoris quod
154 University of California Publications in History |Vou. 14
Sibilla que fuit uxor Johannis apellavit in comitatu predictum
Willelmum de morte prédicta et non prosecuta fuit appellum
suum versus eum nisi ad tres comitatus. Ideo ipsa capiatur et
plegii sui de prosequendo in misericordia scilicet Lambertus de
Morlaund et Thomas filius Thome de Heppe. Postea venit pre-
dictus Willelmus et protulit cartam domini regis Henrici que
testatur quod dominus Henricus rex perdonavit ei sectam pacis
sue que ad ipsum pertinet de morte predicta. Ita tamen quod
stet recto si quis versus cum inde loqui voluerit. Et quia
solempniter proclamatum est si quis ete. Et nullus ete. Ideo.
conceditur ei firma pax et nichil de utlagaria.
Assize Roll 980, m. 30.
Mattillis filia Thome de Cellemere appelavit in comitatu
Alexandrum filium Thome Sutoris de Stukland de rapo et pace
domini regis fracta. Et Matillis obiit. Et juratores testantur
quod concordantes fuerunt. [deo ipse in misericordia. .. .
Dionisia filia Elie de Nateby appellavit in comitatu Henricum
filium Henrici de rapo et pace domini regis fracta, ete. Et
Dionisia et Henricus veniunt et conecordantes sunt. Ideo pre-
ceptum est vicecomiti quod custodiat. Et postea finem fecerunt
per xl denarios per plegium Thome de Newebigginge.
Cristina filia Custancie Textricis de Appelby appelavit in
ecomitatu Robertum de Braythwayt de rapo, ete. Et Cristina
obit. Et Robertus non venit et fuit attachiatus per Adam filium
Cristine de Hopp’ et Henricum de Hekedal. Ideo ipsi in
misericordia.
Agnes uxor Walteri Lungy appellavit in comitatu Rogerum
Fybel de morte Walteri viri sui etc. Et Agnes obit. Et juratores
dicunt super sacramentum suam quod predictum Rogerus male-
ereditur de morte predicta. Ideo exigatur et utlagetur. Nulla
habuit catalla. Ibid., m. 31, dorso.
1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court ie,
Sibilla filia Hugonis de Bello Campo appelavit in comitatu
Johannem de Karliolo filium Michaelis de Rokesburg Thomam
servientem Emme de Goldington Hagorem le Graunger Thomas
de Hebnet Willelmum le Taillur Thomam Nodle Robertum
fihum Hagonis pistoris Johannem fratrem suum Ricardum
filium Nicholai Bere Willelmum Toffe Albinum le Pelett’ Rober-
tum filum Willelmi Eliam Codling Willelmum Kempe et
Gilbertum fratrem ejus et roberia et pace domini Regis fracta
ete. Et Sibilla non venit. Ideo ipsa capiatur et plegii sui de
prosequendo in misericordia Hugo de Louther clericus et Hugo
de Bello Campo. Et Johannes et omnes alii veniunt. Et pro pace
domini regis observanda inquiratur rei veritas per patriam.
Et juratores dicunt super sacramentum suum quod non sunt
eulpabiles de roberia ete. set dicunt quod ipsi ceperunt quemdem
equum in villa de Colleby de predicta Sibilla quem equum ipsa
ceperat loco nami ete’ et non in roberia. Ideo ipsi inde quieti.
Assize Roll 982, m. 34.
9. APPEALS IN THE COUNTY COURT OF NOTTINGHAM, 1280
~Rogerus filius Henrici de Walkringham, Robertus filius
Henrici de eadem et Ricardus filius Henrici Mannore de Valk-
ringham appelaverunt in comitatu Thomam filium Ade Prat de
Kstretford, Adam Payn, Rogerum Cocum hominem Walteri
Prat, Adam filium Pagani de Retford de plagis verberaturis
et pace domini regis fracto ete’ idem appelaverunt in comitatu
Johannem Prat Robertum le Tanur’....de precepto et missione.
Et predicti Rogerus filius Henrici, Robertus filius Henrici et
Richardus non venerunt nee sequntur appella sua. Ideo ipsi
capiantur et plegii sui de prosequendi in misericordia. .. .
Willelmus Brock de Rampton appellavit in comitatu Johan-
nem filium Rogeri de Ecton, Willelmum Cocum de Tirewell et
1 And others named.
156 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14
Reynerum filium Galfridi Carpentarii de eadam de roberia
verberatura et pace domini regis fracta etc. Et ipse non venit
nee sequitur appellum suum. Ideo ipse capiatur et plegii sui
de prosequendo in misericordia. Scilicet Wallerus Clericus de
Rampton et Ricardus filius Galfridi de eadem. Et predicti
Johannes filus Rogeri et alii appelati non venerunt nee fuerunt
atachiati eo quod predictus Willelmus non sequebatur versus
eos nisi ad unicum comitatum ete. Et juratores dicunt quod
concordantes sunt et quod culpabiles sunt de verberatura et non
de roberia. Ideo ipsi in misericordia.
Matilda que fuit uxor Simonis de Clawrth appelavit in
comitatu Hugonem ad Aulam de eadem de hoe quod ipse fraude-
lentur et ad exhereditionem ipsius Matilde fieri fecit quandam
cartam nomine ipsius Matilde de uno tofto et quinque acris terre
in Schaftwrth. Et predictus Hugo non venit nec fuit attachiatus
eo quod ipsa non sequebatur versus ipsum nisi ad unicum comi-
tatum. Ideo ipsa capiatur et plegii sui de prosequendo in Miseri-
cordia, scilicet Johannes de Ragne in Everton et Johannes filius
Orth de eadem. Et juratores testantur quod predictus Hugo
obiit. Ideo nihil de plegiis predicte Matilde ete.
Assize Roll 669, m. 4.
10. PROCEEDINGS UPON AN APPEAL DH AVERIIS CAPTIIS,
TEMPORE, PROBABLY EDWARD I OR EDWARD II
Hee est causa quare averia’.... non fuerunt deliberata eo
quod cum Nicholaus praepositus de Poltimor veniret ad faldam
domini sui et eam inveniret apertam et triginta sex averia
inveniret ab ea fugata. Quique levavit clamorem cum ballivo
libertatis iurato et sequebatur vestigia predictorum averiorum
et invenit quemdam Ricardum Byale nomine predicta averia
fugantem super quem predictus Nicholaus statim levavit clam-
1Of six men named.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 157
orem. Qui quidem clamore prosecuto captus fuit cum predictis
averlis et adductus ad prisonam domini regis et ibidem impris-
onatus cum prefatis averiis. Tandem venerunt dictus?.... et
manuceperunt habere predictum Ricardum cum predictis averiis
ad proximum comitatum tune proximo sequentem per ballivum
et de iuri stando omnibus siquis versus eum prosequi voluerit.
Ad eundem comitatum venit dictus Nicholaus praepositus et
predictum Ricardum appellavit quod felonice et latrociniter
venit dictus Ricardus tali tempore et hora noctanter ad faldam
domini sui et averia illa furavit contra pacem domini regis.
Composita forma appelli predictus Nicholas petiit a manucap-
toribus visum predictorum averiorum. Qui quidem averia illa
statim prompta non habuerunt sed tandem triginta tria venire
fecerunt et tria averia inde de primo numero defecerunt unde
predicti manucaptores requisiti et examinati fuerunt quare com-
pletum numerum dictorum averiorum non habuerunt sicut
manuceperunt. Qui obiecerunt et dixerunt quod nisi tantum
triginta tria averia manuceperunt et de hoe posuerunt se inquisi-
tioni et sacramento custodis gaole qui eis averia illa deleberavit.
Capta inde inquisitione et per sacramentum dicti custodis gaole
eaptum in pleno comitatu et per dicam inter predictos manu-
eaptores et predictum custodem gaole de eisdem averius factam
manifestum et approbatum fuit quod predicti manucaptores
receperunt triginta sex averia per liberationem dicti custodis
gvaole que prius manuceperunt. Ideo per considerationem totius
comitatus consideratum fuit in pleno comitatu quod predicti
manucaptores distringerentur per captionem averiorum et deten-
tionem quousque fecerunt returnum predictorum trium aver-
lorum absentium super petitionem visus eorundem averiorum
in forma appelli. Et quia adhue predicta tria averia non
returnantur averia sua subscripta causa detinentur.
Chancery Miscellanea, bundle 96, file 1, Devon.
2 The six named
158 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14
11. CUSTOM IN WESTMORELAND REGARDING THE APPEARANCE
AND PLEDGING OF THE ACCUSED, 1278
Et quo ad hoe quod predicta communitas queritur quod ipse
vicecomes de feodo capere facit homines baronie predicte absque
rationabili causa et ipsos in prisona detinere quousque graves
redemptiones ab eis ceperit, dicit quod tempore Johannis regis
avi domini regis nune quo tenuit comitatum istum in manu sua
usitatum fuit quod si serviens juratus invenisset in baronia
predicta aliquem hominem suspectum de latrocino seu de alio
malefacto contra pacem bene liceret eidem servienti ipsum
attachiare quod veniret ad proximum comitatum postquam
ecaptus fuerat et ad tres comitatus post captionem illam se esso-
niare et ad quartum apparere et tune oportuit ipsum ponere se
in quatuor villas propinquiores loco ubi factum quod ei inpositum
fuerat fecisse debuisset et tune oportuit ipsum invenire plegios
veniendi ad proximum comitatum auditurum recognitionem
villarum predictarum. Et si aliquis sic captus per suspicionem
et veniendi ad comitatum plegios invenire non poterat tune
liceret servienti illi ipsum capere et ad prisonam ducere et
inprisonatum detinere usque ad deliberationem Gayole.
Assize Roll 982, m. 23 (7 Edward I).
12. MANUCAPTION IN THE COUNTY COURT, 1335
Adam de Hodesdon nuper indictatus in comitatu Midd. de
roberiis et pluribus feloniis qui postea de gratia domini regis
speciali habuit cartam domini regis de perdono venit in pleno
ecomitatu Midd. tento apud Braynford die Jovis proximo ante
festum Sancti Johannis Baptiste anno regni regis Edwardi tercii
a conquestu decimo ecoram Rogero de Thornhull vicecomite*
Tadenny this sheriff of Middlesex is an undersheriff. Roger de Thorn-
hill does not appear upon the lists as one of the two sheriffs of London and
Middlesex.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 159
Thoma Wyhot coronatore eiusdem comitatus et produxit sex
manicaptores virtute statuti ad ultimum parliamentum apud
Westmonasterium editi vidilecet Jahannem de Durem civem et
mercatorem London, Willilmum de Reygate de eadem, Johannem
le Mareschal de eadem, Johannem le Cotiller de eadem Radul-
phum de Drayton de eadem, et Johannem atte Hoo de eadem
qui manucaptores predicti Ade devenerunt et ipsum Adam
maniceperunt quod bene et fideliter in posterum se gererit. Et
ad hoe iidem manicaptores terras tenementa bona et catalla sua
ad quorumcumque manus devenerint obligarent domino regi et
super hoe sigilla sua apposuerunt quam manicaptionem vobis
Sud L0: Chancery Miscellanea, bundle 120, file 1.
13. ORDER TO PLACE OFFENDERS ON THE EXIGENT, 1252
Quia Rex accepit per inquisitionem quam coram eo fieri
praecepit quod Gregorius le Sumenur Robertus garcio eius
Nicholas filius capellani de Hardenuys, Willelmum filium
Sumoniris, Elyas de Wyntington Ricardus clericus de Whyt-
ineton Henricus de Berdelle interfecerunt priorem de Campania,
ita quod culpabalis sunt de mortis [sic] de prioris mandatum
est vicecomiti Hereford quod ipsos Gregorium Robertum et alios
interogari faciat in comitatu suo de comitatu in comitatum done
secundum consuetudinem terre Regis, utlagerentur.
Close Roll 65, m. 3 d.
14. ORDER TO PLACE AN OFFENDER ON THE EXIGENT, 1345
Rex vicecomiti Lincoln’ salutem precimus tibi quod exigi
facias Johannem atte Gildhous de Gretwell Rogerum Davy et
Willelmum Lytt de Grantham de comitatu in comitatum quousque
secundum legem et consuetudinem regni nostri Anglie utlagentur
si non comparuerint. Et si comparuerint tune capias Et salvo
160 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14
eustodiari facias. Ita quod habeas corpora eorum coram justic-
larlis nostris apud Westmonasterium in crastino Sancti Martini
ad respondendum Roberto Germyn de placito quare vi et armis
bona et catalla ipsius Roberti ad valenciam quadraginta
librarum de denarlis suis pecunia numerata apud Grantham
inventa ceperunt et asportaberunt et alia enormia ei intulerunt
ad grave dampnum ipsius Roberti et contra pacem nostram. Et
unde tu ipse mandasti justiciarlis nostris apud Westmonas-
terium a die Sancti Hillarii in xv dies quod predicti Johannes
Rogerus et Walterus non sunt inventi nee aliquid habent in
balliva tua per quod possunt attachiari. Et habeas ibi hoe breve.
Teste J. de Stonors apud Westmonasterium quarto die Februarii
anno regni nostri Angle decimo nono regni vero nostri Francia
‘
Nexto. Coroners’ Roll 256, m. 8.
15. THE PROCESS OF OUTLAWRY, 13411
Edwardus dei Gratia Rex Angle et Francie et dominus
hibernie vicecomiti Ebor’ Salutem. Cum nuper tibi preceper-
imus quod exigi faceres Willelmum de Crathorn de comitatu in
comitatum quousque secundum legem et consuetudinem regni
nostri Anglie utlagaretur, si non compareret, et si compareret
tune eum caperes et salvo in prisona nostra custodires, ita
quod haberes corpus ejus coram nobis in octabis purificationis
beate Marie proximo preteritis ubicumque tune essemus in
Anglia ad respondendum Petro Bagot de mahemio et pace nostra
fracta unde eum appellat. Tu nobis ad diem illam retornasti
quod ad comitatum Ebor’ tentum ibidem die lune proxima post
festum translationis Sancti Thome Martiris? anno regni nostri
Angli quintodecimo predictus Willelmus exactus fuit primo et
non comparuit. Et ad comitatum Ebor’ tentum ibidem die lune
proxima post festum assumptionis beate Marie*® anno predicto
1 See also nos. 1 and 2, above. 2July 8, 1341. 3 Aug. 19, 1341.
1926 ] Morris: The Karly English County Court 161
predictus Willelmus exactus fuit secundo et non comparuit. Et ad
comitatum Ebor’ tentum ibidem die lune proxima post festum
Sancti Michaelis* anno predicto predictus Willelmus exactus fuit
tertio et non comparuit. Et ad comitatum Ebor’ ibidem die lune
proxima post festum Sancti Martini’ anno predicto predictus
Willelmus exactus fuit quarto et non comparuit. Ac pro eo quod
idem Willelmus termino Sancti Michaelis anno regni nostri
Anglie quintodecimo venit in ecuria nostra coram nobis et
reddidet se prisone marescallie nostre occasione predicta et
invenit nobis sufficientem manucaptionem essendi ecoram nobis ad
prefatum terminum ad respondendum prefato Petro de mahemio
predicto et pace nostra fracta et quoddam breve nostrum de
Supersedendo sub testimonio dilecti et fidelis nostre Willelmi
Seot tibi inde pertulit per quod de exigendo predictum Willel-
mum ulterius ad aliquem comitatum omnino supersedisti prout
nobis ad prefatum terminum retornasti qui quidem Willelmus
ad diem illam coram nobis non venit. Et ideo tibi precipimus
quod allocatis predictis quatuor comitatibus ad quos predictus
Willelmus prius exactus fuit ulterius exigi facias eum de
comitatu in comitatum quousque secundum legem et consue-
tudinem regni nostre Anglie utlagetur si non comparuerit. Et
si comparuerit tune eum ecapias et salvo in prisona nostra
custodiri facias ita quod habeas corpus ejus coram nobis a die.
Pasche in tres septimanas ubicumque tune fuerimus in Angha
ad respondendum prefato Petro de mahemio predicto et pace
nostra fracta. Et habeas ibi hoe breve. Teste W. Scot apud
Lenn’ Episcopi xij die Februarii anno regni nostri Anglie sexto
decimo regni vero nostri Francie tertio.
Coroners’ Roll 211, m. 5.
4Sept. 30, 1341. 5 Nov, 18, 1341.
