Calendar of assize rolls: Roll BB

ROLL BB

[m.1] Assizes of the time of divers sheriffs, delivered at the Guildhall by William Cressewyk, undersheriff, viz. 21 membranes. (fn. 1)

Sat. 23 Nov. 1370. Assizes of novel disseisin and mort d'ancestor. William Walworth and Robert Kayton, sheriffs, Thomas de St. Albans (de Sancto Albano), coroner.

126. Isabel Pake complains that on Mon. 11 Nov. 1370 John Pisy, William Yong, Henry Godchep, John de Bottesham, John Harneseye and Robert Beverage disseised her of two messuages in the par. of St. Sepulchre without Neugate. The defs., by Ralph Trevysa, say that the tenements in view were seized into the king's hand by John Chamberleyn, serjeant, by precept of Simon de Mordon, late mayor and escheator, and still remain there, and that the assize ought not to proceed until the Crown has been advised concerning the matter. At the request of the parties the serjeant is examined upon oath concerning the def.'s allegation, and says that he has never taken the tenements in view into the king's hand for any reason. Ralph Trevysa, asked if he has any other answer to offer, says that none of the persons named as defs. is tenant of the tenements in view and denies the disseisin. Afterwards the assize comes by William Harwedon, John Rogger, John atte Felde, William Kyriel, Gilbert Chilcheth, John Whiteby, Henry Dymnel, Simon Macchynge, John Hethyngham, John Colman, Robert Myssenden and John Resnes. The jurors say that at the time of the suing-out of the bill William Yong was tenant of the tenement in view and that the pl. was disseised by John Pysy, William Yong and Henry Godchep. Damages £20. They say, further, that the others named in the plaint were not implicated, and that the disseisin was done by force and arms. It is ordered that the disseisors be taken and make fine. Pl. in mercy for a false plaint as regards the other defs. (fn. 2) [m.1d. Blank.]

[m.2] Sat. 15 Mar. 1371.

127. John Wyrhale, goldsmith, complains that on Sat. 8 Mar. 1371 William de Quynton, kt., and Isabel his wife, Robert Mauncell, mercer, John Coupere, loriner, and William Braunceby, saddler, disseised him of a messuage in the par. of St. John Zakarie. Robert, John and William, by Robert Watlyngton, deny the disseisin. William and Isabel de Quynton, in person, as tenants of the tenement in view say that the assize does not lie because John Wyrhale, father of the pl., demised the messuage with other lands and tenements to Hugh de Sadelyngstanes and Agnes his wife for life, at an annual rent of 8 marks, with reversion to the lessor and his heirs. Afterwards John released to Hugh and Agnes all his rights in the tenements, and bound himself and his heirs to warrant the same to them and their heirs in perpetuity, in witness whereof they proffer his deed. The pl. refuses to acknowledge the writing as his father's deed. He says that long before Hugh had any right in the tenements in question, Richard de Wyrhale, his grandfather, was seised of them, and he left two sons—Richard, the elder, and John, the younger, the pl.'s father. According to the custom of the City whereby all tenements are devisable, Richard devised the tenements now in view to John, his son, for life, reserving the reversion. Richard, son of Richard, had issue Lawrence, who, after the death of his own father and of John, father of the pl., his uncle, died a minor, without issue, while the pl., then also a minor, was overseas. He says also that John his father demised the tenements to Hugh and Agnes for the term of his own life, and afterwards released to them his rights in the same, on the conditions set forth in an indenture made between them, and now produced in court: viz. that if John, his heirs or executors, should pay to Hugh at Pentecost next following £30 and should undertake not to alienate the premises to any other person during Hugh's lifetime, then the release should be void. After the death of John, he, the pl., paid to Hugh the sum named, for which he received an acquittance, produced in court, and the release being thereby annulled, entered upon the tenements as his father's heir. The defs. say that they have no knowledge of such a payment, and do not admit that Richard de Wyrhale, grandfather of the pl., had an elder son, Richard. As to the above-named Lawrence, alleged by the pl. to have been the son and heir of Richard, jun., and to have survived John, father of the pl., they say that he was a bastard, and died in John's lifetime. With regard to the terms of the demise to Hugh and Agnes de Sadelyngstanes, they repeat their former allegations. They say, further, that John, father of the pl., directed in his will (fn. 3) that the premises should be sold by his executors, William Pymme and Joan, the testator's relict, afterwards the wife of Simon Bonde; who accordingly sold the same to Hugh to hold to him and his heirs in. perpetuity. He in turn devised them to his wife Isabel for life, with remainder to John, his son, in fee tail. (fn. 4) Isabel continued in enjoyment of the premises in virtue of the above bequest until the suing-out of the bill by the pls., Richard, Lawrence and the pl. himself not having at any time any seisin therein. They say, moreover, that they have no cognisance of any such bond as the pl. alleges, and that the pl.'s father was alive more than six months after the date on which he, the pl., alleges that he made payment under the bond as his father's heir, viz. at Pentecost next after 10 May 1348. The pl. asks that the point at issue be referred to the assize, but the defs. object on the ground that the will of John, father of the pl., was made and sealed on Fri. 13 Mar. 1349 and proved and enrolled in the Husting on Mon. 4 May 1349; and they call witnesses to testify to the same. After adjournment the parties come, and Isabel is admitted to plead for her husband William. [m.2d.] The arguments above-recited are repeated, the defs. claiming to hold as possessors of the estate enjoyed by Hugh de Sadelyngstanes in the tenements aforesaid, and the pl. claiming under the will of Richard de Wyrhale, his grandfather, as heir of his cousin Lawrence, son of Richard, to whom the tenements reverted on the extinction of the life-interest enjoyed by John, the pl.'s father. The assize comes and returns a verdict for the pl. The jurors find that Lawrence, son of Richard, was not a bastard, as alleged by the defs., but born in lawful wedlock of Richard, son of Richard de Wyrhale and Joan his wife, and that the pl. was seised of the tenements in question until disseised by John Coupere named in the plaint. William de Quynton and Isabel his wife were tenants of the tenements at the time of the suing-out of the bill, but neither they nor the others named were implicated. Damages 20s. John Coupere in mercy and the pl. for a false plaint as regards the other defs.

[m.3] Sat. 27 Oct. 1369. John Pyel and Hugh Holbech, sheriffs, Thomas de St. Albans, coroner. Afterwards before William Walworth [and Robert Kayton].

128. Richard Russel complains that on Fri. 12 Oct. 1369 John Norwych and Margaret his wife disseised him of 10s. rent in the par. of St. Mary Magdalene in Oldefisshestrete. The defs., by Robert Cressewyk, deny that the pl. was ever seised of the rent aforesaid. After adjournment for lack of recognitors the parties again appear on Sat. 17 Nov. and the defs. say that the assize cannot proceed, because the tenement from which the rent is due has been seized into the king's hand by Hugh Holbech, sheriff, in pursuance of a royal writ dated 2 Nov. 1369 ordering the seizure of the goods and chattels, lands and tenements of John Norwych, goldsmith, by reason of divers deceptions and frauds practised by him while in the employment of Edward III and Queen Philippa. Adjourned that consultation may be had with the king on the matter. On Sat. 12 Jul. 1371 the parties come before William Walworth and Robert Kayton, sheriffs, and Thomas de St. Albans, coroner, and the pl. produces in court a writ de procedendo dated 2 Jun. 1371. The defs. say, as above, that the pl. was never seised of the rent in question. The jury finds for the pl. Damages £4 6s. 8d.; but the sheriffs do not proceed to judgment by reason of the above writ. [m.3d.] Afterwards, at a later session, the pl. appears and produces a further writ dated 28 Jul. 1371 ordering the sheriffs and coroner to proceed to judgment. It is accordingly adjudged that the pl. recover seisin of the rent and his damages and that the defs. be taken until they have made satisfaction.

Sat. 12 Jul. 1371. William Walworth and Robert Kayton, sheriffs, Thomas de St. Albans, coroner.

129. Agnes daughter of William de Ramseye complains that on Tues. 26 Mar. 1370 Ralph de Ramseye, John de Thornton, Hugh Seggesford, called Waltham, and John Hatfeld, called Hattere, disseised her of a messuage in the par. of St. Botolph without Aldrichesgate. The defs. deny the disseisin. The jury, viz. Philip atte Vyne, William Conestable, Robert Nichole, John Peyntour, William Clophull, John Lesnes, Stephen Bokbynder, Thomas Waryner, John Depham, loriner, John Walssh, Elias de Weston and Richard Stonham, finds for the pl. Damages 40d. Defs. in mercy.

[m.4] Sat. 22 Nov. 1371. Robert Hatfeld and Adam Stable, sheriffs, Thomas de St. Albans, coroner.

130. Joan relict of Stephen de Waltham, citizen, complains that on Wed. 4 Jun. 1371 Richard de Kellyngworth, draper, disseised her of 16s. 8d. rent in the par. of St. Michael Crokidlane. The def. denies the disseisin. The assize comes by Richard Edward, Robert Lyndwyk, John Pope, Henry Sharp, John Maddele, Walter Ewayn, Richard Stokes, John Devenyssh, Henry atte Beth, John de Ware, Nicholas in the Lane and John Cotlond. Verdict for the pl. Damages 25s. 8d. Def. in mercy. [m.4d. Blank.]

[m.5] Sat. 18 Dec. 1372. Nicholas Brembre and John Philipot, sheriffs, William Hocle, coroner.

131. Richard Torold, cooper, Walter atte Chirche of Rodewyke and John de Beltham complain that on Wed. 3 Nov. 1372 John Belhomme, Thomas Dachet and Mariota his wife and William Belhomme disseised them of six shops and solars in the par. of St. Alban Wodestrete. The defs., by James Raven, deny the disseisin. The assize comes by Henry Sudbury, John Buksted, William Kyng, Peter Fikelden, John Steynton, (fn. 5) Geoffrey Peny, Walter Brok, Roger Stafford, William Whelpele, John Reynold, John Salesbury, goldsmith, Simon Daunger and William atte Brome. Verdict for the defs. Pls. in mercy.

