Document 5/3/0 (SHS Misc. xi, 31-49, 123-133)
- Description
- Pleas of the king’s army at Berwick, Wednesday next after the Sunday following Easter, 24 Edward I (4 Apr. 1296)
3. Matthew of Redmain, knight acknowledges that he owes to John son of Marmaduke, knight, £10 to be paid at the feast of Pentecost next. (Recognisance)
4. Roger de Petwardyn knight, of the company of Gilbert de Gaunt, brings a suit against Ralph Paynel. Later they are agreed and Roger puts himself on the country. He has made a fine. The amercement is pardoned by the marshal. (Amercement pardoned)
5. James of Stafford brings a suit against Robert de Umfraville, of the company of John Wake. Robert does not come, therefore, etc. It is ordered that Robert be distrained to answer James. The amercement is pardoned at the instance of John Wake. (Amercement pardoned)
6. John de Kellowden and Robert de Neketon bring a suit against John de Thetbotle, of the company of Walter de Huntercombe. John, who is mainprised by Walter, does not come. Therefore it is ordered that he be attached in his person.
7. Simon the chamberlain and Osbert Motegan bring a suit against Thomas de Burnham. Later they are agreed by licence. Simon and Osbert put themselves on the country by mainprise of Henry de Bayouse, knight. They are delivered (?) at the instance of J. de Seagrave. (Amercement pardoned)
8. Robert de Maners, Nicholas de Potterton and Henry de Newland are attached to answer Henry de Rye on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that on Friday in Easter Week (30 March), Robert and the others came to his lodgings in Berwick, took and carried away goods of his that they found there to the value of 20 marks, and committed other outrages against him to his great damage, etc. Robert and the others say that they did not carry off any goods from Henry’s lodgings, but they say that they entered the lodgings before Henry himself [had returned there]. They ask for enquiry to be made, as does Henry. The jurors say on their oath that Robert and the others did not carry off any of Henry’s goods as he complains, nor that they entered his house. Therefore it is considered that Robert and the others are acquitted and that Henry is in mercy. The amercement is pardoned by the marshal at the instance of the bishop of Durham. (Amercement pardoned)
9. The earl of Warenne by his attorney presented himself against Thomas Havard in a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that Thomas illegally withholds a black horse and a basket filled with 10s. worth of bread which Warenne bought on Friday in Easter Week (30 March) in Berwick, and that he still withholds them to the earl’s great damage, etc. Thomas, who is present, says with respect to the horse that he bought it from a certain John the tailor, whom he called to warrant. And because he does not have John he is sent to prison. Concerning the bread, he now says that he is no wise guilty. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does the earl. Later they are agreed by licence. Thomas puts himself on the country and makes a fine of 2s. (Amercement 2s., paid)
10. Ralph of Midhurst of the county of Wiltshire and John de Lemyng were attached because they departed from under the banner in order to plunder. Therefore they are put in prison until etc. Ralph is mainprised by Sir Henry de Hercy and John de Lemyng is mainprised by Alan of Pennington. They have not made a fine, therefore they are attached once again. Later the amercement is pardoned. (Amercement pardoned)
11. Robert de Westowe brings a suit against William de Schirburn and has not prosecuted. Therefore he and his sureties, namely Elias de Schirburn and John de Westowe, are in mercy. (Amercement 12d.)
12. Elias de Schirburn has not prosecuted against William de Malebranck and Adam Aldric. Therefore he and his sureties for prosecution, namely Robert de Westowe and John de Hodleston, are in mercy. (Amercement 12d.)
13. Richerus de Laverton, Thomas of Galloway, William Robyn, Nicholas Welifed, John de Schelden and Adam of Kirkby are in mercy because they refused to obey Robert de Hoperton their centenary, namely for 3s. which they paid immediately. (Amercement 3s., paid)
14. Walter Scott was attached to answer Matilda of Blackburnshire on a plea of trespass. Whereon she complains that Walter illegally took from her a cloak, value 4s., and still withholds it to her great damage etc. Walter comes and says that he did not take any cloak from Matilda as she says. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Matilda. The jurors say on oath that Walter took the cloak from Matilda. Therefore it is considered that Matilda should recover the cloak or its value, 2s. 6d., and damages of 6d. Walter is condemned to prison until etc. (Amercement 20d.)
15. John de Hotham knight was attached to answer Thomas Plater on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains etc. Later Thomas has not prosecuted, therefore he and his sureties for prosecuting are in mercy. The amercement is pardoned by the marshal at the instance of John de Bitterlegh. (Amercement pardoned)
16. William de Barbary was attached to answer William le Wild in a plea of trespass. Later they are agreed by licence, and later William puts himself on the country and makes a fine of 12d. (Amercement 12d.)