162 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14
16. AN ILLEGAL JUDGMENT OF OUTLAWRY, 1274
Ricardus Sharp Robertus Brond de Genge Johannes filius
Gregorii de Genge Johannes filius Henrici de Detheswyk Ric-
ardus Urri de Farnbergh Adam Burgeys de Brythwalton et
Johannes Tel de Lakyng simil fuerunt ad tabernam ad domum
ipsius Ricardi Sharp in Westlakyng et a taberna illa omnes
pariter in una societate recesserunt et cum ab inde recessi fuerunt
per procurationem predicti Ricardi Sharp ad eamdem tabernam
redierunt et ibidem invenerunt quendam Galfridum filium
Gunnilde et antiquo odio ipsum insultaverunt et ostia domus
ilhus taberne fregerunt et predictum Galfridum verberaverunt
et vulneraverunt unde statim obit. Et Ricardus et omnes alii
statim fugerunt. Primus inventor obit. Et compertum est per
rotulos Coronatoris quod quedam Gunnilda de Chadelesworth
que obiit appellavit in comitatu predictos Ricardum Sharp
Robertum Brond Johannem filium Gregorii Johannem filium
Henrici et Johannem Tel de morte predicti Galfridi filii sui et
sequebatur appellum suum versus eos ad duos comitatus et ad
secundum comitatum testatum fuit in pleno comitatu quod pre-
dicti Riecardus Sharp Robertus Brond et Johannes filius Gregorii
inprisonati fuerunt in custodia Henrici de Sottesbrok tune vice-
comitis et nichilominus per sectam predicte Gunnilde vocati
fuerunt simul cum predictis Johanne: filio Henrici et Johanne
Tel qui non venerunt et per totum comitatum dictum fuit pre-
dicte Gunnilde quod esset ad quartum comitatum versus omnes
predictos appellum suum prosecutura ad quem ipsa prosecuta
fuit appellum suum tam versus predictos Robertum Brond
Ricardum Sharp et Johannem filium Gregorii testatos in prisona
quam versus alios scilicet Johannem filiumt Henrici de Dethe-
swyk et Johannem Tel de Lakynkt. Et ad comitatum illum licet
predictus Ricardus Sharp extitisset in prisona manucaptus fuit
1Blank.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 163
per Walterum filium Rogeri habendum ad quintum comitatum.
Et predictus Johannes filius Henrici de Detheswyk manucaptus
fuit per Willelmum la Rede et predictus Johannes Tel manu-
captus fuit per Rogerum atte Tonesend habendum eos ad quin- |
tum comitatum. Et compertum est per rotulos coronatoris quod
predictus Robertus Brond qui testatus fuit in pleno comitatu
esse In prisona per considerationem comitatus utlagatus fuit.
Et quia predictus Robertus fuit in prisona ut in pleno comitatu
testatum fuit qui ad legem stare non potuit consideratum est
quod utlagaria de eo facta nulla. Et ad judicium de toto
comitatu. Assize Roll 48, m. 36, Berkshire.
17. ORDER FOR DECLARATION TO ANNUL OUTLAWRY, 1249
Quia constat Regi quod per surreptionem curie Regis pro-
cessum per iusticiarios Regis ultimo itinerantes ad_ placita
foreste in comitatu Wiltes’ ad utlagariam promulgamdam in
personas Henrici Trenchard et Willelmi de Wihitchurch famil-
larium Hugonis le Bigod pro transgressione venationis in
foresta de Melkesham quam quidem transgressionem eisdem
Henrico et Willelmo ad instantiam dicti Hugonis Rex remisit
Rex habito super hoe tractatu cum consilio suo decernit
utlagariam illam nullam esse. Et mandatum est vicecomiti
Wiltes’, quod in pleno comitatu suo dictam utlagariam nullam
esse denunciat et hoe per ballivam suam publice clamari faciat.
Close Roll 73, m. 9.
18. ACTION UPON AN APPEAL IN THE COUNTY COURT CONCERN-
ING STRIPES, MAYHEM AND BREACH OF THE PEACH, 1254
Rex vicecomiti Wygornie salutem. Ostensum est nobis ex
parte Ricardi Grisecote et aliorum hominum Episcopi Wygor-
nensis appellatorum in comitatu tuo de plagis, maemia et pace
164 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14
nostra fracta per Edward de Folton’ Willelmum fabrum
Willelmum Crote et Willelmum Cotimannum homines Willelmi
de Bellocampo de Elimeley quod non vis eapere ab eis salvos
plegios quod sint coram iusticiariis proximo itineraturis in
comitatu tuo ad standum recto super predicto appello nisi prius
se ponant in prisona nostra. Quia hoe contra consuetudinem
regni est quod aliquis appellatus de pace nostra fracta impris-
onetur nisi appellatus fuerit de morte hominis dum tamen salvos
plegios inveniat ad standum inde recto coram iusticiariis nostris
itinerantibus tibi praecipimus quod a quolibit praedictorum
appellatorum capias duos salvos plegios quod sint coram prae-
fatis iusticiaris ad standum recto super predicto appello et
plegiis illis receptis 1psos pro predicto appello non inprisones
set ipsos sub plevina illa usque adventum in comitatu tuo in pace
esse permittas. Et habeas ibi nomina plegiorum et hoc breve.
T. up supra per H. de Bath. Close Roll 67, m. 12 d.
19. ACTION UPON AN APPEAL CONCERNING OTHER
OFFENSES, 1262
Rex Viccecomiti Surr’ salutem. Quia Semannus le Keu de
gilingham appellatus per Robertum de Chisilford in comitatu
tuo de verberatione roberia et pace nostra infracta invenit nobis
Simonem Passelewe Robertum Northampt’ Alanum de Crepping
et Willelmum de Haxci plegios quon’ manuceperunt eundem
Semannum erit coram justiciarlis nostris ad primam assisam
cum in partes illas venerint ad standum recto de appello predicto
tibi precipimus quod appellum illud per plevinam predictam
ajornari facias coram justiciarlis predictis. Et dicas praefacto
Roberto quod tune sit ibi appellum illud versus praefatum
Semannum prosecuturus si voluerit. Et habeas ibi attachi-
amenta illius appelli et hoe breve. Teste ut supra. }
Close Roll 78, m. 5.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 165
20. A WOMAN’S APPEAL WITH PLEDGES FOR PROSECUTION, 1382
Ad placita comitatus Lincoln’ appellatio tenta apud Lincoln’
die Lune in septimana Pasche anno regni regis Ricardi secundi
quinto venit Isabella que fuit uxor Willelmi Gillyng de Barton
Scuith in propria persona sua et coram Willelmo de Belesby
vicecomite dicti comitatus et Petro Breton et sociis suis coronat-
oribus comitatus predicti et appellat Thomam Norays de Barowe
Thomam Bailly de Barowe et Willelmum de Birketon de Barowe
taillour de eo quod ipsi die Lune proximo post festum dominice
in ramis palmarum anno regni regis Ricardi predicti predicto
quemdam. Willelmum Gillyng de Barton virum suum apud
Barton felonice interfecerunt.
Plegii de appello Willelmus de Wrauby de Barton
suo prosequendo Johannes de Gayton de eadem.
Coroners’ Rolls, no. 83, m. 3 d.
21. AN INQUEST IN THE COUNTY COURT BY JUDICIAL ORDER,
BERKSHIRE EYRE, 1274
Et Hugo bene cognoscit quod predictum scriptum est serip-
tum predicti Radulphi fratris sui cuius heres ipse est set dicit
quod nichil habet per descensum hereditarium de terris et
tenementis que fuerunt predicti Radulphi in comitatu Surr’ nec
alibi. Et quod ita sit petit quod inquirat per patriam. Et
Walterus et Isabella similiter. Ideo preceptum est vicecomiti
Surr’ quod in pleno comitatu ete. diligenter inquirat si predictus
Hugo aliquid habeat in ballia sua de terris et tenementis que
fuerunt predicti Radulphi fratris sui per descensum heredi-
tarium sicut predicti Walterus et Isabella dicunt vel non sicut
predictus Hugo dicit ete. Quia tam etc. Et Inquisitionem inde
distincte et aperte factam scire facias iusticiarlis ete. apud
Oxoniam in Octabis Sancti Hillarii sub sigillo suo et sigillo
earum etc. Et concessum est hicinde ete. 4... Roy 48 mes
166 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14
22. AN INQUEST TO ASCERTAIN WHO HAS COMMITTED AN
OFFENSE, 1257
Mandatum est vicecomiti Notingham quod in pleno comitatu
suo et in presentia coronatorum diligenter inquirat per sacra-
mentum xii proborum et lhberorum hominum de comitatu suo
quo sunt illi qui verberaverunt et male tractaverunt Willelmum
de Langeford et Robertum de Bedeford ballivos suos et namia
capta rescusserunt de predictis W. et R. et habeat ete. coram ete.
‘in erastino Sancti Hillarii corpora omnium illorum quos fuerunt
culpabiles, per inquisitionem ete. et habeat breve.
Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Memoranda Roll 33, m. 3.
23. AN INQUEST TO DETERMINE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED, 1260
Q@uia rex accepit per inquisicionem quam vicecomes Wigor-
niae in pleno comitatu suo coram custodibus placitorum corone
regis elusdem comitatus fiere precepit quod Mattheus de Kancia
captus et detentus in prisona regis Wigorniae pro morte Thome
de Upton unde retatus est non est culpabilis de morte illa et
quod idem Thomas per infortunium interfecit se ipsum, et quod
idem Matheus non est captus ob aliam causam nisi pro eo quod
fuit in societate predicti Thome quando interfecit se ipsum et
quia Nicholaus Levenoth de Newenton Johannes de Tovecester
Willelmus de Warnedale Thomas filius Roberti de Newenton,
Elias de Pecce, Nicholaus de Newenton de comitatu Kanciae
et Petrus filius Rogeri de parochia Sancti Dunstani London’
Petrus de Wodestret’ de London’ Mattheus de Kingeston Albertus
de Chaumpeneys, Willelmus filus Rogeri London’, Walterus de
Clare de civitate regis London’ manuceperunt habere predictum
Mattheum coram iusticiis proximo itineraturis in comitatu
Wigorniae ad standum inde recto si quis versus eum inde loqui
voluerit, mandatum est vicecomiti quod predictum Mattheum a
prisona predicta sine dilatione deliberet sicut predictum est.
Close Rolls 75, m. 13.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 167
24. PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO THE GRAND ASSIZE, 1285
Egregio principi domino Edwardo dei gratia regi Angliae
domino Hiberniae et duci Aquitaniae suus devotus clericus
Robertus de Scadeburg Salutem in eo per quem reges regnant
et soli principatus aptissime gubernantur. Sciat vestre domina-
cionis excellentia quod ad mandatum vestrum Matildem que fuit
uxor Thome de Moleton de Gileslande adiuvi et ab ea quesivi
utrum se posuerit in magnam assisam versus Johannem de
Steyngreve in loquela que est in comitatu Ebor. per breve
vestrum de recto inter predictum Johannem petentem et ipsam
Matildem defore[iatam] de manerio de Thurgramby eum perti-
nentilis exceptis undecim toftis duodecim bovatis et triginta et
Sex acras terre in eodem manerio que respondit modo quod in
ulterior! comitatu comitatus predicti videlicet die Lune in
Crastino Sancti Martini anno regni tertiodecimo ipsa per
Ricardum de Brivell attornatum suum in eadem loquela pro eo
quod propter impotenciam suam tune ibidem personaliter non
potuerunt interesse se posuit versus predictum Johannem in
magnam assisam vestram et petiit recognicionem inde fieri inter
eos, maius ius habeat in manerio predicto exceptis hiis que
superius excipiuntur videlicet eidem Matildi sic ut modo tenet
retinendo vel predictus Johannes sicut exigit recuperando.
Quaesivi etiam verum bellum inter eos inde vadiatum esset.
Chancery Miscellanea, Writs and Returns, bundle 136, file 1.
25. ORDER RESPITING ACTION UPON A CASE IN THE COUNTY
COURT, 1254
Mandatum est? Kane quod loquelam que est in comitatu suo
per breve regis inter L. Roffensem episcopum et Ballivum H.
Cautuariensis Archiepiscopi de Otteford de capcione averiorum
eiusdem episcopi ponat in respectum usque ad proximum comi-
tatum suum. Ita quod loquela illa tune sit in eodem statu in quo
nunc est. Teste ut supra per reginam et cons[ilium].
Close Roll 67 Me ee
1 Sic. The word vicecomiti is omitted. pie ok (San
168 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14
26. THE WRIT PONE, 1260, 1292
Edwardus Rex Angliae Dominus Hiberniae et Dux Aqui-
taniae vicecomiti Lincolnie salutem. Pone ad peticionem petentis
coram justiciarlis nostris apud Westmonasterium a die Pasche
in tres septimanas loquelam que est in comitatu tuo per breve
nostrum inter abbatern de Seleby et priorem de Thornholm de
debito mille librarum quod idem abbas a prefato priore exigit.
Et summone per bonos summonitores predictum priorem quod
tune sit ibi prefato abbati inde responsurus. Et habeas ibi hoe
breve et aliud breve. Teste me ipso apud Waverle xi die
Februarii anno regni nostri vicesimot Wyk.
[In dorso] :? sum$
Johnes cant de Redburn
Regn le Veer de eadem
Chancery Miscellanea 138, Writs and Returns, 19-20, Edward I.
Pro Galfrido de Insula. Rex vicecomiti Berkes’ salutem.
Pone coram iusticiis nostris apud Westmonasterium in Octabis
Sancti Hillarii loquelam que est in comitatu tuo per breve
nostrum de recto inter Filiciam filiam Walteri Godefrey Petrum
et Galfridum de Insula tenentes de una virgata terre cum pertin-
enciis in Westeote. Et dic prefate Felice quod tune sit ibi
loquelam suam versus praefatum Galfridum inde prosecutura
si voluerit. Et habeas ibi hoe breve. Teste Rege apud West-
monasterium xvi die Julii. Quia predicta Felicia impetravit
breve suum postquam idem Galfridus iter arripuit versus
Bononiam causa studii ut sic ipsum in absentia sua per defaltam
inciperet per consilium. Close Roll 73, m. 12 a (1260).
1 Feb. 11, 1292.
2 The sheriff ’s return on the back of the writ.
3 The summoners to serve notice on the abbot.
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 169
27. WRITS OF CERTIORARI WITH RETURN, 1306, 1319
Edwardus dei gratia rex Angliae dominus Hiberniae et dux
Aquitaniae vicecomitibus et coronatoribus London’ salutem.
Quia quibusdam |[certis de] causis certiorari volumus super
recordo et processu eulusdam utlagarie in Willelmum Payn in
hustengo nostro London’ nuper promulgate ut dicitur vobis pre-
cipimus quod recordu et processu utlagarie predicte cum omnibus
ea tangentibus nobis sub sigillis vestris sine dilatione mittatis et
hoe breve. T. meipso apud Deverlacum xxii die Julii anno regni
nostri tricesimo quarto.
[In dorso] :7
Willelmus Payn utlagatus est in hustengo London’ pro diver-
sis transgressionibus de quibus coram rege in London’ nuper fuit
indictatus, et hoe ego Petrus? Malorre sub sigillo meo vobis
testificor quia coronatores de indictamentis ete. nichil habent.
Chancery Miscellanea, bundle 109, file 1, no. 7, London, tempore
Edward I.
Edwardus Dei gratia Rex Anglie Dominus Hibernie et dux
Aquitaniae vicecomiti Salopie et coronatoribus ejuisdem comi-
tatus salutem. Quia quibusdam certis de causis certiorari
volumus super recordo et processu ultagariae in Willelmum
Shirreve in comitatu predicto ut dicitur promulgate, vobis pre-
cipimus quod recordum et processum utlagarie predicte cum
omnibus ea tangentibus nobis sub sigillo vestris distincte et
aperte sine dilatione mittatis et hoc breve. Teste meipso apud
Eboracum xvi die Aprilis anno regni nostri duodecimo Kelm.
[In dorso]: Per cancellarium.? Scrutatis rotulis nostris
nullum recordum seu processum utlagarie promulgate in Willel-
1 The sheriff ’s return, written lengthwise on the back of the writ.
2 Not on printed list of sheriffs.
3 In this case the return is endorsed upon the writ not by the sheriff but
by a chancery official.
170 University of Califorma Publications in History (Vou. 14
mum Shirreve invenimus tempore nostro set notorium est quod
anno regni E. patris nune xxxi° predictus Willelmus indictatus
fuit et utlagatus pro morte Willelmi Boult qui eum interficiebat
in villa de Fytes in comitatu predicto. Robertus de Grendon
est vicecomes, Chancery Miscellanea, bundle 128, file 2, Salop.
28. INQUEST CONCERNING THE PROPERTY OF A ROYAL WARD,
JUNE, 1258
Quia rex accepit per inquisicionem quam per vicecomitem
Cumberland’ in pleno comitatu suo fieri Rex praecepit et per
legitimam probacionem quam per sacrum tam. militum quam
aliorum lbrorum et legitimorum hominum coram rege, Rex .-
recepit quod Walterus de Wyeton qui aliquando fuit in eustodia
regis est propinquior heres Edwardi de Wygeton patris sui, et
quod idem Walterus est legitime aetatis regis cepit homagium
suum de omnibus terris et tenementis que praedictus Edwardus
pater suus tenuit de Rege in capite in Ballia sua et de quibus
idem Edwardus fuit seisitus in diminico suo ut de feodo die que
obit et que occasione mortis sue capta fuerint in manu regis
plenum seisinam habere facias. Close Roll 73, m. 6.