Sat. 22 Jan. 1373.

132. John Lenne of Cauntebrigge, chaplain of the chantry of Reginald de Cauntebrigge in the church of St. Leonard in St. Vedast's Lane, complains that on 20 Dec. 1372 William Stamelden, goldsmith, and Stephen Bakere, cordwainer, disseised him of 20s. rent in the par. of St. Mary Aldermaricherche. The defs. pray judgment concerning the bill, because the pl. is therein described as 'perpetuus capellanus cantarie' instead of 'capellanus perpetue cantarie.' It is thereupon adjudged by the court that the pl. take nothing for his plaint, but be in mercy. Defs. sine die.

[m.5d.] Sat. 26 Mar. 1373.

133. Adam Fraunceys, jun., and Margaret his wife complain that on Sat. 19 Feb. 1373 John de Garton, John Buttele, William Ermeton, John Elsynham, Richard de Norbury and Juliana his wife disseised them of 2s. rent in the par. of St. Pancras. The defs. make default. The pl., asked to show his title, says that he claims the rent as a quit-rent according to the custom of the City and that when he attempted to distrain upon the tenement for payment of the same the defs. recovered the distress, thereby causing the disseisin. The assize comes by Henry atte Castell, Thomas Stondon, William Horston, John Walsyngham, Walter Peryndon, Richard Wrotham, William Belhomme, Richard Storteford, Richard Wayte, John Copenhull, John Swanton and Ralph Broune and finds that the pls. were disseised of the rent by William Ermeton by force and arms. Damages 31s. 4d. It is ordered that William be taken until he make fine, and that the other defs. be in mercy.

[m.6] Sat. 25 Feb. 1374. John Fifhyd and John Aubrey, sheriffs, William de Hockele, coroner.

134. William Berthun and John Adam, goldsmith, complain that within forty weeks past William Kentoys, pewterer, and Alice his wife and John Ittelcote, draper, disseised them of a tenement in the par. of St. Augustine by St. Paul's Gate. The defs. say that the pl. William is named Bertilmew and not Berthun and that the name as written in the bill cannot be so read. Pls. in mercy. Defs. sine die.

Sat. 6 May 1374.

135. John Pyel, citizen, and Joan his wife complain that on Sun. 9 Apr. 1374 Richard Mallyng and Amice his wife and Nicholas Marchaunt disseised them of a messuage in the par. of St. Margaret Lothebury. The defs., by Gilbert Meldbourne, deny the disseisin. The assize comes by Stephen Warde, Thomas Sulby, John Ullescompe, Richard Willesdon, Reginald Colman, Nicholas Horewod, Robert Whityng, John de Croydon, John Cook, William Sonnyng, John Hanham and Simon de Ware, and finds that the pls. were disseised by Amice by force and arms; and that Richard her husband and Nicholas were not implicated. Damages 40d. It is ordered that Amice be taken and that the pls. be in mercy for a false plaint as regards Richard and Nicholas. [m.6d. Blank.]

[m.7] Sat. 27 Jan. 1375. William Wodehous and Richard Lyons, sheriffs, William Hocle, coroner.

136. William Hubert, butcher, complains that on Sat. 14 Oct. 1374 Richard de Wydden, cooper, and John Burgate, chandler, disseised him of a messuage in the par. of St. Atheburga within Bisshopesgate. John denies the disseisin. Richard, in person, says that in the original bill sued out in the Husting the par. is described as St. Athelburga and not as St. Atheburga, and that the present bill is therefore not warranted by the original. The pl. admits his exception. Pl. in mercy, and defs. sine die.

Sat. 17 Mar. 1375.

137. John Cursoun and Alice his wife complain that on Fri. 9 Feb. 1375 Philip Sprynget, Nicholas Symcok and John Draper, corser (cosour), (fn. 6) dis seised them of a messuage and two solars and shops in the par. of St. Sepulchre without Newgate. The defs. make default. The assize comes by John Croydon, fishmonger, Henry Asselyn, Richard Stonham, Nicholas de Thame, John Symond, John Walssh, Henry Dymnel, Philip Forster, William Kirtel, Gilbert Chelcheth, Henry Cok and Robert Mortymer, and finds that Philip disseised the pls. by force and arms. Damages 100s. Nicholas and John were not implicated. It is ordered that Philip be taken. Pls. in mercy for a false plaint as regards Nicholas and John. Damages remitted in court by Robert Watlyngton, pls.' attorney.

Sat. 24 Mar. 1375.

138. Thomas Sulby, citizen, complains that on Mon. 26 Feb. 1375 Henry Bever, parson of St. Peter Bradstrete, Richard Willesdon, tallowchandler, and Agnes his wife and Benet Cornwaill disseised him of two messuages and three shops in the par. of St. Peter Bradestrete. The defs., by Walter West, say that while the present bill was pending the pl. entered upon the premises and ejected them, so that the bill is quashed. The assize comes by William atte Castel, Nicholas Marchaunt, John Aston, John Ollescompe, William Palmere, Andrew Smyth, Gilbert de Hoo, John Cok, chandler, John Totte, John Hanham, Roger Claveryng and William Derby. Verdict for the defs. Pl. in mercy.

[m.7d.] Sat. 11 Aug. 1375.

139. William Thamworth complains that on Tues. 27 Feb. 1375 Thomas Appelby, chaplain, Richard Chaddesle, clerk, Alice relict of John Potenhale, and Elias de Potenhale disseised him of a messuage in the par. of St. Sepulchre without Neugate. Alice and Elias, by Ralph Burnelle, deny the disseisin. Thomas and Richard, in person, answer as tenants of the tenement in view and say that long before the pl. had any interest in the tenement John de Thamworth was seised thereof. He enfeoffed William, vicar of St. Sepulchre, and others, and the feoffees re-enfeoffed the feoffor and Alice his wife (i.e. Alice relict of John Potenhale, named as def.) to hold to them and to the heirs of John. Afterwards John in his will (fn. 7) devised the tenement to William, the pl., with reversion to himself and his heirs. Upon John's death William, under colour of this devise, entered upon the tenement but the def. Alice ejected him in virtue of the feoffment previously made. Her estate in the same is now enjoyed by the defs. Thomas and Richard. The pl. has no cognisance of the alleged enfeoffment, but says that at a much earlier date John de Thameworth was seised of the tenement in view and enfeoffed therewith, under the description of the messuage in le Bailly without Neugate lately purchased of Thomas Cary, the pl. and Alice his mother to hold for their lives, as appears by a deed dated 20 May 1352 and produced in court. Afterwards the same John devised the tenement and all his rights therein to the pl., who after the death of Alice his mother, continued in enjoyment of it for the rest of the life of the feoffor, who at the time of his decease had no rights therein, save at the will of the pl. He says further that he continued in possession until disseised by the defs. The jury comes and returns a verdict for the pl. Damages 20 marks. They say that Richard Chaddesle alone of the defs. was not implicated in the disseisin, which was done by force and arms. It is ordered that Alice, Thomas and Elias be taken and make fine, and that the pl. be in mercy for a false plaint as regards Richard.

Memorandum: In the time following of William Neuport, first sheriff (primi vicecomitis), no assize was held before him but certain assizes were held at the house (in domo) of John Hadle, the other sheriff. [1375–6. See 177–9.]

[m.8] Sat. 29 Nov. 1376. John Northampton and Robert Launde, sheriffs, Henry de Morton, coroner.

140. In a congregation of the mayor and aldermen in the chamber of the Guildhall on Mon. 3 Sep. 1375 Adam Lovekyn, grocer, and Katherine his wife crave an assize of mort d'ancestor against William Acton and Thomas Caysho, rector of St. Michael Bassyngeshawe, concerning two messuages and two shops in the pars. of St. Nicholas Coldabbeye and St. Mary Montenhaut; and that it be enquired by the assize whether Robert de Ely, Katherine's father, died seised of the premises, whether he died after the coronation of Henry III and whether Katherine is his next heir. (fn. 8) They ask that William and Thomas be summoned to hear the recognition and that a jury of twelve be summoned to view the premises.

The parties appear in person. The defs., as tenants of the tenements in view, say that they are prepared to hear the recognition of the assize. The jury comes by William Strokelady, Walter Parker, Nicholas Pays, John Graveneye, Adam Boneton, John Markes, Thomas Reynham, Geoffrey Suttone, William Burdeyn, Sampson Soham, John Folvyll and Robert Louth. The jurors say that Robert de Ely, Katherine's father, died seised of the messuages and shops in view and that he died after the coronation of Henry III. Katherine, wife of Adam Lovekyn, is his daughter and next heir. Damages £300. Defs. in mercy. Afterwards the pls. in court freely remitted the damages.

[m.8d.] Sat. 7 Aug. 1378. Andrew Pykeman and Nicholas de Twyford, sheriffs, Nicholas Symcok, coroner.

141. Robert Maltby and Roger Mark complain that on Mon. 14 Jun. 1378 William Dyblyne and Agnes his wife, Henry Dymnel, John atte Felde, Gilbert Chelcheheyth, Philip Forster, Adam Underwode and Peter Ekeles disseised them of two messuages and a shop in the par. of St. Sepulchre. The defs., by Nicholas Symcoke, deny the disseisin. The jury comes by John Grelyng, 'grynder', and others. Verdict for the pls. Damages 100s. Defs. in mercy.

[m.9] Sat. 17 Jul. 1378.