17. Richard Taylor centenary of the millenarium of Henry de Braylesford made a fine of 1 marks for himself and his hundred men for a trespass committed, because he failed to perform and watch and ward. (1 marks paid to W. Bacon)
18. Ralph de Lynne was attached because he attached his fellow without the permission of the marshal. Therefore he is in mercy. He has made a fine of 6d. The amercement is paid. (Amercement 6d., paid)
19. John of Smeaton, William de Schefeud and John Tilly were attached to answer Ralph de Bloyou knight on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that when he made a loan to William of certain lodgings in Berwick intending that William should stay in them for one night only, William and the others illegally withhold the lodgings from him. They also took and carried away goods to the value of 40s. which they found there, to Ralph’s great damage etc. William and the others come and say that Ralph gave them the lodgings without any loan. Later they are agreed by licence. John, William and John put themselves on the country and made a fine of 3s. (Amercement 3s., paid)
20. John de Rockcliff was attached to answer Roger de Beauchamp on the plea that the former return to him a vervain cap. John comes and says that he received the cap from Robert Roland, whom he calls to warrant. Robert comes and vouches John to warrant. He further calls Ralph Stedeman, garcon of Robert of Kirkton, who comes and vouches John to warrant. Ralph says that he found the cap and returned it. He is not fined for anything else. Witness W. Bacon. (no amercement)
21. William de Hathethron appears against William de Kellom in a plea of trespass. Later they are agreed. William de Hathethorn puts himself on the country and makes a fine of 20d. (Amercement 20d., paid)
22. John of London, armourer, brings a suit against Thomas de Queneby for illegally taking from him an iron gorget. Later Thomas gave satisfaction to John for the gorget. Thomas is in mercy. The amercement is pardoned at the instance of Sir Thomas Neville. (Amercement pardoned)
23. John de Averinthe was detained by John de Pothou, his constable, because he did not wish to perform watch and ward or to go on a foray as ordered. Therefore he is sent to prison until etc. (to prison)
24. Adam Fleming and John le Taverner of Nottingham were attached because they do not have Peter de Rye whom they mainprised. Therefore they are in mercy. The amercement is paid. (Amercement 40d., paid)
25. Peter of Rye was attached to answer Sir John de Pethau knight on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains. Later they are agreed by licence. Peter is sent to prison until etc. Later the amercement is pardoned at the instance of Peter of Dunwich, senior, clerk. (Amercement pardoned.)
26. Concerning Robert of Nottingham, for a trespass done to Thomas of Stotville, who is in mercy for 6d.
27. John Bochard brings suit against Thomas of Derby. Later they are agreed. Thomas puts himself on the country and has made a fine of 6d. (Amercement 6d., paid)
28. Nicholas of Oxford and Gillotus Taylor were attached to answer Ralph de Bloyou knight in a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that Nicholas and Gillotus illegally ejected him from a shop. Nicholas and Gillotus come and say that they come into possession of the shop through Ingram de Gynes [de Guines?], whom they call to warrant. Ingram comes and vouches them to warrant. Later they are agreed by licence. Ralph puts himself on the country. The amercement is pardoned by J. de Seagrave. (Amercement pardoned)
More pleas heard at Berwick
29. German of Broxfield appoints John de Fayrwath his attorney against William de Barsam in a plea of trespass.
30. Thomas Dautre, knight, was attached to answer Nicholas de Baliden and Simon de Baliden on a plea of trespass. Whereon they complain that Thomas came to their house with unknown persons around the middle of the night on Friday of Easter Week [30 March], and took away goods that they found there, namely a surcoat of perse, worth 4s., and other goods to the value of £20, to the grave damage of Nicholas and Simon. Thomas comes and says that he is in no wise guilty. He asks for enquiry to be made, as do the others. The jurors come and say on oath that Thomas is in no wise guilty. Therefore it is considered that Thomas is acquitted. Nicholas and Simon are in mercy. The amercement is pardoned at the instance of Sir Roger de Brabazon. (Amercement pardoned)
31. John de Benefeud brings a suit against Nicholas de Potterton that he illegally withholds a black horse. Nicholas returned the horse to John, with damages of a half mark. He puts himself on the country. The amercement is pardoned at the instance of John de Bitterlegh. (Amercement pardoned)
32. John del Bois was attached to answer John of Fenton on a plea of trespass. John was mainprised by Henry de Frentford, and does not come. Therefore he and his manucaptor are in mercy. Stephen the marshal is ordered to attached Henry and the other. Because they are from the king’s household nothing more is done.