29, INQUEST CONCERNINNG PAYMENT OF A DEBT DUE THE
KING, 1263
Mandatum est custodi pacis in comitatu Hereford et Ricardo
de Baginden’ quod in pleno comitatu ete. par sacramentum xi
ete. diligenter inquirant si Johannes de Balim solvit Emerico de
Cancellis dum idem Emericus fuit vicecomes regis in comitatu
predicto iii) li. et xiiis. de debito Walteri de Balim fratris sui.
Et inquisicionem ete. habeant ad seaccarium in erastino Sancti
Andreae sub sigillo ete. Et interim pacem predicto alteri de
predictis denariis.
Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Memoranda Roll 38, m. 1 d.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court lal
30. INQUEST CONCERNING VARIOUS DEBTS PAID TO
SHERIFFS, 1271
Preceptum est vicecomiti! quod in pleno comitatu et in
presencia coronatorum eiusdem comitatus per sacramentum ete.
de eodem comitatu per quos ete. diligenter inquirat que debita
Regis Willelmus de Bykkele Johannes de Mucegros Simon de
Gringham Radulphum de Esse et alii vicecomites regis aut eorum
ballivi receperunt a diversis debitoribus regis tempore quo
fuerunt vicecomites regis in eodem comitatu que adhue veniunt
sibi in scaccarium regis et a quibus debitoribus et quibus occa-
sionibus eadem debita receperunt. Et distringat predictos Willel-
mum, Simonem, Johannem et Radulfum ae alios et eorum
ballivos quos per eandem inquisitionem invenerit de predictis
debitis aliquid recipere aut eorum heredes si qui mortui fuerint
per terras et catalla sua. Ita quod eos habeat coram baronibus
ete. in crastino Sancti Nicholai ad respondendum Regi de hujus-
modi debitis receptis. Et scire faciat omnibus debitoribus illis
qui proferunt tallias contra predictos vicecomites et eorum
ballivos de hujusmodi debitis sibi solutis quod tune sint coram
Baronibus predictis cum taliis suis per duos vel tres attornatos
quos ad hoe coram dicto vicecomite attornare voluerint et quos
recipiat ad prosequendum loquelam suam versus predictos recep-
tores. Et interim, eisdem debitoribus pacem habere permittat
ete. Et Amerciamenta ete. Et habeat tune predictam inquisi-
tionem ete et nomina predictorum attornatorum.
Eodem modo Mandatum est vicecomiti Cant’ et Hunt’.
Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Memoranda Roll 45, m. 1.
1 Of Devon.
172 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14
31. INSTALLATION OF BAILIFFS, 1278
Et Rogerus de Clyfford vicecomes de feodo ratione Isabelle
uxoris sue Aynecie filie Roberti de Veteri Ponte quondam vice-
comitis Westmerl’ de feodo venit et dicit quod ipse non clamat
nisi quatuor servientes scilicet duos equites et duos pedites in
baronia predicta ad facienda ea que ad dominum regem et vice-
comitem pertinent et ili coram vicecomite in pleno comitatu
sacramentum prestarunt quod fideliter servient domino regi et
populo pertinenti baronie predicte. Et si plures sint servientes
in Baronia predicta ipsos deadvocat. Assize Roll 982, m. 23.
32. THE ESCHEATOR’S OATH OF OFFICE IN THE COUNTY
COURT, 1259
Rex constituit Willelmum Russel escaetorem suum in comi-
tatu Suff. Et mandatum est eidem quod officio illi intendat. Et
vicecomes Suff’? quod ipsum Willelmum officio illi intendere
faciat accepto ab eo sacramento in pleno comitatu quod eidem
officio diligenter et fideliter intendet. Close Roll 65, m. 17.
33. AN ABBOT’S APPOINTMENT IN THE COUNTY COURT OF
AGENTS TO RECEIVE ESTREATS AND SUMMONSES OF THE
EXCHEQUER, POST 26, HENRY III.
Dicta controversia sub hae forma conquievit videlicet quod
dictus Willelmus de Bello Campo pro se et heredibus suis con-
eessit dictis Abbati et conventui et eorum successoribus quod
Abbas Evesham quicumque pro tempore fuerit in comitatu
Wigornie personaliter conparendo vel per litteras suas patentes
ibidem directas constituat attornatos suos in dicto comitatu unum
scilicet vel duos vel tres vel etiam quatuor ad recipiendum
extractas de summonitionibus scaccarii et ad petendum curiam
1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 173
Abbatis si necesse fuerit. Et ad recipiendum extractas et alia
precepta que consueverunt deferri ad portam Abbatie de Evesham
exequenda. Et ad respondum [sic] et defendendum libertates eis
concessas per cartas regum et confirmatas per cartas predictorum
Walteri et Willelmi de Bello Campo. Ita quod unus eorum vel
plures quem vel quos interesse contigerit ad hee omnia predicta
facienda sine contradictione in dicto comitatu recipiatur vel
recipiantur. Ita quod dictus Abbas quicumque pro tempore
fuerit possit pro voluntate sua attornatos suos amovere et alios
constituere. Si vero inter comitatus aliquid talium emerserit
quod eceleriter exequi orporteat vicecomes Wigornie per litteras
suas clausas hoc mandabit portario Abbatie de Evesham exequen-
dum. Dicti vero Abbas et conventus pro se et successoribus suis
concesserunt et bona fide promiserunt quod dictum Willelmum
et heredes suos tanquam vicecomites Wigornie de omnibus
tangentibus libertates contentas in dictis cartis reglis a dicto
Willelmo concessis aquietabunt. Beane eaiae Delo
34. READING OF A DEED IN FRENCH AND IN ENGLISH, 1295
Hie sunt nomina q” fuerunt in pleno comitatu Essex’ cum
multis aliis quorum nomina non sunt scripta quando littera
manerii de Westlee lecta fuit et exposita apud Chelmersford in
gallico et anglico, die Martis proxima ante Natiuitatem domini in
anno elusdem M°CC° Nonagesimo Quinto, videlicet Dominus
Walterus le Baud miles”. ... et quasi omnes liberi tenentes erant
ibi pro undecima Domino Regi concessa.
St. Paul’s MSS., no. 1063.
1 Probably intended for que; but the writer may have omitted corwm or
illorum and thought of this word as qut.
2 Seventeen others are named here.
174 University of California Publications in History |Vou.14
35. EXECUTION OF A QUIT CLAIM, 1267
Omnibus Christi fidelibus ad quos presens Seriptum venerit
etc. Yssabella de Humas quondan uxor Gilberti de Brakeneberie
salutem. Sciatis me in proba mea vidualitate dedisse quietum
clammasse domino Roberto de Nevill et heredibus suis vel suis
assignatis totum jus quod habui vel habere potui in villa de
Pachort cum omnibus pertinentiis sibi et heredibus suis vel suis
assignatis de me et de heredibus meis inperpetuum. Et hoe idem
dicto Roberto de Nevill quietum clamavi in pleno comitatu Ebor’
anno gratie domini M°CC°LX°VIJ. Et ut hee mea donatio et
concessio rata et stabilis permaneat huic scripto sigillum meum
aposul. Huis testibus Domino Nicolao de Bolteby, Domino
Galfrido de Ureshale, Domino W. Hacket, Domino 8. de Bhng
Ricardo de Terni, Ricardo de Cancellario Willelmo Stabulario
et multis aliis. Ancient Deeds, D. 146.
36. READING OF CHARTERS AND LETTERS OF PROTECTION, 1254
Mandatum est vicecomiti Westm® quod cartas regis quas Abbas
de Bella Landa habet de libertatibus eis concessis necnon et
litteras regis patentes de protectione ei concessas in pleno comi-
tatu legi et libertates in eis contentas firmiter observari facere
secundum quod carte et littere predicte testantur et hoe propter
famorem et potentiam alitermodo non omittas. T/este]
R{icardo] com|ite] Cornub. pro rege H. apud Norht. xii die
Julii pler] com[item] Ricardum. Idem mandatum est vice-
comiti Ebor. Close Roll 67, m. 4.
1A blank in the original.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court io
37. READING OF THE GREAT CHARTER, 1256
Mandatum est vicecomiti Eborace quod magnam cartam Regis
de libertatibus universitati Anglie concessis in pleno comitatu
suo legi et libertates illas in singulis articulis suis tam pro parte
Regis quam aliorum de regno Anglie in balliva sua decetero
firmiter teneri et inviolabiliter faciat observari. Ita quod pro
defectu sui in hae parte Rex ad eum graviter capere non cogatur.
Teste Rege apud Clarendon xxiii die Maii. Et eodem modo
mandatum est singulis vicecomitibus Anglie.
Close Roll 69, m. 12 d.
88. PROCLAMATION IN THE COUNTY COURT AS A STEP IN
ADMINISTRATION, 1292
Quia mercatores alienigene ac etiam quidam indigene regni
regis de die in diem deferunt in idem regnum de partibus trans-
marinis monetam Regis retonsam et aliam de diversis cuneis
contrafactam monete regis commixtam, negociantes et mercantes
de eadem moneta in dampnum Regis et totius populi regni regis
non modicum ac etiam in subversionem totius monete Regis, Rex
super hoe ne fortassis per tolleranciam longiorem periculum
Majus imineat remedium adhibere volens mandat vicecomiti
Norff’ et Suff’? quod in pleno comitatu suo et in singulis civi-
tatibus et villis mereatoriis elusdem comitatus firmiter inhiberi
et pupplice proclamari faciat nequis mercator alienigena seu
etiam indigena vel quicumque alius hujusmodi monetam Regis
retonsam seu etiam aliam de alienis cuneis contrafactam decetero
in regnum Regis deferat vel etiam ea in mereando vel negociando
utatur. Quod si fecerint prima vice qua super hoe fuerint
deprehensi monetam illam retonsam vel etiam contrafactam
amittant. Et si iidem interum in consimili delicto deprehensi
fuerint monetam illam et etiam alia bona sua secum inventa amit-
176 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14
tant. Et si tertia vice idem delictum commiserint et deprehensi
fuerint de corporibus suis et etiam omnibus bonis et catallis suis
Regi totaliter incurrantur. Alii autem qui Mereatores non fuerint
et monetam Regis retonsam vel aliam hujusmodi contrafactam
habuerint. statim eam perforent et ad Cambium Regis trans-
mittant de novo sub cuneo Regis cudendam alioquin in quorum-:
cumque manibus moneta hujusmodi reperta fuerit Regi sit
penitus forisfacta. Testa Magistro W. de Marchia, thesaurario
Regis apud Westmonasterium iiij® die octobris anno decimo nono
per breve de magno sigillo.
EKodem modo mandatum est vicecomitibus in diversis comi-
tatibus.
Lord Treasurer’s Remebrancer’s Memoranda Roll 63, m. 31.
Edwardus dei gratia ete. vicecomiti Ebor’ salutem. Cum
mandaverimus Thesaurario et Baronibus de Scaceario nostro
quod omnes carte quibuscumque prelatis vel magnatibus ab pro-
genitoribus nostris regibus Anglie super quibuscumque lber-
tatibus facte que xvilj° anno regni domini H. regis patris nostri
fuerunt ad scaccarium nostrum allocate et etiam omnes carte
quocumque tempore tam tempore progenitorum nostorum quam
nostro concesse allocentur decetero in singulis articulis suis con-
tentis in eisdem secundum quod prelati et magnates eisdem usi
sunt licet compertum fuerit quod carte ille juxta tenorem easdem
in singulis articulis in eisdem contentis tempore preterito non
fuerint eis allocate dum tamen articulis illos usi fuerint exceptis
amerciamentis quoscumque per considerationem curie nostre
tangentibus proprus delictis suis que quietanciam inde per cartas
hujusmodi clamant habere de quibus nostram intendimus facere
voluntatem prout coram nobis et consilio nostro fuit alias ordin-
atum. Proviso quod inspectis cartis de libertatibus post tempus
allocationum predictarum dicto xviij° anno regni dicti patris
nostri factarum perquisitis quas cartas coram eisdem thesaurario
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court ALY Gy'
et baronibus citra terminum unius anni a die Sancte Michaele
proximo futuro sub forisfactura perquisicorum illorum deferri
volumus si compertum fuerit quod appropriationes alique de
amerciamentis vel aliis lbertatibus ultra ea que specificata
fuerunt in cartis predictis fiant auctoritate cartarum illarum
tune omnes appelationes hujusmodi capiendas in manum nostram
esse decrevimus et in manu nostra custodiendas donee aliud inde
preceperimus et quod ea que specialiter in cartis hujusmodi
contenta non fuerint decetero nullatenus allocentur in scaccario
memorato et tibi precipimus quod in pleno comitatu tuo pupplice
proclamari facias quod omnes ili qui habent cartas de liber-
tatibus post tempus allocationum predictarum dicto xviij°® anno
regni patris nostri factarum tam tempore progenitorum nos-
trorum quam nostro perquisitis ipsas eartas sub forisfactura
predicta habeant coram prefatis thesaurario et baronibus infra
terminum predictum inspiciendas et examinandas juxta pro-
visionem nostram predictam Teste Magistro W. de Marchia
thesaurario nostro ete. xxvj die Februarii anno etc. xx° per breve
de Magno Sigillo.
Consimile breve mandatum est singulis vicecomitibus Anglie
videlicet vicecomitibus Cumb’, Warr’, et Leic’, Glouc’, Nor-
humb’, Salop et Staff’, Oxon’ et Berks’, Linc’, Hereford’, North’,
Not’ et Derb’, Wigorn’, Bed et Bucks, Sumers et Dors’, Cornub’,
Westmer!’.
Cant’ et Hunt’ Surr’ et Sussex
Norff’ et Suff’ Sutht’
Essex’ et Hertford Wilt’
Kane’ Devon’
Roteland Laneastr’
Ibid., m. 36.
178 | University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou.14
39. EXAMPLES OF THE WRIT DE CORONATORE ELIGENDO,
1260, 1327
Mandatum est vicecomiti Wiltes’ quod loco Walerand de
Bluntisdon qui languidus est et sui impotens ita quod officio
coronatoris nequit intendere ut dictur in pleno comitatu suo et
per assensum eiusdem comitatus de legalioribus et discretioribus
militibus de eodem comitatu eligi fac unum alium coronatorem
qui praestito sacramento sicut moris est decetero faciat et con-
servet ea que ad officium coronatoris pertinent in comitatu pre-
dicto. Et talem eum eligi fac qui ad hoe melius sciat et possit
intendere et nomen eius regem scire fac. T. ut supra.
Close Roll 75, m. 4.
Edwardus dei gratia rex Angliae dominus Hiberniae et dux
Aquitaniae vicecomiti Bed et Buk satutem. Quia volumus quod
coronatores tempore domini EH. quondam regis Angliae, avi
nostri et domini E. nuper regis Angliae patris nostra ad officia
coronatoris in comitatibus predictis exercenda electi qui suffici-
entes existunt ab eisdem officiis amoveantur et alii coronatores
idonei et sufficientes in loco ipsorum in eiisdem officis eligantur
tibi precipimus quod in plenis comitatibus tuis de assensu
eorundem comitatuum loco coronatorum illorum qui minus suffici-
entes fuerint ad officia predicta exercenda eligi facere alos
coronatores qui praestitis sacramentis prout moris est ex tune
ea faciant et conservent que ad officia coronatorum pertinent in
comitatibus predictis. Et tales eos eligi fac qui melius sciant et
possint officiis illis intendere. Et nomina illorum coronatorum
sic remanencium et illorum sic eligendorum nobis scire fae. T.
de me apud Noting’ xiii die May anno regni nostri primo. Per
ipsum regem.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 179
[In dorso] : Phus de Ayl vie. Electi feci in plenis comitatibus
de assensu, comitatuum illorum coronatores et que sufficientes
existunt moram faciant in officiis suis et loco illorum qui minus
sufficientes de novo recepi qui in predictis plenis comitatibus ad
officia illa facienda sacramentum praestiterunt prout moris est.
Videlecit. ae Chancery Writs and Returns, bundle 81, file 1.
40. ELECTIONS OF OFFICIALS IN COUNTY COURT, 1258, 1345
Quia Thomas Maunsel quondam coronator et excaetor regis in
comitatu Buk iam decessit prout rex datum est intelligere
mandatum est vicecomiti Buk quod in pleno comitatu suo de
assensu elusdem comitatus loco ipsius Thome eligi facere quem-
dam alium coronatorem et quemdam alium escaetorem de legal-
ioribus ete. qui praestito sacramento ete. et vales eos eligi facere
etc. et nomina eorum Regi fiere fac. Teste rege apud Wodes’
xl) die Aug. Close Roll 73, m. 3.