142. John Chaumberleyn and Thomas Bilk, chaplains of the chantry in St. Michael Paternosterchirche in la Riole for the souls of Edward I and Edward II, and of Walter Waldeschef and Joan his wife, complain that on Mon. 8 Mar. 1378 Robert de Burton, John Mareys, Philip atte Brugge and Katherine atte Pole disseised them of 11 marks rent in the par. of St. Michael aforesaid. The defs., by Richard Forster their attorney, say that the tenements from which the rent is alleged to be payable comprise two messuages and four shops and that Katherine answers as tenant of one messuage and four shops, and Robert, John and Philip as tenants of the remaining messuage. They say that the tenements in view are outside the pls.' fee and that the assize therefore does not lie. The pls. say that Walter Waldeschef, late citizen and freeman, was seised of the tenements, and in his will (fn. 9) devised the rent of 11 marks from them for the maintenance of two chaplains to celebrate for the souls of the persons above-named. Afterwards, the chaplains having been deforced of the rent, because the testator omitted to prescribe the method of presentation to the chaplaincies, the late king by letters patent (fn. 10) dated 20 Jul. 1367 which are produced in court, ordained that the parson and six parishioners of the church of St. Michael, or, failing them, the king himself, should present, and the dean of Arches admit and institute. [m.9d.] He further gave full powers to the parson and chaplains, both jointly and severally, to distrain for arrears of the rent in question. They say, moreover, that the parson and parishioners having failed, on the resignation of Richard de Burnham and William Wake, to present successors, the king nominated them, the pls., and they were duly admitted, instituted and inducted to the chaplaincies, and were seised of the rent until disseised by the defs. Robert de Burton, by his attorney, says that according to the above title there appear to be two chantries and two chaplains, in which case each ought to bring a separate assize; and he asks judgment concerning the bill. Katherine, John and Philip crave judgment, because there was no person capable of inheriting (persona capax) at the time of the testator's death, through whom the rent could take effect, and therefore the devise was void in law, and the king could not by his letters patent make it effectual, more especially since he never had any rights in the tenements in question. The pls. ask judgment because the defs. do not deny their allegations nor their title to the rent aforesaid. On Sat. 23 Oct. 1378 the parties come before Thomas Cornwaleys and John Bosham, sheriffs, and Nicholas Symcok, coroner, and the bill is adjudged good, notwithstanding the plea of Robert that it be quashed. The defs. then plead the insufficiency of the pls.' title and ask judgment concerning it. It is adjudged that in virtue of the testament and letters patent the title of the pls. is good and sufficient. Thereupon the defs. allege that whereas by the letters patent and by the pls.' evidence it appears that Walter Waldeschef died without heirs, he had in reality an heir surviving at the date of the issue of the letters, viz. Walter Rideware, son of Joan, the testator's daughter, who is still living, and they ask judgment whether in such case the assize lies. Notwithstanding their allegations it is adjudged that the assize be taken. The jury comes by Arnold Ingelbryght, Geoffrey Maynard, Thomas Medelane, Thomas Langeford, Ralph Castell, Thomas Lyncoln, John Sandewych, Nicholas Pays, William Strokelady, Robert Louthe, John Frenssh and Henry Baret. Verdict for the pls., on the ground that the defs. refused payment of the rent, and illegally recovered the distresses taken by the pls. Damages 100s. The jurors say that the pls. are entitled to the rent under the will of Walter Waldeschef, and the letters patent recited above, without any collusion or fraud. It is therefore ordered that the defs. be taken and make fine.

[m.10] Sat. 3 Dec. 1379. William Baret and John Heylesdon, sheriffs, Nicholas Symcok, coroner.

143. The same pls. complain that on Mon. 3 Oct. 1379 the same defs. (fn. 11) disseised them as in 142. The defs. make default. The pls., asked to show their title, claim, as before, under the will of Walter Waldeschef, and the letters patent, dated 20 Jul. 1367. They say that, under the same title, they recovered seisin of the rent against the defs. by an assize of fresh force (see 142), and continued in enjoyment of the same until again disseised by the defs. who refused payment when the rent was demanded of them by the pls. The assize comes by Ralph Castell, John Andreu, John Sandwich, Arnold Ingelbright, Geoffrey Maynard, John Frenssh, Henry Baret, Edward Woderton, John Blanket, John Benet, Blaise de Bury and Robert Louthe. Verdict for the pls. Damages 20 marks. Defs. in mercy.

[m.10d.] Sat. 18 Jun. 1379. Thomas Cornwaleys and John Bosham, sheriffs, Nicholas Symcok, coroner.

144. Isabel, prioress of St. Sexburga in the Isle of Shepeye complains that on Thurs. 28 Apr. 1379 John Letbury, parson of St. Peter in Westchepe, John Remes, cordwainer, Thomas Forster, goldsmith, and Thomas Ingelby, saddler, churchwardens and parishioners of the same church, disseised her of 20s. rent from a tenement in the par. of St. Peter aforesaid. The defs., by Richard atte Stile, deny the disseisin. The prioress, asked to show her title and the cause of the alleged disseisin, answers by Gilbert Meldbourne her attorney, that she and her predecessors were seised of the rent time out of mind, as of the right of her church, until the defs. refused payment; and that it is a quit-rent according to the custom of the City of London. The jury comes and returns a verdict for the pl., and says that her right to the rent is good, and without fraud or collusion contrary to the form of the Statute [of mortmain]. (fn. 12) Defs. in mercy. Damages [amount not entered].

[m.11] Sat. 16 Jun. 1380. William Baret and John Heylesdon, sheriffs, Nicholas Symcok, coroner.

145. John Ive, rector of St. Michael Wodestrete, and Henry Spondon, rector of St. John Zacary, wardens of the pittancery (pitanciaria) of the fraternity of rectors of London, complain that on Mon. 30 Jan. 1380 John Wynkefeld, kt., Robert Parys and Thomas Frankeleyn, chandler, disseised them of 24s. rent in the par. of St. Michael Quenhethe. The defs. make default. The pls., asked concerning their title, say that the fraternity of rectors has been in existence time out of mind, and that two wardens of the pittancery are elected by the fraternity, and have the power to plead, prosecute and answer in any actions or causes touching the same. They say that they were duly elected wardens and as such were seised of the rent, which has belonged to the fraternity time out of mind; but that when, as is customary, they distrained upon the defs. for it, the defs. seized the distresses by force and arms and unlawfully recovered them, and refused payment of the rent. Afterwards the assize came by John Yerdele, William Cunstable, Nicholas Pays, John Graveneye, Adam Bovedon, John Sandwych, John Andrew, Ralph Castell, John Norfolk, Arnold Ingelbright, John Wydmere and Richard Coly. Verdict for the pls. Damages £12 10s. They say that there was no fraud or collusion contrary to the Statute [of mortmain]. It is therefore ordered that the defs. be taken, and make fine.

146. Simon Mordon, Walter Sibill, William Rikhull and Richard de Warmyngton complain that on 10 Apr. 1380 Elmyng Leget and Margery his wife, John Crull and John Houlet disseised them of a messuage in the par. of St. Dunstan beside the Tower. John Crull, by John Wadham, says that John Malwayn was seised of the tenement in view, and by deed enrolled in the Husting of Common Pleas (fn. 13) on Mon. 13 Jun. 1373 enfeoffed him therewith together with Peter Tebaud and Peter Whappelode, who are not named in the bill. John Houlet, by John Wadham, denies the disseisin. Elmyng Leget and Margery his wife, by Gilbert Meldbourne their attorney, say that the tenement in view comprises two messuages. As far as one is concerned they say that there has been no disseisin, and with regard to the other the assize does not lie because, as stated by John Crull, John Malwayn enfeoffed with the two messuages John, Peter Tebaud and Peter Whappelode, and they subsequently demised one of the messuages to Hugh Boys for twelve years, and the other to John Eyremyn, mariner, jun., for seven years. Before the expiration of these terms, the above-named John Crull, Peter and Peter, granted the two messuages to William Sukelyng of Helmyngham, William Hannay, Robert Payn, Thomas Appelby, clerk, John Hogat, John Humbretolte and Henry Askeby in fee simple, without livery of seisin being made, or the attornment of Hugh and John or either of them being received. On the death of Peter Whappelode his right in the premises accrued to John Crull and Peter Tebaud, and afterwards Peter Tebaud enfeoffed with the same the pls., but John Crull entered upon half of the two messuages, as he was entitled to do, and enfeoffed therewith the defs., Elmyng and Margery. Thereupon the pls., interpreting this as a disseisin, ejected them. [m.11d.] The defs. therefore say that the pls. ought not to be allowed the assize. The pls., protesting, deny that Hugh Boys and John Eyremyn made no attornment, as alleged by the defs., and declare that there is nothing in the defs.' allegations to exclude them from the assize. They say further that John Kyngeshous, clerk, Peter Tebaud, William Elmyngham and John Drabbe of Edelmeton were seised of the messuage in view, and granted it to them, together with other tenements, to hold in fee simple; and they say that they were seised of the messuage until disseised by the defs. They deny that the premises were ever demised to Hugh and John. After adjournment the assize comes, and the defs. make default. The jury returns a verdict for the pls. Damages 20 marks. Defs. in mercy.

Memorandum that the record of an assize of novel disseisin between Richard Lyons and John Wilteshire, grocer, was afterwards sent into the Husting, by reason of a writ of error, and was filed among the Husting rolls by Henry Perot, clerk. (See 272.)

[m.12] Sat. 19 Oct. 1381. John Hende and John Rote, sheriffs, John Charneye, coroner.