33. William de Rateford, centenary of the millenarium of Thomas Malet, brings a suit against Robert de Chastel. The surety for prosecuting, Hugh Thorold, and Robert presented themselves and William has not prosecuted. Therefore he and his sureties for prosecuting are in mercy. (Amercement 12d., paid)
34. William the armourer of London acknowledges that he is indebted to John the Falconer, knight, for one mark, to be paid before Sunday next. William is in mercy. (Amercement 12d., paid)
35. Roger de Stapelford brings a suit against William Prymerole. Later they are agreed by licence. William puts himself on the country. (Amercement 6d., paid)
36. Roger le Pertricur brings a suit against Simon Prymerole. Later they are agreed by licence. Simon puts himself on the country. (Amercement 6d., paid)
37. Alan Carter was attached to answer Richard Bruet on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that on Sunday in the quindene of Easter [8 April], Alan came to his lodgings and led away from the house a bay horse. The jurors say on oath that Alan neither took nor led away a horse as Richard complains, but rather that he bought the horse in the market. Therefore Alan is acquitted. Richard is in mercy for a false claim. The amercement is pardoned because he is a pauper. (Amercement pardoned because he is a pauper.)
38. Matthew de Forneys was attached to answer Laurence of Preston on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that when he came on Friday in Easter Week [30 March] to Berwick with the king’s army, and his groom dismounted from his barbed and harnessed horse, valued 8 marks, at the gate next to the house of the Friars Minor, the horse ran away from the groom. Later he found the horse in the custody of Matthew and asked for it. He says that Matthew illegally withholds the horse with its trappings, to Laurence’s damage of 40s. and he brings suit, etc. Matthew comes and says that he has many horses and he wishes to be informed about which horse is claimed against him. Laurence says that it is a grey horse that he once claimed under Matthew and at another time under his squire, and he describes the symbol on the trappings. Matthew says that he has many grey horses and he does not know why he is impleaded. Therefore a day is given to the parties until Pentecost, at the request of the parties.
39. Thomas Michel was attached to answer Richard de Hocclyve on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains; later they are agreed by licence and Thomas puts himself on the country by [...] .(Amercement 2s., paid)
40. Walter of Heatherslaw, son of William of Crookham, was attached on suspicious of being a spy and an enemy of the king of England. And because no one sues him, leaving only the suit of the king, therefore he is committed to the custody of Sir Walter de Huntercombe on the latter’s mainprise until etc. Walter of Heatherslaw says that he is a good and loyal man and he puts himself on the country. The jurors say on oath that he is not a spy, but a good and loyal man. Therefore he is acquitted. (Surety, acquitted)
41. John Cook of Middleton was attached by John Sampson for the robbery of a cloak and committed to prison. And because John Sampson has not prosecuted therefore John Cook is acquitted. John Sampson is in mercy. (Amercement)
42. Thomas Michel acknowledges that he owes to Adam de Mowat 2 marks to be paid within the next two weeks. For this he finds the following sureties, namely Richard de Hocclyve and Peter de Munz.
