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