147. Richard Odyam, jun., and Denise his wife complain that on Fri. 9 Aug. 1381 Ralph Kestevene, parson of St. Botolph without Aldrichesgate, Philip atte Vyne, John Bokkyng, John Lesne, John Bathe, Henry de Thame, John Yakeslee, John Ferby and Richard Lyncoln disseised them of a messuage and four shops in the par. of St. Botolph aforesaid. Ralph, by John Merssh his attorney, says that he is tenant of the premises in view, but denies the disseisin. Philip atte Vyne, John Bokkyng and John Lesne, by the same John, deny the disseisin. The other defs. make default. The assize comes by Henry Markeby, John Buntyng, John Bussh, Thomas de Lynne, William Dudcote, Richard Kymbel, John Hugyn, William Lark, John Markes, John atte Merssh, John Bysouth and William atte Brome. They say that Adam de Hallyngbury was seised of the premises by purchase from Robert le Frenssh; and in his will (fn. 14) he devised the same to Alice, his daughter, in fee tail. From Alice the premises descended to Rose, her daughter and heir, and on her death without issue they reverted to Bartholomew son and next heir of the testator. From him the right descended to Emma, his daughter, and from her to Thomas her son, who enfeoffed therewith the pls., who were seised of the same until disseised by Philip atte Vyne and John Bokkyng, defs. They say, further, that at the time of the suing-out of the bill, the above-named Ralph was tenant of the tenements in view, but that none of the others named was implicated in the disseisin. Therefore Philip atte Vyne and John Bokkyng are in mercy as the disseisors, and the pls. for their false plaint as regards the other defs. Afterwards the pls., present in court, remit their damages, which are assessed at 6s. 8d.

[m.12d.] Sat. 7 Dec. 1381.

148. By a plaint of intrusion in a congregation of the mayor and aldermen held in the Chamber on Mon. 11 Nov. 1381.

Roger Choun complains that on Thurs. 7 Nov. 1381 Maud Gesours disseised him of a messuage and two shops in the par. of St. Giles without Crepulgate. The def., summoned by Walter atte Hale and Reginald Thorneye, appears by William Palmere her attorney, and denies the disseisin. The assize comes by Richard Serle, Walter Hale, William Lark, Richard Kymbel, John Maire, John Merssh, John Hauberger, William Grome, John Wolfeye, William Brome, John Harwedon and William Whelpele. Verdict for the pl. Damages 20s. Def. in mercy.

Sat. 18 Jan. 1382.

149. By a plaint of intrusion in the Husting of Pleas of Land on Mon. 9 Dec. 1381.

Roger Choun complains that on Mon. 29 Apr. 1381 Maud Gesours disseised him of two messuages and two shops in the pars. of St. Mary Magdalene in Old Fish Street and St. Peter Westchepe. The def., by William Palmere her attorney, denies the disseisin. The assize comes by John Reynold, Robert Lynne, Richard Safrey, John Symond, Reginald Swetebon, John Marwe, Peter Fikelden, William Whelpele, John Buntyng, John Merssh, William Rome and William Grom. Verdict for the pl. Damages 20s. Def. in mercy.

[m.13] Sat. 23 Nov. 1381.

150. In the Husting of Pleas of Land on Mon. 13 May 1381 Thomas Benet of Neuuton craves an assize of mort d'ancestor against Maud (Matildis) Gesours, and asks that the assize enquire whether Thomas de Neuuton, former rector of St. Michael atte Corne, and uncle of the pl. (who is the son of John Benet, Thomas's brother) was seised of three messuages in the pars. of St. Mary Magdalene in Old Fish Street, St. Peter Westchepe and St. Giles without Crepulgate on the day of his death; whether he died after the coronation of Henry III; and whether the pl. is his next heir.

The def., summoned by William Larke and John Seccheford, essoins herself by John Plot. Afterwards, on Sat. 8 Mar. 1382 the jury comes and the parties appear. Maud, by William Palmere her attorney, says that her name is Matillis and not Matildis, and asks judgment concerning the bill, but her objection is not accepted. Her attorney then says that pending the present assize of mort d'ancestor, Roger Choun sued out against her a bill of fresh force (see 149) concerning the tenements in the pars. of St. Mary Magdalene and St. Peter alleging that she disseised him of the same on 29 Apr. 1381, i.e. before the date of the present bill of mort d'ancestor. The assize returned a verdict for the pl., in virtue of which Roger recovered seisin of the tenements against Maud and ejected her, so that the bill brought by Thomas Benet is quashed. As regards the tenement in the par. of St. Giles the attorney says that Roger Choun recovered this also, by another bill of fresh force (see 148) against Maud, and he asks judgment concerning the bill brought by the pl. The pl., protesting, says that his bill ought not to be quashed by reason of the matter contained in the def.'s allegations, for he asserts that while the assize was pending, Nicholas Neuuton, chaplain, with the connivance and collusion of Maud and Roger, entered upon the seisin of Maud and ejected her from all the tenements with the object of invalidating the pl.'s action, and thereafter Roger sued out the bills of fresh force and recovered seisin. The def. denies the alleged collusive action; and since the pl. does not dispute that the tenements in question were recovered against her, and that she was ejected from them, she asks judgment concerning the bill. After adjournment to enable the court to seek further advice, the assize comes and the bill is adjudged good, notwithstanding the def.'s allegations. [m.13d.] Thereupon she says that Edward III granted her the tenements named in the plaint, by the name of 'Matillis, mater dilecti armigeri sui Johannis de Beverle' as appears by an exemplification of his letters patent (fn. 15) dated 5 Dec. 1381 and produced in court. She says, therefore, that she holds the tenements as kinswoman and heiress of the late king, and that the court ought not to proceed to judgment concerning them without consultation with the present king. The pl. objects that she has already pleaded ejectment and that her new plea cannot therefore be admitted. It is adjudged, however, that the pl. make suit to the king; and afterwards he brings into court a writ de procedendo (fn. 16) dated 8 Nov. 1382. (fn. 17)

[m.14] Sat. 7 Dec. 1381.

151. Robert Ridere, brewer, and John Ridere, chaplain, his son, complain that on Thurs. 3 Oct. 1381 William Dykes, William Vyne, John Hacche, Roger Hunte, chaplain, and Thomas Eppyng disseised them of two messuages and two shops in the pars. of St. Mary Magdalene Melkstrete and St. Alban Wodestret. William Dykes, by Nicholas Symcok, denies the disseisin. The other defs., by the same Nicholas their attorney, say that the assize does not lie because long before the pls. had any interest in the tenements in view Hugh de Waltham, citizen, was seised of them and on his death without issue they reverted to William Dykes, as kinsman and heir of Hugh viz. son of John Dykes, brother of John Wrastlyngworth, Hugh's father. William entered upon the premises and was seised thereof until John Pake and Alice his wife, daughter of Joan Golde, daughter of Katherine, sister of Christine, Hugh's mother, ejected him and enfeoffed the pls. Afterwards William re-entered and enfeoffed William Vyne, John Hacche, Roger Hunte and Thomas Eppyng. The pls. say that Hugh was enfeoffed with the tenements in view by John Sely and Nicholas Ballard, chaplains, to hold in fee simple; and on his death there entered John Pake and Alice his wife, Alice being the kinswoman on his mother's side of Hugh, who died without heirs on his father's side. The pls. now enjoy the estate of John and Alice in the premises, or did so until disseised by the defs. They deny that John Wrastlyngworth was the brother of John Dykes, father of the def., William, as the def. alleges. After adjournment the assize came on Sat. 7 Jun. 1382 but the pls. failed to prosecute their plaint. Therefore they are in mercy and the defs. sine die.

Sat. 15 Feb. 1382.

152. John Bures, prior of the house of the Crutched Friars beside the Tower of London, complains that on Mon. 27 Jan. 1382 Elizabeth Spigurnel disseised him of a tenement in the par. of St. Olave beside the Tower. The def., by Gilbert Meldbourne her attorney, says that the assize does not lie, because the pl., under the description of John, prior of the house of the friars of the order of the Holy Cross beside the Tower of London, lately sued out a writ of right concerning the tenements in view against Lawrence de Bromlegh, kt., John Barowe, clerk, William Apulderfeld, Thomas Spigurnel and John Gobyon, and at the Husting (fn. 18) held on Mon. 29 Nov. 1372 he stated that Robert Stannowe, his predecessor, was seised of the tenements, as of the right of his church, in the time of the peace during the reign of the late king Edward, and that Lawrence and the others had no entry save by Ralph Spigurnell to whom the prior demised the premises without the consent of the house. Lawrence and William declared that they had no interest in the tenements in view, and John Barowe, Thomas and John Gobyon answered as tenants and vouched to warranty Thomas, Ralph's son and heir, with the aid of the court in Kent. And because Thomas was a minor the suit was adjourned by consent of the court sine die and is still pending. Therefore the def. who holds Thomas's estate asks judgment whether the assize ought to be held contrary to the record. The pl. says that the demise was made by his predecessor without the assent of his chapter solely for the life of Ralph, the reversion being reserved to the lessor; and that on the death of the lessee he, the pl., duly entered and remained in possession of the premises until disseised by the def. [m.14d.] The def. denies that the demise was made without the consent of the chapter and says that the tenements were granted to Ralph and his heirs in fee simple. The pl. puts himself upon the assize on the question whether the premises were granted for life or in fee simple. Afterwards the pl. failed to prosecute his plaint.

[m.15] Sat. 15 Feb. 1382.