43. William Francis, Walter de la More and Thomas Upton bring a suit against Owen de Montgomery. They have withdrawn from their suit. Therefore they are in mercy and make a fine of 12d. (Amercement 12d., paid)
44. Gregory de Twyselton, was attached to answer Adam the king’s harper on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that Gregory illegally withholds a sword which was maliciously alienated from Hugh, Adam’s garcon, on Friday of Easter week (30 March). Gregory comes and says he bought the sword in the king’s market and did not acquire it by malicious means. Therefore he asks for enquiry to be made. Therefore the sheriff is ordered, etc. Adam had not prosecuted, therefore he is in mercy. (Amercement)
45. Matilda of Blackburnshire was attached to answer Walter Scott on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that when he delivered to Matilda a red surcoat of mixed cloth to sell, value 3s., Matilda did not satisfy him either for the surcoat or for its price, to Walter’s damage, etc. Matilda says that she never received the surcoat from Walter as he charges. She asks for enquiry to be made, as does Walter. Therefore the sheriff is ordered, etc. Matilda does not come. Therefore it is considered that Walter should recover the surcoat and Matilda is in mercy. (Stephen the Marshal will render 2s. 6d., of the value of the surcoat and 6d. amercement)
Pleas of the army at Berwick, Tuesday next after St Bartholomew’s day, 24 Edward I (28 Aug. 1296)
177. Aymer, baker, was attached to answer Robert Darcy on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that on Sunday three weeks after Easter in the said year [15 April 1296] Aymer and some unknown men came to his lodgings in the town of Berwick in the vicinity of Briggate, entered them and took and carried off, and caused to be carried off by the unknown men, goods worth 60s. which he found there, to Robert’s damage of 40s. Thereon he brings suit. Aymer comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that he did not enter Robert’s house, nor did he take or cause to be taken Robert’s goods as the latter charges him. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does Robert. Therefore let there be a jury summoned thereon, both of men of the king’s court as well as of the army. The jurors say on their oath that Aymer did not enter Robert’s house nor, as the latter complains, did he carry off or cause to be carried off by his men Robert’s goods, nor did these come into Aymer’s possession. Therefore it is considered that Aymer is acquitted. Robert is in mercy for a false claim. (Amercement)
178. The same Aymer was attached to answer John Darcy on a plea that on the said day and year Aymer entered his house and took and caused to be carried off from a chest goods worth 4 marks, to John’s damage of 40s. Thereon he brings suit. Aymer comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that he did not enter the house, nor did he take or carry off John's goods as the latter charges him. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does the other. Therefore let there be a jury summoned thereon, as before. The jurors say as before. (Amercement)
179. John Sampson was attached to answer John of Roddom on a plea that on Sunday before the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist in the said year [17 June 1296] John Sampson came to the town of ‘Akyld’ and seized and caused to be seized goods and chattels belonging to John of Roddom, namely 13 oxen and cows, 2 mares, a foal, a brass pot, a cooking pot and other chattels, value 100s. He still has seisin of these. He also imprisoned him, all of this to his damage of £40. Thereon he brings suit etc. John Sampson comes and denies force and injury when etc. With respect to seven of the animals, the two mares, the foal and the other chattels, he claims the seizure as valid and legal because one Eustace Toup brought a plea of trespass for them against John of Roddom by means of sureties for prosecuting. With respect to the six other animals he claims the seizure as valid and legal because Eustace Toup bought the six animals with the king’s money out of spoils of war taken by the king’s army in Scotland on his, John Sampson’s, order. He says that he did not imprison John of Roddom as the latter complains, nor did he do him any damage or injury. He asks for enquiry to be made. John of Roddom says that John Sampson attached him as the result of a conspiracy between the said John Sampson and Eustace Toup and not otherwise. He also asks for enquiry to be made. Therefore the sheriff of Northumberland is ordered to summon etc., on Friday etc.
180. Eustace Deyville was attached to answer Robert of Derby, chaplain. Robert has not prosecuted, therefore he and his sureties [are] in mercy. R. Clarel answers. (Amercement)
181. John de Bitterlegh was attached to answer Giles de Aunebyri on a plea that the former return to him 182 animals, of which 40 are oxen, 120 cows and 22 calves and mares, which Giles bought from him at Clunie for 10 marks and 20d. and for which he paid him. When he was due to receive the animals John refused to surrender them and illegally withholds them still, to Giles’ damage of £10. Thereon he brings suit. John comes and denies force and injury when etc. He openly acknowledges the sale of the animals but says that when Giles was due to receive the animals and John wished to surrender them, Giles refused them because there were fewer animals than there ought to have been. Thereafter the two agreed that John should pay Giles 10 marks, with an additional 2 marks, so that the animals should remain his. And if Giles wishes to deny this John is prepared to prove it. Giles prays judgment whether John, who openly acknowledges that a contract was made between them, can set aside the first contract by means of another, of which he has no proof either in his hand or by the knowledge of the court. If not, the proof he offers should be allowed. John also prays judgment inasmuch as Giles refused the animals and is prepared to prove a contract on grounds which he rejects.