Edwardus dei gratia rex Angl’ France’ et dominus Hiberniae
-vicecomiti Hereford’ salutem. Quia Ricardus de Walsche nuper
unus viridariorum nostrorum in Foresta nostra de la Haye diem
elausit extremum ut accepimus tibi precipimus quod si ita est
tune in pleno comitatu tuo de assensu eiusdem comitatus loco
ipsius Ricardi eligi fac’ unum alium viridarium qui praestito
sacramento prout moris est extunc ea faciat et conservet que ad
officium viridarii pertinent in eadem foresta. Et talem eum
eligi fac’ qui melius sciat et possit officio illi intendere. Et
nomen eius scire fac’. T. me ipso apud Westmon’ xx die
Decembr’ anno regni nostri Angliae decimo nono regni sero [sic]
nostri Franci’ sexto.*
1 The sheriff ’s return.
2 Three of the coroners remain; one is replaced.
3 Dec. 20, 1345.
180 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14
[In dorso] :* Willelmus de Radenore vicecomes respondet.
Ricardus le Walshe nuper unus viridariorum domini regis in
foresta ipsius domini regis de la Haie mortus est. Et in pleno
comitatu Herford’ de assensu ejusdem comitatus tento die
Sabbati proxima post festum Purificationis beate Marie virginis
anno regni E. nunc vicesimo Johannes de Wychinton loco ipsius
Ricardi defuncti electo viridarius [sic] de dicta foresta qui in
eodem comitatu sacramentum praestitit prout moris est.
Chancery Miscellanea, bundle 101, file 1.
3 The sheriff ’s return.
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 181
B. County Court REcorps
41. EXTRACTS FROM THE ROLLS OF THE COUNTY COURT OF
CORNWALL,! HELD AT LOSTWITHIEL ON MONDAY BEFORE
THE FEAST OF ST. THOMAS AND ON MONDAY THE
MORROW OF THE DECOLLATION OF ST. JOHN THE
BAPTIST, 7 EDWARD IITI2
Trethewy*® Comitatus Pen.*
Comitatus tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum
translationis Sancti Thome anno regni regis Edwardi Tertii a
conquestu Angle Septimo.
Ballivus® comitatus presentat quod Henricus Wolweyn et
Michaelis de Talstoys fregerunt attachiamentum suum attachiati
pro cognitione et aliis demandis domini regis qui modo non
veniunt. Et attachiati sunt per plegium ballivi et Willelmi
Hobbe qui in misericordia quia ipsos non habuerunt et nihilo-
minus attiachientur.®
David de Boskenal queritur’ de Viviano de Pendro qui unam
fecit defaltam in placito debiti.
Oliverus® de Carmynou querens de Johanne de Rospygh
essoniatur in placito debiti.
1 The first extract is from Court Rolls, Public Record Office, portfolio
161, no. 74, membrane 1. ;
2 The dates are July 5 and August 30, 1333.
3 Henry Trethewy was sheriff of Cornwall from July 5, 1333.
4 Namely, Penwith hundred. These are entries in the county court record
relating to matters belonging to this hundred.
5 Margin: Attachiamentum.
6 Margin: Misericordia xii d.
7 Margin: Districtio.
8 Margin: Remanet.
182 Umversity of California Publications in History [Vou. 14
Ballivus dicit quod habet xiiij averia
Ballivus® in Misericordia quia non levavit quinque Marcas
de Willelmo Poer ad opus Ricardi de Bello Prato sicut ei pluries
preceptum fuit et nihilominus preceptum est ete. |
Willelmus Poer querens de Ricardo Mahalt de Trevistan qui
unam fecit defaltam et Willelmo Robert’ essoniatur in placito
debiti. |
Willelmus Poer querens de Roberto Jan essoniatur in placito
debiti.
Ricardus de Fawe attornatus
Philippus de Polsulsek per attornatum querens de Sibilla que
fuit uxor Willelme Caul apparuit per attornatum in placito
medi. Et unde queritur quod injuste eum non acquietavit de
serviciis que Willelmus de Botraux ab eo exigit de libero tene-
mento quod de prefata Sibilla tenet in Polsulsek pro eo quod
tenet de ea unum mesuagium j acram terre Cornubie cum per-
tinenciis in villa predicta per fidelitatem et redditum ijs. vj d.
ad festum Sancti Michaelis et sectam curie sue de tribus in tres
unde eadem Sibilla media est inter eos et ipsum acquietare debet.
Et predictus Willelmus ipsum distrinxit per boves et vaccas ad
sectam curie sue de Trenethou faciendam ad dampnum suum ¢ li.
Et predicta Sibilla petit quid habet de acquietancia predicta et
predictus’® Philippus dicit quod seisita est de serviciis suis et
sic ete.
Johanna! que fuit uxor Johannis de Carmynou per attor-—
natum queritur de Petro de Carville Priore Montis Sancti
Michaelis in Cornubia qui ij fecit defaltas in placito debiti.
Inquiratur si depastus fuit bladum
David de Boskenal queritur de Thoma Burwyk qui duas fecit
defaltas in placito transgressionis. Et modo attachiatus est per
- plegium ballivi qui in Misericordia’” quia ipsum non habuit. —
9 Margin: Misericordia condonata. Remanet.
10 Margin: Remanet.
11 Margin: Districtio. 12 Margin: Misericordia iiij d.
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 183
David de Boskenal querens de Henrico de Pengersok esson-
iatur de servicio regis post unam defaltam in placito transgres-
slonis.
Hamelettus'®? Wille de Bossucraon queritur de Gerardo filio
Danielis de Sancto Maderno Johanne Gentil et Willelmo Gillot
qui 11) fecit defaltas in placito debiti.
Hamelettus Wille de Bossucraon queritur de Benedicto
Cissore de Caegwyn qui i1j fecit defaltas in placito debiti.
Radulfus Bloyon queritur de Stephano de Tregillion qui 11j
fecit defaltas in placito transgressionis.
Philippus de Polsulsek in misericordia'* pro duabus defaltis
versus Ricardum de Mertherderwa in placito debiti.
Radulfus Bevile*® queritur de Ricardo filio Bricii de Coyswyn-
wolware et Marina sorore eius qui 111) fecerunt defaltas in placito
captionis catallorum. |
Adhue die’® datus est Johanni de Carmynou querenti per
attornatum et Johanni de Kerthyn in placito debiti.
Dies datus est Johanni Nicol de Ammal querenti per attor-
natum et Willelmo de Penpons apparenti per attornatum in
placito transgressionis.
Idem Willelmus in misericordia’? pro ij defaltis versus
eundem Johannem in eodem placito.
Willelmus de Metheros'® per attornatum queritur de Johanne
Mores de Tregergest qui vj fecit defaltas in placito captionis
unlus equi. ,
Nicolaus le Taverner de Lananta per attornatum queritur de
Johanne Mores de Tregergest qui vj ‘fecit defaltas in placito
captionis averiorum. Et attachiatus est per plegium ballivi qui
in misericordia qui ipsum non habuit.'®
13 Margin: Districtio. 17 Margin: Misericordia vj d.
14 Misericordia iiij d. 18 Margin: Districtio.
15 Margin: Districtio. 19 Margin: Misericordia vj d.
16 Margin: Da.
184 University of Californa Publications in History [Vou. 14
Johannes Melior in misericordia pro falsa querela versus
Johannem de Kerchyn in placito debiti sicut compertum est per
inquisitionem.°°
Adhue dies datus est Alexandro de Tregillion querenti per
attornatum et Radulpho Beaupo et Elizabethe uxori eius et
Jordano Tremason apparenti per attornatum in placito de ration-
‘abilibus divisis terre.
Adhue dies datus est Johanni de Maunte procuratori domini
Johannis de Modunta decani ecclesie Sancte Beriane querenti
per attornatum et Willelmo Poer de Treugotthel apparenti per
attornatum in placito debiti.
Johannes Reyneward de Trewrunon”' per attornatum quer-
itur de Johanna filia Johannis Brun que xix fecit defaltas in
placito debiti.
Juratores?? inter Nicholaum le Taverner de Lananta queren-
tem per attornatum et Rogerum de Porthkellom apparenti per
attornatum in tribus diversis placitis captionis averiorum dicunt
quod predictus Rogerus tenet unum mesuagium et unum ecur-
tilagium de tenementis obligatis in xs. que valent per annum.
Et predictus Nicholaus petit judicium ete’ et quod quietus sit
de redditu et petit dampna que taxantur ad vj d. si comitatus
consideraverit et petit judicium de eo quod compertum est quod
tenet tenementa obligata et quod redditus aretro sit et petit
returnum.
Johannes le Sor de Taluron?* per attornatum queritur de
Johanne Beauchamp de Bynnerton apparente per attornatum in
placito captionis averiorum. Et unde queritur quod injuste
ceperint** unum jumentum Ricardi de Releigh unum jumentum
Petri de Releigh et unum jumentum Laurentii de Releigh liber-
orum tenentium Willelmi Brit, Willelmus le Brit liber tenens
ipsius Johannis Sor qui tenetur defendere ete in villa de
20 Margin: Misericordia iij d. 23 Margin: Inquisitio.
21 Margin: Districtio. 24 Sic.
22 Margin: Remanet.
728) Morris: The Early English County Court 185
Releigh in loco qui vocato Derendre et ea fugavit et imparcavit
apud Brynnerton et idibem detinet ad dampnum suumecs. Et
_ Predictus Johannes dicit quod non cepit et petit quod inquiratur.
Ricardus de Bello Prato?®> per attornatum queritur de
Henrico Wolweyn qui xx fecit defaltas in placito debiti. Ht
modo attachiatus est per plegium Johannis de Rees et ballivi qui
in misericordia*® quia ipsum non habuerunt.
Johannes Kerchyn in misericordia pro injusta capcione ij
equorum”’ Johannis Melior ad dampnum suum vj d. sicut com-
pertum est per inquisitionem.
Galfridus Michel de Porthie in misericordia”® pro ix defaltis
versus Johannem de la Roche in placito debiti curie R. de Campo
Arnulphi contingit.
Ogerus de Caran queritur de Ricardo Hochekyn qui vij fecit
defaltas in placito debiti. Et attachiatus est per plegium ballivi
qui in misericordia quia ipsum non habuit.”®
Ogerus de Carran*® queritur de Ricardo de Sancto Justo qui
vij fecit defaltas in placito debiti.
Inquisitio non prosequitur*! inter Petrum Blundel querentem
per attornatum et Ricardum Bras de Merther et Sochium de
Tregemynyon apparentes per attornatum in placito conventionis
de eo quod convenerunt cum eo ad conservandum batellum suum
tempore quo illum habuerunt ad piscandum contra quam con-
ventionem venerunt ad dampnum suum Cs. remanent.
Alanus de Treverthion Margeria®? uxor ejus Johannes West
et Ivo Tursten per attornatum queruntur de Goscelino de Tre-
gemynyou qui unam fecit defaltam in placito de rationalibus
divisis terre. :
David de Boskenal queritur de Hervico de Pengersek qui 11)
fecit defaltas in placito captionis averiorum. Et modo attachi-
25 Margin: Districtio. 29 Margin: Misericordia i1ij d.
26 Margin: Misericordia vjd. 30 Margin: Districtio.
27 Margin: Misericordia vjd. %1Margin: Inquisitio.
28 Margin: Misericordia vj d. 32 Margin: Districtio.
186 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou 14
atus est per plegium ballivi qui in misericordia quia ipsum non
habuit.**
Ricardus de Campo Arnulphi queritur** de Radulpho Bloyon
Johanne Hude Stephano Gilly et Willelmo Clemmon de placito
captionis averiorum. Et unde queritur quod injuste ceperunt
de avers David Soben unum equum de averiis Nicholai de
Treuail unum equum de averiis Ranulphi Tursten duo jumenta
eum pullis de averiis Thome Gonner tria jumenta de averiis
Johannes de Annualwyn quatuor jumenta liberorum tenentium
ipsum Ricardi et de averiis Reginaldi Gedden unum jumentum
de averiis Gregori Conecham unum jumentum de averiis
Johannis KEuduf unum jumentum de averiis Johannis de Bertelot
duo jumenta. Et de averitis Bartholomei de Merther unum
jumentum cum pullo precii*® liberorum tenentium ipsius Ricardi
quos tenetur defendere ete in villa de Merther in loco qui voeatur
Wyketysdon et ea fugaverunt et impareaverunt apud Triewal
et ibidem detinuerunt ad dampnum suum xlli. Et predictus
Radulphus advoeat capicionem pro eo quod invenit dicta averia
in villa de Annuallibry depascantia herbam suam et non in villa
et loco quibus queritur et petit quod inquiratur et alii in querela
nominati venerunt cum eo in adjutorio absque injuria facta.
Que quidem inquisitio remanet capienda per protectionem domini
regis quam predictus Radulphus protulit duraturam usque
festum Sancti Michaelis proximo futurum.
Johannes de Treiagu queritur de Philippo Porkellam Odone
Seripa Martino Petit Ricardo Hochekyn Thoma de Nancoitham
et Johanne de Treganret qui pluries fecerunt defaltas in placito
transgressionis. Et modo attachiati sunt per plegium ballivi qui
in misericordia quia ipsos non habuit.*°
Summa vs. xj d. Probatur.
83 Margin: Misericordia 111) d. 35 Blank.
34 Margin: Inquisitio. 86 Margin: Misericordia x d.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 187
Comitatus*’ tentus apud Lost’ die Lune in erastino Decolla-
tionis sancti Johannis Baptiste anno regni regis supra.*®
David de Lynyen querens de Roberto de Bosnaynon et
Edwardo fratre ejus essoniatur in placito captionis unius equi.*?
Rogerus de Trelewith per attornatum querens de Rogero
Belwyn de Maula non summonetur in placito debiti.*?
Johannes de Rostourok querens de Willelmo le Eir de Tre-
welisik non summonetur in placito debiti.*®
Ballivus in misericordia quia non attachiavit Henricum
Wolweyn et Michaelem de Talstoys ad respondendum domino
regi de attachiamento fracto ut eee patet ete.*° Et nihilo-
minus attachietur.**
Preceptum est ballivo levare C s. de bonis et catallis Willelmi
Poer ad opus Ricardi de Bello Prato recuperatos in comitatu
ete?
Johannes de Rospigh in misericordia pro una defalta et
licencia concordandi cum Olivero de Carmynou in placito
debiti.**
Ricardus Mehalt de Treuistan in misericordia pro una defalta
versus Willielmum Poer in placito debiti.*4
Adhue judicium inter Philippam de Polsulsek querentem per
attornatum et Sibillam que fuit uxor Willelmi Caul apparentem
per attornatum in placito medii remanet.*°
Johanna que fuit uxor Johannis de Carmynou per attornatum
queritur de Petro Carville priore Montis Sancti Michaelis in
Cornubia qui iij fecit defaltas in placito debiti.*®° Kt modo
attachiatus est per plegium ballivi qui in misericordia quia ipsum
non habuit.**
David de Boskenal in misericordia quia non prosequitur
versus Hervicum de Pengersek in placito transgressionis.**
87 Membrane 1 d. 48 Margin: Misericordia ij d.
38 i.e., August 30, 1333. 44 Margin: Misericordia 13) d.
39 Margin: Remanent. 45 Margin: Judicium.
40 Margin: Misericordia vjd. 46 Margin: Districtio.
41 Margin: Attachiamentum. 47 Margin: Misericordia iiij d.
42 Margin: Remanet. - 48 Margin: Misericordia iij d.
188 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14
David de Boskenal per attornatum queritur de Thome
Berewyk qui 11) fecit defaltas in placito transgressionis.*? Et
modo attachiatus est per plegium ballivi qui in misericordia quia
ipsum non habuit.*°
Hamelettus Wille de Bossucraon per attornatum queritur
de Gerardo filio Daniel de Sancto Maderno Willelmo Gillot et
Johanne Gentil de Trestan qui ij fecerunt defaltas in placito
debiti.®**
Idem Hamelettus per attornatum queritur de Benedicto cissore
de Caegwyn qui 11) fecit defaltas in placito debiti. Et modo
attachiatus est per plegium ballivi qui in misericordia quia ipsum
non habuit.*?