153. By a plaint of intrusion in the Husting of Pleas of Land on Mon. 3 Feb. 1382.

Isolda relict of John Bampton complains that on Sun. 2 Feb. John Dadyngton and Alice his wife disseised him of half a messuage, three solars and three shops in the par. of St. Bartholomew the Less. The defs. summoned by Robert Gille and William Chaloner appear in person and answer as tenants of the tenements in view. They say that the pl. is not entitled to the assize, because long since John Lependen gave the tenements, together with the other half messuage, to the def. Alice and John Bampton, husband of the pl., Isolda, and John's heirs. On John's death the pl., as his widow, entered upon the premises, but the defs., acting in right of Alice, ejected her, as they were entitled to do. Isolda says that by immemorial custom all holders of tenements within the City may devise them to their wives for life or for a term of years, and that her husband, John Bampton, in his will (fn. 19) devised the tenements in view, under the description of half an inn (hospicium) with shops adjoining, in the par. of St. Bartholomew, to her for life; in virtue of which devise she entered upon the premises after the death of her husband and continued in possession until disseised by the defs. The defs., protesting, say that they do not acknowledge the will to have been lawfully made, but since the pl. does not deny that John Lependen granted all the tenements to John Bampton and Alice jointly, whereby on John's death his estate passed to Alice, as the survivor, they ask judgment. After adjournment the pl. fails to prosecute her plaint.

[m.15d.] Sat. 8 Mar. 1382.

154. In the Husting of Pleas of Land on Mon. 3 Mar. 1382 John de Worthe, kt., craves an assize of mort d'ancestor against Richard de Seymore, kt., and asks that the assize enquire whether Thomas de Seymore, kt., whose nephew and heir he is, was seised of a messuage in the par. of St. Peter Bradestrete on the day of his death; whether he died after the coronation of Henry III and whether the pl. is his next heir.

Richard de Seymore, kt., is summoned by Gilbert Meldeburne and Nicholas Marchaunt. His attorney, Richard Forster, essoins himself by John Pye. After adjournment the parties appear by their attorneys, viz. John Worthe by Gilbert Meldburn and Richard Seymore by Richard Forster, and thereafter they agree together (postea concordantur (fn. 20) ).

[m.16] Sat. 22 Mar. 1382.

155. By a plaint of intrusion in the Husting of Pleas of Land on Mon. 9 Dec. 1381.

John Goul and Joan Bonevylle complain that on Mon. 9 Sep. 1381 John Wodehyll, clerk, and William Wodehyll disseised them of a messuage and garden in the par. of St. Gregory beside St. Paul's. The defs., by John Reche, say that no tenant of the tenement is named in the bill, or, alternatively that the pls. were never seised of the tenement. After adjournment for lack of recognitors the pls. fail to prosecute their plaint. Therefore they are in mercy and the defs. sine die.

156. By a plaint of intrusion in a congregation of the mayor and aldermen held in the Chamber on Mon. 15 Jul. 1381.

John Bourne, burgess of Bristol, and Joan his wife complain that on Mon. 8 Jul. 1381 Robert Brassyngton, clerk, and Joan his wife, Joan Babbecray and Alice Cadycote disseised them of the third part of a messuage and garden in the par. of St. Botolph without Aldrichesgate. The defs., by Richard Forster, deny the disseisin. The assize comes by John Marke, Richard Kymbell, John Maire, William Dodecote, Philip atte Vyne, Thomas Warner, Richard Bricheford, Thomas Lynne, Walter Hopere, Nicholas Jurdon, John Marwe and Reginald Swetebon and returns that the pls. were disseised by Robert Brassyngton and Joan his wife. Damages 6s. 8d. Joan Babbecray and Alice were not implicated. Robert and Joan in mercy as the disseisors, and the pls. for a false plaint as regards the other defs. The pls., present in court, remitted the damages.

Sat. 17 May 1382.

157. By a plaint of intrusion in the Husting of Pleas of Land on Mon. 24 Feb. 1382.

Nicholas, abbot of St. Peter Westminster, complains that on 5 Aug. last past William, master of the hospital of St. Giles without the Old Temple, and John Walcote, draper, disseised him of 4s. rent issuing from a tenement in the par. of St. Benet Sherhog. The defs. make default. The pl., asked to show his title, answers by Gilbert Meldbourne, his attorney, that he and his predecessors have been seised time out of mind of the rent as of the right of his church, but that when on 5 Aug. last he went to the tenement and asked for payment, the tenants named in the bill utterly refused to pay; the which refusal constitutes a disseisin according to the custom of the City. Thereafter the assize comes by John Wynchecombe, John Hocle, Michael Hakeneye, Richard Wrotham, Thomas Chapman, Thomas Staundon, John Donyngton, Roger Mordon, William Aldeburgh, Robert Louthe, Benet Cornwaill and John Styward. Verdict for the pl. Damages 2 marks. The jurors say that John Walcote was not implicated and that the rent came into the hand of the abbot without any fraud or collusion. William in mercy for the disseisin and the pl. for a false plaint as regards John.

[m.16d.] Sat. 10 May 1382.

158. By a plaint of intrusion in the Husting of Pleas of Land on Mon. 3 Mar. 1382.

William, prior of the hospital of St. Mary without Bisshopesgate complains that on Sun. 2 Mar. 1382 Walter Aylewyn and Rose his wife, John Abraham and Agnes his wife, Richard Norbury and Ismannia his wife, Robert Godeselde and John Garton disseised him of £4 rent from a tenement in the par. of St. Pancras in Westchepe. Walter and Rose, as tenants of one of the shops comprising the tenement in view, say that it is outside the pl.'s fee; and thereupon they crave judgment whether he ought to have the assize without showing his title. John and Agnes answer as tenants of another of the shops and say the like. The other defs. named, as tenants of the other shops, answer similarly. The pl., in person, says that he and his predecessors, have been seised of the £4 rent time out of mind, until disseised by the defs. The jury comes by John Pygeon, John Salle, John Wynchecombe, John Hokle, William Belhomme, Richard Wrotham, Richard Wayte, John Styward, John Reyner, John Folvyle, John Lawe and Robert de Louthe. Verdict for the pl. Damages £6 6s. 8d. They say that the rent in question came into the hands of the priors of the hospital without fraud or collusion. Defs. in mercy.

[m.17] Sat. 12 Jul. 1382.

159. Nicholas, abbot of St. Peter Westminster, complains that on Sun. 2 Mar. 1382 William, master of the hospital of St. Giles without the Old Temple, and John Curteys, fishmonger, disseised him of 8s. rent in the par. of St. Michael beside Quenehith. The defs., by John Palmere, deny the disseisin. The pl., asked to show his title, answers by Gilbert de Meldbourne his attorney that he and his predecessors have been seised of the rent in view time out of mind and that Richard de Ware, formerly abbot, was seised of it in the time of Henry III and Edward I; and abbot Thomas in the time of Edward II; and he himself in the time of Edward III and of the present king, until disseised by the defs., who when his attorney went to collect the rent refused payment. Thereupon the jury comes by Hugh de Ware, Nicholas Pays, John Graveneye, Peter Richeman, Ralph Rede, John Wydemere, Richard Coly, Ralph atte Castell, Gilbert Merssh, Richard Litlyngton, Geoffrey Maynard and Robert Louthe. Verdict for the pl. Damages 4 marks. They say that the rent came into the hands of the abbots of Westminster without fraud or collusion, and is held by them by title of prescription, as of the right of the church of St. Peter. Defs. in mercy.

160. The same abbot complains that on 5 Aug. last past the same master and Katherine atte Pole disseised him of 4s. rent from a tenement in the par. of St. Nicholas Shambles. The defs., by John Pye, deny the disseisin. The pl., asked to show his title, answers by Gilbert Meldebourne his attorney that he and his predecessors have been seised of the rent time out of mind, until the defs. refused payment, thereby disseising him. The jurors come by John Kentoys, John Bussh, John Curson, William Tannere, John Walssh, Gilbert Chilchehith, Philip Forster, John atte Felde, William Kiryel, Adam atte Watre, John de Dene and Roger Payn. [m.17d.] Verdict for the pl. Damages 20s. They say that the rent came into the hands of the abbots without fraud or collusion. Defs. in mercy.

Sat. 19 Jul. 1382.

161. Parties, date of disseisin and pleading (fn. 21) as in 151. The jury comes, but is challenged by the defs., who say that John Hende, one of the sheriffs, impanelled all the jurors on the nomination of Robert Rydere, pl., and gave the panel to Henry Traynel, serjeant, who summoned the jury, and that therefore the assize ought not to proceed. John Hende says that according to the custom of the City all juries, whether in real or personal actions, ought to be arrayed by the mayor and sheriffs, or by the mayor alone, or by the sheriffs or their serjeants, and summoned by one of the serjeants; and on the present occasion the panel was drawn up with the advice and consent of John Norhampton, mayor, John Rote and himself. He says, further, that he and John Rote, as sheriffs, act with the coroner as judges in these assizes, and therefore what they do is a matter of record, and that the jury was well and lawfully arrayed according to the custom of the City, so that the challenge of the defs. ought not to be allowed. Thereupon the jurors, viz. Walter Walden, Bartholomew Castre, John Somervyle, John Parker, Henry Markeby, John Thwyford, John Reynold, John Kyng, Gilbert Lirpe, John Buntyng, John de la Mare and William Whelpele return a verdict for the pls. Damages £20. Because the disseisin was done by force and arms, it is ordered that the disseisors be taken and make fine.

[m.18] Sat. 9 Aug. 1382.

162. By a plaint of intrusion in a congregation of the mayor and aldermen in the Chamber of the Guildhall on Mon. [14 Oct.?] (fn. 22) 1381.

John Philippot, kt. and citizen, and Thomas Foulere called Cook complain that on Sat. 5 Oct. 1381 William Dykes, William Vyne, John Hacche, Roger Hunte, chaplain, and Thomas Eppyng disseised them of two messuages with solars in the par. of St. Vedast in Westchepe. William Dykes, by William Ram, denies the disseisin. The other defs., by Nicholas Symcok their attorney, say that the assize does not lie, pleading as in 151. The pls. answer as in 151. The assize comes, but the defs. challenge three of the recognitors, viz. Bartholomew Castre, Henry Markeby and John Somervylle, because they were on the jury in the assize recently brought by Robert and John Ridere against the defs. (see 161) in which the same questions were at issue. Their objection is dismissed. Verdict for the pls. Damages £10. Because the disseisin was done by force and arms it is ordered that the defs. be taken.