More pleas heard at Berwick
182. Thomas Malet was attached to answer William of Toddenham on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that when he was in the king’s army in Scotland and left his harness with his weapons and other goods locked in a chest in the lodgings of his lord, William Tochet, in Berwick, Thomas came and quartered unknown men in those lodgings, by whom his goods, valued at £8 13s. 4d., were carried off, to William’s damage of 100s. Thereon he brings suit. Thomas comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that the men were quartered in the lodgings by order of the warden of the town of Berwick, but that he, Thomas, did not take or cause to be carried off any of William’s goods, as the latter charges. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does William. Therefore let there be a jury [summoned] thereon. The jurors say on their oath that Thomas did not take William’s goods or cause them to be carried off. Therefore it is considered that Thomas is acquitted. William is in mercy for his false claim. (Amercement)
183. Walter de Huntercombe was attached to answer Walter of Ireland on a plea that the former return to him 26 animals, namely 16 oxen and 10 cows. Whereon he complains that on Monday next before the feast of St Margaret the virgin in the 24th year of King Edward’s reign [16 July 1296] Walter de Huntercombe came with unknown men to a moor near Aberdeen on the south and took the animals and caused them to be taken, and had the unknown men drive them to his own land. He withholds the animals still, to Walter de Ireland’s damage of 100s. Thereon he brings suit etc. Walter de Huntercombe comes and denies force and injury when etc. He says that he did not take the animals, nor did he cause them to be taken by the unknown men or driven away, as the other charges. He asks for enquiry to be made, as does the other. Therefore let there be summoned a jury thereon on the following Saturday. (Inquest)
184. John Sampson and Robert le Eyr of Pressen were attached to answer Hugh Despenser on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that when he sent his animals, namely 966 oxen, and cows, bullocks, steers and heifers and two destriers, from Scotland to England in the custody of his men, which animals were being driven under safe conduct and the king’s protection by letters under the hand of Sir William de Beauchamp, John and Robert seized the animals and the destriers at Presfen on Friday next before the feast of the translation of St Thomas the martyr [6 July]. They drove them to the castle of Wark and there detained the animals and the men until the day after the feast of St James the apostle [26 July], on which day 800 of the animals, together with the destriers and the men, were released by order of the king. But they kept the remaining animals, and still withhold them illegally. He lost one of the destriers, value £50, through the harshness which was brought about in the attachment of the animals by John and Robert. He also lost the service of his men for three weeks. Thereon he brings suit etc. He has suffered damages of £100. John and Robert come and deny force and injury when etc. Robert says that he is in no wise guilty and asks for enquiry to be made. John says that the hue and cry was raised upon Hugh’s men, for which reason he seized the animals, destriers and men, as was his duty, until the hue and cry should be reasonably dealt with in the king’s court. After the restoration of the animals and destriers to Hugh’s men it so happened that he received all of them except two. He asks for enquiry to be made. Hugh says that he has no reason to admit that the detention was validly made because he showed John the letter of safe conduct, sealed with the steward’s seal, but the latter refused to look at it. John still withholds the 166 beasts in violation of the tenor of the letter and in contempt of the king, his protection and his safe conduct. He asks for enquiry to be made. John says that he never saw the letter nor was it shown to him, and again he asks for enquiry to be made. Therefore the sheriff of Northumberland is ordered to summon on this coming Monday 12 jurors etc., who do not hold of the castle or the liberty of Wark, knights as well as etc.; let there be no delay in the holding of the inquest for lack of jurors etc.
185. Peter, yeoman of Robert Uchtred, William de Thorp, Hugh de Rydal, Roger Pyperkyn, Robert de Musgrave and Robert Bernard were attached to answer Robert fitz Payn on a plea of trespass. Whereon he complains that on Thursday next before the feast of St Barnabas the apostle in the said year [7 June 1296] Peter and the others came with force and arms to his lodgings in the town of Berwick, which house was lately the property of Patrick Scott. They entered the lodgings and extinguished the fire tinder the malt-kiln, thereby destroying his beer, and dug there for treasure. Afterwards they entered his chamber and took and carried off armour worth 100s., to Robert’s damage of 100s. Thereon he brings suit. Peter and the others came and denied force and injury when etc. They admitted openly that they came there with Robert Uchtred by order of the warden of Berwick, but they say that they did not dig or carry off Robert’s goods as the latter charges. They ask for enquiry to be made, as does Robert. Therefore the sheriff is ordered etc.
- Firm date
- Wednesday 4 April 1296 X Tuesday 28 August 1296
- Dating Notes
- Wednesday next after the Sunday following Easter, 24 Edward I and Tuesday next after St Bartholomew’s day, 24 Edward I
- Place date (modern)
- Berwick
- Place date (document)
- Berewyk
- Related Place
- Berwick
- Source for Data Entry
- C.J. Neville, ‘A plea roll of Edward I’s army in Scotland, 1296’, SHS Miscellany XI (1990), 7-133; some entries included in CDS, ii, no. 822
- Trad. ID
- SHS Misc. xi, 31-49, 123-133
- Calendar number
- 5/3/None
- Charter type
- English Royal Administration
- Language
- Latin
- Notes
- CDS, ii, no. 822