Radulfus Bloyon per attornatum queritur de Stephano de
Tregillion qui 111) fecit defaltas in placito transgressionis.**
Ricardus filius Bricii de Coyswynwolward et Marina soror
ejus in misericordia pro ij defaltis et transgressione facta
Radulfo Beville ad dampnum suum ijs. in placito captionis
eatallorum sicut consideratum fuit per eorum indefensionem,™
Adhue dies datus est Johanne de Carmynou querenti per
attornatum et Johanni Kerthyn apparenti per attornatum in
placito debiti.**
Adhue dies datus est Johanni Nicol de Ammal querenti per
attornatum et Willelmo de Penpons apparenti per attornatum in
placito transgressionis.°°
Willelmus de Metheros per attornatum queritur de Johanne
Mores de Tregergest qui vij fecit defaltas in placito captionis
unius equi.°® Et modo attachiatus est per plegium ballivi qui in
misericordia quia ipsum non habuit.*”
Nicholas le Travener de Lananta per attornatum queritur
de Johanne Mores de Tregergest qui viij fecit defaltis in placito
49 Margin: Districtio. 54 Margin: Misericordia iiij d.
50 Margin: Misericordia iiij d. 55 Margin: Da.
51 Margin: Districtio. 56 Margin: Districtio.
52 Margin: Misericordia iij d. 57 Margin: Misericordia iij d.
53 Margin: Districtio.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 189
eaptionis averiorum.** Et modo attachiatus est per plegium
ballivi qui in misericordia quia ipsum non habuit.*?
Alexander de Tregillion in misericordia quia non prosequitur
versus Radulfum Beaupel Elizabetham uxorem et Jordanum de
Treurasan in placito de rationabilibus divisis terre.°°
Adhue dies datus est Johanni de Maunte procuratori domini
Johannis de Modunta decani ecclesie Sancte Beriane querenti
per attornatum et Willelmo Poer apparenti per attornatum in
placito debiti.®
Johannes Reyneward de Trewrunen per attornatum queritur
mortua
de Johanna filia Johannis Brun que xxj fecit defaltas in placita
debiti.®
Loquela inter Nicholaum le Taverner de Lananta querentem
per attornatum et Rogerium de Porkellum apparentem per
attornatum in placito captionis averiorum remanet.**
Inquisitio inter Johannem le Sor querentem per attornatum
et Johannem Beauchamp de Bynnerton apparentem per attor-
natum in placito captionis averiorum remanet.** Et preceptum
est ballivo distringere Reginaldum de Treueglos, Henricum
Wolweyn, Vivianum de Bosadwans, Johannem Westna et Petrum
Blundel alias concessos et apponere.... ete.®
Ricardus de Belloprato per attornatum queritur de Henrico
Wolweyn qui xxj fecit defaltas in placito debiti.°° Et modo
attachiatus est per plegium bellivi qui in misericordia quia ipsum
non habuit.®°
Ogerus de Caran queritur de Ricardo Hogekyn qui ix fecit
defaltas in placito debiti.®
Alanus de Treverthion, Margeria uxor ejus, Johannes West
et Ivo Tursten in misericordia quia non prosequntur versus
58 Margin: Districtio. 63 Margin: Remanet.
59 Margin: Misericordia iij d. 64 Margin: Inquisitio.
60 Margin: Misericordia iiijd. | 65 Margin: Districtio.
61 Margin: Da. 66 Margin: Misericordia vj d.
62 Margin: Districtio. 67 Margin: Districtio.
190 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14
Goscelinum de Tregamynyou de placito rationabilium divisarum
terre unde breve.*®
Inquisitio inter Ricardum de Campo Arnulphi querentem per
attornatum et Radulfum Bloyon, Johannem Hude, Stephanum
Gilby et Willelmum Clemmon apparentes per attornatum in
placito captionis averiorum remanet usque festum Sancti
Michaelis duratura per protectionem domini regis.*
Johannes de Treiagu per attornatum queritur de Odone
Seripa, Philippo de Porkellom, Ricardo Hogekyn, Martino Petyt,
Thoma de Nancoithan et Johanne de Tregauret qui plures
fecerunt defaltas in placito transgressionis.7° Et modo attachiati
sunt per plegium ballivi qui in misericordia quia ipsos non
habuit.™
David de Boskeval in misericordia quia non prosequitur
versus Hervicum de Pengersek in placito captionis averiorum.””
Sine returno. Henricus de Trewynnard queritur de Henrico
Cortes. qui ij fecit defaltas in placito debiti.*®
Thomas de Nancoithan per attornatum queritur de Benedicto
filio David de Trewordano qui ij fecit defaltas in placito cap-
tionis unius equi.”® Et quia ballivus visum de equo predicto
habere non potuit ad deliberationem faciendam, ideo consider-
atum est withirnamium.’* Et predictus Benedictus attachiatus
est per plegium ballivi qui in misericordia quia ipsum non
habuit.”°
Johannes Richard de Addestowe, Johannes Fraunces et
Johannes Trut per attornatum queruntur de Petro Danne appar-
ente per attornatum in placito transgressionis.“° Et unde
queruntur quod cum quidam Petrus Norman mercator de ys
ete. tenebatur eisdem Johanni Johanni et Johanni in duodecim
doliis vini et predicta vina ad terram projecta apud Mareasion
68 Margin: Misericordia vj d. 78 Margin: Districtio.
69 Margin: Inquisitio. 74 Margin: Misericordia ij d.
70 Margin: Districtio. 75 Margin: Withernamium.
71 Margin: Misericordia x d. 76 Margin: Ramanet.
72 Margin: Misericordia vj d. 77 Blank in MS.
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 191
ibidem attachiata fuerunt et arrestata per vicecomitem ad
respondendum predictis Johanni Johanni et Johanni in placito
predicto in comitatu quousque etec., ipse idem Petrus predictum
attachiamentum fregit de predictis vinis in retardationem execu-
tionis debiti ipsorum Johannis Johannis et Johannis ad dampnum
suum C hi.
Willelmus Cok per attornatum queritur de Petro Danne’®
apparentem per attornatum in placito transgressionis.“* Et
unde queritur quod asportavit unum gladium precii xl d.
Attachiantur Thomas de Nancoithan et Willelmus de Nan-
seglos ad respondendum de attachiamento fracto qui non
venerunt, et attachiati sunt per plegium ballivi qui in miseri-
cordia quia ipsos non habuit.”
Summa vjs. ij d. Probatur.
Trethewy. Poudr’ Comitatus®°
Comitatus® tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum
translationis Sancti Thome anno regni regis Edwardi tertii post
Conquestum Anglie Septimo.
Et® quia testatum est in pleno comitatu quod predicti
Johannes et Philippus ceperunt xxvj agnos 1j oves matrices et
j vacecam ipsius Willelmi et ea ad querelam ipsius Willelmi
deliberare non permiserunt ideo adjudicatum est withernamium.
Johannes Russel de Treysian*® querens de Udona de Nans-
ladron Ricardo le Cu et Johanne Sonob essoniatur ultra mare in
placito captionis averiliorum.
John Billon** et Robertus Lestre queruntur de Johanne Dey
et Willelmo Averey qui xlj fecerunt defaltas in placito compoti.
78 Margin: Attachiamentum.
79 Margin: Misericordia vj d.
80 i.e., Powdershire, one of the hundreds of Cornwall.
81 These extracts are from portfolio 161, no. 74, end of membrane 2.
82 Margin: Withernamum.
83 Margin: Ramanet.
84 Margin: Districtio.
192 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14
Oliverus de Carmynon queritur de Alexandro Cantok qui xx°®
fecit defaltas in placito debiti. Et modo attachiatus est per
plegium ballivi qui in misericordia quia ipsum non habuit.*®
Inquisitio inter Matilldam Crook querentum per attornatum
et Nicholaum Pybon de Grauntponnt qui fecit defaltam ad
primum diem postquam se posuit inquisitioni in placito debiti
XXx1x s. xj d. ob in quibus concessit se teneri apud Westynaret
in hundredo de West’ ad dampuum suum xx s. preceptum est
ballivis de West et Pen’ quod venire faciant.
Comitatus®® tentus apud Lost’ die Lune in Crastino Decolla-
tionis Sancti Johannis Baptiste anno regni regis septimo.**
Philippus de Carloys queritur de Johanne Blasy qui unam
fecit defaltam in placito transgressionis. .... se
Johannes Exoniensis episcopus qui de Michaele de Trew-
ronek et Ricardo de Treres qui unam fecerunt defaltam in
placito captionis averiorum.*® Et modo attachiati sunt per
plegium ballivi qui in misericordia quia ispos non habuit.°°
Adhue dies datus est Johanni Sor querenti per attornatum et
Johanni de Penwern et Laurencio de Penwern apparentibus per
attornatum in placito captionis ferri molendini ventrici. .. .**
Kerr:
Comitatus tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum
translationis Sancti Thome regni regis Edwardi tertii septimo.
Ricardus Bloyon ballivus in Misericordia quia non venit ad
comitatum ad faciendum id quod ad ballivam suam pertineat.
Comitatus®* tentus apud Lost’ die Lune in erastino Decolla-
tionis Sancti Johannis Baptiste anno supra.
85 Margin: Misericordia vj d. 90 Margin: Misericordia vj d.
86 Membrane 3. 91 Margin: Da.
87 August 30, 1333. 921.e., Kerrier hundred.
88 Margin: Districtio. : 93 Membrane 4 d.
89 Margin: Districtio.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 193
Johannes Crochard querens de Rogero de Roskymmer et
Johanne de Lambron non summonetur in placito debiti xxij s.%*
Loquela inter Ogerum de Cleer querentem per attornatum
et Johannem Stout apparentem per attornatum in placito deten-
tionis unis bovis... .*°
Inquisitio inter Johannem filium Bernardi de Penros queren-
tem per attornatum et Henricum Serle apparentem in placito
captionis averiorum remanet pro defectu juratorum.®°
Bvrdracs
Comitatus®® tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum
translationis Sancti Thome anno regni regis Edwardi tertil a
conquesto septimo.
Comitatus®® tentus apud Lost, die Lune in Crastino Decolla-
tionis Sancti Johannis Baptiste anno regni regis supra.
Willelmus filius Rogeri de Penschawen per attornatum
queritur de Henrico Gentil de Trefrawel apparente per attor-
natum in placito captionis averiorum.’°° Et unde queritur quod
injuste ceperunt li) vaccas j] equum et ij boviculos ipsius
Willelmi in villa de Penschawen in loco qui vocatur Lurdre et
ea fugavit et imparecavit apud Dygembret, et ibidem detinuit
quousque deliberatio facta fuit ad dampnum suum Cs. Et pre-
dictus Henricus cognovit captionem ut ballivus Hugonis de
Langelond et Margarete uxoris ejus pro eo quod Johannes de
Pencors tenet de eisdem Hugone et Margareta unum mesuagium
et dimidiam acram terre Cornubie cum pertinentiis in villa pre-
dicta ut de dote ipsius Margarete per servicium vij s. per annum
ad duos anni terminos et sectam Curie sue de Dygembret de
tribus in tres. Et pro vijs. de redditu unius anni aretro ante
94 Margin: Summonitio. 98 Margin: Pydr.
95 Margin: Remanet. 99 Membrane 6.
96 Margin: Inquisitio. 100 Margin: Inquisitio.
971.e., the hundred of Pyder.
194 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14
diem ecaptionis cognovit captionem justam ut ballivus predic-
torum Hugonis et Margarete ut in feodo ipsorum et petit quod
inquiratur et alter eodem modo. Ideo preceptum est ballivo
quod venire faciat. ...
Thomas le Ereedekne queritur per attornatum de Andrea de
Pengelly qui xxx fecit defaltas in placito deibti.... 1%
Comitatus tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum
translationis Sancti Thome [ete. |
Inquisitio’®® inter Martinum de Langaston querentem per
attornatum et Winanum Tyrel apparentem per attornatum
in placito debiti xxvij s. vij d. remanet. Et preceptum est ballivo
de Py’ quod venire faciat eo quod contractus fiebat apud
Sanctam Columbam.
Comitatus'** tentus apud Lost’ die Lune in Crastino Decolla-
tionis Sancti Johanni Baptiste [ete. |
Johannes Prior de Bodminia querens de Johanne de Kerthyn
et Johanne le Taillour preposito suo essoniatur in placito cap-
tionis averiorum. . . .1°
Inquisitio inter Nicholaum Galapyn querentem per attor-
natum et Nicholaum Giffard de Lauonmur et Rogerum Abraham
prepositum suum apparentes per attornatum in placito captionis
averiorum remanet quia ballivus non retornavit panellum.’®
Ideo in misericordia. . . .1°7
Hugo Peverel per attornatum queritur de Ricardo Dewena
qui unam fecit defaltam ni placito medii. . . .*°
101 Margin: Districto. 105 Margin: Remanet.
102 1.e., Triggshire hundred. 106 Margin: Inquisitio.
103 Margin: Inquisitio. 107 Margin: Misericordia j d.
104 Membrane 7 d.- 108 Margin: Districtio.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 195
Lysnewyth com’?
Comitatus'’® tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum
translationis Sancti Thome [etc. |
Loquela inter Walterum Godman querentem. Johannem de
Hege-Stappe in placito detentione averiorum ij bovium remanet
sub calumpnia curie comitatus Cornubie....
Comitatus' tentus apud Lost’ die Lune in Crastino Decolla-
tionis Sancti Johannis Baptiste [ete. ]
Khas capellanus de Pountestoke per attornatum queritur de
Philippo de Wansant de placito captionis unius porei.!? Et
unde queritur quod injuste cepit unum porcum suum precii Vs.
in villa de Pountestoke in loco qui vocatur Tounfiore et illum
fugavit apud Wansant quousque etec., ad dampnum suum xls.
Et predictus Philippus advocat captionem pro eo quod predictus
Elias tenet de eo unam domum et unum ortum cum pertinentiis ad
terminum annorum unde locus captionis est parecella, per fideli-
tatem et servicium ij s. per annum ad quatuor anni terminos, et
pro vj d. aretro de termino Sancti Johannis Baptiste aretro ante
festum predictum advocat captionem ut in feodo. Et alter dicit
quod extra et petit quod inquiratur....
Sttam Com’!?’
Comitatus' tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum
translationis Sancti Thome [etc. |
non prosecutus
Loquela’*® inter Ricardum Joliblod querentem per attor-
natum et Robertum Goda apparentem per attornatum in placito
conventionis remanet sub calumpia curie Johannis de Raleigh
de libertate sua de Kileampton....
109 Lyshwithshire hundred. 113 i,e., Strattonshire hundred.
110 Membrane 8. 114 Membrane 9.
111 Membrane 8 d. 115 Margin: Remanet.
112 Margin: Inquisitio.
196 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14
Comitatus''® tentus apud Lost’ die Lune in Crastino Decolla-
tionis Sancti Johannis Baptiste [etc. |
Ricardus de Treuger in misericordia quia non prosequitur
versus Willelmum de Statforde ballivum de Stratone in placito
captionis averiorum... .117
Rogerus de Manely per attornatum queritur de Willelmo de
Westecote qui ij fecit defaltas in placito quod reddat ei quod-
dam scriptum obligatorium. Et modo attachiatus''* est per
plegium ballivi qui in misericordia qui ipsum non habuit... .
Est1?°
Comitatus’”° tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum
translationis Sancti Thome [ete. |
Adhue dies datus est Johanni Trenoda querenti per attor-
natum et Ade Priori de Launceton apparenti per attornatum in
placito quod permittat villanos suos facere sectam ad molendi-
num suum.
Comitatus’”? tentus apud Lost’ die Lune Crastino Decolla-
tionis Sancti Johannis Baptiste anno regni regis supra.
Stephanus Trelaba per attornatum queritur de Adam de
Strogenesdon et Vincencio de Strogenesdon executoribus testa-
menti Ricardi de Strogenesdon de placito transgressionis.‘*2 Et
unde queritur quod injuste vexaverunt eum in Curia Christian-
itatis de catallis et debitis que non sunt de testamento vel matri-
monio in contemptum domini regis ad dampnum suum Cs. Et
predicti Adam et Vincencius petunt judicium si Curia istud
placitum cognoscere velit sine brevi domini regis quod provisum
est in consimili causu et sic remanet ete. ...
116 Membrane 9. 120 Membrane 10.
117 Margin: Misericordia vj d. 121 Membrane 10 d.
118 Margin: Districtio. 122 Margin: Remanet.
119 j.e., East hundred.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 197
Westwevel Comitatus?”®
Comitatus'** tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum
translationis Sancti Johannis Baptiste [etce. |
mortuus
Johannes Poddyng queritur de Willelmo filio Roberti et
Martino atte Grove qui unam’”> fecit defaltam’®* in placito cap-
tionis averiorum. Et quia testatum est in pleno comitatu per
ballivum quod visum de averiis habere non potuit ideo con-
sideratum est Withernamium v jumentorum. . f
Comitatus'*® tentus apud Lost’ die Lune Crastino Decolla-
tionis Sancti Johannis Baptiste [ete.]