Sat. 19 Jul. 1382.

163. Custance, prioress of St. Helen Bysshopesgate, complains that on Sat. 7 Jun. 1382 John Wakelee, taverner, and Maud his wife disseised her of 9s. 8d. rent in the par. of St. Martin Oteswych. The defs. make default. The pl., asked to show her title, answers by Gilbert Meldebourne her attorney that she and her predecessors have held the rent time out of mind, but that when on the day above-named she sought payment from the defs. they refused to pay. The jury comes by William Palmere, Nicholas Marchant, William atte Castell, John Swanton, John Ollescomp, Andrew Smyth, John Langborn, Gilbert Hoo, John Henham, John Tot, John Ive and Richard Sheryngton. Verdict for the pl. Defs. in mercy. Damages [not assessed]. (fn. 23)

[m.18d.] Sat. 26 Jul. 1382.

164. William Burcestre, kt., and Margaret his wife complain that on Wed. 16 Jul. 1382 Katherine Dengeyne, Edward Dalyngrygge, kt., William Topclif and Simon Russell, clerk, disseised them of 80 marks rent in the par. of St. Martin in the Vintry. The defs. make default. The pl. appears by Richard Forster his attorney. The jury comes by Gilbert atte Merssh, Richard Lytlyngton, John Andrewe, John Wydmere, John Sandwych, Thomas Lyncoln, Ralph atte Castell, John Norfolk, Nicholas Pays, John Graveneye, Richard Sprott and John Mordon. Verdict for the pls. Damages 109 marks 6s. 8d. Defs. in mercy.

165. Elizabeth Burlee complains that on Sat. 3 May 1382 Stephen Halle, John Senesterre, brewer, and Alice his wife disseised her of a piece of land measuring 28 × 24 ft. in the par. of St. Mary Wolchirchehawe. The defs., by Thomas Page, deny the disseisin. The pl. appears by Richard Forster her attorney. The jury comes by Michael Trenthevek, William Knyght, Thomas Stondon, John Salle, John Wyght, Thomas Chapman, John Wynchecomb, John Hokle, Richard Wrotham, William Belhomme, John Game and John Grove. Verdict for the pl. Damages 40s. Defs. in mercy.

[m.19] Sat. 15 Nov. 1382. John Sely and Adam Bamme, sheriffs, John Charneye, coroner.

166. Thomas Coupere, clerk, complains that on Wed. 24 Sep. 1382 Robert Whityng, leatherdyer, and Lettice his wife, John Whityng and William Whityng disseised him of a messuage in the par. of St. Stephen Colmanstrete. John and William make default. Robert and Lettice, in person, deny the disseisin. The pl. appears by Gilbert Meldebourne his attorney. The assize comes by John Croydon, John Blacthorn, Peter Elsenham, William atte Castell, Nicholas Marchaunt, Thomas Hauk, John Wyght, Thomas Stondon, John Wynchecombe, Richard Wrotham, Richard Stortford and Robert Thornhegg, men of the aforesaid par. The jurors say that Robert and Lettice are the tenants of the tenement in view, and that the pl. was seised of it until disseised by them. They say that John and William were not implicated. Damages 12d. Robert and Lettice in mercy and the pl. for a false plaint as regards John and William. Damages remitted.

Sat. 29 Nov. 1382. John Sely and Adam Bamme, sheriffs, Richard Wellesbourne, coroner.

167. John, prior of St. Andrew Rochester, complains that on Mon. 30 Jun. 1382 William Chichestre and Joan his wife, William Savage and Maud his wife disseised him of a piece of land measuring 46 × 24 ft. in the par. of St. Bride Fletestret. The defs., by Ralph Porter, deny the disseisin. The pl. appears by Gilbert Meldbourne, his attorney. A jury of the par. aforesaid comes by Robert Mauncell, John Walworth, Robert Ikforde, Robert Water, William Sunneman, William Temple, John Hydyngham, Clement Lavender, Robert Pipot, Adam Fermer, John Burton and William Tannere. Verdict for the pl. Damages 40d. They say that William and Maud were not implicated and that the tenements in view came into the hands of the pl. without fraud or collusion. Disseisors in mercy and the pl. for a false plaint as regards William and Maud.

168. [m.19d.] Juliana Stokesby complains that on Mon. 3 Nov. 1382 the abbess of St. Clare without Algate, John Bythewod, timbermonger, and John Michell, vintner, disseised her of a house measuring 17 × 11 ft. in the par. of St. Michael Paternostercherch. The defs., by James Lovet, deny the disseisin. A jury of the aforesaid par. comes by Geoffrey Maynard, Gilbert Merssh, Thomas Godsire, John Andrew, Robert Louthe, John Yerdele, Robert Parys, Ralph Rede, John Mordon, William Brikkles, Thomas Pyk and John Madle. Verdict for the pl. Damages 13s. 4d. The abbess was not implicated. John Bythewod and John Michell in mercy, and the pl. for a false plaint against the abbess.

Sat. 14 Feb. 1383. John Sely and Adam Bamme, sheriffs, Henry Shelford, coroner.

169. Nicholas, abbot of St. Peter Westminster, complains that on Tues. 22 Jul. 1382 Isabel, prioress (fn. 24) of St. John the Baptist Haliwell, and Hugh Middelton disseised him of 3s. rent from a tenement in the par. of St. Antholin. The pl. appears by William Gameleston his attorney. Isabel makes default. Hugh, by John Porter, says that he is the tenant of the tenement in view which he holds in right of his wife Elizabeth; and because she is not named in the bill he prays judgment concerning the same. Further, he denies the disseisin. The pl. says that the prioress is the recipient and tenant (captrix et tenens) of the rent, and thus the tenant and disseisor is named in the bill which must therefore be accounted good. Asked to show his title to the rent, he says that he and his predecessors have been seised of the same time out of mind, but that when on Tues. 22 Jul. his bailiff asked for payment the defs. refused and when he attempted to take distresses Hugh prevented him. The jury comes by Robert de Louthe, William Pountfreit, Thomas Sibsay, Geoffrey Adam, William Aldeburgh, Richard Ardern, William Somersham, John Elyngham, Richard Coupere, pouchmaker, Ralph Castell, John Sandwych and William Hert, and says that Hugh and all the other tenants of the tenement in question are bound to pay yearly to the prioress a rent of £4, from which she in turn is bound to pay to the pl. the annual rent of 3s. named in the plaint. They say, further, that she disseised the pl. of the same which came into the hands of his predecessors without fraud or collusion. Damages 60s. Defs. in mercy.

[m.20] Sat. 11 Apr. 1383. John Sely and Adam Bamme, sheriffs, John Charneye, coroner.

170. Richard, prior of St. Saviour Bermundeseye, complains that on Thurs. 22 Jan. 1383 Thomas Gerdelere and Margaret his wife and William Tryple disseised him of 32s. 6d. rent from tenements in the pars. of St. Martin in the Vintry and St. Nicholas Coldabbay. The pl. appears by Gilbert de Meldebourne his attorney; the defs. Thomas and Margaret by Robert Hoo. Robert says that the tenements from which the rent is alleged to be payable comprise a messuage in the par. of St. Martin and a shop in the par. of St. Nicholas; and that Thomas and Margaret are tenants of the messuage in Margaret's right, but have no interest in the shop. He denies the disseisin. William Tryple, by John Kyrkeby, says that he is the tenant of the shop but has no interest in the messuage held by Thomas and Margaret and denies the disseisin. The pl., asked to show his title, says that long ago Bertrand, a former prior, with the consent of his chapter granted the messuage now held by Thomas and Margaret to Simon Wympler, charged with an annual rent of 30s., and that, as to the 2s. 6d. from the shop now held by William Tryple, he and his predecessors have been seised thereof time out of mind. Concerning the manner of the disseisin, he says that the defs. withheld the rents and recovered the distresses taken. The jury comes by Geoffrey Maynard, Ralph atte Castell, John Sandwych, John Wydmere, Nicholas Pays, Hugh de Ware, John Gayton, Richard Gyffard, William Hert, John Mordon, Thomas Pyk and Henry Baret. Verdict for the pl. Damages 20s. Defs. in mercy. The defs. at once paid the damages in court.

[m.20d.] Sat. 2 May 1383.

171. John, prior of the monastery of St. Pancras Lewes, complains that on Mon. 9 Mar. 1383 Mary Maryns and William Aynesham disseised him of 20s. rent in the par. of St. Mary Magdalene Melkstret. The pl. appears by Gilbert Meldebourne his attorney. The def. William, in person, says that the tenement from which the rent is alleged to be payable comprises two messuages and twelve solars, of which he holds one messuage and twelve solars, which are outside the pl.'s fee. Mary, by Richard Forster her attorney, answers as tenant of the remaining messuage, but says, likewise, that it is outside the pl.'s fee. The pl. says that he and his predecessors were seised of 20s. rent from the tenements in view time out of mind until disseised by the defs. The recognitors come—viz. John Steynton, Gilbert Lyrp, Peter Fykelden, William Burdeyn, Robert Bryght, John Kyng, Bartholomew Castre, Henry atte Wode, Walter Walden, Richard Wayte, John de la Mare and William Gore. They say that the rent is due from the messuage held by Mary, and not from the messuage and twelve solars held by William, which are not parcel of the same tenement and that Mary disseised the pl. Damages 76s. 8d. Mary in mercy and the pl. for a false plaint as regards William.

Sat. 20 Jun. 1383.

172. Richard, prior of St. Saviour Bermundeseye, complains that on Mon. 6 Oct. 1382 Nicholas Dabrycchescourt, kt., John Dabrycchescourt, Thomas Dabrichescourt, Louis Clifford, kt., John Holand, kt., William, Nicholas's chaplain, John Bradeford and Margaret his wife and John Cook, maltmonger, disseised him of 21s. rent from tenements in the pars. of St. Margaret Patyns and St. Dionis Bakcherche. The prior appears by Gilbert Meldebourne his attorney. John Bradeford, in person, and Margaret his wife, by Richard Forster her attorney, deny the disseisin. The other defs., by John Rysshe, likewise deny the allegation. Thereupon the pl. abridges his plaint (abbreviat querelam suam) to 8s. rent due from the tenement in the par. of St. Dionis held by John Bradeford and Margaret his wife. The jury comes by Henry Derby, John Denver, Robert Kydynot, William Assheford, Roger Cotyller, Thomas Cressyngham, John Hay, John Fyndon, William Roke, Richard Estbrok, Godfrey Cost and John Smart. Verdict for the pl. as far as the rent of 8s. is concerned. Damages ½ mark. John and Margaret in mercy and the pl. for a false plaint as regards the other tenants named, because they were not implicated.

[m.21] Sat. 4 Jul. 1383.

173. Nicholas, abbot of St. Peter Westminster, complains that on Tues. 10 Feb. 1383 Gilbert Purveys and Elizabeth his wife disseised him of an annual rent of 5s. payable from a tenement in the par. of All Hallows at Hay. The pl. appears by Gilbert Meldborne his attorney. The defs., by Richard Forster, deny the disseisin. The pl., asked to show his title, says that he and his predecessors have been seised of the rent time out of mind, until the defs. refused payment. The jury comes by John Mordon, John Sandwych, John Wydmere, Ralph atte Castell, Geoffrey Maynard, William Brykles, Henry Baret, Thomas Pyke, John Madlee, Thomas Yonge, Richard Coupere and Richard Arderne. Verdict for the pl. Damages 40d. Defs. in mercy.

Sat. 11 Jul. 1383.

174. Custance, prioress of St. Helen within Bysshopesgate, complains that on Thurs. 5 Mar. 1383 Ralph Crane, draper, and Margaret his wife, William Cook, piebaker, and Isabel his wife disseised her of 20s. rent from a tenement in the par. of St. Mary Wollechirchawe. The defs., by Richard Forster, deny the disseisin. Asked to show her title, the pl. says that she and her predecessors have been seised of the rent time out of mind, until the defs. refused payment. The jury comes by Benet Cornewayle, Richard Cheryngton, John Salle, John Wynchecombe, Richard Storteford, Richard Wrotham, John Cook, John Ive, John Hanham, John Tutte, William Herlawe and John Olescomp. Verdict for the pl. Damages 66s. 8d. They say, however, that the disseisin was done by Ralph and Margaret and that William and Isabel were not implicated. Ralph and Margaret in mercy and the pl. for a false plaint as regards William and Isabel.

[m.21d.] Sat. 4 Jul. 1383.

175. William Goldsmyth, chaplain, custodian of the altar of the Blessed Virgin in the church of St. Michael atte Corne, complains that on Thurs. 27 Nov. 1382 William Brente, beadmaker, William Riceby, John Boterwyk, John Stacy, clerk, William Bentelay, William Poul, bottlemaker, and Thomas Northwarde, cutler, disseised him of 13s. 4d. rent from a tenement sometime belonging to Robert Newecomen in the par. of St. Bride in Fletestrete, and of a tenement in the par. of St. Michael atte Corne. The defs., by Richard Bere, deny the disseisin. With regard to the rent of 13s. 4d. the pl. says that Robert Newecomen was seised of the tenement from which it is payable and by indenture dated 29 Jun. 1324 he granted the rent in view with certain tenements in London to John, chaplain, custodian of the altar aforesaid, as appears by the same indenture and by royal letters patent (fn. 25) thereupon made. As to the other disseisin complained of, the pl. exonerates the court and abridges his plaint to the rent in question. The jury comes by Roger Crane, Ralph Elleswyk, John Marwe, John Longe, William Tannere, Robert Ikford, Thomas Ermyn, Robert Water, John Lye, William Temple, John Dene and Richard Pulle. Verdict for the pl. Damages 40s. Defs. in mercy. Pl. in mercy concerning the abridgment of his plaint as far as concerns the tenement in the par. of St. Michael (Et predictus querens sit in misericordia pro tenemento in parochia Sancti Michaelis predicta unde querelam suam abbreviavit). Afterwards the pl. came into court and acknowledged payment of the damages. (fn. 26)

[m.21a] (fn. 27) Sat. 31 Aug. 1359. John Bures and John Bernes, sheriffs, Henry de Sutton, coroner.

176. John de Mompelers, barber, complains that on Mon. 19 Aug. 1359 William de Leycestre and Robert le Honnere, brewer, disseised him of a messuage and three shops in the par. of St. Bride in Fletestrete. The defs., by John de Asshewell, say that the pl. was tenant of the tenements in view on the day when the plea was entered, and that he still is, and they deny the disseisin. The jury comes by Walter de Chetyndon, John Hanaper, Thomas de Leycestre, Robert de Hereford, John Syward, pewterer, John de Flaunden, Walter de Louthe, William Andrew, Richard de Ditton, John de Lincoln, Hugh Fyssh and Henry Dymenel. Verdict for the pl. Damages £10. And because the disseisin was made by force and arms, it is ordered that the defs. be taken. [m.21a, d. Blank.]

[m.22] Sat. 20 Oct. 1375. John Hadle and William Neuport, sheriffs, Henry de Morton, coroner.

177. John de Northampton and Parnel his wife complain that on Mon. 15 Oct. 1375 Ralph atte Ree of St. Albans, tanner, Christine his wife and John and William his sons, John Depyng, poulter, and Maud his wife, Michael Webbe and Mary his wife, John Hope, poulter, and Juliana his wife, Isabel de Wynchestre, William Cappe of London and Katherine his wife, Robert de Brackeleye, butcher, and Margery his wife disseised them of four messuages, a solar and a garden in the par. of St. Nicholas Shambles. John de Northampton appears in person and Parnel by Robert Watlington her attorney. The defs., in person, deny the disseisin. The jury comes by Thomas Whitcherche, Robert de Lynne, William Horwode, Nicholas Jordon, John Mountham, John Croydon, Simon Macchyng, William Godhewe, Stephen Maynard, Henry Cok, Gilbert Lyndeseye and Roger Alisaundre, and says that Margaret, relict of Richard Costantyn, was seised of the premises in fee simple, and in her will (fn. 28) devised the same in equal portions to Richard her son and Margaret her daughter. Richard died under age, before the premises were partitioned, and Margaret, who survived him, was seised of the whole, until John Costantyn entered upon her possession of the same and enfeoffed therewith Robert Huntyngdon. Afterwards Margaret died under age, leaving a daughter, Parnel, the pl., who, while herself under age, married Ralph Blakeneye. During the nonage of Parnel, Robert Huntyngdon enfeoffed with the premises Simon Kempe, chaplain, Walter, late chaplain of the chantry of Nicholas Crane in the church of St. Nicholas Shambles, and Nicholas, the rector, who subsequently re-enfeoffed Robert Huntyngdon and Amice his wife, who enfeoffed John de la Pantre and Joan his wife, who enfeoffed Henry de Lathebury, chaplain, who enfeoffed Thomas Cotes, clerk, who enfeoffed Ralph atte Ree of St. Albans, who enfeoffed Gilbert Broun and Ralph Abraham, who enfeoffed Ralph atte Ree, Christine his wife, and John and William his sons, who are the present tenants. Ralph Blakeneye, Parnel's husband, died at Easter, 1375, and she married her present husband, the pl., John Northampton; and when she came of age they immediately entered upon the tenements in view, which they held until disseised by the defs. [m.22d.] The jurors say that no one died seised of the premises or any parcel thereof after the ejectment of Margaret, Parnel's mother, by John Costantin, and that no one, other than those named by the pls., was implicated in the disseisin. Damages £6 13s. 4d; remitted by the pls.

[m.23] Sat. 27 Oct. 1375.

178. John de Northampton and Parnel his wife complain that on Mon. 15 Oct. 1375 Ralph atte Ree of St. Albans, tanner, John Depyng and Maud his wife, Michael Webbe and Mary his wife, John Hope, poulter, and Juliana his wife, Isabel de Wynchestre, William Cappe and Katherine his wife, Robert de Brakeleye, butcher, and Margery his wife disseised them of two messuages and a garden in the par. of St. Nicholas Shambles. John de Northampton appears in person and Parnel by Robert Watlyngton her attorney. Ralph, John and Maud, Michael and Mary, John and Juliana appear in person and deny the disseisin. Isabel, as tenant of the garden, denies the disseisin. William Cappe and Katherine his wife as tenants of one of the messuages in question, and Robert Brakeleye and Margery his wife as tenants of the other messuage, likewise deny the disseisin. The jury comes (as in 177) and says that Margaret, relict of Richard Costantyn, devised the tenements to Richard her son and Margaret her daughter; and that Margaret was seised of the whole after Richard's death, until ejected by John Costantyn, who enfeoffed Robert de Huntyngdon with the two messuages and Isabel Wynchestre with the garden. Afterwards Margaret died, under age, leaving a daughter Parnel, the pl., who married Ralph Blakeneye. Robert Huntyngdon enfeoffed with the two messuages Simon Kemp, chaplain, Walter, late chaplain of the chantry of Nicholas Crane in the church of St. Nicholas Shambles, and Nicholas, the rector, who subsequently re-enfeoffed Robert Huntyngdon and Amice his wife, who enfeoffed John de la Pantre and Joan his wife, who enfeoffed Henry de Lathebury, chaplain, who enfeoffed with one of the messuages Robert de Brakeleye and Margery his wife, and with the other, William Cappe and Katherine his wife. On the death of Ralph Blakeneye, Parnel married her present husband, John de Northampton, the pl., and when she came of age they immediately entered upon the premises which they held until ejected by the defs. [m.23d.] (fn. 29) Damages 66s. 8d.; remitted by the pls.