Johannes Crochard queritur de Odone Stor qui unam fecit
defaltam in placito debiti. . . .1°7
42. PERQUISITES: OF THE COUNTY COURT OF KENT, FROM
MONDAY BEFORE THE FEAST OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST,
48 HENRY IIT?
Perquisita Comitatus Kane’ a die lunae proxima ante
festum Sancti Johannes Baptiste anno xlviij quo die Fulco
Peynforer recepit comitatum per breve domini regis.
De Borga de Postling quia habuit Ricardum de Honi-
wod quem plegiavit jm
De Ricardo Berecario pro auxsilio habendo Xx §
De Willelmo Amis pro eodem XX §
Summa iii] mar
Perquisita ejusdem comitatus die lunae* in crastino
Sancte Margarete anno eodem.
123 Westwevelshire hundred.
124 Membrane 11.
125 Sic.
126 Membrane 11.
127 Districtio.
1 From Exchequer, Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Miscellaneous Rolls,
bundle 5, no. 38.
2 June 23, 1264.
3 July 21.
198 Unwersity of California Publications in History (Vow. 14
De Thoma Coc pro auxsilio habendo xij d
De Thoma de Palstre quia non venit llij s
De Hundredo de Oxenat pro concelamento di mar
De Thoma Malemeyns pro transgressione ij s
De Letitia que fuit uxor Willelmi Greling qui
retraxit se di mar
Summa xxijs ij d
Perquisita comitatus predicti die lune* proxima post
assumptionem beate Marie nichil quia dominus Rex fuit
presens et per comitem Leycestrie tenebantur placita.
Perquisita ejusdem comitatus die lunae® in crastino
exaltationis Sancte Crucis Nichil ut supra
Perquista ejusdem comitatus die lune® post festum
Sancti Dionisii anno eodem.
De Willelmo Eybbode quia non habuit llij s
De Martino de Newecherch pro habenda gracia dimar
De Hundredo de Dunhamford pro concelamento xs
De Hundredo de Feleberga pro eodem di mar
De Borga de Trulegh pro transgressione di mar
De Petro de Bareworfeld pro auxilio habendo di mar
De Stephano le Clerk pro disseina vs pro bono
Summa xlvs xij d
Perquisitia predicti comitatus die lune’ in vigilo Sancti
Martini anno xlix®.
De Roberto de Warmilang pro transgressione Wie:
De Symone de F'redenestede pro defalta xij d
De Hundredo de Eyhorne pro transgressione di mar
De Roberto le Ned pro eodem ; ijs
De Hundredo de Toltintre quia non venit di mar
| Summa xvlijs lj d
Perquisita Comitatus predicti die lune® proxima post
festum Sancti Nicholai anno eodem.
4 Aug. 18. 5 Sept. 15. 6 Oct. 13. 7 Nov. 10. 8 Dec. 8.
1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 199
De Borga de Wonnesberga quia non venit ijs
De Johanne atte Helle pro licentia concordandi xij d
De Henricio de la Thone quia retraxit se ij s
De Eustachio le Prode pro licentia eoncordandi Di mar
De Coe de Haningherst et fratribus suis pro defalta ij s
De Johanne Richard pro habenda inquisitione the
De Waltero Jobinet pro auxilio habendo XX §
Summa xxxvjs vijd
Perquisita Comitatus predicti die lune® in vigilo
ephiphani domini anno eodem.
De Wyman de Fredenestede pro licentia coneordandi iiijs
De Villata de Elham quia non venit liij s
De Thoma Malemeyns pro eodem 1j Ss
De Hundreda de Stutting pro eodem liij s
De Roberto Serviente Willelmi Marmion quia non est
prosecutus | ij s
De Thoma Peytevin’ pro bona inquisitione habenda Di mar
De Nicholao de Selling pro filio suo repleviato Di mar
De Hundredo de Faversham pro falsa presentatione xxs
De Borga de Scopesdon pro transgressione Di mar
Summa liijs
Perquisita comitatus predicti die lune’® in octavo
purificationis beate Virginis anno eodem.
De Roberto de Smerdon pro auxilio habendo xs
Summa xs
Perquisita comitatus predicti die lune’! proxima post
festum Sancti Mathie apostoli anno eodem.
De Rogero de Schamelesford pro licentia concordandi js
De Henrico Kynot pro transgressione es
Summa illjs
Perquisita comitatus predicti die lune’? proxima post
festum annunciationis beate virginis anno eodem.
9 Jan. 5, 1265. 10 Feb. 9. 11 Mar. 2. 12 Mar. 30.
200 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14
De Hundredo de Beausberga pro defalta xs
De Villata de Pynniton quia non venit ij s
De Hundredo de Rokesl’ pro falsa presentatione j mar
De Ricardo de Gedding pro defalta xij d
Summa xxvjs lijd
Perquisita'*® comitatus predicti die lune’* proxima post
festum Santi Marce ewangeliste anno xlix®.
De Luce de Bagport xij d
Summa xij d
Perquisita comitatus predicti die lune’® in vigilo Sancti
Augustini anno eodem.
De Hundredo de Wytstapele pro concelamento Di mar
De Nicholao de Gerninde pro se et plegiis suis quia.
retraxit se Di mar
De Roberto Aleyn pro auxilio habendo . ijs
De Borga de Menstre pro transgressione Di mar
De Huberto Laveyle pro transgressione llij s
Summa xxvjs
Perquisita ejusdem comitatus die lune*® proxima ante
Natalem beati Johannis baptiste anno eodem.
De Johanno Malemeyns quia non est prosecutus ij s
De Christina de Hamkling pro eodem xij d
De Hundredo de Laverkefeld quia no habuit quem
plegavit Di mar
Summa ixs vilj d
Comitatus tentus die lune*’ in Vigilo Sancte Margarete
anno eodem.
Nichil
13 In dorso.
14 Apr. 27.
15 May 25.
16 June 22.
17 July 20. Monday, July 20, was St. Margaret’s day. The vigil by
correct reckoning would have been on Sunday.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 201
Comitatus tentus die lune’® in crastino assumptionis
beate Virginis anno eodem Nichil quia eo die recepit
dominus Rogerus predictum comitatum.
Summa Summarum ex utraque parte rotuli lxxix li xx d ob.
43. PROFICUUM1 ARISING FROM THE COUNTY COURTS OF ESSEX
AND HERTFORD, FROM MICHAELMAS2 AT THE CLOSE OF
42 HENRY III TO THE MICHAELMAS NEXT FOLLOWINGS
Proficuum exiens de Comitatibus Essex’ et Hertfor’
die* anno regni regis Henrici xl tertio. In tempore quo H.
de Montek’ fuit vicecomes, proficuarum eorumdem comi-
tatum a festo Sancti Michaelis Anno xl secundo finiente?
usque ad festum Sancti Michaelis proximum sequens® per
totum annum integrum.
Comitatus generalis Essex’ apud Langethorn die Mar-
tis> proxima post octavam Sancti Michaelis anno xlij
finiente.
De Lamberto le Marchant pro auxilio habendo xs
De Galfrido le Wafre pro defalta comitatus generalis ij 8
Summa xij s
Comitatus Essex’ apud Writel’ die Martis® proxima
post festum Omnium Sanctorum.
De Eadmundo de Purtea pro falso Clamore ij s
De Ricardo del Fen et sociis suis pro licentia con-
eordandi | lj
De Ricardo de Ispania de fine pro se et plegiis suis
quia retraxit se ijs
18 Aug. 17. The Assumption of the Virgin fell on Saturday, Aug. 15.
1 From Eachequer, Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Miscellaneous Rolls,
bundle 5, no. 30.
2Sept. 29, 1258.
3 Sept. 29, 1259.
4 Sic.
5 Oct. 8, 1258.
6 Nov. 5, 1258.
202 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14
De Ricardo de Vallo quia incidit versus Johannem
Maudwyt Xie
De eodem Ricardo pro eodem versus Humffridum
filium Walteri xij d
De Theobaldo de Feringer quia non est prosecutus
versus Willelmum Becke ijs
De Ricardo filio Johannis pro falso Clamore di mar
De Philippo Freman pro plegio Petri Cardun xij d
De Henrico de Crammavill de fine ante judicium xij d
Summa xxs et vijd
Comitatus Essex’ apud Writele die Martis’ proxima
post festum Sancte Andree ad illum comitatum nichil.
Comitatus Essex’ apud Writel’ die Martis® proxima
post diem Natalis domini.
De Roberto Bristrich et Willelmo King pro leentia
conecordandi xij d
De Godefrido de Lyston pro falso clamore js
Summa iijs
Comitatus Essex’ apud Writel’? die Martis proxima
ante purificationem beate Marie
De Johanne de la Lande quia non est prosecutus vs
De Gilberto Osemund quia retraxit se xij d
De Ricardo de Hemsted quia non est prosecutus iys
De Willelmo Sig|[iljlo ut ponatur per ballium llij s
De Rogero Curteys quia non est prosecutus ij s
Summa xiiij s
Comitatus Essex’ die'® Martis proxima ante diem
Cinerum.
De Alexandro de Stebbing quia incidit versus Arnewy
de Stebbing xij d
De Arnoldo le Brun de eodem xij d
7 Dec. 3, 1258. 8 Dee. 31, 1258. 9 Jan. 28, 1259. 10 Feb. 25, 1259.
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court
De Arnulpho le Parker pro eodem
De Henrico le Messer pro eodem
Summa ilijs
Comitatus Essex’ apud Writele die Martis"’ in festo
Annunciationis beate Marie.
De Arnulpho clerico de Wodenham pro falso clameo
De Rogero Blundel pro inquisitione habenda
De Johanne de lafenne ut comittatur per ballium
Summa vijs
Comitatus generalis apud Langethorn die’? Martis
proxima post clausum pasche.
De Johanne Maudwit pro transgressione
Summa ijs
Comitatus apud Writel’ die Martis'* proxima ante
festum Sancti Dunstani.
De Matilda de Firstling quia incidit versus Baldewyn
Tyrel
De Ernulpho de Pilton pro licentia concordandi
De Roberto de Ware quia incidit versus Willelmum de
la Neweland
De Nicholao de Lake quia non est prosecutus
De Willelmo de Montek’ de fine pro warranto
Summa xs
Comitatus apud Writel die Martis'* in festo Sancti
Botulphi.
De Johanne de Sodfand pro licentia concordandi
De Willelmo de Aete de fine pro warranto essonie
Summa vj s
Comitatus apud Writele die Martis'® proxima ante
festum Sancte Margarete.
lijs
Daneel
ls
ij s
ij s
ij s
llij s
11 Mar. 25. 12 Apr. 22. 183May 13. 14June 17,1259. 15 July 15.
204 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14
- De Abbate de Waledon quia incidit versus Johannem
Burre de placito captorum averiorum lmr
De Bernardo de Leges quia incidit versus Traerum
Apoel liij s
Summa xvijs et ilijd
Comitatus apud Writel’ die Martis'® proxima ante
festum Sancti Laurentii.
De Philippo de Firstling pro licentia conecordandi ij s
De Johanne le Brun pro eodem ijs
De Roberto de Camera quia non est prosecutus vj d
De Symone de Aswell pro licentia concordandi ij s
De Johanne de Bosco quia non habuit warrantum de
Servitio regis ij s
Summa viljs vj d
Comitatus Essex’ apud Writele in Crastino Nativatatis
beate Marie.*?
De Petro Aubr’ pro transgressione - ijs
De Ricardo de Badewe pro licentia concordandi ijs
De Eadmundo filio Thome pro plegio Prioris de )
Pritelwell ij s
De Radulfo de Wascoil quia non venit ad mquisitionem ijs
Summa viijs
Summa ¢exijs vijd pr
Proficuum exiens de Comitatu Hertford’.
Comitatus Hertford’ apud Hertford die’* Jovis proxima
post quindenam Sancti Michaeli.
De Philippo de Barewrth et Ricardo de Barewrth pro
licentia concordandi ilj s
De Alexandro Bonel’ pro defalta comitatus generalis xij d
De Philippo del Ho pro eodem ijs
Summa vjs
Comitatus de Hertford diet® Jovis proxima post
festum Sancti Martini.
16 Aug. 12. 17 Sept 9, 1259. 18 Oct. 17, 1258. 19 Nov. 14.
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 205
De Jordano persona de Wendlington pro licentia con-
cordandi ij s
De Willelmo Mot messore pro eodem ij s
Summa liij s
Comitatus Hertford’ die Jovis®® proxima ante festum
Sancti Lucie. ;
De Roberto Ennibaud quia non venit llij s
Summa illjs
Comitatus Hertford’ die Jovis?* proxima post epiph-
aniam domini.
De Augustino Puttot et Sociis suis quia non venerunt ilijs
| Summa iiijs
Comitatus Hertford’ die Jovis?? proxima post purifica-
tionem beate Marie.
De Ricardo atte Nore de fine quia non est prosecutus js
De Roberto de la Haye pro eodem xij d
De Ricardo de Sandon et Johanne de Camera pro
eodem | lllj s
Summa vijs
Comitatus Hertford’ die Jovis?? proxima ante festum
Sancti Gregori. |
De Willlelmo Basset pro auxilio habendo Di mr
De eodem pro quodam manupastu suo lllj s
Summa xs et vijd
Comitatus Hertford die?* Jovis proxima ante domini-
cam palmarum.
De perquisitis Nichil
Comitatus Hertford’ apud Cestrehunte die Jovis*
proxima post quindenam pasche.
De Roberto le Bastard de Munden pro defalta comi-
tatus generalis llij s
20 Dec. 12,1258. 22Feb. 6. 24 Apr. 3.
21 Jan. 9, 1259. 23Mar. 6. 25 May 1, 1259.
206 Unversity of Califorma Publications in History [Vou.14
De Johanne de Sealariis pro eodem ij s
De Philippo de Merdelegh quia incidit versus Robertum
le Chambleng’ ij s
De Johanne Assebue quia non venit vj d
Summa viijs et vj d
Comitatus Hertford die?® Jovis proxima post festum
Ascensionem domini.
Ad istum comitatus de perquisitis Nichil
Comitatus Hertford’ die Jovis?’ proxima post festum
apostolorum Petri et Pauli
De Radulfo de Gravele pro falso clameo Dimr
De eodem pro inquisitione habendo ij s
Summa ixs et viij d
Comitatus Hertford’ die Jovis?® proxima post festum
Sancte Margarete. ?
De Waltero de Cuberl’ quia non est prosecutus xij d
Summa xij d
Comitatus Hertford’ die Jovis proxima ante festum
Sancti Bartholomei.”®
Ad istum comitatum de perquisitis Nichil
Comitatus Hertford’ die Jovis proxima ante festum
Sancti Mathei.*°
De Fratre Ivone de Watton et plegiis suis quia non
est prosecutus ijs
De Hugone Catel pro eodem ij s
De Hugone de la Sele quia incidit versus Stephanum
de la Sele ij s
De Roberto Wrenne pro transgressione xij d
De Galfrido de Brocholes pro eodem ijs
Summa ix s.
Summa lIxiijs xd pr
26 May 29. 27 July 3. 28 July 24. 29 Aug. 21,1259. 30Sept. 18.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 207
44, PERQUISITES!: OF THE COUNTY COURT OF DEVON FROM
THE FEAST OF ST. CALIXTUS AT THE BEGINNING OF
43 HENRY III2
Devonia anno xliij°
Comitatus die Martis proxima post festum Sancti
Kalixti anno regni regis Henrici xliij°* incipiente.
De Elya de Blakston pro iniusta querela versus
Ricardum de sancto Gorono lij s
De Gilberto de Hockeshull quia Walterus Coppe fecit
legem versus eum js
De Henrico Coppe quia Gilbertus de Hockeshull fecit
legem versus eum ij S
De Waltero Coppe et aliis executoribus Gilberti Onger’
pro falso clameo versus Alanum de Halleswurth dim marea
De Gilberto filio Willelmi le Clere pro transgressione
versus Adam de la Burgh xij d
De Ricardo de Hethdon quia retraxit se versus Adam
de la Burgh xij d
De Willelmo de Hock quia Johannes Cole fecit legem
versus eum ij s
De Nicholao de Wadeheg’ pro iniusta querela versus
Jordanum filium Rogonis ij s
De Henrico Theobald’ pro defalta versus Thomas
Chanterel xij d
De Alicia de Winterleg’ pro iniusta detentione versus
Willelmum Hakelond | ijs
De Joelo de Baggewurth pro defalta lij s
Summa xxvlijs vijd
1 From Eachequer, Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Miscellaneous Rolls,
bundle 5, no. 25.
2 Oct. 14, 1258.
3 Oct. 22.
208 University of Califorma Publications in History (Vou. 14
Comitatus die Martis in erastino Sancti Martini anno*
ut supra.