[m.24] Sat. 7 Jun. 1376.

179. The assize comes to recognize whether William de Algate, citizen and potter, father of Idonea, wife of John de Stokyngbury, fishmonger, and of Joan wife of John de Blockele, was seised of a messuage and twenty-four shops in the par. of St. Andrew upon Cornhill at the time of his death, whether he died after the coronation of Henry III and whether the abovenamed Idonea and Joan are his nearest heirs. (fn. 30) Emma relict of Simon de Pistoye, who holds the messuage and shops in view, summoned to hear the recognition, says that the assize does not lie, because Thomas Mel, capper and citizen, and Godith, his wife, were seised of the premises to them and the heirs of Thomas, as appears by indenture recited in court and dated Fri. 14 Dec. 1341 in which they demised to William de Algate and Margaret Chelrey his wife for eight years the lands, rents and tenements which they had been granted by the same William and Margaret in the pars. of St. Andrew and St. Peter Cornhill. [m.24d.] William died before the expiration of the term. Thomas died seised of the premises and after the death of Godith his widow they descended to Nicholas his son, and upon his death without issue to Margaret and Maud, Thomas's daughters, married respectively to Robert de Thame, citizen and mercer, and Henry de Clakton, painter and citizen. Afterwards Margaret and Maud, together with their husbands, enfeoffed by charter enrolled in the Husting of Pleas of Land (fn. 31) on Mon. 19 Jul. 1350 William de Cove, mercer and citizen, with the tenements in view, together with certain other tenements, and William, by deed enrolled in the Husting of Pleas of Land (fn. 32) on Mon. 26 Jul. 1350 re-enfeoffed therewith Robert and Margery, who enfeoffed William Berkyng, jun., fishmonger, and William Thame, citizen, who by their deed enrolled in the Husting (fn. 33) on Mon. 22 Apr. 1353 enfeoffed therewith Simon [son] of John de Pistoria, citizen and apothecary, and Emma his wife. Subsequently, by deed dated Sat. 4 May 1353 and enrolled in the Husting (fn. 34) on Mon. 27 May they released and quitclaimed the tenements to Simon and Emma, Emma being the person against whom the present assize has been brought. [m.25] The pls. say that Emma is a stranger and not of Thomas's blood, and that therefore they are not bound in law to answer her allegations. After adjournment that the court may seek counsel the parties appear, Gilbert de Meldebourne representing the pls., and Emma asks that for the reasons previously stated the pls. be precluded from the assize. (fn. 35) The attorney of the pls., perceiving the opinion of the court to be against the pls., and fearing an unfavourable judgment, asked that his clients might be called. They, in order to avoid a judgment of exclusion, did not come. The def. argues that, having appeared all together on one day to hear judgment, they are not demandable, since no new pleading has been entered since their appearance. Whereas, however, it seems to the court that judgment ought by law to be rendered upon the non-prosecution of the pls., and not with a view to barring their action, it is adjudged that they and their pledges to prosecute be in mercy and the def. sine die. (Et super hoc postquam curia in hac parte ex parcium rationibus predictarum arguend' ad legale iudicium inde reddendum movend' mota fuerit et consulta dictus Gilbertus de Meldeburn attornatus dictorum petencium per materiam evidentalem percipiens opinionem curie manifeste contra dictos petentes promptum ad judicium inde reddendum velle pertransire peciit quod dicti Johannes et Idonia Johannes et Johanna vocarentur ad cuius vero peticionem predicti Johannes et Idonia Johannes et Johanna solempniter vocati propter exclusionem judicii in forma predicta evitandam non venerunt. Et super hoc predicta [Emma] (peciit curiam quod) (fn. 36) ex quo predicti petentes alias habuerunt diem per adiornamentum ad audiendum iudicium suum super placitum predictum usque ad hunc et nunc postquam [non?] comparuerunt parati attendere iudicium suum super placitum predictum unde postquam unas ad unum semel diem comparuerunt ad iudicium suum audiendum non sunt demandabiles eo quod postquam comparicionem predictorum petencium placitum quodcumque aliud quam materia predicta in curia predicta aliqualiter motum non interfuit petit iudicium et quod per illud idem judicium predicti Johannes et Idonea Johannes et Johanna precludentur ab assisa etc. Et super hoc ex quo videtur curie quod iudicium inde reddendum per legem redditurum est super non prosecut' petencium et non ad predictos petentes barrandos. Et ideo consideratum est quod predicti Johannes et Idonea Johannes et Johanna et plegii sui de pros' sint in misericordia et quod predicta Emma eat inde sine die). [m.25d. Blank.]

Sat. 5 Jul. 1382. John Rote and John Hende, sheriffs, John Charneye, coroner.

180. [m.26a] (fn. 37) In the Husting of Pleas of Land on Mon. 3 Feb. 1382 Henry Fitz John, citizen and stockfishmonger, brings a plaint of intrusion against Henry Clerc, citizen and tapicer, concerning his free tenement in the par. of St. Dionis Backchurche. Perot. Note: Plaint of £8 annual and quit-rent made on Sat. 15 Feb. Seised and disseised on Mon. 27 Jan. [m.26a, d.] Thomas Colwell and Thomas Santon, summoners.

[m.26] The pl. complains that on Mon. 27 Jan. 1382 the def. disseised him of the rent aforesaid. The def. makes default. The pl., asked to show his title, says that the def. granted the rent to him by deed dated 16 Nov. 1379 for a term of years, from certain tenements situated at the corner of Lymstrete, and that the deed, which is recited in court, contained a clause relating to distraint. He says, however, that when on Mon. 27 Jan. he requested payment of the rent which was in arrears, the def. refused to pay, and that his refusal according to the custom of the City constitutes a disseisin. A jury of the par. comes by Richard Estbrok, Robert Padegrice, William Hardell, William Wythom, John Pounfreit, Godfrey Coste, Bartholomew Mildenhale, Robert Honyford, John Baker, William Chivelee, John Clapshethe and Thomas Clench. Verdict for the pl. Damages £24 10s. Def. in mercy. [m.26d. Blank.]

[m.26b] (fn. 37) Panel of jurors of the par. of St. Dionis Backchurch. [The names of those not sworn are as follows:] Richard Dycon, John Capell, John Beaufront, John Dyke, Thomas Bonauntre, John Fyndon, Robert Kidynet, Richard atte Sole, John Halfmark, John Andrewe, John Smert, Robert Spaldyng, John de Ware, Thomas Makwilliam, Thomas Moraunt, John Walcote, (fn. 38) Robert Ryder, John Foxton.

[m.27] Sat. 6 Feb. 1384. John More and Simon Wynchecombe, sheriffs, John Charneye, coroner.

181. John Woderove, perpetual chaplain of the free chapel of St. Mary of Watton atte Stone, complains that on Thurs. 19 Nov. 1383 Thomas de St. Edmund (de Sancto Edmundo) and Isabel his wife disseised him of 5 marks annual rent in the par. of St. Swithin. The defs. appear in person and Thomas answers as tenant of a garden which is parcel of the tenement in view and says that Edward III by his letters patent (fn. 39) dated 7 Feb. 1368, produced in court, granted to him, under the name of Thomas Seinteadmond, and to Idonea, then his wife, to hold for life the garden, formerly a tenter-ground, in the par. of St. Swithin recovered against them because it was granted in mortmain without licence by Robert Aguylon, kt. He therefore asks the aid of the present king to whom the reversion of the garden belongs; and since the pl., by Richard Forster his attorney, makes no objection, the aid is granted him. As regards the rest of the tenement, he says that he and Isabel are the tenants, but that it is outside the fee of the pl. who ought not to be allowed the assize without showing his title. The pl.'s attorney asks for licence to confer on the matter. After adjournment the parties appear and the pl. produces in court a deed in support of his title, in which one William Aguylon grants to God and the chapel of the Blessed Virgin of Watton 5 marks quitrent for the maintenance of a chantry for his soul and that of Joan his late wife; the rent to be payable from his land, with buildings and fixtures (fixoria), in the par. of St. Swithin situated between the lands of Walter the chaplain and Adam Champeners on the east, and the king's highway on the west, and between the land held of William by Ralph de Stan and Ranulph Hoppere on the south and that of Silvester Dubbour on the north. Witnesses:— The archdeacon of London, Andrew Bokerell, mayor [1231–7], Richard Renger, Roger Duk, Stephen 'crasso', sir John de Tue, Ralph de la River, William le Bret, Alexander of London, 'ferron' (fn. 40), William of London, clerk, Guy, dean (decano) of Hertford, Geoffrey de Brok, Henry le Bret, Simon de Mund and Simon Bret. In virtue of this grant the then chaplain and all his successors were seised of the rent in question until the defs. disseised the present pl. But because the writ de procedendo addressed to the court is not sufficient warrant for the taking of the assize, since in the writ part of the description of the pl. as given in the bill of fresh force is omitted, a further adjournment is ordered. [m.27d.] On receipt of an amended writ (fn. 41) dated 28 Feb. 1384 it is adjudged that the defs. answer to the original title of the pl. but they refuse to do so. After further adjournment for lack of recognitors the pl. appears by his attorney, and Thomas makes default; but Isabel is admitted to plead, and asks that the assize be taken concerning the title alleged by the pl. Later the jury comes and returns a verdict for the pl. assessing arrears and damages together at £50. The pl. is therefore advised to sue out a writ de procedendo ad iudicium; (fn. 42) and, on its receipt, judgment is given for him and he thereupon remits the arrears and damages due to him.