De Nicholao Dagevill pro iniusta districtione versus
Willelmum Coppe dimidia marea
De Johanne de Thribyr’ quia Willelmus de Boneville
fecit legem versus eum ij s
De Thoma de Luscote pro iniusta districtione versus
Magistrum Johannem Wyg’ lllj s
De Radulpho de Bus quia retraxit se versus John Math’ ijs
De Walterum le Gros pro iniusta querela versus
Agnetem de Beleston ij d
De Waltero de Littlewere quia Henricus Coppe fecit
legem versus eum jd
De eodem Waltero pro iniusta querela versus Adam de
Littwere 13-0
De Radulpho de Siceavill de fine pro se et plegiis suis
qui retraxit se versus Johannem le Despenser ; xs
De Johanne Cole quia iniuste cepit averia Willelmi de
Hok’ xij d
De Roberta le Hordere quia noluit recipere legem
Walteri prepositi de Exonia ijs
De Alano le Lockshere pro iniusta districtione versus
Johannem de Smal.... xij d
De Galfrido Russel et sociis quia non habuerunt quem
plegiaverunt js
De Thoma de la More pro iniusta districtione versus
Willelmum del Apeldor’ | } ijs
Summa xxxvs vilj d
Comitatus die Martis proxima post festum Sancti
Nicholai anno® ut supra.
De Ricardo preposito de Lyn de fine quia retraxit se
versus Rogerum Fanel ijs
4 Nov. 12. 5 Dec. 10, 1258.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court
De Emma que fuit uxor Walteri Chuist quia retraxit
Sse versus Walterum Bodyn
De Willelmo de Coleford pro transgressione versus
Robertum de Coleford
De Willelmo Russel pro iniusta districtione versus
Willelmum de la Byriche
De Nicholao Hureward quia retraxit se versus
Robertum de Honneston
De Olyvero de Dyneham pro defalta versus Ricardum
Cole .
De Ysabella de la Cleye pro iniusta querela versus
Thomam Wombe
De Emma que fuit uxor Walteri chuist quia retraxit
se versus Willelmum de Bytedene
| De Willelmo de Brekton pro defalta versus Robertum
Baran
De Rogero de Churleton pro iniusta querela versus
Ivelum de Bukton
De Johanne de Aguestighe quia non habuit quem
plegiavit scilicet Rogerum de Mogue
De Adam Holeman quia non est prosecutus versus
Davil de Dene
De Willelmo Russell quia non habuit quem essoniavit
Summa xviijs vj d
Comitatus die Martis proxima post Epiphaniam anno®
ut supra.
De Roberto Wancy ballivo hundredi de Cridieton quia
non respondit de attachamento Johannis de Hyden
De Olivero de Punchardon quia retraxit se versus
personam de Anestighe |
De Egnatio de Cliffton pro pluribus defaltis versus
Galfridum Patte
6 Jan. 7, 1259.
209
ABER
ijs
ij s
xij d
ij s
xij d
js
xij d
xij d
xiv
vj d
xij d
xa.
ijs
lllj s
210 University of California Publications in History |Vou. 14
De Nicholao de Wadeheye quia non est prosecutus
versus Jordanum filium Rogonis js
De Philippo Pruett pro iniusta detentione versus
Ricardum Pearde iss
De Abbate Tavistok’ de fine pro se et ballivis suis
pro iniusta districtione versus Ricardum Cole xls
De Roberto serviente de Lyn pro iniusta districtione
versus Henricum de Croffte xijd
De Olivero de Punchardon pro iniusta querela versus
Willelmum de Mohun ij s
De Willelmo Gambo et sociis pro transgressione ad
turnum vs
De Willelmo Gambo pro debito suo districto ij s
De Waltero de Littlewe quia Henricus Coppe fecit
legem versus eum xij d
De Johanne de Vytery pro pluribus defaltis versus
Robertum de Vytery | lj s
De Rogero de Panchardon quia Johannes Paz fecit
legem versus eum js
De Waltero Corbin pro transgressione versus Thomam
Puleyn ij s
De _ Ricardo de Catt de Tanton pro debito
districto | Dimidia marea
De Gilberto de Galleshor’ pro pluribus trans-
eressionibus Dimida marca
De Nicholao Treydeners pro habenda inquisitione ij s
De Henrico de la Pomeray pro iniusta detentione
versus Abbatem de Nyweham ij s
De Thoma de Luscote pro transgressione versus
Johannem Wyger ijs
De Waltero Coppe pro transgressione versus
Gilbertum de Hokshull Dimidia marea
De Henrico Coppe pro eodem Dimidia marea
De Symone Casse pro eodem Dimidia marea
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court vAL
De Editha Buneweye pro transgressione lij s
De Willelmo de Chaygnes pro habenda inquisitione ijs
De Henrico de Lexynton pro transgressione vj d
De Henrico de Medton pro clamore iniuste levato vj d
De Willelmo de Alre pro transgressione xij d
De Thoma le Frane pro eodem ij s
De Roberto de Coleford pro clamore iniuste levato xij d
De Gunnilda uxore Henrici de Nymett pro trans-
gressione vj d
De Ricardo fratre ejusdem Gunnilde pro eodem vj d
De Rogero de Wyk pro transgressione xij d
De Johanne de Chiswill pro contemptu vj s
Summa vjl vjs ij d
Comitatus die Martis proxima post Purificationem
beate Marie anno’ ut supra.
De hominibus de Brampton pro respectu
habendo Dimidia marca
De hundredo de Blaketoriton exceptis lberis maneriis
quia noluerunt respondere ad turnum sicut solebant xls
De Henrico de Halleswurth pro defalta versus
Ricardum de Brendeswurth xij d
De Galfrido pro iniusta querela versus Egnatium de
Cliffton et pro inquisitione habenda Dimidia marca
De Adam de Totteleg’ pro iniusta querela versus
Robertum de eadem vj d
De Galfrido Bedello pro iniusta districtionem [sic]
versus Reginaldum de Bodrigan x1,d
De Waltero Tracy quia retraxit se versus Philippum
de Bello Monte lijs
De Adam Page quia non est prosecutus versus
Henricum Snellard x10
De Jordano de Curry et Nicholao de Lugewurth quia
retraverunt se versus Radulfum de eadem lllj s
7 Feb. 4, 1259.
212 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14
De Jellano de Correford pro transgressione
De Willelmo de la Thorne pro iniusta querela versus
Priorem Plimpton
De Labyna de Hywys quia Ydonia de eadem fecit
legem versus eam
De Martino fabro quia retraxit se versus Rogerum de
Jacobstowe
De Roberto et Thoma le Chuist pro iniusta districtione
versus Phiippum Bodyn
De Emma que fuit uxor Walteri Chuist pro iniusta
detentione versus Philippum Bodyn
De Willelmo de Cranham quia non est prosecutus
versus Henricum de la Bear
De Laurencio de Bulkwurth et sociis pro iniusta
querela versus Ricardum de Okston
De Willelmo Comping pro defalta ad turnum
De Waltero Therngo de Lugg Lingecote pro trans-
eressione
De Willelmo de Blak’ pro transgressione versus
Ricardum de Bewurth
De Radulfo de Chevereston pro transgressione
De Roberto le Deneys quia retraxit se versus Rogerum
de Clavile
De Roberto de Middelond pro iniusta querele versus
Willelmum de Hallesford
De eodem Roberto pro iniusta querela versus
Robertum -Pictavensem .
De Nigello de Weteton quia retraxit se versus
Bartholomum de Loriwell
De Roberto Wancy ballivo Hundredi de Crediton quia
non respondit de attachmento Laurencii filii Ricardi
De Sabyna de Wulfhull quia retraxit se versus
Ricardum de Py....
xijd
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 213
De Nicolao Chukrel pro iniusta querela versus
Martinum de Staford 7 xij d
De Willelmo de Bremleg’ pro habenda inquisitione ijs
De Alexandro Cole pro transgressione llij s
De Willelmo Comping de fine pro trans-
gressione Dimidia marea
Summa exillijs vj d
Comitatus die Martis proxima post cineres anno® ut
supra.
De Willelmo de la Tone quia retraxit se versus
Johannem Hureward ? xij d
De Radulfo Waremod pro iniusta detentione versus
Drogonem de Oreweye xij d
De Ricardo de Sebrittescote quia retraxit se versus
Willelmum de Raleg’ xij d
De Thoma de Cudingecote pro transgressione vj d
De Willelmo de Wyteleye pro iniusta querela versus
Abbatem de Torre xij d
De Roberto de Champeans pro defalta versus
Ricardum le Catt ijs
~ De Waltero Molend’ pro transgressione versus
Robertum le Venur xij d
De Jellano de Challewill pro transgressione versus
Robertum de Hylion llij s
De Willelmo Bok pro transgressione vj d
De Hugone de Hantenesford pro transgressione
versus prepositum de Burington xij d
De Alicia Flandr’ quia non est prosecutus versus
Radulfum de Punchard VS
De Joello de la Spyne pro transgressione xij d
De Waltero de Holemore pro transgressione versus
Pirorem de Frythelestok’ ij s
8 March 4, 1259.
214 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14
De Johanne Paz quia retraxit se versus Priorem
Totton’ ij s
De Willelmo Byende pro defalta versus Gilbertum le
Bustard — xij d
De Radulfo de Ostaneston quia non est prosecutus
versus Symonem Chartrey lij s
De Philippo le Rus pro iniusta districtione versus
Galfridum de Andevere vj d
De Johanne le Blak pro iniusta querela versus
Robertum de Winkeley’ ijs
De Waltero Spear quia non habuit quem plegavit lllj s
De Willelmo Pistore de Sutton pro transgressione xij d
De Petro de Bydeford de fine pro transgressione lllj s
De executoribus Stephani Banteyn pro debito districto xxs
Summa lvijs vj d
Comitatus die Martis proxima ante palmas anno? ut
supra.
De Petro de Dynebam pro iniusta detentione versus
Osbertum de Stodpath ijs
De Ricardo Snellard quia retraxit se versus Johannem
de Wynescote xij d
De Willelmo Russell quia retraxit se versus
Willelmum la Zuche xij d
De Rogero Pener pro iniusta detentione versus
Radulfum de Lymbear xvilj d
De Willelmo le King pro transeressione vj d
De Willelmo de Medenelond pro transgres-
sione Dimidia marea
De Johanne Theobald quia retraxit se versus
Willelmum le Mareys ij s
De Roberto David quia retraxit se versus Laurencium
de Wyk ijs
9 Apr. 1, 1259.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 216
De Gilberto Molend’ pro transgressione versus
Willelmum Baufiz xij d
De Hundredo de Cliston quia noluerunt respondere ad
turnum sicut solebant XX §
De Nicolao de la Cnolle quia retraxit se versus
Nicolaum Treydeners ay 18
De Willelmo Cole pro iniusta querela versus
Robertum Lobbe ’ Xvlij d
De Roberto Carpenter pro debito districto lllj s
De Willelmo de Baldrington pro iniusta querela
versus Robertum de Boclond Sol ea
De hominibus de Moneculum pro respectu habenda llij s
Summa xlixs ijd
Comitatus die Martis proxima ante Inventionem
Sancte Crucis anno’ ut supra.
De Waltero preposito de Hatherleg’ pro transgressione ijs
De Radulfo de Chalons quia retraxit se versus
Robertum de Siceavill xij d
De Waltero Peverill pro lege relaxanda wid
De Waltero de la Hale pro defalta vj d
De Gilberto de Langeford quia retraxit se versus
Robertum Sokeling ijs
De Abbate de Hertiland quia retraxit se versus
Ricardum Treyminett Ij s
De Alicia Aleron quia retraxit se versus Avelyna
de Bissopleg’ vj d
De Willelmo de Hakelond pro iniusta detentione
versus Alicia de Buterleg’ vj d
De Ricardo Marsilie quia retraxit se versus Roberto
David ij s
De Thoma de Buclond pro defalta vj d
De Henrico Thungo de Brixstaneston pro transgres-
sione js
10 Apr. 29, 1259.
216 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14
De Egnatio de Cliffton pro pluribus transgressionibus
versus Galfridum Patte xs
De Ricardo de Pulewurth pro transeressione xijd
De Ricardo le Hordere pro transgressione versus
Johannem le Fulur’ lij s
De Petro Chapere quia retraxit se versus Symonem
de Grundeham lijs
De Symone de Grundeham pro defalta versus Petrum
Chapere xij d
De Alexandro de Hausse pro transgressione versus
Johannem Cole xij d
De Symone Lamprey pro habendo inquisitione llij s
De Reginaldo Chubbe de Brampton pro transgressione xij d
De Godwino preposito de Ber’ pro transgressione
versus Julianam Pandoxatricem Dimidia marea
De Petro de la Lane pro transgressione versus
Robertum de la Lane , ijs
Summa xlvj s vijd
Comitatus die Martis proxima post Ascensionem
domini anno'! ut supra. |
De Willelmo Horl quia retraxit se versus Ricardum le
Sanger xij d
De Ricardo Ynwardardesleg’ quia retraxit se versus
Rogerum le Marchant xij d
De Henrico Traz et sociis pro transgressione Dimidia marea
De Rogero de Loges quia retraxit se versus Mariellam
filiam Johannis xij d
De Willelmo Angevyn pro iniusta districtione versus :
priorem de F'ryhelestok vj d
De Thoma de Luscote quia non est prosecutus versus
Robertum Pitter ij s
De Johanne le King pro iniusta querele versus |
Mattheum de Bello Monte vj d
11 May 27, 1259.
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court
De Johanne le Bedel de Bery pro iniusta districtione
versus Johannem le Hore
De Henrico de Crewecumb pro transgressione
De Elya serviente de Honeton et Sociis pro transgres-
sione versus Andream personam de Gydesham
De Ricardo de Stafford quia Roberto de Lyw’ fecit
legum versus eum
De Willelmo de Boneville quia Waltero Sturra fecit
legem versus eum ,
De Priore de Oteryton pro iniusta’? versus Rogerum
de Stanton
De Johanne de la Forde pro lege relaxanda
De Ricardo le Caretter’ pro transgressione versus
Willelmum Scott
De Nicholao le Brok’ quia noluit recipere legem
Willelmi le Venur
De Willelmo Tuttebat quia retraxit se versus
Radulfum de Puddeston
De Rogero de Boclond quia retraxit se versus Thomam
de eadem
De Waltero de Francheyne quia Ricardus Treyminett’
fecit legem versus eum
De Radulfo de Valle Torta pro eodem
De Willelmo Turseins pro eodem
De Ricardo filio Ricardi Treyminett pro eodem
De Willelmo le Mol’ quia Thomas de Schepwasse fecit
legem versus eum
De Johanna le Fulur quia retraxit se versus
Durandum servientem
De Galfrido le Comere et Sociis quia retraxit se versus
Hammes de Dertemuwe
De Philippo Seclyppera pro iniusta detentione versus
Philippum Purett
12 Sic.
217
xij d
xij d
ijs
xij d
xij d
1] 8
xij d
218 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14
De Roberto de Gopewill pro iniusta querela versus
Rogerum le Moygne
De Nicholao de Wadcheye pro iniusta detentione
versus Jordanum filium Rogonis
Summa xxxllijs ijd
xij d
xij d
Comitatus die Martis in festo Nativitatis beati Johannis
Baptiste anno’ ut supra.
De Jordano de la Ya quia noluit recipere legem
Rogeri le Moygne
De Roberto Huppohull quia retraxit se versus
Gilbertum de Catthull
De Ricardo de Branes quia retraxit se versus
Willelmum de Caleheye
De Elya Brestecumb pro iniusta detentione versus
Emmam de Apewurth |
De Henrico de Pomeray pro transgressione versus
Renricum de Bukerel
De Rogero Peverel quia Ricardus Wakelyn fecit
legem versus eum
De Galfrido de Churewurth pro iniusta detentione
versus Philippum Pruett
De Petro de Sancto Nicholao pro iniusta querela
versus Rogerium Aurifabr’
De Henrico de Boneville pro transgressione versus
Nicholaum de Bonevill
De Alano de la Hele pro transgressione versus Lucam
Horewode
De Ricardo le Hordere quia retraxit se versus
Walterum prepositum de Exonia
De Radulfo de Syggewurth pro iniusta detentione
versus Willelmum Bagbell
De Philippo Pruett pro defalta versus Johannem de
Chigule
13 June 24, 1259.
xij d
xij d
vj d
xij d
ijs
xvuj d
xij d
xij d
vj d
xij d
rive
ijs
xid
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court
De Nicholas Kykewandre quia non habuit quem esson-
lavit
De Petro de Asmundeswurth quia retraxit se versus
Willelmum de Strockeswurth
De Thoma de Megre quia noluit recipere legem
Roberti le Luwenescotte
De Mattheo de Wulfrington quia retraxit se versus
Willelmum Franceys
De Willelmo filio Jordani de Luscote pro iniusta
demanda versus Walterum de Merewode
De Willelmo de Hakelond pro defalta versus Aliciam
de Butleg’
Summa xxlijs vjd
Comitatus die Martis in festo Sanctae Marie Magdalene
anno** ut supra.
- . De Michaele Dagenill pro lege relaxanda
De Nicholao preposito de Honeton de fine pro trans-
eressione |
De Luca Romyn pro iniusta detentione versus
Ricardum Vicarium de Brawurth |
De Rogero Swenekil pro iniusta detentione versus
Julianam que fuit uxor Willelmi Drake
- De Johello de Chingle pro iniusta detentione versus
Philippum Pruett
‘De Roberto le Chuist quia retraxit se versus
Archebaldum de Pillond
De Rogero le Moygne pro transgressione versus
Oliverum de Punchardon
De Ricardo Depegenasse pro falso clameo versus
Walterum Peverel
De Willelmo le Cornwaleys pro transgressione
De Johanne de la Forde pro transgressione versus
Willelmum de Webbelond
14 July 22, 1259.
219
llij s
xij d
js
xij d
ijs
Ij s
ij s
xij d
ij s
220 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14
De Randolpho de Cumb’ quia Johannes prepositus de
Luneneston fecit lezem versus eum lij s
De Waltero de Holemore pro iniusta detentione versus
Priorem de Frythelestok’ xij d
De Laurencio de Bulkewurth quia retraxit se versus
Willelmum Walerond xlij d
De Roberto de Rok’ pro defalta versus bedellum de
Stanburgam xij d
De Willelmo de Penilles pro iniusta detentione versus
Ysabellam de Lugheton xij d
De Radulfo le Taverner pro debitis suis districtis i]s
Summa xxviljs
Comitatus die Martis proxima post assumptionem beate
Marie anno’ ut supra.
De Ricardo le Escoz quia retraxit se versus Thomam
de Hettfeld vj d
De Nicholao bedello de Colrigg’ et sociis pro trans- ©
gressione versus ballivum de Hurburton xij d
De Phillippo Bodyn pro inquisitione habenda Dimidia marea
De Rogero de Moringeston pro iniusta querela versus
Ricardum Gambon xij d
De Reginaldo de Lyn pro defalta versus Rogerum
Fanel ; xij d
De Olyvero de Punch[ar]don pro iniusta querela
versus Rogerum le Moygne xij d
De Nicholao le Dourys quia retraxit se versus
Rogerum de la Pomeray } xij d
De Rogero Wakelyn pro transgressione versus
Rogerum Perevill Dimidia marea
Summa xvlijs xd
Comitatus die Martis proxima post festum exaltationis
Sancte Crucis anno’® ut supra.
15 Aug. 19, 1259. 16 Sept. 16, 1259.
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court
De Willelmo de Clugny pro defalta versus Walterum
Hamelin
De Mattheo de Bello Monte quia retraxit se versus
Adam Cobbe
De Ricardo le Bastard quia Lucas persona de Bery
fecit legem versus eum
De Willelmo Bunecheriche quia retraxit se versus
Henricum de Horton
De Nichola de Crues quia Willelmo de Crues fecit
legem versus eam
De Willelmo de Crues quia Nichola de Crues fecit
legem versus eum
De Joello de Stokes pro iniusta districtione versus
Henricum Batyn
De Johanne de Alneto pro transgressione versus
Alexandrum de Okeston
De Ricardo Sparschefft pro iniusta querela versus
W. de Punchardon
De Editha relicta Palmeri quia retraxit se versus
Ricardum Last
De Galfrido filio Warini quia defecit de lege facienda
versus Mabilam de la Clive
De Gervasio de Uppecote quia Willelmus de Godeford
fecit legem versus eum
De Henrico de Bykeleg’ quia retraxit se versus Adam
Neirberd
De Hugone Conduit pro iniusta districtione versus
Ricardum de la Beer
De Waltero Swhift pro lege relaxanda
De Johanne de la Leye pro iniusta querela versus
Isabellam de la Stone
De Gilberto Coppa quia Alexander de Craneford
fecit legem versus eum
221
222 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14
De Martino de Porlemuwe quia defecit de lege
facienda versus Robertum de Rak’
De Engclesia de Gatepath pro iniusta querela versus
Ricardum Tryminett
De Nicholao de Huppestubbe quia defecit de lege
facienda versus Willelmum Huppesant’
De Waltero de Littlewer’ quia non est prosecutus
versus Walterum Coppe
De Willelmo de Hywys pro iniusta versus Ydonia de
Hywys
De Godefrido Elys et sociis pro iniusta districtione
versus Ricardum Russell
De Waltero de la Stantor pro iniusta querela versus
Rogerum filium Drogonis
De Henrico Bysuthedone pro iniusta querela versus
Priorem Barnastapoll
De Symone de la Hethe quia retraxit se versus
Rogerum filium Drogonis
De Tholomio le Breton pro iniusta detentione versus
Sabinam de Wulfhull
De Roberto le Scerclur quia retraxit se versus
Ricardum le Teingtur’
De Nicholao de la Rode pro transgressione versus
Petrum de Sancto Nicholao
De Radulfo le Orb pro transgressione versus
Ricardum de Hale
De Jacobo le Petitt pro transgressione versus
Nicholaum Corbin
De Willelmo le Vel quia retraxit se versus Priorem
Plimpton
De Waltero de Bytedene pro transgressione versus
Emmam que fuit uxor Walteri Chuist
1926] Morris: The Early English County Court
223
De Rogone filio Simonis pro respectu habenda Dimidia marea
De Manerio de Brampton pro evasio Walteri Jagge
Cs
De Waltero de la Sele et sociis pro respectu habenda j marca
Summa viiij li et xij s
45. AMERCEMENTS1 IN THE COUNTY COURT OF YORKSHIRE,
FROM OCTOBER, 42 HENRY III, TO SEPTEMBER, 43 HENRY
III2
Amerciamenta comitatus Ebor. proxima post festum
Sancte Michaeli anno regni regis xlij* incipiente tercio
tempore W. le Latimer.
De Willelmo de Sancto Quintino quia non est prose-
cutus .
De Johanne de Actona et Thoma de Brustewyk pro
plegio ejusdem
De Alano filio Petri de Knappton quia Henricus de
Merston fecit ei legem
De. Hugone Tylevyr’ pro falso clameo
De Priore de Feryby quia non est prosecutus
De Petro filio Odonis et Ricardo filio Galfridi pro
plegio ejusdem
De Willelmo de Averynges quia non est prosecutus
pro se et plegiis suis
De Willelmo filio Roberti de Aghenlyth quia non est
prosecutus ,
De Thoma Alewys et Roberto Freman per plegios
De Henrico Toppan quia non est prosecutus pro se et
plegiis suis
jm
dim
ij s
dim
dim
1 From Exchequer, Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Miscellaneous Rolls,
bundle 6, no. 23.
2-Oct., 1258-Sept., 1259.
3 The county court of Yorkshire met on Monday (above, p. 160 and p.
227); the date is presumably September 30, 1258.
224 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14
De Magistro Roberto de Kirkeham pro attornato
habendo
De Boneauvy genere Jocey jJudeo pro auxilio
De Thoma filio Willelmi Merston pro auxilio
De Roberto Walesrun et Willelmo filio Ranulphi pro
De Roberto Ingram pro attornato habendo
De Waltero de Grendall pro essonia remittenda
comitatui
De Godefrido de Alta Ripa pro essonia comitatui et
trihing’ remittenda
De Willelmo de Marton pro eodem
De Willelmo Scotico de Calverlye pro eodem
De Willelmo de Harrum pro secta comitatus primi
relaxanda
De Priorissa de Munketon pro eodem
De Willelmo de Silkok pro eodem
De Radulfo de Tilly et Petro de Rothfeld pro plegiio
De Nigello de Stokild quia essoniator non venit pro se
essoniatore et plegiis
De Philippo de Briceby pro auxilio
Defalta ad eundem Comitatum
De Reginaldo filio Petri pro defalta
De Rogero de Burton pro eodem
De Johanne filio Symonis de Eyton pro eodem
De Ricardo de Brews pro eodem
De Ricardo de Menthorp pro eodem
De Roberto Burdon pro eodem
De Roberto de Aldewerk quia non est prosecutus
De Philippo de Fauconberge quia essoniator non venit
pro se essoniatore et plegiis |
De Alano de Lek pro warranto essonie
Summa xli xvjs et vij d
llij s
im
dim
jm
dim
lj s
lilj s
ijs
liij s
liij s
ijs
jm
dim
dim
dim
illj s
ij s
jm
dim
dim
dim
dim
ij s
1926]
Amerciamenta Comitatus proximas post festum omnium
Morris: The Early English County Court
Sanctorum.?
De
De
De
Gilyano de Pothehow pro essonia relaxanda
Magistro Willelmo de Burgo pro eodem
Willelmo Ward pro eodem
Thoma de Colvyll seniore pro eodem
Ambrosyo de Camera pro eodem
Ricardo de Wathsand pro eodem
Elya de Flamyll pro eodem
Henrico Mauleverer pro eodem
Willelmo de Wyvyll pro eodem
Roberto de Plumpton pro eodem
Marmeduco Darell pro eodem
Ivone de Punchardon pro eodem
Ricardo de Ripariis pro eodem
Willelmo de Bossall pro eodem
Alano de Aldefeld pro eodem
Priorissa de Thycheued pro eodem
Ricardo de Thong pro duobus essoniis remittendis
Johanne de Bulmer pro secta comitatus relaxanda
Radulfo de Bechum pro essonia remittenda
Johanne filio Willelmi de Fulford pro eodem
Galfrido de Uppesall quia essoniator de communi
secta non venit
De
Ricardo Gramatico pro eodem pro se essoniatore
suo et plegiis
De
De
De
Adam de Everingham pro attornato habendo
Willelmo de Saleok pro essonia remittenda
Walranno de Rocheford quia essoniator de com-
muni secta non venit
4 Nov. 4, 1258.
229
llij s
dim
js
lllj s
ijs
ij s
js
js
js
ijs
ij s
js
ij s
js
ij s
xij den
llij s
vj Ss
ijs
ijs
226 University of Califorma Publications in History |Vou.14
Defalta Trihing’ apud Carton
De Alicia de Bernak quia essoniator non venit pro
se essoniatore suo et plegiis
De Ricardo le Walays in Acclum quia essoniator non
venit pro se essoniatore suo et plegiis
De Willelmo de Langewayt pro eodem
De Ricardo Gramatico pro eodem
Defalta Trihing’ apud Windeyates anno eodem
De Franco le Tyas pro defalta
De herede de Scheppeley pro eodem
Summa vj li xijs iijd
Item Amerciamenta comitatus proximi post festum
omnum Sanctorum anno eodem.
De Angn’ de Lunppenhill quia non est prosecutus
De Johanne filio Johannis et Roberto filio Alexandri
pro plegio eiusdem
De Willelmo de Athewyk quia essoniator non venit
versus Thomam filium Willelmi
De Eodem Willelmo quia essoniator de communi Secta
non venit
De Ricardo de Thang pro licentia concordandi
De Slema la Wyche judea pro transgressione
De Priore de Novo Burgo pro attornato habendo
De Mayr’ de Roderham judeo pro auxilio habendo
De Roberto de Wythby pro eodem
Summa Ixxiijs ij d
-Amerciamenta Comitatus proximi post festum sancte
Lucie’ eodem anno.
De Richemano Calle pro falso clameo
5 Monday, Dee. 15, 1258.
dim
dim
dim
jm
dim
dim
dim
dim
dim
dim
dim
dim
dim
dim
KX
jm
1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court
De Willelmo de Beston quia non habuit quos manu-
cepit
De Waltero Frerer pro contemptu
De Ingramo de Pottehow pro eodem
De Willelmo preposito de Esterngtona quia essoniator
non venit
227
dim
ij s
ij s
llij s
De Abbate de Sancta Agatha pro disseisina dim pro bove
De Symone de Lowthorp pro eodem vs ijd
Summa xls
Amerciamenta Comitatus proxima post festum Sancti
Hillarii® anno eodem.
De Walter de Grimeston quia testificavit quamdem
prisam terrae
De Rogero de Watton pro eodem
De Galfrido Bonefay pro eodem
De Roberto filio Alice de Bergerthorp pro eodem
De Willelmo Hallebarn et Johanne de Haskeham quia
non habuerunt quem plegiaverunt
De Domina Matilda de Wrtelay quia non est prosecuta
De Johanne carettario de Camsall pro auxilio
Summa xljs iijd
Amerciamenta comitatus die Lune proxima ante festum
Sancti Gregorii’ anno eodem.
De Germano Hay quia essoniator non venit
De Henrico de Pokethorp pro licentia concordandi
De Hugone de Yolthorp pro die amoris habendo
De Matheo le Breton quia essoniator non venit
Summa xxvj li xvs nijd
De Margeria de Sproxton pro falso clameo
De Villa de Hoveden pro evasione
De Abbate de Salleya de fine pro auxilio
6 Jan. 20,1259. 7 Mar. 10, 1259.
1s
ijs
js
ijs
dim
jm
jm
dim
dim
ij s
dim
dim
viij li
dim
228 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14
De Petro Dringe pro licentia concordandi llij s
De Villa de Stokesley pro evasione viij li
De Elya filio magistri moss pro auxilio xls
De Benedicto filio Jocey pro besantio lllj s
De Isaac Nepote Aaron pro auxilio Xx s
De Thoma le Wayt pro auxilio jm
De Willelmo Molendinario de Sckelhall pro eodem llij s
De Willelmo Bulle pro eodem dim
De Roberto Wynet pro eodem jm
De Rogero Birkebayn pro eodem xs
De Willelmo Herodes pro eodem jm
De Waltero Orwayn de Kirkeby pro eodem dim
Summa xxiijli xs vijd
Amerciamenta comitatus proximi post pascham® anno
eodem.
De Waltero Malot pro licentia conecordandi ij s
De Patricio de Westewyk’ pro eodem VS
De Hugone de Yolthorp quia non est prosecutus ilij s
De Willelmo filio Angeri et Radulpho filio Mariote
pro plegio llij s
De Roberto de Frithby pro falso clameo ~ dim
De Isabella de Speton pro licentia concordandi dim
De Henrico filio Willelmi et Willelmo de Lelay pro
plegio | dim
De Willelmo Crok pro habenda inquisitione lllj s
De Boneamy Genere Jocey pro besantio | xij den
De eodem pro eodem versus Thomas de Hothom ijs
De Waltero de Karleton pro auxilio ij m
Amerciamenta Comitatus. In crastino sancte Trinitatis
anno eodem.?®
De Johanne de Thorneton in Lovesdall pro auxilio dim
De Philippo de Fauconberge pro licentia conecordandi dim
8 April 21, 1259. 9 June 9.
1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 229
De Villa de Thurganthorp pro evasione. Willelmi de
Galmethorp vilj li
De Villa de Holm pro evasione Johannis de Arneste vijj li
Summa xx li ijs
Amerciamenta comitatus proximi ante festum Sancte
Margarete’? anno eodem.
De Uberto Tuye pro auxilio dim
De Johanne de Linton pro eodem dim
De Ricardo Bereario pro eodem dim
De Ricardo filio Benedicti pro eodem dim
De Adam preposito de Wapelington pro eodem xs
De Johanne Arnhall quia essoniator ejus recessit sine
die dim
De Ricardo de Monte Alto pro leentia concordandi dim
De Rogero Russell quia non acquietavit priorem de |
Ormesby 1s
De Villa de Thorp Arches pro evasione Ade Dagge-
pare avily li
De Joceo de Patricpol pro besantio ij s
De Benedicto filio Adem de Hechworth pro auxilio jm
De Johanne Bercario de Arnely pro eodem jm
De Galfrido Barbreste pro eodem xs
De Adam prepositio de Armeley pro auxilio- jm
Summa xiijli iiijs
Amerciamenta comitatus proximi in crastino Sancti
Bartholomei."'
De Waltero Bacheler pro falso clameo js
De Johanne Surdevall quia non habuit quem plegiavit xs
De Willelmo de Midelton in Wymbelton quia non venit vs
De Willelmo filio Ricardi de Apelton pro eodem lilj s
De Roberto Barne in Kiling’ pro eodem ij s
10 July 14. 11 Aug. 25, 1259.
230 Unversity of Califorma Publications in History
De Adam filio Willelmo Ousteby pro eodem
De Johanne persona de Thorneton quia non est
prosecutus
De Radulfo Gaugy pro eodem
De Radulfo Helto pro leentia concordandi
Summa xxxvlj s et vilj d
[ Vou. 14
ijs
dim
lilj s
ij s
hae!
.
',
‘ I”
, ’
-
’
:
a
‘
1
?
*
¢
‘
\
‘
'
Se
x
t
.
.
,
t }
| ;
\ T
f
‘4
é
'
+
‘
A :
.
. s
6 vee
ae oie
Peas
TO
Eo ts
TT
25